Statistical error model-based and GUM-based analysis of measurement uncertainties in nuclear safeguards – a reconciliation

Volume: 64, issue 1, June 2022, pages 10-29

Authors: Oscar Alique¹, Yetunde Aregbe², Raffaele Bencardino³, Robert Binner⁴, Thomas Burr⁵, Jeff. A. Chapman⁶, Stephen Croft⁶, Andy Fellerman⁷, Thomas Krieger⁸, Klaus Martin⁹, Peter Mason¹⁰, Claude Norman^4*, Thomas Prohaska¹¹, Divyesh Trivedi¹², Steve Walsh¹³, Dariusz Wegrzynek^{14, 15}, Ben Wright⁷, Jan Wüster⁴

¹_{European Commission - Directorate Translation – Evaluation and Analysis, BECH C3, Rue Alphonse Weicker 5, 2721, Luxembourg, Luxembourg}, ²_{European Commission – Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Directorate G – Nuclear Safety & Security Unit G.2 - Standards for Nuclear Safety, Security & Safeguards, Retieseweg 111, B-2440 Geel, Belgium,} ³_{European Commission – Directorate General for Energy – EURATOM Safeguards EUFO3260, 10 rue R. Stümper L-2557 Luxembourg,} ⁴_{International Atomic Energy Agency - Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Analysis Section- Division of Information Management - Department of Safeguards, Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria,} ⁵_{United States Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, United States of America,} ⁶_{United States Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States of America,} ⁷_{National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), B170, Sellafield, Seascale, Cumbria CA20 1PG, United Kingdom,} ⁸_{Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate Research (IEK), Jülich, Germany,} ⁹_{Trier, Germany,} ¹⁰_{United States Department of Energy, NBL Program Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States of America,} ¹¹_{Montanuniversität Leoben - Allgemeine und Analytische Chemie, Franz-Josef-Strasse 18, 8700 Leoben, Austria,} ¹²_{National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), 5th Floor, Chadwick House, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 6AE, United Kingdom,} ¹³_{Montana, United States,} ¹⁴_{International Atomic Energy Agency- Coordination and Support Section-Office of Safeguards Analytical Services- Department of Safeguards, Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria,} ¹⁵_{AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, al.Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland}

Abstract:At the occasion of the Consultants Group Meeting held to review the “International Target Values 2010 for Measurement Uncertainties in Safeguarding Nuclear Material” [3], discussions between experts highlighted the need to improve communication between different safeguards measurement communities, e.g. laboratory analysts, non-destructive assay specialists, safeguards data evaluators, and to reconcile their approaches to estimating measurement uncertainties. The purpose of this paper is to contr ibute to reaching a common understanding of the terminology and methodologies used by different professional groups in the field of uncertainty quantification.

Keywords: Statistical error model, GUM, terminology, uncertainty, measurement, nuclear safeguards

Reference guideline:

Alique, O., Yetunde, A., Bencardino, R., Binner, R., Burr, T., Chapman, J.A., Croft, S., Fellerman, A., Krieger, T., Martin, K., Mason, P., Norman, C., Prohaska, T., Trivedi, D., Walsh, S., Wegrzynek, D., Wright, B., & Wüster, J. (2022, June). Statistical error model-based and GUM-based analysis of measurement uncertainties in nuclear safeguards – a reconciliation. ESARDA Bulletin - The International Journal of Nuclear Safeguards and Non-proliferation, 64(1), 10-29. https://doi.org/10.3011/ESARDA.IJNSNP.2022.2