ML19323A947
| ML19323A947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1980 |
| From: | Dieckamp H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Ertel A HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323A948 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0662, RTR-NUREG-662 NUDOCS 8005070558 | |
| Download: ML19323A947 (3) | |
Text
558'*
800 070 y
se,m.n o. c"**a 5
Pres, dent W c.
7=--
GENERAL
[
?
PUBLIC
! p 7
g D q g' r
r F
UTILITIES Me J
D 100 twaace Pamwa,
-M CORPORATION d
ds JU Pars pany. New Jersey 07054 O
201 263 6500 0
m 9 us t
1 TELEX 129.:32 g
Wr:ter s Direct Dial Nt.mter 201-263-6030 April 25, 1980 The Honorable Allen E.
Ertel 1030 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D. C.
20515
Subject:
Three Mile Island Krypton-85 Venting
Reference:
Congressman Ertel letter to n.airnan Ahearne dated April 21, 1980
Dear Congressman Ertel:
wril 21 letter to Chair-Thank you for sending us a copy of yc:r man Ahearne. Thank you also for ja.;; _.. _ _ c o.: t in the TMI clean-up program.
We note that your letter does not identify any criteria or judgment concerning the apprcpriate ::andard for clean-up activity impact on the public.
t;nder the ccmpany's venting proposal the public will receive bet *.:een 1/100 (at the site boundary) and 1/20,000 (average within 50 milas, :f the e.:pected exposure from natural environmental sourcc dunc.g th: 30 day venting period.
Venting the Krypton-85, under pradetermined meteorological con-ditions, results in a dose to the surrcunding population within 50 miles that is calculated to be about 1 person-rem; i.e.,
the summation of the dose to all inalviduals or the average dose times the number of individuals affected.
The concept of person-rem is not one of general public knowledge but is a
'eaningful parameter for indicating health impact under the assumption of linear dose effect.
It is possible to place the health impact of venting in perspective by comparing the resulting exposure to that imposed by the natural environment.
That ex-posure is, for central Pennsylvania, about 0.120 rem / year.
In this comparison, we have used the zhcle body gamma exposure which is, for this case, the e: pesure of controlling significance.
Independent of venting or TM: the 2 million people in the 50 mile radius around TMI will receive en the average 0.01 rem each from natural environmental sources for an integrated person-rem dose of 20,000; i.e.,
(.01) x (2,000,000) during the 30 day venting period. Thus the venting dose to the public is, on average, 45 1/20,000 of the environmental exposure.
\\ \\
Jercey Central Power & Light Comcan.', Metroconf aq Eoscn Comparv/ Pennsv!vania E!ectnc Company
a o April 25, 1980 For an individual at the site boundary, as contrasted with the average within 50 miles, the calculated venting exposure is 0.0001 rem and results, for that individual, in a person-rem dose of 0.0001 (.0001 x 1) compared with his expected environ-mental dose of.01 (.01 x 1), during the same time period. Thus, the venting dose at the site boundary is 1/100 of the environ-mental exposure.
In other terms the total site boundary dose to an individual frcm venting is equal to the natural background exposure cne receives in each S hour period or about 1/200 of that received frcm one chest x-ray.
Since we are unaware of any demonstrable health effects from the average environmental exposure in the central Pennsylvania area and since the venting will contribute an almost undetect-able addition to that exposure, we have concluded that the public interest is best served by not delaying the clean-up process and not incurring even the slightest possibility of an uncontrolled release in the interest of further reductions to an already undemonstrable effect.
Every step forward we take to remove the radioactive material lowers the threat to public health and safety. Any step available to be taken which is ignored or unnecessarily delayed only prolongs the exposure of the public to potential hazard.
The problem we all struggle with is the impossibility of describing exactly the magnitude and extent of the hazards.
But the judgments of all concerned are near-unanimous that the public's best interests are served by rapid clean-up of the island.
We recognize that there is a clear difference between the scien-tific and the public perception of the impact of the proposed venting. I am sure that we can all agree that the clean-up must be safely and expeditiously completed. I sense a great need for responsible public officials to support the efforts of those conducting and regulating the clean-up effort.
The public sorely needs reassurance from their chosen leaders that their interests and their health are being properly protected by the use of technically sound and safe methods.
We stand ready to cooperate with you and other responsible individuals or organizations to provide the basis for such support.
, 'I y
. u x,
._s c
lda H.
Diecxeap i
cc: Hon. John F. Ahearne, Chairman, NRC Hon. Victor.Gilinsky, Commissioner, NRC Hon. Peter Bradford, Commissioner, NRC Hon. Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioner, NRC Hon. Richard T. Kennedy, Commissioner, N'.'
Hon. Charles Duncan, Secretary, DOE Mr. George W. Cunningham, Asst. Sec. for Nuclear Energy, DOE Mr. Jack H. Watson, Jr., Asst. to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs Hon. Richard Thornburgh, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Mr. Robert C. Arnold, Exec. Vice President, Metropolitan Edison Mr. Walter Vannoy, President., Babcock and Wilcox Mr. R.
.T. Hart, Union Carbide t
bec:
Mr. John T.
Collins Mr. William J.
Dircks Mr. Harold Denton
/Dr. Bernard Snyder Cong. Robert S. Walker Cong. William F.
Goodling i
Mr. Clifford L. Jones Miss Joyce Freeman Mayor Robert Reid 1
e
,,