ML20132B594
| ML20132B594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1983 |
| From: | Fouchard J NRC OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) |
| To: | Witmer B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B585 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-285, RTR-NUREG-0558, RTR-NUREG-0738, RTR-NUREG-558, RTR-NUREG-738 NUDOCS 8307150407 | |
| Download: ML20132B594 (25) | |
Text
O 8
June 22,1983 l
!!s. Brenda Ilitmer .
1570 Ridgeview Avenue Lancaster, Pennsylvants 17603 - -
Dear fis. Witmer:
He appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the other concerned citizens from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. As you recall, you provided Commissioner Ahearne with a " Summary of itedical !!aterial" during the ,_
meeting, which we agreed to review and provide responses. The Summarj-contains numerous statements concerning the risks associated with exposures to radiation resulting from the accident at Three Mile Island.
Before providing more specific responses to the Summary and to place our responses in perspective, it might be helpful to note a few things about radiation in general.,
Low levels of natural radiation are all around us. Natural . radiation from the earth and outer space varies from about 70 to about 300 millfrems per year in the United States, dep7nding on the location; it is about 110 '
mroms/yr in the Lancaster area. Human beings receive about 20 mrems/yr from potassium-40, a natural radioactive material in the body. Even though people have always been exposed to natural radiation, there is no evidence that such exposure has significantly affected human health.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, people have also been exposed
- to man-meJe sources of low-level radiation from medical x-rays and radio- .
phamaceuticals, nuclear power plant releases, television sets, some wrist-watches, and airline travel. The amoun't of radiation received by the general pubile from all these sources, exce natural radiation (see Enclosure 1)pt There medical arex-rays, is much in no differences lower than from the health risks associated with a given amount of radiation, whether natural or man-i made.
The amount of radiation released during the accident at Three Nile Is1rnd wi.s higher than the amounts of radiation normally released from a nuclear re tor.
The maximum dose due to the accident to an individual was estimated by govern-ment radiation specialists to be less than 100 mrems (see N'JREG-0558, enclosed).
The average dose to an indivfdual within 10 miles of the site was estimated to be about 8 mrems; the average dose received by individuals within 50 miles of the Three Mile Island plant was approximately 2 mrems. Similar estimates were made by the President's Comnission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, by the NRC Special Inquiry Group directed by Hitchell Rogovin, and by the Governor's Comission on Three Mile IslanJ chaired by William H. Scranton, !!!,
Lieutenant Governor. There would be no discernible health effects due to .
exposures at these levels.
g ,q c , G 05i f 3738
/
- o A3o y 3 q > y .L D_ ( M & (J y
"E i a s
1 8
i its. Brenda Witmer June 22,1983
- I am enclosing copies of two reports, entitled " Population Dose and Health ;
Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station" (fl0 REG-0558) '
and " Investigations of Reported Plant and Animal llealth Effects in the.Three.,
ttile Island Area" (NllREG-0738). These reports were prepared by groups of experts representing several Federal agencies,and may be of interest to you and other concerned citizens. They document our analysis of the doses received from the accident and the effects of the accident on plant and animal life in the region.
As we indicated to you earlier, the NRC staff has reviewed the " Summary of Medical Material." Responses to the major issues raised in this paper are enclosed (Enclosure 2). ,
sincerely.
, . Joseph J. Fouchard, Director Office of Public Affairs -
Enclosures:
- 1. Sources of Radiation (from BEIR III, p.66)
- 2. Responses to Specific Issues with Attachments A & B
- 3. NUREG-0558
- 4. NUREG-0738
~
cc: John F. Ahearne, Com. ,
Ed Branagan, RAB/NRR j Draft originated by E. Branagan, NRR A
c,, a . ... ....... ........ ........................ ........................ ....................... ........................ ......................
sua== > ..?. 93.Eis.&....
m?. . .. . . .O.. .c h.a.r.d. ........................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .......................
em. ..e. u.a a. ........ 54 2n....... ........................ ........................ ...................... ........................ .....................
t ro:a m po m uncu or o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uwo. mi-m
b
- e g d
IAll! I llI.2.1 Aunital thew Rages (goen jongingg. ant $tynils . int $ougm of ]{,,diagi,,n E.ytosure in (Inited $laicl '
~- - - - - . .. ..
Aierare D.se Rate. marms or
\ '
Espant Group proraied ener .
-- * - -
- 14.13 persion Einned Group Total popotavir n Dewripten No. l sp.not E s poss d Snuece '
Mouraf baraground 26 26 Toral population 220 A 10' Whole bnJ)
. Cosmic :adia non Whale bndy 2t> 26 Total population 220 K lt'* ,
T erreittial r adiatinn Ganads 26 26 Total porafation 220 A It" IIrernal5nurces Bone marro. 24 , 2J .,
SirJie el a voys 103 77 Adult patients 105 x 10*,3r , Bane marro.
Medical diagnosis 300-3$0* 0.3 Occupational 195.ft10 W hole bod.i bled >eal personnel 3 1.4 Adure patients ID'. % 10*iyr Bune marru.
Dental diagnosis Whole body 50 125* 0.05 Occupational 173.flin' Denialpersonnel
- h A*idnt ermarruticals Bone marro* 300 13.6
- panenu 10 N 10*
Medical diagnosis ,
en 12 % 10*qr Whole body 260-J50 0.3 Medical personnel Occupational 100.INNJ 4-5 Whote body 4-5 Total reputation 220 A 10*
Armmpheric i.copuns rests h1. ar industn Whole body 10 at Populaiion uithin < 10 x 10" -
Commercial nuclear po.cr plants 10 mi 0.1 (effluent releasest Whole budy 400*
W prLers 67.000 cqmmenialnuclear po.er plants forcupationall Whole body 320 0.02 Worken II.250 Industrialradiography -
ioscupatiovial) ,
160 0.01 1 1.2.'48 Whole bad 3 Fuel pensessing and fabrication Worten
- s.. . u ri n e.on s t - -
o oI w t..ie t..t3 m
- 3. % =i
..ie...s. m.e 6 e r.
I e o msi+g i.3 g r..t . e 0.8 W hole bad)
- 250 (en eupaeion al) Imf410 Work en Federat conte sciars 0.04 toccupationall Whole body 220 Worken 3t 000 Naial nuclear propulsion program *
(orcupational) .
WI Whole bad) Unkno= n Resreich ectiihies 10.000 Worten
- particle accelerators Unknom e .&3 (neeurational) 10.000-20.000 Estremities and WerLen whole body X.ra) diffraction units 0.00J (occupational) Whole body 50 200 Workers 4.400 Electroninicroscopes Unk non-n I (occupational) Whole body Worken 1.000 2.000 Neuteon generators i (neeupational) 3-4 Whole body 7 Consumer products 110 A 10*
Population in brick Building materials and masonry buildings 0.21.5 ,
0.5 .
100 A IO* Gonads Viewing populations Teleiision receivers 0.5 Whole body 3 plastellenrous 33 A 10** 0 0J passengers 160 Airline traiel 40.000 Whole body Caen suembers and (rosmie radiation) flight attendants C ol Whole body - 0.3 Papengers 7 A 10*J <0.001 Airline transport of radioactise Whole body -3 Cte vncmber and 40.000 ,
materials flight attendants t body doses are pivbablyless.
- Based on penonnel desimette scaJings; breause of relatiiely loa en
/
f
- 1otal number of trienue passengers per }eatis 210 x 10*; ho. net.nuny of these are repeal airline erase
. N e
- About one in eser) 30 airline flights includes the transportation i.f ps.lio.,wtise mMirials' awurning 210 i 1980,"
matelp ? x 10* ould be en flights carr3 ng raileoss siir m istrols.t.iposure to Low Levels of Ionizing R Mrom "The Ef fects on Popui.ation of National Academy of Sciences (BEIR III).
Enclosure 2 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED '
IN A PAPER ENTITLED "
SUMMARY
OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE"*
a Issue #1 -
Although there have been accounts, affidavits and stories by area residents-about the physical harm that has occurred, possibly as a result of the acci-dent at TMI Unit 2 during March of 1979, these allegations have not been taken seriously by the state. Other people have taken them seriously and ,
have done studies to investigate their validity.
> Response Although the NRC cannot respond for the regulatory bodies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, NRC has taken these and similar allegations seriously. For example, a study entitled " Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident '
at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station," NUREG-0558 (provided as Enclosure 3 of our letter), was performed shortly after the accident to assess the overall impact. This study documents the analysis of the doses to individuals and the population in the vicinity of Three M.ile Island. The authors of this report included employees of four Federal agencies concerned with the regulation of radioactive materials. Their principal conclusion was "that the offsite collective dose associated with radioactive material released during the period of March 28 to April 7,1979 represents minimal risks (that is, a very small number) of additional health effects to the offsite population."
l The NRC staff has also investigated reports of physical harm to plants and animals, which are reported in: " Investigations of Reported Plant and Animal Health Effects in the Three Mile Island area," NUREG-0738 (provided as Enclo-sure 4 of our letter). These investigations were conducted by s'cientists from the NRC, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Argonne National l
l *A 6 page undated paper, author anonymous.
I l.aboratory, and the U. S. Environmental PYotection Agency. Their conclusion was that "while in some instances not enough data were available for a detailed evaluation to be made, none of the reported problems could be linked'to THI' and no general pattern of effects could be seen.'" -
i Issue #2 i A book entitled Killing Our Own, written by Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon (Dell,1982), describes some of the problems that TMI area residents l I
have faced since the 1979 accident. The last three chapters are titled "How j
. Much Radiation?," " Animals Died at Three Mile Island" and " People Died at ;
i Thr,ee Mile Island." Excerpting from Chapter 13:
First and foremost, the utility, the NRC.and the industry strove to !
minimize the public impression of how much radiation had escaped at Three Mile Island, and how dangerous it might be.
Response
The NRC staff is aware of the book entitled " Killing Our Own." This' book has been reviewed by H. Kocol, a Health Physicist $iith the Food and . Drug Administration, in an article published in the " Health Physics Society News-letter," March,1983 (Attachment A to Enclosure 2). The Health Physics Society is a respected and recognized scientific organization dedicated to the protec-tion of man and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation, while encouraging its optimum utilization for the benefit of mankind. Kocol's main critiques of this book include such observations as:
- 1. " Anecdotal reporting, the use of inflamatory language, selection only of that literature that supports the conclusions of the authors, a complete disregard of the science of statistics, and sensational-ism pervade the entire text."
,,s - ,s- a , - - - . - .asa . . -
3-
- 2. "A lay person could be very easily impressed by the raft of cases cited and by the " scientific studies".. selected for citation. Few, if any, lay persons would be aware of the many scientific studies and criticisms which refute the ~cited works. It is obvious that m the authors have studied the literature extensively; therefore, the authors seem to have consciously decided not to use the over-whelming literature which refutes their particular conclusions."
- 3. "The reader looks almost in vain through the index for citations of known authorities in the field of radiation safety."
- 4. "In summary, this is a very difficult book for a health physicist -
to read, but it will probably be purchased by many lay persons who.
lacking substantive contradictory information, will accept the authors' conclusions. It is unfortunate that the public is being taught to look for conspiracies, to accept emotional arguments, and to accept what " investigative reporters" say in print as truth."
Out review of this book leads us to a similar conclusion t' hat Killing Our Own is not a reliable source of information.
Issue #3 From Chapter 12:
On April 12, for example, in the midst of' the crisis, an NRC official named Lake Barrett conceded that' monitors in the plant stacks "did not provide accurate readings of absolute quantities of radioactivity re-leased during the accident." High radiation levels, said Barrett, had driven monitors "off scale" and rendered them useless."
In June, Albert Gibson, a radiation support section chief who co-authored the NRC's final report on TMI emissions ' confirmed the problem. Testifying in front of the five NRC Commissioners, Gibson said "All the radiation monitors in this vent stack, where as much as 80% of the radiation escaped, went off scale, the morning of the accident. The stack monitors had beea essentially useless dur-ing and after the accident."
O e S
e . . - . . - . _ .- -
Response
Although the main stack monitor did not provide ' accurate measurements of the quantities of radioactivity released dur.ing the accident, the quantitf of ' '
radioactive material released from the stack was inferred from. the response of another radiation monitor located near the stack. Thus, groups investi-gating the accident were able to quantify the release and use this to ,.
estimate the resulting dose to the general public. It is also important to note that there were many other types of radiation detection devices in the vicinity of Three Mile Island that also provided reliable information.
For example, Metropo'litan Edison had thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) at a total of 20 onsite and offsite lo' cations (see NUREG-0558, pp.12-29). .
The TLDs monitored continuously the direct radiation from the radioactive materials released from Three Mile Island during the accident. Consequently, it was possible to establish maximum potential doses received by individuals and the population in the vicinity of Three Mile Island. .
Issue #4 .
I.n Chapter 13, " Animals Died at Three Mile Island," Dr. Robert Weber went before a hearing of the Public Utilities Commission in March of 1980 and gave public testimony on the accident. Also included is an interview with Dr. Weber by the Japanese research team.
Response
l As indicated in our response to Issue #1, NRC scientists have investigated reports of physical harm to plants and animals. The results of those investi-gations are contained in a report entitled " Investigations of Reported Plant
e -
and Animal Health Effects in the Three Mile Island Area" (NUREG-0738). The principal conclusion of NUREG-0738 was that "while in some instances not enough data were available for a detailed evaluation to be made, noni of th'e-reported problems could be linked to TMI and no general pattern of effects could be seen."
Issue #5 -
In Chapter 14, " People Died at Three' Mile Island," there is a discussion about Gordon MacLeod, Secretary of Health during the accident. Dr. MacLeod was fired ,
eight months after the accident. The state media characterized MacLeod's fir-ing " State government's harshest critic of the way the Tho'rnburgh administra-tion responded to the Three Mile Island accident, and that may have been why he was fired." Quoting from the book:
MacLeod's problems with Thornburgh had begun on March 29, the day after newslof radioactive releases from TMI began to spread. MacLeod had, in his words, " Recommended, and on the next day urged the governor, in the strongest possible terms, to call for departure of pregnant women and
- young children from an area within five miles of Three Mile Island."
MacLeod told us later that if he had a chance to do it over he would have urged the departure of children in puberty, who are also extra-
~
, ordinarily radiation sensitive.
Response
It would not be proper for the NRC to respond to this comment concerning the reasons for the alleged firing of Gordon MacLeod by the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania.
Issue #6 Included are some studies published by Dr. MacLeod. One is Some. Public Health lessons From Three Mile Island: A Case Study in Chaos (Ambio, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.) Quoting from the summary of the study:
e .
The inadequacy of reactor design, safety controls, and manpower training were not the only problems to surface in the wake of Three Mile Island.
Dr. MacLeod argues that Pennsylvania's public health sector sas, and still is, woefully unprepared for a nuclear ~ accident. Furthermore, throughout the crisis decisions affecting the public health were made by engineers' and physicists instead of physicians. The author points out the changing patterns of hyperthyroidism before and after the accident, with a tenfold increase immediately downwind of two reactor sites in Pennsylvania's Lan-caster County. He calls for physicians specializing in radiation medicine to join together with nuclear physicists and engineers in setting up more stringent public health safeguards to deal with future reactor accidents.
~ . .
Other papers by Dr. MacLeod include Medical Ethics in the Nuclear Age and A Role For Public Health in the Nuclear Age ( American Journal of Public Health, March 19 82, Vol . 2, No. 3) .
Response .
Regarding the statement that there was a tenfold increase in hyperthyroidism downwind of the site following the accident and that this was due to the acci-dent, the NRC staff has not seen any scientific data that would support this sta tement. Regarding the need for more stringent public health safeguards, ,
it should be noted that the NRC, in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has placed new requirements on. licensees concerning emergency planning. These new requirements are contained in the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E).
Regarding the preparedness of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the acci-dent at Three Mile Island, the President's Commission On The Accident At Three Mile Island (p. 39) found that:
"At all levels of government, planning for the off-site consequences of radiological emergencies at nuclear power plants has been characterized ,
by a lack of coordination and urgency. For example, a federal response plan in preparation since 1974 by federal emergency preparedness agencies
l s -
7-was unfinished at the time of the accident because of an interagency -
jurisdictional dispute and lack of communi. cation. Pennsylvania did not begin to develop a radiological emergency plan until 1975, even though nuclear power plants had been operating within its borders for.
at least a year prior to that time.
In regard to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvani'a's preparedness .today for the Three Mile Island area, it should be noted that this issue is currently under consideration in the context of the THI-l restart hearing. T.he.NRC Commission will have to make a finding regarding the adequacy of the emer- '
gency preparedness of the licensee, the State and local authorities.
. Issue #7 -
Another controversy that arose concerned the Pennsylvania' Department of Health studies lead by Dr. George Tokohata. Again, Chapter 14 deals quite extensively with the discrepancy between Dr. Tokohata's actual findings and what the press releases were reporting.,
Response
Based on the NRC staff's interaction with Dr. Tokohata, we have found him to be a reliable source of information, who bases his findings on scientific principles and reliable data.
a
, , , -= . ,--.i-mens.4.-
8-a Issue #8 -
'Dr. Bruce Muhlholt, a biogeneticist with'the Environnental Cancer Prhventio'h Center in Philadelphia, now teaching at Havsrford University.. conducted a study on Biological Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island. He pre-sented this testimaiy at the U. S. NRC TMI Restart Hearings in Harr.isb urg,. ,
March 16,1981. Quoting from his study:
The GPU Emergency Plan thus attempts to lull the public into a false sense of security that they are being protected above and beyond those radiation protection guidelines sa t by the EPA. In fact, the truth is
, the opposite. The GPU Emergency Plan misrepresents the sense of EPA GHPHEs and based its " extra measure of public protection" upon this
, distorted interpretation. Furthermore, in failing t6 put any potential releases of radionuclides to the public residing near Three Mile Island .
into the context of the accident at TMI 2, the GPU Emergency Plan over-looks the cumulative nature of radiation-induced carcinogenic and muta-gelic damage to the public.
Response
The NRC requires reactor licensees tp develop a capabili ty to respond to releases of radioactive materials to the environment, in terms of identifying the releases, and projecting possible doses to members of the public, and
'taking appropriate action to limit doses following the release. See Issues 1, 2, 3, 7,3 and 13 regarding public doses due to the TMI accident. This issue is currently under consideration in the context of the TMI-l restart hearing.
Issue #9 In 1982 the Japanese research team interviewed over 200 people who said they 4
S
- - - - . w. . -e..- . .. . . - . . .%
5 experienced a strange taste in the mouth af ter the accident, who smelled an odor like burnt metal, who had dryness of.the mouth and throat, or sunburn-like sensations on their skin. Some people-claimed they had tearing'and ' '
. irritation of the eyes, tightness of breath,' or nausea and diarrhea.
Response .
None of these symptoms has been directly associated with radiation exposure -
1 at the dose levels estimated to have resulted from the Three Mile Island accident. Some of the symptoms described ( such as gastrointestinal disorders
, and skin reddening) have been found to be associated with exposures to ion-iz.i.ng radiation thousands of times. greater than the doses esti-mated to have been received by those individuals living adjacent to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Chapter 9 of a book by A. Casarett, Radiation Biology ( Prentice-Hall,1968), which is available in technical libraries, describes these effects resulting from severe radiation exposure. , ,
With respect to reports of the metallic or iodine-like taste, the technical literature cites no evidence that people can sense the presence of ionizing radiation or radioactive materials at levels below those that would produce observable biological damage. ,
1 In addition to previously cited NRC studies of the health impact from the accident at Three Mile Island, the President's Commission thoroughly investi-l l gated the accident at Three Mile Island. Regarding health impact, the Com-l 1 mission concluded that "The major heal th effect of the accident appears to I -
I have been on the mental health of the people living in the region of Three Mile Island and of the workers at TMI. There was immediate, short-lived l
mental distress produced by the accident among certain groups of the general population living within 2 0 miles of THI.# ( Report of the President's Commis-sion On The Accident At Three Mile Island, Octob'er,1979, p. 35).'
Issue #10 .
Quoting from the forthcoming book, Three Mile Island Revisited:
In addition to people's own experience during the days of the accident, there were a number of sudden deaths of adult animals, and a rush of stillbirths and newborn deaths amona the domestic animals. in the vicinity -
of the plant. Then, through the following months, hundreds of cats died '~
from unknown illnesses, and now, three and one half years after running into stillbirths and C-sections,-a local veterinarian is witnessing a ~
three-fold increase in cancer cases of pets and livestock.
. The Katagiris ask why have these episodes not been taken up by or caught by the interest of the country's medical and health experts? ' Is this arother case of the traditional coverup? or is there a built in insensitivity in today's h ealth sciences, whose highly systemitized methodology is too alien for such bizarre local episodes?
Response
Such episodes of animal and plant distress, when made known to autho~ r ities, were investigated as indicated in our response to Issue #1. In particular, pages 19 to 26 of NUREG4 738 describe and evaluate specific cases that were investigated by the NRC.
Issue #11 .
The Katigiris continue:
There is, however, nie well ascertained fact: A standard argument pervades and is openly spoken about within the American scientific establishment. The argument goes as follows: The local farmers' and the veterinarians' allegations were scientifically discredited and claims of symptoms by humans should be considered, ra ther in the realm of psychology. This is a perversion worthy of extensive socioclinical study, for there is an apparent pathological complexity involved here.
Scientists have even failed to consider atmospheric phenomena, which many local people observed, and which would logically have been expected to occur due to the radioactive releases.
-- new:ym
.. .. --- --. - . . ..c_ ,
5 i
jj . I Response a.-
- . i i
See responses to Issues #1 and 9 for sone of the evidence sputes the that authors claims.
In addition, the NRC staff, which includes meteorolog and radiation biologists, is not aware of any scientifically valid indicating changes in weather patterns resulting from nuclear n, even .,
1 at high dose levels.
Issue #12 Included is one of those interviews from e. _
Three It Mile is about Becky Meese who is a 32 year old nurse who wn lives in M
'with her husband and 4 year old daughter
, Pam, who has been diagnosed as having cataracts in both eyes.
A summary of the Katagiri research states that:
- 1. ,
Hundreds of people experienced a strong metallic taste in th Some people noticed that the air seemed very heavy, : es and their sounded flat.
2.
Dryness of the mouth and throat was experienced; often sorenes burning sensation; persistent thirst. '
3.
Hot sensations of the skin, particularly on the face and ,
arms often resulting in a " sunburn."
4.
Irritation of the eyes, burning and tearing. '
5.
Tight chest, shortness of breath, burning in lungs. '
6, Nausea and sometines vomiting. Anxious feeling in the stomach.
_m..
i h
7.
Diarrhea that persisted in some case's for weeks a d n months.
i
- 8. .
An area nurse who became very ill;afi:er the accid i
ent has had recu splotching of the skin and burning of her sr cheeks
- s. T and 45 recurring outbreaks correlate exactly with radiati admitted by GPU. on venting k 9.. .~
Two dentists practicing in Lewisberry Township
, on the west shore a the river across from TMI, noticed a fogging or b anding of x-ray f-f expossi on Wednesday, March 28,19 ,.BMarch andP.9 Thursday
, 19 3 .
1 -
from the same batch exposed before the accide t n was normal. Neither ~ ~~
dentist knew of the accident until Thursday night 3
5 , Ma rch 29 .
10 .
One physician in Goldsboro reports a pronounced i ncrease in leukemia
! and lymphoma starting about one year ent. after the accid l 11.
4
! One physician in New Cumberland. reports increases i n underactive thy-
- roids, rashes and other detmatological problems
, and two and ode halt years after the accident observed a doubling of colo f n cancer.
- Response Regarding health impacts on humans, see responses't o Issues #1 and 9. With i
- respect to fogging of x-ray films, the Bureau a of R di l o ogical Health of the l U. S. Public Health Service analyzed photographic fil in the vicinity of Three Mile Island. m collected from shops j
The results of their study were pub-lished in FDA Publication 81-8142
! and in an articl e entitled "Use of photo-graphic Film to Estimate Exposure Near THI," Health Ph ys ics , 4_1_, pp. 19 5-199 1981(Attachment B of Enclosure 2).
Their principal conclusion was:
h
13 -
~
"This study while not sensitive enough to establish the actual exposures, rules out exposures much larger than those predicted by the Ad Hoc Group
[i.e., NUREG-0558] and corroborates their predictions for odr film sites."
Issue #13 .
In a 2 page synopsis of the Katagirl findings, the Three Mile Island Public' _
Research Center concludes with the of'llowing quote:
The government refuses to acknowledge the tremendous cost of this accident in human suffering when the truth is that the death toll is mounting and the agony of these diseases have human faces and
, names. They are our friends and families.
t David Burger, attorney with Burger & Montague, Philadelphia, has won a
$25-million class action suit against General Public Utilities. Included in the suit was a $5-million public health fund, intended to benefit the people within a 25-mile radius of TMI. Mr. Burger has assembled some of ,
the world's most eminent minds on radiation. On March 28-30, 1983, he held a public forum on nuclear power in Middletown. ' Citizens met with this emi-
.nent group of people, chaired by Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, Arthur Upton of NYU, Hiro Kato of Hiroshima, Dr. Dean Abrahmson, Dr. Edward Radford, Ian McHarg, Frank Von Hipple, Jan Beyes, George Woodwell, and others. The forum partici-pants were asked to conduct a longitudinal biomedical health study on the people who were within the 10-mile radius at the time of the accident. They were also asked to conduct a public health study of the workers at TMI since its opening in 1974; to fund the Katagiri project and to devote the health fund's millions only to the study of problems of those in the TMI area.
9 M .__.A_ .,,- ' - - _ _ - --'
Areacitizensareaskingthenewsmediatdlookintotheseissues,tocall these eminent professors, study the questions,'and learn if there really is
~
a big story here... -
Response
As described in the preceding responses, scientists from the NRC, as well as ,
other Federal agencies, and national laboratories have analyzed and report' ed -
the potential health impact of the accident at Three Mile Island. We have.
concluded that the maximum dose that was received by an individual located
, offsite in a populated area was less than 100 mrems. The average dose to an individual within 10 miles of the site was estimated to be about 8 mrems, and the average dose received by individuals within 50 miles of Three Mile Island <
was approximately 2 orems. Similar estimates were made in the Report of the Pre sident's Commissim On The Accident At Three Mile Island (October 19 79, pp. 34, 'fi), and in an NRC Special Inquiry Group's study ( Three Mile Island, ,
A R! port To The Coninissioners And To The Public, Volume II, Part 2, M. Rogovin and G. T. Frampton, Jr. , pp. 398 ff) . Based on our analysis of thes'e doses, there would be no acute effects in this population due to radiation exposures.
We have estimated that exposure to radioactivity released from the accident could result in less than one cancer death over the remaining lifetimes of f
the population within 50 miles of the Three Mile Island nuclear station.
This potential cancer death would be indistinguishable from cancer due to other causes, and would be completely masked by the natural incidence (which normally accounts for about 20% of all deaths) of about 440,000 cancer deaths expected to occur in the population of about 2.2 million.
- m. - m we . 9 _
n i i nui. .... n
- I I
Book Reviews '
e Killing Oi,ar Own. Ilar s ey Wa -co man and Norman Solomon.
Delta. New York. 1982. $12.95 apapertuck s.
- Unfoi tunately. space does not permit a full review of this .
book.To separate fact from half. truths from innuendo and to
- correct all the misconceptions and errors of science would -
encompass more pages than the book contains. Therefere. . '
this review cart only be a broad criticism of the content.
The content of this book raises the alarming possibility "
that the publicly available collection of misinformation on this subject may be approaching a critical mass. The jacket -
indicates that the two authors are "insestigative reporters." .
As such. this book is an indic.tment ofinvestigative report. ,
ing: the book can be a script for an exceedingly long segment . *-
of any one of several popular insestigative television shows. . .
~
Anecdotal reporting, the use of in0ammatory language.
' select ion on ly of t hat litera tu re i hat supports the conclusions of the authors, a complete disregard of the science of statistics and sensationalism pervade the entire text.
Anecdotal reports of " victims" of supposed " misuse" of radiation abound. A lay reader.would be led to believe that
- there wcre thousands ofsuch " victims"for each one quoted in the text. Some of the people interviewed undoubtedly suf.
fered serious illnesses; however,in a great majority of the '
cases, the only direct link of the illness to radiation is the victim's own statement that the illness must be attributable to radiat mn. The victim may be enlisted in the Armed Forces, a farmer a hou-cw ife.or a skilled tradesperson: the very fact ofillness seems to make the person an expert on radiation efTects.
[_ _ _ , . _ (Contsnuedt Ill'% Nrtitsfrller. M. ira lt 1981, i l
S G
sh a:nii me nt with the .mthors' t<,ntlu.mns llernarti redern
' A la3 pe rmn inuld br ser3 easily impit --rd la the raft of vited and by the " ornfiGc tudie." cha ted f ,r : som.nked in base "one of the nm-t active w irntific cae. im.n mat mn- nn the nm h ar si em ' . t he n m.n k i imt meant r oat u.n Fra. if an3 lay peron unul<l he aw.a c ol t he m.m3 in br inmptom nt.u s Thomm Gi ru ks M.n gan f Reall3 . anr1 q ~
u n nishc t odies and a nt u rms u hich n fut e the sit rd umGenige ks Tokubata all
- umihl later bonme ker Gruns m lt n. obunus that the authors have simbed the hieratme defendmg the nuricar inductry at Three Mile Island ~ II.D estensively: therefore.the authors scem to h ive consciously rendmgs at Thire Mile l<la nd a re suppo-ed in be in disr eput e decided not to use the m erwhelming hterat ure which refutes heran<c the twn tompan es which supplied the service "had their particular conclusions. clear financial nterests in defendmp at omic power."Ily Sm h This is an extremely difGeulthonk for an anare person to arguments, the authors instruct the reader to disregard all read. With almost every paragraph the temptation is to
'sttidmy whose rnnelusions disagree with t, heir own; point out the errors in science. statistics. and conclusions. Of enurse, the authors completely disregard the fliictua, but there is no one with whom to speak.The authors are not tinns in naturallutkground and also the radiation fluctua-available for rebuttal. Stress accrues rapidly. tions due in normal activities .ihving at higher altitude..
An appendix hsts "Oiganizations.~ pie <umably for the natural radon in drinkmg water. choice of construction use of the reader to receise further information Organiza- material etc i because all studies of populations with such tions listed are such as: Union of Concerned Scientists, difTerences of radiation doces do not show the biological Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. Nevada Test Site clTects that the authors purport exist under very low level
~
Radiation Victims Association. SANE. and Critical Mass radiatmn espo<ures icten less than background fluctuA.,
Energy Project. Unlisted are:Itcatth Physics Society. Ameri- tionA The authors also. predictably. try in make an ie.uc can Nuclear Society. Atomie inJ~strial Forum, American that no onc knows
- precisely" the amount of radioactiuty Physical Society. American Association of Physicists in-Medicine, or any other professional association of knowl. released at Thire Mile Island: the authors. Imwes er. dr.re.
pard all studies. such as those to determine the fogeing of edgeable individuals. photographic film stored in the area. which support the The reader looks almost in vain thrnugh the index for population do>cs ralculated by all competent authorities cit ations of known authorities in the field of radiation safety. In >ummary. this is a scry ditricult book for a bealth T.he names of Cohen. Fabrikant. fioll. Masey. Taylor. Yalow.
ph3 sicist io read. but it wil, 1probably be purchased by many and others are totally missing from the indes. although some la3 persons u ho. lacking substantive contradictory informa-are mentigned in the text.The index does list names suchas tmn. will arrrpt the authors' conclusions it is unfortunate Caldicott. Commoner. Gofman. Sternglass. and Tampim. that Ihe pubhc is licing 1 aught to look for conspiracies. to There are many examples ofinflammatory language. for arrcpt emotional arguments. and to accept uhat "insestiga.
- exa mple. calling the incidence of four leukemia cases "w hen tise irposterf say in print as truth. Any success of this book one would be espected an epidemic; to the lay audience, at will be fmther nidence for the scientific illiteracy of the w hom this book is aimed. an " epidemic" means es ery one is Amenran population. as feared by educatinnal experts. The dropping like flies Words and phrases such as " iodine-131 in publisher obsinusly does not know any better because this milk reaching dangerous lesels" without listing the. bonk i< listed for the purposes of classification in book stoies actual level. " abnormal' w it hout specify ing normality. "pos. as Cunent Affair $ Science. instead of Fantasy.
sibly hazardous without listing any of the assumptions upon The feightening aspect of such a book is that it will be which the possibility is based nor specifying the hazard. read and urcepied by people who have no access to contradic-implied. " dangerous levels" without stating the numbers tory informatinn. This book is. of course, only the latest in a that define dan; crous, and the " devastating efTect" of radio- long hnc of such misinformational mateiials. It is obvious actis e iodinc on the thy roid making no dist inct ion of t he level that the pinfesions intohed in radiation safety need au-of radioactivity imohed.
An intesesting exercise ielated to scanning the index can thors uho can write for Ihe mass market and who will
~
communicate pioper perspectives to the public on this issue.
be performed by checking for references to various diseases: if we profes<ionals communicate only with each other and
" Cancer. See Radiation"; " Genetic Dcfrets. See Radiation",
only theongh.>rientific jomnals and meetings, the public "I,cukemia. See Radiation" "I,ymphoma. See Radiation", cannot Ic blamed entirely for purchasing and believing
" Multiple Mycloma. See Radiation"; "A!yclofibrosis. See unct itic.dly Ihe i ontent ofIhis ty pc of book. We will share the Radiation"; etc. The indication is that all Ihese diseases are guilt for "Misinfoiming Our Own."
created by radiation and radiation alone. //ank Kocal The IIcalth Physics Society is wrongly ciiticized The _
authors state that when dosimetry pioblems were deter- _.. _ _ _ _ _ _
mined,"the response by the !!calth Physics Society, which sets monitoring standaids.however, was nnt to impiove the Committec Activitics technology but rather to eclax the dosimetey stand:nds, making it easier for the industry to pass futute tests." A Iny Iml> CATION AND TR AINING person reading such a statement would not undeistand that . Sunnnoey Report : Autfio-Visual Aids Preview Ses-the llealth Physics Society is not a tethnologv.impiming sian of the IN Annual Mccring in Las Wyas organization. hut. in this area. can only deleimine what is The 1:ducation and Training Committee spon- -Q the curient state of the art.
Ad Imminem aiguments al=o abound. The National wrnl an Audio-Visnal Aids Preview Session at %'
the IW Annual Sleeting in 1,as Vegas. A sum-Academy of Scientes is denigrated ns "an institution with mar 3 of the programs shown and the comments by long standing and hnimonious tics tn gmei nmental nnricar allen lces is provided in the accompanying table.
interests" in mder to explain away any of the Academy's h itP5 Netosicitrr. At.mh twil
1 p . . .* . ..
t' A l.n pii ..ninuhl be u r3 i .e.ih impie3-rd bs ihe ian of ih..iri. mrni u it h tlie .mt bn A noi lu +.n- l'i nuni('oln n i.-m.uked to h.n c e.ru of slu. m a-t .u in e sc ienti!n case- tit d amt by the -tn ntine tmhe " -.b ted for i-citat o,n Few. if an) lay pet on would lic an.ne nt the man 3 uneinat mn- no ths run fe.ir -s ern/ .11.r n m.o k i- m.t me:mt '
I so b. i.onphme ntai s 't h..mm Ge ru ks Mair. net Itedl . and scientinc tudics andantu rius which n futethcot d works .'
(;e..ici Tokuhat a all "woubl later brinnu ket ficun . m It is i.bunus that the authors have studied the lucrature defemhne the nmlear unlu t:3 at Thice Mih 1 l.md ~ 11.1 nti nsni ty; therefore. Ihe author s seem in h:n e t om.c musl3 rendmgs at Threv Mih 1, land are suppo-ed io he m th-n pute decided not tn use the nverw helming htcrature w hich refutes becau-e the t'wo inmpames u hich supplied the service "had .
their particular conclusions. clear Gnancial interest s in defendmg at omic pow er." By such {
This is an extremely difDeult hook for an aware person to argurnents. the authors instruct the reader to disregard all ,
read. With almost every paragraph. the temptation is to studm< whose ennclusions dn. agree with their own point out the errors in science. statistics and conclusions, Of course. t he authors. comi letel3 disregard the fluctua-but there is no one with w hom to speak. The authors are not e.vailable for rebuttal. Stress accrues rapidly. tmns m natural hukeround and also the radiation fluctua-smns due to normal activities.tliv ng at higher altitudes.
An appendix hsts "Oiganizations." picsumably for the natural radnn in drinking water, choice of constructmn use of the reader to rMeive further information Organira. material. etc i bn ause all studies of populations with uch tions listed are such as: Union of Concerned Scientists, dilleiences of radiatmn doses do not show; the biological Committee for Nuclear Responsibihty Nesada Test Site eflects that the authnrs purport exist under serv Imv lese!.
Radiation Victims Association. SANE. and Critical Mass r.i *iation eximures sesen less than thekground fluous Energy Project. Unlisted are: Health Physics Society. Ameri- tmnst The authors also piedictably. try to make an issue can Nuclear Society. Atomic Industrial Forum. American that no one knmts " precisely" the amount of radioactiuty Physic,1 Society. American Association of Physicists in-Medicine. or any other professional association of knowl- relea-ed at Three Mile Island. the authors. however. disre-gard all studies. such as those to determme the fegging of edgeable individuals The reader looks almost in vain through the index for photo.:raphic film stored in the area. which support the citations of know n aut honties in the field of radiation safety.
population doses calculated by all competent authonties 1
in summary. this is a scry dilEcult hook for a health
'I)ic names of Cohen. Fabrikant. lioll. Masey.Ta3 or, Yalow, phs.-icist to read, but it will probably be pm(based bv many and others are totally missing fiom the indes,altbough some la3 peisons u ho. lacking su'bstantn e cont radictory infor ma-are mentioned m the text. The indes does list names suchas Caldicott. Commoner. Gofman. Stei nglass. and Tamplin tmn. will arrent the authors' conclunons It is unfortunate that the puhhc is being taught to look for conspiracies. to There are many examples ofinflammatory language. for arrept emotmnal aiguments. and to as cept w hat "irnestiga-example. calkn; the incidence of four leukemia cases "w ben ..
tiw icpoiters" say in pi mt as truth Any success of this book one would be espected" an epidemic; to the f ar audience. at will be fmther esidence for the scientific ilhteracy of the u hom this book is aimed. an " epidemic" means escryone is Ameuran populatuin. a- feaied by educatinnal esperts The dropping like flies. Words and phrases such as" iodine 131 in publisher olninusly does not know any better because this milk reaching dangerous lesels" without listing the book is listed for the pm po<es of clasnfication in book stores actual les el. " abnormal" w ithout specifying normality. "pos-as Cunent AITairs Science. instead of Fantasy. ,
sibly hazardous without listing any of the assumptions upon The frightening aspect of such a book is that it will be which the possibility is based nor specifying the hazard. read and arrepted by people who has e no access to contradie-implied. " dangerous lesels" without stating the numbers tory infhrmation. This book is. of course, dnly the latest in a that define dangerous. and the " devastating effect"of radio.
acth e iodine on t he th lom: line of such misinformational materials. It is olnious 3 roid making no distinction of the level that the piofessions insched in radiation safety need au-of radioactivity insohed.
An interesting exercise related to scanning the index can thors who can write for the mass market and who will communicate pwper perspectives to the public on this issue.
be performed by checking for references to various diseases; If we professionals comnmnicate only with each other and
" Cancer. See Hadiation";" Genetic Defects. See Radiation";
" Leukemia. See Radiation": "Ly mphoma. See Radiation",
only fluongh wientific jomnals and meetings. the public cannot be blamed entirely for purchasing and beliesing
" Multiple Myeloma. See Radiation", "Myelofibrosis. See unciit ically the ronient nf t his t y pe of book. We will share the Hadiation";etc. The indication is that all these diseases aie guilt for " Misinforming Our Own."
created by radiation and radiation alone. Hank Korol The IIcalth Physics Society is winngly ciiticized The 8 authors state that when dosimetry problems weie deter-mined. "the se<ponse by the llcalth Physics Society, which sets monitoring standaids, hnwever, was not to imin ove the Commitiec Aetivitics technology-but rather to relax the dosimetry standards.
making it easier for the industry to pass futm e tests." A lay F.Dl' CATION AND TR AINING per*on reading such n statement uonld not umicistand that . SH'""np'.Y R CJ"u t : Audio Nisuc( Aids Pe evicic Ses-v.impioving sian of the W Annun! Afecting in Los Vefios the llcalth Physics Societs is not n technolog$ine what is organitation. b'ut. in this aica. can only detcin The F.ducation and Training Conunittee spon- ,
the cunent state of the art.
Ad Imminem :u guments also abound. The National .wrnt an Audio-Visual Aids Preview Session at t he 1"S2 Aiunsal Meeting in I.as Vegas. A sum-Academy of Sciences is denigrated as "an in-htution with mar 3 of the progroms shown and the comments by long st anding and harmonious ties to gnsenunent al nnc! car is provided in the newmpanying tahic.
at t endec3 intciests" in mder to esplain away any of the Academy s
- t. IIPS Nrtostriter Atanh Imti p g
~
. . a, - -.. e u.... -...
v.R'....w% c.r.5.. p.c
'. v Al b .u.i 6 Yf.d.w, f: ~>\ -Q. yV.i M.Ws:.r;:.t Wi .%..-,@ ~Q!bMM .; - ;
- ~ '*
r-
. n n::.e : .y ., . :.; , Q _.n. ;..Q '.;, '"' :k.;W ....::::..
m .' (.. ;,'.y;;;., :~-n. . c
.r .'T
- y. .p.- ,. -
.. . - ~ .
- 9. N . c r.a rl'J.[%y. -. . ' i : ." ';' y ,.r, i ..c, y ; <'rs*,;'J
. t 3 . T.:' :'. .^. % .. u;.K .;< '* w:,,g, 4. w ..;r.7 .;
j'.-- Q .,. a:. .@.. b: , ; ; y , :. . .c .f. N . .,..
. p . .c . w..
, s2. n g. *
.ssi~L.s : c
.- , a, . ,.. +,:".:. . ::x ,
.,t
.- 91:;(y,$.
Q . *.,.NM 2'- 4 ,C. O W !.'.y, ~. ; .I 2.c;A $ ,yf
. n -
- j. ?,,M[:'.%g.
j ;- g-.l,- M _? ': mm L-m--'*%Lb.uy..b. .W-%u &.r T,* * , ' y .
- m--Mr- i w. 3 , ~. Q.'."'.',,'
e,,, ,&'% y e ,s ,. , , ' , ' ,
- * .i ; '.'
.. %.e,e*r-m kg e#r,,, .y..* ..-L.
NOTES ,.' 195
- Mf V.$.. Y'. :i .Q. .,
~
inclusion of the adjoining walkway and control GiS9 Gifford F.. Jr.1959. " Statistical Properties lP,!.f '. k, W . ,
building entrainment and thus additional dilution of a Fluctuating Plume Dispersion Model". in: di '." re -
could reduce the calculated concentrations a fac-for of -2. This further calculation is significantly Adrances in Geophysics, Vol. 6 (Edited by II. E.
Landsberg and J. Van Mieghem) (New York: f.1Cck'T
. 0 i 'd more difficult to conceptualize. Academic Press).
The purpose of these calculations and Oa76 Oakes T. W., Shank K. E. and Easterly C.
M'i}g.
6f M .-
measurements was to ensure compliance with E.,1976. " Iodine-131 Air Concentrations: A '
USNRC requirements for air concentrations in Comparison of Calculated Versus Measured *cd '.y p :
unrestricted areas. Therefore, local meteorological i'7.. ,
Values", Am. Nuc. Soc. Trans. 24, 109-110. c *< -@q,(. . . ;>. . . e; data were assimilated to average the dilutions fac- Pa62 Pasquill F.,1%2, Atmospheric Difusion '.F ' s ':'t: '
tors for 1 yr. For an anticipated monthly release (London: Van Nostrand).
rate of 10Ci/ month, the calculated concentrations Sh79 Sherwood A. E., Monahan B. G., McWil. Mj',Tf
%% ,i,Ag,.
- were less than 1% of the MPC (air).The measured liams R. A. Uribe F. S. and Griffith C. M.,1979, i - . ..
- concentrations and comparisons with predicted " Catalytic Oxidation of Tritium in Air at Am. b.'I LO M d' d.
values supports the conservativeness of employing bient Temperature", Lawrence 'Livermore C,51 Y M these' yearly a$eraged dilution factors. Laboratory Rep. UCRL-52811.
S16 8 Slade D. IL (Ed.),1968. " Meteorology and L.Q*!Wd,Jp#
Acinowledgements-We would like to express our Atomic Energy-1968", USAEC Rep. TID-L i 3G appreciation of the assistance of Eric Kearsley, 3,'3 T.h Medical Physics Section. Dept. of Radiology, Uni-versity of Wisconsin. Madison. in several phases of the sample collection and analysis
- 24190.
%.'N D M !*v.
3!f
""-*' "' "*0 2
- 0 Copynght @ 1981 Health Phpics Society Persmon Press Ltd M',1*I"
' I' r G. .gi.',*4.,f b .
P. M. DFt.UCA. 3R. ,
ygg J. A. B AUHS Afedical Physics Section D. W. PEARSON Pnni,4,a ihe u s 4 Au r shis seier,ed
"?
Y/ff f%
- f *b*
,! h. [
Use of Photographic Film to Estimate '**
(W . 2 g* E * -
Department of Radiology University of %7sconsin Exposure Near TMI Afadison, WI $3706 lyf-Q .h.Y
- b, ,, &.f?,
(Reccired 7 Nortmber 1980: occepted 13 Novem- m ber 1980) .
i'q"1.M.T,'1, i J.Q References ll~:.4:,',y Ba78 Barschall it it,1978," Intense Sources of Fast Neutrons", Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 28, Intrnductinn y
y 'ph'gf1 7*
207-237.
Bo74 Bowne N. E.,1974, " Diffusion Rates" J.
Fot.t.owtNG the 28 March 1979, incident at the T jb$
t Air PoII. Control Ass. 24(9), 832-835.
Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station (TMI),
the I3ureau of Radiological llealth (BRil) pur-I N :': h.*h!'-
Ch77 Chenevert G. M.. DeLuca P. M., Kelsey C, chased photographic film from five shops in '. f M-5 Qtg-A. and Torti R. P.,1977. "A Tritium Gas Target Pennsylvania (PA) near TMt and used it to obtain 3 as an Intense Source of 14 MeV Neutrons", an independent estimate of the radiation exposure Nucl. Inst. Aftth. 145. 149-155. levels resulting from the incident. Kodak
{ g.: ip M t .
j cc De78 dei uca P. M., Torti R. P.. Chenevert G. M., Kodacofor 400* film was chosen because it was Detorie N. A., Tesmer J. R. and Kelsey C. A., sensitive to the expected radiation levels, was
[O, ,g.j.T,7 y rh{ : g,' ,
1978, " Performance of a Gas Target Neutron available in nearby commurdries, and samples f r'$ f S'# p'- . 5:
Source for Radiotherapy", Phys. Afed. Biol. 23, were likely to have been in place during the initial .fI' y 8 W 887. days of the incident. (T Photographic film, although in general designed
('- p#fse 4 nf M
to respond to light,is also sensitise to the therma!
'Although Kodacolor 400 displays relatively environment and ionizing radiation. Ileat and kdb. W';l h high sensitivity to X- and y. radiation, the humidity increase the rate of fog growth, which is ,, Mr manufacturer advises that this film is not designed a highly nonlinear function of temperature, while $,Dr E q for radiation dosimetry purposes, is not tested storage at 0*F almost eliminates thermal fog. Fog routinely or controlled for this property, and will growth from exposure to ionizing radiation is p fSft. QPf;f U- i-not necessarily continue to have the same radiation cumulative arjd linear, at least for small values of response found in this study, developed density. Exposure to manmade radiation y.j . f[y [A
- .W, $,h / .,* l.SP s
p ?, f.? r ;: ,
U 6.!;
UIh.Wi_1._
- m. . .m.r:u.
zi[ 196 NOlliS I
, - 't),
N 'l may be evaluated by comparing a film's fog den- 8 m' pl.ntic. walled chamber located at IIRiis Cin.
sity increase to that of films having similar cinnati Nuclear hiedicine I.aborator) and irradi.
enuronmental temperature and natural back. ated with know n quantities of '"Xe gat in.
'M,
, ground radiation exposure histories. The proc. dept ndently of this study. Frarict (Fr79) evaluaied
[ essed film may also be examined for any by calculation and ll.D measurements the X. and .*
g1 ,
density patterns resulting from attenuation of y ray exposure from '"Xe at the center of the
( '
, radiation by the film cassette, spool core, e.xternal chamber floor. '"Xe exposures are for the X- and
- H packaging, the film roll itself and surrounding 7. ray component incident on the exterior cf the materials. These density increases and patterps manuf acturer's packaging (a paper box. a plastic 3g %
)/ I would be compared to those on films exposed to humidity proof container and an 0.28 mm thick known amounts of radiation under geometne steet cassette).
conditions simulating those of the exp'ected _ For all processes done by Kodak, the densities
. g' flme c. J irradiation. Both approaches were attempted in of the process control films (both BRil' X-ray c ,.Qg , this study. films and Kodak sensitometric strips) were iden.
Kb $ .
Where available six rolls of Kodak Kodacolor .tical within the precision of the densitometer, so 400 35 mm fi;m ICGl35) with " develop before" there was no significant' error due to processing.
g'.pt ,4' < dates from September 1979 to January 1980 were 9'hs.j g 4 purchased on 2 hiay 1979, from five shops in PA Results within 10 miles of Thil. Films used near their Film response curves for Kodak Kodacolor 400
[/i.; g!- j -
"deselop before" date may have elevated fog film (Fig.1) show net blue diffuse optical density , ,
lesels due to thermal effects and natural back- vs exposure for '"Xe X- and "y-radiation (dis- ~
ground radiation. while films dated much beyond tributed and point sources) radium y-rays.'and
.', [h.T,y,, January 1980 were not likely to have beqn on the 100kVep X radiation. (The blue layer is more
- i. shelf during the incident. Films also were col:ected responsive to ionizing radiation than the gree n or red ht.y m.y 9
,. g. , from Rockville and Frederick hlD to provide an layers.) Base plus fog salues were obtained f rom indication of the fog levels resulting from unesposed film of the same batch. These curses
- y ; environmental effects (thermal fog and natural apply only to film in the 35.mm cassette format background radiation). because attenuation of radiation by the cassette i?. ?
9@.l .. The PA films may have been exposed to and packaging results in less exposure to the film
,@i' sy radioactise gases, principally "'Xe. As erage itself than indicated. Net density increases linearly yearly environmental radiation exposure estimates with esposure to a net density (ND) of about 0.2.
k' g , ,' (Go79) for l'ie PA. Af D and Rochesier areas in- The response per unit exposure (ND per mR) d p, y. . dicate similar background radiation levels. Ilence, below 0.2 ND is about 0.006/mR for '"Xe. 't,
! , any significant fog difference betw een the Af D and Unesposed Kodacolor 400 films were irradiated i f ; yfd,- PA samples in excess of 0*F controls should be one at a time with the same quantity of radiation sM. due to thermal effects and to radiation exposure oser a 2 month period. These were processed D{.}),i 1 c.
J l other than background. If the thermal histories of together and. measurements indicated no detectable the h1D and PA films are similar. Thti emis- fading for storage times of 1-59 days.
~P' sions could account for fog level differences.
/ d.I All films were processed in Rochester NY (three C rolls from each site on 9 hiay, the remainder on 17 r"-
h!ay) under carefully controlled commercial [
o" ""'"""'")
"{Qj )M
,() :i;. ' processing conditions by the Kodak Park'Disision, jn -
- Na -'
Eastman Kodak Co. Kodak provided samples g .
- 3. c.
M' y - stored at O'F for films collected in PA and for c.N&[.I most of those from h1D. The O'F films were used ; ,, _
"' Aa' wg.4 as a basis for estimating any increase in fog asso. j "' -
I ciated with radiation esposure from Thti. This g .~....
(d ..*4i approach. which assumed that none of the obser. ; y, . . . >
-h
- t. I ' .
sed density increase is due to thermal fog.oseres.
timated exposure received by the PA films since 2 i
'e I'Posum (m9
' 6;i their thermal history cannot be reconstructed but Fic.1. Nel blue diffuse optical density resulting M' did esceed 0*F. from 100 kVer X radiation. *Ra y radiation, and
~ cjf I To simulate e xposure of the PA films. '"Xe gas (distributed and point sources) irradia.
Kodacolor 400 films in their original packaging tion of the exterior of the Kodak Kodacolor 400 film x$. M,- were positioned in the center of the floor of an packages.
.n * . .
..'/).. p 1 O..,\
- t..g ,
- u. o u .3.
. % y . A. ,
w .:n. m m.auw-w m w.m' w : =
t pm
.,.c. . W .
.j.
... e. ;p%p.;L
' ~ .. ,%w. r.n g9- .
m2 . -l.y. :.:n w n. .&:p:.;x.., .>
. edg% m. p; g .py w ;.n M% 3.: p.. g .r.,,; e s../. ., .v- j n : . . s ;- ..e
..,e e i: <. .r. %t.m .u.:.- . ~,.2
- n. . . . . .> . o . . % , :
.,.. .. ... ;, n .. .. , ..>,s. .. . . . . . ,
,s ;' 2 ..:9-
.- % ..;. v... a . . s.: y &. x , ..a.
- s . . w
- r.
.v. w:n 1:
- ~
- .
-x......
w i . , J :. .. .r.,.u..m.
. i. .a
. .:8.
..s..- n:: . . .-. - :. . . .- -- v : ,
Y; .4:;n.,, 4.*: e ~v Q ,. w .. ,. w .,.Q.y.'.& f tf - ..n
- . , .; m. m. 2.'. .
- c . . ; . . .; ,' -
?,f.. ..:.; . .. .::< d
- v ...
!ik&&%fh&lW~;o"hlr@.hgy,l.'h.$hj.k,).h.;. .
- 3.a..s
- j . . ,g-.
a ;;. :.%'. ,;*.a, .
4 's N. .
. , - . a l' '.
, p f. .m z.9. ' 34.s.y:. .; L1 .t.!e . a ,e;! : ( y? iy.... :.9,
.' .g .
. ,.
- W
,. ~ .s
.a % ; .
. a
.' Z.; 'i ; '.".a ..
.a . e .. . ... 7. ..r.:,'.b. ..'m.; M, ..
.a : . ', - .
. '.x ., # 4. 4 ..'.' ;;.e.",.m. ..
- J, ? L ' / ' ;
. ,$ d. i.k;4 ' . ..
I/,'.d'N.
- ,..:. . .:1.6.i
'.; m . . .5W;9, '.f . i3 9:,+ ?,@NsiYs@,.
. G -Y, b'
. ?. '. .. . . W, . v; , . . , .;,. .
. $ ;1 I'f-. c.]:. . '__ _. .
., d .,; d-d . M .. h scd O w3 E$ siUh M C M A d di.I,1 N .aa A 4. :aR Q ,7.(, ,
m d 't .:.*"'. .4 5 ..
r NOl ES , ,
197 -
- h ..
J i, Vi ,
Table 1. Blue difuse no t optis af Jensity (ND)* for Kodal Rodacolor 400 fint 8 i.' ". '
t.l.
sampics obtincJ front PA near TMI and froni MD Pennsylv ania U].',e*.'u . .
Number
~
I. . ,' 7..
" Develop Before" '
Sites of Samples NDa tlo Emutsion # Date . ' ;;* ,
Elizabethtownb 6 0.02) to.004 377 6/79 Middleto.nC 6 0.030 20.007 30 3 10/19
> . [A M .
Manchester 3 0.016 10.011 316 12/19
.. L, .g . ' *' **
New Cumberland 6 0.016 to.00s 286
.r-5teetton 12/19
- 1, ,,,1. J'
- 6 0.016 to.006 327 t/80 <.*": T,
,r. V ,, .'.d. -. .'.
M aryland Number htes of hmples NDa t la Emulsinn #
" Develop Before*
Date N. d,...
LC"1 #.,5 , 3 -
R5h 2 0.120 20.004 29s RDD 4 0.034 30.011 306 3/19 9/19 *
' .' #?'a
- FDD ,
R Pk
. 3 0.033 to.003 308 9/19 ' 8 ;3 4 ."., *'
0.033 .. 286 12/19 FP 2 0.030 20.0 277 h 'y : A.
- 12/79 RDD l RDD 2 O.020 0.00 20.01 306 324 12/19 t/30
^ M M. t*'
RMe 6 0.012 20.007 333 1/13
- M" Q- *
(: [
aND is obtained by subtracting the gross density of unesposed 008 c~ontrol fdm from *'(. N1 the byn,, gross density of the test film.
P.l'6*4;-lh A, . i
,,,e is a photographic suppir shop; the tdm shen purchas6 as stored in a tdm refrigerator.
CThis site mas appronimately 3.5 miles east of Middletown.
[k/[
, 4. : *
[ ( , , ,=.' 1- - .
- WA'. l .
- -
Fog Comparisons . .Mb.*
samples appear normal for films hasing these net . i g*M .
Net density difTerences for the P.\ samples are densities. .
i et presented in Table 1: the grou optical density of ,,r f;n.yJc the 0*F sample supplied by Kodak was subtracted Density Patterns. Calibration Films ,. ~. !
from the gross optical density of the PA sample. Figure 2(c) illustrates the periodic pattee n Results are arranged by decreasing film age: the produced when roll film is placed on its side oa the J.g' 5c $.'.7 .-
largest density dilTerence t0 035) was found for the chamber floor and irradiated (1.5-.17.6 mi') with Middletown samples. Table 1 also shows density the cassett core parallel to the floor. Net densities ' ( gp s ;, .-
differences for the MD films. A sample of emul- for these films were measured on the peak am. g,
( g' f ,., . .c -
sion No. 286 (the emulsion number of the film plitude at the tongue end of the file.i. but exclude 4.' e g
from New Cumberland PA) was also found in the density spike often seen on 'he patterns. For Rockville and had a fog level 0.02 OD higher than 1.5 mR no cyclic pattern is apparent. while for 1,;
&4 the aserage for the New Cumberland samples. 2.7 mR the cyclic pattern is cbserved but no spike L'.tSM..
9,'g*; p; is apparent. Note the dis'inct sinusoidal pattern and the periodic spikes produced with this N*-
Density Patterns. Site Films hb(/. '* .
geometry. The spikes result from '"Cs X rays, Scans of four MD samples are presented in Fig. which pass through the cassette mouth. but are p gg. .
2(a). The net density values range from 0.01 to 0.12 highly attenuated by the 0.28.mm. thick steel wall.
y fs. p . '..s OD greater than those of the 0*F samples provided The periods of these patterns difier slightly due to ' Wh. . !.
by Kodak. Net density correlates well with are of differences in fi'm core winding tension. fft' t ,' , l,1 q. .. ,
?"y sample; the oldest sample is designated RWh. To study a different orientation. nine samples %rW n y..
and the youngest is RMe (Table 1). As the net were centered on the floor in a square array with density increases, comples patterns appeJr on the their cores perpendICuIsr to the floor. Kodacolor ,$
'T .-
scans. Representative scans from the PA sites 400 films were placed in the center, on a corner.
(two scans from Middletown) are prewnted in Fig. and in the center side of the s. ray IFig. 2c. film roll yl~ )
2(h). One sample from Middletow n (show n in Fig. *p ]'.. ;
vertican. Instead of the regular periodic patterns 2b) seems to have a barely percephb!c pattern with seen presiously these scans show more comples d;' .' b,.T!a. ct-periodicity similar to the '"Xe samples, while the patterns with smaller amplitudes and less prom- % g*%.p.' '
patterns on the remainder of the Middletow n inent spik'es.
[.. 'g- g, y c.
.(<'d,h-
.* m ... .
' .s * ; A .
.._....am.-..,_.,:- ~ ~
~ _ _
( * .;k,t$
- t'.1 39ft NOlES
.+ o*
i 0
- ed .~a .,o the nel density increase measured on the PA films
- %e g, p
_ . , , " , isaverage) due to radiation. The Af D films have (on the y
Y 4 .
- r. . ~_ ew slightly higher net fensities than those i
f 6 $4 i= , , , from PA. although (neglecting differences in j y TC ~
==. ,,, thermal history) one would expect the same net '
i
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, density for the AID nims due to the small i !
3-
- e een difference m, natural background radiation for
"" these two areas.
I M ^
.t One film of six from near hiiddletown had a i
. r, q j T barely perceptib!e periodic. pattern similar to that
~
,g ' A =Q 2 -
n...+ : ' ne observed on calibration films but no patterns were j
N
- ="'8
- (
$ i observed on the remainder of the films (fom this io c.i4.~. .~ town. (Note that patterns caused by natural pro-
.V , r "' -
cesses were seen on control films with elesated
$ .y,@N O {
fog levels.) These s,is PA &lms had ND values -
I .o
.* "'k.
which were identical within densitometer pre-y'AM Q , ,, g / " **" '*Z cision. The average ND value was 0.3. cor.
. M. g. < T, i
> > . -a responding to an esposure of 5 c1R if all fog was K ] ~3,$;g. .
- 3 n,, ..... due to radiation. (This entire density increase,,,
, t~
i3-
,j g :
j oos oo - - - - - - -
, ' , ' * , 'however. could not be due to, radiation.) Based on -
- g, measured fog increase, ndiation exposure m,u'ch y{ip-gN. n. above bacliground to any of the five PA locations
"'+***
j ., g, s can be ruled out. Five mR is a conservative upper 2
p$ . s<on Ai-g Leag* e8 ram su,.
estimate of exposure to any of these sites and is in Fic. 2. Scans of films from PA near Thlt and from agreement with predictions of the Ad floc Popu.
. ) Wr)..'/ ' Rocksille and Frederick hlD. illustrating the den- lation Dose Assessment Group (Ad79). This study.
- ** p . g. .
sity trace patterns on films with net density values while not sensitive enough to establish the actual
,J.M . (ag{, 3 ranging from 0.01 to 0.12. The Af D scans (2a) esposures. rules out exposures much larger than illustrate deinity traces from an area subject only those predicted by the Ad lioc Group and cor-
. T f *. e to thermal effects and natural background radia- roborates their predictions for our 61m sites.
M.N
tion. Note the periodic pattern on sample RWh. A more detailed report on the present study will
.fsg..'.k.
- M .fr.ky ;
Figure 2(b) shows representative PA scans. Two be published by BRil. ,
of the six hliddletown scans are shown: the top
. . ., A p. r < scan is of the sample with a periodie pattern.
- o. Figure 2(c) shows scans of films exposed to 1.5-M.;,g - T :" d.. , P. 1 47.6 mR from a distributed source of "'Xe while AcAnoiiledgements-f am indebted to personnel of centered on the esposure chamber floor; the core Eastman Kodak Co. who graciously prosided ME F W I's ,
of the film spool was parallel to the floor. The trace guidance. processing, and assistance in inter.
of an exposed control is included. Other sam- pretation of the density patterns obsersed on the
.A M pies were exposed to 47.5 mR simultaneously in a films. Special thanks also to Jerry Gels, liarley nine. package square array with the cauette cores Piltingsrud, and John Frazier of the BRil for film
.h.d %v;Mi'.
d' . { '
oriented scrtically (one scan is diustrated). The dosimetry in this study.
pattern is still periodic, but the amplitude and ND
.l':*' + y 4 increases are smaller than with the horizontal core -
'%".h ;,g ' geometry. RALPH SilUPtNG
- -, . . . D i: Ditision of Electronic l'roducts W. :'.Q. '
- \ Bureau of Radiologicalllcalth
'j. 'i. '&' \ Food and Drug Administration ilFX-250. %00 Fistsers Lane Conclusion Roctri/It. MD 20857
%y* . No apparent difference was obsersed in net
~ %, - 5. A f .'h.f. J. .L'age. ' ' The obsersed nel densities are fully esrlain-density levels of hlD and PA samples of similar
'? Y'[ I r able by thermal effects and, based on the similarity of measured net densities on films from these two Ad79 Ad floc Population Dme Aucument References *
- .,-[3 ; 1[q areas,it is unlikely that any significant Portion of Group (Battist L.. Buchanan J.. Congel F..
. e ..<;-
.',.y n; \
. I . I
fei
' s ' y, 5,ti , .
- i.} e }.' ' '
e'
$ -. . *h, e ih w.. " q.,p. ,"'.'Tgr.Fr g T,wS., ,
.27 p C F. m .: ;
M'. :n-i . lq&. :.' %'Q e . '-? R s. 't
- ^" : O. ;; f %. ,.y c.r..Wyg,
}' Q.f.*.gi7;.7.. A.Y). . 7' Yt* . f,W;;77pp, 4'.*.s m m;v."';
Y.' .&% .*1.~c..".MW.
x
. i: . ;3.
L
.p'.).2,Q,W..;... . . .=; r. . %. . i ..' G. ' *.: W-7
- ~
, .,. u ~ *
,,s ;.r-- *.. v. ,: . .g -:: . .. % , .**;* .
. , ..* . m.
. 9. 4:;. ',*.'
'. [,fs',rc.- .,.. ,t'.i.
.. ".. ,. l..'
' ' e'; *
'. - I
- n , ' '. ,
, .;'"s ? .h.,..' '.*:,.. l.'l':,_ .
,J.1:.._ '.-e. . / +*
4- * . ;. . ;- s a ., . u. .
- g. +'t...,.
- .n. . ~.
f .. g .:n.,;. =:.v ;
.: . . t, ~..et. y
.t ,f,. . ,e -.
i
.y .
~ /.l-l' N . 5,i . h l ';, h...
. , y..x.
k.} ..,;, , .
. ,'f,Njk.':-h. y[' ,.,.,M. a.g. }I'. [ ,' I , 3 , ,. U .;[h ['7 M'i s : W 4 tM, r, ei..f.c,.--# ... *,'. /. J. .', g . w..' w.
..v.
.. . , . *'N'*
'." 'a . m y 7.
".. a
~ .
~.w.. . .-
u.ei.'% e 5'1,* .22,"t P' 7 a ..
- .M,s s '
s- .-
. ' . . ..+ , ;,.' 4 7. {. ';.*y;.{*,'. ',- .%. .
.: .,- . ,,* .* W.J,
.. : ~- v.;>
., . ' * . . . p. . . . . .
. '.*s. * *
" '= .
., q: s. , t . -yt . f.n ;.y . ' 4.; . 91
., g . ; ,'
' .ci.r;.;. ...v;. r? . M
..?
'O
~, . t o . .
... ,- . . ~c::
.. . : . ;. ; c , ...a...r . .; . . .K,. :. .?,".
e . ~
, ... . . g.. < n . ,. .,
. . .M,,.,*.,, .. 's , F : ., ..
,t. g ,4. ;,VTst.';g.* 4.; ' f'*joyJ l.,69]yy., ,' 5 7 ...s .. .
T.3f.
ga . :..
.' ?
.du.cnu,m i:4._ *.D!, J >;W & GiHf,td.R-1;:,'r.c;;',. A.J.x..si'(;.t (,;}
.!'..,. d, ., ,
}.
u .. .
q l c.3 p; .
. i :
. t';*2
{ .
.p'in, NOTES -
i ..
- 19) . .
y$.
i Nelson C. Nelson St.. Peterson II. and Rosen. w .
. stein M.),1979. " Population Dose and llealth Environmental Dosimeters with Xenon.133 at I&
Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile ist.ind the NML", Paper in prepa.ation. FDAIBRi{. .
Nuclear Station", Supt. of Documents, USGPO. US Public licalth Service,5600 Fishers Lane, '5".*'
i Stock No. 017 001-004081.10 May. Rockville, MD 20857.
- t. Go79 E Fr19 Frazier ). R.,1979, " Exposure of BRif Goldin A. S.,1979. EPA, ORP, Washing. ,
f l.
ton, DC, Personal communication. ,.,' .
"/
g d.
e..
g
...# M.
4
\. . ' ,k
,l.
~
m..'., . -*. .:
(.. .,, * *
& E !.
. A. 65 ,[!
., .' t t, (1%.*
,.3,+*
% M I .* I .;'., ,
l t.*
h
. ' .. N
,.c W. p .
-k
- r 5 - l
- s g' . .g, 1 ,
3..h l
! . r D,.'18-gg g .
l 8 -
. td (
- f. * . o
- 09 0
l *
- a.
l ..,1 s
b 4 ef ,
. .g
' i
..jl4 , i y **.
,r. .'$
a .ed. .' ,nt:. ,
\ .'s. .
i 1 -. .>..t r*. . #g
- e,.
i .A.3 * .
e.
l 's. t
' ,.s n :.1' t e '
I l - '10. ., s.
o ... .-
s Pa g ....,8. .
l '.4 ,e- d*
t *8 8 4..*.
>$.o.' ....
- e s I
l o *
$f. i.'.)i
> .4, s*s. , ?
l .t .s : . .n ..
l e
p:ts - .
m
) J N ., ' . ;
.IJ; .. ,.
- ,4 b.
o T
/ .
3517 Glynn Drive Toledo, Ohio 43614 April 10, 1985 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Director, Office of Administration ACT REQutsy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 S T A -- $ 5 '2,I E
Dear Director:
E 'd 2-Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. E 552, I am requesting access to records concerning the possible health effects on the local residents of the major nuclear accident which occurred on March 28, 1979, at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power station in Pennsylvania. Specifically, I am +nterested in data and studies on the changes in disease rates and other health-related problems among this population for a period of years before the accident and the six years since that event. For example, the types of inform 6 tion sought could include, but are not limited to, the disease rate for the common forms of: cancer, the rates of miscarriages among women of childbearing ages, the rates of development abnormalities, and the rates of genetic defects both before and after the accident.
If there are any fees for copying, please fill the request if the charge does not exceed $25.00. However., if the fee is in excess of $25.00, please inform me of the amount of the total charpe before completing the request.
Furthermore, if all or any part of this request for records is denied, please cite tne specific exemption that justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.
I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as possible and look forward to hearing from you within ten working days as the law stipulates.
Sincerely,
$nn5 ? J&
Connie M. Lodge U CML/ljj
- 1 N M A d N mm* A
.a M TAf W Op