Evaluation of uncertainties in in situ and ex situ gamma measurements on land areas with low contamination levels.

Previous work on the characterisation of land areas with moderate contamination levels showed that in situ measurements made with a gamma detector can achieve lower levels of the random component of uncertainty than laboratory measurements of extracted samples. This was found when the variance caused by small-scale lateral heterogeneity of contaminants was included in the uncertainty estimation. The present paper documents the results of applying the same techniques of uncertainty estimation to an area with contamination levels that were lower by a factor of 10. If the same counting times were used, it would be expected that both measurement types would be affected by higher levels of random uncertainty in the individual measurements because of increased uncertainty from counting statistics and other factors such as interpretation of gamma spectra. However, when uncertainty due to sampling was included, it was found that both measurements methods were subject to similar combined uncertainties at individual locations. Using an assumption of the depth distributions of radionuclides that was supported by ex situ measurements, in situ measurements were able to produce averaging estimates with an approximate reduction of 50% in the standard error on the mean at ~50% of the cost of the ex situ measurements.

Optimising in situ gamma measurements to identify the presence of radioactive particles in land areas.

High-coverage in situ surveys with gamma detectors are the best means of identifying small hotspots of activity, such as radioactive particles, in land areas. Scanning surveys can produce rapid results, but the probabilities of obtaining false positive or false negative errors are often unknown, and they may not satisfy other criteria such as estimation of mass activity concentrations. An alternative is to use portable gamma-detectors that are set up at a series of locations in a systematic sampling pattern, where any positive measurements are subsequently followed up in order to determine the exact location, extent and nature of the target source. The preliminary survey is typically designed using settings of detector height, measurement spacing and counting time that are based on convenience, rather than using settings that have been calculated to meet requirements. This paper introduces the basis of a repeatable method of setting these parameters at the outset of a survey, for pre-defined probabilities of false positive and false negative errors in locating spatially small radioactive particles in land areas. It is shown that an un-collimated detector is more effective than a collimated detector that might typically be used in the field.

Comparison between in situ and ex situ gamma measurements on land areas within a decommissioning nuclear site: a case study at Dounreay.

Measurements made in situ with gamma detectors and ex situ measurements of soil samples in a laboratory can have complementary roles in the assessment of radioactively contaminated land on decommissioning nuclear sites. Both in situ and ex situ methods were used to characterize (137)Cs contamination within an area at the Dounreay site in Scotland. The systematic difference (bias) between estimates of the mean activity concentration was found to be non-significant when in situ measurements were interpreted using a linear depth model, based on ex situ measurements made at two different depths. An established method of evaluating the random components of measurement uncertainty was used. The random component of analytical uncertainty in the in situ measurements, made in field conditions, was found to exceed that for the ex situ measurements, made in the controlled conditions of a laboratory. However, contamination by the target radionuclide was found to be heterogeneous over small spatial scales. This resulted in significantly higher levels of random sampling uncertainty in individual ex situ measurements. As in situ measurements are substantially less costly, a greater number of measurements can be made, which potentially reduces the uncertainty on the mean. Providing the depth profile of contaminants can be modelled with confidence, this can enable estimates of mean activity concentration over an averaging area to be made with lower overall uncertainties than are possible using ex situ methods.