The Source term (Re: Reactor Containments....

[Kerimbaev <kerrembaev@YAHOO.COM>]

You wrote:



>>>

.........They knew that even under the

most pessimistic set of assumptions, not all of

the inventory could be

released - so they assumed a 50% fractional

release. This rather arbitrary

source term was than subjected to exquisitely

detailed meteorologic

diffusion calculations to assess downwind

concentrations and population

effects............

>>>



Jerry et al,



After the TMI, the partition coefficient (gaseous

vs. liquids) for Radioiodines (I-131 etc), was

corrected (gaseous part decreased)

Correction was done based on the accident

released data.



Should/will/shell the NRC allow the decrease PWR

source term from 50% to 1%-20%, based on

Chernobyl's meltdown data?



Chernobyl's RBMK source term was (min 1%- max 20%

- hugely over estimated)



Pressure in PWR is higher (liquid water coolant)

than in RBMK (fuel channels with boiling water),

PWR has a containment and a protective missile

shield on the top of the reactor, 

hence the source term in case of PWR meltdown

must be atleast within the range of Chernobyl

RBMK's source term.



I do not know, how was the partition correction

done after the TMI (How did NRC agree with the

correction?).



Was the it connected with the installation of

"Post TMI Rad Monitors"?



Does somebody out there know how was it done?

If so. 

Then, 

Let's update the PWR's hugely over estimated, 50%

source term.



Shouldn't we used all data available, today?

Of course, we must...

What is NEI doing, nowadays?





Emil.







From: "Jerry Cohen" 

Subject: Re: Reactor Containments and Terrorist

Attacks



Ted et al,

    I would certainly agree that the threat of

massive fatalities resulting

from terrorist attacks, meltdowns, and other

"catastrophes" related to

nuclear power plants (NPP) has been grossly

exaggerated.

    Before blaming the media or the anti-nukes

for the problem, it might be

well to look at the historical contribution made

by the technical community

. In the mid-60s, the AEC funded a study at BNL

to determine the

consequences of a major containment failure at an

NPP. This study was

conducted largely by a group of meteorologists

capable of evaluating how the

released radioactivity would spread through the

environment,

inhaled/ingested by people and what effect it

would have. They had good

information on the radionuclide inventory in the

reactor core, but faced a

problem in estimating the "source term" or

fraction of material that could

be released and mobilized in the environment.

They knew that even under the

most pessimistic set of assumptions, not all of

the inventory could be

released - so they assumed a 50% fractional

release. This rather arbitrary

source term was than subjected to exquisitely

detailed meteorololgic

diffusion calculations to assess downwind

concentrations and population

effects. This calculational approach lent an aura

of authenticity (i.e.

believability) to the study. The result was the

notorious WASH-740 report

which predicted tens of thousands of deaths, and

provided the basis for the

novel titled "We Almost Lost Detroit". Later, in

the early 70's, the

Rasmussen reactor safety study was commissioned,

which used a more

scientifically rational approach and considered

probabilities. The resulting

WASH-1400 report placed the consequences of

potential reactor accidents in

perspective and painted a picture that was not

nearly as dire as previous

studies indicated. However, the damage had been

done and to this day the

specter of many thousands of deaths looms in the

public's mind.

    As I see it, the Chernobyl accident was

indicative of the maximum

possible consequences of an NPP accident. Unless

you buy into the LNT

nonsense, the fatality total from any NPP

accident would be relatively

trivial as compared to what happened at the Twin

Towers in Manhattan.

However, I doubt that it would be possible to

convince anyone with a degree

in journalism of that.











__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.

http://personals.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.