NTR_2 - Ciemat

G Model
FUSION-6709; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Fusion Engineering and Design
journa l h o me page: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes
Assessment of radiation dose due to the accidental release of radionuclides from
a DCLL reactor
Iole Palermo a,∗ , J.M. Gómez-Ros a , J. Sanz b , F. Mota a
a CIEMAT, Avda. Complutense 40, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b Departamento de Ingeniería Energética, UNED, C/Juan del Rosal 12, 28040 Madrid, Spain
h i g h l i g h t s
◮ Accidental release of radionuclides from a Dual-Coolant He/Pb15.7Li breeding blanket is studied.
◮ Activation analysis with ACAB code determines the main contributors to the environmental consequences of the accident.
◮ Atmospheric dispersion (in conditions D and F) is assessed with Hotspot code for the relevant radionuclides.
◮ The actual quantity of each radionuclide produced in 1 kg of LiPb is used in the dispersion model.
◮ The amount of LiPb releasable fulfilling the dose limit requirements is calculated.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online xxx
Keywords:
DEMO
LiPb
Activation analysis
Environment studies
a b s t r a c t
A conceptual design for a DEMO fusion reactor based on a dual coolant He/Pb15.7Li breeding blanket
(DCLL) is being developed within the Spanish Breeding Blanket Technology Programme: TECNO FUS. The
production of tritium and activation products of LiPb might be a concern from the radiological safety
point of view. Thus, in this contribution, an accidental release in atmosphere of radionuclides from LiPb
breeder has been studied.
Activation calculations have been performed with ACAB code assuming an irradiation scenario of 5 FPY
for the maximum neutron fluence rate in the equatorial breeding zone. The results in terms of specific
activity, surface gamma dose rate and committed effective dose (CED) due to inhalation at different times
have been used to chose the potentially more hazardous radionuclides.
Dispersion of the selected radionuclides has been modeled with HOTSPOT code using the Gaussian
plume model and two different atmospheric conditions. Offsite dose (for external irradiation and inhalation)
due to an accidental release of 1 kg of activated LiPb has been calculated after 5 FPY of irradiation
(shutdown) using HOTSPOT atmospheric dispersion in class D weather conditions. According to the
results, fulfilling the dose requirement for no evacuation would permit to release up to 40 kg of activated
LiPb, without taking into account the possible isotopic purification and detritiation systems. This
value can be compared with the actually released amount in a given accidental scenario for designing
the reactor confinement barriers and safety systems.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
A conceptual design of a DEMO fusion reactor based on a dual
coolant He/Pb15.7Li breeding blanket (DCLL) is being developed
within the frame of Spanish research project TECNO FUS. Because
of the high neutron fluence rate, the potential release of activation
products from the coolant up to the atmosphere can be a concern
from radiation protection point of view in case of accident.
In this work, a first radiation assessment in terms of the potential
early dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) has been
performed. This study is focused on the analysis of the major radiological
inventory in the breeding material and the atmospheric
dispersion of released radionuclides from damaged breeding modules
to the environment. The source terms have been evaluated in
a parametric way in order to estimate the maximum quantity of
releasable LiPb.
2. DCLL model and neutronic calculation
∗ Corresponding author at: CIEMAT, E36.P2.02, Avda. Complutense 40, 28040
Madrid, Spain. Tel.: +34 913466000.
E-mail address: iole.palermo@ciemat.es (I. Palermo).
The reactor model contains a dually cooled breeding zone with
Pb-15.7Li serving as a coolant as well as breeding material and
0920-3796/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.02.084
Please cite this article in press as: I. Palermo, et al., Assessment of radiation dose due to the accidental release of radionuclides from a DCLL
reactor, Fusion Eng. Des. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.02.084

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
FUSION-6709; No. of Pages 5
2 I. Palermo et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Specific activity (in Bq per kg of LiPb) as a function of elapsed time since
shutdown, after 5 FPY irradiation. Only radioisotopes contributing more than 0.1%
to the total activity are displayed.
Fig. 2. Surface gamma dose rate (in Sv/h per kg of LiPb) as a function of elapsed time
since shutdown, after 5 FPY irradiation. Only radioisotopes contributing more than
0.1% to the total activity are displayed.
SiC as liquid metal flow channel inserts. The structural materials
are mainly ferritic–martensitic steel Eurofer-97 in the breeding
blanket and austenitic steel 316-LN in the vacuum vessel. The
fusion power is 3450 MW, with an average neutron wall loading
of 2.12 MW/m 2 . The major and minor radii are, respectively, 7.5 m
and 3 m. The other plasma parameters (elongation, triangularity,
radial shift, source peaking factor) correspond to those of model
C described in the European Fusion PPCS report. For the optimized
design [1] a neutronic analysis has been performed using Monte
Carlo code MCNPX 2.6 [2] and ENDF/B-VII cross-section data library
[3]. Neutron fluence rate (cm −2 s −1 ) have been calculated at different
radial and poloidal positions within the LiPb Breeding Blankets.
The calculated maximum neutron fluence rate (1.87 × 10 16 n/cm 2 s
in the position closest to the first wall, at the equatorial outboard
zone) has been assumed for the activation calculation presented
in Section 3.
3. Activation calculation
ACAB code [4,5] and cross-section data from EAF-2007 [6] have
been used to perform the activation analysis of the lithium lead
breeder material with 90% of 6 Li enrichment and 9.6 g/cm 3 density.
The content of impurities in the alloy is: 0.027 Na, 0.003 Fe,
0.001 Ni, 0.056 Sn, 0.002 Ta, 0.005 Bi (wt%) [7]. For the purpose
of this study, the breeding material has been considered motionless
notwithstanding that LiPb actually flows through the breeding
regions with a velocity of about 0.2 m/s. However, the use of the
highest neutron fluence rate and hence the highest activation values
overestimate the potential radiation exposure to the public in
case of accident.
In order to select the radionuclides potentially more relevant
for the environmental consequences of an accidental release, the
committed effective dose (CED) due to inhalation has been previously
assessed with ACAB code (that does not consider the effect
of atmospheric dispersion) at shutdown, after 4 days and after 12
days, for 5 FPY of operation at 3450 MW. Only those radionuclides
which contribute more than 0.01% to the total CED are considered
(Table 1). Moreover, specific activity and gamma dose rate are calculated
in order to establish a priority in the radiological hazard of
radionuclides. Values as a function of elapsed time from shutdown
up to 10 4 years are presented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
4. Offsite dose assessment
In the event of a severe nuclear accident (for the purpose of
this analysis the accident type and the condition of the accident
are irrelevant), the radioactive materials can be released into the
air and transported by the wind to an exposure location. The
radioactive materials disperse downwind as a plume and their concentrations
either in air and deposited on ground surfaces at a given
location with respect to the release point depend on the quantity
released, the height of the release point, wind speed, atmospheric
stability, heat contained in the release, precipitation on the terrain,
physical and chemical form of the released material, and other
factors.
The radiological behavior of released radionuclides has been
studied and modeled using the HOTSPOT code Version 2.07.1 [8]
in order to estimate the total effective dose which the receptor will
receive after the accident. Version 2.07.1 of the software uses the
dosimetric methods, the dose conversion data and the terminology
of ICRP Publication 60 [9]. Hotspot code uses the well-established
Gaussian plume model, widely used for an initial emergency assessment
or safety analysis planning of a radionuclide release and for
making initial dispersion estimates.
Following the DOE guidance [10], two sets of atmospheric dispersion
conditions have been considered. The first one consists
in a 95% worst-case wind speed and atmospheric stability: P–G
stability class F and 1 m/s wind speed. The second dispersion is
a more typical weather, stability class D and 4 m/s wind speed.
In both cases, an elevated release from a 100 m stack during 1 h
has been assumed to calculate the early dose vs. distance curves
for the relevant radionuclides. The particulate deposition velocity
was chosen to be 0.002 m/s [11]. In HotSpot, the respirable
fraction (RF) that is the fraction of the aerosolized airborne material
that is respirable (less than 10 m aerodynamic diameter) is
assumed to have an activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD)
of 1 m.
The early dose (or total effective dose for 7-days external radiation
exposure) includes the contributions from cloudshine during
plume passage (submersion), seven days of groundshine, the 50-
year dose commitment to human body organs due to inhalation
during plume passage and seven days of particle resuspension from
the ground [11]. Fig. 3 shows the early dose/distance curves for
1 TBq of tritium (in form of HTO) calculated for the two atmospheric
conditions. The same pattern has been obtained for the
other radionuclides, thus resulting that the maximally exposed
individual (MEI) is located at 2.2 km from release point for class
D, and between 13 and 16 km for class F conditions.
Table 2 shows the MEI early dose results (Sv/TBq) for the
100 m stack release with P–G stability class F atmospheric stability
and 1 m/s wind speed for the relevant radionuclides, detailing the
Please cite this article in press as: I. Palermo, et al., Assessment of radiation dose due to the accidental release of radionuclides from a DCLL
reactor, Fusion Eng. Des. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.02.084

G Model
FUSION-6709; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Palermo et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3
Table 1
CED (in Sv per kg of LiPb) due to inhalation of radioisotopes which contributes more then 0.01% to the total. Ingestion is not considered for short term radiological assessment.
Nuclide Shutdown 4 days 12 days
CED (Sv/kg) % CED (Sv/kg) % CED (Sv/kg) %
H-3 1.70E+05 24.01 1.70E+05 26.40 1.69E+05 27.14
Ne-23 9.46E+01 0.01 – – – –
Na-22 6.21E+01 0.01 6.19E+01 0.01 6.16E+01 0.01
Fe-55 5.15E+01 0.01 5.13E+01 0.01 5.11E+01 0.01
Co-58 5.56E+01 0.01 5.32E+01 0.01 4.95E+01 0.01
Co-60 3.71E+01 0.01 3.71E+01 0.01 3.70E+01 0.01
In-114m 1.76E+02 0.02 1.64E+02 0.03 1.48E+02 0.02
Sn-113 1.39E+02 0.02 1.35E+02 0.02 1.29E+02 0.02
Sn-113m 6.00E+03 0.85 – – – –
Sn-117m 1.31E+03 0.19 1.02E+03 0.16 7.06E+02 0.11
Sn-119m 1.36E+03 0.19 1.34E+03 0.21 1.32E+03 0.21
Sn-121 8.66E+01 0.01 – – – –
Sn-123 9.10E+02 0.13 8.86E+02 0.14 8.52E+02 0.14
Sn-125m 3.27E+04 4.63 – – – –
Sb-122 2.33E+02 0.03 6.74E+01 0.01 – –
Sb-124 4.15E+02 0.06 3.93E+02 0.06 3.61E+02 0.06
Sb-125 1.80E+02 0.03 1.80E+02 0.03 1.79E+02 0.03
Te-121m 3.64E+01 0.01 3.56E+01 0.01 3.45E+01 0.01
Te-123m 1.14E+02 0.02 1.11E+02 0.02 1.06E+02 0.02
Xe-127 5.57E+01 0.01 5.08E+01 0.01 4.42E+01 0.01
Ta-182 1.42E+03 0.20 1.38E+03 0.21 1.32E+03 0.21
Hg-203 2.06E+03 0.29 1.92E+03 0.30 1.72E+03 0.28
Tl-202 1.94E+03 0.27 1.47E+03 0.23 9.74E+02 0.16
Tl-204 1.64E+03 0.23 1.63E+03 0.25 1.63E+03 0.26
Pb-203 1.49E+04 2.11 3.16E+03 0.49 3.05E+02 0.05
Pb-204m 1.43E+03 0.20 – – – –
Pb-209 1.21E+03 0.17 – – – –
Bi-206 9.48E+01 0.01 5.54E+01 0.01 – –
Bi-207 1.36E+02 0.02 1.35E+02 0.02 1.35E+02 0.02
Bi-210 1.11E+04 1.57 5.68E+03 0.88 2.07E+03 0.33
Bi-211 2.25E+03 0.32 – – – –
Po-208 2.18E+02 0.03 2.17E+02 0.03 2.16E+02 0.03
Po-209 1.04E+02 0.01 1.04E+02 0.02 1.04E+02 0.02
Po-210 4.54E+05 64.27 4.52E+05 70.40 4.42E+05 70.81
Total 7.07E+05 6.43E+05 6.24E+05
contribution of each process (inhalation, submersion, ground shine
and resuspension). In an analogous way, Table 3 gives the MEI
early dose results for class D stability and 4 m/s wind speed. The
results show that MEI values for class D are higher than for class F,
resulting that the worst case is that which considers atmospheric
stability class D.
The early dose to the MEI is the value to be compared to the
“no-public evacuation” criteria [12] of 10 mSv per event. For a realistic
comparison, the total effective dose has been assessed for the
actual quantity (Bq) of radioactive material generated in 1 kg of
LiPb at shutdown (being conservatives, the worst condition for the
moment of the accident has been supposed). Fig. 4 shows the early
Table 2
Early dose (7 days) for stability class F, 1 m/s wind speed, 100 m stack, 13–16 km specifying the contribution from inhalation, submersion, ground shine and resuspension
(Sv/TBq).
Nuclide 7 days total Inhalation Submersion Ground shine Resuspension
Po210 3.88E−04 3.87E−04 1.22E−13 2.99E−12 1.95E−07
Tl204 1.73E−06 1.73E−06 4.78E−11 3.59E−09 8.76E−10
Pb203 6.03E−08 1.96E−08 3.52E−09 3.72E−08 5.67E−12
Tl202 1.60E−07 3.59E−08 5.43E−09 1.19E−07 1.62E−11
H3 3.58E−08 3.57E−08 6.62E−24 – 1.81E−11
Bi210 1.20E−05 1.20E−05 6.99E−11 7.36E−09 4.63E−09
Hg203 3.39E−07 2.66E−07 2.84E−09 6.95E−08 1.31E−10
Sn119m 3.06E−07 3.03E−07 2.52E−11 3.21E−09 1.53E−10
Ta182 1.35E−06 9.46E−07 1.63E−08 3.84E−07 4.74E−10
Sn117m 2.95E−07 2.55E−07 1.67E−09 3.88E−08 1.16E−10
Na22 3.35E−06 2.65E−06 2.79E−08 6.74E−07 1.34E−09
Sn123 1.19E−06 1.17E−06 1.91E−10 2.12E−08 5.89E−10
Pb209 4.42E−09 4.38E−09 2.16E−11 2.32E−11 1.48E−13
Bi207 4.04E−06 3.55E−06 1.92E−08 4.78E−07 1.80E−09
Sb124 1.35E−06 7.79E−07 2.40E−08 5.48E−07 3.86E−10
Bi206 9.02E−07 1.66E−07 4.10E−08 6.95E−07 6.74E−11
Sb122 1.81E−07 1.01E−07 5.50E−09 7.37E−08 3.22E−11
Na24 2.41E−07 4.29E−08 5.36E−08 1.44E−07 5.82E−12
Co58 4.99E−07 1.93E−07 1.21E−08 2.94E−07 9.58E−11
Sn121 2.20E−08 2.19E−08 1.05E−11 6.62E−12 4.48E−12
Mn54 5.66E−07 2.97E−07 1.05E−08 2.58E−07 1.50E−10
Co60 3.58E−06 2.79E−06 3.25E−08 7.57E−07 1.42E−09
Please cite this article in press as: I. Palermo, et al., Assessment of radiation dose due to the accidental release of radionuclides from a DCLL
reactor, Fusion Eng. Des. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.02.084

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
FUSION-6709; No. of Pages 5
4 I. Palermo et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Table 3
Early dose (7 days) for atmospheric stability class D, 4 m/s wind speed, 100 m stack, 2.2 km specifying the contribution from inhalation, submersion, ground shine and
resuspension (in Sv/TBq).
Nuclide 7 days total Inhalation Submersion Ground shine Resuspension
Po210 1.62E−03 1.60E−03 5.02E−13 1.24E−11 1.90E−05
Tl204 7.24E−06 7.14E−06 1.98E−10 1.48E−08 8.55E−08
Pb203 2.54E−07 8.22E−08 1.48E−08 1.57E−07 3.97E−10
Tl202 6.65E−07 1.48E−07 2.25E−08 4.92E−07 1.48E−09
H3 1.04E−08 1.04E−08 – – 1.25E−11
Bi210 5.04E−05 5.00E−05 2.91E−10 3.07E−08 3.87E−07
Hg203 1.41E−06 1.10E−06 1.17E−08 2.88E−07 1.26E−08
Sn119m 1.28E−06 1.25E−06 1.04E−10 1.33E−08 1.50E−08
Ta182 5.61E−06 3.91E−06 6.75E−08 1.59E−06 4.63E−08
Sn117m 1.22E−06 1.05E−06 6.92E−09 1.61E−07 4.81E−10
Na22 1.38E−05 1.09E−05 1.15E−07 2.79E−06 5.55E−09
Sn123 4.94E−06 4.85E−06 7.91E−10 8.77E−08 2.44E−09
Pb209 2.26E−08 2.24E−08 1.10E−10 1.19E−10 7.57E−12
Bi207 1.67E−05 1.47E−05 7.94E−08 1.98E−06 7.45E−09
Sb124 5.59E−06 3.22E−06 9.93E−08 2.27E−06 1.60E−09
Bi206 3.75E−06 6.91E−07 1.70E−07 2.89E−06 2.81E−10
Sb122 7.56E−07 4.24E−07 2.30E−08 3.09E−07 1.35E−10
Na24 1.05E−06 1.87E−07 2.34E−07 6.28E−07 2.54E−11
Co58 2.06E−06 7.97E−07 5.01E−08 1.22E−06 3.97E−10
Sn121 9.34E−08 9.33E−08 4.48E−11 2.83E−11 1.91E−11
Mn54 2.34E−06 1.23E−06 4.32E−08 1.07E−06 6.22E−10
Co60 1.48E−05 1.15E−05 1.34E−07 3.14E−06 5.86E−09
Fig. 3. Early dose (Sv/TBq) due to tritium (in form of HTO) as a function of distance
from the release point, for the two different atmospheric stability conditions
described in the text.
dose (Sv/kg) for radioisotopes which contributes for more than 0.1%
to the total CED, the total specific activity and the total surface
gamma rate previously calculated with ACAB code (Section 3) as
a function of the distance, for class D of atmospheric stability and
for the total release of activated radionuclides corresponding to 1 kg
of LiPb.
The resultant early dose to the MEI (at 2.2 km from the release
point) due to a total activity release from 1 kg of LiPb is 2.5 × 10 −4 Sv.
This means that to fulfill the no-evacuation limit of 0.01 Sv, a maximum
amount of 40 kg of LiPb could be released to the atmosphere.
The analysis was performed assuming that tritium is not removed.
Tritium activity contributes up to 80% to the total activity 10 s from
shutdown (Fig. 1). Furthermore, Po-210 contributes in 69% at the
early dose (Fig. 4). An on-line extraction system is therefore necessary
to remove the Po-210 generated by Pb and Bi during operation.
The limitation of the Po-210 inventory can be also achieved limiting
the bismuth concentration (Bi impurity dominates the Po-210 production
at the early years of operation) in the eutectic through
bismuth purification systems. In this way and also considering that
the hypothesis of total release of radioisotopes to the environment
is not realistic, even in the case of severe accidents, the amount of
LiPb releasable (being understood the fulfillment of the limit) could
be increased.
Table 4 reports the contents of the main contributors to the
early dose in g/LiPb kg generated at the end of (shutdown) 5 FPY
irradiation, without considering radioisotope extraction (tritium,
polonium and bismuth removal).
Table 4
Relevant radionuclides production (g/kg LiPb) at the end (shutdown) of 5 FPY
irradiation.
Isotope g/kg LiPb
Fig. 4. Early dose (in Sv per kg of LiPb) for radioisotopes which contributes for more
than 0.1% to the total CED, the total specific activity and the total surface gamma
rate previously calculated with ACAB code, as a function of the distance, for class
D atmospheric stability, considering the release of activated radionuclides (Bq) at
shutdown produced in 1 kg of LiPb.
H-3 1.83
Tl-204 0.24
Tl-202 5.21 × 10 −3
Pb-203 6.15 × 10 −3
Hg 203 1.68 × 10 −3
Po-210 6.35 × 10 −4
Bi-210 2.59 × 10 −5
Please cite this article in press as: I. Palermo, et al., Assessment of radiation dose due to the accidental release of radionuclides from a DCLL
reactor, Fusion Eng. Des. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.02.084

G Model
FUSION-6709; No. of Pages 5
5. Conclusions
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Palermo et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5
References
Preliminary safety analysis has been performed for a conceptual
design of a DCLL DEMO in the event of a severe nuclear accident
which would compromise the integrity of LiPb breeders.
The relevant released radioisotopes considered for the assessment
of the total effective dose were chosen on the basis of their
radiological hazard (specific activity, surface gamma dose rate, CED
by inhalation estimation without atmospheric dispersion).
The offsite dose due to external radiation and inhalation of the
released radioisotopes generated in 1 kg of LiPb after (shutdown)
an irradiation period of 5 FPY (regardless the possible confinement,
filtration and extraction of such radionuclides) has been calculated
for D atmospheric condition using the Gaussian plume model.
The resultant dose to the MEI at 2.2 km from the release point is
2.5 × 10 −4 Sv. This means that a total release to the atmosphere of
40 kg of LiPb would fulfill the no-evacuation limit of 0.01 Sv. Detritiation,
polonium extraction and bismuth cleanup would increase
this quantity.
Further analysis is foreseen to define the mobilizable inventory
for a detailed reactor model (in which LiPb motion will also be simulate)
in order to define the radiological confinement needed for
the design of containment barriers.
Acknowledgment
This work is funded by the Spanish National Project on Breeding
Blanket Technologies TECNO FUS (ref. CSD 2008-00079), within
CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 Programme.
[1] I. Palermo, J.M. Gómez-Ros, G. Veredas, J. Sanz, L. Sedano, Neutronic
design analyses for a dual-coolant blanket concept: optimization for
a fusion reactor DEMO, Fusion Engineering and Design 87 (2012)
1019–1024.
[2] D.B. Pelowitz (Ed.), MCNPX User’s Manual Version 2.6, Report LA-CP-07-1473,
2008.
[3] M.B. Chadwick, P. Oblozinsky, M. Herman, et al., ENDF/B-VII.0: next generation
evaluated nuclear data library for nuclear science and technology, Nuclear Data
Sheets 107 (2006) 2931–3060.
[4] J. Sanz, O. Cabellos, N. Garcia-Herranz, Inventory Code for Nuclear Applications:
User’s Manual V. 2008, December 2008.
[5] J. Sanz, O. Cabellos, N. Garria-Herranz, ACAB-2008, ACtivation ABacus Code
V2008, NEA Data Bank (NEA-1839), 2009.
[6] R.A. Forrest, J. Kopecky, J.-Ch. Sublet, The European Activation File:
EAF-2007 neutron-induced cross section library, UKAEA FUS 535, March
2007.
[7] L. Petrizzi, L. Auditore, G. Cambi, D.G. Cepraga, R. Villari, Helium-cooled lithium
lead: activation analysis of the test blanket module in ITER, Fusion Engineering
and Design 83 (2008) 1244–1248.
[8] S.G. Homann, HOTSPOT Health Physics Codes Version 2.07.1 User’s Guide, LLNL-
TM-411345 Rev.1, March 2012.
[9] ICRP60, 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21 (1–3), Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
[10] Emergency Management Guide, vol. II. Hazards Surveys and Hazards Assessments,
DOE G 151.1-1, US Department of Energy, August 1997, pp.
3–15.
[11] M.L. Abbott, L.C. Cadwallader, D.A. Petti, Radiological Dose Calculations For
Fusion Facilities. INEEL/EXT-03-00405, April 2003.
[12] Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents,
EPA-400-R92-001, NTIS PB92-164763, US Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1991.
Please cite this article in press as: I. Palermo, et al., Assessment of radiation dose due to the accidental release of radionuclides from a DCLL
reactor, Fusion Eng. Des. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.02.084