DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ANL$ART$'3' Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term Development Nuclear Engineering Division About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free via DOE's SciTech Connect (http://www.osti.gov/scitech/) Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandra, VA 22312 www.ntis.gov Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Email: [email protected] Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 www.osti.gov Phone: (865) 576-8401 Fax: (865) 576-5728 Email: [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC. ANL$ART$'3' Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term Development Prepared by David Grabaskas, Acacia Brunett, Matthew Bucknor, James Sienicki, Tanju Sofu Nuclear Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory February 28, 2015 RTDP%–%Sodium%Fast%Reactor% Acknowledgements. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the members of the Regulatory Technology Development Plan (RTDP) project at Idaho National Laboratory for their assistance with the project development and report creation. Wayne Moe Jim Kinsey Mark Holbrook The authors would also like to thank the technical reviewers of the report (biographies are provided in Appendix B). Mark Cunningham (Nuclear Regulatory Commission ret.) Richard Denning (Battelle/Ohio State University ret.) The authors would like to thank our industry contacts for their involvement in the formulation of the project and input on the report. The perspective of industry was vital to the project and their time and effort were greatly appreciated. Advanced Reactor Concepts, LLC GE Hitachi TerraPower Toshiba . ! i% % % ! RTDP%4%%Sodium%Fast%Reactor% Executive.Summary. Construction and operation of a nuclear power installation in the U.S. requires licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). A vital part of this licensing process and integrated safety assessment entails the analysis of a source term (or source terms) that represents the release of radionuclides during normal operation and accident sequences. Historically, nuclear plant source term analyses have utilized deterministic, bounding assessments of the radionuclides released to the environment. Significant advancements in technical capabilities and the knowledge state have enabled the development of more realistic analyses such that a mechanistic source term (MST) assessment is now expected to be a requirement of advanced reactor licensing. This report focuses on the state of development of an MST for a sodium fast reactor (SFR), with the intent of aiding in the process of MST definition by qualitatively identifying and characterizing the major sources and transport processes of radionuclides. Due to common design characteristics among current U.S. SFR vendor designs, a metal-fuel, pool-type SFR has been selected as the reference design for this work, with all phenomenological discussions geared toward this specific reactor configuration. This works also aims to identify the key gaps and uncertainties in the current knowledge state that must be addressed for SFR MST development. It is anticipated that this knowledge state assessment can enable the coordination of technology and analysis tool development discussions such that any knowledge gaps may be addressed. Sources of radionuclides considered in this report include releases originating both in-vessel and ex-vessel, including in-core fuel, primary sodium and cover gas cleanup systems, and spent fuel movement and handling. Transport phenomena affecting various release groups are identified and qualitatively discussed, including fuel pin and primary coolant retention, and behavior in the cover gas and containment. Radionuclides released from a primary sodium fire are also considered as potential sources. Any available experimental data and pertinent results relevant to the aforementioned phenomena are discussed, and operating incidents at domestically operated facilities are also examined. Considering the extensive range of phenomena affecting the release of radionuclides, the existing state of knowledge generally appears to be substantial, and may be sufficient in most areas. For core damage accidents, high retention rates should be expected within the fuel matrix and primary sodium coolant for all radionuclides other than the noble gases. These factors greatly reduce the magnitude of possible radionuclide release to the environment. Several possible gaps within the knowledgebase were identified during this effort. First, there are uncertainties with regard to radionuclide release from metal fuel in the molten state. Another knowledge gap appears in the available thermodynamic data regarding the behavior of lanthanides and actinides in liquid sodium. While not necessarily a phenomenological knowledge gap, a determination of the data requirements for MST development should be formally made prior to the expenditure of significant future research efforts. That is, if additional experimentation is performed in support of MST development, it is important to identify the proper quality assurance requirements for licensing. ii! . ' RTDP%–%Sodium%Fast%Reactor% Table.of.Contents. 1% INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1% 2% BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................3% 2.1% OBJECTIVES%AND%SCOPE%OF%CURRENT%WORK%..........................................................................................................%3% 2.2% SOURCE%TERM%HISTORY%...............................................................................................................................................%7% 2.2.1% CURRENT%REGULATORY%REQUIREMENTS%......................................................................................................................................................%7% 2.2.2% REGULATORY%HISTORY%OF%MST%DEVELOPMENT%......................................................................................................................................%12% 2.3% SODIUM%FAST%REACTOR%SOURCE%TERM%EXPERIENCE%.........................................................................................%17% 2.3.1% CLINCH%RIVER%BREEDER%REACTOR%............................................................................................................................................................%18% 2.3.2% THE%ALMR%PROGRAM:%PRISM%AND%SAFR%.............................................................................................................................................%20% 2.4% CURRENT%SFR%VENDOR%DESIGNS%AND%REFERENCE%DESIGN%.............................................................................%22% 3% SFR.SOURCES.OF.RADIONUCLIDES.....................................................................................................26% 3.1% FUEL%..............................................................................................................................................................................%26% 3.1.1% TYPES%OF%FUEL%..............................................................................................................................................................................................%26% 3.1.2% CORE%DESIGN%.................................................................................................................................................................................................%29% 3.1.3% SPENT%FUEL%HANDLING%...............................................................................................................................................................................%32%
Recommended publications
  • Atmospheric Source Terms for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, 1957 – 1959

    Atmospheric Source Terms for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, 1957 – 1959

    FINAL ATMOSPHERIC SOURCE TERMS FOR THE IDAHO CHEMICAL PROCESSING PLANT, 1957–1959 Contract No. 200-2002-00367 Task Order No. 1, Subtask 1 A final report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Georgia 30335 SC&A, Inc. 6858 Old Dominion Drive, Suite 301 McLean, Virginia 22101 SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. 102 Donner Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Authors: Robert P. Wichner, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. John-Paul Renier, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. A. Iulian Apostoaei, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. July 2005 ICPP Source Terms July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 SCOPE AND APPROACH ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Approach.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2.1 Operational RaLa Releases ...................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 Idaho Chemical Processing Plant Criticality Approach........................... 1-2 2.0 THE RADIOACTIVE LANTHANUM (RaLa) PROCESS ............................................ 2-1 2.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Requirement ............................................................................................
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies

    A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies

    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
  • Cross Section Data for the Production of the Positron Emitting Niobium Isotope 90Nb Via the 90Zr(P, N)-Reaction

    Cross Section Data for the Production of the Positron Emitting Niobium Isotope 90Nb Via the 90Zr(P, N)-Reaction

    Radiochim. Acta 90, 1–5 (2002) by Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München Cross section data for the production of the positron emitting niobium isotope 90Nb via the 90Zr(p, n)-reaction By S. Busse1,2,F.Rösch1,∗ andS.M.Qaim2 1 Institut für Kernchemie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, D-55128 Mainz, Germany 2 Institut für Nuklearchemie, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425 Jülich, Germany (Received April 19, 2001; accepted in revised form July 16, 2001) Positron emitter 90Nb / Nuclear reaction / (α, 3n)-reactions on natural yttrium. A medium-sized cy- Excitation function / Calculated integral yield / clotron would allow the production of 90Nb via the (p, n)-, Experimental thick target yield / Radionuclidic impurities (d, 2n)- or the (3He, 2n)-process. In fact even a small-sized cyclotron (Ep ≤ 16 MeV) should lead to sufficient quanti- ties of the radioisotope via the (p, n)-reaction. A few stud- Summary. The radioisotope 90Nb decays with a positron ies have shown that the (d, 2n)-reaction requires a deuteron + branching of 53% and a relatively low β -energy of energy of about 16 MeV [5–7], the (3He, 2n)-process a 3He- = . = . Emean 0 66 MeV and Emax 1 5 MeV. Its half-life of 14 6h energy of ≥ 30 MeV and the (α, 3n)-reaction an α-particle makes it especially promising for quantitative investigation energy of ≥ 45 MeV [8]. Furthermore, the systematics of of biological processes with slow distribution kinetics using (3He, 2n)- and (p, n)-reactions suggest that the production positron emission tomography. To optimise its production, 90 the excitation functions of 90Zr(p, xn)-processes were studied yield of Nb should be higher in the latter process.
  • Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2

    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2

    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2 Robert Rosner and Stephen Goldberg Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies Contributor: Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Foundation, Inc. Technical Paper, Revision 1 November, 2011 1 The research described in this paper was funded by the U.S. DOE through Argonne National Laboratory, which is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract No. DE-AC02-06CH1357. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or the institutional opinions of the University of Chicago. 2 This paper is a major update of an earlier paper, July 2011. This
  • Fundamentals of Nuclear Power

    Fundamentals of Nuclear Power

    Fundamentals of Nuclear Power Juan S. Giraldo Douglas J. Gotham David G. Nderitu Paul V. Preckel Darla J. Mize State Utility Forecasting Group December 2012 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... v Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ vii 1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Current state of nuclear power generation in the U.S. ......................................... 1 1.2 Nuclear power around the world ........................................................................... 4 2. Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 How nuclear power plants generate electricity ..................................................... 9 2.2 Radioactive decay .................................................................................................
  • Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers

    Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers

    Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Atomic Mass • Refers to the mass of an atom. • Number of protons and neutrons • Atoms are too small to mass so mass is determined by the relative mass of a standard atom. By international agreement (IUPAC), Carbon­12 is the chosen standard atom because of its abundance here on Earth. Atomic Mass Unit ­ defined is a mass exactly equal to 1/12th of one carbon­12 atom. 1 carbon­12 atom = 12 amu Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determine Atomic Mass Unit for Hydrogen Hydrogen ­ 1 as 1 proton and 0 neutrons 1/12 = .0833 x 100 = 8.33% So hydrogen is 8.33% of one atom of Carbon­12 Atomic Mass of Hydrogen = mass of 1 atom of Carbon ­12 x 8.33% = 12 x .0833 =.9996 = 1.0 amu Through different methods of experimental testing, chemists have more accurately determined the mass of hydrogen to be 1.008, which is more like 8.40%. Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Average Atomic Mass: Because element's usually have more than one isotope, which means their masses are different an average must be determine to reflect the mass of all an atom's isotopes. Example: A sample of cesium is 75% Cs-133, 20% Cs-132, and 5% Cs-134. What is the average atomic mass? ANSWER: .75 x 133 = 99.75 .20 x 132 = 26.4 .05 x 134 = 6.7 Total = 132.85 amu average atomic mass unit Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Isotopes and Average Atomic Mass Iodine: 80% 127 I 17% 126 I 3% 128 I ANSWER: .80 x 127 = 101.6 .17 x 126 = 21.42 .03 x 128 = 3.84 Total = 126.86 amu Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Determining Atomic Mass Practice with Answers Bromine which exists as a dark, red gas is Br2.
  • Isotopes of M&M-Ium

    Isotopes of M&M-Ium

    Name _________________________________________________________________ Hour __________________ Isotopes of m&m-ium Elements commonly exist with differing numbers of neutrons. We call these elements isotopes and an example is Bromine-79 and Bromine-81. These isotopes are naturally occurring…but do not exist equally in nature. Br-79 is more common and occurs 55% of the time while Br-81 occurs 45% of the time. To calculate the average atomic mass (the weighted average of the masses of its isotopes) of bromine you need to take into account the relative abundance of each element. The average atomic mass = (% abundance of isotope 1)x(mass of isotope 1) + (% abundance of isotope 2)x(mass of isotope 2) (% should be expressed in decimals) Pre-Lab Questions: 1. Calculate the average atomic mass of Bromine using the % abundances above: 2. Carbon has 2 stable isotopes: C-12 with a natural abundance of 98.89% and C-14 at 1.11%. Calculate the average atomic mass of Carbon. m&mium, a recently discovered element from the chocolate mountains of Wonkaland, exits as two isotopes. m&mium has many different colors and your job is to find the average atomic mass of one color of m&mium. Safety Precautions: Never eat anything that has touched lab equipment! Use a baking cup so your group can eat the m&ms when you are done! Procedure: Show all work for all calculations. 1. Record the number of small m&m’s and large m&m’s you have (your color only) in the table. 2. Record the total number of m&m’s you have.
  • Discovery of the Bromium Isotopes

    Discovery of the Bromium Isotopes

    Discovery of the Bromium Isotopes J. Kathawa, J. Claes, M. Thoennessen∗ National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Abstract Twenty-eight bromium isotopes have so far been observed; the discovery of these isotopes is discussed. For each isotope a brief summary of the first refereed publication, including the production and identification method, is presented. ∗Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected] (M. Thoennessen) Preprint submitted to Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables April 28, 2010 Contents 1. Introduction . 2 2. Discovery of 70−97Br ................................................................................... 3 2.1. 70Br............................................................................................. 3 2.2. 71Br............................................................................................. 3 2.3. 72Br............................................................................................. 5 2.4. 73Br............................................................................................. 5 2.5. 74Br............................................................................................. 5 2.6. 75Br............................................................................................. 5 2.7. 76Br............................................................................................. 6 2.8. 77Br............................................................................................
  • A Big Future for Small Nuclear Reactors? Jack Spencer and Nicolas D

    A Big Future for Small Nuclear Reactors? Jack Spencer and Nicolas D

    No. 2514 February 2, 2011 A Big Future for Small Nuclear Reactors? Jack Spencer and Nicolas D. Loris Abstract: More and more companies—in the U.S. and abroad—are investing in new commercial nuclear enter- prises, chief among them, small modular reactors (SMRs). Talking Points The SMR industry is growing, with many promising devel- • Small modular reactors (SMRs) represent an opments in the works—which is precisely why the govern- important development in the evolution of ment should not interfere, as subsidies and government commercial nuclear power in the United States. programs have already resulted in an inefficient system for • SMRs can be built in the United States and large reactors. Heritage Foundation nuclear policy experts could provide important competition in the explain how the future for small reactors can remain energy industry that will push technology for- bright. ward while driving prices lower. • Their lower up-front capital costs than tradi- tional nuclear power, scalability, and multi- functionality add to the benefits that attract Small modular reactors (SMRs) have garnered sig- investors. nificant attention in recent years, with companies of • Inefficient licensing and rulemaking, a failed all sizes investing in these smaller, safer, and more nuclear waste management policy, and too cost-efficient nuclear reactors. Utilities are even form- much federal government intervention are ing partnerships with reactor designers to prepare for creating barriers to the SMR progress. potential future construction. Perhaps most impres- • Most current attempts to promote SMR devel- sive is that most of this development is occurring opment rely on government bureaucrats and without government involvement.
  • The Use of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Canadian Oil Sands Applications: a Proposal and Way Forward

    The Use of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Canadian Oil Sands Applications: a Proposal and Way Forward

    The use of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Canadian Oil Sands Applications: A proposal and way forward By Dennis Attwood, P.Eng, Ph.D Principal, Human Factors Applications and Mohamed Moledina Senior Nuclear Engineer, Nuclear Energy Business Unit WorleyParsons Resources & Energy Canada 1. ABSTRACT It has been estimated that Canada’s Oil Sands contain between 160 and 200 billion barrels of oil reserves – the second largest accumulation of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. It is also estimated that by 2015, output from the oil sands should increase from about 1 million barrels per day (mbbl/day)to approximately 4 mbbl/day. However, Canada and the world have to pay a price for oil extraction from the sands.It is estimated that about 40 cubic metres of natural gas as fuel must be burned for each barrel of synthetic crude produced. Therefore, if oil sands production did reach 4 mbbl/day,natural gas use for oil production could seriously limit exports of natural gas to the US. It has also been estimated that every barrel of synthetic oil pollutes about 950 litersof fresh water and emits about 100 Kg of Carbon Dioxode (CO2)along with other pollutants. Clearly an alternate source of energy is required for oil sands production that will allow our natural gas to be put to better use while simultaneously sustaining our environment. The energy must be continuously obtainable and not be subject to the intermittentavailability of wind or sunlight. Nuclear energy is the obvious choice. Nuclear energy for power generation has been prevalently used around the world since the 1950’s.
  • Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Designs

    Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Designs

    POTENTIAL POLICY, LICENSING, AND KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTOR DESIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Licensing Process Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors............................................ 3 2.1 License for Prototype Reactors ........................................................................................ 3 2.2 License Structure for Multi-Module Facilities .................................................................... 4 2.3 Manufacturing License Requirements for Future Reactors ............................................... 5 3.0 Issues Concerning Design Requirements for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors ................... 6 3.1 Implementation of the Defense-In-Depth Philosophy for Advanced Reactors ................... 6 3.2 Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in the Licensing Process for SMRs ........................ 7 3.3 Appropriate Source Term, Dose Calculations, and Siting for SMRs ................................. 8 3.4 Key Component and System Design Issues for SMRs ..................................................... 9 4.0 Operational Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors .................................................... 13 4.1 Appropriate Requirements for Operator Staffing for Small or Multi-Module Facilities ...... 13 4.2 Operational Programs for Small or Multi-Module Facilities ............................................. 14 4.3
  • Discovery of the Selenium Isotopes

    Discovery of the Selenium Isotopes

    Discovery of the Selenium Isotopes J. Claes, J. Kathawa, M. Thoennessen∗ National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Abstract Thirty-one selenium isotopes have so far been observed; the discovery of these isotopes is discussed. For each isotope a brief summary of the first refereed publication, including the production and identification method, is presented. ∗Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected] (M. Thoennessen) Preprint submitted to Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables April 28, 2010 Contents 1. Introduction . 3 2. Discovery of 64−94Se.................................................................................... 3 2.1. 64Se............................................................................................. 3 2.2. 65Se............................................................................................. 3 2.3. 66Se............................................................................................. 5 2.4. 67Se............................................................................................. 5 2.5. 68Se............................................................................................. 5 2.6. 69Se............................................................................................. 5 2.7. 70Se............................................................................................. 5 2.8. 71Se............................................................................................