The Science of the Total Environment, 112 (1992) 89-114 89

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Mathematical modeling of radionuclide dispersion

in the Pripyat-Dnieper aquatic system after the
Chernobyl accident

Mark J. Zheleznyak, Raisa I. Demchenko, Sergey L. Khursin,

Yuri I. Kuzmenko, Paul V. Tkalich and Nickolay Y. Vitiuk
Department of Mathematical Modeling of Water Systems, V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics,
Kiev 252207, Ukraine

ABSTRACT

The Chernobyl accident heavily contaminated the largest aquatic system in the Ukraine,
requiring the development of a model-based decision support system in the field of aquatic
radioecology. The main objectives of the system were to simulate and predict radionuclide
dispersion in the Pripyat-Dnieper River-reservoir system, assess the effectiveness of special
hydraulic countermeasures designed to decrease the rate of radionuclide dispersion in the water
bodies, and support the Dnieper reservoirs' management operations. A hierarchy of mathe-
matical models was developed. A two-dimensional (2-D) vertical-longitudinal model, a 2-D
lateral-longitudinal model, a one-dimensional (l-D) channel model and a box-type model are
briefly presented. These models describe the main features of radionuclide dispersion, including
the processes governing radionuclide-sediment interactions. Examples of the models' appli-
cations are presented to show the peculiarities of radionuclide dispersion in this aquatic system.

INTRODUCTION

The radioactive contamination of the Dnieper River-reservoir system is

one of the most important environmental consequences of the Chernobyl
accident for the Ukrainian SSR. The Dnieper River crosses the Ukraine from
north (border with Russian SFSR and Belorussian SSR) to south (Black Sea).
The Dnieper's water is used for drinking, municipal and industrial purposes,
and for irrigation during its 1000 km journey across the Ukraine. The system
includes six large artificial reservoirs that generate hydroelectric power (Table
1, Fig. 1). Artificial channels transport the Dnieper's water from Kakhovskoje
reservoir to the industrial Donbass region, to the Crimea Peninsula, and to the
irrigated areas of southern Ukraine. More than 30 million Ukrainians have
been impacted by the radionuclides from the Dnieper's water since the
Chernobyl accident.

0048-9697/92/$05.00 © 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

90 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

TABLE l

Parameters for Dnieper reservoirs

Reservoir Average Length Average Exchange coefficient:

capacity (× 103m) depth ratio of average
( x IO~m3) (m) annual inflow to
average capacity

Kievskoje 3.73 110 4.0 10.1

Kanevskoje 2.62 123 3.9 18.2
Krenenchugskoje 13.5 149 6.0 4.3
Dneprodzerzhinskoje 2.45 114 4.3 20.2
Dneprovskoje 3.30 129 8.0 15.8
Kakhovskoje 18.2 230 8.5 2.8

-1
I
I
I ~ evskoje I
I I
I Kiev I
Kanevsxoje I
I
I
gee~enehu~k~ I
I
~nep~od~c~in~
l?oepeovskoje

Kakkovskoie

Fig. 1. Map of the Pripyat-Dnieper system.

M A T H E M A T I C A L M O D E L L I N G OF R A D I O N U C L I D E DISPERSION 91

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is situated on the bank of the Pripyat
River, 20 km upstream of its point of inflow into Kievskoje reservoir. Radio-
active contamination of surface water in the Ukraine is, therefore, primarily
associated with the Pripyat-Dnieper River-Reservoir system.
Since May 1986, the V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics, in collaboration
with other institutions of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, the
Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the State Committee for Hydrometeor-
ology and the Ministry of Water Management, has urgently researched and
modeled the fate of radionuclides in the Pripyat River and in the Dnieper
River-reservoir system [1-3]. The main objectives were:
-- to predict radionuclide transport in the water bodies
-- to perform a detailed analysis of water and sediment contamination in
selected parts of rivers and reservoirs
- - t o estimate the efficiency of hydraulic countermeasures designed to
decrease the rate of radionuclide outflow from the Pripyat River and the
Kievskoje reservoir (e.g., bottom traps for contaminated sediments, dams on
the floodplain, and underwater dams in the reservoirs)
- - t o support the Dnieper reservoir operation plans on the basis of
optimization models that account for the water pollution.
Because of the large differences in temporal and spatial scales considered,
a hierarchy of mathematical models was developed [3]. Hydrological and
water pollution data bases were created to support modeling system. The
models were then used in aiding the attainment of the objectives mentioned
above [4, 5].
The main objective of this paper is to present an overview of the developed
modeling system. After a discussion of the most important processes
governing radionuclide behavior in aquatic systems, a short description of the
models and methods of numerical realization is presented; details are
provided in the Appendix. The models' application are then illustrated by a
few examples. A detailed analysis of the fate of Chernobyl radionuclides in the
Pripyat-Dnieper water system, based on simulated and experimental results,
will be presented in future publications.

MAIN PROCESSES AND WATER BODIES SIMULATED

The mathematical modeling of radionuclide dispersion in water bodies is
part of the more general problem of modeling water quality, including the
modeling of hydrodynamic (hydraulic) processes and the simulation of
sediment and pollutant transport driven by these hydrodynamics [6]. The
modeling of radionuclide dispersion in surface waters has some peculiarities
compared with the general problem of modeling water quality. In particular,
processes governing radioactive decay and the specific radionuclide's
exchange between water, suspended sediment, and bottom deposits must be
92 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

considered [7-10]. The hydrodynamic and sediment transport submodels

describe the following processes:
wind and in/outflow driven circulation
- -

wind wave propagation and transformation

- - wave driven nearshore circulation
turbulent transport
- -

suspended sediment transport

- -

sedimentation and bottom/coastal erosion.

- -

Models that include an accurate mathematical description of radionuclide

interactions with the solid phase, i.e. with bottom deposits and with
suspended sediments, have been shown to be more successful in predicting
aquatic transport of radionuclides [7-10]. Modeling the fate of radionuclides
in three phases - - in solution, in suspended sediments, and in bottom
depositions, - - is particularly important. Such an approach to radionuclide
dispersion simulation has been developed in the Pacific Northwest
Laboratory models [9, 10] and for full mixed-box models used by Booth [11]
and by Schuckler et al. [7, 12]. More complicated models that distinguish
between the different physico-chemical forms of radionuclides in the solid
phase (exchangeable and nonexchangeable forms) have recently been
developed [13]. However, such models need detailed experimental data, which
as a rule cannot be obtained without long-term investigations under site-
specific field conditions.
Taking into account the above-mentioned facto.rs, the radionuclides in the
Pripyat-Dnieper water system have been simulated on the bases of the
following submodels:
- - a dissolved contaminant transport submodel,
- a particulate contaminant (pollutant adsorbed to sediment) transport
-

submodel, and
- - a submodel which estimates contamination dynamics in the bottom
sediments.
The contamination exchange between water, sediment, and bottom
deposits was described using the distribution coefficient K d (the ratio between
contaminant adsorbed on particles and that in solution under steady-state
conditions). Other parameters considered are transfer rate coefficients, ao,
which describe the rate of transfer between phases. The main factors affecting
sediment-contaminant interaction can be taken into account when Kd is
considered as a function of water quality, geochemical properties of the
sediments, physico-chemical forms of the radionuclides, sediment, and radio-
nuclide concentration, etc. [9, 14].
The developed models do not include the processes of biological uptake and
release. The influence of biologically driven radionuclide exchange was not
considered significant during the first years after the accidental release.
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 93

TABLE 2

Mathematical models for radionuclide dispersion in surface waters developed at the V. Gluch-
kov Institute of Cybernetics

Model/code Water body Scale Previous

modeled model/code
Spatial Temporal

WATOX- 1
Box model Large reservoirs 1000kin 3-6 months Schuckler
5-10 years model [7, 12]
RIVTOX
One-dimensional river Rivers, estuaries 10-100km 10-60 days T O D A M [9]
network model
WATOX-2
(COASTOX)
Two-dimensional lateral- Reservoirs, floodplain 10-100km 10-60 days F E T R A [10]
longitudinal model
VERTOX
Two-dimensional vertical- Bottom traps, 0.1-10km 1-10 days SERATRA [9]
longitudinal model dams, river channels

Likewise, water stratification was not considered because of the rather

shallow depth of the reservoirs (Table 1), and its small impact on radionuclide
dispersion. The effects of wind and waves were also omitted for the Pripyat
River and for the channels of the Dnieper system. For long-term projections,
evaporation and precipitation should be taken into account, as well as water
loss due to irrigation, industrial and municipal purposes.
The Pripyat-Dnieper system consists of different water bodies, varying
from large rivers with their tributaries and floodplains, to large reservoirs. The
temporal and spatial scales of the processes under consideration differ by
more than two orders of magnitude when one considers the different water
bodies modeled (see Table 2). It is clear that such a wide range of processes
cannot be described by a single model. A hierarchy of radionuclide dispersion
models was developed by averaging the primitive three-dimensional (3-D)
equation over the space variables [3]. Information on the models is presented
briefly in Table 2; a more detailed description is given below and in the
Appendix. A glossary of terms used in the models follows the Appendix.

M A T H E M A T I C A L MODELS

Four models are used, depending on the spatial or temporal scale of interest
(Table 2). WAa'OX-1 is a box model used to examine radionuclide dispersion
in large reservoirs. R~V3"OXis a one-dimensional (l-D) model used to examine
processes occurring in rivers and estuaries. WATOX-2 is a two-dimensional
94 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

(2-D) lateral-longitudinal model designed for reservoirs and floodplains.

And, finally, VERTOXis a 2-D vertical-longitudinal model designed to examine
countermeasures such as bottom traps and dams. Each model is discussed
briefly below, with details provided in the Appendix.

VERrOX: vertical-longitudinal model

This model was derived from 3-D hydraulic and pollutant transport
models, by averaging their equations over the flow width, resulting in a 2-D
vertical-longitudinal model. Such models are used with the vertical resolution
simulating flow in rivers and narrow reservoirs [6]. This approach has
previously been used for the simulation of radionuclide dispersal in the
SERATRAmodel at Pacific Northwest Laboratory [9]. The main application of
the VERTOX model is the zones of abrupt change in flow parameters. An
important example of such a zone is flow at the bottom traps in the Pripyat
River channel designed to settle contaminated suspended sediments.
The flow-governing equations are derived using hydrostatic approxi-
mations. The advection-diffusion equation for suspended sediment transport
is used, describing deposition and erosion rates through a suspended sediment
flow capacity. The radionuclide transport submodel describes the radio-
nuclide concentration in solution, the concentration in the suspended
sediments, and the concentration in the bottom deposits. Exchanges between
these compartments are described in terms of adsorption-desorption and
sedimentation-resuspension processes.
Verification of the water current and sediment submodels has been carried
out [15] using laboratory flume experimental data for the dredged trenches
[161.

WATOX-2 ( COASTOX)." a two-dimensional, lateral-longitudinal model

Two-dimensional, lateral-longitudinal models are widely used to simulate

pollutant flow and dispersion in shallow reservoirs, floodplains, and coastal
areas [6, 17, 18]. The model equations may be derived by averaging the
primitive 3-D equations over depth. Such equations have been used previously
in the FETRAcode to simulate radionuclide dispersion in coastal areas [10]. The
WATOX-2 model, developed at the V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics to
simulate pollutant dispersion in the Dnieper's reservoirs, contains radio-
nuclide transport submodels similar to those used in FETRA, but in WATOX-2
other approaches are used for modeling suspended sediment transport and
wind-wave effects. The modification of the model for coastal areas (COASTOX)
also includes the submodel of nearshore currents generated by breaking waves
[19]. A finite-element method and a finite-difference method are used to solve
the model's equations.
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 95
RIVTOX." a one-dimensional channel m o d e l

This 1-D model describes cross-sectionally averaged flow and con-

tamination parameters in a network of upland channels. The model was
obtained by averaging the WATOX-2 equations over the channel width.
Therefore, the 1-D Saint-Venant's equations, and advection-dispersion
equations with source terms, are used to simulate flow routing, suspended
sediments, and radionuclide transport in both solution and suspended
sediments. The implicit finite-difference scheme, used for numerical solution
of the Sains-Venant's equations, permits the simulation of flow in a channel
network with relatively large time steps. The splitting method, with a Holly-
Preissmann fourth-order finite-difference scheme in the advection step, was
used to diminish the numerical scatter in the advection-dispersion equations.
The PC-compatible software system RIVTOXcombines the computer code,
graphics system, and special data base through a menu-driven interface.
RIVXOX is used to simulate radionuclide transport in the Pripyat channel
network.
WarOX." a b o x m o d e l

WAa'OX-1 is a box-type (compartmentally averaged) model based on the set

of ordinary differential equations that describes water, sediment and radio-
nuclide transport. Optimization methods are used to choose the reservoir
system operation mode under the water quality criteria during the simulation
period. Dissolved contaminants, contaminants on sediments, and con-
taminants in bottom deposits are considered with special consideration given
to contaminant-sediment interactions. The parameterization of the latter is
similar to that in the Schuckler model [7, 12], but some additional processes
are included, and a supplementary submodel is used to simulate temporal
variations of the sedimentation-resuspension rate during flood propagation
in the revervoirs. Model verification demonstrates the high significance of this
mechanism for 137Cs fate in revervoirs.
WATOX-1 is the simplest of the developed models and has been the main tool
for forecasting radionuclide dispersion in the Dnieper reservoirs during the
3-4 m o n t h spring flood period.
Such models represent a reservoir as one or more compartments (boxes)
with homogeneous water quality parameters. The models assume that con-
taminated water discharged into the compartment is instantaneously mixed
with the compartment water. Therefore, the concentration of contaminant in
the outflow is the same as that in the compartment. The model variables are
the compartment's volume, the suspended sediment concentration, and the
concentration of the radionuclide in solution, suspended sediments, and
bottom deposits. Numerical solutions are obtained by the Runge-Kutta
96 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

method. The integrated PC-compatible software system WATOX-1 combines

the computer code for these calculations with the optimization models for
water reservoir management and the computer-assisted procedures. The
WATOX-1, menu-driven user interface provides the interaction between
simulation and optimization models, their data bases and graphics system.
The data bases for the simulation models include the compartmentally
averaged hydrological and contamination data for the reservoirs, and the
different scenarios concerning water, sediment and contaminant flow from the
tributaries. The data base for the optimization models also includes data on
hydropower, water supply and the environmental constraints for reservoir
management.

MODEL APPLICATION AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: MAIN METHOD-

OLOGICAL ASPECTS
The urgent requirement for the prediction of radionuclide dispersion in the
Pripyat-Dnieper system as well as the need to evaluate proposed counter-
measures, required the application of models in the first years after the
accident without comprehensive validation analyses. Field data for model
validation could only be obtained after several hydrological cycles (spring
floods, summer and winter seasons) presenting a wide range of water levels.
Validation of the models containing a high degree of resolution (VERTOX,
WATOX-2) that are used to analyze the effectiveness of hydraulic counter-
measures might only be possible after realization of the designed counter-
measures.
Such a situation has led the specialists involved to base the models
primarily on well-known hydraulic processes and conservation equations for
pollutants. Descriptions of the physico-chemical behavior of the radio-
nuclides, and the peculiarities of Chernobyl fallout, have been aggregated.
The value of several constants (Kd, ai,j) which, as is demonstrated in the
Appendix, appear during such parameterization, have been estimated from
publications and from analyzing different case studies (e.g. [8, 9, 11, 12, 14]).
The next important aspect considered for the effective application of the
water quality modeling system, was the appropriate choice of spatial
resolution afforded by the model (e.g. [20]). The initial modeling demand of
decision makers after the Chernobyl accident was the evaluation of the
temporal dynamics of pollutant concentration in an entire reservoir, i.e. a
problem of compartmentally averaged values. Because of these demands, the
lack of field data, and computational problems, the lumped-parameter model
WATOX-1 was developed and used for seasonal and long-term simulation of
radionuclide dynamics in the reservoirs.
Due to the initial uncertainty in the input data and model parameters, the
first objective of the model system was to estimate the maximum possible ~37Cs
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 97

a n d 9°Sr concentrations in the reservoirs during floods generated by snow-melt

and rainstorms. Scenarios were used in which there was a low probability of
the worst water quality factors coinciding. Experts worked with the modeling
group to prepare scenarios of input information and to analyze the output
results. The conclusions have been used by the Ukrainian government to
make decisions on the municipal and irrigational use of Dnieper water.
The models with distributed parameters (1-D and 2-D) were developed to
analyze the effectiveness of proposed engineering countermeasures. The
countermeasures were designed to increase the self-purification of the river-
reservoir system through radionuclide-sediment interactions. Some hydraulic
engineering solutions were proposed to prevent flooding of the heavily con-
taminated zones near the river channel. The effectiveness of the proposed
countermeasures was sometimes modeled without including the radioactive
transport submodel, which contained the largest uncertainty in the model
constants. A clear illustration of this methodology is the analysis of the
efficiency of a bottom trap - - a specially dredged quarry in the river bottom,
constructed to diminish the flow velocity, and as a result to increase the
sedimentation rate. It was suggested that total radionuclide transport would
decrease abruptly in such a construction due to flow purification.
The simulation of hydrodynamic and sediment transport processes in traps
of different configurations, provided by corresponding submodels of the
VERTOX and RIVTOX systems, has demonstrated [15] a very high sensitivity of
the sedimentation rate to the diameter of the suspended particles. The factor
governing the efficiency of the trap is the radionuclide distribution on different
suspended particle size fractions. The field investigation of Voitcekhovich et
al. [21] demonstrated that 70% of the total 137Cs transported by Pripyat River
suspended sediments was associated with the <0.1 mm size fraction.
Numerical modeling predicted a very small increase in the sedimentation rate
of such small grains in the traps, thus the resulting effectiveness of the traps
was predicted to be very low.
More detailed examples of the approaches used will be presented below for
the two most important problems: radionuclide washout from the Pripyat
River floodplain, and the seasonal variation of radionuclide dispersion in the
Dnieper reservoirs.

PRIPYAT RIVER FLOODPLAIN

The potential increase in radionuclide concentration in the Kievskoje

reservoir and, as a result, in all downstream reservoirs, may be associated with
three sources. The first is radionuclide washout from the contaminated
watersheds of the Dnieper and the Pripyat Rivers during snowmelt and heavy
rains. The second is remobilization of the radionuclides from heavily con-
taminated bottom deposits in the Kievskoje reservoir due to resuspension or
98 M.J, Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

physico-chemical processes. The third is washout of radionuclides from the

highly contaminated, left bank floodplain of the Pripyat River at the town of
Pripyat. The latter is potentially the greatest source of 9°Sr contamination to
the Dnieper reservoir system.
The portion of the floodplain mentioned above is 2 x 10 km in size and
contains > 8000 Ci of 9°Sr. The area has not been flooded since the Chernobyl
accident because of low spring floods during this period. Predicting the
leaching of 9°Sr from this floodplain during future high spring floods, and
comparative analyses of countermeasures to prevent the leaching, or to
decrease its rate, have been considered through the use of the w x r o x - 2 model.
Due to the relatively low value of the distribution coefficient (Kd) for 9°Sr,
sediment-water interactions have little impact on 9°Sr migration in surface
water. The governing parameters of the model in such a situation are Kd and
the rate of w a t e r - b o t t o m exchange, a~,3. For their determination, laboratory
measurements were made at the Ukrainian Hydrometeorology Institute by
Voitcekhovich et al. [21]. Soil samples from the floodplain were covered with
water and the temporal dynamics of 9°Sr in the water and soil column
measured. These processes can be described by simplifying Eqns (20) and (22)
in the Appendix, and m a y be written as follows:
d(hC)
- p~(1 -- g ) Z . a l , 3 ( K d C -- C b)
dt

d
~-~ (Z* Cb) = al,3Z.(KdC - C 6)

where the radioactive decay term is omitted for long-lived radionuclides. See
the glossary of terms following the Appendix for definition of parameters.
F r o m this equation the ratio of the radionuclide concentration in solution (C)
to radionuclide surface density on bottom sediments, p = c b Z , ps(1 -- ~),
m a y be written as:
C C 1 -e ~'
P cbZ,p~(1 -- e,) KdZ,ps(l -- ~,) + h e /~'

where
K d Z , p~(1 - ~:))
fl = al. 3 1 + h

This relation has been used to determine the parameters K a and at. 3 through
the measured value o f the ratio C ( t ) / P ( t ) by a least squares method.
Simulation of floodplain flow has demonstrated that the most dangerous
situation, resulting in a large increase in radionuclide concentrations, is a
spring flood with a m a x i m u m discharge of 2000 m 3 s -~ . The probability of
M A T H E M A T I C A L M O D E L L I N G O F R A D I O N U C L I D E DISPERSION 99
~000 4000 6000 8000 faO00O

O5 m/s 2 = .2-.~ 5 : 2 ~ ~ ;- 2 .~ -~ : : Z

v(~z) I ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~000 ,2qO0

a 0 O0 4000 6000 ~dlO0 t0000

x (m)

Fig. 2. Depth-averaged velocities on the Pripyat River floodplain during a 2 5 % P E spring flood, x, y are
the distances from a reference point (m).

exceeding (PE) this flood magnitude for the area considered on the Pripyat
River is 25%. During such spring floods the water covers all the contaminated
floodplain (Fig. 2).
It has been assumed that the depth-averaged 9°Sr concentration at the
inflow boundary is 50 pCi 1- t. This level of 9°Sr in the Pripyat water is a result
of radionuclide washout from upstream watersheds. Due to interaction with
contaminants in bottom deposits, the 9°Sr concentration in water increases
more than four-fold from inflow to outflow boundaries (Fig. 3). The
computed water transit time between these boundaries is 12 h.
The highest simulated flood (PE = 1%) has a maximum discharge of
6000m3s ~. For such a discharge the computed transit time is 5 h, and the
maximum 9°Sr concentration at the outflow boundary is 60pCil ~. Such a
small increase in concentration over the bottom contaminated area compared
with a flood with a maximum discharge of 2000 m3s ~ is a result of the decrease
in transit time and the increase in water depth.

~ oo0 40(10 GO~,O ,~000 tOOOO

h (, ...... . )

. - ,-4-, "2 ,. "

k - - . " ,,o-_._ ', ,,

0 2000 4000 5000 8000 10000

X/m)

Fig. 3. Depth-averaged 9°Sr concentration ( ) (pCi 1 L) and depth isolines (m) ( . . . . ) during a 25% PE
spring flood.
100 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

2dga 4000 0300 ,~000 fOOOO

2000

0 200 0 "t000 6000 8000 /0oo0

x(m)
Fig. 4. Depth-averaged velocities during the same flood as presented in Fig. 2 after construction of the dana.

The computed scenarios showing the abrupt increase in 9°Sr concentration

in the Pripyat River has stimulated the search for effective countermeasures.
Several approaches have been proposed by different groups of specialists and
the effectiveness of the countermeasures has been simulated. The creation of
a special dam around the contaminated area, on the left bank of the Pripyat
River, has been chosen as the best countermeasure. The flow pattern is
presented in Fig. 4. This measure, supplemented by right bank soil decon-
tamination, could diminish the 90Sr concentration at the down-flow boundary
to nearly the same level as at the up-flow boundary. One of the simulated
scenarios is shown in Fig. 5. The decision to construct such a dam was taken
in 1990.

FORECASTING THE SEASONAL DYNAMICS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN

RESERVOIRS

Forecasts of 137Cs and 9°Sr concentrations in the Dnieper reservoirs during

spring flood (March-June) have been prepared in February-March of each

8000 4000 6000 8000 YO000

70~. U .%,1~:'"

20o0 ,L 2" ..... =-'2.>"

0 i , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . i 1 i i I i , ~ f , , i I , i r 0
2000 4080 6000 8000 000o
x (m)
90
Fig. 5. Depth-averaged Sr concentration during the same flood as presented in Fig. 2 after construction
of the dam.
MATHEMATICALMODELLINGOF RADIONUCLIDEDISPERSION 101

year since the accident. The bases for their development were the forecasts of
spring runoff volume and maximum discharge, prepared by the State
Hydrometeorological Committee. Data on watershed contamination and
average values for radionuclide washout coefficients [23, 24] were used to
predict 13VCsand 9°Sr dynamics in the tributaries discharging into the reservoirs.
The results show that the total amount of 9°Sr washed out of the 60 km 2 zone
around Chernobyl during a 25% PE spring flood is 270 Ci; during a 50% PE
flood it is 460 Ci; 10% PE, 670Ci; and 1% PE, 1240 Ci. Small amounts ofg°Sr
are washed out of the watershed with sediments (6-8 %). In contrast, for '37Cs,
> 85% is transported from watersheds with surface flow by attachment to
sediments. This percentage varies with the water body; between 20 and
50% of the Cs in rivers and reservoirs is transported by suspended sediments
[22].
An example of an official forecast of ~37Cs concentration in the Dnieper
reservoirs is presented in Fig. 6. This forecast was sent to the Ukrainian
Government before the 1988 spring flood. Comparison of the simulated
results with data obtained during the flood by the institutions of the
Ukrainian Ministry of Water Management, Ministry of Health, and
Hydrometeorological Committee demonstrates a reasonable agreement for
contamination amplitude and trends (Fig. 6). The difference in ~37Cs con-
centrations in the Kievskoje and Kakhovskoje reservoirs is more than an
order of magnitude. This is a result of contaminant-sediment interactions, a
very important factor in '37Cs dispersion in water bodies. A large distribution
coefficient should be used for a successful description of ~37Cs transport
(Kd = 5000 for simulated results in Fig. 6).

I00

9.1 ....... ~ . . . . . ,...,.,

,o eo :3b ,'o" ~b" ~b "Tb "go 3o loo riO"1zo
DAYS

Fig. 6. Caesium-137 concentrations in the Dnieper reservoirs during the 1988 spring flood. Predicted
( ) and average experimental data (. . . . ). Time, days elapsed from 1 February 1988. (1) Kievskoje
reservoir, northern part; (2) Dneprovskoje reservoir; (3) Kakhovskoje reservoir.
102 M.J, ZHELEZNYAK ET AL.

Since 1988 the concentrations of mCs in the Dnieper reservoirs have

decreased due to the low spring floods in 1989 and 1990, and as a result of the
reduced ]37Cs washout coefficient. The washout coefficient for 9°Sr does not
decrease in the same manner. Therefore, as mentioned previously, 9°Sr con-
tamination may be the most significant problem in the Pripyat River
watershed during high spring floods. The simulation of processes on the
floodplain, considered above, have been supplemented by forecasts of 9°Sr
dispersion in the Dnieper reservoirs.
The results of the simulation of the impact of a 25% PE flood on the
Dnieper reservoir system is demonstrated before (Fig. 7a) and after (Fig. 7b)
the construction of a dam. For the latter, only the contamination discharged
from watersheds was taken into account for the inflow of the Pripyat River

400 IIIJIl~llllllllllllll~ll,''~''l,',l,,I,illl,ll,,,,,l,,, ....

100 ~ I
3
U
3
CL

(.. 40
LD
©
(~

il'L'i*''l!!'~'!!1'11111q!ILltllSLi'1'Llnn .... L ! L , , , t 1 1 [ n l
&O0 2~00 4~.00 6~00 80.00 t00.00 t20.O0

TIME (DAY)

4-00

b 3
fO0

(.9
:7_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

f ir ..... i,,,,,,111111,,, .... , ........ Lbl' ........ ' ....... II

0,00 2.0.00 4-0.00 60.00 80.00 fO0.O0 f20.OO

Fig. 7. Simulated 9~Sr concentrations in the Dnieper reservoirs during a 2 5 % PE spring flood before (a)
and after (b) construction of the darn. Time, days elapsed from I February 1988. (l) Kievskoje reservoir:
(2) Kremenchugskoje reservoir: (3) K a k h o v s k o j e reservoir.
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 103

into the reservoir. The predicted maximum 9°Sr concentration in Kievskoje

reservoir was 150 p C i l - t before construction of the dam (higher than the
USSR radiological standard for drinking water, i.e. 100pCi1-1) and
50 pCil ~ after construction of the dam.

CONCLUSIONS

A hierarchy of mathematical models proved to be a valuable tool in

supporting the decision making process after the release of radionuclides into
aquatic systems following the Chernobyl accident. Mathematical models with
different spatial and temporal scales should be used simultaneously to solve
the wide range of water and health protection problems arising from the
accident. Reasonable results for the seasonal forecasting of radionuclide
dispersion in the Dnieper reservoir system were obtained based on the box
model with a significant aggregation of radionuclide transfer processes. An
analysis of the effectiveness of countermeasures was provided by one- and
two-dimensional models. Only countermeasures that prevent radionuclide
transport to the water bodies are effective.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge Prof. V.S. Mikhalevich, Director of the

V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics (IC), and Prof. A.A. Morozov, Director
of the Special Bureau of Mathematical Machines and Systems IC for their
scientific guidance and help in organizing the study. We would also like to
express our gratitude to the many people who have contributed in different
ways to this work. The contributions of Dr Yu. Yakovenko, Dr V. Tikhy,
Dr V. Mikhailov, Dr Yu. Samoylenko, Dr A. Dmitrenko, N. Aksenov and Dr
P. Petrov were particularly important in the initial stage of the study in 1986,
and to them we extend special thanks. We would also like to thank Dr O.V.
Voitcekhovich for his experimental data, which comprise the bases of all our
models. We thank Dr T. Hinton for his helpful comments on, and editing of,
the manuscript.

APPENDIX -- MODEL EQUATIONS

VER T O X

The VERTOXsubmodel for flow simulation includes the equation of motion:

0 t + u~-~x + W~z g ~ x + K 0 - ~ + ~zV3-~ (1)

104 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

and the equation of continuity:

8bu Obw
+ - o (2)

where u and w are the width-averaged velocities in the longitudinal and vertical
directions, x and z, respectively, q is the water surface elevation above the
undisturbed level, K the width-averaged longitudinal turbulent diffusion
coefficient, v the width-averaged vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient, g the
acceleration due to gravity, and b the depth-averaged width of the channel.
The vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient, v, is calculated from the Prandtl
relation and the M o n t g o m e r y formula for the turbulent length scale [25]:

v = l : S 8uz ' l = ~K (z + H + Z o ) ( - z + q + z,) (3)

where ~c is von Karman's coefficient, H the undisturbed water depth,

h = H + q, and the parameters of b o t t o m roughness and water surface
roughness are z0 and z,~, respectively. The efficiency of this approach in
simulating the vertical structure of the velocity field has been demonstrated
for different kinds of open flow. including currents in the presence of wind
stress [26, 27].
The b o t t o m b o u n d a r y condition is:
z - H + z0 u = 0 w = 0 (4)
At the free surface, z = q, we use the kinematic b o u n d a r y condition:

W -- @ -b U-- @ (5)
8t 8x
and set the shear stress equal to zero.
The suspended sediment transport submodel of VERTOX consists of the
advection-diffusion equation:
8s 8s 8s 8s 82s ~ 8s
8t + bt ~, X + w 8z % + K~ + v c~z (6)

where s is the sediment concentration, and w0 is the settling velocity of the

particles.
The vertical flux of the sediment through the free surface should be zero.
The corresponding b o u n d a r y condition is:
f3s
z = r/ (,I'-w0)s = v-- (7)
3z
The generally accepted formulation of the bottom b o u n d a r y condition [10, 28]
may be written as:
8s
z = -h + Zo v ~ + wos = qS _ _ qb (8)
MATHEMATICALMODELLINGOFRADIONUCLIDEDISPERSION 105

where q~ is the sedimentation rate and qb the resuspension rate. It is assumed

that, in the case of fine noncohesive sediments, these rates m a y be estimated
by the equations:

q, = I w°(s°-s*)'s°>s*, qb = {0, S0>S, (9)

{0, So < s , Wo(S,-So), So < s,
where so is the actual sediment concentration, s, at the bottom z = h + z0,
and s, the near-bottom equilibrium sediment concentration that corresponds
to the sediment capacity of steady and uniform flow with the same local
parameters. The Bijker [29] and van Rijn [30] methods are used to calculate
s, as a function of the bottom shear stress, bottom roughness, sediment grain
diameter and settling velocity. In the case of cohesive sediment transport the
appropriate equations for q= and qb may be used [31] instead of Eqn (9).
The governing equations of radionuclide dispersion are similar to those
used by Onishi et al. [9, 10]. The equation for dissolved pollutant transport is:
8C 8C 6~C 82C 8 (G~C)
8t- + u~-ffx + w 8z - K ~Uffx + ~z V-~z

- ) ~ C -- al,2S(KdC - C s) (10)
where C is the radionuclide concentration in solution, C s the concentration in
the suspended sediments, a~,2 the rate of water-suspended sediment exchange,
and 2 the delay constant for the radionuclide under consideration.
The b o u n d a r y condition at the free surface z = ~/is:

8C
v 8z - wC (11)

The diffusion flux into the bottom is taken as:

8C
z = -H + z0 v 8z - p~(1 - e ) Z , al.3(K~C - - C b) (12)

where C b is the concentration in the bottom deposits, e the bottom porosity,

Z , the efficient thickness of the contaminated, upper, bottom-deposit layer,
aL3 the rate of w a t e r - b o t t o m exchange, and Ps the sediment density.
Particulate contaminant transport is described by the equation:

8sC = 8sC = c~sC = 82 s C ~ 8 8sO

o---7-+ U- x + w - K-yy-x + O-5-

8sC =
+ w° 8z )'sC= + a l ' 2 s ( K j C - C~) (13)
106 M.J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

The boundary conditions are:

a(sc .~)
z = t/: (w- wo)sO- v - - - 0 (14)
~z

z - H + z0: w0sC ~ + v 3(sC~) - C~q~ - - Cbq b (15)

c~z
Numerical solutions of Eqns (1)-(15) are obtained by the explicit-implicit
finite-difference m e t h o d similar to that presented in ref. 27. Transformation
of the variables changes the study area into a rectangle where the equations
are approximated on the vertically i n h o m o g e n e o u s grid.

WA TOX- 2

The WATOX-2 hydrodynamic submodel contains the shallow water

equations:

3U,. 3U,. a~ &U,.I~71 + ,L,,W,.I(VI (16)

3t + Uk ~ + g 0 x k --

~q 3(hUk) R (17)
& + 3x~_ -
where 2 b is the b o t t o m friction coefficient, 2w the wind friction coefficient,
subscripts j and k = 1 or 2, Q the vertically-averaged horizontal flow
velocities in the x ( j = 1) and y ( j = 2) directions, Wj the horizontal wind
velocities, and R the sinks and sources distributed on the free flow surface
(precipitation and evaporation).
The depth-averaged equation for suspended sediment transport, taking
into account boundary condition (8) and (9), is written:

3(hS)3____7_+ ~ (hSU~) - 3x~3( hEi~.v~

~S) + flwo(S , - S) (18)

where S and S , are the vertically-averaged suspended sediment concentration

and equilibrium suspended sediment concentration, respectively, fl the ratio of
the near-bottom suspended sediment concentration to the depth-averaged
concentration, and Eia the coefficients of horizontal dispersion. The latter are
calculated through the relation [32]:
Eli = D0cos 2~p + Dpsin 2~p, E22 = D0sin 2~p + DpCOS2~p

E,2 = E2, = (Do -- Dp) COSq)sinq0

where (p is the angle between the flow direction and the x axis, and Do and Dp
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 107

are the coefficients of longitudinal and lateral dispersion, respectively, as

described by the Elder formulae [6, 32].
The depth-averaged equilibrium suspended sediment concentration, S , , is
calculated by the Bijker method [29] and includes the effects of wave bottom
shear stress on the magnitude of S,. The submodel of wind wave generation
and propagation in the reservoirs is based on the spectral density transport
equation, which has been simplified by parameterization of the spectral
density form for shallow water bodies [34]. Wave transformation in coastal
areas is simulated on the bases of wave refraction models including the effects
of bottom friction and wave breaking [19].
The thickness of the upper, active, bottom deposit layer, Z , , may be
described by the equation of bottom deformation

p~(1 -- e)c3z, _ q~ _ qb (19)

~3t
where the sedimentation and resuspension rates are calculated from depth-
averaged concentrations using relations similar to Eqn (9) with the sup-
plemental multiplier/~.
The depth-averaged equation of dissolved contaminant transport, taking
into account Eqns (10)-(12), may be written as:

~(hC)~t + ~¢3 (hCUk) - Oxk¢?(uxic3C)

Eikh~T:. " - 2hC - ha,,2S(KdC - C ~)

- ps(l - e)Z,a,,3(KoC -- C b) (20)~

where C and C s are the depth-averaged radionuclide concentrations in
solution and in suspended sediments, respectively, and C b the radionuclide
concentration in the bottom deposits averaged over the contaminated layer
thickness Z , .
Using Eqns (13)-(15) we can write the transport equation for C S as:

~3 (hC~S) + c3 ~ ( ¢3 )

-- 2hSC + ha~.zS(KdC - C s) + Cbq b -- CSq S (21)

Contamination of the upper layer of bottom deposits can be described by

the equation:
1
( Z , C b) = a,,3Z,(KoC -- C b) ps(l _ ~) (Cbq b -- O q s) (22)

Numerical solutions of the hydrodynamic submodel (16)-(17) are obtained

using the finite-element method (FEM) and the implicit finite-difference
108 M.J. ZHELEZNYAK ET AL.

method (FDM). For the advection-diffusion equations [(18)-(20)], the fourth-

order explicit FDM, that is the modification of the Holly-Preissman scheme
[18], was used [33]. Numerical solution of the wind wave submodel [34] is
realized on the basis of a wave ray averaging technique in the form of a
numerical solution of the set of ordinary differential equations. Verification of
the developed FEM and F D M was based on comparison with analytical
solutions.

WA TOX- 1

The mass balance equations for the set of compartments yield:

dr,
dt - Qi , - Q, + R, + i=tH
~ Q , ! - Q?' (23)

where V, is the volume of compartment i, Qi the water discharge into the next
compartment, Qi ~ the discharge from the previous compartment, Q) the
discharges from the n ( i ) - m ( i ) + 1 tributaries into the compartment, Q~
the total discharges for irrigation and drinking, and Ri the difference between
the precipitation and evaporation rates.
It may be shown that Eqn (23) can be derived by integrating the continuity
equation of the 2-D lateral-longitudinal model (17) over the surface of the
water body. A similar procedure for the suspended sediments transport
equation (18), taking into account boundary sources, yields:

d(ViSi)dt - Qi ,Si , - QiSi + q~ - q~ + R~ - S~Q~' + ~ Q~S) (24)

)=1

where Si is the compartmentally averaged suspended sediment concentration,

Si ~ the suspended sediment concentration inflow from the compartment
above, R h the sediment flux into the compartment due to coastal erosion
processes, S!! the sediment concentration is discharge from tributaries, and qb
and q~ the compartmentally integrated rates of resuspension and sedimen-
tation, respectively, calculated from a relation similar to Eqn (9) using the
compartmentally averaged equilibrium concentration S.. Its value is defined
by the Bijker method [29] through the compartmentally averaged current
velocity U,. = Q i L i / V ;, and depth hi = Vi/Fi, where Li is the length of the
compartment and F,. the free surface area. The mean value of the bottom
roughness parameter, z0, is calculated from the Manning friction coefficient n.
The temporal dynamics of the mass of contaminated bottom deposits,
M b = ps(1 - e)Z,F,., is described by:

_ q~ _ qb (25)
dt
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 109

Integration of the radionuclide transport equations [(20)-(22)] over the

c o m p a r t m e n t surface, taking into account the boundary sources, yields:
d(V,.Q)
- Qi_,Ci , - QiCi - a,.2(KdCi -- C : )
dt

+ ~ Q}C) - at.3(KaCi- C b) - 2V~Ci (26)

] = n

d(V,.S, C~)
- Q i _ , S i _ , C i-L
S - Q , S , C ~ + a l ~.~( K d C ~ - C s)
dt

+ C bqb _ CTqb _ Q~,CTS, (27)

d( C) - CTq~ - C b q b -- )oMiC~ + al.3(KdCi - C b) (28)

dt

where ~t is the radionuclide concentration in the tributaries, and C h the

radionuclide concentration on the sediments discharged into the compart-
ment due to coastal erosion.
The exchange rate coefficients in this model may be written as:

a1.2 - 1 + K d S i \ *s + *ds/

- + (29)
a~,3 M b \ Tsb ~dsb,]

where rs and rds are the time scales of the absorption and desorption processes,
respectively, for the suspended sediments, and rsb and r~sb the same parameters
for w a t e r - b o t t o m deposits. Parameters 3Lp and 6p, 1 determine the direction of
contaminant transfer and can be written:
{1, KdC~ I > Cp {I, KaC~I < Cp
61p = 3pl = (30)
• O, KdCi I < Cp " O, KdC ) > Cp

where p = 1, 2 or 3 for contaminant concentration in solution (C), on

sediments (C s) and in bottom deposits (Cb), respectively.
Equations (24) and (26)-(28) may be transformed into more appropriate
forms for obtaining numerical solutions by taking into account the equations
of water and bottom deposits conservation, (23) and (25). After substituting,
| 10 M.J. ZHELEZNYAKET AL.

the governing equations are:

dS~ 1
(Q,_,si , - Q , S i + qb _ q~) _ R~ + ~ Q)S) (31)
dt Vi i= I

dCidt - [ Q* + ~Kd (a~'2q- at3')]

+ --~

1 [ ~ (Q, Ci)t + Qi ,Ci , + a,,2Ci s --[-a,,3cb ] (32)

L./=l

+ eh + qb + O,_,S,_, + £ (Q~s~)+ xv,s,]c:

dt - VsSi - al,2 i= 1

+ Q,_,S, , C ,_~
s + RI2C~ + q~C b + ~ ( Q j S j C j S ) t --[-
/= I
a,,:KdC}(33)
dC 1
mb [--(a,, 3 -t- q~ + 2 M ~ ) C b + q~C,~ + a,,3KdCi] (34)
dt
where

Q , = Q , _ , + R , + 2QI.
/ 1
The radionuclide transport submodel contains six constants: 2 = In 2 / T , ,
where T, is the decay half-life, Kd, rs, zas, rsb and "Cdsb. The number of model
constants may be reduced if the reversibility of the adsorption-desorption
processes is considered, i.e. r s = rsb, rds = "Cdsb.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE MODELS

a1,2 rate of water-suspended sediment exchange

al, 3 rate of w a t e r - b o t t o m exchange
b = depth-averaged width of channel
=
ratio of the near-bottom suspended sediment concentration to
the depth-averaged concentration
C radionuclide concentration in solution
C s = radionuclide concentration in suspended sediments
C b = radionuclide concentration in bottom deposits
G, =
radionuclide concentration in the tributaries
C h = radionuclide concentration on sediments discharged into the

c o m p a r t m e n t due to coastal erosion

Do - - coefficient of longitudinal dispersion
 MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 111

Op
coefficient of lateral dispersion
6i,p and 6p, i = direction of contaminant transfer
bottom porosity
Elk = coefficients of horizontal dispersion
= angle between flow direction and x axis
= free surface area
g = acceleration due to gravity
H = undisturbed water depth
h = H+q
hi = compartmentally averaged depth
j = 1 or2
k = 1 or2
K = width-averaged turbulent diffusion coefficient for
longitudinal direction
Li z compartment length
2 = radionuclide decay constant
bottom friction coefficient
wind friction coefficient
=
mass of contaminated bottom deposits
n Manning friction coefficient
tt = water surface elevation above undisturbed level
Ps sediment density
p = 1, 2, or 3
p = surface density of contamination

Qi = water discharge into the next compartment

=
discharges from the n ( i ) - m ( i ) + 1 tributaries into
the compartment
Qi--1 water discharge from the previous compartment
Qiw = total discharges for irrigation and drinking
q, =
sedimentation rate
qb = resuspension rate
= compartmentally integrated rate of resuspension
q~ = compartmentally integrated rate of sedimentation

R i = difference between precipitation and evaporation rate

R ~ = sediment flux into the compartment due to coastal erosion
R = sinks and sources distributed on the free flow surface
(precipitation and evaporation)
compartmentally averaged suspended sediment concentration
Si--| suspended sediment concentration inflow from the
compartment above
S J! - - sediment concentration in discharge from tributaries
S width-averaged sediment concentration
I12 M.J. ZHELEZNYAK ET AL.

So = sediment c o n c e n t r a t i o n at the b o t t o m z = - h + z 0
S~ = n e a r - b o t t o m e q u i l i b r i u m sediment c o n c e n t r a t i o n
S = vertically a v e r a g e d s u s p e n d e d sediment c o n c e n t r a t i o n
S, = e q u i l i b r i u m s u s p e n d e d sediment c o n c e n t r a t i o n
t = time
r, -- d e c a y h a l f time
= time scale o f the a d s o r p t i o n process
"Cd~, = time scale o f the d e s o r p t i o n process
Tsh = time scale for the a d s o r p t i o n o f w a t e r - b o t t o m deposits
Y,dsb = time scale for the d e s o r p t i o n o f w a t e r - b o t t o m deposits
g. = vertically averaged, h o r i z o n t a l flow velocities in the x(j -- 1)
a n d y(j = 2) directions
= c o m p a r t m e n t a l l y a v e r a g e d c u r r e n t velocity
ll = w i d t h - a v e r a g e d velocity in the l o n g i t u d i n a l direction x
V = w i d t h - a v e r a g e d vertical t u r b u l e n t diffusion coefficient
= volume of compartment i
= h o r i z o n t a l wind velocity
W = w i d t h - a v e r a g e d velocity in vertical direction z
Wo = settling velocity o f particles
X = l o n g i t u d i n a l direction
Z = vertical direction
Zo = bottom roughness parameter
Zh = w a t e r surface r o u g h n e s s p a r a m e t e r
Z, = efficient thickness o f the c o n t a m i n a t e d , u p p e r , b o t t o m - d e p o s i t
layer

REFERENCES

1 V.S. Mikhalevich, A.A. Morozov, M.J. Zheleznyak and V.M. Mikhailov, Mathematical
modelling of impacts on water quality in the river/reservoir system, in V.P. Iljin (Ed.),
Problems of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Computer Center of the Academy
of Science, Novosibirsk, 1987, pp. 134-135 (in Russian).
2 A.A. Morozov, M.J. Zheleznyak, V.V. Mikhailov and A.B. Tomofeev, Decision support
system for water contamination problems on the basis of the center of operation, in
V.P. Volkovich (Ed.), Study in Decision Support Procedures for Computer Systems,
V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics, Kiev, 1990, pp. 51-57 (in Russian).
3 M.J. Zheleznyak, Mathematical models of radionuclide dispersion in a reservoir set, in
A.A. Morozov (Ed.), System Analysis and Methods of Mathematical Modelling in
Ecology, V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics, Kiev, 1990, pp. 48-58 (in Russian).
4 M.J. Zheleznyak, Yu.I. Kuzmenko and P.V. Tkalich, Forecasting of the radionuclide
dispersion in Dnieper's reservoir set, in Proc. Second All-Union Conf. Environmental
Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident, Chernobyl, 19-21 May 1990. Energoatomizdat,
Moscow, 1991 (in press, in Russian).
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF RADIONUCLIDE DISPERSION 113

5 M.J. Zheleznyak, P.V. Tkalich and S.L. Khursin, Mathematical modelling of radionuclide
washout from the Pripyat River floodplain during high spring floods, in Proc. Second
All-Union Conf. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident, Chernobyl
19-21 May 1990. Energoatomizdat, Moscow, 1991 (in press, in Russian).
6 G.T. Orlob, (Ed.), Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality: Streams, Lakes, and
Reservoirs, International Institute Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Wiley-Interscience,
New York, 1983, p. 518.
7 Hydrological dispersion of radioactive material in relation to relation to nuclear power
plant siting, Safety Series N50-SG-S6, IAEA, Vienna, 1985, 116 pp.
8 R.B. Codell, K.T. Key and G. Whelan, Collection of mathematical models for radionu-
clide dispersion in surface water and ground water, NUREG-0868, Washington, DC,
1982, 271 pp.
9 Y. Onishi, J. Serne, E. Arnold, C. Cowan and F. Thompson, Critical review: radionuclide
transport, sediment transport, water quality, mathematical modeling and radionuclide
adsorption/desorption mechanism, NUREG/CR-1322, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, 1981, 512 pp.
10 Y. Onishi and D.S. Trent, Mathematical simulation of sediment and radionuclide
transport in surface waters, NUREG/CR-1034, Washington, DC, 1979, 57 pp.
11 R.S. Booth, A system analysis model for calculating radionuclide transport between
receiving water and bottom sediments, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DRNL-TM-
4751, 1975, 37 pp.
12 M. Schuckler, R. Kalckbrenner and A. Bayer, Zukunftige radiologische Belastung durch
kerntechnische Anlagen im Einzugsgebiet des Oberrheins, T.2, Belastung uber denWasser-
weg, in Proc. Conf., Dusseldorf, ZAED, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, 1976.
13 V.A. Borzilov, Yu. S. Sedunov, M.A. Novitsky, O.I. Vozgennikov and A,K. Gerasimen-
ko, Forecasting of secondary radioactive contamination of rivers in Chernobyl NPP 30
kilometer zone. Meteorol. Gidrol., 2 (1989) 5-13 (in Russian).
14 P.H. Santschi and B.D. Honeyman, Radionuclides in aquatic environments. Radiat. Phys.
Chem., 34 (1989) 213-240.
15 R.I. Demchenko and M.J. Zheleznyak, Numerical modelling of suspended sediments
vertical distribution above uneven bottom, in A.A. Morozov (Ed.), System Analysis and
Methods of Mathematical Modelling in Ecology, V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics,
Kiev, 1990, pp. 66-72 (in Russian).
16 L.C. van, Rijn, Model for sedimentation predictions, in Proc. XIX Congr. Int. Assoc.
Hydraulic Research, New Delhi, India, 1981, pp. 321-328.
17 M.B. Abbott, Computational Hydraulics, Pitman, London.
18 J.A. Cunge, F.M. Holly and A. Verwey, Practical Aspects of Computational River
Hydraulics, Pitman, London, 250 pp.
19 J.T. Cherneva, S i . Hursin, P.V. Tkalich and M.J. Zheleznyak, A model ofhydrodynamic
processes and sediment transport over complicated bottom, in Proc. 6th Natl. Congr.
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Varna, 1989, pp. 61-65.
20 M.B. Beck, Water Quality Management: A review of the development and application of
mathematical models. Lectures Notes in Engineering, IIASA, 11 (1985) 108.
21 O.V. Voitcekhovich, V.V. Kanivets and A.I. Shereshevsky, Evaluation of sedimentation
of radionuclides with suspended sediments in quarries in channels of the River Pripyat,
in Proc. Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute. Gidrometeoizdat, Moscow, 1988,
pp. 60-68.
22 V.V. Demchuk, O.V. Voitcekhovich and G.V. Laptev, Investigation of the migration
processes of radioactive fuel material and their compounds in the water-soil system of the
Chernobyl NPP floodplain, in Proc. Seminar Comparative Assessment of Radionuclides
114 M,J. Z H E L E Z N Y A K ET AL.

released During Three Major Nuclear Accidents: Kyshtym, Windscale and Chernobyl.
Luxembourg, 1-5 October 1990 (in press).
23 V.A. Borsilov, A.V. Konoplyov and S.K. Revina, Experimental investigation of radio-
nuclides washout and fallout after the Chernobyl accident. Meteorol. Gidrol., 11 (1989)
43-53 (in Russian).
24 A.V. Konoplyov, A.A. Bulgakov and I.T. Shucuratova, Migration in soil and surface flow
of radioactive products in the Chernobyl NPP zone. Meteorol. Gidrol., 6 (1990) 119-121
(in Russian).
25 R.B. Montgomery, Generalization for cylinders of Prandtl's linear assumption for mixing
length. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 44 (1943) 89-103.
26 R.O. Reid, Modification of the quadratic bottom-stress law for turbulent channel flow in
the presence of surface windstress. Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army, Corps Eng., Tech.
Mem., 93 (1957) 33.
27 N.E. Voltsinger, K.A. Klevany and E.N. Pelinovsky, Long-wave Dynamics of the Coastal
Zone. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1989, 271 pp. (in Russian).
28 Y.P. Sheng and W. Lick, The transport and resuspension of sediments in a shallow lake.
J. Geophys. Res., 84 (1979) 1809-1826.
29 E.W. Bijker, Some considerations about scales for coastal models with movable bed. Delft
Hydraulics Laboratory, Publ. No. 50, 1968.
30 L.C. van Rijn, Sediment transport, Part II: suspended load transport. J. Hydraul. Eng.,
110 (1984) 1613-1641.
31 A.J. Mehta, E.J. Hayter, W.R. Parker, R.B. Krone and A.M. Teeter, Cohesive sediment
transport, I: Process description. J. Hydraul. Eng., 115 (1989) 1076-1093.
32 F.M. Holly, Dispersion in rivers and coastal waters. 1. Physical principles and dispersion
equations. Dev. Hydraul. Eng., 3 (1987) 1-37.
33 P.V. Tkalich, Numerical modeling of dissolved contaminant dispersion in water bodies, in
A.A. Morozov (Ed.), System Analysis and Methods of Mathematical Modelling in
Ecology, V. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics, Kiev, 1990, pp. 62-66 (in Russian).
34 M.J. Zheleznyak and P.V. Tkalich, Mathematical modeling of water quality in reservoirs
with effects of wave driven transfer, in O. Vasiliev (Ed.), Proc. Second Conf. Modeling and
Forecasting Environmental Exchange, Novosibirsk, October, 1987, pp. 53-54 (in
Russian).