Advertisement

Radiological environmental impact analysis of a 2-MW thorium molten salt reactor during an accident

  • Chang-Qi Chen
  • Xiao-Bin XiaEmail author
  • Zhi-Hong Zhang
  • Jun Cai
  • Chang-Yuan Li
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The thorium molten salt reactor–liquid fuel (TMSR-LF1) has inherent safety features. The accident occurrence possibility and their consequences are much lower for the TMSR-LF1 than that of traditional reactors. Based on accident analysis, the maximum credible accident and the radioactive source terms of the TMSR-LF1 were first estimated. Then, the total effective dose of the maximum credible accident was calculated. Based on calculations, the cover gas flow rate can significantly affect the radiation consequences of the maximum credible accident when it changes from 0 to 10 L/min. If no cover gas is flowing, a site-area emergency would be required within the range of 50–73 m from the reactor. In the case of cover gas flow, only an abnormal notification and an alert two emergency class would be required within the range of 50 m.

Keywords

TMSR-LF1 Accident classification and description Maximum credible accident Emergency class 

References

  1. 1.
    Committee U.S. DOE. A technology roadmap for generation IV nuclear energy systems, GIF-002-00. The generation IV international forum (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.H. Jiang, H.J. Xu, Z.M. Dai, Advanced fission energy program-TMSR nuclear energy system. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 27(3), 366–374 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-3045.2012.03.016. (in Chinese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.L. Zhang, L.M. Liu, M.H. Liu et al., Review of conceptual design and fundamental research of molten salt reactors in China. Int. J. Energy Res. 42(5), 1834–1848 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z.H. Zhang, X.B. Xia, J. Cai et al., Simulation of radiation dose distribution and thermal analysis for the bulk shielding of an optimized molten salt reactor. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 26, 040603 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.13538/j.1001-8042/nst.26.040603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.M. Ji, M.H. Li, Y. Zou et al., Impact of photoneutrons on reactivity measurements for TMSR-SF1. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 76 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-017-0234-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.J. Dolan (ed.), Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium Energy (Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, 2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B.M. Elsheikh, Safety assessment of molten salt reactors in comparison with light water reactors. J. Radiat. Res. AS. 6(2), 63–70 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2013.10.008 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.B. Shi, M.S. Cheng, G.M. Liu et al., Development and application of a system analysis code for liquid fueled molten salt reactors based on RELAP5 code. Nucl. Eng. Des. 305, 378–388 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.05.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Cai, X.B. Xia, K. Chen et al., Analysis on reactivity initiated transient from control rod failure events of a molten salt reactor. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 25, 030602 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.13538/j.1001-8042/nst.25.030602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.P. Guo, C.L. Yang, Variance of atmosphere dispersion factor for accident release from nuclear power plant. Adv. Mater. Res. 518–523, 1242–1246 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.518-523.1242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Jones, K. Jones, S. Holmes et al., Assessing the possible radiological impact of routine radiological discharges from proposed nuclear power stations in England and Wales. J. Radiol. Prot. 33, 163–174 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/33/1/163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Cao, M. Yeung, S. Wong et al., Adaptation of COSYMA and assessment of accident consequences for Daya Bay nuclear power plant in China. J. Environ. Radioact. 48(3), 265–277 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0265-931X(99)00077-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Katata, H. Terada, H. Nagai et al., Numerical reconstruction of high dose rate zones because of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. J. Environ. Radioact. 111, 2–12 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.E. Beall, P.N. Haubenreich, R.B. Lindauer et al., ORNL-TM-0732, MSRE Design and Operations Report Part V: Reactor Safety Analysis Report (ORNL, Oak Ridge, 1964)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Scale, Comprehensive Modeling and Simulation Suite for Nuclear Safety Analysis and Design. ORNL/TM-2005/39, Version 6.1 (ORNL, Oak Ridge, 2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E.L. Compere, S.S. Kirslis, E.G. Bohlmann et al., ORNL-4865, Fission Production Behavior in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (ORNL, Oak Ridge, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.T. Mays, A.N. Smith, J.R. Engel, ORNL-TM-5759, Distribution and Behavior of Tritium in the Coolant-Salt Technology Facility (ORNL, Oak Ridge, 1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    X.W. Lv, X.B. Xia, Z.H. Zhang et al., Analysis of tritium production in a 2 MW liquid-fueled molten salt experiment reactor and its environmental impact. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27, 78 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-016-0100-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Qin, C.L. Wang, S.Z. Qiu et al., Study of tritium transport characteristics in a transportable fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactor. Int. J. Energy Res. 42, 1536–1550 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y.S. Zeng, W.G. Liu, W. Liu et al., Tritium transport analysis in a 2-MW liquid-fueled molten salt experimental reactor with the code TMSR-TTAC. Nucl. Technol. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2018.1507200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y.S. Zeng, W.G. Liu, W. Liu et al., Development of the tritium transport analysis code for the thorium-based molten salt reactor. Nucl. Technol. 203(1), 48–57 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2018.1433408 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoshioka R, Mitachi K, Shimazu Y, et al., Safety criteria and guidelines for MSR accident analysis, in PHYSOR 2014-The Role of Reactor Physics Toward a Sustainable Future, The Westin Miyako, Kyoto, Japan, Sept 28–Oct 3, 2014Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L.Z. Cao, K. Zhuang, Y.Q. Zheng et al., Transient analysis for liquid-fuel molten salt reactor based on MOREL2.0 code. Int. J. Energy Res. 42(1), 261–275 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Site Selection Report of TMSR-LF1. (PRC MEE, 2018), http://www.mee.gov.cn/hyfs_12801/hyfsljsxmhjyxpj/gs/201802/t20180209_431193.shtml. Accessed 7 Mar 2019. (in Chinese)
  25. 25.
    NNSA. HAD 002/06, Emergency plan and preparedness for research reactor. (NNSA, Beijing, 1991) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    SAMR and SAC. GB/T 17982, Models and parameters for calculating radiation doses to the public in the emegrency of a nuclear accident. (SAMR and SAC, Beijing, 2018) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    AQSIQ. GB 18871, Basic standards for protection against ionizing radiation and the safety of radiation sources. (AQSIQ, Beijing, 2002) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety reports series no. 19, Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the Environment (IAEA, Vienna, 2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal guidance report No. 12, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil. (NRC, Washington DC, 1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory guide 1.195, Methods and Assumptions for Evaluating Radiological Consequences of Design Basis Incidents at Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors. (NRC, Washington DC, 2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.194, Atmospheric Relative Concentrations for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. (NRC, Washington DC, 2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J.V. Ramsdell Jr., C.A. Simonen, NUREG/CR-6331, revision 1, atmospheric relative concentration in building wakes (NRC, Washington DC, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    A.H. Huber, Wind-tunnel and Gaussian plume modeling of building wake dispersion. Atmos. Environ. A-Gen. 25(7), 1237–1249 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1686(91)90234-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Nuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chang-Qi Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiao-Bin Xia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zhi-Hong Zhang
    • 1
  • Jun Cai
    • 1
  • Chang-Yuan Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of SciencesShanghaiChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations