ML20128G358
| ML20128G358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Phyllis Clark GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-167 5211-85-2105, SP, NUDOCS 8505300132 | |
| Download: ML20128G358 (3) | |
Text
_
I.
i a
A
--i GPU Nuclear Corporation g
gf 100 Iriterpace Parkway i
Parsippany.New Jersey 070541149 1
(201)263 650o TF1 FX tafi da?
Writer's Direct Dial Nuftber:
TED May 28,1985 Dgsygc (201) 263-6797 5211-85-2105
'85 MAY 28 PS:04
$3 1
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chainnan f
Thomas M. Roberts, Comissioner
[0CNTY5G SN'IEI I
.Tamn K. Asselstine. Commissigner BRANCH Frederick M. Bernthal, comissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr., Comissioner i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission n
1717 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RE: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 License No. DPR-50
'1 Docket No. 50 2*9s P s
=9 The presentation to the Comission on May 22, 1985 by the Aamodts Q
(and Dr. Johnson and Mr. Thompson who appeared at their request) included a l
number of statements which were presented as factual but which I am advised J
are either incorrect or misleading, The thrust of the Aamodts' statement; i.e.,
that there are substantial health effects around TMI as a result of the operation of THI-1 aj and the accident at TMI-2, is, as you know, contrary to the conclusions of all 1
of the s et.uyMzed scientific studies.
Howevor, you and others may nnt he i,
aware that many of the factual statements or allegations on this subject made ji by the Aamodts are untrue.
Attached is an evaluation by my staff in conjunction with Dr. John A Auxier, Head, Health Physics and Dosimetry Task r
Group of the Kemeny Comission, of four such statements and allegations.
I" The continued allegations by the Aamodts, regardless of their accuracy, are causing concern among the public.
The Aamodts made similar 5
statements at a
press conference and briefing for the Pennsylvania j
congressional delegation the day before your meeting.
Thus, I wanted to q
insnediately provide at least an initial response lest the allegations g
presented to you' in a public meeting be given unwarranted credibility.
t Very truly yours, D0!kSh!!$!09 A 8. C.
v 5
G PDR P. R. Clark President d
I Attachment cc: E. Blake, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
?
THI-1 Service List g
O a
GPU Nuclear Corporar.cn is a subsidiary of Generst Puche Utilities Corpora:icn 6
3 3) i
.4 l
V INITIAL EVALUATION 0F SEVERAL STATEMENTS / ALLEGATIONS BY THE AAM00TS IN A PRESENTATION TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t44!SSION ON MAY 22, 1985 1.
STATEMENT / ALLEGATION:
Transuranic radionuclides found in the TMI-2 auxiliary building i
Reference was made to the existence of transuranics in the air in the-
-auxiliary building a year after the accident.
The Aamodts are referring to an eight-day air sample taken in November 1979 in the TMI-2 auxiliary building.
The sample was analyzed by Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory
(" Characterization of An Aerosol Sample -from the Auxiliary Building of the Three Mile Island Reactor", by George M. Kanapilly, et al, Health Physics Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 981-982, November 1983).
Investigators found thirteen alpha disintegrations per minute for a one 4
-million liter sample of air.
This corresponds to one six-millionth of a
. picocurie per liter of air, a level less than five one-hundredths of one percent (.055) of the allowable worker level in the building.
Thus, even in the auxiliary building, the level of transuranics was negligible.
Furthemore, there is no basis for the - Aamodts' assumption that any.
radionuclides that might have been in the auxiliary building air were released to the outside environment.
The building filtration system effectively removed all particulate matter in the exhaust stream.
This was confirmed by the off-site monitoring stations which have always been in place and showed no levels above normal environmental background level s.
The data are provided in reports submitted to the NRC.
1
(
2.
STATEMENT / ALLEGATION:
Air samples not counted for alpha radioactivity The Aamodts maintained that during the accident, personnel were precluded from measuring samples for alpha radioactivity.
This is incorrect.
Air particulate samples from the station vent and eight environmental stations (off site) were routinely collected and analyzed for alpha radioactivity prior to, during, and following the TMI-2 accident.
The result: of the i
sampling program have been and still are being provided in routine reports i
submitted to the NRC.
No alpha detivity beyond expected background levels has ever been detected off site.
i 3
STATEMENT / ALLEGATION:
Inadequate alph_a monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency As further confirmation that no TMI-generated alpha radionuclides exist.in the environment,- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) perfonned specific surveys of off-site residences in August 1984.
These surveys were in addition to the routine monitoring program and were performed at the request of the NRC-TMI Program Office.
Contrary to the Aamodts' suggestion, the methodology employed did not preclude detection of 1-
transurancis.
The monitoring was performed at locations where elevated radiation levels had been reported by Mr. and Mrs. Aamodt.
S samples,pecifically the EPA took direct radiation measurements, soil and water samples at three private homes which liad been identified by the Aamodts as having elevated radiation level s.
In all cases, the EPA found that specific alphe radionuclides were below detection limits or within levels nonne 11y found in the environment.
In addition, all beta / gamma levels found during the sampling were commensurate with levels nonna11y found in the environment.
(Letter from W. P. Kirk (EPA) to W. D. Travers (NRC),
Subject:
" Report of EPA Surveys and Radioassays on the West Shore of Susquehanna River Pertaining to Reports by Marjorie and Norman Aamodt of Elevated Radiation Levels", dated February 25, 1985).
4.
STATEMENT / ALLEGATION:
Plume touchdown was not considered in the off-site dose estimates The Aamodts asserted that the plume containing radioactive contaminants from TMI-2 at the time of the accident touched down in particular off-site locations and that this phenomenon was not taken into account.
In fact, the mathematical models used to estimate doses to individuals and the population considered atmospheric dispersion, isotopic release rates, meteorological parameters, and topography.
Therefore, they properly modeled the predicted movement of the plume, including its " touchdown", if predicted conditions caused that result.
The effect of using such l
detailed modeling is that off-site dose estimates that have been conducted include consideration of the phenomenon of " plume touchdown".
i i
e i
l I
-