I was interested to see the review of my report Seismic design criteria
and their applicability to major hazard plant within the United Kingdom
, SRD R246, in
the March issue of ATOM.
I think it would be helpful to your readers if I correct the impression that structural failure resulting from an earthquake
in the UK could give rise to an unacceptably high risk with a probability of occurrence of 10-2 a year.
It is true that some form of structural failure
was foreseen but it does not follow that such a failure
would lead to a loss of containment of hazardous materials.
Other consequential events would have to occur before a hazard would result.
The likelihood of those events and the effect of other factors on dispersion would have to be assessed for a particular site
before the resulting risk to the local population could be quantified.
The main conclusion of the report is a recommendation that hazards due to earthquakes should be considered in the design of sensitive structures, and that standards and criteria should be developed for non–nuclear major hazard installations. I suggest that those interested should read the report in its entirety before coming to any conclusions concerning the applicability of seismic design criteria to large industrial plants.
Yours sincerely,
MAHG Anderson
The August issue of ATOM contains a succinct and correct review of the International Fuel Cycle Conference by Mr Simon Rippon.
A small modification to the section headed NIREX to supervise waste management in UK
on page 171 would,
I feel, amplify my statement regarding disposal to Drigg.
The typical volumes of low level wastes disposed to Drigg could, in principle,
contain several hundreed curies of alpha activity and some thousands of curies of beta activities per year,
if contaminated to the maximum activity levels permitted by the Certificate of Authorisation.
Yours sincerely,
ME Ginniff