Regular Article

The impact of metrology study sample size on uncertainty in IAEA safeguards calculations

SGIM/Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Analysis, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria

^⁎ e-mail: t.burr@iaea.org

Received: 4 January 2016
Accepted: 23 June 2016
Published online: 16 September 2016

Abstract

Quantitative conclusions by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding States' nuclear material inventories and flows are provided in the form of material balance evaluations (MBEs). MBEs use facility estimates of the material unaccounted for together with verification data to monitor for possible nuclear material diversion. Verification data consist of paired measurements (usually operators' declarations and inspectors' verification results) that are analysed one-item-at-a-time to detect significant differences. Also, to check for patterns, an overall difference of the operator-inspector values using a “D (difference) statistic” is used. The estimated DP and false alarm probability (FAP) depend on the assumed measurement error model and its random and systematic error variances, which are estimated using data from previous inspections (which are used for metrology studies to characterize measurement error variance components). Therefore, the sample sizes in both the previous and current inspections will impact the estimated DP and FAP, as is illustrated by simulated numerical examples. The examples include application of a new expression for the variance of the D statistic assuming the measurement error model is multiplicative and new application of both random and systematic error variances in one-item-at-a-time testing.