research reactor non-risk

[Les Slaback <lester.slaback@nist.gov>]

The news article below (from Sandy's news service) is about a planned, 20
MW research reactor.   It is to be a routine, MTR-fuel type research
reactor for general purpose radiation and materials research. The typical
(very conservative) EPZ for such a facility is 400 m. For most research
reactors the EPZ is the building walls. As you can see from the article,
the rather generic, non-specific statements could be applied to any
facility.  It is also evident from the content what the 'US experts' are
expert in.

I thought this article was worth a wider distribution because research
reactors like this provide essential services to education and industry,
providing many tools that cannot be done any other way, with (despite the
article) no risk to the public.  With more and more U.S. RR shuting down,
e.g., Ga. Tech., Univ of Va, HFBR(?), we are losing irreplaceable resources.
End of soapbox for the day.  :)

Sydney nuclear reactor would not meet international standards

SYDNEY, Nov 15 (AFP) - An environmental impact statement on 
the  feasability of a new nuclear reactor in Sydney was "grossly 
unrealistic" and "tortuously manipulated," US experts say in a 
damning report. Fallout from a meltdown at the planned reactor 
could reach  millions of people, causing more than 10,000 long-
term cancer deaths, the study shows. The Australian Nuclear 
Science and Technology Organisation plans  to replace an old 
existing facility at residential Lucas Heights, in Sydney's west, with 
a new 300 million dollar (189 million US) reactor. Its draft 
environmental impact statement (EIS) said a nuclear  reactor would 
be safe for Sydney and the environment, but top United States 
nuclear scientist Daniel Hirsch ridiculed the findings in an 
independent report commissioned by a local council. Hirsch, 
former nuclear policy adviser at the University of  California, said 
the EIS dismisses a number of serious accident scenarios "with a 
wave of the hand," concentrating instead on "trivial" possibilities. 
"Extraordinary assumptions, never clearly disclosed, were used  to 
force down the estimated consequences of accidents at the facility 
in a futile effort to support a pre-ordained safety conclusion", he 
says in the confidential report, extracts of which were published in 
Sydney's Sunday Telegraph. He forecast that deadly doses of the 
radioactive gas iodine-131  would be encountered up to 80 
kilometres (49 miles) from the site. Even if only a tiny amount of 
radioactive material was released,  an area within a 10-kilometre 
(6.2 mile) radius would be seriously affected. He said a supposition 
that less than one-millionth of the  radioactive material would be 
released in a worst case scenario was "inexplicable," "grossly 
unrealistic," and "tortuously manipulated". "A blind belief that no 
serious harm can occur no matter what  goes wrong with the 
reactor, no matter how serious the operator error, produces a 
markedly increased risk." He said the EIS had underestimated by 
10,000 times the extent of  a fallout. His findings have been 
supported by two other independent United  States consultants 
and Sutherland Shire Council's principal environmental scientist, 
the newspaper said. 
--------------------------  

Disclaimer:  the above are the personal musings of the author, and do not
represent any past, present, or future position of NIST, the U.S. government,
or anyone else who might think that they are in a position of authority. 
Lester Slaback, Jr.  [Lester.Slaback@NIST.GOV] 
NBSR Health Physics 
Center for Neutron Research 
NIST
100 Bureau Dr.  STOP 3543 
Gaithersburg, MD  20899-3543 
301 975-5810 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html