atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 08/09.2019

More documents

Info

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 404 | | Fig. 7. Responses regarding the nuclides measured with non-gamma spectrometry methods (question was mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible). | | Fig. 8. Responses regarding the use of methods or specialized equipment (question was mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible). Future challenges and influences (Questions 14 – 17) When asked about the factors influencing the development of radioanalytical methods for decommissioning (question 14), laboratories rated the 7 proposed influencing factors as being of almost equal importance (Figure 9). Improving accuracy was reported to be “very important” or “important” by 79 % of laboratories. “Optimizing money spent on analyses” and “optimizing time spent on analyses” were rated “very important” or “important” by 76 % and 74 % of the laboratories, respectively. By comparison, “Scientific findings” were only considered “very important” or “important” by 62 % of the laboratories, but was also only deemed “entirely unimportant by 3 % of the laboratories. The option “changes in laws and regulations” was reported most frequently to be “ entirely unimportant” (9 %) or “not really important” (18 %). Among the laboratories, 15 % also responded that “improving detection limits” was “not really important”, but no laboratories considered it “entirely unimportant”. When evaluating the future analytical challenges in decommissioning (question 15), the answers were more diverse (Figure 10). “Optimizing radionuclide separation”, “retaining analytical know-how”, “availability of more standard material” and “improving matrix-related sample preparation” were the challenges deemed most important with 82 %, 79 %, 79 % and 68 %, of the labora tories, respectively, considering them “very important” or “important” challenges for the future. The two challenges deemed least important were “developing miniaturized methods” and “developing more portable, on-site methods” with 36 % and 30 % of the labs considering this challenge “entirely unimportant” or “not really important” and only 25 % and 31 % considering it “very important” or “important”. The open style question on the greatest analytical challenges in the future specific to the participant’s laboratory (question 16) was not mandatory and was completed by 22 of the 34 (65 %) participants. The answers reflected a range of future challenges (Figure 11), which can be loosely summarized into 8 groups: | | Fig. 9. Responses regarding the influence of various parameters on radioanalytical method development (question was mandatory and response options were given to be rated). Decommissioning and Waste Management Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell
atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September | | Fig. 10. Responses regarding the importance of different analytical challenges for decommissioning (question was mandatory and response options were given to be rated). Four participants cited organizational or process-related challenges, such as “dealing with legacy waste from nuclear research”, challenges regarding “sample storage and preservation”, “transportation of radioactive samples” and “dealing with high level waste”. Four laboratories named acquiring new analytical instruments as their greatest analytical challenge, such as “acquirement of alpha spectrometry, XRF (X-ray fluorescence)”, “availability of mass spectrometric techniques”, “availability of AMS ( acceleration mass spectrometry)” and “direct coupling of techniques, e.g. separation techniques with ICP-MS (inductively coupled mass spectrometry), and automation of the procedures”. Three laboratories stated that retaining staff numbers, skill or know-how was their greatest challenge, while another three laboratories named optimizing existing methods, such as “adapting radiochemistry protocols to regulatory changes”, “ improving the reliability of results” and “completely eliminating the use of hydrofluoric acids” as their greatest challenge. Another three laboratories cited developing new methods as their greatest challenge, such as the “development of Se-79 and Pa-107 separation and measurement methods”, “ usage of mass spectrometry for more short-lived radionuclides” and “developing new methods for certain nuclides and availability of more reference materials”. Two laboratories stated that updating existing instruments, such as “ensuring that we have the relevant, up-to-date equipment” and “AMS in unattended mode” was their greatest challenge, while another two laboratories cited declaration demands as their greatest challenge saying that “ increased demands in the declaration of nuclear and release material and performing analyses for customers whose know-how is continuously decreasing” and “gaining consensus what radio nuclides and which sample matrix should be analysed in decommissioning samples”. One laboratory cited a specific decommissioning project as their greatest challenge. The open style question on the greatest analytical challenges in the future for decommissioning in general (question 17) was not mandatory and was completed by 21 of 34 (62 %) participants, and reflected an even larger range of future challenges (Figure 12), which can be loosely summarized into 5 groups and 5 non- group-able single answers. Eight laboratories cited new methods as a general future challenge for decommissioning, answering “learning new techniques”, “accepting new analytical techniques like AMS as more reasonable methods for radionuclide detection”, “specific analytical techniques for pure alpha and beta emitting nuclides”, “development of Ca-41 measurement”, “techniques for radionuclides difficult to detect”, “establishing good measurement systems” “developing preparation techniques for challenging sample matrices” and “minimization of radiochemistry needs”. Topics related to improved sampling or in- situ measurements were named by six participants as the greatest challenges for decommissioning, citing “make robust equipment for on-site measurements that would help optimizing the sampling”, “enlarging means for in- situ characterization in order to limit the number of laboratory analysis”, “representative sampling for technical constructions”, “use the actual equipment from the Horizon 2020 project” and “improving represen tative sample taking”. Three Labora tories named the range of nuclides as a future challenge, saying “the range of radio nuclides that need to be accurately measured”, DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 405 | | Fig. 11. Responses regarding analytical challenges specific to the participating laboratory (Grouped responses after analysis of free-text answers, question not mandatory). | | Fig. 12. Responses regarding analytical challenges for decommissioning in general (Grouped responses after analysis of free-text answers, question not mandatory). Decommissioning and Waste Management Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell
Page 1 and 2: nucmag.com 2019 8/9 Prospects for D
Page 3 and 4: atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı A
Page 5 and 6: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 23: atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı A
Page 63 and 64: Kommunikation und Training für Ker

atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 08/09.2019

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?