Data requirement comparison between the fixed site upgrade rule guidance compendium and the Structured Assessment Approach Licensee Submittal Document

Technical Report · Mon Dec 01 04:00:00 EST 1980

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/6500878· OSTI ID:6500878

Parziale, A. A.; Sacks, I. J.

We compared the Structured Assessment Approach's (SAA) Licensee Submittal Document (LSD) with the Fixed Site Physical Protection Upgrade Rule Guidance Compendium Standard Format and Content (SFC) Guide using correlation matrices to see how well the data requirements of the SFC Guide coincided with those of a specific automated vulnerability assessment technique for fixed-site nuclear fuel cycle facilities, namely, SAA. We found that a limited SAA assessment is possible using the SFC Guide, but significant and critical safeguards vulnerabilities might be missed. Also, it was found that in some cases the organization and format of the SFC Guide input data and information made the preparation of data for the SAA somewhat awkward. 2 refs., 2 tabs.

• Research Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (USA)
• DOE Contract Number: W-7405-ENG-48
• OSTI ID: 6500878
• Report Number(s): NUREG/CR-1574; UCID-18671; ON: TI86002709
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

055001* -- Nuclear Fuels-- Safeguards
Inspection
& Accountability-- Technical Aspects
98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION
ACCOUNTING
CORRELATIONS
EVALUATION
FUEL CYCLE
MANAGEMENT
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
NUCLEAR MATERIALS DIVERSION
NUCLEAR MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
PHYSICAL PROTECTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
SAFEGUARDS