Re[2]: Consequences of Chernobyl in Belaru -Reply

[RONALD GOODWIN <RONALD_GOODWIN@health.ohio.gov>]

     Okay,
     
     I'm sorry I said it.  I was trying to interject some very serious 
     sarcasm into the discussion of Chernobyl and the health effects 
     thereof.  As an ex-E-Planner for several nuclear utilities, I have 
     always felt that the utilities and states do themselves a great 
     disservice by eliminating any major planning efforts at the ten mile 
     ring.  Granted, the possibility of a Chernobyl type event happening at 
     a US power plant is in the E-6 risk category, however, I still feel 
     that as also an ex-utility person (I now work for a State Bureau of 
     Radiation Protection) we, the nuclear community, should be better 
     prepared for this type of disaster.  
     
     I will not cite any particular power facility, however, I have worked 
     at more then one where a terrorist, with a well placed missile (like 
     the TOW missile) or two could create a weakness or failure of a 
     containment.  Add this to the chance of also causing failures of 
     safety systems, and Chernobyl could happen in any number of sites.  (I 
     base the terrorist scenario on the number of plants built in a 
     depression such as a shallow valley with hills around, or on the 
     plains and flatlands such as the gulf coastal plains, the Atlantic or 
     PAcific tidewater plains or the plains of central US.
     
     I am sorry that I said that the NRC and FEMA should consider enlarging 
     the EPZ.  I am aware of NUREG 0396 and its requirements and 10CFR50 
     App E and its requirements, and I promise never to be sarcastic over 
     RADSAFE again.  I did not realize that Melissa also had established a 
     rule about humor.
     
     Regards,
     R.R.Goodwin
     Ronald_Goodwin@Health.Ohio.Gov
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Consequences of Chernobyl in Belaru -Reply
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date:    2/12/96 5:01 PM


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     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.