RE: Residents Angry After Nuke Release

["Quinn, Bernard" <Bernard_Quinn@URMC.Rochester.edu>]

It is my guess that the release was within the limits of the Technical
Specifications so the site boundary doses would be by definition
insignificant. The release was probably monitored although uncontrolled
until automatically terminated. I say this as I was a health physicist at
the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant during a tube rupture event in 1982. In
that case the reactor coolant was degassed suddenly through the turbine air
ejector which operates under a 30" Hg vacuum. A puff of noble gas was
released (mainly Xe-133)which resulted in a maximum dose at the site
boundary of about 1 millirem.

The IP2 plant may divert the air ejector to the containment on a radiation
alarm so the release to the environment would be much less than at Ginna.   

-----Original Message-----
From: William Prestwich [mailto:prestwic@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:02 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Residents Angry After Nuke Release 


Is there any reasonable estimate-at least an upper limit on the possible
exposure the irate citizenry recieved, and could it be put in some
context, say 100 times less than a typical visit to the Luray Caverns?
Just curious, but if one can show that the reaction is absurd, then it
could deflate the issue.
Bill Prestwich,
McMaster University
prestwic@mcmaster.ca



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html