Evaluation of accidental radioactive 'atmospheric discharges by nuclear reactors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X63629Abstract
The primary consideration concerning the safety of a nuclear installation refers to the protection of operators and the surrounding public both during normal operation as well as during an accidental release of radioactive contaminants into the atmosphere. The nuclear electricity generation has proved to be a safe technology, despite the generation of an enormous quantity of radioactive isotopes, both actinides and products of activation, considering the small number of accidental atmospheric dispersion events. In modern reactor installations like that of Angra I in Brazil, the monitoring of radioactivity has not lead to radioactive levels higher than normal accepted environmental levels. This is a consequence of safety features built into the plant in order that, should there be a radioactive release, no members of the public would be subjected to unacceptable levels of risk. Since there have been a very few number of reported reactor accidents, the design of a nuclear plant must resort to theoretical calculations and simulations of hypothetical releases to study the consequences of accidental dispersion of radioactive effluents. In this paper we consider the various stages related with the release of radioactivity from the irradiated nuclear fuel to the calculation of doses, starting from the radioactive inventory calculation followed with the model of radioactive release and the standard treatment for the effluents behavior in the atmosphere suggesting the gamma doses calculation to the public based in the use of the adjoint flux calculations, used as importance function, instead of the direct calculation. This new methodology will be more effective, considering the inherent large uncertainties in each stage of the radioactive release and dispersion computations. It is also necessary to remember that the system of dose limitation is based on maximum allowed levels of accidental release and maximum pollutants concentration (MCP) on air or on water and in this case the adjoint flux takes the function of the Importance of a particular radioactive release for the dose received by each irradiated individual, or for any other integral response.Downloads
References
Clarke R.H., MacDonald H.F., Radioactive releases from nuclear Installations: evaluation of accidental atmospheric discharges, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2,2, (1978).
Ducros G., Malgouryres P.P., Kissane M., Boulaud D., Durin M., Fission product release under severe accidental conditions: general presentation of the program and synthesis of VERCORS 1-6 results., Nuclear Engineering and Design 208, 191-203, (2001).
Raza S.S., Avila R., Cervantes J., A 3-D Lagrangian stochastic model for the meso-scale atmospheric dispersion applications, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 208, 1-28, (2001).
Oza R.B., Panchal N.S., Nambi K.S.V., Krishnamoorthy T.M., Coupling of mesoscale meteorological model with particle trajectory model to study the atmospheric dispersion under sea breeze conditions, Environmental Modeling & Software, 16, 63-71, (2001).
Ang M.L., et alii, A risk-base evaluation of the impact of key uncertainties on the prediction of severe accident source termsSTU, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 209, 183-192, (2001).
Bell M.J., ¨ORIGEN, The ORNL Isotope generation and depletion code ¨Report ORNL-4628, (1973)
England T.R., CINDER, A One point depletion and fission product code, Report WAPD-TM-335, (1962)
Clarke R.H., FISP, A Comprehensive computer program for generating fission product inventory, Health Physics, 23,565-572, (1972).
Harte G.A., HYACINTH A heavy isotope point burn-up and decay code, CEGB Report RD/B/N3564, (1976).
Alpert D.J., Chanin D.I., Ritchie L.T., Relative importance of individual elements to reactor accident consequences assuming equal release fractions, Report NUREG/CR-4467, (1988).
Gilford F.A. Turbulent Diffusion typing schemes- a review, Nucl. Safety 17, 68-86,(1976).
Pasquil F. Atmospheric diffusion, Halstead Press, (1974).
Csanady G.T., Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment, D. Reidel Publishing Co. Holland, (1980).
Pasquil F., The estimation of the dispersion of windborne material, Met. Mag., 90, 33-49, (1961).
Smith F.B. A scheme for estimating the vertical dispersion of a plume from a source near the ground level, Report NATO-CCHS 1, (1973).
Moore D.J., CEGB Report Surrey England(1976).
Lamarsh J.R., Introduction to Nuclear Engineering, 2nd. Ed. Addison Wesley, USA, (1983).
Lewins J., Importance, Pergamon Press, NY, (1965).
Graça C.O. Reaction Rate Studies in a Fusion Reactor Blanket, PhD, Thesis, Cambridge University, England, (1986).
Gandini A., Generalized Perturbation Theory Methods. A Heuristic Approach, in Advances in Nuclear Science and Technology, 19, Plenum Pub. Co.,(1987)
Marchuk G.I., Agoshkov V.I., Shutyaev V.P., Adjoint Equations and Perturbation Algorithms in Nonlinear Problems, CRC Press Inc., Florida USA,(1996).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
