Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on DCGL determination and the classification of contaminated areas for preliminary decommission planning of KEPCO-NF nuclear fuel fabrication facility

  • Received : 2019.02.27
  • Accepted : 2019.06.08
  • Published : 2019.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As a part of the preliminary decommissioning plan of KEPCO-NF fuel fabrication facility, DCGLs of three target radionuclides, 234U, 235U, and 238U, were derived using RESRAD-BUILD code and contaminated areas of the facility were classified based on contamination levels from the derived DCGLs. From code simulations, one-room modeling results showed that the grinding room in building #2 was the most restrictive (DCGLgross = 10493.01 Bq/㎡). The DCGLgross results in contaminated areas from one-room modeling were slightly more conservative than three-room modeling. Prior to the code simulation, field survey and measurements conducted by each survey unit. For a conservative approach, the most restrictive DCGLgross in each survey unit was taken as a reference to classify the contaminated areas of the facility. Accordingly, seven rooms and 37 rooms in the nuclear-fuel buildings were classified as Class 1 and Class 2, respectively. As expected, fuel material handling and processing rooms such as the grinding room, sintering room, compressing room, and powder collecting room were included in the Class 1 area.

Keywords

References

  1. S. Hong, B. Brook, A nuclear-to-gas transition in South Korea: is it environmentally friendly or economically viable? Energy Policy 112 (2018) 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.012
  2. J.S. Min, K.W. Lee, H.R. Kim, C.W. Lee, Radiological assessment of the decontaminated and decommissioned Korea Research Reactor-1 building, Nucl. Eng. Des. 322 (2017) 492-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.07.026
  3. M. Laraia, Nuclear Decommissioning: Planning, Execution and International Experience, Elsevier Science, 2012.
  4. E.W. Abelquist, Decommissioning Health Physics: A Handbook for MARSSIM Users, second ed., CRC Press, 2013.
  5. U.S.NRC, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), 2000.
  6. J.M. Peterson, J.P. Englert, Estimation of residual radioactivity within a shutdown fuel reprocessing plant, in: Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting, Niagara Falls, NY, USA, 1986.
  7. KEPCO-NF. https://www.knfc.co.kr/eps, 2018.
  8. C. Yu, D. Lepoire, J.-J. Cheng, E. Gnanapragasam, J. Arnish, B.M. Biwer, A.J. Zielen, W.A. Williams, A. Wallo, P.H.T. Jr, User's Manual for RESRAD-BUILD Version 3, Argonne National Laboratory, 2019.
  9. W.E. Kennedy Jr., R.A. Peloquin, Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Dose, 1990, p. 313. United States.
  10. 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection, Ann. ICRP 21 (1-3) (1991) 1-201.
  11. P.W. Frame, E.W. Abelquist, Use of smears for assessing removable contamination, Health Phys. 76 (1999) S57-S66. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199905001-00004
  12. Westinghouse, Hematite Decommissioning Plan, License SNM-33, Docket No. 70-36, DO-04-004, 2005.
  13. N. Nassar, M.H.E. Monged, Evaluation of doses to an individual from a contaminated area with radioactive material, Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl. 50 (2) (2017) 250-257.

Cited by

  1. Comparative Analysis of Probabilistic Analysis and Deterministic Analysis by RESRAD Code vol.13, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13081983
  2. Using RESRAD-BUILD for Potential Radiation Dose Estimation the Korea Research Reactor-1 When It Opens to the Public as a Memorial Hall vol.16, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5392/ijoc.2020.16.2.102