ML20132D173
| ML20132D173 | |
| 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) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132D153 | List: |
| References | |
| 5211-85-2112, NUDOCS 8509300079 | |
| Download: ML20132D173 (3) | |
Text
$
.o i
I GPU Nuclear Corporation l UhlMf 1Co lmercace Parkway Pars;ccany. New Jersey 07054 114 }
< 201) 263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Wrder s Direct Dial Nurrter May 28, 1985 (201) 263-6797 5211-85-2112 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chainnan Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr., Commissioner United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RE: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-E89 The presentation to the Commission on May 22, 1985 by the Aamodts (and Dr. Johnson and Mr. Thompson who appeared at their request) included a
~
number of statements which were presented as factual but which I am advised 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 T!11-1 and the accident at TMI-2, is, as you know, contrary to the conclusions of all of the recognized scientific studies.
However, you and others may not be aware that many of the factual statements or allegations on this subject maae 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 Group of the Kemeny Commission, of four such statements and allegations.
The continued allegations by the Aamodts, regardless of thei r accuracy, are causing concern among the public.
The Aamodts made similar statements at a
press conference and briefing for the Pennsylvania congressional deleg,ation the day before your meeting.
Thus, I wanted to immediately provide at least an ini tial response lest the allegations presented to you in a public meeting be given unwarranted credibility.
Very truly yours, 8509300079 850700 g
g9 7# g, ChvM ADOCK O
{DR P. R. Clark President Attachment cc: E. Blake, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge TMI-l Service List GPU Nuc! ear Corocration is a subscary of General Putnc Utaht:es Corporation
INITIAL EVA' UATION OF SEVERAL STATEMENTS / ALLEGATIONS BY THE 3AMODTS IN A PRESENTATION TO TFE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ON MAY 22, 1985 1.
STATEMENT / ALLEGATION:
Transuranic radionuclides found in the TMI-2 auxiliary building 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 La'boratory
(" 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 1963).
Investigators found thirteen alpha disintegrations per minute for a one 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 (.05*,) 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 fil tration 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 level s above nomal envi ronmental background level s.
The data are provided in reports submitted to the NRC.
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 results of the sampling program have been and still are being provioed in routine reports submitted to the NRC.
No alpha activity beyond expected background levels has ever been detected off site.
~
3.
STATEMENT / ALLEGATION:
Inadequate alpha monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency As further confimation that no THI-generated alpha radionuclides exist in the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed 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 O f fice.
Contrary to the Aamodts' suggestion, the methodology employed did not preclude detection of
f
' transurancis.
The monitoring was perfcmed at locations where elevated radiation levels had been reported by Mr. and Mrs. Aamodt.
Specifically, the EPA took di rect radiation measurements, soil samples, and water samples at three private homes which had been identified by the Aamodts as having elevated radiation levels.
In all cases, the EPA found that specific alpha radionuclides were below detection limits or within levels nomally found in the environment.
In addition, all beta / gamma levels found during the sampling were commensurate with levels nomally found in the environment.
[ Letter frcm 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 Noman Aamoot 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 lccations and that this phenomenon was not taken into account.
In fact, the mathematical models used to estimate doses to individual s 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 resul t.
The effect of using such detailed modeling is that off-site dose estimates that have been conducted include consideration of the phenomenon of " plume touchdown".
1
,