ML20092G569

Motions for Investigation of Licensee Repts of Radioactive Releases During Initial Days of TMI-2 Accident & Postponement of Restart Decision Pending Resolution of Investigation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20092G569
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/21/1984
From:	Aamodt M, Aamodt N AAMODTS
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8406250156
Download: ML20092G569 (32)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- ) r %hUDM . ~j 7 C00,5rcc, J?.w : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '84 og pp gp,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS: l ((,. ' 5 - Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman ~ f '" Victor Gilinsky James Asselstine Thomas Roberts Frederick Bernthal In.the Matter of HETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPAh7 Docket 50-289 Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 AAMODT MOTIONS FOR INVESTIGATION 0F LICENSEE'S REPORTS OF RADIOACTIVE RELEASES DURING THE INITIAL DAYS OF THE THI-2 ACCIDDTI AND POSTPONEMENT OF RESTART DECISION PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIS INVESTIGATION O .I %hO O

c 151 ABSTRACT Interviews with residents in two areas which were in the path of radioactive releases from TMI-2 March 28, 29 and 30, 1979 demonstrate cancer deaths seven times greater than the Pennsylvania average. { Interviews with residents in these areas reveal that radiation-related health effects were experienced on March 28, 29, 30 1979 which could have resulted from exposures of 5 to 100 rems or more. Analysis of flora growth abnormalities observed in the same f geographic area are demonstrably

• the result of severe radiation exposure.

These three sets of observations are compelling evidence of release of airborne radioactive materials during the accident at THI-2 orders of magnitude greater than have been acknowledged by the 1 i Licensee, the MRC Staff or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The significance of this conclusion, in the context of the Restart Proceeding, is that 1. the records of airborne releases of radioactive materials during the early hours of the accident.which the Licensee asserts were " lost", were more likely intentionally destroyed to prevent disclosure of the hazard the accident posed to the health of the residents of the region. 2. the estimates of core damage and resultant source terms were intentionally minimized on March 31, 1979 to similarly deceive the public, and e i i g e ---e- - - - - - --

,E l 3. although residents have attempted to raise the issue of serious health effects which occurred during the early days of the accident as well as illnesses which have subsequently developed, the Licensee has maintained its posture of deception to this day, asserting as recently as April 1984 in a newsletter to stockholders that no human injury has been caused by the TMI-2 accident. Therefore, we herein motion the Commission to stay its decision in rendering a judgement as to this licensee's fitnes to operate the .TMI-Unit 1 until these allegations are fully examined.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Restart of TMI-1 is pendant upon a judgement that the Licensee's management possesses the integrity needed to safeguard the public from the potential dangers of plant operation. We herein present evidence that, in the early days of the accident, people who lived at high elevations in a generally northwesterly direction from the plant were subjected to radiation exposures of 100 rems or more. The significance of this evidence lies in the fact that the Licensee, as well as the NRC and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, holds a publicly stated position that raadiation releases at the time of the accident were negligible and that this position is supported by the willful withholding of data by Licensee which would prove this position false. Licensee asserts that missing radiation records from the first day of the acciddent and the missing vent filters were " lost". We believe that they were intentionally destroyed.

.c ) 1 Beyoad this, we believe that the subsequent venting - with helicopter measurements of 1200 nr directly over the plant on March 30, 1979 - demonstrate the presence of hazardous doses to the population. These measurements were grossly optimistic for two reasons: First, the helicopter blades forced the plume away from the measuring instrument and, secondly, the measuring device did not measure beta and alpha emissions from particulates, which, we believe, comprised a significant portion of the releases. ' Finally, no dosimetry was on the ground in the areas we have surveyed where we found severe health effects. Yet, despite repeated assertions by residents of the areas over which plumes passed that significant radiation effects were experienced by them, not a single evaluation of these claims has appeared on the record of the Restart Proceeding. i Following is a summary of the results of only a few weeks of surveying the population in areas where several plumes passed in the o early days. 3.0 THE HEALTH SURVEY 3.1 METHOD A group of womend, several of whom had expertise in conducting survey, went from door-to-door. A form, organized on the basis of information provided by Dr. Carl Johson of Denver, Colorado was used. (See Attachment 1.)

• The primary interviewers were francine Taylor, Norma Ritterspach, Jane Lee and Marjorie Aamodt. Assisting were Joyce Corradi, Linda Barash, Sally Stephenson, Drenda Witmer, Marie.Inslee, Paula Kinney, Susan Folta, Helen Hocker, Mary Osborn, and Erna Weaver. Also interviewing were Austin Ritterspach and Cory Folta.

1 a a L

., t.

• 4 The areas selected were ones where residents had experienced erythema and metallic taste during the early days of the accident.

[ One of these areas was six miles northwest of the plant (Area 1)and the other, three and one-half miles southwest (Area 2). A third a area, seven miles northwest of the plants, was chosen because of its high elevation (Area 3) and clear view of the TMI plants. Figure 1 summarizes these area characteristics as well as age distribution of / c the residents. Amos't every household was willing to provide the information 1 solicited. There were no refusals in Area 1, four in Area 2 and 2 in Area 3. The interviewers represented themselves as a group of, citizens interested in health issues. Several other residents of the THI area, not in the precise areas surveyed, but residing or working in the area northwest of the plantswerealsointerviewedbecausewelearnedofthIirunique j experiences. i While the questionnaire did 'suggest' symptoms, the interviewers 4= ?: i found, without exception that this did not more than reinind the j participant. All interviewers were of the opinion that the residents i were conservative in their provision of information and that what was obtained was less than actually. existed.- Tor instance, a woman with i' an obvious lump in her arm did not mentica it until the interviewer r, questioned her about it. /, c n Y

f,,

f'* /, / i i- - c -( .h l f

1s; i Figure 1 - TihSCRI M10h Uk' AdEA d'AVUltS I t NEDIAU POPhuT1;U h 5 YEAR AGE AGE hAUGi 2.0 CATION RANGE l l Area 1 Elevated area.6 miles 35-39 1-80+ Northwest of TNI r Airea 2 Eleveted area 3i miles 35-39 1-604 l L Southwest of TMI I I i Area 3 Short road high elevation 35-39 1-60+ 7 r.iles Northwest of TMI l l a t t 6 I i l-e 4

5 3.2 RESULTS OF SURVEY The survey produced the following significant information: 4 a. a cancer death rate for each area from six to over eight times greater than expected, b. a large number of cancers and other tumors diagnosed after

1979, s

c. a number of other serious health effects, and d. first-hand accounts by residents of exposure to plumes in each of the areas surveyed. 4 3.21 CANCER DEATil RATE Figure 2 presents the cancer death rate analysis. Based on data obtained concerning only those 313 persons about which information was.obtained, the ever til cancet-mortality rate for the five y2ar period since the accident was 6.5 times higher than expected. Even if it were assumed that there were no cancer deaths among the 144 persons about whom no,information was -htained, the mortality rate is-S.2 times higher than expected. The-hig~ nest rates were in Areas 1 and 3. These. areas also provide the caet reliable data since essentially the entire populations were surveyed. m D' ~.s M

Z _

+ .[ ' ~ ~ .M' g O, W. , ~, 1 g' c .>,4 w f*g. --.3- ~ e

FIGURE 2 CANCER DEAEI RATE ANALYSIS AREA 1 2 3 All Number of houses in Area 35 93 15 143 Total Number of households 1979.- 1964 42 17 Number of Household about which Information wac obtained 40 56 14 110 Number of Fersons about which Inforcation was obtained 112 156 45 313 Es'timated Number of Persons in all Ecuseholde 1979 - 1954 11L* 288* 51* 457* Expected Cancer Deaths,2 based 1 on All Persons in All Ecuseholds 1.27 3.10 0.55 4.95 Iersons atout which Information was obtained 1.21 1.68 0.48 3.37 Actual Cancer Leaths 7 9 4 20 Ratio of Actual to Expected Based on A13 Persons 5.51 2.90 7.26 4,oe 3esed on Telsons Surveyed 5.79 5.3C 8.33 s.45 . Estimated on' basis of 3.1 persons / family not surveyed + 1 215.6/100,000/yr. - Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Table 21, Vol. 31., No. 6, Supplement 9/30/82 2 For five year period 1979 - 1984

.s.. 3.22 OTHER HEALTil EFFECTS - DIAGNOSED CANCERS AND TUMORS Shown below are the number of diagnosed cancers and other tumors among living persons in each of the three areas. These data would suggest a continuing cancer mortality rate far in excess of that expected. FIGURE 3 - CANCERS AND TUMORS DIAGNOSED - PERSONS LIVING AREA NUMBER 1 6 2 10 3 3 ALL 19 3.23 OTHER HEALTH EFFECTS-Other health effects picked up by the survey were most notably five cases of anemia, four cases of spontaneously ruptured or collapsed organs, seven persistent rashes and eleven birthing abnormalities in nineteen pregnancies. Three of the four cases of ruptured or collapsed organs occurred in Area 3; the fourth case was in Area 1. A fifth case-(subject of Affidavit 6) occurred out of the areas surveyed but in a northwesterly direction from THI and to an individual who was subjected to fallout from a plume,on Friday, March 30, 197. J

a , o _7 FIGURE 4-COLLAPSED AND RUPTURED ORGANS 4 Effect Year Age Lung Collapsed 1980 19 Aortic Valve Ruptured 1981 43 Spleen Ruptured 1983 53 Kidney Collapsed 1983 55 (Approx.) Artery to Heart 90% Blocked 1984 29 .The eleven birthing abnormalities were as follows: one birth defect, miscarriage (fetus outside of uterus), four other miscarriages, one stillbirth, three Caesarean Sections and one premature. The dates of these occurrences were not identified in all cases, however all occurred since March 1979. The birth defect and the pregnancy outside the uterus occured in 1979. 3.24 STATEMENTS OF RESITENTS WHO EXPERIENCED A RADI0 ACTIVE PLUME DURING THE INITIAL DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT Affidavits,1 through 7 present first-hand accounts of the touchdown of plumes. The individuals supporting Affidavits 1 through 4 reside in the three areas surveyed. Affidavit 5 presents additional evidence of plume touchdown near Area 3. Affidavit 6 presents the account of a resident' insult from a plume several miles beyond Area 1 on a northwesterly line from TMI.. Affidavit 7 presents an individual's experience with a plume six and one-half miles north - northwest of TMI before 8 'a.m. March 28, 1979. -Figure 5 summarizes the date, location and extent of each individual's experience. O

FIGURE 5 INDIVIDUALS' RADIATION EXPOSURE P AFFIDAVIT AREA 'DATE [iMPTOMS 1 1 3/29/79 Erythemia Metallic Taste Burning Throat Hair Loss Rashes 2 2 4/2/79 Erythemia Metallic Taste Nausea 4 3 3/28/79 Tearing Eyes (evening) 5 Near 3 3/28, Nausea 29/79 Metallic Taste Exposed Film 6 Beyond 1 3/30/79 Erythemia Tingling Skin Hair Greying and Loss Discoloration of Skin Skin Cysts O a O Y o , -r. 9 4 i'a -,s

e -E-4.0 RADIATION EFFECTS ON PLANTS Affidavit 8 was provided by Dr. James E. Gunckel, the world authority on radiation effects on plants. Dr. Gunckel's affidavit provides an explanation for the numerous abnormalities observed in a variety of plants by local residents. Dr. Gunckel examined plants and leaves provided by Mary Osborn of Swatara. The flora were gathered in the area of her home, approximately six and one-half miles north northwest of TMI. Other specimens were provided by Helen Hocker from her yard which is approximately three miles northwest of TMI. Also considered was Affidavit 9 of a farmer located two miles west of the plant. 5.0 DISCUSSION The suggestion that the cancers present in the areas surveyed were initiated by radioactive releases from the TMI accident defies the generally accepted r,heory of a period of considerable latency following exposure. We suggest that-tnis theory is not viable in the present case. We believe that the critical exposure was to beta and alpha particulates and that the general biological effects of this irradiation were similar to that described by Dr. Gunckel as effective in plants. (See Affidavit 8.) The hypothesis of particulate exposure is supported by Affidavits 1,,2, and 6. The reddening of skin occurred on exposed ' areas. According to Dr. Edward Branigan of the NRC, the dose'would be in excess of 100 rens. (Verbal communication with Mary Osborn) 1 o ) j

.* Although we present no baseline for cancer deaths for the selected areas for the five years prior to the accident, we believe that the residents reached back to recall 'recent' cancer deaths. In Area 2 two cancer deaths prior to 1979 were reported. We conclude that there were few cancer deaths (as would be expected in a population of this size), possibly only the two reported in these areas in the five year pre-accident period. This conclusion is supported by the frequently-expressed opinion of the residents as well as a medical doctor, a paramedic and two nurses we met in the area that, since the TMI accident, the ocurrence of cancer has increased enormously on the west shore and that life is terminated in a = ore rapid fashion than would be expected. Although no data is available for expectations of cancer and other tumor diagnoses, as well as the other health eficers, the runttra ct ocurrences of serieur heeltn problems in a population ot' this size is alarming. Particularly so, when according to the-residents, all of these effects ocurred after Maren 1979. Me attempted te have soil scopies from the areas analyzed. A spectral analysis has not been completed. EPA soil sampling since the accident was recently published, however we have not had an opportunity to view the data. This information has not been provided in the Restart Proceeding. The only information concerning soil -sampling that we have found in the studies of the accident is an assertion in _ the Regovin Report (Vol. II, Part 2, p. 389) that althoughLseveral radionuclides were detected in some samples, they could not be attributed to the accident. Alpha particulate . contamination was not determined since it was assumed that uranium t v

6 and plutonium isotopes had not escaped in view of the Licensee's representation of only one to two percent core damage. These positions are no longer tenable in view of the more recent recognition of extensive core damage. Alpha emitters, if ingested or inhaled, can produce severe health effects. ( See Attachment 2.) Aside from the failure of NRC or the Licensee to survey for alpha pa'rticulate contamination, we have little confidence in any official data so far provided. An independent dose assessment study commissioned by the Burger Fund about two years ago and conducted by Jan Beyea may soon provide some more reliable information. This study has been completed and has received peer review, however it is, unfortunately, languishing in the court in Harrisburg. Although the Beyea study may provide conclusive evidence tc support our position that the the cerious. health cffects on the west shore are related to radioactive releases during the initial days of the accident, consideration of our motion need not await its-pablication. The personal affidavits provide clear evidence of high radiation dose to residents of the west shore. The health data shovs severe effects on the health of the residents in the areas studied. According to an authority (See Attachment 2, p. 151) "Whereas the effects of radiation are nonspecific, i.e., other agents or diseases ( . can cause the same damage...where the effects of-radiation are being studied, conclusions can (only) be drawn on the basis of in cidence -of a particular-type of damage above that normally occurring-in a comparable poulation." Clearly the incidence of cancer deaths-in the l areas studied far exceeds the expected, and this high incidence is. clearly tied to the TMI-2 accident by the personal experiences of, the E_._ residents.with high radiation exposure. J

d g ... It is a fact that the Licensee, the NRC and the Co=monwealth of Pennsylvania have no data in their possessian which can define the quantity of radioactive materials emitted over the areas of this study during the early days of the accident. On the other hand, the record is replete with evidence of radiation release records being " lost", filters being " lost" and calculations and measurements of high dose rates being explained away or denegrat,1. (See NUREG-0600,II-397; II-3-18; II-3-77; NUREG-0760 at 31-33.)

6.0 CONCLUSION

S The evidence is here. A grossly high cancer mortality rate is present exactly where plumes traveled in the early days of the accident. The fact that radiation nonitoring data and TMI plant records have been " lost" cr misconstrued only emphasizes the point that the Licensee conspired to hide the seriousness of the accident. The Licensee alone monitored radiation releases during the initial days of the accident. 6 . was. -w-S i p-m-

7.0 HOTIONS 1. We move that the Commission act immediately to investigate the circumstances surrounding the falsification of radiation emission information in the early days of the accident and during subsequent investigations of the accident. We move that the Commission take a prime role in this investigation. 2. We move that the Commission postpone any decision relative to restart'of Unit 1 until the matter of Motion 1 has been fully resolved. Respectfully submitted, ) [ /') t s _ _ _ _ _%_ _ A_&_ _ _ _'_ _"___'_ _ _W'A Marjori,a H. Aamodt / s .A41l_________________. ./ . Norman 0. Aamodt 4 June 21, 1984 Der ' y g-s--

AFFIDAVIT 1 l On April 24, 1984, I, provided the following infermation in response to a questionnaire presented by Francine Taylor of Lancaster, Pa. and to 4 Marjorie Aamodt in a subsequent interview that same day. I also provided Ms. Aamodt with a letter which was addressed to Governor Thornburgh and is dated November 19, 1981. I never received an answer to this letter. The letter is attached to this affidavit and is to J be considered a part of it. i At the time of the TMI accident, I was living at 6, not far from my present home. This area is approximately four miles northwest of TMI Concerning my experiences following the accident at TMI: On Thrusday, March 29, 1979, I was working all day with my son in our garage. The garage doors were open. That night when I took a shower, my face, neck and hands looked like I was at the seashore and got burned real bad. I felt nauseous. My eyes were red and burning. I felt like I was looking through water. Friday morning when I got out of bed, my lips and nose were blistered, and my throat and inside my chest felt like firec It tasted like burning galvanized steel. My son had similar experiences He was 22 years old at the time. On Friday we decided to evacuate. While packing our truck, a township police of ficer, in a closed car, shouted over his loudspeaker system, " Bill, don't breath this air Get inside'" We spent the first night in Mechanicsburg with relatives. We convinced -ther f amily members to go with us and traveled to Front Royal, Va on Saturday. k'e stayed at a camp ground in Front Royal for about one week i During this time I experienced stvere diarrhea which caused rectal hisedf.ng We took one of our dogs with us, a German Shepherd, female. Fc110 wing our arrival in Virginia, the dog passed only blood from the rectum and ileed from the nose and mouth. Since I felt that these conditions may have been caused by nervousness due to our flight, I gave her a sedative When we returned home, we went in the garage first and found 'our male German Shepherd had died. His eyes were milky white. We had provided about 100 lb. of food and 50 gallons of water, however, he had only drunk water, about five gallons. It appeared that he had thrown up some of this water before he died. We had five cats that lived in a box on the back porch. All but one was dead. All cats had milky white eyes. The one living cat had one eye that was milky white: skin grew over this eye during the following weeks. This cat lived for about six mgnths af ter the accident. She had kittens prior to her death. The kittens were born dead and hairless I should also note that we noted a metallic taste when we entered our ha home after the evacuation. My son and I have both experienced hair loss; mine was on my head, arms, legs and torso. This hair has regrown. My son lost hair on his arms and torso, which has also regrown. In 1981 a sore developed on my leg. The sore remained for two years, healing after we moved to Florida The effected area is still detectable as a faint discoloring. The skin was inflammed, open, and raised; the doctor's diagnosis was uncertain. Also in 1981 my wife, 3E5E3, was diagnosed as baving paroxysmal tachycardia and in 1982 as having an underactive thyroid. I have also experienced problems with my heart. Although I had had a slight summer prior to the accident, I had passed a physical required for racing cars. However, in December 1980 I needed to undergo an aortic valve replacement. I was 43 years old at the time. The spring following the accident, our walnut trees did not produce l any leaves, and there were no walnuts. There were no flies or other flying l insects until July 1979. There were no birds, squirrels or pheasants

The spring following the accident, our valnut trees did not produce any leaves, and there were no walnuts. There were no flies or other flying insects until July 1979. 'Ihere were no birds, squirrels or pheasants for about a year and one-half following the accident. I found a number of dead birds. A number of neighbors died of cancer. In 1983, I felt that I could not continue to live in this neighborhood, so c'.ose to the TMI plants. I sold my home and business ) at considerably less than its appraised value and moved to Florida. However, we returned this year and are living in a new home at M g, near our previous home. We got homesick. My daughter and grandchildren live in this area, as well as other rplatives, and telephone consnunication with them was not suf ficient contact. My son left with us for Flofida and has stayed there. I had been in business in Fairview Township, York County, for twenty-two years. I operated an automobile sales and service shop. I was involved in community affairs as a justice of the peace and in politics as a committeeman. All of the at ove information was provided voluntarily, and I attest to its truthfulness. k. .. = = v_,, y.. -.... 7 _IN _.W_ Ji ~ _+ 2 t* K y C * :- G, A:.:.., = =c-c,fg%-.c -- ;-W_.P.de . x 4w g., 1 p y r 4 to t*Itk l,' s ..e.. --v' -j,. l i Se l l l- = - - -

s AFFIDAVIT 2 On May 5,1984, I, M, provided the following information to Marjorie Aamodt at my place of residence on M M My residence is approximately 1 -3 miles south west of THI and is at a high elevation, On Monday evening, April 2, 1979, after returning from West Virginia where I had evacuated with my family, I worked outside on my camper from approximately 6 until 7 p. m. My family stayed inside. When my wife called me in for supper, my skin was burning. My face arms and hands were reddened and remained that way for ahr.W /.2 bes.,I had a metallic taste. I felt nauseous. I felt " funny in the head". I took a shower that evening before going to bed. Since I had a head cold, I went to the doctor's the next day. I told my doctor about my experiences the following evening. He read from a book what symptoms are related to radiation exposure. We noted that these symptoms matched what I had experienced, however the doctor reassured me that nothing had come out of the plant. Concerning the weather conditions on the Monday evening, April 2, 1979, I recember that there was a light mist over the area. Date Sworn W s 4 _ ~,,,,

AFFIDAVIT 3 I, provided the following inf,ormation to Marjorie Aamodt in a telephone conversation on June 18, 1984. I was ill with the flu at the time df the TMI accident. I was in bed most of the time. However, one day, which I believe was Friday, March 30, 1979, I was out of bed and decided to shake out a throw rug. I went out on the porch. It sounded as if it was raining. The sound appeared to be in the trees. I could not see any rain so I reached out beyond the porch roof to try to feel it. I did not feel any rain on my hands or arms. I was extremely puzzled, I was impressed by the stillness except for the sound of rain. There were no sounds of birds or other sounds to which we are accustomed. This all seemed very strange, however I was too sick at the time to pursue the matter further, so I returned to bed. My certainty in dating this event on March 30, 1979 is tied to a telephone call I received later that same day. A neighbor called to tell me that my j son had been taken from his school to Dillsburg because of the THI l accident, and she solunteered to pick him up. I could never get the experience of the silence and the rain-like sound out of my mind. Subsequently, several of my friends told me about similar experiences at the same time. One of these friends is - - - I and my sons remained during the accident. We would have chosen to leave, however I am a widow, and I did not have suffiencient financial resources to leave. O Date----------------1 i ii

a l AFFIDAVIT 4 On April 28, 1984, at my home, M, I related the following experiences that I had at the time of the accident at TMI. On Wednesday evening, March 28, 1979, unaware of any problems at the TMI plants, my wife and I were outside in the evening to take a walk on our =treet. The walk lasted approximately ten minutes. That evening, my eyes began to water and burn. My eyes watered throughout the entire night. In the fall of 1982, I began to have problems with my eyes. My eyes felt like_they wer'e burning. About three months after this occurred, I decided to see a doctor. At this time the skin around my eyes was irritated and red, and there was a distinct red mark on the innerside of my nose. Although the redness around my eyes has disappeared, the mark on my nose has remained. The first doctor appeared unable to help, and since I was troubled about my eye condition, unique to me during my lifetime, I saw a second doctor. I also hpd a rash on my forearms which had come and gone since shortly after March 1979. This rash is particularlynoticeable after showering and in warm weather. The dernacologist prescribed Prednizone. In 1981, my wife lllllll was diagnosed as having fibroid tumors in her uterus. These tumors were large. but were successfully removed in September of 1982. I believe that my skin conGitions and possibly my wife's tumors are related to some exposure we may have gotten from the accident at IMI. We were unaware of the problems there or any dangers to ourselves until several days after the accident. Actually, it was a TMI worker who is a neighbor and who evacuated early on..the first day of the accident who returned on the weekend to warn his neighbors to evacuate. Dated----------------------- e J

AFFIDAVIT 5 On Friday, April 29,1984, I provided the following information to Marjorie Aamodt in my dental office in @ Pa., located at this information concerned my experiences on Wednesday and Thrusday, March 28 and 29, 1979. On those days I discovered that the X-ray films in my dental of fice in 6 were fogged. This office is located on the corner of h ~ and @ in a stone building S miles north west of TMI. The film fogging can be described as alternately 1.ight and dark banding, across the entire film. Approximately 75 films were "fogge'd". These films had been placed in a little container for easy access in the X-ray room. The~X-ray room has an outwall of cinderblock and gypsum board. The film is iP2 oral film, fast D film, 0.2 mr exposure. The machine is marked as 70 KV, 7.5 m. amps, 3/10 sec., for jaw exposure On Friday following, March 30, 1979, I posted new film outside the building each day for an entire week, however these films were not exposed. On Wednesday and Thrusday, March 28 and 29, 1979, I experienced a metalish taste and a queasy stcoach. I felt " funny" and expressed this feeling to my receptionist. At that time I had no knowledge of the accident at TMI. e Oo Date Sworn / t 6

• O AFFIDAVIT 6

~ 1, provided the following information to Jane Lee and Marjorie Aamodt on May 11, 1984. On Friday evening, March 30, 1979, I was standing on the front My home faces south. It was raining, and the wind porch of my home. All of a sudden the cat that had been let out began to i j was blowing. I had never heard a sound like that from howl in a most unusual way. I called the cat by name, however it did not this or any other cat. From the direction of the howling, I could tell that the come home. I went over to the bannister and leaned cat was under the porch. over to call the cat again. While standing in this position at the east side of the porch, I experienced a most unusual sequence of events. Suddenly, the wind stopped; there was a movement in the limbs The of the trees next to the porch, and a wave of heat engulfed me. Then the wind started again. gust of heat brought the rain over me. This.all happened in about one minute. I was so startled that I went in, taking the cat,_who had by now come up on the porch. I wiped the My face felt cat's wet coat and then washed my hands and face. tingly. About an hour later, I washed My face again and wiped my arms and legs with the towel. I noticed that my arms and face were pink. I applied a 10 tion because my skin felt tingly. On Saturday morning. my skin was a darker pink, and there was an itch at the front of my scalp. This was the only part of my scalp that was not covered by a scarf. When I went to church on Sunday, my friends commented that I locked healthy and sunburned. On tnis day, hard little lunps, a little bigger than a pinhead appeared on my forehead and into the hairline. On Tuesday, my scalp felt prickly and tingly, so I washed my hair again, shampooing it three times which is more than I customarily do. (I generally wash my hair once a week.) About three weeks later, I noticed that a lot of gray hairs had appeared across the front of my hair. When I washed my hair that week, my comb eas full of hair. The next week, the loss of hair increased. I called my hairdresser,W who subsequently applied treatments which he believed would arrest the loss of hair. The hair loss did appear to The gray hairs have also disappeared, and my hair is now stop. uniformly brown as it was before the events described. In the subsequent weeks, the skin on my forearms and neck turned darker and was scaly. This condition lasted for several years. There is however some permanent discoloration however it not prominent. My forearms were, and continue to be, very sensitive to the sun, becoming itchy with exposure. I try to avoid sunlight. I have also noticed that if my arms are injured, the bruise will last longer than was normal for me prior to the events described above. i e

A number of spots have appeared on my face and chest. These appeared after the tiny hard bumps went away. Six of these spots, or pimples, remain. Some of the pimples have yellow centers. The size of these pimples appears to have diminished somewhat, and they are not sensitive, however I am uncomfortable with this condition of my skin, unlike its condition prior to the events described above. Of greatest concern to me presently is the loss of the function of a kidney. Toward the end of November 1982, I was in renal failure. My doctor described my condition as an unusual case. He stated that one of my kidneys had died. I was in Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of Drs. Bean and Eaton. I have not fully recovered, and I have not been able to resume my customary social and household activities. I live on a farm with my husband. We were not able to evacuate during the accident, although I wanted to leave, because my husand would not ask anyone else to stay to do his job of caring for the animals. Despite our continual attention to the cattle, we experienced the first deformed calves ever born on our farm the following spring. The calves' heads hung to one side until they were six months old. Their necks appeared twisted. I also noted that the Norway maple by our home had deformed leaves which were curled at the edges.

k. s... n.

Date------- S Se Y

AFFIVADIT 7 I, M reside at six and one-half miles north northwest of THI. This was also my residence at the time of the TMI accident as well as that of my husband, son and daughter. On the morning of March 28, 1979, my husband was putting his tools into his truck. It was six o' clock in the morning when he came in to ask me to go out and smell the air. I wondered to myself whether it would be the Hershey chocolate smell or the aroma of Capitol Bakers' bread. This time the air was different. The air smelled like metal. It was overwhelming. I could taste metal in my .It seemed as though as every taste bud in my mouth could mouth. sense this metal. We were very puzzled. Later that morning, at 8 o' clock, my son and I walked my daughter to the bus stop. There was no metallic smell in the air. 1 Cate-------------_------ 9 .O n 4 f 6

J AFFIDAVIT 8 I, M of provided the following information to Jane Lee, a neighbor, and Marjorie Aamodt at uy sip home on on Monday, May 7,1984. I provided this information voluntarily and attest to its truthfulness. My home is approximately 2 miles from the ret 1 plants. My house faces in that direction and is north west of TMI. I have several trees in my frontyard. One of these, a maple at the south corner of the yard next to a wooden fence appeared to be af fected by the accident at THI. This tree is about.So years old and is still living, however it has undergone considerable changes. About a week after the accident, I 1 noticed that the leaves in the center of the tree were turning brown. The leaves then dropped off leaving a circle of defoliation about twelve feet in diameter. The next year the barked dropped off many branches. This caused these branches to die. About one-fourth of the limbs are now gone. The top of the tree, which was the area that was af fected af ter the accident, now has few leaves. Two pear trees, one a Keifer and.the other a Harvest, both planted in the late 1920's, have died. Sig trees had been good bearing trees prior to the accident, however they all produced dwarfed pears after the accident. The number of bears decreased also. Since the accident, I can no longer grow clover seed. because the clover yields so few seeds. In 1981, the last - year I grew clover, there were only 0 -/o seeds per stem, whereas 1.got about 75-425 seeds per stem before the accident. This problem has affected other farmers in my area, but is not a problem on a farm in this area but at a greater distance from the TMI plar.ts, approximately/2-6'nt les. I attribute the decrease in. seed production to the disappearance of bunble beca that pollinate clover. Last year we had.no apples from our 3 trees. One apple tree, in the yard, started ' going back' af ter the accident. Last year, it only had a couple of leaves, three blossoms and no apples. The only crop that 'does good' is potatoes. We have had a number of problems with livestock including sows th'at'did not come into heat. These sows were not born on my farm, but were purchased from a farm near here. I was inside my house on the day of the accident and stayed in most of the time. I have a rash 'back of my ' ear'and down.on the side of my face' ever since the Krypton venting began. I have lived in this area all of my life and have farmed since /9 Q,. ?y M y k Q:S Q f 5 Y $. m. _ =. m c -.as~ m m ) ~ {[ ..a =. ,,_.,z._ .-l$ ~ All,4m. de l cans oo ay fc f en/s cold 4)b'l, end l danw +cofe a d the pass JJ. & &m i q L --a g.- w - p --w,, ,- w = - - m ---n

The Bulletin

l.,

of the Torrey Botanical Club l Edstor sn Chief: James E. Gunckel N.',2 N i=- 1:ay 11,19Bh FFImVIT 9 I have carefully exanined a few specimens of cmman plants cellected shortly after the accident at "SI and empared them with specimens collected more recently. The current abncmalities are probably 'carrj ed ferward by induced chrmesemal aberraticns. There were a number of ancnalies entirely ccnpcraSle to those induced by icni::ing radiation -- stem fr. sed aticts, growth stimulatien, iniction of extra vegetative buds and stem tumors. 1:ost of the ste abncmalities described in the literature, and in my own experience, are in6ced by relatively high doses of I or rs=ma rays extending over a period of usually 2 ~1 menths. Notable.v.eptions, however, are sinilar responses to beta ray exposare frcn radicisotepes (P32, znU, cam) and for onl: 2h hours. In other words, it would have been possible for the types of plant abnormt.lities observed to have beeh in6ced by radicactive fallout i on March 29, 1979 In discussing the general biclodcal effects of irradiation, scue clari-fication may be helpfbl. In plants, the dose rate (e.g., mr/hr) is much more imprtant than total dose (e.g., mr/yr) in inducing abnomalities.

Further, the aquality factorn for gamma and beta radiation is not the same as generally assumed. In fact, I have incontrovertible experimental results to show that beta rays are at least a quality factor of two in plants.

I am the world authority on modifications of plant growth and develo;nent induced by ionizinC radiations, having researched this area for. 3h years at -the Brookhaven Natienal Imboratory and at Rutgers University. The three review papers appended attest to my expertise. E ~ James E. Dunckel

Case numbar [b ATTACHMENT N1 A VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY HEALTH SURVEY Date: Location

1. Have yoit been contacted by the Pa. Dept. of Health survey on TMI?

When? .!. Family name Willing to participate? yes no 3. Family members

nEg, status n N~

3/28/79b3ffhb0 3/30/79 (doctor) If deceased, when? onset of illt.ess Diagnosis Dr.

4. Current address and phone no.:

Address on 3/28/1979: ~ % Persons outdoors? ngg 3/28-hours 3/29-hours 3/30-hours ti. If vacated the area: y)LS .1.2 MARIE Whtn,Jg.ft--when returned 7/. Did anyone notice (indicate date, time, who)

a. unusual atmospheric conditions

b. metallic taste, smell

c. eye irritation, burning

d. skin'tritation,

, reddening

e. irritation of nose, throat, chest

f. experience nausea

g. experience vomitino

h. experience diarrhea

1. experience headaches

~ J. develop hypothyroidism hyperthroidism

k. within 2-4 wks unusual hair loss or color change

1. red spots under skin bleeding gums

m. unusual bleedino

n. cancer form tre atment doctor

o. later was there confirmed (doctor) anemia blood or thyroid disorder g, women If pregnant, date of last menstrual period before 3/28/79 Complications with pregnancy?

stillbirth miscarriage premature birth Date of birth Wt. at birth health of child since birth caesarean section ' Date of birth wt. at birth health ofchild since birth crib death Cl, History of disorders in family. tree (leukemia, cancers, thyroid,etc.)

10. Animals. gamg ace in 3/79 inside/outside-alive / dead health nroblems L

Il. Additional' comments t-

Dangerous L Properties of Industriat Materials Fifth Edition N.lRVING SAX Assisted by: Marilyn C. Bracken / Robert D. Bruce / William F. Durham/ Benjamin Feiner/ Edward G. Fitzgerald/ Joseph J. Fitzgerald/ Barbara J. Goldsmith / John H. Harley/ Robert Herrick/ Richard J. Lewis /Jsrnes R. Mahoney/ John F. Schmutz/. E. June Thompson / Elizabeth K. Weisburger/ David Gordon Wilson } I VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD COMPANY w wvoax,gari g og p rai~cisco ,m._.., e .-- -,_m

i - m ~ # ~7'"""" .f-,s _ '.[*,". 'F" ~.E.7 =*iCf: *f". *?.9Ed?".w'F.~Juuu47:"{ 150 SECTION SA l l S would be completely absorbed oy 1.1 g em'of aluminum jId it would also be absorbed by 1.1 r em' of air. Howeser. ! l2 iE e e$ 9 i 'I.i the absorber thickness would be only about 0.25 mch for !oIE s h ki

• 4 [i3 the alummum and over 30 feet for air.

7,, 'I k 8 i$3 I"5E 'S De result of ionization is merely a consersion of the l "j ] j.} } h f. radiation energy into another form of energy withm the I 15 E absorber, and it is these secondary effects which are of g{:' 3~] jE{j W f;0,, The primary effects ofionization and the distribution N,E _E,y gCy j g l the greatest importance in radiation protection work. g;E c g,2 o Ea b 5 ,i S g.s 54 s '! s j i g ((] of this ionization over various path lengths in different absorbers have been mentioned previously. The differ. y z 15 6 ir a ent types of radiation also show different cegrees of e ,. sb5 absorption and these differences also are biologically 3 3 1; b,E If 5 j s)l M$ significant. Alpha particles are heavy, slow movmg.and Y2(%:' h_ $$ji ( c rj j expend their energy in a relatively short path. They are. ; $)? [ ! l*

r y!

therefore, spoken of as showmg high specific ionization. e j E :f i _E

1. 7:

), e 'E ". " 5 ;;- ] '; @fM E M i.e., a large number of ions are formed p'er unit length of t

i r

.E5 E IIi$ y " path in the absorber. Gamma and x-radiations. on the ! $l$ 'lj$ lb4 7s 3 E other hand, require a great thickness of absorber for ! g,3 g { { j.g e s g'I l40 ELE.$g low specific ionization,i.e., the ionization is spread out ; complete absorption. Gamma rays and x-rays have a j 5

.]

'E t. E l ..E r-y j over the relatively long path required for complete ab. i W '^ 3 E gj sorption. Beta particles are intermediate m their specifie jI j E E "o e a c. : g g,,,, e . ionization. . P. 51 ^ i y 5 ax E g i E. c 3 2 *E uc_2E -:iT l Biological Effects 4 a g-3 " i.j'i

• M :

1 e s il a ti i De biological effects of radiation are considered here E 54Q!E FEE only in sufficient detail to be of assistance in problems '

• l

'S $ *15. 5_E y G 5 $ $ 4 =

• • u t.

of radiation protection. Some of the information is also ', a gb.E;c *i g., $ y1 sh I b.g c requitec lot an understanding of tne concepts that hase ] $l Zpi 55:lhhg~"3 C - c E gone mto the formulation of permissible leveh. t j i i ji X-rays or y rays, because of their penetrating nature. ' J 8-cs may dissipate only a fraction of their energy m passing wl j ,3 s through the body. This is particularly true of high-energy g ggi i g-qE 'E e sy pg, gj rays. De energy dissipated is, of course, the absorbed. E E e cg gae i dose dehvered to the body or portion of the body. E8~. ' :s - .e s: c m 3 E 3 ::2 .!i~4m E * =5.s g Radioisotopes, m contrast, may present a furtner naz. E g g *, ggg& gggg i ard when the materialis taken mto the body where it it- ' *a 'I.E 2 ri !! "5. radiates the tissues or organs internally. The most senous U / I effects from this standpoint are produced by the a emit-i 5: oE g 36 f ters such as Ra. U. and Pu. Hey are particularly marked $ g;l$$s

• j 'i'I I

because o e'mitters outside the body expend their energy J ,EESI. g;E "2EE either in penetrating the clothing or the dead cells of the E,'13 y I.: (.j g E @ifE epidermis: usually the radiation cannot were en th 8 s 3 c.8.3 ine cells. Once they are taken into the body via mgestion "lj 5 h El I.,M E ,A a.e E or inhalation, this same property of short-range and high j E: T IE .9 w.5 ; y q specific sonization mereases their relatise eff ect consider-m c a ably. Emitters located in a.small section of tissue willir-I l radiate that small section very heavily. l e g { $3 l Beta emitters can be both an mternal and an external E'5 4 5 I hazard De range of most external S radiation is great -l l} j"'s{ enough that the outer tissues, at leas!, will be penetrated. 5je* The most common external effects have been radiation burns and malicnancies of the skin. Internall),they may l 6

D.ADIATION HAZARDS 151 >y produce a considerable effect Their specific inmration bone structure. Af ter deposition there is usually_a_ con-j[ is high although not as great as that for a radiation. tinuoultgretmn of t,he isotope which gradually reduces 9 The precedmg paragraphs hase emphasired the non-the amount t rey.ert. The excretion rate of such materials kc' it.ati:n effects, particulativ specific iomration. Many has been considered to follow much the same pattern as $n-see:ndary cifects can be camed by the inni7ation the radioactive decay of an isotope. The time required I process. It may disrupt molecules it may destroy body by the body to climmate one-half the total quantity it - etils, or the energy may merciv appear m fina! form as contams is thus referred to as " biological half-life." Most heat released within the absorber. Depending on the lo-of the expenmental data on excretion seem to fit a power - rti:n of the absorbing atom withm the molecule. the function which t< the resultant of a number of exponen-k ionization may or may not disrupt the molecule it this tials rather than a simple exponential function, but the f inolecule is in a critical place within the ce!!. the cell, concept of biological half life in still used in deriving F its function, or its abihty to reproduce itsett mas ne permissible levels. g destroyed Many of these processes are reversible; that Such bocy deposits may depend on many physiolog-r_ is, damage caused by molecule disruption or cell dest rue-scallactors both in the process ofdeposition and of excre-f tion can be reversed by the usual reparative mechamsm cretion.1-or many vears a high calcium diet was recum-1 of the bodv. This is_ cogi,rmed_bnxperijpeniaMat,a mended for radium workers, as it was supposed that a sh,ich snow that a fixed.tfuaLdost inrgad out over a large excess at calcium entering the body would reduce i lp I period of weeks produces,a srmilltr ctiet the the same the ammini ot Ra deposition. Actually, the relative [ Efe@Re'[inifew ginut_e.L However. in the case of radium deposition is a function of the ratio of radium }. a largi acute dose or continued chronic overexposure, to calcium in the blood stream. Unless the calcium level { there is the possibility that non-reversible damage wdi of the blood is maintained at a very high value there wil! still be detwition os radium. The increase in the blood m. occur. ( Another type of cell change which is possible is that calcium recuired to cut the radium deposition by even a I the regulative functions of a tissue may be destroyed. In factor of three would be impossible to attain, g this case a caremoma (cancer) may be produced ru-BNden the bonc structure, common sites of deposition b. though the mechamsm is not fully understood, there is are the lungs and, lymph.rtodes for MM ""W and g direct evidence that continued insult to a tissue mav specilie organs sur certain isotopes, such as the thyroid produce this result. The high rates of leukernia among lor iodine and spleen for iron _. radiologists. bone cancer among Ra dial painters, and A second cons >deration is that certain organs or tis-lung cancer among miners of the Czechoslovakian, sues are more radiosensitive than others t he membranes Gcrman. and U.S. uranium mir.e5 al! point to radiation iming the bronchi a,re supposedh ouite sensitne__tg I.u-as the causative agent. '!hn irreversible damace m diation anu tnis is the primary site of many lung cancers r ( chronic ra,d,i,ation exposure was app,ar3ntingmulatus attributed to inhaled radioactive material. The spleen _i> and the cumulative eliects led _toJI)e_l].logists, also sensitive to radiation and relatively tmm. doses t internal Emitters. The biological effects of radiation base produced more, irreversible damage.in that organ. [ from radioisotopes in the body are complicated by sev-than m__other,,,p,y.11.ojJhe.. body. [ eral factors. In any determination of radiation effects. 'The organ most likely to be damaged because of the [ chether in working populations or in animal experi-combined effects 01 concentration and radtosensitivitv [ ments. the following factors must be considered: fl) the is known as the critical organ for a particular isoto'pe. f location of specific isotopes in the body, and m the in general, any cell m the process of division (mitosis) i relative sensitivity of different tissues to radiation. is radiosensitive and for that reason a person is more L The general effects of external radiation have been sensitive to radiation during his growing period than as y previously described but there are certain modifications an adult. in the consideration of radiation from internal sources. Radiation Injury. The effects of radiati.on afe.nonspe-j The first is that different elements tend to localize in cific: i.e.. other agents or diseases can cause the same y ? different organs of the body, e.g.. calcium or strontium damage.' For example, it is impossible _ in dictbu ukh [ in bone. iron in the red blood cells, and iodine in the between radiation-ir.duced anemia and normallyincident is thyroid. This is true for any material which is metabo. anemia. O her possible effects such as lung cancer, leu. L lized following either inhalation or ingestion. Of course, kemia and bone cancer present similar difficulties. p many not readily soluble substances will remain in the in any case, where the effects of radiation are being 1:ngs for long periods after inhalation. This means that studied, conclusions can oni,v bejlrawrt.onJhe basis of incidencEf y'n[a7 tic'uWtipc 9f.dAmagg above t f the total amount of such a radioactive material is not m'Ely occurri distributing its dose uniformly but rather is concentrat-o I'tions are made of incidence in a particular group.such ing its effect on a relatively small fraction of the body. a i Most of the heavy metals tend to be deposited in the as chemical operators exposed to radiation in a process ~ f i k

A __. ~ State Represetative StephenReed's i.etter to the NRC i-August 8, 1979 j Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission l Washington, District of Colu=bia

Dear Chairman Hendrie,

4 I am entirely baffled by the apparent refusal of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission to have extensively reviewed the reports by hundreds of Three Mile Island area residents who, during March 28-31, 1979 primarily, and at times subsequent, experienced e (a) metallic taste in their mouth (b) metallic or Iodine-like odor in the air (c) irritated and watery eyes (d) moderate or severe respiratory inflammation (e) gastro-intestinal dys function and diarrhea (f) disruption of the menstral cycle in females (9) skit rashes (some appearing as radiation burns) (hl sh rp, abnormal pains in joints. l The U.S. Public Health Service and Pennsylvania State Dept. of Health are joint 2. conducting a survey of TMI area residents to record medical h a*a-tes so that the full health consequences o f TMI ' radiation releases in the next 25 years will be documented. " hat is all fine and should be done. But why is there a complete .dismissal by the NRC of anv immediate indications of exposure to i levels of radiation higher than what were i= mediately thought the first dates of the accident? Psychonomatically induced ailments are possible with some, but not with hundreds or even more persons and I suggest this matter has been conveniently laid aside. The NRO is charged with ascertaining fuil details about the uiI accident. You are further charged with knowing the full effecta cf even low level radiation on populations near to nuclear reactors. l'ailure to pursue the aforementioned reports from TMI area residents i oli a dismal failure of your most i=portant safety responsibilities I to the tens of millions of people living near reactors, not to men-i tiin the people around TMI. I therefore recosraend that all available expertise be applied to ascertaining the cause of these physical ailments associated with the TMI accident and a completely accurate public dicciosure made of its cause and the level of radiation or contamination that people may have been exposed to. The inability of both Metropolitan Edison and the NRC to know even to this day (or at least to have disclosed if you actually de know) the levels of exposure is in itself a major, most serious failing of pre-TMI accident obligations ,q by both parties. And if it As determined that the exact cause of these physical ailments cannot be determined due to the lack of ,w adequate research on the subject pre-TMI, then the public should j% know the extent to which we indeed are unprepared to deal with -{, nuclear plant emissions. 5 YfurssinOyly,,, ,%.f %.J.Es 1 ,4 STEPHIN R. REED State Representative I 49 i ,= D

m . o: v',. 9 p> . Publications of James E. Gunckel' ~ f IV. The Effict's of Ionizing Radiation on Plants: Morphological Effects, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol 32, No. 1, March 1957 Modifications of Plant Growth and Development Induced by Ionizing Radiations, Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Vol XV/2, 1965 Aberrant Growth in Plants Induced by Ionizing Radiation, with Arnold H. Sparraw, Abnormal and Pathological Plant Growth, Brookhaven Symposia in Biology No. 6 (1954) Ionizing. Radiations: Biochemical, Physiological and Morphological Aspec' ts of their Effects on' Plants, with A. H. Sparrow,. EnEycylopedia of Plant Physiology, Vol XVI, 1961 ] s, p 9 ap** e g,y ,b 9

1. I

',e, 8 A { w'e' r' 9 9 n , Is. f; _ f'" b [ g, l l r. . l 'k, f',9. _ s Yr 7. ( I' 'la } r iP- $s,l_O^ - G. l L_ G - ffi 1

j i 4 This is to certify that the document AAMODT MOTIO? 9B "yg, :[-,, [, _. INVESTIGATION OF LICENSEE'S REPORTS OF RADI0 ACTIVE RELEAd a JURING Tile INITIAL DAYS OF THE TMI-2 ACCIDENT AND POSTPONEMENT OF RESTART DECISION PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIS INVESTIGATION was served by _..._ : on June 21, 1984 on the following Service Lis84 JUN 22 Pi206 . d. G$d1I_$cra gut, Q. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 y0N,Di$6'[ih,, / ERANCH p cketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 v/ Atomic & Safety Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ,/ftomic & Safety Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.: S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 udack Goldberg, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Ernest Blake,.Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.-W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Louise Bradford TMI Alert 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Union of Concerned Scientists -1346 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Suite 1100 Washington, D. C. 20036 Maxine W efling, Esq. o Depattmr.nt of Environmental Resources 514 Executive House P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 mi -.}}