[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: KI Inquiry -Reply



     Jamie -- good point.  In fact if you take the best estimate of iodine
     release as the planning basis for emergency preparedness -- you don't
     need one!  The real question is why are we spending all this money?

     And how do we stop?

 ============================================================================
     _/_/      _/_/       _/     _/    _/_/    _/_/   Michael J. Russell, CHP
   _/   _/   _/   _/     _/     _/  _/    _/ _/   _/  SONGS, D3D
    _/     _/      _/   _/_/   _/  _/         _/      PO Box 128
     _/   _/       _/  _/ _/  _/  _/           _/     San Clemente, CA 92672
      _/  _/      _/  _/  _/ _/  _/  _/_/        _/   (714) 368-9127
_/    _/  _/     _/  _/   _/_/  _/      _/  _/   _/   fax (714) 368-7575
 _/_/       _/_/    _/     _/    _/_/_/      _/_/     russelmj@songs.sce.com
 ============================================================================

This discussion neglects to consider one significant point.   Significant
Iodine releases should not be expected from a LWR.  The two reactor
accidents where I was released were graphite moderated reactors(i.e.
Windscale and Chernobyl) in which a fire help to release the Iodine.  The
only LWR accident(TMI) showed that the I tended to stay in solution with
only a small fraction airborne.

Emergency planning actions following a significant Iodine release are
based on the faulty assumption that the Iodine is available for airborne
release.  Regulators made this assumption to conservatively estimate the
release source term.  We should remain aware of the conservatism of
this assumption and consider it before planning to stockpile KI for
distribution post accident.

Just an opinion!

Jamie Mallon
Millennium Services
mallonj@myapc.com
207-882-5643