ANS 5 10-1998 Airborne Release Fractions at Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities (Includes Appendix A 2013 Appendix B and Appendix C)《非反应堆核设施中的空气释分》.pdf

《ANS 5 10-1998 Airborne Release Fractions at Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities (Includes Appendix A 2013 Appendix B and Appendix C)《非反应堆核设施中的空气释分》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ANS 5 10-1998 Airborne Release Fractions at Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities (Includes Appendix A 2013 Appendix B and Appendix C)《非反应堆核设施中的空气释分》.pdf（39页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、REAFFIRMED January 15, 2013 ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998 (R2013) ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998 (R2013)with 2013 Appendix A Update American National Standard ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998 Appendix A (updated 2013) (This Appendix is not a part of American National Standard for Airborne Release Fractions at Non-Reactor Nuclear Facili

2、ties, ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998.) Airborne Release Fraction Values Available in the Literature A1. Literature Sources The primary literature source for the Airborne Release Fraction is DOE-HDBK-3010 (DOE 1994), which covers the range of experimental parameters that are cited in the literature and contains

3、references to the experimental basis for the ARF and RF values cited. Other experimental studies used, but not cited in DOE-HDBK-3010, are referenced as appropriate. A2. Guidance in Application of Values in Tables The values cited in Table A1 are taken from experimental studies that utilize specific

4、 materials and types and levels of stress. Each specific material has characteristics that are influenced by the type and level of stress imposed resulting in the separation and suspension of the material. Both the characteristics of the material and type/level of stress affect the airborne release.

5、 The ambient airflow around the suspended material affects transport. Thus, specific values must be chosen with great care. In many cases where the material is inert to the chemical environment, the airborne release value can be representative of the airborne release for all similar physical materia

6、ls. Such is the case for suspension of chemically-inert compounds in powder form by aerodynamic forces at normal temperatures and for the fragmentation of brittle materials by crush-impact forces. In other cases, such as the generation of volatile materials due to chemical reactions (e.g., iodine ge

7、neration), the airborne release value is sensitive to the chemical and physical environment and not directly applicable to other volatile materials. Even droplets of aqueous solution can be modified by the environment they are suspended in by the effects of evaporation or the condensation of the sol

8、vent during airborne transport. The release mechanisms are also different for combinations of materials and stress. Pre-formed particles (powders) under aerodynamic stress behave differently depending upon whether the material is a pile that projects into the flow field (typically considered fugitiv

9、e emissions), in a smooth layer within the boundary layer on a heterogenous substrate, in a sparse layer, or in a homogeneous layer. The value for airborne release selected must be based upon the combination of material characteristics and type and level of stress. The type and level of stress is ty

10、pically determined by the postulated scenario and the postulated/calculated behavior of the other materials involved (e.g., fire, explosion, earthquake, high winds, process malfunction). On a “worst case” basis with little analysis of the behavior of materials, equipment, or structures, “bounding” c

11、alculations are appropriate. In these cases, the physical limits of the materials are used, such as the total heat of combustion expressed as a TNT Equivalent for explosions. Bear in mind that the TNT Equivalents so estimated for gaseous mixtures or for non-explosive solids may be gross exaggeration

12、s of the actual conditions. Nonetheless, if the calculated values for the level of stress are within the bounds of the experimental data, the ARFs and RFs can be applied to physically similar materials. For more detailed calculations of the potential airborne release, analysis of the limiting materi

13、als (e.g., strength of barriers, oxygen availability for fires, rupture pressure for pressure-volume/over-pressurization events), and the responses of materials, barriers, and equipment to the type and level imposed, must also be considered. Where experimental data for the material-of-concern and th

14、e stress combination are available, the data may be interpolated to provide a closer estimate of airborne release. If the material-of-concern is chemically/physically similar to the materials used in the experimental study, such an American National Standard ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998 interpolated result ma

15、y also be applicable. If the material-of-concern is dissimilar, the level of stress exceeds the range used in the experimental study, or the material-of-concern or type of stress has not been studied, the user should make the commitment to perform experimental studies and have the results reviewed a

16、nd published prior to the extensive engineering analyses of the response of materials to the applied stress. Such extensive engineering analyses are of little benefit without the experimental data to provide more realistic estimates. In some cases where experimental studies have used materials with

17、similar characteristics but have deviations that would produce conservative estimates in the specific case addressed (e.g., a finer size distribution of a dry, cohesionless powder is used in the experimental study), the interpolation could be applicable. Extrapolation of the results from experimenta

18、l studies must be approached with greater caution. If the release mechanism is known and does not change over the range of interest, extrapolation of the experimental data may be useful (e.g., fragmentation of brittle solids by crush-impact forces) but all parameters that affect the results must be

19、considered. In the example cited, fragmentation of brittle solids by crush-impact forces, both the physical characteristics of the impacted material and the configuration are important. In the experimental studies, it was ensured that all the brittle materials were subjected to crush-impact forces b

20、ecause the plate applying the force covered the entire surface of one side of the specimen. The fragmentation and size distribution of the fragments are a function of the energy density applied per unit volume or per unit mass. For the configuration where the impacting object is less than the entire

21、 surface, one must address the question of the volume impacted (the volume in which the shock/pressure waves propagate and are reflected through the material to result in fragmentation). An additional consideration for particles is the effect on both the supension and the transport of the suspended

22、materials of the sizes of individual particles and the size distribution of the entire sample. The size units used in this table are normalized by use of micrometers of Aerodynamic Equivalent Diameter the diameter of a sphere of material with a density of 1 g/cm3that has the same terminal (settling)

23、 velocity as the particle. This is appropriate inasmuch as both the airborne transport and inhalation are functions of the aerodynamic characteristics of the particle. The size distribution of the airborne particles are a function of the formation process and the duration airborne. When initially fo

24、rmed, particles are typically log-normally distributed and their distribution can be defined by the Aerodynamic Mass Median Diameter (AMMD) and the Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) (the slope of the curve on log-probability graph of the cumulative mass versus size). If the preformed particles (pow

25、ders) are suspended, the initial size distribution is altered by two factors: the deagglomeration (separation of particle clusters into smaller clusters or the individual particles) of the powder and the amount of each size suspended under the specific conditions of airflow and surface characteristi

26、cs. Particles-at-rest tend to stick together (agglomerate). The cluster sizes and the “stickiness” depend upon such factors as their shape (number of points of contact between particles), size distribution (particles with a wide range of sizes can nestle together with time and fill much of the void

27、space between particles), the physical environment (particles can agglomerate with other particles, such as soil, that are part of the substrate; particles may hide in the surface roughness; moisture can condense between particles, increasing interparticle attraction), and the chemical characteristi

28、cs of the compound (some compounds can soften or dissolve in the presence of condensed moisture and be bonded to the dried material upon loss of moisture). Due to the small spaces between particles, it is difficult to generate much force between the particles to separate them. Once airborne, the par

29、ticles are subject to the environment. Heavier particles (generally greater than 1 micrometer AED) can settle due to gravitational forces. Heavier particles also have a larger resistance to external forces, such as from currents, resulting in smaller changes in direction. Smaller particles (submicro

30、meter AED) are affected by diffusion and electrostatic forces. Particles of all sizes tend to agglomerate; the larger the number of particles per unit volume, the greater the agglomeration rate. Thus, immediately upon suspension, various forces begin to alter the size distribution. It is rare to fin

31、d an airborne population of particles with a single size distribution without special circumstances (an initially widely-dispersed particle population in relatively particle-free air). Typically, size distributions observed for airborne materials are multi-modal (the airborne particles have several

32、size distributions dependent upon the forces that have acted upon the initial distribution released). Use of a single AMMD and GSD is American National Standard ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998 not meaningful for these distributions and typically the attempts to calculate a GSD result in compromise to achieve the

33、 result. Typically, the GSD of the particle size distribution is given as: GSD = 84.l6% diameter/50% diameter = 50% diameter/l5.87% diameter. In cases where the GSD estimated by the above equations is different, a GSD is estimated by: GSD = (84.16% diameter/50% diameter) + (50% diameter/l5 87% diame

34、ter) divided by 2, or GSD = (84.16% diameter/15.87% diameter) If the GSDs estimated by the above equations are significantly different, the GSD does not adequately describe the log-probability curve of the distribution so that the fraction in any size range cannot be accurately determined by applica

35、tion of the median diameter and the GSD. A spent fuel sabotage test program quantified the aerosol particles produced when the products of a high energy density device interacts with explosively particulate test rodlets that contain pellets of either surrogate material or actual spent fuel (SAND2005

36、). A.3 References Ballinger, M. Y., S. L. Sutter, and W. H. Hodgson, New Data for Aerosols Generated by Releases of Pressurized Powders and, Liquids in Static Air, NUREG/CR-4779 (PNL-6065), May 1987, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. Ballinger, M.Y., J. W. Buck, P. C. Owczarski, and J. E.

37、Ayer, Methods for Describing Airborne Fractions of Free-Fall Spills of Powders and Liquids, NUREG/CR-4997 (PNL-6300), January 1988, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. Borkowski, R., H. Bunz, and W. Schoeck, Resuspension of Fission Products During Severe Accidents in Light-Water Reactors, Kf

38、K 3987 (EUR 10391 EN), May 1986, Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany. Boughton, B.A, Unpublished data, Sandia National Laboratory. Brereton, S., D. Hesse, D. Kahlnich, M. Lazzaro, V. Mubayi, and J. Shinn, Final Report of the Accident Phenomenology and Consequence (APAC) Methodology Evaluation-S

39、pills Working Group, UCRL-ID-125479, August 1997, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. Brown, R., and J. L. York, “Sprays Formed by Flashing Spray”, A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 8: No. 2, pp. 149- 153, 1962. Carter, R. F., and K. Stewart, “On the Oxide Fume Formed by the Combustion of Pluton

40、ium and Uranium”, Inhaled Particles III (Proceedings of an International Symposium, British Occupational Hygiene Society, London, England, 9/14-23/70, Unwin Brothers Limited - The Gresham Press, Old Working, Surrey, England. Chatfield, E. J., “Some Studies on the Aerosol Produced by the Combustion o

41、r Vaporization of Plutonium-Alkali Mixture”, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 32: pp. 228-246, 1969. DOE Handbook - Airborne Release Fractions / Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, DOE-HDBK-3010-94, December 1994, U.S. Department of Enerry, Washington, DC. Eidson, A. F., H

42、. C. Yeh, and G. M. Kanapilly, “Plutonium Aerosol Generation in Reducing and Oxidizing Atmospheres”, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 152: pp. 41-52, 1988. Eidson, A. F., and G. M. Kanapilly, Plutonium Aerosolization Studies: Phase I Final Report, February 1983, ITRI - Lovelace Laboratory, Albuquerque,

43、 NM. American National Standard ANSI/ANS-5.10-1998 Gido, R. G., and A. Koestel, “LOGA-Generated Drop Size Prediction - A Thermal Fragmentation Model”, Transactions of ANS, 30: pp. 371-372, November 1978. Heitbrink, W.A., P. A. Baron, and K Willeke, “An Investigation of Dust Generation by Free Fallin

44、g Powders”, Am . Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 53: No. 10, pp. 617- 624, October 1992. Kataoka, I., and M. Ishii, Mechanistic Modeling for Correlations for Pool Entrainment Phenomena, NUREG/CR-3304(ANL-83-37), April 1983, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL. Kent, G. I., J. R. Britt, R. T. Allen, D. R. R

45、anta, J. R. Stokley, P. C. Owczarski, J. Mishima, and S. M. Mirsky, Effect of Spent Fuel Cask Design on Mitigation of Radiological Impacts from a Vehicle Bomb Attack, May 12, 1995 (undocumented), Safeguards Information, Science Applications International Corporation, Reston, VA. (NRC Safeguards Repo

46、rt). Luna, R. E., A New Analysis of the VIXEN A Trials, SAND93-2528, February 1994, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM. Mensing, R. W., T. R. Bement, and R. E. Luna, Characterization of Plutonium Aerosol for Various Accident Scenarios by an Expert Panel, LA-CP-95-55, March 29, 1995, Los Ala

47、mos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. Mishima,J., Plutonium Release Studies I. Release From the Ignited Metal, BNWL-205, December 1965, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA Mishima, J., Plutonium Release Studies II. Release From lgnited, Bulk Metallic Pieces, BNWL-357, November 1966, Pacifi

48、c Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. Mishima, J., “LANL TA-55 Particles Generated by Impact of Bare Fuel Pellets”, letter report to Bob Jackson, March 1995, Richland, WA Mishima, J., L. C. Schwendiman, and C. A. Radasch, Plutonium Release Studies IV. Fractional Airborne Release From Heating Plutoni

49、um Nitrate Solutions in Flowing Air, BNWL-931, November 1968, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. Molecke, M. A., and K. B. Sorenson, T. T. Borek III, R. R. Dickey, J. E. Brockmann, D. A. Lucero, M.W. Gregson, R. L. Coats, R. E. Luna M. C. Billone, T. Burtseva, H. Tsai, W. Koch, O. Nolte, B. A. Autrusson, O. Loiseau,T. Mo, F. I. Young, Spent Fuel Sabotage Aerosol Ratio Program: FY 2004 Test and Data Summary, SAND 2005-4446, July 2005 Owczarski, P. C., and J. Mishima, Airborne Release / Respirable Fractions for Dome Collapse in HLW Tanks, May 1996 (undocumented), SAIC-Richland fo