ML19208B955
| ML19208B955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Wish J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208B956 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909240216 | |
| Download: ML19208B955 (10) | |
Text
/
~
~
CTWb WC b
?
/J r.
.f{
4 AUG 141979 i
- i
?
Dr. Joel R. Wish '
i
, RD 4, Box 444 y
j Elizabethtown, PA 17022
~
~
Dear Dr. Wish:
t Your' letter of May 13, 1979 to President-Carter expressing concerns about the
~ safety of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant has been referred to re for reply.
f On May 25, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed its staff to prepare an Enviromental Assessment of proposals to decontaminate and dispose of radio-actively contaminated waste water from the Three Mile Island Unit facility. The first portion of the Assessment includes discussions of potential risks to the public health and' safety and proposed means of decontaminating the intemediate level waste water. Furthemore, no discharge of decontaminated waste water will.
be permitted until ccopletion of a second portion of the Assessment dealing with i
any such proposed discharges. This portion will include a discussion cif alterna-tives to discharge into the Susquehanna River.
T*.e~ following are the: answers to your specific questions in the same numerical
~
I order as ycu presented in your letter:
(1) What are the fission products of a nuclear meltdown? Wh4 h ones have the I
NRC found at TMI? Which ones were tested for? How much strcntium 00 and strontium 89 have escaped? These are known products of a nuclear meltd,own.
Do you think the testing is adecurte?
Response
We have enclosed Table 3-1 fran Appendix VI to the Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400 (Attachment 1) which identifies the radionuclides in the reactor core and their initial activity at the tire of a hypothetical accident.
As you know, there are several hundred different radionuclides in the core in addition to the 54 listed in Table 3-1.
However, in order to make the effort conducted in UASH-1400 manageable, the remaining nuclides were eliminated with very little sacrifice in the accuracy of the calculated A discussion of the method used to eliminate the additional consequences.
radionuclides is provided in Section 8.2.1 of the aforegegioned appendix.
We have also enclosed Table 2-1 from Appendix VI (Attachment )
i n-tifies the magnitude of the radioactivity release to the atmosphere for each of the release categories. A detailed discussion of the accicent sequen associated with each release category is provided in Section 5.2 of Anperdix VI.
P00RBRIRg y
5
~
O 4
.- M Or. Joel R. Wish
~
les taken at TMI revealed The complete analysis of the primary coolant samp
/
Icdine-131, Iodine-133, Cesiun-134, 90, Ruthenium-IC6, the following fission prcducts:
Cesium-136, cesfum-137," Strontium 89,-Strontium-llurium-132, Cecium-la4, Xenon-13 Barium-140, Lanthanum-140, Molybdenum-99, Te i
lete end adequate.
Barium-136m, Tritium, Antimony-122, Xenon-131n,We b e data indigates that they Xenon-135.
l A preliminary evaluation of the licensee's re easCi of Strontium-8 31, 1979. The l 1 through May have discharged 3.56 x 10-d by monthly composite Strontium-90 in the liquid effluent from Apri i
Strontium-89 and Strontium-90 samples were obta necorposite s The monthly sampling.
analyzed as yet.
orded at any time at TPI - on-What are the maximum amounts of radiation rec site end in the nearby community.
(2) d d at the TMI site (outside -
Response _:
dose during the first day The maximum amounts of radiation exposure recor e3/29 of plant buildings) was 1020 mrem net cumulativeon l
of the accident (0400, 03/28/79 to 1210, 0 i
west of the site at the gate in the fenceA more detailed as Three Mile' Island Nuclear Station 1 site residents within 50 miles of thebe found in flUR Island.
the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, d d at Middletown (2.6 miles f
- north of the site at Middictown substationT 03/29/79 two-day period from 03/29/79-and 3.2 mrem for a through d and disposed of without further f
from 12/27/78 to 04/01/79 (NUREG-0558).
How can the containment at TMI be neutralizeIsn't the Cry increased radioactive Emissions?
(3) t ?
robilize the gases which filters cannot s op f
i te water in the contain.
Response
The decontamination and disposal metfiods for the was t at the3present time and will be l
The Assessment will
[
rent building at TMI are under developmen l Assessment.to the public Fealth and safet tfie subject of a sobsequent Environmenta ik ases and concentratinq l
also include a discussion of potential r s sMcwever, l
The cryogenic trap is a method for isolating nob e g l
them into the smaller volure.
3-tiiV very minimal decay during storage ish 'is the only major
~
resent i
ed. eventually and radioactivity (10.3 years) wh c in the THI-2 containment building at the 85 l gases-due to the long half-life of Krypton-of isolated and concentrated nob e discha increase nuclido of any significance
~is not con-d time. The storage'and han lingwill increase occupath potential risks to the publicsidered to be a viable alte x
the 1NI, the NRC accepted 4.8 mile n?
In the hearings prior to licensing.
maximum hypothetical accident area.
t to pro-(4)
TMI case, we requested the applican l body anc' d ground-level doses, for both who e vatively
Response
serious design basis accident cons During the staff's review of the l ts vide plots showing the projectethyroid, resulting fr these values l
is Report.the 25 rem thyroid dose sincehfch EPA re analyzed in the Safety Ana ystive Action Guide values at w f the for the 5' rem whole body dose andcorrespond These plots represent an estim e fr a J
commends mandatory evacuation.
ified in elapsed time to reach the specif e ditions postulated.
~
d the fission product inventory specof 0.2%
the release point under the con l containment Teak rate than 5% of the postulated conditions includeRegulatory Guide 1.
ditions actually encountered less Pasquill worst-case meteorological cond wind speed).
greater time at the TMI site (i.e., atmo id dose plots (f.e., the one that F stability and one meter per secon lant), it is found that a thyroid dose Hence, for tive of the whole body and thyro l
d 4.8 miles frm the plant.
EPA Protec-the greater distance from the p alysis used in conjunction with4.8 mile rad l
than 25 rom does not occur beyontablishes the ar l
planning purposes, the above an
.tive Action Guides, esTMI as suf ficient for the planned pro less than 000 persons could be evacuated in I
f f'RC?
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board o (5) Do you have confidence that 18, two hours as accepted by the f ty and Licensing l
the ASLB decision set forth by the Atomic Sa e e are unable to identify thatFurthe i
Responset:
_.We have reviewed the 19,1977, an w d
TMI-2 hearing by the PRC staff, the h question.
None
'[
Board dated December accepted the premise stated in t e Defense.
t r for Dauphin County Civil 18 in less the testimony presented at the tan Edison staff, and the Direc o of the testimony indicates that
f y
y g
y f
?*
. 4..
Dr. Joel R. Wish the
~
. Rather, the hearing testimo'ny indicates s
c in less than two hours.
environs out to four miles following:
s.
h than two hours. However.
Metropolitan Edison had estimated that t e documented in the Safety An from the plant could be evacuated in less (a) i this estimate did not include the t r.e which would add one to two hours as, to warn and evacuate the
. Report.
i The NRC staff analysis estimated that the t mefive miles mig populace in any 45 degree sector out tothree to tor chosen.
(b) implied that.t'he 18,000 berry Towr. ship, Royalton Borough, t
The Civil Defense Director of Dauphin Coun y Swatara, Highspire, and Derry -
d persons in the six localities of Lon on (c) hours than five.
Middletown Borough, and portions of LowerTo is still valid, Mt our or'iginal ' eval'uationf six hours is l
Based on the above, we. consider and we are confideat that our-scimate othe most densely i
which to warn and remove people fromsector out to tassium iodide as protection from-in the T I.
from the plante l
(6) 'The taxpayers have paid for stockpiled po t been made available to the public t
d Iodine-131 emissions?
, Iodine-131. Why has it nowho received planned and unplann f potassium'iodida during'the
Response
1 l
The decision to withhold distribution oevent is pro ealth of h
dated April 13, 1979 Post which discusses the bas
.sion, namelv Dr. GordonWe have enclosed a copy of his letter t.
(Attachment 3) to the Editor of the Washington Pennsylvanta.
lic.
for not administering the drug-to the pub ing out of TMI?Where are they blow-What are they?
j l
Are there any inore radioactive emissions com ill there be?
How much has there been, is there, and w
.I (7) ing and settling?
the environment at the present ge point have been constant at abo
.Pe ponse:
s There have been no significant releases to thing The total cumulative gaseous r h
timg to 10'g131 levels at the disc ar the incident Iodin uCi/cc.
I 10-above background.
2005 004 i
i BA R g g ~,y g
g e,
4, Dr. Joel R. Wish -
at TMI (f an March 28,1979 to May 31,1979).is 14.17. for.I-131 and 1
1.02 x 10 Ci for; total noble gases.
.1 (8) What is the estimate you have received of-the maximum number of lives that will be lost as a result of this accident - at worst? Can you give as-i surance that.no loss of life from TMI radiation enissions will occur this year 7
~
~
s
~
Response
'The Population Dose Assessment Grcup stated in their publication of NUREG-0558, " Population Dose and Health Impacts of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station," May 1979, that, the projected number of exce" #atal cancers due to the accident.that could occur over the remaining 11
.ie of the population within 50 miles of the site is approximately one.
.. rey fur-ther state that, had the.- accident. not occurred, the number.of fatal cancert t
that'would be nonnally expected in a population of this size over its remain-
-ing lifetime is estimated to be 325,000. The projected total number of excess health effects, including all cases of cancer and generic ill health to all future generations, is approximately two.
~
i Sincerely,
.. A'l' OdginalSigned By I'
s E.G. Case Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulition.
Attachments:
- 1. - Table 3-1 from Appendix VI of WASH-1400 (Reactor Safety Study).
2.
Table 2-1 from Appendix VI of
. WASH-1400 (Reactor Safety Studyl 3.
.Ltr. fran Dr. Gordon MacLead to the i
Editor of the Washington Post dtd.
4.
NUREG-0558 SEE'NEXT PAGE FOR DISTRIBlJTION s
.m
~
~' %,~ Y'.
I t
y
(
a 3"
J n,
.,==>
J.f.4L.Sup.nant....QSE:.SA:
[El.-
(Int....TI: h kor.t.,....hh l
= = =, = = >
..dy. Lee:.dl.c'........EJConge.l..
. Trai.1. int..
...IHVo.l.lmer.....HRDm.on...................I j
uss >
..Q61.Q6D9...
...QM.].0.9..
..QB/Kl.09..
.021/C'.D9..
,.QU&p...
Nac roax ne p.u) mcx ouo
,.J ua UVg
[,
3 s
.l Dr. Joel R. Wish
- 6. -
~
=
DISTRIBUTION.:
C. Kammerer
~
L. Gossick.
H. Denton 1
E.-Case H. Shapar
'T.
Rehm t
V. Stello
.a F. Schroeder,-
D. Vassallo D. Eisenhut
~
D.. Muller
~
1 s
R. Vollmer i
J. Collins i
L. Soffer s
R. Priebe r
J. Lee i
G. Ertter (ED0-06740)
M. Groff.
Central Files l
NRR Reading File l
TNI Reading File
~
~
~
Local PDR I
Z
~
NRC PDR t
o.
i t
t i
a l
l i
,,,,, f
. oms >
sumesAsse >
eave >
l
_ m,,.,. -
i 1005 000
I 1
f 6
I ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE VI 3-1 INITIAL ACTIVITY OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE AT THE 1
TIME OF THE HYPOTHETICAL ACCIDENT i
~ adioactive Inventor No.
Radionuclii:
Souz:e (curies x 10- )
Half-Life (days) 1 Cobalt-58 0.0078 71.0 2
Cobalt-60 0.0029 1,920 3
Krypton-85 C.0056 3,950 4
Kryp ton-85m 0.24 0.183 5
Kryp ton-87 0.47 0.0528 6
Kryp ton-88 0.68 0.117 7
Rubidium-86 0.00026 18.7 8
S trontium-89 0.94 52.1
~~ _
9 S trontium-90 0.037 11,030 10 S trontium-91 1.1 0.403 11 Yttrium-90 0.039 2.67 y
12 Yttrium-91 1.2 59.0 13 Zirconium-95 1.5 65.2 14 Zirconium-97 1.5 0.71 15 Niobium-95 1.5 35.0 16 Molybdenum-99 1.6 2.8 17 Technetium-99m 1.4.
0.25 18 Ruthenium-103 1.1 39.5 19 Ruthenium-105 0.72 0.185 20 Ruthenium-106 0.25 366 4
21 Rhodium-105 0.49 1.50 22 Tellurium-127 0.059 0.391 23 Tellurium-127m 0.011 109 24 Tellurium-129 0.31 0.048 25 Tellurium-129m 0.053 0.340 26 Tellurium-131m 0.13 1.25 27 Tellurium-132 1.2 3.25 28 Antimony-127 0.061 3.88 29 Antimony-129 0.33 0.179 30 Iodine-131 0.85 8.05 31 Iodine-132 1.2 0.0958 32 Iodine-133 1.7 0.875 33 Iodine-134 1.9 0.0366 34 Iodine-135 1.5 0.280 35 Xenon-133 1.7 5.28 36 Xenon-135 0.34 C.384 37 Cesium-134 0.075 750 38 Cesium-136 0.030 13.0 39 Cesium-137 0.047 11,000 40 Barium-140 1.6 12.8 41 Lanthanum-140 1.6 1.67
'42 Cerium-141 1.5 12.3 43 Ceriam-143 1.3 1.38 44 Cerium-144 0.85 284 45 Praseodymium-143 1.3 13.7 46 Neodymium-147 0.60 11.1 47 Neptunium-239 16.4 2.35 48 Plutonium-238 0.00057 32,500 l
49 Plutonium-239 0.00021 8.9 x 106 50 Plutonium-240 0.00021 2.4 x 106 51 Plutonium-241 0.034 5,350 52 Americium-241 0.000017 1.5 x 10 53 Curium-242 0.0050 I63 54 Curium-244 0.00023 6,630 7005 607
I ii t.
?
-l
---,..~
'2 's 'S 'S '2 '2 'S,,
'S '3 '2 'S,
f g
,-6'b b
.e......
- e. s e '..
2 s
a g
y f S8.2hi5hk
$255i g
I
- h '. '. i h 222'22 3
S 2S j 664d.
444..
t 2
t c
i.te.
.SNbSN
$@@N2 q
i g
.g..
m E-t.
z w
b 5
.:. 8 I. E N b E.8
- b 2 I
I i
o v
3 dC 7
U 3 '2'2 h h h h h h h h 'S h '2 '2 t
m u
3 H_
~
j e ~
~~~~
2 P
.s w
o E
A g-I
. ?. ?.
?
?
-[
y
=-
a ses sa...
444s.
gj I
I:
e
~
z i.
CC "e
TS Z
g W
31-O g.
m Ji
. [
g 3" 2 5
a: 3-2 * -
- f. ( s* t.
222((
i.
a.
it 2
S R
3:
2 31 u
m 5.
'A W
3 E
!3' si i s"
?
O
- ' '. 5
- j gj j
3-e i
W iI
- 4 j.
- . {' j E-
,3 :
u
't. :-
L r
....... =..
g o.t 8".3.s3. l':
W 1"E 444444412 4444.
3:
.m 3.
c s:
e w
s3:
I !!
g
- . :::1 :!I U
8"
.7:
j%-
.ee.2--
e e. 2..e
- :-... i.
1.
fa.
O
- ! - & & j *.
j %.* 13.&.3 1:
.3
- S g
a:
Sa J-5.
3 y
gjf 44444ifdd 4ia44
[i:
'.15."
3 s
i.
lli".s :t 8l r
a o
ft.$egh :g
-a-M
.'.P 3. 3. 3 *. 3.1 8
1 3
2.
H
}&
' ' ' b.b. '. b. b b.
- 6. b.'. b. b.
1
,3 3,_y
- g.2 -
3..,.,.g n
.e.-.........
!.I... -..d* 11. t!e e
W s,--....-..
. a. - -.s.-.a.
- c a
2 33)iEIIIIIEE i!!II 32 III E3 e
t roos aos POUR ORBilEL
~
ATTACHMENT 3 April 13, 1979 f
Editor Washington Post Washington, D.C'.
.. g Dcar Editor:
As Secretary of Health for the Commonwealth of Pen sylvania, I wish to comment on your April 6 article about the Hea..th, Education and Welfare Secretary recommending the administration of. potassium iodide to those' in the immediate vfcinity of the Threc Mile Island (TMI) Plant.
At the time wo received'the
~'
Secretary's recocmendation, it seemed,'inappropriato to administer the drug when there was no scientific ~ indication cf any signifi-cant radiation.
According to Secretary Califano's own testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research on April 7, the maxinum exposure to any person was no more than 35 millirems--a level considered by authoritics in the field to be insignificant.
As potassium iodide was shipped into Pennsylvania, the Depart =ent of Health was in a constant state of readiness to distributo it to all people in the area, not only those at the site.
For the first six days after the incident, we contin-uously sought advice from the National Council on. Radiation Protection, HI d.ls Bureau of Radiation Health in the Food and brug Administration (FDA), the nuclear Re:gulatory commission (UCR), the Department of Energy, and some of the country's leading medical soecialists in radiation health.
All agreed that we hold the drug in readiness and not administer it unless there was an expectation of imminent exposure to at least 1.0,000 millirems of radiation.
^^o i 0s o09 NOR ORl8lut
ATTACHMEi4T 3 (continued)
Editor Page 2 April 13, 1979 We had expert assurances that notiao of any such likelihood would be sufficient to distribute and stinister the drug.
Other considerations which influenced our decision:
1)
The possibility of a severe skin rash, plus side effects to those with thyroid diseases, to unborn children, and to the elderly with cardiac problems; 2)
The possibility of precipitating unnecessary panic among the populace simply by announcing
~~-
the distribucion; and 3)
The possibility that premature ingestion of the drug would diminish its effectiveness further into the incident, if prolonged, when the protection might actually be needed.
I_ach of these factors militated against distribation; consequently I felt obliged to advise Governor Thornburgh that e
the public's health and safety would best be served by with-holding the potassium iodide.
Sincerely, Gordon K. MacLeod, M.D.,
F.A.C.P.
Secretary of 'IIcalth Commonwealth of Pennsylvania GKM:crm cc:
File b
i s 01o
?0011Ol181ML