Re: dave's answer to one of your questions

["High Plains Drifter" <magna1@jps.net>]

RTM-96 presents scenarios for use in understanding how the manual works.  The true risk of such a scenario happening is very low.  In order to exercise all the aspects of the response manual you need severe accidents and tables that will run to the extreme.  Would not want tables that did not give data out far enough, just in case the big one did happen. 

 

 

"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting."
                                      --Ernest Rutherford

 

Dean Chaney, CHP, IBA (aka High Plains Drifter)
Fairfield, CA
magna1@jps.net

----- Original Message -----

From: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM

To: DWhitfil@KDHE.STATE.KS.US ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:26 PM

Subject: Re: dave's answer to one of your questions

In a message dated 11/20/2001 2:02:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, DWhitfil@KDHE.STATE.KS.US writes:

Again, this is hardly any secret. This scenario is analyzed in the NRC's
Response Technical Manual (RTM-96, Vol. 1, Rev 4; March 1996). Section D of
this document is Spent fuel Pool Damage and Consequence Assessment. One of
the accidents analyzed is a Zircaloy cladding fire...

You didn't give the probability of all of those things happening at once.  Seems to be a real rare event.  Really unlikely to occur.  To asses this kind of scenario, the probability of occurance must be given.

John Andrews
Knoxville, Tennessee