Materials Control

DOE-STD-1158-2002

Are evaluation procedures in place to identify potential engineered controls and propose them to

operations supervision for formal disposition? Do evaluations justify selection of administrative

controls instead of engineered controls where the latter are practicable?

Have computer-assisted techniques been utilized to enhance administrative controls and reduce

failure rates?

Are controlled parameters, contingencies, and credited barriers explicitly documented?

Does the criticality safety evaluation identify those controls that are to be included in procedures and

those that should be included in postings?

Criteria: Section 8.3, Documentation Requirements

Do the criticality safety evaluations conform to DOE-STD-3007-93, Guidelines for Preparing Criticality

Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities?

Do the CSEs contain a system/process description with enough detail for an independent reviewer to

understand the system/process sufficiently to judge the results of the criticality safety analysis?

Is there a change control and document control system in place for criticality safety evaluations?

Are internal memoranda used to communicate limits and controls in place of formal evaluations?

Are temporary limits and evaluations (i.e. those that expire after a specified period) used?

Are all assumptions fully documented in the criticality safety evaluation?

Can appropriate sections of the criticality safety evaluation (e.g. the process description, discussion

of contingencies and credible abnormal events, criticality safety controls) be read and understood by

the line supervision?

Criteria: Section 8.4, Independent Review

Do all criticality safety evaluations receive and independent technical peer review before approval for

use?

Does the independent review process provide assurance that engineered controls are given

preference over administrative controls where practical?

Is there a process for confirming that all credited engineered features of a system or process are in

place and meet the specifications anticipated by the evaluation prior to starting operations?

6.0 MATERIALS CONTROL

Criteria: Section 9.1, Fissile Material Movement

Are procedures in place to control the movement of fissile material between material balance areas?

Are procedures in place to control movement of fissile material within a single material balance area?

Are procedures in place to control transfers of fissile material out of the facility?

Do the procedures have requirements to verify compliance with criticality safety limits at the shipping

and receiving points of the transfer prior to performing the movement?

Is there a formal process to maintain a running log of fissile mass contained in gloveboxes, storage

arrays, etc.?

Criteria: Section 9.2, Labeling and Posting Requirements

Do fissile material labels contain all the information necessary to determine compliance to applicable

NCS controls such as fissile mass, cladding, moderators, chemical form, shape, isotopic composition,

etc.?

Are all fissile material storage areas posted as such with criticality controls clearly identified?

Can the mass and location of all fissile materials in a glovebox be determined by inspection of logs

posted on the glovebox?