ML20032A122
| ML20032A122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032A101 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110280327 | |
| Download: ML20032A122 (28) | |
Text
_.
(
j i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
-SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
TO OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-24 i
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR BY MEANS OF SLEEVING I
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-266 i
DATE:
October 26, 1981 8110280327 811026' PDR ADOCK 05000266 0
PDR;
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE) by letter applicatian dated July 2, 1981, as modified by letter dated October 12, 1981 seeks a license amendnent which would authorize WE to modify by sleeving, l
12 steam generator tubes (six of which have degradation exceeding the plugging limit defined by Technical Specification 15.4.2.A.5(a))
at Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1.
This Environmental Inpact Appraisal documents the results of the staff review and evaluation of the environmental and radiation exposure impact of the stean l
generator tube sleeving - demonstration project and interim opera-tion of Unit 1 at power with 12 tubes sleeved (up to six of which have degradation exceeding the plugging limit) until final review of their overall steam generator tube sleeving program has been completed. Based on its review, the Staff finds that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
j
2.0 BACKGROUND
In the past Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 have experienced various corrosion problems in their steam generators.
The problems include caustic intergranular attack of the tubes in the crevice region of the tubesheet and phosphate wastage on thinning above and usually within 2 inches of the top of the tubesheet.
These problems have been more severe for Unit 1 than Unit 2 and resulted in the Commission issuing Ordert for tiodifica-tion of License for Unit I dated November 30, 1979 as modified by Orders dated January 3,1980 and April 4,1980. These orders imposed, among other things, more frequent eddy current inspections, more restrictive reactor conhnt radioactivity levels, much more restrictive steam generator tube leakage rates and operation at reduced primary pressure for Unit 1.
In an effort to find an acceptable fix to the steam generator tube corrosion problem, WE has submitted an application dated July 2, 1981 for a license amendment involving Technical Specification changes which would allow them to repair degraded steam generator tubes by sleeving rather than plugging, which degradation of steam generator tubes had exceeded the plugging limit of 40% nominal wall thickness.
In sunport of this requested change, the licensee has filed with the NRC staff for its review a Westinghouse Steam Generator Report containing technical information regarding tube sleeving of the Point Beach Unit 1 and 2 steam generators. WE modified its application of July 2,1981 by letter dated October 12, n
.. m. _ __
_.. ~.. _ - _. _ _
t 2
4 1981 to request interim operation of Unit I with 12 sleeved tubes (no more than six of which have indications of degradation beyond j
the plugging limit) as a demonstration' program until final review i
of their overall tube sleeving program has been completed.
i I
l s
)
J l
'l
. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WE has described the scope of the steam generator tube sleeving-demonstration program to be conducted at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit I to include the following major steps:
(1) Demonstration of the capability to insert sleeves of two different designs in steam generator tubes with indications of tube degradation. Up to six of these tubes would have degradation in excess of the plugging limit and would include tubes which are presently plugged. The sleeve designs to be used are described in Section 3.2 of Westinghouse Report WCAP-9660 (Proprietary) dated September 28, 1981, and entitled,
" Point Beach Steam Generator Sleeving Report for Wisconsin Electric Power Company" (Sleeving Report).
(2) Demonstration and evaluation of the feasibility of explosive and mechanical tube plug removal using plug removal equipment described in Section 4.1 of the Sleeving Report.
(3) Demonstration and evaluation of the tube preparation and sleeving processes and parameters described din Section 4 of the Sleeving Report.
(4) Demonstration and evaluation of the tooling designs required for field installation of sleeves as described in Section 4 of the Sleeving Report.
(5) Demonstration and evaluation of steam generator channel head decontamination equipment described in Section 8 of the Sleeving Report.
I 4
--y--
. (6) Demonstration and evaluation of non-destructive examination techniques described in Section 7 of the Sleevir J Report.
1 I
r i
f f
i 1
1
- 4.0 Environmental Impacts df The Demonstration Program The Staff has reviwed the radiological and nonradiological environ-mental impacts of the Demonstration Program. The Staff has iden-tified the radiological environmental impacts of occupational exposure and public radiation exposure as the only measurable environmental impacts of the demonstration program. These impacts are discussed in the following sections.
4.1 Radiological Assessment 4.1.1 Occupational Exposure We have reviewed the work procedures and practices' that Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE) will use during the steam generator 3
tube sleeving-demonstration project. Based on this review, and through telephone conversation's with the licensee, we feel that WE has taken adequate steps to assure that the occupational radiation expo ~ ires associated with the tube cleeving-demonstration project will be maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and to sssure that the individual doses will be maintained within the requirements of 10 CFR Part E i, " Standards for Radiation Protection".
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE) has estimated that the steam generator tube sleeving-demonstration project for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, will require the expenditure of.
between approximately 48 r.o ^^ 94rson-rems. The methods used
. by WE ro develop these collective occupational radiation expo-sure estimates for the steam generator sleeving-demonstration prbject are based on actual experience and testing. WE 1) determined the maintenance activities that will be involved in that sleeving program; 2) estimated the person-hours of work necessary to perform those activities; 3) determined the areas maintenence personnel must occupy to perform those activities and estimated the radiation dose rates in those areas; 4) multiplied the man-hours by the dose rate for each activity; and 5) summed the doses for all the activities.
After reviewing the licensee's methods used to develop those dose estimates, we concluded that these estimates are reasonable.
Prior to initiating the steam geneator sleeving work, WE will use decontamination techniques in the steam generator channel head area to reduce dose rates. These techniques are expected to reduce the dose rates in the hot leg channel heads of the steam generators by a factor of approximately E.,\\
Other ALARA measures implemented by WE during the steam generator sleeving-demonstration project include full size taockups for training workers, use of remote and semi-remote tooling when-ever practicable, and routine air sampling, and contamination and radiation surveys. Measures such as these are recommended in Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring That Occupational Radiation Exposures At Nuclear Power Sta-tions Will Be As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable", in order to l
't
. minimize individual occupational radiation exposures and maintain the overall collective occupational radiation expo-sure as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). No indi-vidual will be allowed to exceed the dose limits imposed for workers by 10 CFR Part 20, which are established as dose limits appropriate to the health and safety of individuals.
To determine the relative environmental significance of the esti-mated maximum occupational dose of 60 person-rems, comparisor,s 4
were made with 1) the doses expected from normal operation of nuclear plants, and 2) other non-nuclear risks.
Table 4.1 shows the occupational dose history for Point Beach Units 1 and 2,3 When there are more than one reactor unit at a 2
plant site (as at Point Beach) the combined occupational dose for all reactor units (for example, Point Beach Units 1 and 2) can be reported,3 instead of the doses for each separate, nit. With the 2
addition of 60 person-rems for the sleeving-demonstration project, the average annual dose for the 10 years of dose history at Units 1 and 2 (1970 through 1980) will be approximately 470 person-rems or an average of 235 person-rems per reactor unit. Occupational expo-sure estimates were not specifically considered in the Point Beach 4
Units 1 & 2 FES. However, in recent environmental statements for new pressurized water reactors (e.g., Summer FES), we have provided an estimate of 410 person-rems per reactor unit as
,m
=
_g_
the average annual occupational dose.5 This estimate is based on reported data from power reactors that are operating with radiation protection programs in accordance with NRC guidance and regulations. A summary of these data is provided in Table 4.2.2 These data show that 410 person-rems per reactor unit per year is roughly the average of the wide range of doses incurred at all pressurized water reactor units over the last several years. The amount of dose incurred at-any single reactor unit in a year is highly dependent on the amount of major maintenance performed that year.
Operating data from U.S pressurized water reactors indicates that units requiring high levels of special maintenance work can average as much as 1300 person-rems per year over the life of the unit.6 Although the doses for these particular plants far exceeds the average of 410 person-rems for PWR's, these doses are included in the average and are considered normal deviations from the average, particularly since such maintenance contributes to effective and safe plant operation and since it is carried out with procedures that maintain exposures ALARA.
As Table 4.2 shows, the 60 person-rems estimate for the sleeving-demonstration project is within the low end to the historical range of doses for a single unit in a year.
We calculate that 60 person-rems, the occupational dose estimate for J
the sleeving-demonstration project, corresponds to a risk of very
, much less than one premature fatal cancer in the exposed work force population. We also calculate that 60 person-rems corresponds to a' risk of less than 0.02 genetic effect to the ensuing five generations. These risks are based on risk estimators derived in 0
the BEIR Report and WASH-1400 from data for the population as a 9
whole. New information in the BEIR III Report would lead to'an even lower estimated risk for premature fatal cancers. These risks are incremental risks (risks in addition to the normal risks of fatal cancer and genetic effects as we all face continuously).
For a population of 1000, these normal risks that are unrelated to Point Beach Nuclear Station would be expected to result in about 190 cancer deaths and about 60 genetic effects in the existing popula-tion (genetic effects are genetic diseases or malformations),,10 plus about 300 more genetic effects among their descendents.
To make the health risk associated with radiation dose more under-standable, risk comparisons can be made with non-nuclear activities commonly participated in by many individuals. One rem of radiation
~4 7 is numerically comparable to a lifetime mortality risk of about 10
-4 Table 4.3 presents the equivalent risk of 10 for several common activities - risks which many people take routinely and consider to be insignificant.11 The average dose to a worker for the sleeving-demonstration project will be roughly 0.6 rems. As Table 4.3 shows, the lifetime risk from radiatioh dose for the average sleeving-demonstration project work 'is smaller than the lifetime risk associated with many common actis ities.
. Another perspective of an occupational risk comes from comparison of occupationsl mortality risks in the U.S.
One such comprison is shown in Table 4.4.
It indicates that radiation exposure in the work place, as experienced at an average radiation worker exposure rate, results in a relatively low occupational risk.
Some have criticized occupationally related cancer estimates as being overaly conservative.12 However, most experts feel the risk estimates in Table 4.4 relating to occupational exposure to low-LET radiation are also over-estimates.
In our opinion, the comparisans just presented are reasonable ones.
The risks of occupational exposures in the range of 0.5 rem per year to 5 rem per year do not significantly affect a typical worker's total risk of mortality.
In summary, the staff has drawn the following conclusions regarding occupational radiation dose. WE's estimate of 60 person-rem for the sleeving-demonstration project at Point Beach 1 is reasonable. This dose is at the low end of the normal range of annual occupational doses which have been observed in recent years at operating reactors. Although the doses resulting from the steam generator tube sleeving-demonstration project will increase the annual collective occupational dose average of Point Beach Units 1 and 2 combined to approximately 470 person-rems, this is still well below the 1300 person-rems per year annual average referenced in current Final Environmental Statements as being an upper bound dose average of PWR's experiencing high levels of special main-tenance work. WE has taken appropriate steps to ensure that
. occupational doses will be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and ALARA.. The additional health risks due to these doses over normal risks are quite small, very much less than one percent of normal risk to the oroject work force as a whole.
The risk to an average individual in the work force will be lower than risk incurred from participation in many commonplace activities. The individual risks associated with exposures involved in the sleeving-demonstration program will be controlled and limited so as not to exceed the limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 for occupational exposure.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff con-cludes that the environmental impact due to occupational exposure will not significantly effect the quality of the human environment.
4.1.2 Public Radiation Exposure NRC Staff has estimated the amount of radioactivity which will be released in liquid and gaseous effluents as a result of the sleeving-demonstration project.1 Those estimates are presented in Table 4.5.
I The estimates are based on information supplied by WE to the NRC Staff concerning the method of decontamination and subsequent treatment of the decontamination solutions. Table 4.5 also presents 13 14 effluent releases ~ for 1979 and 1980 from Point Beach 1 and t:e 4
FES annual average effluent release estimates.
WE will take several steps to minimize releases.I To minimize airborne releases the channel head decontamination process and the surface preparation process will be wet processes, entraining I
. removed material in water. The air from the channel head where the work is being performed will be exhausted through the opposite manway using a high efficiency particulate filter to control airborne cuncentrations during channel head work. Also, enclosure tents will be erected at selected locttions inside containment to control contamination during process equipment main +.cnance. The water from the decontamination process and the surface prepara-tion process will be treated by filters, an evaporator and a demineralizer to minimize liquid releases.
We have reviewed WE's estimates of effluent releases for the sleeving-demonstration project. Those estimates are Doacd on estimating methods accpetable to the Staff and actual releases from similar operatfor.s at San Onofre Unit I and elsewhere.
Based on our review, we conclude that WE's estimates are reasonable.
As Table 4.5 shows, the expected releases from the sleeving-demonstration project are small compared to both the FES estimates and Point Beach's actual annual releases. Therefore, on the basis of this camparison above, we conclude that the offsite environmental impact that may occur during the period of this procedure will be smaller than that which occurs during normal operatioa.
We have estimated the doses to individual members of the public as well as the population as a whole in the area surrounding Point
+
..-w-n r
. Beach Unit 1 based on the radioactive effluents which we estimated for the sleeving-demonstration project (summarized in Table 4.5) and on the calculational methods presented in Regulatory Guides 1.109,15 i
and 1.113.16 Using a liquid release source tenn of 1.44 x 10-4 Ci consiting primarily of Co-60 (Table 4.5) we calculated the maximum individual total body dose for an adult to be less than.01 mrem for the operations. This is equivalent to a dose of less than a small fraction of 1 persent of the limits of 40 CFR Part 190. The annual limits of 40 CFR Part 190 are 25 millirems to the total body or any organ except the thyroid and 75 millirems to the thyroid. The doses 4
to the population of 819,000 within 50 miles was estimated to be
-3 less than 6.2 x 10 person-rems to the total body from liquid effluents. The offsite population dose was calculated by multiplying
-6 the (offsite) maximum individual total bot'y dose of 7.5 x 10 mrem (estimated for the liquid release of Co-60) with the projected 4
population of 819,000 for the year 1985 within 50 miles of P. int Beach 1.
We feel that this is a conservative estimate as the maximum individual dose estimate is overly conservative and it is very unlikely that cn average irdividual offsite will receive su:n a dose.
Every year the same population of abut 819,000 will receive i
a cumulative total body dose of more than 81,900 person-rems -from the natural background radiation (about 0.1 rem per year) in the vicinity of Point Beach 1.11 Thus, the population total body dose
-6 from the sleeving-demonstration project is less than 7.6 x 10 per-cent of the annual dose due to natural background. On these bases, we conclude that the doses to individuals in unrestricted areas and to the population within 50 miles due to gaseous and liquid efflu-ents from the sleeving-demonstration project will be environmentally significant.
Since we expect no larger radioactive effluents from Point Beach 1 after the sleeving-demonstration (over presleeving operation), we conclude that the impact on biota other than man will also be no larger than the demonstration project.
In summary, the radioactive releases resulting from the sh ving-demonstra. ion project will be less than those due to normal plant operation. The?e releases are also much less thar. the estimates presented in the FES. The doses due to these releases are small Our calculations (using the LADTAP Computer Program)17 for the maximum individual total body dose for an adult considered the following pathway consumption (1) of fish (21 kilogram per year) caught in the discharge area and (2) drinking water (730 liter per year) from the discharge area. A conservative dilution factor of w or no dilution was assumed for each of the above two pathways in our evaluation of radiological exposure due to the release of Co-60 from Point Beach 1 via liquid effl ants which are expected to result from the sleeving-demonstration project. The LADTAP II program implements the Rev. 1 (Appendix a) g described in U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, radiological exposu for radioactivity releases in liquid effluent.
g..,
n
-,-.g
~
.,-,n n
-,,+
i 16 -
compared to the ifr.its of 40 CFR Part 190 and to the annual dose from natural background radiation. Therefore, the radiological 4
impact of le sleeving-demonstration project will not significantly affect the quality of the human-environment.
i i
1 5
f i
J J
i 1
~
1 T
k
~,---,,-e s,,,--
--n.,
,an.
-n,,-,,
e....
w,.,
~,-r.,-nw.wn,
,,w-,,,-ey,,nn-,n,,,.+,,a.w-,n~+-en.,n,,,n, e.-
an
.,,v,r r,-,,.,,nnyn
. 4.1.3 RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the proposed steam generator sleeving-demonstration project, we have reached the following conclusions which are discussed in greater detail above.
(1). The estimated range of 48 to 60 person-rems for the sleeving-demonstration project is on the low side of the expected range of doses incurred at light water power reactors in a year.
(2) The risks to the workers involved in the sleeving-demonstration project from radiation exposure are no larger than the risks incurred by:
(a) workers in other industrial businesses, and (b) most people, working or not, from commonplace activities such as driving a car.
(3) WE has taken appropriate steps to ensure that occupational dose wil' be maintained as low as it reasonsbly achievable and within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
(4) Offsite doses resulting from the sleeving-demc.istration project will be, (a) smaller than those incurred during normal operation of Point Beach 1, and (b) negligible in comparison to the dose members of the public in the vicinity of Point Beach 1 receive from natural background radiation.
On the basis of the foregoing statements, the staff concludes that the pro 90 sed sleeving-denonstration project at the Point Beach
. Nuclear Plant, Unit No. I will not significantly~ affect the quality of the human environment.
4.2 Nonradiological Assessment We have reviewed the documents submitted by WF in support of its I
request to conduct the steam generator tube sleeving-demonstration c
program.
We find that the proposed activities will ocv.r within.the plant on areas previoi.' sly disturbed during site preparation and construction. These act'
'es wiil not have appreciable offsite environmental effects. The licensee has not proposed any changes in effluents fran the demineralizer waste systems or other waste streams as part of the demonstration program. We conclude that the activities as proposed will not result in any significant environmental impact.
t i
(
' 5.0 BASIS AND CONCLilSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The NRC has reviewed the Demonstration Program relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations. The NRC has determined, based on this assessment, that this action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Thereforc, the Commission has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared, ard that, 4
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(-)(1), the issuance of a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
.,,,,, _ ~ -..
.-._-.m.
1 TABLE 4.1 ANNUAL COLLECTIVE, 3 2
OCCOPATIONAL DOSE AT POINT BEACH UNITS
- 1, 2 Collective Occupational Dose
.;vgar (person-rems) 1971 164 1972 580 1973 588 1974 295 1975 459 1976 370 1977 429 1978 320 3
1979 644.1980 791 5
1 First commercial operation 12/70 (Unit 1), 10/72 (Unit 2)
- t r
I' l
i
{
--,,.. -., -, - - - ~.,
,_.,.._,,,-_.---,..,.,_,_.m.,
...,~_,......,,,,,_y,..
...,,s.,_,_,__.
s.
TABLE 4.2 2
OCCUPATIONAL DOSE AT U.S. LIGHT WATER REACTORS (person-rems per reactor unit)
' Low
!!ijd1 1969 165 195 42-298 l
1970~
684 127 44 1639 1971 307 255 50 768 1972 464 286 61 1032 1973 783 380 85 5262 1974 331 507 71 1430 1975 318 701 2;
2022 1976 460 549 58 2648 1977 396 828 87 3142 1978 429 604 48 1621 1979 510 733 30 2140 t
'f h
i
,y--,,-4.my..,,,,
..,w_,
.-...,__,,-r..
.m.,
~
5 TABLE 4.3-LIFETIME MORTALITY' RISKS 18 jiUMERICALLYEQUIV3tENTTOONEREM i;
Type.f Activity Equivalent Risk to One Rem
- Smoking cigarettes 1 carton j
Drinking wine 66 bottles Automobile driving 6,600. miles Commercial flying 33,000 miles Canoeing 1.6 days
- q Being a man aged 60 1.8 days l
Eight hours per day u
-s
TABLE 4.4 0CCUPATIONAL RISKS Events per year per 100,000 workers) i Mining &
All U.S..
Radiation Quarring Industries Trade Exposure Final Accidents (I) 63 14 6
1 Delayed Effects Actual readily Occasionally not not Observable Observable Observable Observable Estimated
?
Includes 115-219
?
4-6 lethal cancers (2) lethal cancers (3)
(I) 1976 data, from " Accident Facts,1977 Edison," National Safety Council.
(2)
Estimates from " Toxic Chemicals and Public Protection, A Report to the President by the Toxic Substances Strategy Committee," Council on Envi-ronmental Quality, Government Printing Office, May 1980. Assumes 20-38% of all cancers are associated with occupation.
(3)
Estimates from BEIR-II,1980, assuming an average radiation worker exposure rate of 0.5 rem /hr; exposure at the limit 5 rems /yr, would yield an estimate of from 37 to 63 lethal cancers per year per 100,000 workers.
~
i
TABLE 4.5 RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS FROM POINT BEACH 1 WE Estimates for Point Beach 1 Point Beach 1 FES(I) Estimates of Type of Radioactive Releases During.Sleev-1979 Releases 1980 Releases Annucl Average Effluent ing Demonstration (Ci)
(Ci)
(Ci)
Releases (Ci/yr.)
l Gaseous b
Noble Gases Negligible 4.8(+2)c 3.2(+2) 5.0(+3) i Iodine + Particulates*
Negligible 1.4(-2) 2.7(-3) 1.0(-1)
D b
d Tritium Negligible 4.0(+2) 3.3(+2) l' 4
1 Liquid Mixed fission and activitation products 1.44 x 10-4 0.38 0.63 1.0(+1) b f
Tritium Negligible 4.5(+2) 3.8(+2) 1.0(+3) a Radicactive half lives 8 days or more.
D3elow lower limits of detectability for plant instrumentation.
4.8(+2) means 4.8 x 10+2 c
dNo estimate was given in FES, but FES stated that-there would be low concentrations of tritium to the gaseous releases.
f
~
References 1.
Point Beach Steam Generator Sleeving Report for Wisconsin Electric Power Company prepared by the Westinghause Flectric Corporation, September 28, 1981.
2.
NUREG-0713, Vol.1, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuc M r Power Reactors, 1979, U.S.N.R.C., March 1981.
3.
NRC Memorandum dated June 19, 1981, from k. E. Kreger to H. R.
Denton entitled " Unusually High Occupational Doses Reported For Power Reactors Operating in 1980.
4.
Final Environmental Statement related to operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, United States Atomic Energy Commission, May 1972.
5.
NUREG-0719, Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Summer Pressurized Water Reactor, 1981.
6.
NUREG-0692, Final Environmental Statement Related to Steam Generator Repair at Suury Power Station, Unit 1, July 1980.
7.
The Effects on Populations cf Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, "BEIR Report," report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Nnvember 1972.
8.
WASH-1400, " Reactor Safety Study - An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, U.S.N.R.C., October 1975.
9.
The Effects on Population of Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation "BEIR III Report", report of the committee on the Bio-logical Effects of Ionizing Radiation's Natural Academy of Sciences
- National Rcsearch Council, 1980.
10.
1979 Cancer Facts and Statistics. American Cancer Society.
11.
NCR? No. 45, " Natural Backgrounu Radiation in the United States,"
National Council on Radiation Protection and lieasurements,1975, 12.
R. Peto, " Distorting the Epidemiology of Cancer, the Need for a More Balanced Overview," Nature 284, 297-298 (March 27, 1980).
- 13. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, Semiannual Monitoring Reports, January 1,1979 through June 30, 1979 and July 1, 1979 through December 31, 1979.
- 14. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, Semiannual Monitoring Reports, January 1,1980 through June 30, 1980 and July 1,1980 through December 31, 1980.
x
. 15.
Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I" (Revision 1),
U.S.N.R.C., October 1977.
16.
Regulatory Guide 1.113, " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," U.S.N.R.C.
17.
User's Manual for LADTAP II - A Computer Program for Calculating Radiation Exposure to H.n from Routine Release of Nuclear Reactor Liquid Effluents. NUREtVCR-1276, U.S.N.R.C. (May 1980).
18.
E. Pochin, "The Acceptance of Risk," British Medical Bulletin 31(3),1975.
av r
- +..,,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-266 50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, (Repair to Steam Generator Tubes)
Units 1 & 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF WITNESS LIST AND DOCUMENTS; NRC STAFF ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF LICENSEE!S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION; NOTICE OF APPEAR-ANCE (Stuart A. Treby); NRC. STAFF SAFETY EVALUATION: and NRC STAEF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 26th day of October,1981.. _
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel Washington, D.C.
20555
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Hugh C. Paxton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C.
20555
- 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Jerry R. Kline U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Bruce Churchill Esq.
Gerald Charnoff,,Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.U.
Washington, DC 20036 Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff