Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 298, Issue 1, pp 325–336 | Cite as

Impact of dissolution on the uncertainty of spent fuel analysis

  • Marielle Crozet
  • Cédric Rivier
Article

Abstract

One of the objectives of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission in the Marcoule Centre is to accurately quantify the composition of nuclear spent fuel, i.e. to determine the concentration of each isotope with suitable measurement uncertainty. These analysis results are essential for the validation of calculation codes used for the simulation of fuel behaviour in nuclear reactors and for nuclear matter accountancy. The different experimental steps are first the reception of a piece of spent fuel rod at the laboratory of dissolution studies, and then dissolution in a hot cell of a sample of the spent fuel rod received. Several steps are necessary to obtain a complete dissolution. Taking into account these process steps, and not only those of analysis for the evaluation of measurement uncertainties, is new, and is described in this paper. The uncertainty estimation incorporating the process has been developed following the approach proposed by the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). The mathematical model of measurement was established by examining the dissolution process step by step. The law of propagation of uncertainty was applied to this model. A point by point examination of each step of the process permitted the identification of all sources of uncertainties considered in this propagation for each input variable. The measurement process presented involves the process and the analysis. The contents of this document show the importance of taking the process into account in order to give a more reliable uncertainty assessment to the result of a concentration or isotope ratio of two isotopes in spent fuel.

Keywords

Spent fuel Process Dissolution Hot cell Analysis Measurement uncertainty 

List of symbols

[iX]SF

Concentration of isotope i X in gram per gram of spent fuel

\( \left[ {^{i} X} \right]_{{S_{j\;dil} }} \)

Concentration of isotope i X in the diluted dissolution solution from step j of the dissolution process in gram per gram of solution S j dil

\( m_{{S_{j} }} \)

Mass of solution S j in gram

\( DF_{{S_{j} \to S_{j\;dil} }} \)

Dilution factor to get solution S j dil from solution S j

\( m_{{^{i} X\;{\text{lost}} \to S_{j} }}^{{}} \)

Mass of isotope i X lost in the process until solution S j in gram

\( m_{{^{i} X\;{\text{undissolved}}}} \)

Mass of isotope i X in undissolved matter of the last step in gram

mrod

Mass of the spent fuel rod used in the dissolution process in gram

mhull

Mass of hull after dissolution of the spent fuel in gram

blank[iX]SF

Concentration of isotope i X in gram per gram of spent fuel in a blank dissolution test

u

Standard uncertainty

uc

Combined standard uncertainty

U

Expanded uncertainty

References

  1. 1.
    JCGM (2008) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM), JCGM 100. www.bipm.org
  2. 2.
    JCGM (2009) An introduction to the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement and related documents, JCGM 104. www.bipm.org
  3. 3.
    JCGM (2012) International vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd edn. JCGM 200. www.bipm.org
  4. 4.
    EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG (2012) Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG 4. www.eurachem.org
  5. 5.
    EUROLAB (2006) Guide to the evaluation of Measurement Uncertainty for Quantitative Test Results, EUROLAB Technical Report 1. www.eurolab.org
  6. 6.
    EA (2003) EA guidelines on the expression of uncertainty in quantitative testing, EA 4/16. www.europeanaccreditation.org
  7. 7.
    Le conditionnement des déchets nucléaires, Editions Le Moniteur, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolf SF, Bowers DL, Cunnane JC (2005) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 263:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sullivan VS, Bowers DL, Clark MA, Graczyk DG, Tsai Y, Streets WE, Vander Pol MH, Billone MC (2008) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 277:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakopic R, Verbruggen A, Eykens R, Kehoe F, Kühn H, Kushigeta Y, Jacobsson U, Bauwens J, Richter S, Wellum R, Aregbe Y (2010) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 286:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bürger S, Balsley SD, Baumann S, Berger J, Boulyga SF, Cunnungham JA, Kappel S, Koepf A, Poths J (2012) Int J Mass Spectrom 311:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bürger S, Essex RM, Mathew KJ, Richter S, Thomas RB (2010) Int J Mass Spectrom 294:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mialle S, Quémet A, Ponvienne A, Gourgiotis A, Aubert M, Isnard H, Chartier F (2012) Int J Mass Spectrom 309:141–147Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OIML D (2004) Conventional value of the result of weighing in air, OIML D 28. www.oiml.org

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEA Marcoule, DEN/DRCP/SERA/LEDBagnols-sur-CèzeFrance
  2. 2.CEA Marcoule, DEN/DRCP/CETAMABagnols-sur-CèzeFrance

Personalised recommendations