ML20137T736
| ML20137T736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Specter A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137T743 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602180422 | |
| Download: ML20137T736 (7) | |
Text
A
'S b.Cd kQ 4
p y
k UNITED STATES
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7.
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%....+/
FEB 0 61986 The Honorable Arlen Specter United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Specter:
I have been asked to respond to your January 8,1986 referral requesting infor-mation related to concerns that have been raised by one of your constituents, Ms. Mary Osborn. She requests continued NRC oversight of Three Mile Island,
~ Unit 1 (TMI-1) and discusses concerns regarding plant growth abnormalities and other health effects which she associates with the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
With regard to NRC oversight of TMI-1, the NRC recently completed a special inspection of TMI-1 restart activities. This inspection, which was initiated on October 3,1985, continued for 94 consecutive days.and involved some 3500 hour0.0405 days <br />0.972 hours <br />0.00579 weeks <br />0.00133 months <br />s-of inspection. The level of inspection activity during this three month period is well above that applied to a typical operating plant in a year and provided us with good insights into the performance of the licensee and the plant.
Continued oversight, although somewhat less intense, will continue indefinitely, and include both close observation of day-to-day activities and also broader scope reviews of plorit drid licensee perfunridrice. Doy-to-day activities will *ue monitored by a staff of four full-time on-site resident inspectors from NRC Region-I. This is twice the size.of the typical resident office staff at an operating nuclear power plant.
It represents a long-term NRC ccmmitment to increased direct inspection at TMI-1. Additional inspections will be conducted by NRC Headquarters and NRC Region I specialists.
The NRC Region I Administrator, Dr. Thomas Murley, summarized the results of the NRC's special inspection of the TMI-l restart.and described our inspection plans at a press conference in Middletown on January 8, 1986.
Copies of the press releases associated with that conference contain additional details and are enclosed for your information.
The issues of plant abnormalities and health effects described by Ms. Osborn have been thoroughly considered by the Commission, and are documented in Com-mission Memoranda and Orders CLI-84-22 (December 13,1984) and CLI-85-08 (May 16,1985). Copies are enclosed.
I am confident that the enclosed information will address Ms. Osborn's concerns.
If we can be of further assistance, please advise us.
Sincerely, Original signed by Victor Stollo B6g21BOM f5000 09 Victor Stello, Jr.
7 PDR Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As Stated
r l':,'l*.
, Distribution:"
~EDO 001334 SECY 86-32.
CA Docket Nos.. 50-289; 50-320 Public Document Room' (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDF)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania J.- Taylor H. Denton G. Cunningham, T. Murley J. Allan R. Starostecki W. Kane H. Kister A. Blough-K. Abraham RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRP RIiDRA RI:RA ED0 Blough/grm Kister Travers Starostecki Allan Murleg VSte11 1/28/86 2-3-86_
2-3-86 2-3-86 2-3-86 2 #0k4 7\\
r The Honorable Arlen Specter 2
Distribution:
- EDO 001334
'SECY 86-32 CA Docket Nos. 50-289;-50-320 Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania J. Taylor H. Denton G. Cunningham
-T. Murley J. Allan R. Starostecki W. Kane H. Kister A. Blough K.-Abraham Region I Docket _ Room Y
.f
^
u
/
RI:DRP RI:DRP-RP R q0RP~
R RA kI:RA g
Blough/grm Kist er Travers Stdrostecki Alia Murle l
/
\\
EDO k
Stello OFFICIAL RECORD COPY GT 00L334 1/28/86 - 0002.0.0 t- -
~... ~,
=
e 4
/" '%,,,
UNITED STATES
's NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I
(,
,/
631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa.19406 Tel. 215 337-5330 I-86-4 January 8, 1986
Contact:
Karl Abraham NRC TO MAINTAIN A HIGH LEVEL OF INSPECTION ATTENTION AT THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1; FOUR RESIDENT INSPECTORS TO REPLACE RESTART STAFF Middletown, PA - The NRC staf f has created a new organization to assume inspection responsibilities at Three Mile Island Unit 1 for the foreseeable future, Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, announced today To assure that a high level of inspection attention is devoted to operations at TMI 1, said Dr. Murley, a four-inspector resident inspection office was being established on Three Mile Island, headed by Senior Resident Inspector Richard J. Corte. The resident inspection offices at most operating nuclear. power plants are staffed by two inspectors.
Dr. Murley also announced that a series of special team inspections have been scheduled for this year.
Responsibility for the NRC inspection program at THI-1 now reverts to the permanent NRC Region I line organization, said Dr.
Murley.
The TMI-1 Restart Staff had been created in late May 1985, to provide special surveillance of the three-month restart and power ascension program at THI-1. Under the management dir?ction of William F. Kane, Deputy Director of NRC's Region I Division of Reactor Projects, the Restart Staff provided continual shift coverage ranging from 12 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, depending upon particular plant activities.
Additional inspection coverage was conducted by NRC Region I specialist inspectors under the day-to-day direction of Mr. Conte, the Senior Resident Inspector who also served as Restart Manager.
(MORE)
.e,
=
p# '**?.,,
UNITED STATES s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
tE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I g,...../
631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa.19406 Tel. 215 337-5330 I-86-5 January 8, 1986
Contact:
Karl Abraham NRC THI-1 RESTART INSPECTIONS SHOW THAT PLANT CREW DID VERY WELL IN BRINGING THE UNIT BACK INTO SERVICE AFTER ITS 61/2-YEAR OUTAGE Middletown, PA - On the basis of an intense inspection effort, Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, said today, the restart of the reactor and its power ascension program had been handled very well by the staff of GPU Nuclear, Inc., the plant's owner.
Dr. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I in King of Prussia, PA said that last Sunday, when shif t coverage ended after 94 days, the NRC staff had performed more than 3,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of ir.spctions of TMI-1.
"The scope and duration of this type of coverage was unusual, if not unprecedented in the history of the NRC, for coverage of an operating nuclear power plant," Dr. Murley said.
Dr. Murley said that during its -tour at THI-1, the-Restart Staff had focused its inspections on the performance of both the licensee's plant and
~
personnel. Although the _ principal foc'us of these inspection activities was on plant operations, maintenance, surveillance, and testing, they also considered radiological controls, security and safeguards, emergency planning, and design engineering.
(MORE)'
L
>Ek[
.d.a. ;.[N. '.
DMOM3"M
. ?. : G L I A!i,
Ah - M
..u i n wt Air, r
.e '..'
N EC 13 41:33 COMMISSIONERS:
-6
- . : f *.ec s
,e Nunzio J. Pa lla.f t na, f,ha i re.on 5'ANCk
- %omas M. Roberts Jo.es K. Asselstine Frederick M. Berntoal Lando h. Zech, Jr.
SERVED DEC :' 1984
)
the Matter of
)
)
METkOPOLITAN ED150h COMPAhY
)
Docket Sn. 50-289-sk
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Islanc huclear
)
Station. Unit No. 1)
)
)
ORDER CLl 1 On June 21, 1984 Marjorie and Norman Aamodt f11ec a s.otion with the f
Connission alleging that releases of airborne radioactive materials from the March 28, 1979 accident at TMI-2 were substantially greater than have l
,3
^
been acknowledged by the licensee, the NRC staff or the Cosenonwealth of l
l;
["
['
Pennsylvania and that such led to health effects in the local population.
The Aamodts further claim that licensee probably intentionally destrcyed
,.a.
radiation release records to prevent the disclosure cf the hazard the accident posed ta the health of local residents. The Aamodts' assertions I
regarding purported health effects are based on their analysis of i
S door-to-door interviews that Ms. Marjorie Aamodt, encng others, conducted l
of residents of two areas near the THi-2 focility.
%.- Aarnedt s requested r.-
I i
the Conciission to investigate innediately their alle".ia t tons.:"d that the l
3 i
ONN,k.9 sig.
M
.ss.--
2
.,, q
___.//
2 Comission defer a decision on Unit I restart until the issues they raise have been fully resolved.
Both the NRC staff and the licensee filed responses opposing the request. The NRC staff notes that there have been allegations of adverse health effects raised by numerous groups in the aftermath of the TMI-2 accident, and that these allegations have been investigated by the NRC, independent investigatory bodies, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and found to be withoct marit. Staff concludes that nothing in the A ncdts'
" survey" gives cause to question the conclusions previously reached.
The staff further notes that while health effects claims were not evaluated in the management phase of the restart proceeding, there was extensive testimony in the emergency planning phase of the proceeding on alleged thyroid abnormalities and potential fetal health effects downwind of the plant, and those claims were found by the Licensing and Appeal Board to be 3
without merit. The staff believes that the charge that licensee has intentionally destroyed radiation release records is sheer speculation unsupported by evidence and should be given no weight.
The licensee acknowledges that radiation records are missing, but emphasizes that it informed the NRC staff that records were missing shortly after the accident.
It argues that if the Aamodts wished to raise allega-tions of intentional withholding of this data as a management integrity issue in the restart proceeding, they should have done so five years ago.
The licensee also states that the Aamodts' conclusions on health effects are a direct contradiction to numerous scientific studies performed by a variety of organizations and that the Commission has before it enough
3 scientifically-based information to determine that the issues which the Aamodts attempt to raise need not be further pursued.
After responding to the Aamodts' motion, the NRC staff asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the Aamodts' allegations. On September 7, 1984 CDC sent a three-page critique of the Aamodt's alle-gations to the staff. CDC concluded tha+ the Aamodts had not presented convincing evidence of increased cancer incidence, cancer mortality, or adverse pregnancy outcomes in THI-1 area residents related to the TMI-2 accident.
At an August 15, 1984 Comission meeting, Ms. Aamodt infonned the Commission of a relatively high radiatian measurement she had taken somewhere in the vicinity of the TMI-1 site. Ms. Aamodt stated that she had measured " ten times background" with a Geiger counter. Subsequently, the NRC staff, and representatives of EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Resources went with the Aamodts to'three locations selected by the Aamodts. At est.h of these locations informal field surveys were taken with portable instrumentation designed to monitor alpha, gamma and beta radiation. No radioactivity beyond background levels was found at any location.
Soil samples were also collected at each location and a water sample was taken at one of the locations. The analysis of these samples did not produce evidence which would support the Aamodts' allegations.
Based on the available information the Commission agrees with the staff and the licensee that the Aamodts have not presented sufficient reliable information to show that previous, more comprehensive and
l 5
Comissioner Bernthal disapproved in part and provided separate views.
Comission Asselstine disapproved and provided additional views.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Comission*
(
\\
l v
M71)J
-\\
' 5AMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Comission
.4 Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 1 day of h, 1984.
4
- Comissioner Zech was absent for the affimation of this order; if he I
had been present he would have approved it. Comissioner Asselstine, in order to allow the will of the majority to prevail, did not participate in the formal vote.
I l
[
1 l
t ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF C0fUtISS10FFp ASSELSTINE The Commissier shculd do more to resolve the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Aamodt. The Comission should request that the Pennsylvania Department of Health review the infonnation submitted by the Aamodts as well as the various existing studies of the radiological releases from the TMI accident and their impact on the people surrounding the plant as part of the Department's ongoing epidemiological research efforts. To assist the Department in this effort, the Comission should provide the funds needed to hire an independent consultant who is expert in the fields of epidemiology and the health effects of ionizing radiation.
I can think of no mere upsetting concern to the people living in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island plant than the pessibility that radiation releases from the accider.t were higher than estimated by previous studies and that such releases are causing serious health effects.
Given the obvious seriousness of these concerns, we snould do more thar just rely on what aopears to be a very cursory review of the Aamodts' infomation by the Centers for Disease Control. At the same time, I do not find sufficient evidence in the Aamodts' petition to justify e decision to defer further action in the TM-1 restart proceeding at this time.
t
~ --
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL In my vote of 30 October 1984 on the above matter, I noted the suggestion of the Center for Disease Control that "it might still be useful for NRC to fund additional scientifically valid followup studies in [the THI area]
population". While rejecting the Aamodt's paper as "not presenting convincing evidence of cancer incidence, cancer mortality, or adverse pregnancy outcome in TMI area residents following the [THI-2) accident",
CDC also provided guidance to the Commission on a worthwhile approach that might be taken for these " scientifically valid followup studies", to wit:
"The proper way to address [these] concerns is through the Pennsylvania Department of Health's TMI followup program".
In my judgment, the Commission must continue to exercise extraordinary diligence, vigilance, and persistence in this matter, so that to the extent scientifically possible, all reasonable concerns regarding possible effects of the TMI-2 accident on citizens in the TMI area may be acted upon or laid to rest. To demonstrate its commitment to that goal, the Commission therefore should have carried through on CDC's suggestion, and should have offered direct support to the Pennsylvania Department of Health's followup program by contractual or other appropriate arrangement.
It is worth noting in this regard that Dr. George Tokuhata, Director of the Division of Epidemiology Research of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, in a recent meeting with the TMI-2 advisory Panel ccanitted the expertise of his Department to continued monitoring of the possible 1cng-term health effects of the TMI-2 accident.
I therefore cannot support the Commission's disposition of the Aamodt motion in the terms contained in the current order.
I would have taken action consistent with my comments above.
- .e n g
!y Nblis Hesith geev'es DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH A HUMAN SERVICgg Centees for Diweis Canuel Asfonts GA 30333 september,7, 1984 s
4 William A. Mille, Ph.D.
chief Nes1th Effects 3rsnah Division of Radiation Programa j
and Earth scioness i
Office of puolear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Cossalssion Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear gills I received the AAMODT destament free you and anothat about t*se esse time from Much to my Dr. George Tokuhata of the Pennsylvacia Department of Health.
surprise they are different. The sopy you sent is missing pages 2, 4, 6, 9 l
and Attscheest 11, Figure 1. Affidavits 2, 4, 7, 9 eed parts of Affidavit '.,
Dr. Charles stutssan. Dr. Matthew Zack and I revis0'ed the Tokuhats version 2.
i and the followins eoements are a compilation of them.
i we believe that there are a number of deficiencies evident la the epidemiologic sapacts of the data presented in this report. Following are our combined comments.
The areas listed are outside tha bir,h-.*t exameed Pages 1, 4, Figure 1.
1.
areas and away from the predominant areas (NNW, ENE, 832) according to l
the May 10, 1979; preliminary do,se assessment report.
Page1,garsaraph2. Who diagnosed the " radiation related beslth l
2.
effectet Was a physicien sonsulted? What were the effects or symptoest 3.
Fase 1, paragraph 3.
Was anyone from the state, EPA, 305, Bac, or UsDa requested to investigate the plant problema?
4 4.
Fase 3. paragraph 4; page 4, per'agraph's 2 and 4.
Appear to represent interrieuer mis..
5.
Page 4, paragraph 3.
Appears to represent both selection and volunteer i
bias.
6.
Page 4, paragraph 4.
Was it possible the lump was pra sent before the TM1 accidenti %fas date of diagnosis sought?
7.
Fase 3, 3.2.a.
This is sa assertion. What'is the datat Deathe may be incrossed but cancers present before TWI.
3.
Page 5, 3.2b. and c.
All diagnoses and dates of diastossa need to be confinned by medical records review.
__.--_-_,mm...
Page 3 - Willism A. Mills, Ph.D.
Without annual comparises data, the conclusion of a:"s'ontis.uing" suseas 17.
sanser mortality rate la unfounded.
Pase 7, 3.24.. Affidavits are testimony and opinion, not scientific data.
18.
- 19. ; Page 8. 5.0, sentenes 1 and 2.
Dats insdequate to support these statements.
i Fase 8. 5.0, sentence 3.
Ware plants inspected / studied
- for any asuse l
20.
except radiation. (e.g. insects, chemicals, plant disease, and of life span,ete.).
The dose estimates presented in this paper of 100+ ren Page 8, 5.0.
21.
appear to be based solely on aseedotsi reporta by'saveral residenta of reddening of ths. skin (erythema). Although we agree that trythema ca.
result from high dose radiation exposure, not all eryth4se results from leaising radiation but from other things such as sunburn, allergy, drugs, i
etc.
- 22. Fase 9, paragraph 1.
Discussion coefuses cancer. deaths and cancer incidence. That " life is terminated" more rapidly is a eenelusion totally unsupported by the data presented.
- 23. Page 9. paragraph 2.
No data is presented to show thht store is an alarming increase in health proble=s. only a possible, but likely.
unrelated, increase in cancer deaths.
This paper does not present convincing evidence of cancer incia'ence, saneer i
portality, or adverse pregnancy outcome in TMI area residents rollowing the i
accident. The proper way to address this concern is through t!.a Pennsylvania The Canters for bisesse Control.
Departamt of Health's THI followup program.
National Institutes of Realth, and pennsylvania Health DepartaMint cchined resources to develop a census of the 0-5 mile residents short1:r after the Although that effort was criticized at the tima ss. useless it might accident.
still be useful-for Ntc to fund additional scientifically valid followup studies in that population.
I I hope this brief review.is helpful.
sincerelyiyours, clyn G. C idws11, M.D.
Assistant Director for Epidemiology Chronic Diseases Division Center for Environmental Realth S. O We W.
G e--- - - - -.
e :...,,
we
=
- r.,/
- 'J
,(
UNITED STATES
- / '... f i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' f-
- . gj mammaron. o. c.zosse
. 2:e mne MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations l
SUBJECT:
STAFF ACTIONS FROM THE AUGUST 15, 1984 l
COMMISSION MEETING ON TMI-1 (M840815)
At the August 15, 1984 Comission meeting on THI-1, Comissioner Asselstine, in connection with discussions on the Aamodt's cancer survey, requested that the staff provide a comprehensive list of the studies and surveys that have been performed regarding radiological impacts of.the iMI-2 accident.
Such a list is provided as Enclosure (1). The staff considers this to be a reasonably complete bibliography. A brief sumary of the scope and principal i
findings from the more significant studies is provided at Enclosure (2).
In addition, H. Denton, Director, NRR recomended at the August 15 meeting that the Comission consider referring the Aamodt's cancer study to a Federal Agency with expertise in eoidemiology, specifically, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). A proposed letter that the staff recomends the Comi<.sion use to make such a referral is provided as Enclosure (3). As noted in Enclosure (3), the staff has contacted the CDC on this matter.
Another issue raised at the August 15 meeting was the extent of the staff's l
knowledge of the investigation into the Hartman allegations at the time of the restart hearings.
In this regard, I direct your attention to the recently released OI investigation report on TMI-2 leak rate falsification, (provided
Contact:
J. '.'a n Vl i e t 7.23213
CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPMY 1979
~
1.
"The Ordeal at Three Mile Island, Special Report," Nuclear News, Apr. 6,1979.
2.
"Three Mile Island Nuclear Powerplant Accident," Hearings before i
the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, U.S. Senate, Serial No.
96-H12. Parts 1 and 2 Apr.10, 23 and 30, Oct. 2 and 3,1979.
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, letter from L. Barrett for Distribution, " Preliminary Estimates of Radioactivity Releasec
, from Three Mile Island," Apr. 12, 1979.
,'~
4.
U.S. Department of Energy, " Radiological Response to the Three
~
Mile Island Accident," Apr. 14, 1979.
I 5.
Marshall, E."A Preliminary Report on Three Mile Island," Science, Vol 204, 280-281, Apr. 20, 1979.
i 6.
Brookhaven National Laboratory, letter from A. Hull to L. Deal (CES), " Revised Population Exposure Estimate in Vicinity of Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Statiori, 3/28-4/10/79," May 2,1979.
7.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter from A. Brodsky to J. Liverman (DOE) concerning distorted views in article by E.
Sternglass, May 28, 1979.
8.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station," May 1979.
9.
Metropolitan Edison Company, "Second Interim Report on the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit-2 (TMI-2) Accident," June 15, 1979.
10.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, letter from M. Rosen-stein to The File, "Sr-90 and Sr-89 Results for Milk Samples Collected During the Three Mile Island Accident," June 27, 1979.
II.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter from L. Gossick to Senator R. Schweiker describing the public whole body scanning program following the TMI-2 accident, July 9,1979.
12.
" Assessment of Offsite Radiation Doses from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident". Woodard, K., Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.,
TDR-TMI-116. Rev. O, July 31, 1979.
vw- - - -- _ _. _ - - - - - - - - _. _ _. -. _ - - - - -, - -. - - - -
-.,_,,,--.7,....n_,_
..-__._.---...,---p-
_--n
--,--,,,n,.,
-3 25.
U.S. huclear Re9ulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1215, "The Social and Economic Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island," C. Flynn, J. Chalmers, Mountain West Research, Inc., with Social Impact Research, Inc., Jan.1980.
26.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1250, "Three Mile Island -
A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public," M. Rogovin, MRC Special Inquiry Group, Jan.1980.
27.
Pennsylvania Commission on Three Mile Island, " Report of the Governor's
, Commission on Three Mile Islano," Feb. 26, 1980.
28.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Long-Term Environmental Radiation Surveillance Plan for Three Mile Island". Mar. 17, 1980.
29.
Letter from S. Book (Univ. of California) to B. Grimes (NRC), evaluating the E. Sternglass paper entitled " Infant Mortality Changes Following the Three Mile Island Accident", Mar. 18, 1980.
30.
Houts, P., et al., " Health-Related Behaviora'l Impact of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Incident," report ' submitted to the TMI Advisory Panel on Health Research Studies of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, i
Part I Apr. 8,1980.
31.
Letter from H. Rosenburg (HEW) to R. Goldsmith (NRC), stating number of infant deaths in Pennsylvania for July 1979 (used in Sternglass 1/80 paper). is incorre:t and should be revised, Apr. 22, 1980.
32.
Franke, B., and D. Teufel " Radiation Exposure Due to Venting TMI-2 Reactor Building Atmosphere " Institute of Energy and Environmental Research, Heidelberg, West Germany, June 12, 1980.
33.
" Nuclear Accident and Recovery at Three Mile Island," Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works. U.S.
Senate, Serial No. 96-14, June 1980.
34.
Knox, J., et 41.', " Utilization of the Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability (ARAC) Services during and after the Three Mile Island l
Accident," Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Report UCRL-52959, July 1,1980.
l 35.
" Staff Studies - Nuclear Accident and Recovery at Three Mile Island,"
l Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation for the Committee on Environment and l
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Serial No. 96-14, July 1980.
l
-b 47.
Pasciak, W., et al., "A Method for Calculating Doses to the Population from Xe-133 Releases During the Three Mile Island Accident," Vol 40, 457-465 Apr. 1981.
48.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2063, " Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island on Residential Property Values and Sales," Gamble. H., and R. Downing, Pennsylvania State University. Apr.1981.
49.
Houts, P., et al., " Health-Related 8ehavioral Impact of the Three Mile. Island Nuclear Incident," report submitted to the TMI
! Advisory Panel' on Health Research Studies of The PennRylvania Department of Health, Part III, May 12, 1981.
- 50. Bowden, M., "TMI a killer? A harsh debate, a decades-long wait,"
Philadelphia Inquirer, June 8,1981.
- 51. Tokuhata, G., and E. Digon, " Fetal and Infant Mortality and, Congenital Hypothyroidisa Around TMI," presented at the International Symposium on Health Impacts of Different Sources of Energy, Nashville, TN, June 22-26, 1981.
52.
Shuping, R., "Use of Photographic Film to Estimate Exposure Near TMI," Health Physics, Vol 41,195-199, July 1981.
i 53.
U.S. Departmant of Energy, GEtiD-008, "The Citizen Radiation Monitoring Program for the TMI Area," DOE Contract.No. DE-AC07-75I001570, July 1981.
54.
Maclead, G., "Some Public Lessons From Three Mile Island: A Case Study in Chaos," Ambio, Vol 10, No 1,18-23,1981.
- 55. Tokuhata, G., " Impact of TMI Nuclear Accident Upon Pregnancy Outcome, Congenital Hypothyroidism and Infant Hortality," chapter prepared for Energy, Environment and the Economy published by the Pennsylvania Aca,demy of Science, 1981.
1982 56.
- Shuping, R., "Use of Photographic itim su Litimate Exposure Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station," Bureau of Radiol,ogical Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA 81-8142, Feb. 1982..
1
' 9 81
- 67. Tokuhata, G., "Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident and Its Effect on the Surrounding Population," Pennsylv ania Department of Health.
Division of Epidemiology Research, Jan.1984
. 68 Houts, P., et al., " Utilization of Medical Care Following the Three Mile Island Crisis," Am Journ of Public Health, Vol 74, N.o 2,140-142, Feb.1984.
- 69. Fabrikant, J., " Nuclear Energy, Public Health and Public Pol' icy "
Health Physics, Vol 46, 739-744, Apr. 1984 70 Tokuhata, G., " Health Studies in the Three Mile Island Area,"
presented at the special session on Health Effects of Radiation at the annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society, Mined Beach, i
FL, June 7-12,.1984 l
- 71. Tokuhata, G., "Epidemiologic Surv eillance in Pennsylv ania:
A' Case of Nuclear Power Plants," Pennsylvania Department of Health, June i
1984
- 72. Cherskoi,M., " Blowing the Whistle on Radiation Danger," American Medical News,13-14 July 13,1984 73 Beyea, J., "A Review of Dose Assessments at Three, Mile Island and l
Recommendations for Future Research," prepared for the TMI Public Health Fund, Aug. 15, 1984 I
l 74 Tokuhata,'G., "Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Accident and l
Pregnancy-Outcome " to be presented at. the XII International l
Biometric Conference, Sept. 2-7, 1984.
~ IT*TL'S OF RADIOLO3ICAL l'4:ACT STUDIES
- FF.0'. THE ACCIDEt;T AT THREE MILE IS'_AND' L.s a result of tne a:cioent at Tnree Miie Islanc, Unit'2, the raciological en. irons of the site hav e been'the su: ject of intense, and co ;renensive radiation monitoring and radiological impact studies. These irw estigations included assessment of the causes of the. accident and of the' radiation ex-casures and potential impacts, during and subsequent to the accident:
to the workforce, the general population within 50 miles of the site, and the terrestrial and aquatic erwironment relative to effects on domestic animals and wildlife. Many well known and respected agencies and organizations par-ticipated in this effort to assess any impact resulting from the accident.
Among those conducting the most comprehensive radiological assessments were:
Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Health,-Education and Welf are (HEW),
Erwironnental protection Agency (EPA), Commonwealth of Pennsylv a".ia, Metro-politan Edison Company, an'd the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (riRC).
The radiological monitoring programs which these groups initiated during the first few days after the accident included the placement of erwironmental thermeluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) within a 20-mile radius of the site, aer-ial and ground radiation surveys, monitoring of liquid effluents from the site, sampling and analys.is of local milk, food, soil, vegetation, and grass samples, and an& lysis of s*urface and drinking water.
In addition to these monitoring
- programs, the utility had TLDs and air particulate monitors in place at the time the accident began.
In order to assess if there was any potential airborne o'.ta.ination, a whole body counting system was set up in Middletown twelv e
3 interv als".
Results of calculations to determine the maximum doses that an in-
~
dividual would receive as a result of ingestion of water and fish from the Sus-quehanna River indicate that the health and safety of the public was not endan-i gered, nor was there significant erwironmental impact.
Erwironmental Manitoring and Sarpling Results Assessment of the TLD and other monitoring data indicate that the major offsite releases of radioactive materials occurred on the first day of the accident. The highest direct mea'surements were obtained on site [3000 mR/h (p+Y) and 400 mR/h
-(v) indicated in the plume over the plant on March 2S] and at nearcy Kohr Island.
"The release quickly disspated and exposure levels on the ground on-site were or-ders of magnitude less" (NilREG/CR-1250, p. 389). Measurements indicated that the plume trav eled to the north-northwest.
1 I3I In ge'neral, following the accident, levels of I detected in air samples were 3
l on the order of a few picoeuries per cubic meter (pCi/m ) or less (the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) in air in an unrestricted area is 100 pCi/m3),
The highest observ ed I concentration offsite was 110-120 pCi/m This mea-surement was made, on April 16, 1979, four days after changing of the filters in TMI's process v entilation was initiated.
Following the accident, thousands of erwironmental samples (of air, water, milk, ve;etation, soil, and foodstuffs) were collected by the various groups monitorkg the area. Of the radionuclides detected (139Csg 5r and 37, Xe, and 1 31 )
89 90 133 1
in some of these samples, "only very low levels of radiciodines and radioxenons l
hw*we, awe- - * - -
m
O 1
tation were also stuciec. The results of the above stady found that "none of the reported plant and animal health effects...can be directly attributed to the operation or the accident at the TMI Nuclear Power Station" (NUREG-0738, p.29).
Estimates of Doses Radiological monitoring of the environment by EPA, HEW, DOE, Metropolitan Edison, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylv ania " confirmed that radiation levels off site were quite low and remained so during the course of and subsequent to the accident" (NUREG/CR-1250,p.,398). TLD data indicated that the maximum dose would be re-Esti-ceived by an individual located on the east bank of the Susquehanna River.
mates by the Ad Hoc Interagency Dose Assessment Group, the President's Task Group on Health Physics and Desimetry, the Department of Energy, and others show that the maximum offsite individual dose was less than 100 mrem. The highest actual individual offsite dose indentified was receiv ed by an individual who was on near-
~
The Ad Hoc Group by Hill island for short periods of time during the accident.
an'd the President's Commission calculated the most probable dose to this in-dividual to be 37 and 50 mrem respecthely.
Sev eral independent studies were performed using dif ferent methodologies to es-timate the colledtke dose to the population (approximately 2,164,000 people) liv ing within a 50-mile radius of TitI. The results of these studies were simi-lar, with the maximum population dose estimates indicating that "the population dose could not hav e exceeded 5000 person-rems" (NUREG-1250, p. 399). The esti '
mated annual collectiv e dose to this population from natural background radia-tion is aoout 240,000 person-rems.
i l
Enciosure 3 l
l James 0. Mason, MD, Ph.D f
Oire::or, Centers for Disease Control l
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
l Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Dear Dr. Mason:
The enclosed paper entitled, "Aamodt Motions for Investigation of Licensee's Reports of Radioactive Releases During thi Initial Days of the TMI-2 Accident and Postponement of Restart Decision Pending Resolution of This Investigation" has been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Comissin in connection with the Three, Mile Island, Unit 1 (TMI-1) restart proceedings.
The Aamodts, authors of the paper, allege that there were massive radioactive releases in the'early hours of the TMI-2 accident and that these releases were subsequently covered up by the licensee, NRC and others.
The bases for this allegation are (1) a survey the Aamodts performed which indicates a significant increase in cancer incidence in the TMI area, (2) interviews with area residents who claim to have experienced radiation-related health effects during the early days of the TMI-2 accident, and (3) analysis of flora growth abnormalities.
As a result of the TMI-2 accident, the radiological environs of the TMI site have been the subject of intense, comprehensive radiation monitoring and radiological impact studies by a number of federal, state and private crganizations. The findings from these activities do not support the Aamodt's-allegations of massive radiation releases, and do not correlate with the Aamodt's survey findings of a significantly increased cancer l
incidence rate.
Mcwever, the Aamodts' allegation of an NRC cover-up would tend to invalidate the findings from any NRC staff review of this matter. Consequently, the Corrnission is seeking an independent review. We request that the Centers for Disease Control perform this review and coment on the findings reported by the Aamodts and their conclusions of an increase in cancer incidence.
We request that this review be completed within a reasonable time.
t l
This request has been the subject of previous discussions and correspondence (also enclosed) between Dr. William Mills (NRC) and Dr. Glyn Caldwell (CDC).
The Commission tha*nks ycu for your assistance.
Sincerely, i
1 Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosures:
l As stated f
E?.Q;.I.7ED WITI?_ STATIS 07 AMI?.ICA NUC'IA?. RIOU'ATORY CO.P.ISSION
'f1/.
. r. - a3 ~,..,
IIFORI THE CO.T.ISSIONIRS:
Nunzio J. Palladinc, Chair =.an Victor Gilinsky Jarnes. Asselstine -
Thomas' Roberts Frederick Bernthal InIthe Matter of METRbPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket 50-289 Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1
~
~
AAMODT MOTIONS FOR INVESTICATION OF LICENSEE'S REPORTS OT RADI0 ACTIVE RELEASES DURING THE INITIAL DAYS OE.THE TMI-2 ACCIDENT AND POST 70NEMENT OF RESTAnT DE0ISIO$
PINDING RESOLUTION OF THIS INVESTICATION e ee s
l W
l l
l I
[
.}.
2.
Alth= ugh rasidcnts have atta=ptGd to raise tha incu2 of seriets health effe, cts which occurred during the early days of the accident as we'.1 as 111nesser which have subsequently developed, the
- icensee has =aintained its posture of deceptien 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 Com=ission 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 ext =ined.
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
~
frc= the potential dangers of plant operation.
We herein present ovidence that, in the early days of the accidentt people who lived at high elevations in a generally northwesterly direction from the plant were subjected to radiati'on exposures of 100 re=s 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 po'sition 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.
The areas seie:ted were cnas wh2re resioants had experionese erytht=a and metallic taste during the early cays of the accident.
Ene cf these areas was six =i[es ncrthwest of the plant (Area 1)and the other, three and one-half. miles southwest (Area 2).
A third area, seven miles northwest of the plants, yas chosen because of its high elevation (Area 3) and clear view of the TMI plants.
Figure 1 su=marizes these area characteristics as well as age distribution of the residents.
'Amost every household was willing to provide the information solicited.
There were no refusals in Ar'ea 1, four in Area 2 and 2 in Area 3.
The interviewers represented themselves as a group of citizens interested in health issues.
l Several other residents of the TNI area, not in the preci,se areas surveyed, but residing or verking in the area northwest of the
[-
p1 ants were also interviewed because we learned tf their unique
~
experiences.
While the questionnaire did 'suggest' sy=ptoms, the interviewers found, without exception that this did not more than remind the l
participant.
All interviewers were of the opinion that the res'idents l
~"
were conservative in their provision of information and that what was t
obtained was less than actually existed.
For instance, a woman with an obvious lump in her arm did not mention it until the interviewer s
questioned her about it.
i f
I L
3.2 IIS*.".TS Oy SURYC Tne su vey produced the following.significant infor=ation:
a.
a cance: ' death rate for each area f c= six to over eight ti=es greater than expected.
b.
a large number of cancers and other tumors diagnosed after i
- 1979, c.
a number of other serious health effects, and d.
first-hand accounts by residents of exposure to plumes in i.
cach of the areas surveyed.
l-3.21 CANCER DEATH RATE Tigure 2 presents the cancer death rate analysis.
Based on data
~
obtained concerning only those 313 persons about which information was obtained, the overall cancer mortality rate for the five year
~
- eriod since the accident was 6.5 times higher than expected.
Even i
if it were assumed that there were no_ cancer deaths among the 144 l
perrons about whom no information was obtained, the mortality rate is l
5.2 times higher than expected.
The highest rates were in Areas 1 1
and 3.
These areas also provide the most reliable data since essentially the entire populations were surveyed.
0 I
I
[
~
l t
I
...m.__,
-c-2.
C HIR HT).LTH ITTICS - DIAONCSID CANOIRS AND N. ORS Sh:vr. below aEn the nu=ber cf diagnosed caneers and other tus:rs among living persons in each of the three areas.
These data veuld suggest a continuing cancer mortality rate far in excess of that expected.
TIGURI 3 -
CANCIRS AND TUMORS DIACNOSED - PIRSONS LIVING
~
ARIA NUMBER 1
6 l-2 10 3
3 ALL 19
?
~
3.23 OTNIR HEALTH ITTICTS Cther health effects picked up by the survey were most notably five cases of anemia, four cases of spontaneously ruptured or colla sed organs, seven persistent rashes and eleven birthing abnor=alities 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 TMI and to an individual who was I
subjected to fallout from a plume on Friday, March 30, 1979.
0 D
~ - - -. -.
7:GL7.I 5
- NOIVIDUA*S* EADIATION EXPOSUR ATT;?AVI!
A? A DATI
?.?TO.MS
~
1 1
3/29/79 1 ythemia Metallic Taste Burning Throat Hair Loss Rashes 2
2 4/2/79 Erythemia Metallic Taste Nausea 4
3 3/28/79 I, earing 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 en a
h e
i e
e e
s e'
l l
i
Althcugh we prOsen no baseline for cancar coaths fcr th2 selected areas for One five years prior to the accid 3n:, we bel avo
- hat the residents reached back to recallrecen:' cancar dearhs.
In Area * :ve cancer deaths pric: to 1979 vere reported.
We conclude a
- nat there were few cancer deaths (as would be expec:ed in a population of this size), possibly only the two reported in these creas in the five year pre-accident period.
This conclusion is supported by the frequently-expressed opinion of the residents as well as a medical docter, a paramedic and two nurs'es we met in the area that, since the'THI accident, the ocurrence of cancer has I
increased enormously on the west shore and that life is terminated in a more 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 effects, the
~
nusbers of ocurrences of serious health problems in a population of this size is alarming.
Particularly so, when according to the residents, all of these effects ocurred after. March 1979.
We attempted to have soil sa=ples from the areas analyzed.
A spectral analysis has not been co=pleted.
IPA soil sampling si,nce the accident was recently published.however we have not had an l
cpportunity to view the data.
This information has not been provided in the Restart Proceeding.
The only infor=ation concerning soil sa=pling that we h3ve found in the studies of the accident is an 1
assertion in the Rogovin Report (Vol. II, Part 2, p. 389) that although several radionuclides were detected in some sahples, they could not be attributed to the accident. Alpha part1culate
(
co.tanination was not determined since it was assumed that uranium l
l
- is a fat tha the Lic3nsee. :he IG.; and the Cc.nonw3R:h of
-e..sylvania have no data in their possession which can define the
~
quanti:3"cf radica::ive materials e=i::ed over the areas of this stuty curing the early days of the ac:ident.
On the other hand, the rs= rd is-replete with evidence of radiatica release records being
" lost", filters being " lost" and calculations and measurements of 4
high dose rates being explained away or denegrated.
(See NUREG-0600,11-397; II-3-18; II-3-77; NUREG-0760 at 31-33.)
6.0 CONCLUSICNS 4
s' f
The evidence is here.
A grossly high cancer mortality rate is present exactly where plumes traveled in the early days of the n
accident. -The fact that radiation monitoring data and TMI plant
~
records have been " lost" or misconstrued only enphasizes~the point that the Licensee conspired to hide the serious =Jss of the accident.
The Licensee alone monitored radiation releases during the initial days of the-accident.
i O.e 1
4 g
g 4
,-m-rw.
w,--+me,ee
.nr---
A77:DAUT *i On A:ril 21., 19 5.l., I,
-h provided the following informa: ion in response to r.. -
a cues:icenaire presented by.Francine Taylor of Lancaster, Pa. and to Marjerie Aamos: in a subsecuen: in:erview tha: same day.
I also previded Ms. Aamodt with a le::er which was addressed to Governor inernburgh and is dated November 19, 1931.
I never received an answer
- e this le:ter.
The 1e::er is attached to this affidavi: and is to be considered a part cf it.
At the time of the TMI acciden:, I.was living a:
not far from my present home.
This area is approximately four miles northwest of TMI Concerning my experiences following the accident at TMI: On Thrunday, March 29, 1979 I was working all day with my sen in our garage.
The garage doors were open.
That night when I took a s t.9we r.
I 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 van looking through water.
Friday morning when I got out.of bed, my *1ips and nose were blistered, and my throat and inside my chest felt like fire.
It tasted like burning galvanized steel.
Ny-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 officer, in a closed car, shouted over his loudspeaker system, "3111, don't breach this air.
Cet inside'"
l Ve spent the first night in Mechanicsburg with relatives.
We donvinced nther family members to go with us and traveled to Front Royal Va on Saturday. We stayed at a camp ground in Front Royal for about one week During this time I experienced severe diarrhea which caused rectal bleeding We took one of our dogs with us, a German Shepherd, female. 'Following our arrival in Virginia, the dog passed only b.lood from the rectum an@
inleed fro = 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 Vhen we returned home, we went in the garage first and found our male-j Carman Shepherd had d'ied.. His eyes were milky white.
We had provided i
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 cata that lived in a box on the back perch.
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 agnths after 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.
Ny son and I have both experienced hair loss; mine was on my head, ar=s, legs and torso.
This hair has regrown.
H-/ son lost hair on his arms and torso, which has also regrown.
In 1981 a sore d e eloped on my leg.
The sore remaine4 for two years, healing af ter we moved to florida
.. e e f fect~ed area is still detectable as a faint discoldring.
The.xin was infla=med, open, and raised: the doctor's diagnosis was uncertain.
Also in 1981 sy wi fe, ymsmE2, was diagnosed as having paroxysmal tachycardia and in 1982 as having an underactive thyroid.
I have also experienced proble= with my hear:.
Although I had had a slight num=ner 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 O years old at the time.
The spring following the accident, our walnut trees did not produce any leaves, and there were no walnuts.
There were no flies or other flying insects until July 1979.
There were no birds, squirrela or pheasants
O AyTIDAVI'". 2 on May 5, 1964, I,
, provided the following information to Marjorie Aamodt at my place of residence on M.
My residence is approxi.mhtely 1-3 mil.as south west of TMI 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.
Ny family staydd 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 AIDu.r/.2 Les.,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 docter abolt my e. peri-nees the following evening.
He read frca a book what symptoms are related to i
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 remember that there was a light mist over the area.
w i= M w 4--
N
_w 3
~
d-- -
, 2 _-w z z w w %==
MQ M_W._ -
m--
-[hY h
M_
e 1
9 Date Sworn
~
mee e
9 e
9
CyIBAY;'".)
1, E TJ_-M3tNwwc;W&r_ A-%> a provided the w
following inf,or=atica to Marjerte Aamodt in' a telephone eenversation
{
cn June 1E,-1984 I was !!1 with the flu at the time of the 'DCI a :Foent.
.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 iErch.
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 son had been taken from his school to Dillsburg because of the TMI accident, and she volunteered 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 l
ne stout similar experiences at the same time.
One of these friends t
is rz.isids"=": J_ % G 3 = 7ar e
I and my sons remained during the accident.
We would have chosen to leave, however I am a widow, and I did not have suffiancient financial resources to leave.
s O
g gemeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeWW--M M mis w(~ h G
Cate----------------I O
s ATyIDAVII 4
0: April 21, 198t., at my home,
.N.
I relatet the following experiences that I had at the time of the accicant at TMI.
On Wecnesday eveni.ag, March 28, 1979, u.avare of any problems at the TMI plants, s'y wife and I were outside in the evening to take a walk on ot:r street. The walk lasted cpproxi=ately 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 war's burning.
About three months after this cecurred, I decided to see a doctor.
At this time the skin around my oyes was irritated and red, and thers 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 cnd gone since shortly after March 1979.
This rash is i
particularlynoticeable after showering and in warm weather.
Th'e der =atologist prescribed Frednizone.
In 1981, my wife @ was diagnosed as havhng fibroid tumors i
in her uterus.
These tusers were large, but were successfully renoved in September of 1982.
l l
I believe that my skin conditions and possibly,my wife's tumors l
cre related to some exposure we may have gotter from the accident a-l TMI.
k'e were unaware of the probless there or any dangers to curselves until several days after the accident.
Actually, it was a T.".I worker who is a neighbor and who evacuated early on..the first day l
of the accident who returned on the weekend to warn his neighbors to ovacuate.
gggqii;g pmww.
Dated------_--------_---___.
g 4
l l
- - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ " ' ~
- mm A.71 DAVIT ",
0:. Jrids), Aprh.1 2T 1981, ! provided the following information te harjorie Aamodt in my dental office in Ir":m3D*, Pa., located at This information concerned my experiences on
'dednesday and Thrusday, March 28 and 29, 1979.
On those days. I discovered that the X-ray films in my dental office in N. Pa.
were fogged.
This office is located on the corner of zigggg=:=::=ME22:1.
N 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 " fogged". These films had been placed in a little container for easy access in th.e X-ray room.
The X-ray room has an outvall of cinderblock and gypstna board.
The film is #2 oral film, fast D film, 0.2 mr exposure.
The uschine is marked as.'70 XV, 7. 5 m. asp s,, 3/10 sec., for jaw expusu. e Cn 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. stomach.
I felt " funny" and expressed this feeling to my receptionist.
Ac, that time I had no knowledge of the accident at TMI.
l e
De Date Sworn
-~
l l
l e
I e
l 6
I i
i r
AyyIDAY17 6 -
wa 1, n.; O w:-=_ -auw :rm =m---v
~ = -
,provi, dei the following informat:.on to Jane 1,ee and.w.arjoria Aamoct on nay 11, 1984 On Friday evening, March 30, 1979, I was standing er. the front porch cf my home.
My home faces south.
It was raining, and the wind that had been let out began to was blowing.
All cf a sudden the cat I had never heard a sound like that from l
now1 ir. a nos unusual way.
I called the cat by name, however it did not this or any other cat.
yrom the direction of the howlj.ng, I could tell that the come home.
I went over to the banni* ster and leaned cat was under the porch.
While standing in this position at the over to call the cat again.
l 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 stind started again.
i gust of heat brought the rain over me.. I was so startled that I went This all happened in about one minute.
I wiped the in, 'taking the cat, who had by now come up on the porch.
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 less with the towel.
I noticed that my arm, and face were I applied a lotion because my skin felt tingly.
pink.
l On Saturday morning, my skin was a darker pink, and there was an This was the only part of my scalp itch at the front of my scalp.
When I went to church on Sunday, my that was not covered by a scarf.
I friends commented that I looked healthy and sunburned. On thi.s day, hand little lu=ps, a lictie 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 IAbout three (I generally wash my hair once a week.)
i custocarily do.
weeks later, I noticed that a lot of gray hairs had appeared across l
When I washed my hair that' week, my comb Gas i
the front of =y hait.
I called my j
full of hair. The next week, the loss of hair increased.
hairdresser,CsusME who subsequently applied treatments which he I
believed would arrest the loss of hair. The hair loss did appear to The gray hairs "have also dis, appeared, and my Kair is now uniformly brown as it was before the events described.
stop.
In the subsequent weeks, the skin on my forearns and neck turned This condition lasted for several years.
darker and was scaly.
There is however some permanent discoloration however-it not My fprearms were, and continue to be, very sensitive to I try to avoid sunlight.
I prominent.
the sun, becoming itchy with exposure.
i have also noticed that if my ar=s are injured, the bruise will last longer than was normal for me prior to the events described above.
e 4
0
ATTIVADI- '7
- , u - = =~~--
- - = reside at one-half miles north northwest cf TF.I.
This was also my six an:
residence at the time of tne TF.I accident as well as that of my busMnt, son and daughter.
Dr. the morning of P. arch 28, 1979, my husband was putting his tools into his truck.
It was six o' clock in the mornin6 when he came in to ask me to go out and small 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 caelled 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 There was no. metallic smell in r5e air.
dausptertothebusstop.
.A.
G D a t e ---------------~
~
e M
i l
l l
OS e ee 9
G 4
6 9
s t
l l
[
l l
[
e.;..
n...
~ '
., I"'Tr=NTtm* o f b N&
+
providad the felicwing inf ar:ratic-te.3cne 1.33, a naighbor, and Marjorie lancdt at ny usu. homa on on hond ay, May 7, 1964 I provided this information s
voluntaruy anc accest to its truthfulnea.a.
My bone is-approximately 2 miles from the TMI p1 Eta.
My house f a:es in that direction and is north west of TMI.
I have several trees in wy frontyard.
One of these, a maple at the south corner of the yard ncx to a wooden fence appeared to be affected by the accident at TMI.
"his tree is about.50 years old and is still living, however it has undergone considerable changes.
About a
- week af ter the accident, I 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 tres, which was the area that was af fected after the accident, now has few leaves. Two year' trees, one a Keifer and the other a Harvest, both planted in the late 1920's, have died.
8 4 trees had been good bearing trees prior to the accident, however they 4.//
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 yielda so few seeds.
In.1981,*the last :
year I grew clover, there vara only C.-/c seeds per stem, whereas f..got 1
about Ti- /l.15 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 gre,ater distance from the IMI plants, approximately/2-6"ni les.
I attribute the decrease in seed production to the disappearance of bumble,
been that pollinate clover.
Last year we had no apples from our 3 trees.
One apple tree, in the yard, started ' going back' after the accident:
Last year, it only had a couple of leaves, thras blossoms and no apples.
1 The only crop that 'does good' is. potatoes.
We have had a number of
'proble:ns with livestock including sovs th'at'did not come into heat.
These aovs were not born on my fam, but were purchased from a farm near here.
I 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 f ace' ever since the Krypton venting began.
I have lived in this area all of my life and have farmed since /9Q...
pqmhtgg -
- _m 7
g
(***m*PW up*d Ca+ -
1 3 3r
. m--m.m=w..
2 /* Mk 4*Y *b
,g)
C nt. /
8' d is'.1 0A /hf 4.p.wsJu. & % dune + 4 &
1 i
l 1
nartemas of tite Torrey Botchical Club Ltuss.un.Chep Jamn L GuncLei U.$w ae.sn m 2'.ay 11, 195h M7DAT!T 9 h m careft.117 exa= ired a few spe:imens of ecr:non plants ecliected sh:rtly after the accident at D:I and ccrepared them with specimens collected
=sre recently.
The current abncmalities are pechably 'carr$ ed fcrward by induced chrcnc:samal aberra*1cns.
There vero a mmber of anmalies entirely empa'rable to those induced by inci:ing radiatics -- stem fr.sciaticr.s, growth
~
stimulatica, indection of extra vegetative bucs and stem taanors.
Most of the stem abnomalities described in the literature, and in my own cge:ience, are induced by relatively high doses of I or gn=ma rays extendng crer a pe:iod of.usually 2-3 months. Notable exceptions, however, are a:'.ilar q
n.rpenses to beta ray enceure frczn rancisotepes (P32, ZnU, CaU) and for caly 2h hcurs.. In cthat words, it would have. been'possible for the typeg of plant abnc:salities observed to have beek,indaced by radicactive fallout
~
en March 29, 1979 In ctiscussing the general biclotical effects of irradiatien, same clari-1 ficatien may be helpAtl.
In plants, the dese rate (e.g., str/hr) is much more i=pertant than total dese (e.g., mr/yr) in inducing abnomalities.
Furthe r, the 89uality factor" for gama and beta radation is not the same as generally l
essumed.
In fact, I have incontrovertible exps:imental results to show that beta rays are at leasl a quality factor of two in plants.
I am the world authority on modifications of plant growth and devele;rsent i
induced by icnir.ing radiatiens, having researched this area for 3h years at the Breckhaven Natienal Izboratory and at Rutgers tJniv'ersity.
The three l
review papers appended attest to my expertise.
E i
Janes T,. Ounchel I
M A V01,::N7ARY CDW4UK:7Y F. A:."M SURvrY act.2 :
330%1ons 1.
Nave you beer. co..tacted by the Pa. Dep.. cf Health survey on TM:7 When? _
e
.:. Tac ly name W111tng to particapate? yes no J., Family membe rs :
EE':2.
11131.HA.
127 M ~
J/28 na 9 88i W9 _3/3o n, (doctor) 1 f f deceased, when?
Onset of illness Diagnosis Dr.
- 4. Current address and phone no.:
Address on 3/28/1979:
'. Persons outdoors? namg, 3/28-heurs
, _3 /29 -h ou rs 3/30.heurs
,e
- u. If vacated the areas y.h2
.12 y.htIA ' y.han M--whgn re turned 7/. Did anyone notice (indicate date, t'ime, who)
- a. unusual atmespheric conditions D. metallic taste, smell
- c. eye irritation, burning
- d. skin'.t ritation,
, reddening
- e. Arritation of nose. throat chest
- f. exTerience nausea-
- g. experience vomitine
- h. experienes diarrhea
- 1. experience headaches J. develop hypothyroidism hype rthroidism k.' within 2-4 wks unusual hair loss or color change 1.. red spots under skin bleeding gums
- m. unusual bleeding i
- n. cancer form treatment doctor-l
- 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 wit @ pregnancy?
stillbirth mis c.arri age premature birth Date of birth wt. at birth
. he alth of child since birth cass arean se: tion Date of birtn wt. at birth health ofchild since birth crab death 8"l,1fistory of disorders in family tree (leukemia, cancers, thyroid,etc.)
- 10. Animals. ngg 3, see in 3M9 inside/outside ali ve /de e d health creblems a l. Additional coments l
t
,,m,,
e e
Dangerous
~
Properties of Industrial Materials
~
Fifth Editi6n N.lRVING SAX Assisted by:
l I
Marilyn C. Sracken/ Robert D. Bruce / William F. Durnam/ Benjamin Feiner/
I Edward G. Fit: gerald / Joseph J. Fitzgerafdl.BarDara J. Goldsmith / John H. Harley/
Robert Herrick/ Richard J. Lewis / James R. Mahoney/ John F. Schmutz/
l E. June Thompson / Elizabeth K. Weisburger/ David Gordon Wilson l
l l
g VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD COMPANY 64 W W)*4 M ATI ATLANTA DALLAS SAN FR ANCaSCO LDM00N TomoMfD WI N NE i
1
e CADIATION MA,:.A;DS 'tS t i
p i
- ,:; e s :?nsicerable eftect Their sperstic er.ntraten none structure gf,cy,os,g,tpn. the e n,u_sually.a.gon.
A ty.nggylgygrigting,,of t,hgn cpe,wnic'.had,ual),y redyces a.. a.tasugh not as arcat at that tot e radiation.
The pre ccmg paragraphs have emphastard the son.
the amee-. a 1 stat. The exertetson rate ofsuch matenais
,:s: en efie=s. particulativ spee:fic iomaation. Many has been considered to fnllow much tne name pattern as sorst.:srf ettens can be caused hv the inntration the radica:ttve decav of sh isotope. The same reouired
. ocess.1: =ay disrupt molecules, et rr.ay cestroy body hv the bocy to eliminate one. half the total quantity it
..~.s. of tne energy snay merciv appear in final form as enntams is thus referrec to as "t>icloFical half-liic." Mos;
- at rsicasse within the absorber. Depending on thelo.
ni toe tapenmental data on excretion seem to fit a power Ction cf tre absoroint atom withm the molecute. the function utisch te the resultant of a number of caponers.
- .:.etien may or may not disrupt the molecule la this 1:41. rathe: than a s,imple caponential function, but the
=s:e =le is in a critical place wunm the ce!! the ce!!.
concept nl hiological half-life is still used i a acrtving a function, or hs ability to reproduce itsett may es permissible levels.
dastroyed. Many of these processes are reversibic: that Such body deposits may depend on many physiolog.
is.ca= age caused by molecule disruption or cel; destrue.
ical tactors both in the process of deposition and of eacre.
- ics can be rewrsed by the usual reparative meenanism eretion. For many wears a high calcium diet was recom-t
. af the body. This is confrmed bv espe,yi,m_ ental data mandad for radium, workers, as et mis supposed that a dich snow that a fiard.tmal dasc tugarf_ nut large excett of calcium entering the body would reduce
^* s penod oi steks produces.t.imJi_er_ ef f ect 'ha the name the amount nt Ra deposition. Actually. the relathe an: orn%~3Jnj.h,w.!n.,iniss. However. in the case of radium deposuion is a function of the ratio of radiurn f
a arge acute dose or co..tinued entonie overexposure.
to calcium in the blood stream. Un.'ett the calcium level there is the possibility'that non-reversible damage will of the blood is maintained at a very high value there will still be dermition of radium. The increase m the blood accur.
Another type of cell change which is possible is that calcium required to cut the radium deposition by even a the regulative functions of a tissue may be destroyed. In fartnr of three would be impossible to attain, this case a carcinoma (cancer) may be produced. m.
Bene &n the bone structure. common sites ofdeposition though Ihe mechanism it not fully understcod. there is are,ge,,l,u,ngs.'t,p,(jgif@ p,0, des for W'" "'H. and dirret evidence that continued insult to a tissue may specthe organn for errtain isotopes.,such a. the thpoid produce this result. TI)e high rates of leukemia among for judine and sniern for iron _.
radiciogrsts. bone cancer among Ra dial painters. and A second consideration that certain organs or tii.
lu:3 cancer among miners of the Czechoslovakian, sbes are more rad.osensitive than others. The membranes German. and U.S. uranium mines all point to radiation linmte the branchi are suoposediv euite sensitive tg gg.
es the causative agent. Tha irreversible damase in osanon anw inis as tne prir.ary site of many luna cancers e::renir radiation exposure was apparentiv eumstlu,txg attriouted to inhaled radioactne material. The spleen is s;c the cu'rEu'lat"i7e~eT!'cEe~d to.,jty_ijjpgssg.t, also sensitiw In' radiauon and relativelv Wt agoggs Tiernal Emitters. The biological effects of radiation hase oroduerd_mo,re irreversible damage.iq) hat.ptgan, from radioisotopes in the body are complicated by sev-than in_ ether r+adf]1he body.
eral factors. In any determination of radiation effects.
The organ most likely to be r'amaged because of the nether in working populations or in animal caperi.
combined effects et concentration and radiosensitivite l
ents. the following factors must be considered: fl) the is known as the entical organ for a particular isotope.
location of specific isotopes in the body, and 12) the
- ln general. any cell in the process of disision (mitosis) st!stive sensitivity of different tissues to radiation..
is radiosensitive and for that reason a person is more The general effects of external radiation have been sensitive to radiatico during his growing period than as predously described but there are certain modifications an adult.
b the consideration of radiation from intemal sources.
Radiation Injury..The effects of radia.t.ipn.,afs.ponspe.
i l
The first is that different elemenu tend to localize in cifie: i.e.. other agents or diseases can cause the same fdftrent organs of the body e.g. dalcitim or strontium camage. For example, it,< Imnoisible in me,4-..;.h O bone, iron in the red blood cells, and iodine in the between ractation. induced anemta and normallyincident thyroid. This is true for any material which is metabo.
anemia. Other pouihle effects such as lung cancer. leu.
lired fo!!owing either Inhalation or ingestion. Of course, kemia, and bone cancer p. resent similar difficuhies.
many not readily solsble substances wt!! remain in the In any case, where the effects ci radiation are being bgs for long periods after inhalation. This ir. cans that studied. conclusions can oni,v bdrn;u.nnaheDele af l
'h* total amount of such a -radioactive material is not incidence 2 a *p*ayu]a"I,t$pt.gff m ee a bove that ru-e.
Latributing its dose uruformly but rather is concentrat.
maiiv occurring m'a comearable nonulation, if tabu.
' G3 its effect on a relatively small fraction of the body.
GIIo'I1s are Ea'Ise of incidence in a panicular group,such Most of the heavy metals tend to be deposited in the as chemical encrators caposed to radiation in a process e
v m...,
, 'e s
?
SZate Repre
.tive StephenReeds Letter to the E -
m
~
. August i, 197f Bonera.sle Josepn M. Bens.ria. Caatraan U.S. Nu= lear herv.lat=ry Cosmaission was..tagsar., Distract sf Cal.=ntia
Dear Caaignam Raadrie,
- 1 I na entirely baffled by the apparent refusal of the U.S.
Nuclear Aegulascry consr.ission to have artensively reviewed e s reports by hundreds of Three Mile Island area residents who, during March 28-31, 1979 primarily, and at times subsequeat, emperienced (a) metallic taste in their mouth (b) metallic or Zodine-like oder la the air te) irritated and watery eyes (d) anderate er severe respiratory inflassmation (e) gastro-latestinal dysfur etion arf diarrhea
/
(f) aasruption of t.he monstral cycle in f aaales (g) ski t rashes (some appearing as radiation burns)
(h) sh ry, ahneraal pains in joints.
The U.S. publis Realth Service and pennsylvania State Dept.
of Eealth are jelatly conducting a survey of TM area residents to reestd medical his*a-4es so that. the 2.L11 health consequences of TF.:' radiation releases la the next 23 years will be documented.
1 hat is all fiat and should be done. But why is t5are a semplete dismissal by the ernc of any imeediate indications of exposure to levels of radiation higher tAan what were issnediately tAeught the first dates of t.he accident? psychosenatically ir.duced ai.1ments are peasi.hle with some, but not with hundreds or even acse persons and suggest this matter has been conveniently laid aside.
The NRC is charged with assertaining full details about the
- M
- accident. You are further charged with knowing the full effects e f even low level radiation on populations near to nuclear reactors.
l'ailure to pursue the aforeaansioned reports froa TM: aree residents
.ti a dismal f ailure of your most i=pertant safety rgspensibilities to the tens of millions of people living near reactors, not to men-tiin a.he people around TIC.
I therefore recomunend that all availasle expertise be applied to ascertair.isg the cause of these physical ailments associated with the TM: accident and a coupletely accurate public disclosure sade of its cause and the level of radiation or sentamination that i
l People may have been exposed to. T'h's inamtlity of both Metropolitan l
Edison and the NRC to know even to t.his day for at least to have diselesed if you actually de know) the levels of erpesure is ia i
.itself a major, most serious failing of pre-TM: accident sh11getions by both parties. And if it is determined that the esact cause of these physical ailments cammet be deterz.iaed due to the lack of adequate research on the subject pre-TM:, then the public should know the autant to which we ladeed are unprepared to deal with j,
suelear plant &z.issions.
Taura sind.e.r.ely,,
\\*.... ? '
.f****,..
- j,A.
.**, s STIpIIN R. RII3 state Representative 49 I
I i.
J'.
AUG t 41934 o
~
Dr. Glyn Calowell EZI Golfbrook Drive Stone Moun ain, EA 30088
Dear Dr. Caldwell:
The enciesed paper entitled, "Adamodt Motion for Investigation of Licensee's Reports of Radioactive Release During the Initial Days of the TMI-2 Accident -
and Postponement of Restart Decision Pending Resolution of this Investigation" has been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission in connection with the restart of Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 1.
The authors'of the subject paper allege that, based on a survey they conducted in the vicinity, there is a significant increase in cancer incidence in the TMI area resulting from the accioent at iMI-Unit 2.
As I indicated by telephone on August 24, 1984, we would like your review and cor.:nent on the findings reported by the authors and their conclusions of an increase in cancer incidence.
Sincerely.
ORIGINAL SI;;iED BY MLUAM U ILLS Dr. W'ill.iam A. Mills, Ph.D.
Chief Health Effects Branch Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciencet Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Enc 1csure:
As stated I
e e
9 D
s s
1 t
t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No.(s) 50-289 (Three Mile 's1a'nd, Unit No.1)
(Resta'rt)
I
)h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the fore, going ' document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list ecmpiled by the Office of the Secretary of the.Comission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - Rules of Practice
~
of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this
_ /8 day of_
198 4.
1 4 1// W A W M 54 f
Office'd'f the Secretary of th(Comission
[$/- N-sth h A /$
\\
pW i
UNITED STATES OF AMERI.CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITAtl EDISON C0f1PANY, ET AL.
DocketNo.(s) 50-289 (ThreeMileIsland, Unit 1)
.)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman George F. Trowbridge,'Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comission 1800 M Street,it.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Mr. Henry D. Hukill Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director TMI-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission GPU Nuclear Corporation Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 480 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Courtney Srqyth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission THI-l Licensing Manager Washington, D.C.
20555 GPU Nuclear Corporation F.O. Box 480 Professor Gary L: NfThpilin Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Thomas Ye Au, Esq.
Assistant Counsel, DER Gary J. Edles, Esq., Chaiman 505 Executive House Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board P.O. Box 2357 U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn Weiss, Esq.
Christine H. Kohl, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20009 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert Pollard Dr. John H. Buck Union of Concerned Scientists Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission Washington, D.C.
20006 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Power Washington, D.C.
20555 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16901
Board and Parties - continu-d 50-289 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 TMI PIRG 1037 Maclay Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt RD #5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320
~
Ms. Louise Bradford Three Mile Island Alert 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102
~~
Joanne Doroshow, Esq.
The Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20002
,.4 9
Michael F. McBride, Esq.
LeBoeuf Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton and Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
~
~
q-
.03[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. COPMISSIONERS:
-,4 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts
'85 MY 16 P3:02 James K. Asselstine Frederick M..Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
..l.i, -
..licir In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 6 9 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,UnitNo.1)
.tERVE0#iAYl6YE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-85-08 I.
Background and Sumary On June 21, 1984, Marjorie and Norman Aamodt filed a motion with the Comission alleging that releases of airborne radioactive materials from the March 28,1979 accident at TMI-2 were substantially greater than have been acknowledged and that these releases have lead to an unexpectedly high level of cancer in local residents. The Aamodts based their allegations on door-to-door interviews that Marjorie Aamodt and others conducted of residents of two areas near the TMI-2 facility.
The Aamodts requested the Comission to investigate their allegations and to defer a decision on the restart of TMI-1 until the issues they raised had been studied further and fully resolved. On December 13, 1984 the Comission denied the Aamodts' motion to sponsor a new study of health-related issues arising from the TMI-2 8505200416 50516 PDR ADOC 05000289 g.
D C
2 accident. The Comission stated that the "Aamodts had not presented sufficient reliable infonnation to show that previous, more comprehensive and-scientific surveys of TMI-2 accident radiation releases are erroneous."
CLI-84-22, 20 NRC 1573.1 On January 15, 1985 the Aamodts filed a motion asking the Comission to reconsider the December 13 denial of their request. They also requested the Commission to reopen the record-in the TMI-l restart proceeding, asserting that the issues raised by their survey were relevant to "the management competence, emergency planning and health issues" litigated in the restart proceeding. On April 13, 1985, the Aamodts amended their request by submitting additional information.
For the reasons which follow, the motions to reopen the record and to defer a decision on TMI-1 restart are denied.2 II. Analysis of Motion to Reopen the Record The Aamodts claim that the record of the restart proceeding should be reopened to examine health-related issues arising from the TMI-2 accident.
The Aamodts allege that death certificates obtained from the Pennsylvania IComissioners Asselstine and Bernthal dissented. They would have provided NRC funding to ongoing studies being conducted by the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Health.
2 Should the Comission in the future acquire information regarding the need for any further studies along the lines requested by the Aamodts, it will, of course, make its views known along with any appropriate recomendations. The NRC staff is currently evaluating this matter and will be providing recomendations to the Comission shortly. The Comission is also assessing whether the Comission's Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2 could provide a useful forum for citizens to raise health-related concerns. These matters.are not relevant to the restart proceeding because health effects resulting from the TMI-2 accident are not related to a determination whether TMI-1 can be safely operated today.
See II.C, infra.
_.~
l 3
Department of Health establish that: (1)thereisanelevatedcancer mortality rate in certain areas surrounding TMI-2; (2) an increased rate of neonatal hypothyroidism in Lancaster County in 1979 resulted from the TMI-2 accident; (3) serious post-accident health effects within'and beyond the ten-mile radius of TMI demonstrates the presently-approved emergency plans are inadequate; (4) residents near TMI are suffering adverse health effects from high levels of radiation currently in the environment; and (5) the 5100 degree Fahrenheit temperatures reached within the TMI-2 core during the accident produced elevated levels of fission products and transuranics which have escaped to the environment and could be hannful ts the public.
The Aamodts also believe the record should be reopened on an issue relating to the integrity of licensee's management. The Aamodts allege that information developed in the restart proceeding on the Dieckamp mailgram issue demonstrates that licensee personnel lied to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection on the morning of March 28, 1979. The Aamodts maintain that after the Comonwealth had been warned of projected radiation releases of ten (10) rems per hour over Goldsboro, TMI personnel discounted this information by claiming, contrary to fact, that the surveillance teams had been dispatched and had verified that a significant release had not occurred.
Under established Commission practice three factors are considered in determining whether a motion to reopen should be granted: "(1) Is the motion timely; (2) does it address significant safety (or environmental) issues; and (3) might a different result have been reached had the newly preferred material been considered initially."
In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 285, n.3 (1985).
4 The NRC staff opposed the request to reopen the record, arguing'that the criteria for reopening the record had not been satisfied. The licensee also opposed reopening of the record on whether licensee personnel lied.to Bureau of Radiation Protection, but did not take a position on whether the record should be reopened on the other issues raised by the Aamodts.
A.
Timeliness The central issue raised by the Aamodts relates to their allegation that there are elevated levels of cancer in the TMI area. Their request to reopen the record on that matter is untimely. The Aamodts first presented their concerns regarding cancer levels to the Commission in June of 1984, yet did not request reopening of the record until January of 1985. The Aamodts have not presented any justification for not requesting at that time a reopening of the record.3 B.
Whether Claims Raise a Significant Safety or Environmental Issue The Commission has reviewed the material presented by the Aamodts regarding alleged elevated cancer levels in the TMI area and continues to believe that the prior studies are correct in concluding that the number of health effects from radiation releases arising from the TMI-2 accident will be negligible. The Aamodts have not presented information which casts doubt on the previous studies.
For example, the Aamodts have not reported when the cancers which form the basis for their allegations were diagnosed relative to 3The Aamodts also have not established when the infomation they rely on in support of their other claims became available and whether the facts could have been presented to the Commission at an earlier date.
~
l 5
'~
I I
the TMI-2 accident and have not shown that the cancers resulted from the TMI-2 accident. When the cancers arose or were first diagnosed is f
particularly significant, in light of the obvious fact that cancers which arose prior to the TMI-2 accident cannot be attributed to the accident, and the fact that, even for those cancers arising since the accident, the undisputed scientific evidence is that there is generally a latency period for. cancer development following exposure to radiation.
Even if additional information, such as date of diagnosis of the cancers, type of cancer, health, occupational, and personal histories of the deceased were available, we believe it is unlikely that statistically and scientifically valid conclusions could be reached regarding the causes of the cancers in the small population groups associated with the Aamodts' informal survey The epidemiological evidence presented by the Aamodts is fragmen+;c and anecdotal. As a technical and logical matter, it is not sufficient to support a reasonable doubt as to the adequacy and correctness of the several detailed scientifically conducted studies on which the Commission relied.
Therefore, under the circumstances, the Aamodts have not raised a significant safety or environmental concern.
Their other claims similarly fail to raise significant issues. With respect to their allegations that there was a higher rate of neonatal l
hypothyroidism in Lancaster County in 1979 than there was in the 1981-1983 period, the Pennsylvania Department of Health has analyzed the seven cases of hypothyroidism that arose in 1979 and concluded that they could not be attributed to radiation, but should be attributed instead to factors such as incomplete maturation of thyroid glands and lack of enzymes to synthesize thyroxine.
In fact one of the seven cases occurred prior to the accident and another within three months following the accident, a time period too shorc i
l
\\
6 for the hypothyroidism to have resulted from the TMI-2 accident.
The Aamodts have not provided information that would lead us to question the Department of Health's conclusions.
The Aamodts' allegation that health effects reported by TMI area residents, such as' nausea and severe vomiting, resulted from radiation released from the TMI-2 accident that was higher than reported is not supported by available information. The NRC staff estimates that the average radiation dose to an individual within ten miles of the TMI site resulting from the TMI-2 accident was approximately 8 millirems, and the average dose received by individuals within 50 miles was approximately 2 millirems.
Based on accepted scientific principles governing the effects of exposure to varying levels of radiation, these dose levels are far too low to be the cause of the kind of adverse health effects cited by the Aamodts.
In the absence of other evidence demonstrating a link between the cited health effects and the TMI-2 accident, the Commission must continue to support the findings reached in earlier assessments of radiation releases from the TMI-2 accident.
With respect to the Aamodts' claim that there are currently unacceptably high levels of radiation in the environment near TMI, the NRC staff, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources conducted an informal field survey with sophisticated radiation monitoring equipment of sites selected by the Aamodts.
The agencies concluded that the radiation levels were within the normal range.
The Aamodts also speculate that the high temperatures (in excess of 5000 degrees Fahrenheit) reached within the TMI-2 reactor core during the accident created a "high probability" that transuranic materials were released into the atmosphere. Transuranic materials emit alpha radiation and could be i
J
l 7
another possible source of adverse health effects. The NRC staff has examined these allegations and concluded that the likelihood of measurable quantities of transuranic material becoming airborne and subsequently being released into the environment is low. The staff further noted that no measurable quantity of transuranic material other than that associated with nomal background levels has been identified in any of the air or soil samples taken around the TMI site during or after the accident. Accordingly, again the Aamodts concerns do not raise a significant issue.
Finally, the Aamodts' claim that the licensee deceived the Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection concerning radiation measurements on the day of the TMI-2 accident is based on a draft document which was prepared in the course of an NRC investigation conducted in 1980, but before pertinent individuals had been interviewed by the NRC. After the interviews, the staff determined that the facts contained in the working draft were erroneous and concluded that the licensee had not provided erroneous information relating to the Goldsboro dose-rate prediction.
The Commission has concluded on the basis of its review of the allegations and the staff's and licensee's responses that the Aamodts' claim of deception is not supported and accordingly does not raise a significant safety issue.
~
C.-
Likelihood of Reaching a Different Result The Conunission does not believe that the infomation presented by the Aamodts in their motion would have led to a different result. With the possible exception of the claim that Metropolitan Edison Company officials deceived Commonwealth officials on THI-2 accident radiation releases and the
8 neonatal hypothyroidism issue,4 the Aamodts' concerns are not relevant to the restart proceeding because health effects resulting from the TMI-2 accident are not related to a detennination whether TMI-1 can be safely operated today. As discussed above, the Commission finds that the Aamodts' claims of licensee deception to be without.any foundation. With respect to the neonatal hypothyroidism, the information presented by the Aamodts does not form a basis for concluding that the Licensing Board erred in LBP-81-59, 14 NRC 1211, 1596 when it concluded that the alleged increased in neonatal hypothyroidism was not caused by the TMI-2 accident.
For these reasons the Aamodts' motion to reopen the record is denied, as well as its request that the Comission sponsor a health effects study prior to making a restart decision.
Commissioner Asselstine's separate views are attached.
It is so ORDERED.
- % For/ the Commission 4
/ <-
s.,
p' q" -[*... g _ SAMUEL J. CHILK g
/ o.v~-
/
c..-
N 3(
g o.
, 5: Secretary of!the Commission
.d Dated at Washington, D.C.
i e
%. e +
this /0 day of )L.,1985, i
4The Licensing Board addressed the hypothyroidism issue in the context of evaluating the protective action criteria used by the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania in emergency planning.
SCcmnissioner Roberts was not present for the affinnation of this iten, if he had been present, he would have approved.
66
[
"o UNITED STATES 4
f' ",, y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHIN GT ON, O.C. 20555
{
gg gg r.
3 Mico.a v m.ract._ _ _ _
\\,,,, f MAY 16, 1985 8ES744T_
OFFICE OF THE
'l SECRETARY DX. ETE' 4
ussac' satyED MAY 171985 15 MY 17 A9:21 CFFILE.:F 5E L;;t.T;.,'
Bb CH TO:
RECIPIENTS OF CLI-85-08 ATTACHED ARE THE SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE WHICH WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM A NUMBER OF COPIES OF CLI-85-08.
PLEASE CHECK ~YOUR COPY OF CLI-85-08 AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE SEPARATE VIEWS.
SECRETARIAT ATTACHMENT:
AS STATED l
50516 8505200447 500 9
DR ADOC 9
8
's SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE I concur in the result reached by the Commission, but not in the substance of the order.
I do not believe that we should reopen the record of the TMI-1 Restart proceeding to hear this issue. However, I do believe further study is necessary. The Commission should hire an independent consultant who is expert in the fields of epidemiology and the health effects of ionizing radiation. That consultant should review the information submitted by the Aamodts as well as the various existing i
studies of the radiological releases from the TMI accident and the impact of those releases on the people surrounding the plant.
(
I i
d[-
5:
l
. M
...g'o UNITE 3 STATES 8
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 e
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
EDO PRINCIPAL. CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
=.
=
_=
FROM:
DUE: 01'/29/86 EDO CONTROL:' 001334 DOC DT: -01/08/86 SEN. ARLEN SPECTER FINAL REPLY:
TO:
OCA FOR' SIGNATURE OF:
GRFEN SFCY NO: 86-32
- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:
ROUTING:
ENCLOSES LETTER FROM MARY OSBORN RE TMI CONCERNS TAYLOR DENTON DATE: 01/14/86 GCUNNINGHAM ASSIGNED TO: RI CONTACT:-MURLEY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS-RETURN INCOMING WITH RFPLY.
+ - -,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
- PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-86-0032 LOGGING DATE: Jan 13 86 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
A. Specter--Const Ref AFFILIATION:
U.S.
SENATE LETTER.- DATE :
Jan 8 86 FILE CODE: C&R-2 BP
SUBJECT:
Allegations of wrong doing by PA Commonwealth, Health Dept., & others in relation to TMI ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: Mary Osborn NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Jan 23 86 3
SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
I C "* -
- 1. 7.l. % - W
bY.... :
l l
I L
l EN 001))4
~~~
. _ - ~. - -, _.
-