Most of the low-level liquid radioactive wastes generated from PWR plants are classified into high or low total suspended solid(HTDS or LTDS), and into radiochemical and radioactive laundry waste. Although the evaporation process has a high decontami- nation ability, it has several problems such as ...
Most of the low-level liquid radioactive wastes generated from PWR plants are classified into high or low total suspended solid(HTDS or LTDS), and into radiochemical and radioactive laundry waste. Although the evaporation process has a high decontami- nation ability, it has several problems such as corrosion, foam, and congestion. A new liquid waste disposal process using the ion-exchange demineralizer(IED), instead of the current evaporation process, has been introduced into the Yonggwang NPP #5 and 6. These two methods have been compared to understand the differences in this study. Aspects compared here were the released radioactivity amount of the liquid radioactive wastes, the dose of off-site residents, the decontamination factor, and the amount of the solid radioactive wastes. The IED system is designed to discharge higher radioactivity about 20% than the evaporating system, and the actual radioactivity released from the evaporating and IED system were 0.473mCi and 1.098mCi, respectively. The radioactivity released from the IED was 2.32 times higher than that of the evaporating system. The dose of off-site residents was $2.97{\times}10^{-6}$mSv for the evaporating system, and $6.47{\times}10^{-6}$mSv for IED. The decontamination factor(DF) of the evaporator is, in most cases, far lower than the lower limits of detection(LLD) with the Ge-Li detector. Due to the low concentration of the liquid wastes collected from the liquid waste system, the decontamination factor of IED is very low. Since there is not enough data on the amount of solid radioactive wastes generated by the evaporation system, the comparison on these two systems has been conducted on the basis of the design, and the comparison result was that the evaporating system generated more wastes about 40% than IED.
Most of the low-level liquid radioactive wastes generated from PWR plants are classified into high or low total suspended solid(HTDS or LTDS), and into radiochemical and radioactive laundry waste. Although the evaporation process has a high decontami- nation ability, it has several problems such as corrosion, foam, and congestion. A new liquid waste disposal process using the ion-exchange demineralizer(IED), instead of the current evaporation process, has been introduced into the Yonggwang NPP #5 and 6. These two methods have been compared to understand the differences in this study. Aspects compared here were the released radioactivity amount of the liquid radioactive wastes, the dose of off-site residents, the decontamination factor, and the amount of the solid radioactive wastes. The IED system is designed to discharge higher radioactivity about 20% than the evaporating system, and the actual radioactivity released from the evaporating and IED system were 0.473mCi and 1.098mCi, respectively. The radioactivity released from the IED was 2.32 times higher than that of the evaporating system. The dose of off-site residents was $2.97{\times}10^{-6}$mSv for the evaporating system, and $6.47{\times}10^{-6}$mSv for IED. The decontamination factor(DF) of the evaporator is, in most cases, far lower than the lower limits of detection(LLD) with the Ge-Li detector. Due to the low concentration of the liquid wastes collected from the liquid waste system, the decontamination factor of IED is very low. Since there is not enough data on the amount of solid radioactive wastes generated by the evaporation system, the comparison on these two systems has been conducted on the basis of the design, and the comparison result was that the evaporating system generated more wastes about 40% than IED.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
In this paper, the amount of radioactive liquid wastes released, dose of off-site residents, decontamination factor(DF) and the amount of solid radioactive wastes are respectively compared and reviewed to grasp the differences between the ion exchange demineralizer(IED) and the evaporator.
This study reviewed effect on the amount of radioactive materials discharged to off-site after treated by the evaporator and the IED, on dose to residents, on decontamination factors in each treatment method, and on the amount of radioactive wastes generated during the two processes.
대상 데이터
As shown on , through an analysis on samples gathered at 7 spots (the entrance and the exit of the ion exchange equipment, between each of the absorbers and the demineralizers), nuclides detected include no fissile nuclides but only radioactive corrosion products such as Cr51, Mn54, Co58, Fe59, Co60, Zn65, Co57, Zr95, existing in nuclear reactor coolant.
이론/모형
Based on data on the liquid wastes discharged into the environment through the evaporator and the IED, the dose to residents was estimated. The analysis code used to calculate the dose generated from liquid wastes was LIQDOS. Important exposure pathways considered here are internal exposures by the ingestion of aquatic products, external exposures by accumulated radioactive materials on the seashore, and external exposures by leisure activities at the nearby ocean.
성능/효과
By the analysis result based on small amounts of wastes discharged to off-site, the evaporating method in comparision with the IED one showed superiority in treating liquid wastes, and presented low doses to residents, and had high decontamination factors. Also, it generated more wastes (48.
In comparison with the decontamination capability of the selective IED, despite some possible errors because of the different concentration levels of the liquid wastes, of the equipment used, of the researcher, the evaporation process appeared to be much better in the treatment of liquid wastes.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.