Re: Consequences of Chernobyl in Belaru -Reply

[Stephen McGuire <SAM2@nrc.gov>]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     This could mean that the NRC and FEMA should rethink
the current 10 
     mile EPZ for exposure around our nuclear power plants. 
Or not, based 
     on our belief that our power plants have containments,
and Cernobyl 
     had a Butler Building.
     
     Regards
     
     R.R.Goodwin


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Consequences of Chernobyl in Belaru
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date:    2/9/96 9:27 AM


      This was sent out yesturday from a Chernobyl email list.
      Mike Baker ... baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu
     
      ----- Begin Included Message -----
      From: Chernobyl@globenet.gn.apc.org
Date: 07 Feb 96 17:35 GMT
Subject: Consequences of Chernobyl in Belaru
To: Recipients of conference "energy.chernob"
<energy.chernob@conf.gn.apc.org>  Sender: Conference to
Mail Gateway <conf2mail@gn.apc.org>
      Consequences of Chernobyl in Belarus
      More than 220,000 Belarussians have suffered physical
ailments and almost a  quarter of Belarus remains
contaminated as a result of the 1986 nuclear  accident at
Chernobyl, according to a new government report.
      Leukemia cases along Belarus' southern border with
Ukraine, an area with 1.8  million people, nearly doubled in
1995 from the previous year, following an  upward trend that
began in the late 1980s, Interfax said. Many of the sick are 
those who lived in an 18-mile zone around the plant.
      Ukraine's Health Ministry said more than 125,000
people had died by 1994 as a  result of the accident.
      Information references
Country : Belarus
Origin : AP / Interfax
Author :  Date : 11/12/95
      For any more information about energy.chernob
conference,  please contact
*************************************  Perline
Chernobyl + 10
WISE-Paris - 31-33, rue de la Colonie - F-75013 Paris  T#lJ:
+33-1-45 80.48.73. FaxJ:+33-1-45 80.48.58. 
e-mailJ:Chernobyl@globenet.gn.apc.org 
*************************************
      ----- End Included Message -----
     


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
With respect to the 10-mile planning zone in NRC
regulations, if you look at the rationale for the size of the
zone, you will see that it was NOT justified as being the
maximum distance at which protective actions may be
necessary (see NUREG-0396).  It was acknowledged that in
some circumstances, actions might be needed beyond 10
miles.  Rather the rationale was that actions would seldom
be necessary beyond 10 miles, that actions needed
beyond 10 miles would not be as critical as those at closer
distances, that there would be more time to take the
actions, and that the planning and preparations done for the
10-mile planning zone could be used as a basis for taking
actions beyond 10 miles.

Contrary to what one other person has said, the basis also
was NOT that a release the size of the Chernobyl one was
not possible.  The 10-mile planning zone is based on core
melt, containment failure, and a large early release.  The
postulated maximum release is not very differend from the
Chernobyl release.  Can such a release occur from a US
plant?  It is not possible to be certain, but it is prudent to
assume that the possibility does exist.  Thus, such a
release was considered in developing the 10-mile planning
zone.