Text

Forwards Portion of NUREG-0895, Fes Re Operation of Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2, Addressing Recipient 871208 Request for Identification of NRC Requirements for Evaluating Impact of Potential Exposure to Electric Fields
	ML20238E111
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/28/1987
From:	Murley T; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Wojtalik T; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Shared Package
ML20238E113	List: ML20238E124; NUREG-0895, Forwards Portion of NUREG-0895, Fes Re Operation of Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2, Addressing Recipient 871208 Request for Identification of NRC Requirements for Evaluating Impact of Potential Exposure to Electric Fields;
References
	RTR-NUREG-0895, RTR-NUREG-895 NUDOCS 8801050005
	Download: ML20238E111 (12)
	v • d • e

'

DEC 2 8 887 Mr. Thomas A. Wojtalik Environmental Engineer Tennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Dear Mr. Wojtalik:

Your letter of December 8,1987 requested our assistance in identifying any NRC requirement for evaluating the impact of potential exposure to electric or magnetic fields from transmission lines delivering service from nuclear plants, or any NRC conditions limiting electric or magnetic fields of such transmission lines.

The NRC has no requirement specifically limiting electric or magnetic fields of transmission lines. However, the NRC has responsibility consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate environmental effects of transmission lines emanating from nuclear pl6ats. Perhaps the best illustration of how this subject has been addressed is by providing an example. To that end, we have, attached a copy of the section of NUREG_0895, " Final Environmental Statement Related To the Operation of Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2" which addresses this subject. We have also attached a copy of the references used in the Seabrook evaluation and have marked the pertinent documents.

We hope that this satisfies your information requirements.

l Sincerely, Ord rinal signed by j Tno:nas E. Murley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachments: Distribution:

As stated Central Files NRC PDR SELB Rdg.

A. Toalston (PF)

J. E. Knight l F. Rosa l

A. Thadani L. Shao (#003355)

J. Sniezek T. Murley F. Miraglia ADT l

F. Gillespie yyi C. Thomas ,o u l$010ggggggQ$gj43 p PDR

. os urg (#003355)

J. Norberg [/

g'h V. Stello v

f S. Ebneter, OSP .

h,,p D. Morris (ED0-003355) -[\/

For previous concurrences, see attached ORC , gM'/

IOFC :SELB/ DEST * :SC/SELB/ DEST *:BC/SELB/ DEST *: SAD / DEST * :D/ DEST * : NRR :D NRR

_____:___________:____________:_________.__:____________:____________:(_

lNAME :AToalston:ct:JEKnight :FRosa

ACThadani :LShao :J . ezek : Murle u.____:___________:___________:____________:___________:.___________:__ ____

IDATE:12/16/87 :12/16/87 :12/16/87 :12/17/87 :12/18/87 :12/,f187 :12 /87 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

. o Mr. Thomas A. Wojtalik Environmental Engineer Tennessee Valley Authority 1 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Dear Mr. Wojtalik:

Your letter of December 8',1987 requested our assistance 'in identifying any NRC requirement for evaluating the impact of potential exposure to electric or magnetic fields from transmission lines delivering service from nuclear plants, or any NRC conditions limiting electric or magnetic' fields f'such transmission.

lines.

The NRC has responsibility consistent with the Natiopa Environmental Policy Act toevaluateenvironmentaleffectsoftransmissionJfnesemanating.fromnuclear l

plants; however, the NRC has no requirement specifically limiting electric.or- 1 magnetic-fields of transmission lines.

T emas E. Murley, Director

' fice of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation-cc: V. Stello Distribution:

Central Files ] 4 SELB Rdg.

A. Toalston (PF)

J. E. Knight F. Rosa A. Thadani L.Shao(#003355)

J. Sniezek T. Murley-F. Miraglia ADT F. Gillespie A. Thomas J. Blaha D. Mossburg (#003355)

J. Norberg W' h\

OFC :SELB/ DEST :SC/SELB/ DEST:BC/SELB/ DEST: SAD /DE :D/ DEST ,

DD/NRR :D/NRR

_____:...ff g._ ..:........ . y:...____ _.:... __ , __:... . ....:.___.....___:.. ____....

NAME :ATo Ta sto :ct:JEKnight :FRosa - :ACThad :LSh :JSniezek :TEMurley 1.___ :..... ......:..______ ___:_.. r........:..... ____ .:___.........:._____ .....:___..______

DATE.:12/ /87 :12//0 /87 :12/ // /87 :12/19/87 :12/ d7 /87 :12/ /87 :12/ /87 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

-l ' ( '. ,

v. .

k.

I I diesel generators will be used'during refueling for each_ unit, during emergency '

[ conditions, and for periodic testing. The applicant has estimated combined ll annual auxiliary boiler and diesel generator emissions on the basis of 1920 hours0.0222 days 0.533 hours 0.00317 weeks 7.3056e-4 months (80 days) of full capacity boiler operation and 119 hours0.00138 days 0.0331 hours 1.967593e-4 weeks 4.52795e-5 months of full capacity combined diesel generator operation. Using EPA emission factors for fuel oil combustion and diesel industrial engines, the applicant has. estimated )

that annual emissions from these sources will be highest during a year when

.l Unit 1 has a refueling outage and Unit 2 is still under construction. . Annual; combined emissions for this situation will be less than EPA de.minimus levels-l for particulate, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen ;

i: ; oxides. The applicant's estimates appear reasonable, and, considering the infrequent operation of the auxiliary boilers and diesel generators, the staff concludes that these sources should not have a significant impact on air

~

{, g quality in the vicinity of the plant.

\;;

5.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources .k l

l

,f 5.5.1 Terrestrial Resources

,' 5. 5.1.1 Station Operation 4 ,

The terrestrial impacts of operation of the Seabrook facility have been con- l

! sidered in the FES-CP (Section 5.5.1.1). The staff, based on informat. ion pro- i

!- vided by the applicant and from other sources such as the site visit,' concludes

!.z that the analysis of-impacts of operation of the Seabrook facility on the ter-

!i restrial resources presented in Section 5.5.1.1 of the FES-CP. remains valid.

! The staff has reviewed the information on endangered species (Section'4.3.5.1) ,

! and concludes that the operatioa of the Seabrook facility will not impact any {

terrestrial endangered species. 1 i . ,' 1 if 5.5.1.2 Transmission System i

l Induced Voltage and Low-Level Electric Fi' elds

. The staff has reviewed the environmental impacts that could be associated with the operation of the Seabrook transmission system.- The potential sources of

! impacts are (1) induced electrical..' currents, (2) electric fields,-(3) ozone production, and (4) corridor maintenance. Concern over sources (1), (2), and

. (4) were expressed at a public meeting in Seabrook on December 2, 1981.

i.;

[~ Except for items (1) and (2), the staff's analyses of impacts potentially i associated with the operation of Seabrook transmission-lines are not expected l , to change significantly from those discussed at the CP. stage of review.

]

(Section 5.5.1.2).

i i

'i !

Il Research data on the potential biological. effects from ' electrical fieliis asse-ciated with transmission lines have been: reviewed by the staff (Department of fi ;

- Energy 1982; EPRI). While. experimental work is stil1 uhderway on the biologic <

}., effects of- electric fields along transmission lines,t the staff has found no

,j} ; evidence at this time to support a conclusion that the operation of the Seabrc.

, 345-kV transmission lines.will have an adverse effect on the health of humans or that,their operation will adversely affect plant or' animal-life.

i Seabrook FES 5-8 j L _ _1_ ~ _ ._ 1__ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ ,

--___ m

The staff has determined that the applicant's transmission system design incorporates minimum conductor-to ground clearances (ER-OL Response to Staff Question 290.2) that will not result in induced currents due to electrostatic effects exceeding the 5 milliamperes (mA) level used as a shock criterion in !

the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). In addition, the applicant also states (ER-OL Response to Staff Question 290.2) that all fences and gates in )'

and along the Seabrook transmission line rights-of-way will be grounded at 15-m (50-foot) intervals. The staff concludes that these mitigative actions will reduce any potential shock hazards to nonhazardous levels and, therefore, will not result in any adverse human health effects.

The staff believes it unlikely that induced shock will be a problem to biota along transmission corridors. Raptors perched on towers are unlikely to M1d up an induced voltage because they are grounded through the tower. The line spacing would be sufficiently great to preclude short circuiting by outspread wings.

Avian collisions with power lines are discussed in the FES-CP (Section 5.5.1.2).

The FES-CP concludes that transmission lines present a negligible hazard to avain populations. The staff believes that this conclusion remains valid.

Energized transmission lines produce electric fields in the region of space surrounding the line conductors. Such fields can transfer electrical energy to conductive bodies--including biological organisms--that lie within these ficids.

This electrical energy transfer can occur directly from the transmission line ,

to the individual without contact, producing a current within or on the surface I of the affected organisms. For the specific overhead transmission line design ;

of the Seabrook 345-kV lines, the maximum electric field gradients predicted by i the applicant would occur on the right-of-way and approach a value of 5.7 kilo-volts per meter * (kV/m) (ER-OL Response to Staff Question 290.2). At the edge of the right-of-way, the electric field drops off to about 1.6 to 2.2 kV/m.

The design of lines similar to the Seabrook 345-kV system is such that the strongest electric field exists in an area approximately 6-18 m (20 to 60 feet) from the centerline. The field drops off moderately as one moves closer to the centerline, and falls off rapidly as one moves farther away from the centerline.

The fields generated from transmission lines are not strong e%h to cause excessive tissue heating, the primary hazard from electromagnetic fields (MPSC, DOE 1979). Several categories of subtle effects have been postulated, entail-ing changes in the physiology, cellular morphology, genetic material, or behavior of biological organisms (MPSC).

A small number of research studies have observed physiological and/or behavioral effects that may indicate the possible occurrences of adverse health effects in people (MPSC, 00E 1979). However, most of these studies have been challenged, with poor experimental design and' inadequate statistical treatment of results cited (D0E 1979). Therefore, electric field effects remain controversial be-cause of the alleged possibility of long-term human health effects. The Federal government has undertaken to fund an extensive research program to correct the flaws in past research efforts and to determine any biological effects from the

The intensity of the electric fields at ground level is expressed in units of kilovolts per meter.

Seabrook FES 5-9

_ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - - _ - - - ----- - -- . - _ _ _- _ _ _ _ -- J

i electromagnetic fields from transmission systems. These research studies are !

using animals to investigate possible transmission line electric field effects.

Although some of the recent research data indicate certain statistically sig- 1 nificant results in laboratory animals (DOE 1982), the effects are subtle-and small in magnitude and further research is needed to determine if these effects are biologically significant and will adversely affect the test organisms.

The staff has reviewed a vast amount of data on this issue and concludes that there is little evidence to indicate that people are adversely affected by electric fields at power line frequencies. Those statistically significant effects described above on laboratory animals were produced at field strengths (4-20 kV/m; based upon Kolesnikov and Kuane) approximating electric field gra-dients near the ground under 345-765 kV transmission lines. As indicated above, electric field gradients decrease rapidly as one approaches the edge of the right-of-way. The staff believes that humans would not be chronically exposed to field gradients in excess of the maximum edge of right-of-way value (2 kV/m) because Teople are not permitted to live on the right-of-way and, therefore, would not receive a long-term, constant exposure. The staff concludes, there-fore, that the general population living along a right-of-way would receive a long-term exposure less than 2 kV/m, which is below the value of 4-20 kV/m )

estimated by the staff

to have resulted in the reported statistically signifi- l cant effects in laboratory animals. l l

Current research is beirg funded and guided by the Federal Interagency Advisory l Committee on Electric Field Effects, on which NRC staff members actively serve, to determine if more definite guidelines are necessary.

Based on the foregoing facts, it is the staff's opinion that there is no evi-dence to date that the operation of 345-kV power lines will have an adverse l

biological tealth effect on humans. If ongoing research were to conclude that protective measures were warranted, a variety of actions could be considered including, but not limited to: increasing the width of rights-of-way to limit the field strengths to which the public would be exposed at the edge of the right-of-way; giving potential right-of-way users specific warnings of possible risks; and using shield wires or other types of retrcfitting techniques that could reduce field gradients to a prescribed level. 1 Results of research (Bankoski, IIT) on electric field effects on growth and development of plants and animals indicate that neither adverse injuries nor j abnormalities were apparent from a 50-kV/m field. Some minor physical damage, l barely perceivable, along corn, bluegrass, and alfalfa leaf tips was indicated l in fields from voltage gradients of 25 kV/m and above. The same series of I studies investigating electric field effects on small animals indicates that no l i

l

The field strengths applied to these laboratory test animals (DOE 1982) i averaged about 100 kV/m. However, it is commonly recognized that a com-parison of these results with humans must involve a scaling factor (Kuane). j The average of scaling factors has been suggested and, therefore, the staff j has provided its best estimates of a range of electric field values (4-20 kV/m) j after scaling from test animals to humans. l Seabrook FES 5-10 i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - J

adverse abnormalities in behavior, activity, or outward appearance have been demonstrated from electric fields of 50 kV/m.

Based on the above findings, which indicate no adverse damage to plants or animals, the staff does not believe that changes in the applicant's proposed transmission line design are warranted.

Ozone The staff's evaluation in FES-CP Section 5.5.1.2 states that ozone generated by corona discharge during transmission operation will not affect biota in the vicinity of the lines. This remains valid.

Right-of-Way Maintenance The applicant intends to use a combination of selective cutting and EPA- and state-approved herbicide treatments. Swamp and bog areas and those recognizable

. as watershed areas will be exempt froni chemical treatment (FES-CP Section 5.6).

Maintenance plans for transmission line rights of-way have no't changed since j the FES-CP was issued.

Thus, the staff's evaluation that adverse biotic impacts would be minimal remains valid.

5.5.2 Aquatic Resources j

{

The design and impact potential of the Seabrook Station' cooling system has / '

received rigorous regulatory review from several state and Federal agencies.

An overview of the regulatory history was provided by the applicant in Revi-sion 1 to the ER-OL (Response to Question 291.10).

l The impacts to estuarine and marine biota and fisheries from operation of the cooling system were assessed by the NRC under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190) and by the EPA under Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act (PL'95-217). The impacts were found to'be acceptable, and '

will not be reevaluated in this environmental statement. The key NPC and EPA !

assessments and decisions are summarized below.

NRC Assessment and ASLB Decision The FES-CP evaluated the potential impacts to aquatic biota and fisheries from entrapment / impingement of fishes; entrainment of plankton (fishes and important she11 fishes); thermal effects (inplant and effluent plume); and chemical effects (FES-CP Sections 5.5.2 and 11.0). At the time of FES-CP publication, the exact !

design and location of the submerged offshore discharge structure had not been finalized (FES-CP Section 3.4.4). After the FES-CP was published, the design and location were finalized and were considered (along with design and location i of the offshore intake structures) by the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in its overall evaluation of the potential impacts from operation of Seabrook Station.

The ASLB Initial Decision of June 1976 (LPB-76-26) found that the operation of Seabrook would not cause significant adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem or to commercial and recreational fisheries in the area.

Seabrook FES 5-11

- .~

4

. l

)

planning would be ' associated with the testing of the early notification system. l The test requirements and noise levels will be consistent with those used for j

existing alert sys-tems; therefore, the staff concludes that the noise impacts from the system w{11 be infrequent and insignificant.

5.14 References 1

Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of ' Ionizing Radiations, BEIR I, "The Effects 'no Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,"

National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council, November 1972.

-- , BEIR III, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of )

Ionizing Radiation," July 1980. 1 American Cancer Society, " Cancer Facts and Figures 1979," 1978.

Baldwin, J. L., " Climate of the United States," U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1973. l Bankoski, J. W. , H. B. Graves, and G. W. McKee, "The Effects of High Voltage

- Electric Lines on the Growth and Development of Plants and Animals," in Proceedings of the'First National Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rightsof-Way Management, Mississippi State University, 1976.

Bean R. M. , D. C. M' ann, and D. A. Neitzel, " Quarterly Progress Report Covering Period January 1 Through March 31, 1981 Biocide By-Products in Aquatic Environments," April 1981.

Bertini, H. W., et al., " Descriptions of Selected Accidents That Have Occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities," ORNL/NSIC-176, Nuclear Safety Information Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 1980.

Blaylock, B. G. , and J. P. Witherspoon, " Radiation Doses and Effects Estimated for Aquatic Biota Exposed to Radioactive Releases from LWR Fuel-Cycle Facilities," in Nuclear Safety, 17:351, 1976.

Bykoski, L. M. et al., " Supplemental Testimony of NRC Staff in Response to Atlantic Contention 1," before the ASLB.

Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES), '! Energy in Transition 1985 - 2010," Final Report, National Research Council,1979.* j 1

i Comptroller General of the United States, " Report to the Congress," EMD-81-106, August 26, 1981.

l DeVincentis, John, Public Service Co. of- New Hampshire, to Louis Wheeler, NRC, i response to Q240.25, " Environmental Effects of Accidents," January 4,1982.

7 i Draley, J. E. "The Treatment of Cooling Water with Chlorine," Argonne National Laboratory, Report ANL/ES-12, February 1972.

t

This report was also published in 1980 by W. H. Freeman and Company. Pages cited will differ.

r Seabrook FES 5-76 k n=.m e n u.,m m w m m w g a g g p gae q p g gp. g g .. . _

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), " Biological Effects of High Voltage Electric Fields, An Update," EPRI Report EA-1123, July 1979.

Federal Register, . Statement of Interim Policy, !' Nuclear Power ' Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental: Policy Act of 1979," 45 FR 40101-40104, June 13, 1980.

Hecock, Richard D;, " Recreation Behavior Patterns as Related to Site Characteristics of Beaches," in Journal of leisure Research,1970, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 237-250. See also Kenneth E. McConnell, " Congestion and Willingness of Pay: . A Study of Beach Use," in Land Economics, May 1977, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 185-195.

Inman, G. W. Jr., and J. D. Johnson, "The Effect of Ammonia Concentration on the Chemistry of Chlorinated Sea Water," in Water Chlorination Envirnnmenta_1 Impact and Health Ef fects, Vol. 2, R. L. Joller, H. Gorciiev, end D. H. l Hamilton, Jr. , eds. , Ann Arbor Science Publ. ,1978. 1 l

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), " Recommendations of !

, the International Commission on Radiological Protection," ICRP Publication 26, l January 1977.

l l

X State-of-the-art Review and Program Plan," Chicago, November 1975.IIT Rese i

Kalesnikcv, S. V., and B. A. Chukhlovin, "To the Interaction Phenomena Between Industrial Crequency AC (50-Hz) Field and the Organir,m of a Human and an i Animal," translated from Letters to Journal of Technical Physics, USSR, Vol. 4, .

Issue 15, pp 935-939, August 12, 1978. ,

) i i ;

i Kaune, W. T., and'R. D. Phillips, " Comparison of the Coupling of Grounded l l l Humans, Swine, Rats to Vertical, 60-Hz Electric Fields," Biolectronagnetics, j 1:117-129. i Land, C. E., Science 209, 1197, September 12, 1980. '

Mattice, J. S. and H. E. Zittel, " Site-Specific Evaluation of Power Plant

} Chlorination," Journal Water Poll. Contr. Fed., 48:10:2284-2308, 1976. .

l Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), " Health and Safety Effects of EHV

! Electrical Transmission Lines," J. G. Harold (ed.), April 1979.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), " Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy," NCRP Report No. 43, '

January 1975. '

National Electric Safety Code (NESC), published by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, ANSI C2, Section 23, 232 (B.1.c), 1977.

New Hampshire Travel Council, " Tourism / Recreation Equals Jobs," December 1980.

Seabrook FES 5-77 w . .

)

- l Normandeau Associates, Inc., Summary Document: " Assessment of Anticipated Impacts of Construction and: Operation of Seabrook Station on the Estuarine, Coastal and Offshore Waters Hampton-Seabrook, New Hampshire," December 1977.

e .

President's' Commission on the Accident at Ihree Mile Island, " Report,"

Commission Findings B, Health Effects, October 1979.

Rogovin, Mitchell, Director, "Three ' Mile Island - A Report to the Commissioners and the Public," Vol. I, Nuclear Regulatory Commisslor: Scecial Inquiry Group, Summary Section 9, January 1980. J -

Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, " Economic Impact of Certain Shoreline Users on the New Hampshire Coastal Zone'," October 1975.

Sugam, R. , and G. R. Helz, " Seawater Chlori _ nation: A Description of Chemical Speciation", in Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3, R. Jolley, W. A. Brungs, and R. B. Summing, eds. , Ann Arbor Science, 1980.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), " Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation," 1977, i U.S. Ato'mic Energy Commission, " Environmental Sb.vey of the Uranium Fuel.

Cycle," WASH-1248, April 1974.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), " Potential Environmental Effects of 765-kV Transmission Lines: Views Before the New York State Public Service Commission," DOE /EV-0058, November 1979.

t

-- , " Project Resumes--Biological Effects From Electric Fields Associated with High Voltage Transmission Lines--Contractors Review, November 1982,"

Division of Electric Energy Systems, 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/014 (WASH 1400), " Reactor Safety Study--An Assessment," October 1975.

-- , NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water. Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.

-- , NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," 1 October 1976.

l

-- , NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), "Public Comments and Task Force

~ Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management. Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," March 1977.

-- , NUREG-0340, " Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequences Model,"

.0ctober 1977.

-- , NUREG-0394, Earl J. Baker, et al. , " Impact of Of fshore Nuclear Generating i

i Stations on Recreational Behavior at Adjacent Coastal Sites," December 1977. l Seabrook FES 5-78 1

f' i

. il il tI

-- , NUREG-0440, " Liquid Pathway Generic Study," February 1978. s

-- , NUREG-0586, " Draft Generic Envir6nmental ImpactsStatement on -

S\ >

Decommission'ing of Nuclear Facilities," January 1981)

c )d ;

> 1

~

-- , NUREG-0651, L. B. Marsh, " Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Rupture l0 1

Accidents," March 1980. ,

j t

l

-- , NUREG-0658, " Environmental Assessment for Effective Changes to 10 CFR ;

Part 50 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50; Emergency Planning Requirements for j Nuclear Power Plants," August 1980.

L

-- , NUREG-0660, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident,"

Vol. I, May 1980. }.

-- , NUREG-0713, B. G. Brooks, " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial ,

Nuclear Power Reactors 1980," Vol. 2, December 1981. i t

!. -- , NUREG-0715, " Task Force Report on Interim Operations of Indian Point," ! i August 1980. !

-- , NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI. Action Plan Requirements," i

! November 1980.

l;

-- , NUREG-0800, " Radiation Protection," in " Standard Review Plan," !

Chapter 12, July 1981 (formerly issued as NUREG-75/087).

, l

[

i -- , NUREG/CR-0400, H. W. L uis, et al., " Risk Assessment Review Group Report x to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," September 1978.

9

-- , NUREG/CR-0912, D. Isherwood, "Geo' science Data Base Handbook for Modeling a l j Nuclear Waste Repository," January 1981.

l -- , NUREG/CR-1297, C. I. Gibson, F. C. Tone, P. Wilkinson, J. W. Blaylock, R. E. Schirmer, " Toxicity, Bioaccumulation and Depuration of Bromoform x l in Five Marine Species," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial l Institute, January 1981. l l !

-- , NUREG/CR-1301, R. M. Bean, D. C. Mann, and R. G. Riley, " Analysis of i i

i Organ.ohalogen Products from Chlorination of Natural Waters Under Simulated Biofouling Control Conditions," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, June 1980. s l

, NUREG/CR-1350, S. C. Crumley, Q. J. Stober, and P. A. Dinnel, " Evaluation

of Factors Affecting the Toxicity of Chlorine to Aquatic Organisms," i March 1980. l I

-- , NUREG/CR-2002, S. Malhotra and D. Manninen, " Migration and Residential Location of Workers at Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites: Forecasting 3;

)

Methodology," April 1981.

J Seabrook FES 5-79 <

l I

~

__ _ l I

4

. 1.21, llevision 1, " Measuring, Evaluating and Reporti

-- , Regulatory Radioactivity Guid)/ Waste'i and Releases of Radioactive Materials in 501 uid ,

in L and Gaseous Effluentri(from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," June 1974.

-- ,1.109, Revision 1, " 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,", October 1977.

\

-- , 4.1, Revision 1, " Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," April 1975. ; y

-- , 8.8, Revision 3, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as Low as Is Reasonably Achievable," June 1978.

Vong, G. T. F., "The Effect of Temperature on the Dissipation of Chlorine in Se'awater," in Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and -Health Effects, Vol. 3, I R. Jolley, W. A. Brung and R. B. Cumming, eds., Ann Arbor Science.

Wong, G. 7. F. , and J. A. Davidson, "The Fate of Chlorine in Sea-Water," in Water Research, Vol.11, pp. 971-978.

J x

\ ,

t 1

g l 1

\

i

~

3 s

(

1

/

(

4

\

1 l

l

(

( .-

Seabrook FES 5-80 t t I

=====-- - - - -

__ ; v -- 3rg

j. l s, ., ~ ' ':

jff ./p$na g y\1 Wl x

o UNITED STATES .

[ " ,, ' < gg ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :. y c

.qj WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055t,- _ . _

f(

% ,,;l .

lV.

' ' t. }

EDO PP7NCIPAL-CrGRFSPONDENr'E CONTROL F]

., ., .g..__

\ ') e FROM: DI iF : I?/2N' /WI: FDA CONTPQL: ;003?.55

, ' DOC QT: A1 ) / 08 / P.7

THOMAS A..WO.lTALIU 3- FINAL PFPtY:-

TVA- # q"p. :

TO: [j -s ,.

STELLO j t ..

ie .

FOR SIGNATI,lRF OF: ** GCF6fJ ** SFCY,NO:

V . .I --

5 1/ ..

MURLEY vw /. ;

'+

., 5- N

. s, Aj ' ,r (N -

.DESC: , RO?b'ING: [

REQ. ASRISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING AiAY NRC REQUIREMENT FOR EVAL.IIATING IMPACT OF POTENH At

.FPNFTER.\[SP E

.EXPOSURF TO ELECTP1C OR MAGNETIC FTEL D9 FROiO /-

'7 TRANSMI':; SIGN LINES

DATE: 12/10/87 ' # -

AE, SIGNED Tn: NRR r:ONT ACT: MURIEY^,,,[ .i , ,

_, _ . . _...; _. n 2: ;~_ .. 1 .

l - SF'EC I Ai IN81RI.lCTIONS OF REMAPLS: 4

/{ i kk }-

l g . : .4 -,, + .

]

~~.

y

).

NRR RECEIVED: DECEMBER 11, 1987 ACTION:

I ' h(

YDESTASNAd' /, 3 a

. _ , , , _ i y NRR ROUTING: MURLEY/SNIEZEK MIRAGLIA g ON'w :

ADr l 3 PIE QLy3 ge@ NRR DIRECT'OR'SLOFFICE BLAHA~ .

MOSSBURG B_

g,4M[

.] -)- m

l. ,

,j:. , - -

i 8

.m._..A__ _ + ..u_'_ z._.z._ M iin.__b

NUREG-0895, Forwards Portion of NUREG-0895, Fes Re Operation of Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2, Addressing Recipient 871208 Request for Identification of NRC Requirements for Evaluating Impact of Potential Exposure to Electric Fields

Text

Dear Mr. Wojtalik:

Dear Mr. Wojtalik:

Navigation menu

Search