Radioecological assessment of reactor facilities based on postulated emergency scenarios

«Radiation and Risk», 2024, vol. 33, No. 1, pp.55-67

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2024-33-1-55-67

Authors

Spiridonov S.I. – Chief Researcher, D. Sc., Biol., Prof. Contacts: 1, Kievskoe sh., Obninsk, Kaluga region, Russia, 249032. Tel.: +7 (484) 399-69-67; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Mikailova R.A. – Researcher
Karpenko E.I. – Director, D. Sc., Biol. NRC “Kurchatov Institute” – RIRAE.
Russian Institute of Radiology and Agroecology of National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute”, Obninsk

Abstract

The methodical approach based on scenarios of design and beyond design basis accidents was developed for comparative radioecological assessment of reactor facilities. The dynamics of possible radiation doses to the thyroid and the whole body of the public resided nearby the Russian nuclear power plants equipped with the VVER-440, VVER-1000, VVER-1200 and BN-800 reactors was estimated. With the use of the conservative approach for each accident scenario, as well as with the use of acute and medium-term dose criteria, radiation exposure indices were calculated for each accident scenario. Reactor facilities are ranked according to an index summarizing the accident scenarios features and the probability of their realization, the height of radioactive emissions and the activity of dosage-forming radionuclides. The potential radioecological danger of Russian reactors to the pop-ulation has been reduced. The lowest estimates of the summarized emergency risk are typical for the advanced VVER-1200 reactor of the 3+ generation and the fast neutron reactor BN-800. The most severe emergency scenarios for each considered reactor are highlighted. The VVER-440 reac-tor has the highest number of severe projected accidents exceeding the dosage criteria envisaging evacuation of the population. The directions of further research related to the analysis of the environmental radiological effects, the justification of radiation protection measures and the development of operational intervention levels in the acute post-accident period are outlined.

Key words
nuclear power plants, reactor facilities, scenarios of radiation emergencies, activities of radionuclides, accident probabilities, migration and dosimetric models, public exposure, dose criteria, radiation exposure indices, generalized accident risk, monitoring operational intervention levels, radiobiology, environmental health, radiation.

References

1. Aleksakhin R.M. Topical environmental problems of nuclear power. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2013, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 243-248. (In Russian).

2. Radiation safety standards (NRB-99/2009). Sanitary and epidemiological rules and regulations. Moscow, Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, 2009. 100 p. (In Russian).

3. Sanitary rules for the design and operation of nuclear power plants (SP AS-03). Sanitary rules and hygiene standards SanPin 2.6.1.24-03. Moscow, Ministry of Health of Russia, 2003. 41 p. (In Russian).

4. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3. IAEA, Vienna, 2014. 436 p.

5. Spiridonov S.I., Mikailova R.A. Ranking of reactor facilities based on the assessment of potential radiation impact on the environment. Radiatsionnaya biologiya. Radioekologiya – Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 2020, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 541-549. (In Russian).

6. Ievdin I., Trybushnyi D., Zheleznyak M., Raskob W. RODOS re-engineering: aims and implementation details. Radioprotection, 2010, vol. 45, no. 5 (Suppl.), pp. S181-S189.

7. Spiridonov S.I., Mikailova R.A. Comparative radioecological assessment of serious-accident scenarios in NPP on the basis of the risk for natural communities. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2018, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 175-180. (In Russian).

8. Fesenko S.V., Alexakhin R.M., Geraskin S.A., Sanzharova N.I., Spirin Ye.V., Spiridonov S.I., Gontarenko I.A., Strand P. Comparative radiation impact on biota and man in the area affected by the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. J. Environ. Radioact., 2005, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 1-25.

9. IAEA safety glossary. Terminology used in nuclear safety and radiation protection. IAEA, Vienna, 2019. 278 p.

10. Environmental impact assessment. Volume 1. Book 2. BL.4-0-0-OVOS-001/2. St. Petersburg, SPbAEP, 2012. 423 p. (In Russian).

11. Substantiation for investing in the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Republic of Belarus. Book 11. Environmental impact assessment. 1588-PZ-OI4. Part 8. EIA Report. Part 8.3. Assessment of the impact of NPP on the environment. Minsk, BELNIPIENERGOPROM, 2010, 137 p. (In Russian).

12. Substantiation for investing in the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Republic of Belarus. Stage 4. Environmental impact assessment. 1588-PZ-OI4. BOOK 4. Section 9. Characteristics of the environment and assessment of the impact on it by BelNPP. Minsk, BELNIPIENERGOPROM, 2009. 209 p. (In Russian).

13. Rodos: Decision support system for off-site nuclear emergency management in Europe. Eds.: J. Ehrhardt, A. Weiss. EUR Report 19144. Brussels, European Commission, 2000. 259 p.

14. Kazakov S.V., Utkin S.S. Podhody i principy radiacionnoj zashhity vodnyh ob’ektov [Approaches and princi-ples of radiation protection of water bodies]. Ed.: I.I. Linge. Moscow, Nauka, 2008. 318 p.

15. INES: The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User's Manual. Vienna, IAEA, 2013. 206 p.

16. State-of-the-art reactor consequence analyses project. V. 2: Surry integrated analysis (NUREG/CR-7110, V. 2, Rev. 1). Washington, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 2013. 559 p.

17. Hinkley Point C pre-construction safety report. Chapter 15, Sub-chapter 15-4, UKEPR-0002-154, Issue 06. London, NNB Generation Company Limited, 2012. 252 p.

18. Ostreykovskiy V.A., Shviryayev Yu.V. Bezopasnost’ atomnykh stantsiy. Veroyatnostnyy analiz [Safety of nuclear power plants. Probability analysis]. Moscow, Fizmatlit, 2008. 352 p.

19. Staudt C., Kaiser C. HARMONE Database with values for geographically dependent parameters. OPERRA Deliverable D5.36. Helmholtz Zentrum München HMGU, 2016. 27 p.

20. Potrebleniye produktov pitaniya v domashnikh khozyaystvakh v 2020 godu po itogam Vyborochnogo obsle-dovaniya byudzhetov domashnikh khozyaystv [Household food consumption in 2020 based on the Household Budget Sample Survey]. Moscow, Federal State Statistics Service, 2021. 83 p.

21. Spiridonov S.I., Karpenko E.I., Sharpan L.A. Ranking of radionuclides and pathways according to their contribution to the dose burden to the population resulting from NPP releases. Radiatsionnaya biologiya. Radioekologiya – Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 2013, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 401-410. (In Russian).

22. Adamov E.O., Kapliyenko A.V., Orlov V.V., Smirnov V.S., Lopatkin A.V., Lemekhov V.V., Moiseyev A.V. Brest lead-cooled fast reactor: from concept to technological implementation. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2020, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 185-194. (In Russian).

23. Spiridonov S.I., Mikailova R.A., Fesenko S.V. Evaluation of the operational intervention levels for radiation protection of the public based on the emergency scenarios at Russian nuclear power plants. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and risk, 2023, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 36-47. (In Russian).

24. Operational intervention levels for reactor emergencies and methodology for their derivation. Vienna, IAEA, 2017. 160 p.

Full-text article (in Russian)