Detailed MCA Analysis

DOESTD107393

application of life extension techniques. As appropriate, the feasibility of continued operations and the

feasibility of extended operations should be assessed. Objects of such an assessment would include

the following: management alternatives for continued operation or extended operations of the facility;

the estimated costs for each alterative as a function of time; and recommendations regarding facility

continued operations and extended operations.

1.3.7.6 Detailed MCA Analysis

Detailed component screening, aging degradation evaluations, more rigorous determinations of facility

remaining lifetime, the feasibility of continued operations, and the feasibility of extended operations

should be performed. The physical characteristics related to aging degradation of specific life-limiting

components should be determined, and measurements that could be made to determine the material

condition of life-limiting components should be defined. Baseline measurements should be performed

to establish the material condition of facility life-limiting components. The results of these

measurements should be included in the aging degradation evaluations.

1.3.7.7 Degradation Trending, Aging Management, and Life Extension

Aging degradation measurements and associated frequencies should be provided to the design

authority as proposed new design requirements. Detailed aging degradation evaluations should also

be provided to the design authority as the design basis for the new design requirements. The results of

the periodic aging degradation measurements should be trended and extrapolated to update the

remaining lifetime determinations after each set of measurements. As needed, life extension

techniques for life-limiting components should be developed and implemented.

This section provides the purpose, concepts, and general process for applying the graded approach to

operational configuration management.

DOE facilities are so diverse in character and age--many have been operating for several

decades--that it is impossible to develop a single set of program criteria directly applicable to them all.

However, a wide variety of facilities can be accommodated by means of a graded approach to adapt

DOE general criteria. Use of a graded approach also makes it easier to apply resources where the

greatest benefit can be realized. Therefore, DOE has decided to develop general criteria and to invoke

the graded approach to adjust those criteria as appropriate for each facility. This Standard presents the

program criteria that would apply to a highly hazardous facility (i.e., a worst case) and invokes the

graded approach for less hazardous facilities.

DOE defines the graded approach as a process by which the level of analysis, documentation, and

actions necessary to comply with a requirement are made commensurate with a number of

considerations, including: the relative importance to safety, safeguards, and security; the magnitude of

any hazard involved; the life-cycle stage of a facility; the programmatic mission of a facility; the

particular characteristics of a facility; and any other relevant factor. In applying the graded approach to

the CM program, the following additional factors are relevant: facility size and complexity; facility

remaining and desired lifetime; facility operational status; programmatic and technical issues; facility

grade; SSC grades; existing programs and procedures; and phased implementation. These terms are

explained below.

I-14