ML20154E383
| ML20154E383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1988 |
| From: | Baker G GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154E212 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 8805200199 | |
| Download: ML20154E383 (22) | |
Text
__
b 4
ik;
~.o!,,
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-320-OLA
)
(Disposal of Accident (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. GARY G.
BAKER (Contention 5d)
County of Dauphin
)
)
ss.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
)
DR. GARY G.
BAKER, being duly sworn according to law, de-I 1
i poses and says as follows:
1 l
1.
My name is Dr. Gary G. Baker.
My business address is Post i
Office Box 480, Middletown, Pennsylvania, 17057.
I am employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as Manager, Environmental Controls.
l f
In this position, I am responsible for the environmental moni-i i
toring and evaluation of activities at Three Mile Island (TMI).
{
I hold a doctorate degree in microbiology and I have ten years l
experience in the utility industry, eight of which have involved t
l both radiological and nonradiological environmental monitoring of l
l nuclear plants.
A statement of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
l 4
i l
l 8805200199 090516 gDR ADOCK 0500gO l
c l
L L
s -.
2.
I make this affidavit in support of GPU Nuclear Corpora-tion's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d concerning the effects of tritium and alpha emitters such as transuranics.
I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and be-lieve them to be true and correct.
In my affidavit, I will de-scribe the method of modeling radiological releases and calculat-ing doses, and I will explain how the modeling methodology takes into account the effects of tritium, alpha emitters and transuranics.
I.
The MIDAS Code 3.
The primary environmental dose assessment computer code used by GPUN is the Meteorological Information and Dose Assessment System (MIDAS).
This code is designed to allow environmental dose assessment for chronic and acute exposures.
The routine re-lease portion of the model provides the dose assessment required to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix I guidelines for plant releases, is based on the NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.109, and uses atmospheric dispersion calculations based on the Pasquill-Gifford method presented in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
The MIDAS code has been reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff.
It has also been reviewed by the Atomic Safety and Li-censing Board in the TMI-1 Restart proceeding, in which TMIA was a party, and was found to be an acceptable code for assessing at-mospheric dispersion and environmental dose. -
4.
The code as used for Three Mile Island employs numerous site specific files in order to provide the most accurate model possi-ble of the releases.
For example, for atmospheric releases, the Unit 2 portion of the model considers the followingt a.
Two separate release points with plant-specific charac-teristics including height vi th2 vant stacks. diameter of the vents, linear flow rate from the vents., and building dimensions for wake effects.
i b.
Three different methods of assessing plume rise.
Plumes can be treated as ground level, elevated, or wake split.
The wake split method is normally used on the station vent and the ground method is normally used on other release points.
Wake split treatment causes the model to assess the degree of jet plume rise with each release condition of meteorology and ventilation flow.
The model then treats a fraction of the release as an elevated release and the remainder as a ground t
release to approximate the amount of the plume which is entrained by the building vake effect.
The evaporator was conservatively treated as a ground release, which generally produces the highest calculated doses because of lower mixing prior to ground contact of the plume.
C' c.
Seven environmental exposure pathways.
The pathways included in the model are (1) human inhalation in the plume, (2) direct radiation to humans from the plume, (3) direct radiation to humans from radioactive materi-al deposited on the ground from the plume, (4) inges-tion by humans of vegetation grown on soil with radionuclides in and on the soil which have been depos-ited from the plume, (5) ingestion by humans of cow milk from animals which have consumed vegetation grown on soil which contains radionuclides deposited from the plume, (6) ingestion by humans of goat milk from ani-mais which have consumed vegetation from soil which contains radionuclides deposited from the plume, and (7) ingestion by humans of meat from animals which have consumed vegetation grown in soil with plume deposited radionuclides.
d.
Actual residence locations.
The actual locations of residences or clusters of residences in the vicinity of the plant in each of the standard sixteen compass sec-tors are included in order to have actual locations of l
residents for the direct plume exposure, direct plume inhalation, and direct soil deposition exposure path-ways.
l l
O e.
Actual garden locations.
The actual loca*, ion of the nearest garden in each of the sixteen standard compass sectors are included in the model.
Each resident fur-ther from the plant than the nearest garden is assumed to have a garden also.
This allows an assessment of the vegetation ingestion dose to humans based on act 2al land use around the plant.
The maximally exposed indi-vidual is assumed to reside in the location of highest plume inhalation and direct exposure and to eat food-stuffs from the highest garden, even if that garden and the maximally-exposed individual's residence are not in the same location.
f.
Actual milk animal locations.
The locations of all known animals used for milk for human consumption with-in five miles of the plant are included, broken down into sixteen compass sectors.
This allows assessment of the cow and goat milk pathways based on the actual land use characteristics around the plant.
The maxi-mally exposed individual is assumed to drink cow milk and goat milk from the highest locations, even if the individual does not actually reside in those locations, g.
Actual meat animals.
Locations of actual known meat animals wihin five miles of the plant are included to 3
provide an assessment of the meat pathway dose based on t 1
-_-y.
-m-.
- q Actual land use around the plant.
The maximally ex-posed individual therefore lives at the location of highest plume and deposition direct exposure and inhalation exposure, while eating meat, milk, and vege-tation from the highest locations for those pathways even if they are not co-located.
h.
Actual distance 3 to the site boundary and actual ter-rain heights in the vicinity of the plant.
The use of the actual site boundary distance specifies where to begin assessment of the plume exposures.
The inclusion of terrain heights allows a better estimate of the dep-osition of radionuclides on the soil, since deposition is in part dependent on ground contact of the plume.
5.
MIDAS uses a gaussian plume dispersion model based on the pasquill stability classes selected by the temperature difference (delta T) between two sensors of an onsite tower, one at 33 feet above ground level (AGL) and one at 150 feet AGL.
Delta T pro-vides an estimate of the stability of the atmosphere in the vi-cinity of TMI, with a more positive delta T indicating increasing stability in the lower atmosphere and hence a lower degree of mixing.
This is a standard method of atmospheric dispersion es-timation approved by the NRC in Regulatory Guides 1.111 and 1.23.
Additionally, vind speed and direction sensors on the onsite tower are used to determine the direction of the plume and provide additional parameters for the dispersion estimate.._.
6.
The dispersion modeling derives the average airborne concen-tration, deposition rate from the plume, and ground plane concen-tration of each radionuclide in each sector as a function of time.
The dose due to direct exposure to radioactive material in the plume and deposited on the ground is determined by MIDAS di-rectly from these functions, using published conversion factors such as those in Tables E-6 and B-1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109.
7.
Calculation of ingestion and inhalation doses is more in-volved.
Numerous parameters are used to estimate the transfer of radionuclides through the environment.
Since some of the path-vays involve multiple environmental media and trophic levels, es-timates of the concentrations in each trophic level are required to adequately estimate the environmental dose from all of the pathways.
For example, for the cow milk pathway, the model must first estimate the dispersion and deposition of the partfeulate radioactive material in the effluents onto the soil.
It then uses transfer coefficients from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 to es-timate the concentration of radionuclides in vegetation based on the amount in the soil.
Food consumption rates specific to cows are then applied to the vegetation to estimate the total amount of each radionuclide the milk animal consumes in a day, and transfer factors are applied to determine the concentration of 1
the radionuclides in the milk.
The consumption rates (usage fac-tors) and transfer factor used by MIDAS are those contained in l
l _
These are generally experimentally de-rived factors selected by the NRC staff followinc a review of the applicable literature.
8.
The MIDAS code estimates the quantity of each radionuclide ingested or inhaled by members of the public.
To provide greater accuracy, age specific parameters are used to specify the inges-tion of various foodstuffs and water and inhalation rates.
The offsite population is modelled by specifying four different age groups -- infants, children, teenagers, and adults -- each with specific ingestion and inhalation parameters.
Ingestion and inhalation factors for each age group are specified in table E-5 in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for the maximally exposed individual.
These are based on actual usage studies by the Department of Ag-riculture as well as on the "Reference Man" study in Internation-al Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 23.
9.
When the ingestion and inhalation quantities have been cal-culated, conversion factors between the quantity of each nuclide ingested or inhaled and the 50 year integrated dose committment are applied.
These factors (Dose Ccnversion Factors or DCFs),
which are specific for each age group and radionuclide, represent an estimate of the dose per unit of radioactivity (i.e., mrem per picoeurie).
The factors are provided in numerous publications from the NRC and other sources.
The primary sources in use for chronic (routine release) exposures are Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG 0172, which are in turn based on ICRP publications, including ICRP Publication 2, ICRP Publication 10, and ICRP Publication 23.
The DCFs in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG 0172 have been calculated based on intake route (i.e. separately-for inhalation and ingestion), age group, and isotope, using age specific characteristics of body and organ size as well as bio-i logical half lives and differences in physiology of the different ages (such as GI/LLI transit times).
Biological half lives (the effective residence time of radionuclides in the body) are an in-tegral part of the derivation of the DCFs, as is the Quality Fac-tor of the radiation from each radionuclide.
The Quality Factor (derived from the Relative Biological Effectiveness -- RBE) is a f
measure of the biological impact of radiation from a particular radionuclide as compared against a reference gamma source.
- Thus, the dose conversion factors take into account the particular in-l teraction of each radionuclide with the human body and permit calculation of a dose equivalent that reasonably reflects the total relative effect.
10.
The dose calculated by MIDAS is a fifty year dose com-mittment.
It is essentially an integration of the total dose possible to an individual following ingestion, inhalation, or ex-i posure to a radionuclide for the following fifty years.
This ac-counts for the initial intake, the fraction of initial intake re-tained, the fraction of the initial intake deposited in the body I' j l
1-f
tissues, and the removal of the deposited activity by biological removal and radioactive decay.
In most cases, the total resi-dence time of the radionuclide in the body is much smaller than the fifty year integration time, and most of the calculated dose is delivered in a much shorter time.
II.
Consideration of Tritium 11.
There is considerable discussion in the literature regarding the quality factor for tritium radiation which should be used.
iCRP Publication 2, on which the DCFs are based, used a factor of 1.7 as the quality factor for tritium's lov energy beta radia-tion.
Factors ranging from 1 to 3 are common in the literature, and recent NCRP publications recommends a quality factor of 1.
The use of a quality factor of 1.7 vill produce a calculated dose simply a factor of 1.7 times that computed using a quality factor of 1.
12.
Tritium is also a special case in the calculation of offsite doses because of the ability of the skin to freely exchange water with the atmosphere.
Typically, about one half of the tritium intake from exposure to atmospheric tritiated water (HTO), which is the form of tritium in the occident generated water, is through absorption through th: skin.
The total intake of tritium used in the model for airborne tritium is, therefore, the sum of the amount of inhaled and the amount absorbed through the skin. -
-J
This additional intake of tritium through the skin is accounted for in the dose conversion factor for inhalation.
13.
In the case of tritium, the biological half life of the water fraction is on the order of 10 days.
Additional compart-ments for tritium with half lives as long as about 130 days and 250 days also exist, but these include only a small fraction (less than 10%) of the tritium in the body and do not in fact contribute significantly to the actual dose commitment.
NCRP Publication 62 explains that the dose from the three compartment model for tritium, (which accounts for the fractions of tritium in the body which exist as free water, labile-freely exchangeable organic, and tightly bound organic hydrogen) is only about four percent higher than that from the free water only.
In addition, the NCRP 63 indicates that the dose to the cell nucleus associ-ated with the chromosomal structures is trivial compared to that from the tritiated water in the cell.
Thus the majority of the dose from tritium is incurred within a few weeks following the exposure from the tritium existing as free water in the body.
14.
Strontium-90, on the other hand, has a very long biological half life, on the order of 15 years, and is not eliminated from the body completely even after the fifty year integration period.
As a result, the strontium in the evaporator effluent vill pro-vide the dominant contribution to the dose to the maximally ex-posed hypothetical offsite individual, about 3.6 mrem to bone.1/
1/
The doses attributable to evaporation, as calculated by GPUN using the MIDAS code, are presented in the Joint Affidavit on (Continued Next Page) L
15.
With respect to strontium-90, the 3.6 mrem calculated to be delivered to the bone is actually incurred over the life of the maximally exposed individual, not in the two years of the evapo-ration process.
The actual average dose rate from the strontium to the maximally exposed individual would therefore be less than 0.1 mrem per year.
The calculated dose from tritium, 1.4 mrem to the total body, is essentially all delivered within a few months of intake.
16.
The insignificance of these doses is evident.
The average individual in the TMI area vill receive 300 mrem per year from natural radiation (about 70 from direct radiation from the soil and cosmic rays, 30 from internal natural radioactivity and weap-ons fallout and 200 mrem whole body equivalent from radon daugh-ters) each year, compared to 0.1 mrem estimated annual bone dose from strontium and the 1.4 mrem total tritium dose that the maxi-mally exposed individual might receive from the evaporation of the AGW.
The variability of individual doses is quite large.
Radon doses alone can vary by factors of ten depending on the e
4 i
(Continued)
Contentions 1, 2, 3, and 8.
It is calculated that the maximally exposed individual will receive a 50-year committed dose of 3.6 mrem to the bone and 2.0 mrem tor.a1 body.
Of the 2.0 mrem body dose to the maximally exposed individual, about 1.4 mrem is attributable to tritium.
The average exposure to an offsite individual is 0.011 mrem to the bone and 0.008 mrem to total
- body, r,
t-
individual's home conditions.
Direct radiation from cosmic and terrestrial sources can also vary.
Differences in the local ge-ology can easily change the local terrestrial dose rate by a fac-tor of two, as is routinely seen in the direct radiation moni-toring by TLD (thermoluminescent dosimeter) conducted by GPUN around Three Mile Island.
Normal environmental exposure levels from about 40 to 90 mrem per year are common, depending on the location monitored.
The additional dose to the maximally exposed individual from evaporation is far below the normal environmental Jose variability, and the additional dose to the average offsite individual is orders of magnitude smaller.
l III.
Transuranics/ Alpha Emitters 17.
Uranium and transuranics are existing environmental iso-topes.
The uraniums are naturally occurring isotopes and the transuranics have been put into the biosphere as a result of at-mospheric nuclear weapons testing and reentry of radioisotope powered satellites.
About 400,000 curies of transuranics have been put into the atmosphere due to these sources.
The TMI-2 AGW intended for evaporation contains no transuranics or uranium de-l tectable by GPUN's normal alpha spectroscopy.
Even if the Lower l
l Limit of Detection (LLD) of the analyses is conservativaly as-i sumed to represent the maximum possible quantity present, there could be no more than about 7 microcuries of these isotopes present in the evaporator effluent.
l l
-13 l
l l
l l
t
18.
Environmental dosimetry of the alpha emitters, including the uraniums and transuranicc, is conducted in a manner identical to that used for other isotopes.
As described in the Affidavit of Kerry L. Harner on Contention 5d, GPUN provided data to the NRC regarding the content of uraniums and transuranics in processed accident generated water at TMI-2, thereby establishing the ex-pected influent to the evaporator, and all of the uraniums and transuranics were undetectable (less than the LLD or Lower Limit of Detection).
19.
In its calculations of dose from the proposed evaporation of accident generated water, which were presented in GPUN's July 1986 report on the Disposal of Processed Water, GPUN did not in-clude undetected isotopes.
The NRC, in the calculations of envi-ronmental dose included in PEIS Supplement No. 2, however, did include the isotopes which were not detected by assuming that those undetectable isotopes were actually present at the limit of detection.
The inclusion of the uraniums and transuranics as present at the LLD concentrations in the calculations performed by the NRC demonstrated that the alpha emitters will in fact have no impact on the environmental dose assessment, since the bone dose (critical organ for most transuranics) in the NRC assessment is in fact lower than that calculated in the GPUN's original sub-mittal.
J.
20.
In addition, GPUN performed a separate evaluation of the potential impact on the environmental dose assessment of undetected isotopes identified as potentially present in pro-cessed water.
Using the radionuclide concentrations calculated by GPUN for each radionuclide determined to be potentially present in processed accident generated water (as described in the Affidavit of Kerry L. Harner on Contention 5d), GPUN con-ducted a comparative evaluation of the potential off-site effects of these radionuclides, relative to Sr-90, based on the total dose commitment resulting f rom the ingest ion pathway or summation of all pathways.
The dose due to exposure to the plume was not considered for this analysis since its contribution to an indi-vidual's total dose is several orders of magnitude less than the ingestion pathway.
Sr-90 was used as the basis for the relative assessment since it is the most radiologically significant radionuclide.
21.
Based on the above assessment, the potential impact of each radionuclide was determined by multiplying the derived activity of each isotope by the respective pathway dose conversion factors based on Regulatory Guide 1.109 or the Total Dose Commitment val-ues from EPRI NP3840, "Environmental Radiation Doses from Diffi-cult to Measure Nuclides," to obtain an indication of the rela-tive impact of the isotope.
The results are shown below.
The evaluation indicated that the transuranics if present at the LLD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
. j' I
could contribute no more than about one percent to the total
- dose, i
Relative Off-Site Dose Radionuclides Concentration (uCi/ml)
Jmpact Compared to Sr-90 H-3 1.3 E-1 4 0.012 3
C-14 1.0 E-4 0.50 Mn-54 4.0 E-8 40.01 1
Fe-55 4.8 E-7 (0.01
-Co-58 4.0 E-8 (0.01 Co-60 4.8 E-7 (0.01 i
Ni-63 6.0 E-7 (0.01 En-65 9.8 E-8 (0.01 l
l Sr-90/Y-90 1.1 E-4 1.00 Tc-99 1.0 E-6 0.20 Ru-106/Rh-106 3.3 E-7 40.01 i
Ag-11CM 5.6 E-8 (0.01 Sb-125/Te-125a 2.3 E-6 40.01 4
I-129 6.0 E-7 0.19 4
Cs-134 8.8 E-7 40.01 l
Cs-137/Ba-137m 3.6 E-5 40.01 Cs-144/Pr-144 2.1 E-7 40.01 1
Pm-147 4.8 E-6 40.01 Sm-151 1.1 E-71 40.01 1
Eu-152 3.8 E-10 40.01 1
Eu-154 4.4 E-8 40.01 [
Relative Off-Site Dose Radionuclides Concentration (uCi/ml)
Impact Compared to Sr-9Q 1
Eu-155 1.1 E-7 4 0.01 I
U-234 1.0 E-8 4 0.01 U-235 1.2 E-8 (0.01 U-238 1.2 E-8 (0.01 Pu-238 1.2 E-8
<0.01 Pu-239 1.4 E-8
<0.01 L
Pu-240 1.4 E-8
( 0. 01.
1 Pu-241 6.5 E-7
<0.01 Am-241 1.2 E-8 (0.01 cm-242 1.0 E-7
(,0,01 r
1 Calculated concentration 2
H-3 ratio is based on food pathway. Since tritium is present in a gas-oous form, it also has a significant inhalatica pathway constitutent.
L L
3 Ratio listed is for C-14 if present in a carbonate or organic form.
It C-14 is present as a dissolved gas (e.g. CO ), the ratio would be 0.01.
l 2
4 The relative off-site dose impact compared to Sr-90 listed for I-129 as-sumes it is present at LLD (i.e., 6.0 E-7); therefora, 0.19 is a maximum l
value. The actual relative off-site dose impact for I-129 would be less than this value.
22.
The ralative unimportance of the transuranics to the envi-ronmental dose can be easily explained.
Strontium-90 is the dom-inant contributor to the dose from evaporator effluents.
Based on the LLDs of the water volumes analyzed as representing l
evaporator influent, no more than about 7 microcuries of transuranics can be present, consisting of no more than 5.7 l
I 5 I
b
O microcuries of plutonium-241 and no more than 1.3 microcuries of other transuranics.
When compared to the estimated real release of 9.6E-4 curies of strontium-90, the difference is a factor of about 150 for the plutonium-241 and a factor of about 600 for the sum of the remaining transuranics.
23.
Although the transuranics are generally represented as constituting a unique radiation hazard when ingested or inhaled, their behavior and dosimetry can be best described as similar to s tt ent ium-90.
The transuranics can be deposited on or into bone and remain in the bone for long periods of time.
However, this 4
is accounted for in the DCF for each isotope just as it is for all other nuclides.
In addition, the transuranics are generally 4
not soluble in environmental media and are not readily absorbed I
through the vall of the gastro-intestinal system.
This accounts for the DCFs per unit of activity ingested for the transuranics being generally a factor of about ten lover than that for i
strontium-90 despite the reputation for higher toxicity of the transuranics.
i 24.
The dominant intake pathways following release of these f
particulates is through the ingestion pathways, as demonstrated by the original environmental dose estimates performed by GPUN.
In particular, the vegetation pathway vill dominate the dose to I
individuals from the strontium-90.
The literature on the trans-fer coefficients for the transuranics indicates that the i
l l
plutoniums and uraniums vill be bound into soil and thus have i
~
lover transfer into foodstuffs than the strontium-90.
The lover transfer coefficients in combination with the much smaller quan-tities of transuranics potentially present, even assuming they are actually present at LLD, causes the ingestion dose from LLD quantities of transuranics to be orders of magnitude lover than the dose from strontium-90 in evaporator effluent.
The ingestion pathway doses from transuranics assumed to be present at LLD will
{
provide an even smaller contribution to total dose.
I 25.
While the uraniums and transuranics do deliver higher doses 4
per unit of activity inhaled (typically a factor of 5 for 1
plutonium-241 and up to 200 for the remainder of the transuranics i
potentially present in processed AGW), the inhalation pathway is only a small fraction of the total dose contribution.
The inhalation pathway is expected to contribute about ten percent of 4
the total dose from those isotopes which are present in the water 4
j (predominantly the strontium-90), while the ingestion pathvays 1
l contribute the remainder.
The combination of the factor of 150 I
to 600 lower quantities of transuranics as compared to strontium-l 90 (conservatively assuming that the transuranics are present at 1
LLD) and the corresponding higher DCFs of 5 to 200 1/ indicate i
2/
Note that the factor of 5 higher for the DCF and the factor of 150 lower in quantity apply to the same isotope, plutonium-241, which is actually primarily a beta emitter and i
thus has a much lower DCF than most other transuranics.
- Thus, the transuranic with the highest potential abundance in AGW actu-ally has the lowest dose conversion factor.
! i
the trar.suranics can contribate no more than one thirtieth to one third of the relatively small contribution to the total dose from the inhalation pathway.
IV.
Conclusion 26.
As explained above, the MIDAS code and GPUN's radiological evaluation of the evaporation of accident generated water adequately consider tritium, alpha emitters and transuranics, and indeed every radionuclide potentially present in evaporator influent.
The doses attributable to evaporation from these and all other radioactive constituents are extremely small.
fC
-w k Gary Q r l
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of May, 1988
' wQshckMA.de]
Notary Public I
My commission expires Auaust 21. 1989 4
EXHIBIT A 4
GARY G. BAKER, PH.D.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 1983 to Manacer of Environmental Controls-Three Mile Present Island GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Primary responsibility is to ensure that plant operations are in compliance with all relevant regulatory agencies.
Also coordinate planning for the dismantlement of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility.
Environmental Controls operations... Staffing... Budget Planning / Implementation... Policy Design /Reviev...Public Relations...Offsite Emergency Plan Response... Environmental / Radiological Surveys Programs...
- SUPERVISE PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF SCIENTISTS AND UNION PERSONNEL
- ANNUAL BUDGET -1.3 MILLION DOLLARS 1981 to Radiolecical Procrams Manacer-Three Mile 1983 Island GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Responsible for all phases of radiological environmental studies and monitoring
- programs, Contract Administration... Professional Testimony... Environmental Assessment Coordinator...Public Relations... Management Interface...
- SUPERVISE PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF SCIENTISTS AND UNION PERSCNNEL 1979 to Environmental Scientist II-Three Mile Isl;nd 1981 GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Designed and implemented radiological monitoring programs.
Evaluate Exisiting Systems... Evaluate Data... Monitor Commercial Laboratories... Management Reports...
t
\\ o 1978 to Environmental Scientist !!!-Pennsv1vania 1979 Electric Active in all aspects of biological stuides and monitoring program for ten coal fired and two hydroelectric facilities.
Program Evaluation... Design / Conduct Studies... Interpret / Report Technical Data...
1978 Instructor INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Indiana, PA Taught General Biology and Microbiology at an undergraduate level.
Other I served as a consultant to the educational and business community in Central Pennsylvania addressing microbiology, problems and graduate student programs.
EDUCATION 1978 Ph.D.-Environmental Microbiolooy WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, Morgantown, WV 1975 M.S.-Environmental Microbiolooy WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, Morgantown, WV 1971 5.S.-Bioloov MORRIS HARVEY COLLEGE, Charlestown, WV 1966 to Biolooy 1968 UNIVERSITY OF UTAM, Salt Lake City, UT
_2
_ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _