1 / 11

Application of Lanthanum Bromide Detectors for the IAEA Safeguards Verification

Explore the use of Lanthanum Bromide detectors for IAEA safeguards verification, highlighting limitations of Ge and NaI detectors. Learn about LABR performance benefits, UBVS measurement, and fuel rods enrichment verification results. Discover the importance of calibration for accurate measurements.

lairdr
Download Presentation

Application of Lanthanum Bromide Detectors for the IAEA Safeguards Verification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Application of Lanthanum Bromide Detectors for the IAEA Safeguards Verification M. Koestlbauer, V. Nizhnik SGTS/TND G. Sheppard SGCP/CTR

  2. Limitations of Ge and NaI detectors Germanium (Ge) detectors • Slow time shaping: unsatisfactory performance in high background (count rate) applications, like recycled uranium enrichment measurement. High dead-time. • Requires Liquid Nitrogen (LN) cooling: long cooling/preparation time before start of measurement • Certain facilities do not allow LN use due to safety reasons • LN dewarmaks detector more bulky: limited portability Sodium Iodide (NaI) detectors • Poor resolution: • bad Peak-to-Compton background ratio • Non-resolving/overlaping gamma peaks • Poor linearity and temperature stability

  3. LABR: Key Parameters Performance • Lanthanum Bromide (LABR) – scintillation gamma detector • Room temperature operation (no LN need, fast instrument preparation for the measurement, convenience in use, excellent portability) • 2-3 times better energy resolution versus NaI: 5% vs 10-12% at 185keV • High and fast light output (high count rate capability; low dead-time) • Good linearity and temperature stability Ge vs LaBr dead-time Spectra of SIL uranium standard taken with LABR and NAID % DT Count Rate kcpsc U-235 peaks

  4. Uranium Bottle Verification System (UBVS) RRP Recycled Uranium stored in containers of big bottle type: • Avoid to use LN cooling: LN cooled Ge detector is not applicable • Very high background from U-232 daughter products (high counting rate): high dead-time effects; Electrically Cooled Germanium System (ECGS) is not applicable • 238keV peak from Pb-212 (daughter of U-232): peaks overlapping and influence on 185keV area determination in NAID spectra Accumulation of U-232 daughter products with time Recycled Uranium Spectrum for NAID 185keV 238keV Pb-212 RIO 2 RIO 1

  5. LaBr vs NaID Verification Results for UBVS • Required RSD 4.5% • NAID performance • Average OID -16.3% • Avg. Uncertainty 4.8 % • LABR performance • Average OID -2.7% • Avg. Uncertainty 2.6 % UBVS Measurement with LABR Average over the measurement campaign

  6. Fuel Rods Verification Standard measurement setup: • NaI detector with V-shape collimator: calibration constant is rod diameter dependent • 2 ROI method for 185keV area determination: background variation sensitive • No attenuation correction: cladding material type and thickness sensitive • No burnable poison correction: sensitive to presence of Gd/Er/Dyburnable poison and its concentration Need for calibration for each combination of Rod Diameter, Cladding Type and Thickness, Burnable Poison Type and Concentration. Hundreds of calibration standards and corresponding measurements to establish calibrations for the whole range of combinations of fuel rods parameters

  7. LaBRod: LaBr for Rods Method F Verification Fuel Pellet Diameter (D), mm 7.5 – 14.0 Cladding Thickness (Th), mm 0.0 – 3.0 Cladding Type (K): Zr, SS, Al Monte-Carlo Modeling (Corrections) LaBRod Software Development Automatic Reporting in PDF format Instrument-Collimator Setup Category A (Oct 2011)

  8. Fuel Rods Verification Fuel Rods Enrichment Verification Results at a Fuel Fabrication Plant Average value of OID and Measurement Uncertainty for the verification campaign • Average OID, rel. % -0.9% • Average Unc., rel.% 1.00% • RSD-ITV 2010, rel.% 3.2 %

  9. Fuel Pellets Verification Standard measurement setup: • NaI detector with Al spacer:poor Peak-to-Compton background ratio; long counting time • Instrument Calibration– Monte-Carlo calculations at the HQ prior sending equipment to the field: no possibility to calibrate the instrument in the field, when operator introduces new pellets design • No burnable poison correction: sensitive to presence of Gd/Er/Dyburnable poison and its concentration Need to recall instrument back to the HQ if a calibration for a new pellet design is needed Standard measurement time is 600-1800s

  10. LaBPel: LaBr for Pellets Method F Verification LaBPel Analysis Software Development Monte-Carlo Modeling (Corrections) Ext. Diameter (D), mm 7.0 – 16.0 Pellet Height (H), mm 0.0 – 3.0 Internal hole (Din): 0-50% D UO2 FuelPellet Instrument-Collimator Setup Plastic Holder CollimatorAssembly LaBr Crystal + Automatic Reporting in PDF format Category A (Oct 2011)

  11. Fuel Pellets Verification Enrichment measurement of fuel pellets during the training course (CIE at Bulk Handling Facilities 2011) • Average OID, rel.%: • Detector 1 -0.1 % • Detector 2 -5.0 % • Average Unc., rel.%: • Detector 1 2.6 % • Detector 2 3.3 % Typical Sigma historical: 4-5% OID, % Average value of OID and Measurement Uncertainty for the verification campaign

More Related