Abstract

The main quantitative measure of nuclear safeguards effectiveness is nuclear material accounting (NMA), which consists of sequences of measured material balances that should be close to zero if there is no loss of special nuclear material such as Pu. NMA is essentially “accounting with measurement errors,” which arise from good, but imperfect, measurements. The covariance matrix MB of a sequence of material balances is the key quantity that determines the probability to detect loss. There is a recent push to include process monitoring (PM) data along with material balances from NMA in new schemes to monitor for material loss. PM data includes near-real-time measurements by the operator to monitor and control process operations. One concern regarding PM data is the need to estimate normal behavior of PM residuals, which requires a training period prior to ongoing testing for material loss. Assuming that a training period is used for PM data prior to its use in statistical testing for loss, that same training period could also be used for improving the estimate of MB that is used in NMA. We consider updating MB using training data with a Bayesian approach. A simulation study assesses the improvement gained with larger amounts of training data.

Highlights

  • Nuclear material accounting (NMA) at safeguarded facilities consists of periodic measurement of special nuclear material (SNM) flows and inventories, both of which are measured with nonnegligible errors

  • While process monitoring (PM) requires training data prior to monitoring for SNM loss, in principle, NMA does not, provided the metrology data leads to an adequate estimate of ΣMB

  • We do not claim that these are general findings, an argument based on degrees of freedom suggests that systematic error variances are more difficult than random error variances to estimate

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Nuclear material accounting (NMA) at safeguarded facilities consists of periodic measurement of special nuclear material (SNM) flows and inventories, both of which are measured with nonnegligible errors. While PM requires training data prior to monitoring for SNM loss, in principle, NMA does not, provided the metrology data leads to an adequate estimate of ΣMB. Such estimates are often based on very limited data and can be revised as more meta data become available. In practice, NMA is vulnerable to having a poorly estimated ΣMB in the early history of an operating facility, and in effect, relies on a training period prior to quantitative monitoring for SNM loss.

BACKGROUND
COVARIANCE MATRICES FOR MB DATA
BAYESIAN INFERENCE
SIMULATION STUDY
SIMULATION STUDY RESULTS
USING ONE LONG TRAINING SET
SEQUENTIAL TESTING IN NMA
DISCUSSION
10. APPENDIX 1
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call