Re: Supreme Court allows Three Mile Island suit to proceed

["RUSSELL, MIKE" <russelmj@songs.sce.com>]

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     Although no individual exceeded the 500 mrem per year federal limit for
     members of the public, the TMI accident resulted in dose and dose rates
     "at the site boundary" in excess of the 10CFR50 Appendix I limits
     (implemented through the Radiological Effluent Technical
     Specifications).

     The Federal Appeals Court ruled that the standard of care included the
     Appendix I limits so exceeding these limits violated that standard.

     Defendants had a strong argument -- if an individual was not exposed,
     then the standard of care was not breached.  Now all individuals -- no
     matter their exposure (even zero) had their duty breached by TMI...

     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     The following is an article pulled from the net. It would have been 
     helpful for the NEWS RELEASE to have defined what they meant by the    
     Term "released radiation exceeded the levels allowed under federal law".   
     Radiation meaning WHAT???? As I recall the highest estimated whole body    
     exposure in the area outside the plant, where the general public would have
     been, was on the order of 60 mrem. I also recall that no significant levels
     of radioactive iodines were released to the environment. Any comments or   
     perspective from the group?

     Sandy Perle
     Supervisor Health Physics
     Florida Power and Light Company
     Nuclear Division

     (407) 694-4219 Office
     (407) 694-3706 Fax

     sandy_perle@email.fpl.com

     HomePage: http://www.lookup.com/homepages/54398/home.html   


     -------------------------------------------------------------
             WASHINGTON  - The Supreme Court cleared the  
     way Monday for individuals who claim they were injured by the 
     1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in Pennsylvania to 
     proceed in an effort to collect damages. 
         The case, part of a long legal battle dating back more than  
     10 years, involved claims by numerous local residents against 
     the companies that owned, operated or supplied materials to the 
     nuclear facility. 
         A U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled last year that  
     the claims could go forward because the released radiation 
     exceeded the levels allowed under federal law. The court 
     rejected the argument that the claims for damages were barred 
     under amendments adopted by Congress in 1988 to the federal law 
     that governs the nuclear power industry. 
         The first cases are set to go to trial in June to consider  
     whether the accident caused the alleged injuries and whether 
     damages should be awarded. 
         The defendants in the case, including the plant's co-owner,  
     General Public Utilities Corp., had appealed to the Supreme 
     Court, arguing that the appeals court was wrong. But the 
     justices Monday denied the appeal without any comment or 
     dissent.