Year
2009
Abstract
In the absence of definitive Material Control and Accountability (MC&A) guidance relating to design requirements for domestic, government owned nuclear materials processing facilities, what detailed requirements should design engineers follow to initiate preliminary design? In many cases, regulatory standards have not been compiled sufficiently to be design requirements, or are non-existent altogether. Safeguards/MC&A measures cannot be unlimited in scope or cost, based upon whatever the Safeguards/MC&A engineers want in the facility. With the move towards a risk-based approach in facility operations to meet the MC&A system effectiveness model, non- prescriptive performance based directives will become the norm, left to the contractor to define for their specific facility. Engineered, facility and operational performance enhancements will become more important in reducing administrative and production encumbrances, and thereby, reducing operating cost. System performance criteria will not be able to be determined until after testing and start-up of new facilities or systems. Therefore, in new facility design, what guidance is available to justify budgetary expenditures for the design and construction phases if the MC&A regulations are lacking in defined and detailed requirements engineers need to design the process systems? Are we, as a discipline, to accept whatever the designers give us and subsequently require that process modifications be made or measurement systems be added? Application of select regulatory methodologies, new process technologies, and leveraging of system engineering principles, along with the safety basis requirements of other disciplines provides the approach necessary to define and then begin the design of the most effective and efficient MC&A system possible for new materials processing facilities. This paper presents a perspective of the initial part of the journey into the preliminary design process.