National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for documented safety analysis

  1. Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) Approved

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    The latest DSA was developed based on the new DOE standard DOE-STD-3009-2014, Preparation of Non-Reactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, and defines the safety ...

  2. CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis ...

  3. CRAD, Facility Safety- Documented Safety Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) that can be used for assessment of a contractor's Documented Safety Analysis.

  4. Preparation of Documented Safety Analysis for Decommissioning...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... for the purpose of establishing functional and performance requirements for safety ... and long-term stewardship. DOE O 430.1B, Attachment 3 Documented Safety Analysis (DSA). ...

  5. CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) | Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) January 8, 2015 Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) This Criteria Review and Approach Document (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) provides objectives, criteria,

  6. CRAD, New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    December 2, 2014 New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Criteria Review and Approach Document (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0) CRAD, New Nuclear...

  7. Assuring the quality of safety analyses and safety analysis documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. E. Johnson

    2000-05-03

    Planning, preparation, and submittal of safety analysis reports might be pursued in a manner similar to a quality-related procurement, where customer needs, expectations and acceptance criteria are established in advance. Then the product/service provider, the contractor, should apply various quality control processes to assure the desired characteristics of the product safety analysis documents. Improving the quality and acceptability to DOE of safety documents at first submittal should result in a more expeditious DOE review and approval process, thereby reducing costs of network and recycle through reviews.

  8. Assuring the Quality of Safety Analyses and Safety Analysis Documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, John Edwin

    2000-05-01

    Planning, preparation, and submittal of safety analysis reports might be pursued in a manner similar to a quality-related procurement, where customer needs, expectations and acceptance criteria are established in advance. Then the product/service provider, the contractor, should apply various quality control processes to assure the desired characteristics of the product safety analysis documents. Improving the quality and acceptability to DOE of safety documents at first submittal should result in a more expeditious DOE review and approval process, thereby reducing costs of network and recycle through reviews.

  9. CRAD, Documented Safety Analysis Development- April 23, 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (LBL Facilities) (HSS CRAD 45-58, Rev. 0)

  10. CRAD, Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis - July 25, 2014...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    4 Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (IEA CRAD 31-2, REV. 0) This Criteria Review and Approach Document (IEA CRAD 31-2, REV. 0) provides objectives, criteria, and approaches...

  11. SNF fuel retrieval sub project safety analysis document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BERGMANN, D.W.

    1999-02-24

    This safety analysis is for the SNF Fuel Retrieval (FRS) Sub Project. The FRS equipment will be added to K West and K East Basins to facilitate retrieval, cleaning and repackaging the spent nuclear fuel into Multi-Canister Overpack baskets. The document includes a hazard evaluation, identifies bounding accidents, documents analyses of the accidents and establishes safety class or safety significant equipment to mitigate accidents as needed.

  12. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2014-11-12

    This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD), DOE-STD-3009-2014, describes a method for preparing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) that is acceptable to DOE for nonreactor nuclear facilities.

  13. K West integrated water treatment system subproject safety analysis document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SEMMENS, L.S.

    1999-02-24

    This Accident Analysis evaluates unmitigated accident scenarios, and identifies Safety Significant and Safety Class structures, systems, and components for the K West Integrated Water Treatment System.

  14. WIPP Documents - Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nuclear Safety DOE/WIPP-07-3372, Revision 5b, WIPP Documented Safety Analysis Approved April 2016 The Documented Safety Analysis addresses all hazards (both radiological and nonradiological) and the controls necessary to provide adequate protection to the public, workers, and the environment. The WIPP DSA demonstrates the extent to which the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant can be operated safely with respect to workers, the public, and the environment. DOE/WIPP-07-3373, Revision 5b, WIPP Technical

  15. TA-55 Final Safety Analysis Report Comparison Document and DOE Safety Evaluation Report Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alan Bond

    2001-04-01

    This document provides an overview of changes to the currently approved TA-55 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that are included in the upgraded FSAR. The DOE Safety Evaluation Report (SER) requirements that are incorporated into the upgraded FSAR are briefly discussed to provide the starting point in the FSAR with respect to the SER requirements.

  16. CRAD, Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis- July 25, 2014 (IEA CRAD 31-2, REV. 0)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Criteria Review and Approach Document (IEA CRAD 31-2, REV. 0) provides objectives, criteria, and approaches for reviewing Nuclear Facility Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis.

  17. Planning Document for an NBSR Conversion Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diamond D. J.; Baek J.; Hanson, A.L.; Cheng, L-Y.; Brown, N.; Cuadra, A.

    2013-09-25

    The NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is a reactor-laboratory complex providing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the nation with a world-class facility for the performance of neutron-based research. The heart of this facility is the National Bureau of Standards Reactor (NBSR). The NBSR is a heavy water moderated and cooled reactor operating at 20 MW. It is fueled with high-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel elements. A Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) program is underway to convert the reactor to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This program includes the qualification of the proposed fuel, uranium and molybdenum alloy foil clad in an aluminum alloy, and the development of the fabrication techniques. This report is a planning document for the conversion Safety Analysis Report (SAR) that would be submitted to, and approved by, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before the reactor could be converted.This report follows the recommended format and content from the NRC codified in NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-power Reactors,” Chapter 18, “Highly Enriched to Low-Enriched Uranium Conversions.” The emphasis herein is on the SAR chapters that require significant changes as a result of conversion, primarily Chapter 4, Reactor Description, and Chapter 13, Safety Analysis. The document provides information on the proposed design for the LEU fuel elements and identifies what information is still missing. This document is intended to assist ongoing fuel development efforts, and to provide a platform for the development of the final conversion SAR. This report contributes directly to the reactor conversion pillar of the GTRI program, but also acts as a boundary condition for the fuel development and fuel fabrication pillars.

  18. Documented Safety Analysis for the B695 Segment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D

    2008-09-11

    This Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) was prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Building 695 (B695) Segment of the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF). The report provides comprehensive information on design and operations, including safety programs and safety structures, systems and components to address the potential process-related hazards, natural phenomena, and external hazards that can affect the public, facility workers, and the environment. Consideration is given to all modes of operation, including the potential for both equipment failure and human error. The facilities known collectively as the DWTF are used by LLNL's Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) Division to store and treat regulated wastes generated at LLNL. RHWM generally processes low-level radioactive waste with no, or extremely low, concentrations of transuranics (e.g., much less than 100 nCi/g). Wastes processed often contain only depleted uranium and beta- and gamma-emitting nuclides, e.g., {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, or {sup 3}H. The mission of the B695 Segment centers on container storage, lab-packing, repacking, overpacking, bulking, sampling, waste transfer, and waste treatment. The B695 Segment is used for storage of radioactive waste (including transuranic and low-level), hazardous, nonhazardous, mixed, and other waste. Storage of hazardous and mixed waste in B695 Segment facilities is in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). LLNL is operated by the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the Department of Energy (DOE). The B695 Segment is operated by the RHWM Division of LLNL. Many operations in the B695 Segment are performed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) operation plan, similar to commercial treatment operations with best demonstrated available technologies. The buildings of the B695 Segment were designed and built considering such operations, using proven building systems

  19. Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D

    2008-06-16

    This documented safety analysis (DSA) for the Waste Storage Facilities was developed in accordance with 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, 'Safety Basis Requirements', and utilizes the methodology outlined in DOE-STD-3009-94, Change Notice 3. The Waste Storage Facilities consist of Area 625 (A625) and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) Storage Area portion of the DWTF complex. These two areas are combined into a single DSA, as their functions as storage for radioactive and hazardous waste are essentially identical. The B695 Segment of DWTF is addressed under a separate DSA. This DSA provides a description of the Waste Storage Facilities and the operations conducted therein; identification of hazards; analyses of the hazards, including inventories, bounding releases, consequences, and conclusions; and programmatic elements that describe the current capacity for safe operations. The mission of the Waste Storage Facilities is to safely handle, store, and treat hazardous waste, transuranic (TRU) waste, low-level waste (LLW), mixed waste, combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste generated at LLNL (as well as small amounts from other DOE facilities).

  20. Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities March 2010

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2010-03-05

    This Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the Waste Storage Facilities was developed in accordance with 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, 'Safety Basis Requirements,' and utilizes the methodology outlined in DOE-STD-3009-94, Change Notice 3. The Waste Storage Facilities consist of Area 625 (A625) and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) Storage Area portion of the DWTF complex. These two areas are combined into a single DSA, as their functions as storage for radioactive and hazardous waste are essentially identical. The B695 Segment of DWTF is addressed under a separate DSA. This DSA provides a description of the Waste Storage Facilities and the operations conducted therein; identification of hazards; analyses of the hazards, including inventories, bounding releases, consequences, and conclusions; and programmatic elements that describe the current capacity for safe operations. The mission of the Waste Storage Facilities is to safely handle, store, and treat hazardous waste, transuranic (TRU) waste, low-level waste (LLW), mixed waste, combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste generated at LLNL (as well as small amounts from other DOE facilities).

  1. CRAD, New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements- December 2, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Criteria Review and Approach Document (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0)

  2. Processing Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules and Approval of Alternative Methods for Documented Safety Analysis

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    STD-1083-2009 June 2009 DOE STANDARD PROCESSING EXEMPTIONS TO NUCLEAR SAFETY RULES AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Page at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds DOE-STD-1083-2009 iii FOREWORD 1. This

  3. DOE Standard 3009-2014, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, Roll Out Training

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Nuclear Safety is performing a series of site visits to provide roll-out training and assistance to Program and Site Offices and their contractors on effective implementation of the new revision to DOE Standard 3009-2014, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis.

  4. Complete Experiment Safety Documentation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Complete Experiment Safety Documentation Print User Safety Overview Upon receiving beam time: 1. Log in to ALSHub to complete an Experiment Safety Sheet (ESS). The ALS This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it is available to support you through this process. Please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it at the email link or at (510) 486-7222 at if you have questions or need more

  5. Complete Experiment Safety Documentation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Complete Experiment Safety Documentation Print User Safety Overview Upon receiving beam time: 1. Log in to ALSHub to complete an Experiment Safety Sheet (ESS). The ALS This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it is available to support you through this process. Please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it at the email link or at (510) 486-7222 at if you have questions or need more

  6. Complete Experiment Safety Documentation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Complete Experiment Safety Documentation Print User Safety Overview Upon receiving beam time: 1. Log in to ALSHub to complete an Experiment Safety Sheet (ESS). The ALS This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it is available to support you through this process. Please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it at the email link or at (510) 486-7222 at if you have questions or need more

  7. Complete Experiment Safety Documentation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Complete Experiment Safety Documentation Print User Safety Overview Upon receiving beam time: 1. Log in to ALSHub to complete an Experiment Safety Sheet (ESS). The ALS This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it is available to support you through this process. Please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it at the email link or at (510) 486-7222 at if you have questions or need more

  8. SSC Safety Review Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Toohig, T.E.

    1988-11-01

    The safety strategy of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Central Design Group (CDG) is to mitigate potential hazards to personnel, as far as possible, through appropriate measures in the design and engineering of the facility. The Safety Review Document identifies, on the basis of the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) and related studies, potential hazards inherent in the SSC project independent of its site. Mitigative measures in the design of facilities and in the structuring of laboratory operations are described for each of the hazards identified.

  9. Canister storage building (CSB) safety analysis report phase 3: Safety analysis documentation supporting CSB construction

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Garvin, L.J.

    1997-04-28

    The Canister Storage Building (CSB) will be constructed in the 200 East Area of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site. The CSB will be used to stage and store spent nuclear fuel (SNF) removed from the Hanford Site K Basins. The objective of this chapter is to describe the characteristics of the site on which the CSB will be located. This description will support the hazard analysis and accident analyses in Chapter 3.0. The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the CSB design criteria, the design's compliance with the applicable criteria, and the basis for authorization to proceed with construction of the CSB.

  10. Preparation of Documented Safety Analysis for Interim Operations at DOE Nuclear Facilities

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    3011-2016 January 2016 DOE STANDARD PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR INTERIM OPERATIONS AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-3011-2016 ii FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD) has been approved to be used by DOE, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, and their contractors. 2. Beneficial comments

  11. Final safety analysis report for the Galileo Mission: Volume 1, Reference design document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-05-01

    The Galileo mission uses nuclear power sources called Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) to provide the spacecraft's primary electrical power. Because these generators contain nuclear material, a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) is required. A preliminary SAR and an updated SAR were previously issued that provided an evolving status report on the safety analysis. As a result of the Challenger accident, the launch dates for both Galileo and Ulysses missions were later rescheduled for November 1989 and October 1990, respectively. The decision was made by agreement between the DOE and the NASA to have a revised safety evaluation and report (FSAR) prepared on the basis of these revised vehicle accidents and environments. The results of this latest revised safety evaluation are presented in this document (Galileo FSAR). Volume I, this document, provides the background design information required to understand the analyses presented in Volumes II and III. It contains descriptions of the RTGs, the Galileo spacecraft, the Space Shuttle, the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), the trajectory and flight characteristics including flight contingency modes, and the launch site. There are two appendices in Volume I which provide detailed material properties for the RTG.

  12. LESSONS LEARNED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE HANFORD SWOC MASTER DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS (MDSA) & IMPLEMENTATION VALIDATION REVIEW (IVR)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MORENO, M.R.

    2004-04-02

    DOE set clear expectations on a cost-effective approach for achieving compliance with the Nuclear Safety Management requirements (20 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Rule), which ensured long-term benefit to Hanford, via issuance of a nuclear safety strategy in February 2003. To facilitate implementation of these expectations, tools were developed to streamline and standardize safety analysis and safety document development with the goal of a shorter and more predictable DOE approval cycle. A Hanford Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment Handbook (SARAH) was approved to standardize methodologies for development of safety analyses. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (RADIDOSE) was approved for the evaluation of radiological consequences for accident scenarios often postulated at Hanford. Standard safety management program chapters were approved for use as a means of compliance with the programmatic chapters of DOE-STD-3009, ''Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports''. An in-process review was developed between DOE and the Contractor to facilitate DOE approval and provide early course correction. The new Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) developed to address the operations of four facilities within the Solid Waste Operations Complex (SWOC) necessitated development of an Implementation Validation Review (IVR) process. The IVR process encompasses the following objectives: safety basis controls and requirements are adequately incorporated into appropriate facility documents and work instructions, facility personnel are knowledgeable of controls and requirements, and the DSA/TSR controls have been implemented. Based on DOE direction and safety analysis tools, four waste management nuclear facilities were integrated into one safety basis document. With successful completion of implementation of this safety document, lessons-learned from the in-process review, safety analysis tools and IVR process were documented for future action

  13. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    9-2014, Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis by Website Administrator This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD), DOE-STD-3009-2014, describes...

  14. Final safety analysis report for the Galileo Mission: Volume 2, Book 2: Accident model document: Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-12-15

    This section of the Accident Model Document (AMD) presents the appendices which describe the various analyses that have been conducted for use in the Galileo Final Safety Analysis Report II, Volume II. Included in these appendices are the approaches, techniques, conditions and assumptions used in the development of the analytical models plus the detailed results of the analyses. Also included in these appendices are summaries of the accidents and their associated probabilities and environment models taken from the Shuttle Data Book (NSTS-08116), plus summaries of the several segments of the recent GPHS safety test program. The information presented in these appendices is used in Section 3.0 of the AMD to develop the Failure/Abort Sequence Trees (FASTs) and to determine the fuel releases (source terms) resulting from the potential Space Shuttle/IUS accidents throughout the missions.

  15. Enterprise Assessments, Review of the Hanford Site Sludge Treatment Project Engineered Container Retrieval and Transfer System Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis, Revision 00- April 2015

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Review of Hanford Site Sludge Treatment Project Engineering Container Retrieval and Transfer System Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis

  16. Documentation of Hanford Site independent review of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herborn, D.I.

    1992-10-01

    This manual describes the overall WHC safety analysis process in terms of requirements for safety analyses, responsibilities of the various contributing organizations, and required reviews and approvals for the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant.

  17. Implementing 10 CFR 830 at the FEMP Silos: Nuclear Health and Safety Plans as Documented Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fisk, Patricia; Rutherford, Lavon

    2003-06-01

    The objective of the Silos Project at the Fernald Closure Project (FCP) is to safely remediate high-grade uranium ore residues (Silos 1 and 2) and metal oxide residues (Silo 3). The evolution of Documented Safety Analyses (DSAs) for these facilities has reflected the changes in remediation processes. The final stage in silos DSAs is an interpretation of 10 CFR 830 Safe Harbor Requirements that combines a Health and Safety Plan with nuclear safety requirements. This paper will address the development of a Nuclear Health and Safety Plan, or N-HASP.

  18. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Transuranic Waste Facility 90% Draft Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Submittals – EA-LANL-2015-07-07

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Operational Awareness Record for the Review of the Transuranic Waste Facility 90% Draft Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Submittals

  19. Documented Safety Analysis Addendum for the Neutron Radiography Reactor Facility Core Conversion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2009-05-01

    The Neutron Radiography Reactor Facility (NRAD) is a Training, Research, Isotope Production, General Atomics (TRIGA) reactor which was installed in the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Hot Fuels Examination Facility (HFEF) at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) in the mid 1970s. The facility provides researchers the capability to examine both irradiated and non-irradiated materials in support of reactor fuel and components programs through non-destructive neutron radiography examination. The facility has been used in the past as one facet of a suite of reactor fuels and component examination facilities available to researchers at the INL and throughout the DOE complex. The facility has also served various commercial research activities in addition to the DOE research and development support. The reactor was initially constructed using Fuel Lifetime Improvement Program (FLIP)- type highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel obtained from the dismantled Puerto Rico Nuclear Center (PRNC) reactor. In accordance with international non-proliferation agreements, the NRAD core will be converted to a low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel and will continue to utilize the PRNC control rods, control rod drives, startup source, and instrument console as was previously used with the HEU core. The existing NRAD Safety Analysis Report (SAR) was created and maintained in the preferred format of the day, combining sections of both DOE-STD-3009 and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.70. An addendum was developed to cover the refueling and reactor operation with the LEU core. This addendum follows the existing SAR format combining required formats from both the DOE and NRC. This paper discusses the project to successfully write a compliant and approved addendum to the existing safety basis documents.

  20. Documentation of Hanford Site independent review of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herborn, D.I.

    1991-10-01

    The requirements for Westinghouse Hanford independent review of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) are contained in Section 1.0, Subsection 4.3 of WCH-CM-4-46. Specifically, this manual requires the following: (1) Formal functional reviews of the HWVP PSAR by the future operating organization (HWVP Operations), and the independent review organizations (HWVP and Environmental Safety Assurance, Environmental Assurance, and Quality Assurance); and (2) Review and approval of the HWVP PSAR by the Tank Waste Disposal (TWD) Subcouncil of the Safety and Environmental Advisory Council (SEAC), which provides independent advice to the Westinghouse Hanford President and executives on matters of safety and environmental protection. 7 refs.

  1. Reactor operation safety information document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-01-01

    The report contains a reactor facility description which includes K, P, and L reactor sites, structures, operating systems, engineered safety systems, support systems, and process and effluent monitoring systems; an accident analysis section which includes cooling system anomalies, radioactive materials releases, and anticipated transients without scram; a summary of onsite doses from design basis accidents; severe accident analysis (reactor core disruption); a description of operating contractor organization and emergency planning; and a summary of reactor safety evolution. (MB)

  2. Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Documents (Documented Safety Analyses and Technical Safety Requirements)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DOE-STD-1104-96 November 2005 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 3 Date December 2005 DOE STANDARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFETY BASIS DOCUMENTS (DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES AND TECHNICAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS) U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information

  3. Documentation of Hanford Site independent review of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herborn, D.I.

    1992-10-01

    This manual describes the overall WHC safety analysis process in terms of requirements for safety analyses, responsibilities of the various contributing organizations, and required reviews and approvals for the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant.

  4. WIPP Documents - Quality Assurance and Safety

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Quality Assurance and Safety Quality Assurance Program Document DOE/CBFO-94-1012 Rev. 12 Effective date: 8/15

  5. Documentation of Hanford Site independent review of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Revision 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herborn, D.I.

    1993-11-01

    Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) is the Integrating Contractor for the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) Project, and as such is responsible for preparation of the HWVP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). The HWVP PSAR was prepared pursuant to the requirements for safety analyses contained in US Department of Energy (DOE) Orders 4700.1, Project Management System (DOE 1987); 5480.5, Safety of Nuclear Facilities (DOE 1986a); 5481.lB, Safety Analysis and Review System (DOE 1986b) which was superseded by DOE order 5480-23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, for nuclear facilities effective April 30, 1992 (DOE 1992); and 6430.lA, General Design Criteria (DOE 1989). The WHC procedures that, in large part, implement these DOE requirements are contained in WHC-CM-4-46, Nonreactor Facility Safety Analysis Manual. This manual describes the overall WHC safety analysis process in terms of requirements for safety analyses, responsibilities of the various contributing organizations, and required reviews and approvals.

  6. Transportation Safety Excellence in Operations Through Improved Transportation Safety Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dr. Michael A. Lehto; MAL

    2007-05-01

    A recent accomplishment of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) Nuclear Safety analysis group was to obtain DOE-ID approval for the inter-facility transfer of greater-than-Hazard-Category-3 quantity radioactive/fissionable waste in Department of Transportation (DOT) Type A drums at MFC. This accomplishment supported excellence in operations through safety analysis by better integrating nuclear safety requirements with waste requirements in the Transportation Safety Document (TSD); reducing container and transport costs; and making facility operations more efficient. The MFC TSD governs and controls the inter-facility transfer of greater-than-Hazard-Category-3 radioactive and/or fissionable materials in non-DOT approved containers. Previously, the TSD did not include the capability to transfer payloads of greater-than-Hazard-Category-3 radioactive and/or fissionable materials using DOT Type A drums. Previous practice was to package the waste materials to less-than-Hazard-Category-3 quantities when loading DOT Type A drums for transfer out of facilities to reduce facility waste accumulations. This practice allowed operations to proceed, but resulted in drums being loaded to less than the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste acceptance criteria (WAC) waste limits, which was not cost effective or operations friendly. An improved and revised safety analysis was used to gain DOE-ID approval for adding this container configuration to the MFC TSD safety basis. In the process of obtaining approval of the revised safety basis, safety analysis practices were used effectively to directly support excellence in operations. Several factors contributed to the success of MFCs effort to obtain approval for the use of DOT Type A drums, including two practices that could help in future safety basis changes at other facilities. 1) The process of incorporating the DOT Type A drums into the TSD at MFC helped to better integrate nuclear safety

  7. Final safety analysis report for the Galileo mission: Volume 3 (Book 2), Nuclear risk analysis document: Appendices: Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-01-25

    It is the purpose of the NRAD to provide an analysis of the range of potential consequences of accidents which have been identified that are associated with the launching and deployment of the Galileo mission spacecraft. The specific consequences analyzed are those associated with the possible release of radioactive material (fuel) of the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). They are in terms of radiation doses to people and areas of deposition of radioactive material. These consequence analyses can be used in several ways. One way is to identify the potential range of consequences which might have to be dealt with if there were to be an accident with a release of fuel, so as to assure that, given such an accident, the health and safety of the public will be reasonably protected. Another use of the information, in conjunction with accident and release probabilities, is to estimate the risks associated with the mission. That is, most space launches occur without incident. Given an accident, the most probable result relative to the RTGs is complete containment of the radioactive material. Only a small fraction of accidents might result in a release of fuel and subsequent radiological consequences. The combination of probability with consequence is risk, which can be compared to other human and societal risks to assure that no undue risks are implied by undertaking the mission. Book 2 contains eight appendices.

  8. K Basin safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Porten, D.R.; Crowe, R.D.

    1994-12-16

    The purpose of this accident safety analysis is to document in detail, analyses whose results were reported in summary form in the K Basins Safety Analysis Report WHC-SD-SNF-SAR-001. The safety analysis addressed the potential for release of radioactive and non-radioactive hazardous material located in the K Basins and their supporting facilities. The safety analysis covers the hazards associated with normal K Basin fuel storage and handling operations, fuel encapsulation, sludge encapsulation, and canister clean-up and disposal. After a review of the Criticality Safety Evaluation of the K Basin activities, the following postulated events were evaluated: Crane failure and casks dropped into loadout pit; Design basis earthquake; Hypothetical loss of basin water accident analysis; Combustion of uranium fuel following dryout; Crane failure and cask dropped onto floor of transfer area; Spent ion exchange shipment for burial; Hydrogen deflagration in ion exchange modules and filters; Release of Chlorine; Power availability and reliability; and Ashfall.

  9. Events Beyond Design Safety Basis Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Safety Alert provides information on a safety concern related to the identification and mitigation of events that may fall outside those analyzed in the documented safety analysis. [Safety Bulletin 2011-01

  10. Canister Storage Building (CSB) Design Basis Accident Analysis Documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE, R.D.

    1999-09-09

    This document provides the detailed accident analysis to support ''HNF-3553, Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety, Analysis Report, Annex A,'' ''Canister Storage Building Final Safety Analysis Report.'' All assumptions, parameters, and models used to provide the analysis of the design basis accidents are documented to support the conclusions in the Canister Storage Building Final Safety Analysis Report.

  11. Canister Storage Building (CSB) Design Basis Accident Analysis Documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE, R.D.; PIEPHO, M.G.

    2000-03-23

    This document provided the detailed accident analysis to support HNF-3553, Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety Analysis Report, Annex A, ''Canister Storage Building Final Safety Analysis Report''. All assumptions, parameters, and models used to provide the analysis of the design basis accidents are documented to support the conclusions in the Canister Storage Building Final Safety Analysis Report.

  12. Canister storage building design basis accident analysis documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KOPELIC, S.D.

    1999-02-25

    This document provides the detailed accident analysis to support HNF-3553, Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety Analysis Report, Annex A, ''Canister Storage Building Final Safety Analysis Report.'' All assumptions, parameters, and models used to provide the analysis of the design basis accidents are documented to support the conclusions in the Canister Storage Building Final Safety Analysis Report.

  13. Safety System Oversight Staffing Analysis - Example | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Staffing Analysis - Example Safety System Oversight Staffing Analysis - Example SSO Alternate Staffing Analysis - Example Filled Spreadsheet. (23 KB) More Documents & Publications ...

  14. Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor Testing; Phase...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor Testing Phase I: Non-Flammable Mixtures R. ... Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor ...

  15. Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor Testing; Phase...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor Testing Phase I: Non-Flammable Mixtures R. ... DE-AC36-99-GO10337 Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor Testing Phase I: ...

  16. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - February...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - February 2011 More Documents & Publications Monthly Analysis of...

  17. Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Design Basis Accident Analysis Documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PIEPHO, M.G.

    1999-10-20

    This document provides the detailed accident analysis to support HNF-3553, Annex B, Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety Analysis Report, ''Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).'' All assumptions, parameters and models used to provide the analysis of the design basis accidents are documented to support the conclusions in the FSAR.

  18. Criteria Document for B-plant Surveillance and Maintenance Phase Safety Basis Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SCHWEHR, B.A.

    1999-08-31

    This document is required by the Project Hanford Managing Contractor (PHMC) procedure, HNF-PRO-705, Safety Basis Planning, Documentation, Review, and Approval. This document specifies the criteria that shall be in the B Plant surveillance and maintenance phase safety basis in order to obtain approval of the DOE-RL. This CD describes the criteria to be addressed in the S&M Phase safety basis for the deactivated Waste Fractionization Facility (B Plant) on the Hanford Site in Washington state. This criteria document describes: the document type and format that will be used for the S&M Phase safety basis, the requirements documents that will be invoked for the document development, the deactivated condition of the B Plant facility, and the scope of issues to be addressed in the S&M Phase safety basis document.

  19. Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Exposure at the Hanford Site June 14, 2005 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Safety and Ecology Corporation - EA-2005-03 Issued to Safety and Ecology Corporation related to a 10 CFR...

  20. Transient Safety Analysis of Fast Spectrum TRU Burning LWRs with...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Transient Safety Analysis of Fast Spectrum TRU Burning LWRs with Internal Blankets Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Transient Safety Analysis of Fast Spectrum TRU Burning ...

  1. Southern Great Plains Safety Orientation (Program Document) ...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Close Cite: Bibtex Format Close 0 pages in this document matching the terms "" Search For Terms: Enter terms in the toolbar above to search the full text of this document for ...

  2. Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Documents

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2014-12-19

    This Standard describes a framework and the criteria to be used for approval of (1) safety basis documents, as required by 10 Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) 830, Nuclear Safety Management, and (2) safety design basis documents, as required by Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD)-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process.

  3. Operational Safety Requirements and Operating Specification Documentation compliance instrumentation matrices: 200 East Area Tank Farms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Story, D.R.

    1995-03-01

    This document contains information about matrices complied of instrumentation used to comply with the existing Operational Safety Requirements from Safety Analysis Reports and Operating, Specification Documentation requirements for 200 East Area Tank Farms. These matrices contain the primary instrumentation needed to comply with each OSR and/or OSD requirement as well as any backup instrumentation that may be used should the primary device be out of service. The referenced matrices are provided as attachments to this document.

  4. DOE's Safety Bulletin No. 2011-01, Events Beyond Design Safety Basis Analysis, March 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    PURPOSE This Safety Alert provides information on a safety concern related to the identification and mitigation of events that may fall outside those analyzed in the documented safety analysis.

  5. Environment, Health, and Safety - Construction Subcontractors Documents |

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Information Administration (EIA) Environment Glossary › FAQS › Overview Data Summary Electric Power Plant Environmental International Emissions All Environment Data Reports Analysis & Projections All Reports ‹ environment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients Release Date: February 2, 2016 | Also available in spreadsheet Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients by Fuel Pounds CO2 Kilograms CO2 Pounds CO2 Kilograms CO2 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Factors: Per Unit of Volume or Mass Volume or

  6. Development of Onsite Transportation Safety Documents for Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frank Hand, Willard Thomas, Frank Sciacca, Manny Negrete, Susan Kelley

    2008-05-08

    Department of Energy (DOE) Orders require each DOE site to develop onsite transportation safety documents (OTSDs). The Nevada Test Site approach divided all onsite transfers into two groups with each group covered by a standalone OTSD identified as Non-Nuclear and Nuclear. The Non-Nuclear transfers involve all radioactive hazardous material in less than Hazard Category (HC)-3 quantities and all chemically hazardous materials. The Nuclear transfers involve all radioactive material equal to or greater than HC-3 quantities and radioactive material mated with high explosives regardless of quantity. Both OTSDs comply with DOE O 460.1B requirements. The Nuclear OTSD also complies with DOE O 461.1A requirements and includes a DOE-STD-3009 approach to hazard analysis (HA) and accident analysis as needed. All Nuclear OTSD proposed transfers were determined to be non-equivalent and a methodology was developed to determine if equivalent safety to a fully compliant Department of Transportation (DOT) transfer was achieved. For each HA scenario, three hypothetical transfers were evaluated: a DOT-compliant, uncontrolled, and controlled transfer. Equivalent safety is demonstrated when the risk level for each controlled transfer is equal to or less than the corresponding DOT-compliant transfer risk level. In this comparison the typical DOE-STD-3009 risk matrix was modified to reflect transportation requirements. Design basis conditions (DBCs) were developed for each non-equivalent transfer. Initial DBCs were based solely upon the amount of material present. Route-, transfer-, and site-specific conditions were evaluated and the initial DBCs revised as needed. Final DBCs were evaluated for each transfers packaging and its contents.

  7. Processing Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules and Approval of Alternative Methods for Documented Safety Analyses

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    083-2009 June 2009 Reaffirmation 2015 DOE STANDARD PROCESSING EXEMPTIONS TO NUCLEAR SAFETY RULES AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1083-2009 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Page at http://energy.gov/ehss/services/nuclear-safety/department-energy-technical-

  8. Hanford safety analysis and risk assessment handbook (SARAH)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L.J.

    2003-01-20

    The purpose of the Hanford Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment Handbook (SARAH) is to support the development of safety basis documentation for Hazard Category 1,2, and 3 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. SARAH describes currently acceptable methodology for development of a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and derivation of technical safety requirements (TSR) based on 10 CFR 830, ''Nuclear Safety Management,'' Subpart B, ''Safety Basis Requirements,'' and provides data to ensure consistency in approach.

  9. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - January 2011...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - January 2011 More Documents & Publications Monthly Analysis of...

  10. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - May 2011...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - May 2011 More Documents & Publications Monthly Analysis of...

  11. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - April 2011...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - April 2011 More Documents & Publications Monthly Analysis of...

  12. Safety study application guide. Safety Analysis Report Update Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-07-01

    Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., (Energy Systems) is committed to performing and documenting safety analyses for facilities it manages for the Department of Energy (DOE). Included are analyses of existing facilities done under the aegis of the Safety Analysis Report Upgrade Program, and analyses of new and modified facilities. A graded approach is used wherein the level of analysis and documentation for each facility is commensurate with the magnitude of the hazard(s), the complexity of the facility and the stage of the facility life cycle. Safety analysis reports (SARs) for hazard Category 1 and 2 facilities are usually detailed and extensive because these categories are associated with public health and safety risk. SARs for Category 3 are normally much less extensive because the risk to public health and safety is slight. At Energy Systems, safety studies are the name given to SARs for Category 3 (formerly {open_quotes}low{close_quotes}) facilities. Safety studies are the appropriate instrument when on-site risks are limited to irreversible consequences to a few people, and off-site consequences are limited to reversible consequences to a few people. This application guide provides detailed instructions for performing safety studies that meet the requirements of DOE Orders 5480.22, {open_quotes}Technical Safety Requirements,{close_quotes} and 5480.23, {open_quotes}Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.{close_quotes} A seven-chapter format has been adopted for safety studies. This format allows for discussion of all the items required by DOE Order 5480.23 and for the discussions to be readily traceable to the listing in the order. The chapter titles are: (1) Introduction and Summary, (2) Site, (3) Facility Description, (4) Safety Basis, (5) Hazardous Material Management, (6) Management, Organization, and Institutional Safety Provisions, and (7) Accident Analysis.

  13. HANFORD SAFETY ANALYSIS & RISK ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK (SARAH)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    EVANS, C B

    2004-12-21

    The purpose of the Hanford Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment Handbook (SARAH) is to support the development of safety basis documentation for Hazard Category 2 and 3 (HC-2 and 3) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 830, ''Nuclear Safety Management''. Subpart B, ''Safety Basis Requirements.'' Consistent with DOE-STD-3009-94, Change Notice 2, ''Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses'' (STD-3009), and DOE-STD-3011-2002, ''Guidance for Preparation of Basis for Interim Operation (BIO) Documents'' (STD-3011), the Hanford SARAH describes methodology for performing a safety analysis leading to development of a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and derivation of Technical Safety Requirements (TSR), and provides the information necessary to ensure a consistently rigorous approach that meets DOE expectations. The DSA and TSR documents, together with the DOE-issued Safety Evaluation Report (SER), are the basic components of facility safety basis documentation. For HC-2 or 3 nuclear facilities in long-term surveillance and maintenance (S&M), for decommissioning activities, where source term has been eliminated to the point that only low-level, residual fixed contamination is present, or for environmental remediation activities outside of a facility structure, DOE-STD-1120-98, ''Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities'' (STD-1120), may serve as the basis for the DSA. HC-2 and 3 environmental remediation sites also are subject to the hazard analysis methodologies of this standard.

  14. Margin of Safety Definition and Examples Used in Safety Basis Documents and the USQ Process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beaulieu, R. A.

    2013-10-03

    The Nuclear Safety Management final rule, 10 CFR 830, provides an undefined term, margin of safety (MOS). Safe harbors listed in 10 CFR 830, Table 2, such as DOE-STD-3009 use but do not define the term. This lack of definition has created the need for the definition. This paper provides a definition of MOS and documents examples of MOS as applied in a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approved safety basis for an existing nuclear facility. If we understand what MOS looks like regarding Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) parameters, then it helps us compare against other parameters that do not involve a MOS. This paper also documents parameters that are not MOS. These criteria could be used to determine if an MOS exists in safety basis documents. This paper helps DOE, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its contractors responsible for the safety basis improve safety basis documents and the unreviewed safety question (USQ) process with respect to MOS.

  15. Solid waste burial grounds interim safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saito, G.H.

    1994-10-01

    This Interim Safety Analysis document supports the authorization basis for the interim operation and restrictions on interim operations for the near-surface land disposal of solid waste in the Solid Waste Burial Grounds. The Solid Waste Burial Grounds Interim Safety Basis supports the upgrade progress for the safety analysis report and the technical safety requirements for the operations in the Solid Waste Burial Grounds. Accident safety analysis scenarios have been analyzed based on the significant events identified in the preliminary hazards analysis. The interim safety analysis provides an evaluation of the operations in the Solid Waste Burial Grounds to determine if the radiological and hazardous material exposures will be acceptable from an overall health and safety standpoint to the worker, the onsite personnel, the public, and the environment.

  16. Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Documents

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1104-2014 December 2014 Superseding DOE-STD-1104-2009 DOE STANDARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFETY BASIS AND SAFETY DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1104-2014 i FOREWORD 1. This Standard describes a framework and the criteria to be used for approval of (1) safety basis documents, as required by 10 Code of Federal Regulation

  17. Hanford Site Wide Transportation Safety Document [SEC 1 Thru 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MCCALL, D L

    2002-06-01

    This safety evaluation report (SER) documents the basis for the US Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) to approve the Hanford Sitewide Transportation Safety Document (TSD) for onsite Transportation and Packaging (T&P) at Hanford. Hanford contractors, on behalf of DOE-RL, prepared and submitted the Hanford Sitewide Transportation Safety Document, DOE/RL-2001-0036, Revision 0, (DOE/RL 2001), dated October 4, 2001, which is referred to throughout this report as the TSD. In the context of the TSD, Hanford onsite shipments are the activities of moving hazardous materials, substances, and wastes between DOE facilities and over roadways where public access is controlled or restricted and includes intra-area and inter-area movements. The TSD sets forth requirements and standards for onsite shipment of radioactive and hazardous materials and wastes within the confines of the Hanford Site on roadways where public access is restricted by signs, barricades, fences, or other means including road closures and moving convoys controlled by Hanford Site security forces.

  18. Advanced Photon Source experimental beamline Safety Assessment Document: Addendum to the Advanced Photon Source Accelerator Systems Safety Assessment Document (APS-3.2.2.1.0)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-01-01

    This Safety Assessment Document (SAD) addresses commissioning and operation of the experimental beamlines at the Advanced Photon Source (APS). Purpose of this document is to identify and describe the hazards associated with commissioning and operation of these beamlines and to document the measures taken to minimize these hazards and mitigate the hazard consequences. The potential hazards associated with the commissioning and operation of the APS facility have been identified and analyzed. Physical and administrative controls mitigate identified hazards. No hazard exists in this facility that has not been previously encountered and successfully mitigated in other accelerator and synchrotron radiation research facilities. This document is an updated version of the APS Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). During the review of the PSAR in February 1990, the APS was determined to be a Low Hazard Facility. On June 14, 1993, the Acting Director of the Office of Energy Research endorsed the designation of the APS as a Low Hazard Facility, and this Safety Assessment Document supports that designation.

  19. Preparation of Safety Basis Documents for Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facilities

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    5506-2007 April 2007 DOE STANDARD Preparation of Safety Basis Documents for Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facilities U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 AREA-SAFT DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-5506-2007 ii Available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Site at Http://tis.eh.doe.gov/techstds/ DOE-STD-5506-2007 iii Foreword This Standard provides analytical assumptions and methods, as well as hazard controls

  20. SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR PRECLOSURE SAFETY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    E.N. Lindner

    2004-12-03

    evaluated and identified. This document supersedes the seismic classifications, assignments, and computations in ''Seismic Analysis for Preclosure Safety'' (BSC 2004a).

  1. Cold Vacuum Drying facility design basis accident analysis documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE, R.D.

    2000-08-08

    This document provides the detailed accident analysis to support HNF-3553, Annex B, Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), ''Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Final Safety Analysis Report.'' All assumptions, parameters, and models used to provide the analysis of the design basis accidents are documented to support the conclusions in the FSAR. The calculations in this document address the design basis accidents (DBAs) selected for analysis in HNF-3553, ''Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety Analysis Report'', Annex B, ''Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Final Safety Analysis Report.'' The objective is to determine the quantity of radioactive particulate available for release at any point during processing at the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) and to use that quantity to determine the amount of radioactive material released during the DBAs. The radioactive material released is used to determine dose consequences to receptors at four locations, and the dose consequences are compared with the appropriate evaluation guidelines and release limits to ascertain the need for preventive and mitigative controls.

  2. Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Documents

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1104-2009 May 2009 Superseding DOE-STD-1104-96 DOE STANDARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFETY BASIS AND SAFETY DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1104-2009 ii Available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards web page at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/ DOE-STD-1104-2009 iii CONTENTS FOREWORD

  3. Furnace Standard Analysis Discussion Document

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Standard * Using field intelligence and thoughtful analysis - assess and quantify the effects a regional or national condensing standard for natural gas furnaces could have on energy efficiency and environmental objectives.  Provide insight on the potential impact limiting customer choices for heating systems could have on overall energy usage, cost, and carbon emissions outcomes.  Provide all data, models and sources of information to DOE and other stakeholders, to gain their confidence

  4. FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Occupational Safety |...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Occupational Safety FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Occupational Safety Functional Area Qualification Standard Gap Analysis Qualification Cards outline the differences ...

  5. SYNTHESIS OF SAFETY ANALYSIS AND FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coutts, D

    2007-04-17

    Successful implementation of both the nuclear safety program and fire protection program is best accomplished using a coordinated process that relies on sound technical approaches. When systematically prepared, the documented safety analysis (DSA) and fire hazard analysis (FHA) can present a consistent technical basis that streamlines implementation. If not coordinated, the DSA and FHA can present inconsistent conclusions, which can create unnecessary confusion and can promulgate a negative safety perception. This paper will compare the scope, purpose, and analysis techniques for DSAs and FHAs. It will also consolidate several lessons-learned papers on this topic, which were prepared in the 1990s.

  6. Integration of Safety Culture Attributes into the EFCOG WP&C Program Guideline Document

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Slide Presentation by Steele Coddington, NSTec, Las Vegas and John McDonald, WRPS, Hanford. Integration of Safety Culture Attributes into EFCOG Work Planning and Control Guidance Document.

  7. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - July 2012 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 2 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - July 2012 July 2012 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of July 2012 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - July 2012 (1.71 MB) More Documents

  8. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - July 2013 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 3 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - July 2013 July 2013 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of July 2013 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - July 2013 (2.69 MB) More Documents

  9. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - March 2013 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 3 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - March 2013 March 2013 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of March 2013 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - March 2013 (2.61 MB) More Documents

  10. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Documented Safety Analysis

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    WHB-01-001a involves more drums than CH-WHB-01-001a (i.e., 218 versus

  11. safety analysis report

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering ...

  12. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Transuranic Waste Facility 90% Draft Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Submittals … EA-LANL-2015-07-07

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Plutonium Facility Restart of Fissile Material Operations - January 2016 | Department of Energy Plutonium Facility Restart of Fissile Material Operations - January 2016 Enterprise Assessments Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Plutonium Facility Restart of Fissile Material Operations - January 2016 January 2016 Review of the Plutonium Facility Restart of Fissile Material Operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and

  13. Worker Safety and Health Enforcement Documents | Department of...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ... Worker Safety and Health Enforcement Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Los Alamos National Security, LLC June 3, 2015 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Babcock & Wilcox ...

  14. Corporate Analysis of DOE Safety Performance

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS), Office of Analysis develops analysis tools and performance dashboards, and conducts analysis of DOE safety performance corporately and on a variety of specific environment, safety and health topics.

  15. Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Treatment Building Safety Information Document (SID)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fatell, L.B.; Woolsey, G.B.

    1993-04-15

    This Safety Information Document (SID) provides a description and analysis of operations for the Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Facility Treatment Building (the Treatment Building). The Treatment Building has been classified as a moderate hazard facility, and the level of analysis performed and the methodology used are based on that classification. Preliminary design of the Treatment Building has identified the need for two separate buildings for waste treatment processes. The term Treatment Building applies to all these facilities. The evaluation of safety for the Treatment Building is accomplished in part by the identification of hazards associated with the facility and the analysis of the facility`s response to postulated events involving those hazards. The events are analyzed in terms of the facility features that minimize the causes of such events, the quantitative determination of the consequences, and the ability of the facility to cope with each event should it occur. The SID presents the methodology, assumptions, and results of the systematic evaluation of hazards associated with operation of the Treatment Building. The SID also addresses the spectrum of postulated credible events, involving those hazards, that could occur. Facility features important to safety are identified and discussed in the SID. The SID identifies hazards and reports the analysis of the spectrum of credible postulated events that can result in the following consequences: Personnel exposure to radiation; Radioactive material release to the environment; Personnel exposure to hazardous chemicals; Hazardous chemical release to the environment; Events leading to an onsite/offsite fatality; and Significant damage to government property. The SID addresses the consequences to the onsite and offsite populations resulting from postulated credible events and the safety features in place to control and mitigate the consequences.

  16. Preparation plan, preliminary safety documentation, tank farm restoration and safe operations, Project W-314

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kidder, R.J.

    1994-10-20

    This preparation plan is developed to establish planning for the preliminary safety documentation for Project W-314, {open_quotes}Tank Farm Restoration and Safe Operations.{close_quotes}

  17. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    The following provides a summary of the specific issues addressed in this FY-95 Annual Update as they relate to the CH TRU safety bases: Executive Summary; Site Characteristics; Principal Design and Safety Criteria; Facility Design and Operation; Hazards and Accident Analysis; Derivation of Technical Safety Requirements; Radiological and Hazardous Material Protection; Institutional Programs; Quality Assurance; and Decontamination and Decommissioning. The System Design Descriptions`` (SDDS) for the WIPP were reviewed and incorporated into Chapter 3, Principal Design and Safety Criteria and Chapter 4, Facility Design and Operation. This provides the most currently available final engineering design information on waste emplacement operations throughout the disposal phase up to the point of permanent closure. Also, the criteria which define the TRU waste to be accepted for disposal at the WIPP facility were summarized in Chapter 3 based on the WAC for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.`` This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) documents the safety analyses that develop and evaluate the adequacy of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Contact-Handled Transuranic Wastes (WIPP CH TRU) safety bases necessary to ensure the safety of workers, the public and the environment from the hazards posed by WIPP waste handling and emplacement operations during the disposal phase and hazards associated with the decommissioning and decontamination phase. The analyses of the hazards associated with the long-term (10,000 year) disposal of TRU and TRU mixed waste, and demonstration of compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 191, Subpart B and 40 CFR 268.6 will be addressed in detail in the WIPP Final Certification Application scheduled for submittal in October 1996 (40 CFR 191) and the No-Migration Variance Petition (40 CFR 268.6) scheduled for submittal in June 1996. Section 5.4, Long-Term Waste Isolation Assessment summarizes the current status of the assessment.

  18. Safety analysis report for the Waste Storage Facility. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bengston, S.J.

    1994-05-01

    This safety analysis report outlines the safety concerns associated with the Waste Storage Facility located in the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The three main objectives of the report are: define and document a safety basis for the Waste Storage Facility activities; demonstrate how the activities will be carried out to adequately protect the workers, public, and environment; and provide a basis for review and acceptance of the identified risk that the managers, operators, and owners will assume.

  19. Safety assessment document for the Dynamic Test Complex B854

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Odell, B.N.; Pfeifer, H.E.

    1981-12-11

    A safety assessment was performed to determine if potential accidents at the 854 Complex at Site 300 could present undue hazards to the general public, personnel at Site 300, or have an adverse effect on the environment. The credible accidents that might have an effect on these facilities or have off-site consequences were considered. These were earthquake, extreme wind (including missiles), lightning, flood, criticality, high explosive (HE) detonation that disperses uranium and beryllium, spontaneous oxidation of plutonium, explosions due to finely divided particles, and a fire. Seismic and extreme wind (including missiles) analyses indicate that the buildings are basically sound. The lightning protection system is in the process of being upgraded to meet AMCR 385-100. These buildings are located high above the dry creek bed so that a flood is improbable. The probability of high explosive detonation involving plutonium is very remote since the radioactive materials are encased and plutonium and HE are not permitted concurrently in the same area at Site 300. (The exception to this policy is that explosive actuating devices are sometimes located in assemblies containing fissile materials. However, an accidental actuation will not affect the safe containment of the plutonium within the assembly.) There is a remote possibility of an HE explosion involving uranium and beryllium since these are permitted in the same area.The possibility of a criticality accident is very remote since the fissile materials are doubly encased in stout metal containers. All operations involving these materials are independently reviewed and inspected by the Criticality Safety Office. It was determined that a fire was unlikely due to the low fire loading and the absence of ignition sources. It was also determined that the consequences of any accidents were reduced by the remote location of these facilities, their design, and by administrative controls.

  20. Safety analysis report for packaging upgrade plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KELLY, D.L.

    1998-11-18

    This Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) Upgrade Plan reflects a revised SARP upgrade schedule based on the most current program needs. A Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC) Performance Expectation exists to update, revise, and/or cancel seven onsite SARPS during FY 1999. It is the U.S. Department of Energy's desire that 100% of the SARPs (which existed at the beginning of the PHMC Contract) be upgraded, revised, and/or canceled by the end of the five year contract. This plan is a ''living'' document and is used as a management tool.

  1. Mixed Waste Management Facility Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Chapters 1 to 20

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-09-01

    This document provides information on waste management practices, occupational safety, and a site characterization of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. A facility description, safety engineering analysis, mixed waste processing techniques, and auxiliary support systems are included.

  2. Guidance for preparation of safety analysis reports for nonreactor facilities and operations. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-11-06

    Department of Energy (DOE) Orders 5480.23, ``Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports,`` and 5481.1B, ``Safety Analysis and Review System`` require the preparation of appropriate safety analyses for each DOE operation and subsequent significant modifications including decommissioning, and independent review of each safety analysis. The purpose of this guide is to assist in the preparation and review of safety documentation for Oak Ridge Field Office (OR) nonreactor facilities and operation. Appendix A lists DOE Orders, NRC Regulatory Guides and other documents applicable to the preparation of safety analysis reports.

  3. Guidance for preparation of safety analysis reports for nonreactor facilities and operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-11-06

    Department of Energy (DOE) Orders 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports,'' and 5481.1B, Safety Analysis and Review System'' require the preparation of appropriate safety analyses for each DOE operation and subsequent significant modifications including decommissioning, and independent review of each safety analysis. The purpose of this guide is to assist in the preparation and review of safety documentation for Oak Ridge Field Office (OR) nonreactor facilities and operation. Appendix A lists DOE Orders, NRC Regulatory Guides and other documents applicable to the preparation of safety analysis reports.

  4. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Documented Safety Analyses to Meet Subpart B of 10 CFR 830

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2001-10-24

    This Guide elaborates on the documented safety analysis (DSA) development process and the safe harbor provisions of the Appendix to10 CFR 830 Subpart B. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Subpart B, 'Safety Basis Requirements,' requires the contractor responsible for a Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facility to analyze the facility, the work to be performed, and the associated hazards and to identify the conditions, safe boundaries, and hazard controls necessary to protect workers, the public, and the environment from adverse consequences. Canceled by DOE G 421.1-2A

  5. Rapid Exploitation and Analysis of Documents

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buttler, D J; Andrzejewski, D; Stevens, K D; Anastasiu, D; Gao, B

    2011-11-28

    Analysts are overwhelmed with information. They have large archives of historical data, both structured and unstructured, and continuous streams of relevant messages and documents that they need to match to current tasks, digest, and incorporate into their analysis. The purpose of the READ project is to develop technologies to make it easier to catalog, classify, and locate relevant information. We approached this task from multiple angles. First, we tackle the issue of processing large quantities of information in reasonable time. Second, we provide mechanisms that allow users to customize their queries based on latent topics exposed from corpus statistics. Third, we assist users in organizing query results, adding localized expert structure over results. Forth, we use word sense disambiguation techniques to increase the precision of matching user generated keyword lists with terms and concepts in the corpus. Fifth, we enhance co-occurrence statistics with latent topic attribution, to aid entity relationship discovery. Finally we quantitatively analyze the quality of three popular latent modeling techniques to examine under which circumstances each is useful.

  6. Document

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    171 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Electronic Access to This Document You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/

  7. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), Baseline Safety Analysis File (BSAF). Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-20

    This document was prepared to take the place of a Safety Evaluation Report since the Baseline Safety Analysis File (BSAF)and associated Baseline Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) File do not meet the requirements of a complete safety analysis documentation. Its purpose is to present in summary form the background of how the BSAF and Baseline TSR originated and a description of the process by which it was produced and approved for use in the Environmental Restoration Program.The BSAF is a facility safety reference document for INEL environmental restoration activities including environmental remediation of inactive waste sites and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of surplus facilities. The BSAF contains safety bases common to environmental restoration activities and guidelines for performing and documenting safety analysis. The common safety bases can be incorporated by reference into the safety analysis documentation prepared for individual environmental restoration activities with justification and any necessary revisions. The safety analysis guidelines in BSAF provide an accepted method for hazard analysis; analysis of normal, abnormal, and accident conditions; human factors analysis; and derivation of TSRS. The BSAF safety bases and guidelines are graded for environmental restoration activities.

  8. Safety System Oversight Staffing Analysis (Instructions, Blank...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Safety System Oversight Staffing Analysis (Instructions, Blank Sheet and Example Sheet) This Staffing Analysis calculation is completed using an Excel worksheet. Information ...

  9. System Safety Common Cause Analysis

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1992-03-10

    The COMCAN fault tree analysis codes are designed to analyze complex systems such as nuclear plants for common causes of failure. A common cause event, or common mode failure, is a secondary cause that could contribute to the failure of more than one component and violates the assumption of independence. Analysis of such events is an integral part of system reliability and safety analysis. A significant common cause event is a secondary cause common tomore » all basic events in one or more minimal cut sets. Minimal cut sets containing events from components sharing a common location or a common link are called common cause candidates. Components share a common location if no barrier insulates any one of them from the secondary cause. A common link is a dependency among components which cannot be removed by a physical barrier (e.g.,a common energy source or common maintenance instructions).« less

  10. Documents

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Summation version Stakeholder Summation version DOE Documents Environmental Management SSAB 15 Year Anniversary Paper (presented at the Waste Management Symposium, March 4, 2009)...

  11. Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) Documentation

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) Documentation Neubauer, J. 25 ENERGY STORAGE BATTERY; LITHIUM-ION; STATIONARY ENERGY STORAGE; BLAST; BATTERY DEGRADATION;...

  12. Document

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    of the Draft EIS was also published in four local and regional newspapers (in English and Spanish) and over 200 copies of the document were distributed to federal, state...

  13. Document

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http:www.ed.gov newsfedregister. To use PDF you must...

  14. Document

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. Rules and Regulations ...

  15. Document

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    ... is available on the Internet through the NEPA Web site at http:www.gc.energy.govnepa. ... internet Web site at http:www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. ...

  16. Document

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... Beth Burandt, Document Manager, Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, WA 99352, Electronic mail: TC&WMEIS@saic.com. ...

  17. Radiological Safety Analysis Code System.

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2009-12-22

    Version 03 RSAC-6.2 can be used to model complex accidents and radiological consequences to individuals from the release of radionuclides to the atmosphere. A user can generate a fission product inventory; decay and ingrow the inventory during transport through processes, facilities, and the environment; model the downwind dispersion of the activity; and calculate doses to downwind individuals. Doses are calculated through the inhalation, immersion, ground surface and ingestion pathways. New to RSAC-6.2 are the abilitiesmore » to calculate inhalation from release to a room, inhalation from resuspension of activities, and a new model for dry deposition. Doses can now be calculated as close as 10 meters from the release point. RSAC-6.2 has been subjected to extensive independent verification and validation for use in performing safety-related dose calculations to support safety analysis reports. WinRP 2.0, a windows based overlay to RSAC-6.2, assists users in creating and running RSAC-6.2 input files. RSAC-6, Rev. 6.2 (03/11/02) corrects an earlier issue with RSAC-6, compiled with F77L-EM/32 Fortran 77 Version 5.10, which would not allow the executable to run with XP or VISTA Windows operating systems. Because this version is still in use at some facilities, it is being released through RSICC in addition to the new RSAC 7 (CCC-761).« less

  18. Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) Documentation

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) Documentation Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) Documentation The deployment and use of lithium-ion batteries in automotive and stationary energy storage applications must be optimized to justify their high up-front costs. Given that batteries degrade with use and storage, such optimizations must evaluate many years of operation. As the

  19. Document

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    60017 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Notices 1 Enforcement of Statutes, Orders, Rules, and Regulations, 132 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2010). Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be

  20. Document

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    4 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices j. Deadline for filing comments and/ or motions: May 19, 2003. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P- 10855-005) on any comments or motions filed. k. Description of Request: Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO) proposes to add additional acreage to

  1. Document

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    of Energy Docket_N._EO-05-01signedby_Secretary_Bodman-_dated_92806.PDF Docket_N._EO-05-01signedby_Secretary_Bodman-_dated_92806.PDF (104.04 KB) More Documents & Publications Department of Energy Order No. 202-07-1 Senator Dingell Letter to Secretary Bodman Support for City of Alexandria's Comments on the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, Docket No. EO-05-01

    Dockets Open for Public Comment Dockets Open for Public Comment Below is a list of the dockets that are currently

  2. Hot Cell Facility (HCF) Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MITCHELL,GERRY W.; LONGLEY,SUSAN W.; PHILBIN,JEFFREY S.; MAHN,JEFFREY A.; BERRY,DONALD T.; SCHWERS,NORMAN F.; VANDERBEEK,THOMAS E.; NAEGELI,ROBERT E.

    2000-11-01

    This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, and has been written to the format and content guide of DOE-STD-3009-94 Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. The Hot Cell Facility is a Hazard Category 2 nonreactor nuclear facility, and is operated by Sandia National Laboratories for the Department of Energy. This SAR provides a description of the HCF and its operations, an assessment of the hazards and potential accidents which may occur in the facility. The potential consequences and likelihood of these accidents are analyzed and described. Using the process and criteria described in DOE-STD-3009-94, safety-related structures, systems and components are identified, and the important safety functions of each SSC are described. Additionally, information which describes the safety management programs at SNL are described in ancillary chapters of the SAR.

  3. 10 CFR 851 Worker Safety and Health Program (WSHP) Description Document

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Oak Ridge Operations P.O. Box 2001 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831- May 2 2, 20 0 7 Dr. Ronald D. Townsend, Director Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Mai! Stop 22 Post Office Box I 17 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0117 Dear Dr. Townsend: CONTRACT NO. DEAC05-06OR23100, OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION (ORISE) 10 CFR 851 WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM (WSHP) DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT The ORISE WSHP submitted to us on February 26, 2007, was evaluated to provide reasonable assurance

  4. Plant perspective on electronic document management systems for process safety management programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mannan, M.; Lee, W.S. [RMT/Jones and Neuse, Inc., Austin, TX (United States)

    1996-08-01

    As mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated on February 24, 1992 the Process Management (PSM) rule: 29 CFR 1910.119. Compliance with the PSM requirements is causing a significant impact on both financial resources and manpower for the covered facilities. A major portion of the efforts have been concentrated on developing and compiling a vast amount of data in various formats (i.e., autocad, word processing, and numeric databases). Because of the need to access and revise these data on a continuous basis, many facilities have started to implement computer-based document management systems to store, manage, and maintain these data. This paper provides a plant perspective of the necessary features and characteristics of a computer-based document management system. An electronic document management system can also form the basis for a plant workflow system. Once, all the information related to a plant`s PSM program are inputted into the system, it is possible to control the plant workflow using the management of change system and maintenance work requests. Other key issues that must be included in a computer-based system are redlining capabilities, execution of management of change authorization, and interfacing with existing computer programs (many plants are already using different kinds of software for a variety of objectives). This paper provides a roadmap for the development and implementation of an electronic document management system.

  5. Safety analysis report for packaging (onsite) multicanister overpack cask

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Edwards, W.S.

    1997-07-14

    This safety analysis report for packaging (SARP) documents the safety of shipments of irradiated fuel elements in the MUlticanister Overpack (MCO) and MCO Cask for a highway route controlled quantity, Type B fissile package. This SARP evaluates the package during transfers of (1) water-filled MCOs from the K Basins to the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) and (2) sealed and cold vacuum dried MCOs from the CVDF in the 100 K Area to the Canister Storage Building in the 200 East Area.

  6. Fuel Storage Facility Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Linderoth, C.E.

    1984-03-01

    The Fuel Storage Facility (FSF) is an integral part of the Fast Flux Test Facility. Its purpose is to provide long-term storage (20-year design life) for spent fuel core elements used to provide the fast flux environment in FFTF, and for test fuel pins, components and subassemblies that have been irradiated in the fast flux environment. This Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and its supporting documentation provides a complete description and safety evaluation of the site, the plant design, operations, and potential accidents.

  7. Autoclave nuclear criticality safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D`Aquila, D.M.; Tayloe, R.W. Jr.

    1991-12-31

    Steam-heated autoclaves are used in gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants to heat large cylinders of UF{sub 6}. Nuclear criticality safety for these autoclaves is evaluated. To enhance criticality safety, systems are incorporated into the design of autoclaves to limit the amount of water present. These safety systems also increase the likelihood that any UF{sub 6} inadvertently released from a cylinder into an autoclave is not released to the environment. Up to 140 pounds of water can be held up in large autoclaves. This mass of water is sufficient to support a nuclear criticality when optimally combined with 125 pounds of UF{sub 6} enriched to 5 percent U{sup 235}. However, water in autoclaves is widely dispersed as condensed droplets and vapor, and is extremely unlikely to form a critical configuration with released UF{sub 6}.

  8. Safety analysis report for packaging (onsite) sample pig transport system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MCCOY, J.C.

    1999-03-16

    This Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) provides a technical evaluation of the Sample Pig Transport System as compared to the requirements of the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) Order 5480.1, Change 1, Chapter III. The evaluation concludes that the package is acceptable for the onsite transport of Type B, fissile excepted radioactive materials when used in accordance with this document.

  9. Evaluation of safety assessment methodologies in Rocky Flats Risk Assessment Guide (1985) and Building 707 Final Safety Analysis Report (1987)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walsh, B.; Fisher, C.; Zigler, G.; Clark, R.A.

    1990-11-09

    FSARs. Rockwell International, as operating contractor at the Rocky Flats plant, conducted a safety analysis program during the 1980s. That effort resulted in Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs) for several buildings, one of them being the Building 707 Final Safety Analysis Report, June 87 (707FSAR) and a Plant Safety Analysis Report. Rocky Flats Risk Assessment Guide, March 1985 (RFRAG85) documents the methodologies that were used for those FSARs. Resources available for preparation of those Rocky Flats FSARs were very limited. After addressing the more pressing safety issues, some of which are described below, the present contractor (EG&G) intends to conduct a program of upgrading the FSARs. This report presents the results of a review of the methodologies described in RFRAG85 and 707FSAR and contains suggestions that might be incorporated into the methodology for the FSAR upgrade effort.

  10. Volume II - Accident and Operational Safety Analysis Handbook

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    208-2012 July 2012 DOE HANDBOOK Accident and Operational Safety Analysis Volume II: ... This Department of Energy (DOE) Accident and Operational Safety Analysis Handbook ...

  11. FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard Gap Analysis Qualification Cards outline the ...

  12. FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Senior Technical Safety...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Senior Technical Safety Manager FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Senior Technical Safety Manager Functional Area Qualification Standard Gap Analysis Qualification Cards ...

  13. Document Reviews

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Document Reviews, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security information and document declassification efforts promote the release of information needed by an informed citizenry...

  14. Preliminary Safety Information Document for the Standard MHTGR. Volume 1, (includes latest Amendments)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1986-12-01

    With NRC concurrence, the Licensing Plan for the Standard HTGR describes an application program consistent with 10CFR50, Appendix O to support a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and design certification of an advanced Standard modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR) design. Consistent with the NRC's Advanced Reactor Policy, the Plan also outlines a series of preapplication activities which have as an objective the early issuance of an NRC Licensability Statement on the Standard MHTGR conceptual design. This Preliminary Safety Information Document (PSID) has been prepared as one of the submittals to the NRC by the US Department of Energy in support of preapplication activities on the Standard MHTGR. Other submittals to be provided include a Probabilistic Risk Assessment, a Regulatory Technology Development Plan, and an Emergency Planning Bases Report.

  15. FFTF Final Safety Analysis Report Amendment 81 [SEC 1 & 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DAUTEL, W.A.

    2002-01-10

    Since the last reactor operation of FFTF in March of 1992, the FFTF has either been in a programmatic status of Standby or Shutdown. The facility hazards have decreased markedly. Rather than making extensive Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) changes, Appendix G was prepared to reflect the design and operation during Standby or Shutdown. Appendix G describes the application of the entire FSAR for the current configuration, accounting for the natural reduction in hazards and new system configurations associated with Standby/Shutdown. The technical system chapters and the safety analysis chapter of the FSAR describe how the design and operation fulfilled the requirements necessary to support reactor operation; this information is retained for design basis and historical information. This Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is submitted per the requirements of Paragraph 014, Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) Manual Chapter 0540, ''Safety of ERDA-Owned Reactors.'' This FSAR and its supporting documentation provide a complete description and safety evaluation of the site, plant design, normal and emergency operations, potential accidents and predicted consequences of such accidents, and the means that will prevent such accidents and/or reduce their consequences to an acceptable level.

  16. K Basin sludge packaging design criteria (PDC) and safety analysis report for packaging (SARP) approval plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brisbin, S.A.

    1996-03-06

    This document delineates the plan for preparation, review, and approval of the Packaging Design Crieteria for the K Basin Sludge Transportation System and the Associated on-site Safety Analysis Report for Packaging. The transportation system addressed in the subject documents will be used to transport sludge from the K Basins using bulk packaging.

  17. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Environmental Restoration (ER) Program Baseline Safety Analysis File (BSAF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-09-01

    The Baseline Safety Analysis File (BSAF) is a facility safety reference document for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) environmental restoration activities. The BSAF contains information and guidance for safety analysis documentation required by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for environmental restoration (ER) activities, including: Characterization of potentially contaminated sites. Remedial investigations to identify and remedial actions to clean up existing and potential releases from inactive waste sites Decontamination and dismantlement of surplus facilities. The information is INEL-specific and is in the format required by DOE-EM-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports. An author of safety analysis documentation need only write information concerning that activity and refer to BSAF for further information or copy applicable chapters and sections. The information and guidance provided are suitable for: {sm_bullet} Nuclear facilities (DOE Order 5480-23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports) with hazards that meet the Category 3 threshold (DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports) {sm_bullet} Radiological facilities (DOE-EM-STD-5502-94, Hazard Baseline Documentation) Nonnuclear facilities (DOE-EM-STD-5502-94) that are classified as {open_quotes}low{close_quotes} hazard facilities (DOE Order 5481.1B, Safety Analysis and Review System). Additionally, the BSAF could be used as an information source for Health and Safety Plans and for Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) for nuclear facilities with hazards equal to or greater than the Category 2 thresholds, or for nonnuclear facilities with {open_quotes}moderate{close_quotes} or {open_quotes}high{close_quotes} hazard classifications.

  18. ACCIDENT ANALYSES & CONTROL OPTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE SLUDGE WATER SYSTEM SAFETY ANALYSIS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WILLIAMS, J.C.

    2003-11-15

    This report documents the accident analyses and nuclear safety control options for use in Revision 7 of HNF-SD-WM-SAR-062, ''K Basins Safety Analysis Report'' and Revision 4 of HNF-SD-SNF-TSR-001, ''Technical Safety Requirements - 100 KE and 100 KW Fuel Storage Basins''. These documents will define the authorization basis for Sludge Water System (SWS) operations. This report follows the guidance of DOE-STD-3009-94, ''Preparation Guide for US. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports'', for calculating onsite and offsite consequences. The accident analysis summary is shown in Table ES-1 below. While this document describes and discusses potential control options to either mitigate or prevent the accidents discussed herein, it should be made clear that the final control selection for any accident is determined and presented in HNF-SD-WM-SAR-062.

  19. Fire Risk Implications in Safety Analysis Reports

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blanchard, A.

    1999-03-31

    Fire can be a significant risk for facilities that store and handle radiological material. Such events must be evaluated as part of a comprehensive safety analysis. SRS has been developing methods to evaluate radiological fire risk in such facilities. These methods combined with the analysis techniques proposed by DOE-STD-3009-94 have provided a better understanding of how fire risks in nuclear facilities should be managed. To ensure that these new insights are properly disseminated the DOE Savannah River Office and the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) requested Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) prepare this paper.

  20. Technical Standards, Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes - November 2003 |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy Standards, Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes - November 2003 Technical Standards, Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes - November 2003 November 2003 Software Quality Assurance Plan and Criteria for the Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes Safety analysis software for the DOE "toolbox" was designated by DOE/EH in March 2003 (DOE/EH, 2003). The supporting basis for this designation was provided by a DOE-chartered Safety Analysis Software Group in the technical report, Selection of

  1. CSB Investigations and Safety Culture | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    from occurring again. Analysis of Safety Systems CSB Investigations and Safety Culture More Documents & Publications Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary Operating Experience...

  2. NUSAR: N Reactor Updated Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 21

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, G L

    1989-12-01

    The enclosed pages are Amendment 21 of the N Reactor Updated Safety Analysis Report (NUSAR). NUSAR, formerly UNI-M-90, was revised by 18 amendments that were issued by UNC Nuclear Industries, the contractor previously responsible for N Reactor operations. As of June 1987, Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) acquired the operations and engineering contract for N Reactor and other facilities at Hanford. The document number for NUSAR then became WHC-SP-0297. The first revision was issued by WHC as Amendment 19, prepared originally by UNC. Summaries of each of the amendments are included in NUSAR Section 1.1.

  3. Facility Safety

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2012-12-04

    The Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and System Engineer Program. This Page Change is limited in scope to changes necessary to invoke DOE-STD-1104, Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Document, and revised DOE-STD-3009-2014, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis as required methods. DOE O 420.1C Chg 1, dated 2-27-15, supersedes DOE O 420.1C.

  4. Volume II - Accident and Operational Safety Analysis Handbook

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    208-2012 July 2012 DOE HANDBOOK Accident and Operational Safety Analysis Volume II: Operational Safety Analysis Techniques U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1208-2012 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Department of Energy (DOE) Accident and Operational Safety Analysis Handbook was prepared under the sponsorship of the DOE Office of Health Safety and Security (HSS), Office of Corporate Safety Programs, and the Energy Facility Contractors Operating Group

  5. Test Protocol Document, Hydrogen Safety Sensor Testing; Phase I: Non-Flammable Mixtures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burgess, R.; Blake, C.; Tracy, C. E.

    2008-09-01

    This test protocol document includes an overview of hydrogen sensor technologies, test hardware requrements, and an outline of potential testing.

  6. Safety analysis report for packaging upgrade plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kelly, D.L., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-12-09

    This Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) Upgrade Plan reflects a SARP upgrade schedule based on the most current program needs. A performance agreement has been assigned, beginning in FY 1997, to update, revise, and/or cancel 20 percent of the existing onsite SARPS, so that 100 percent are reviewed and within current standards by the completion of the Project Hanford Management Contract (five-year period).

  7. Worker Safety and Health and Nuclear Safety Quarterly Performance Analysis (January - March 2008)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kerr, C E

    2009-10-07

    The DOE Office of Enforcement expects LLNL to 'implement comprehensive management and independent assessments that are effective in identifying deficiencies and broader problems in safety and security programs, as well as opportunities for continuous improvement within the organization' and to 'regularly perform assessments to evaluate implementation of the contractor's processes for screening and internal reporting.' LLNL has a self-assessment program, described in ES&H Manual Document 4.1, that includes line, management and independent assessments. LLNL also has in place a process to identify and report deficiencies of nuclear, worker safety and health and security requirements. In addition, the DOE Office of Enforcement expects LLNL to evaluate 'issues management databases to identify adverse trends, dominant problem areas, and potential repetitive events or conditions' (page 14, DOE Enforcement Process Overview, December 2007). LLNL requires that all worker safety and health and nuclear safety noncompliances be tracked as 'deficiencies' in the LLNL Issues Tracking System (ITS). Data from the ITS are analyzed for worker safety and health (WSH) and nuclear safety noncompliances that may meet the threshold for reporting to the DOE Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS). This report meets the expectations defined by the DOE Office of Enforcement to review the assessments conducted by LLNL, analyze the issues and noncompliances found in these assessments, and evaluate the data in the ITS database to identify adverse trends, dominant problem areas, and potential repetitive events or conditions. The report attempts to answer three questions: (1) Is LLNL evaluating its programs and state of compliance? (2) What is LLNL finding? (3) Is LLNL appropriately managing what it finds? The analysis in this report focuses on data from the first quarter of 2008 (January through March). This quarter is analyzed within the context of information identified in previous quarters to

  8. Office of Environmental Protection, Sustainability Support & Corporate Safety Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Lists the mission and functions of the Office of Environmental Protection, Sustainability Support & Corporate Safety Analysis (SESA)

  9. FFTF Final Safety Analysis Report Amendment 82

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DAUTEL, W.A.

    2003-03-01

    This is the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Amendment 82 for incorporation into the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) FSAR set assigned to you. This page change amendment incorporates changes previously approved by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. This amendment provides updates to the FSAR to facilitate FFTF shutdown and deactivation. Among the changes are the following: Chapter 11 is updated to describe upgrades to the Solid Waste Cask. Additional fuel handling accidents are added to Chapter 15. Appendix G is revised to clearly identify systems and their safety functions. Appendix H is revised to remove the discussion of material that has been removed from the Interim Storage Area. Appendix I is revised to provide a general description of liquid metal removal from FFTF. Other changes include minor technical updates from the FSAR annual review and editorial and procedure references.

  10. 340 Waste handling Facility Hazard Categorization and Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. J. Rodovsky

    2010-10-25

    The analysis presented in this document provides the basis for categorizing the facility as less than Hazard Category 3.

  11. Analysis of Integrated Safety Management at the Activity Level: Work

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Planning and Control, Final Report | Department of Energy Analysis of Integrated Safety Management at the Activity Level: Work Planning and Control, Final Report Analysis of Integrated Safety Management at the Activity Level: Work Planning and Control, Final Report May 15, 2013 Presenter: Stephen L. Domotor, Director, Office of Analysis, Office of Health, Safety and Security Topic: On August 28, 2012, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB or "Board") wrote to the

  12. Safety System Oversight Staffing Analysis - Blank Sheet | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Safety System Oversight Staffing Analysis - Blank Sheet This Staffing Analysis calculation is completed using an Excel worksheet. Information locations are identified by titles in ...

  13. Analysis of Integrated Safety Management at the Activity Level...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Analysis of Integrated Safety Management at the Activity Level: Work Planning and Control, Final Report May 15, 2013 Presenter: Stephen L. Domotor, Director, Office of Analysis, ...

  14. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - March 2011...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    analysis of March 2011 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. PDF icon Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - March 2011 More...

  15. A ''Toolbox''21 Equivalent Process for Safety Analysis Software

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'KULA, KR

    2004-04-30

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2002-1 (Quality Assurance for Safety-Related Software) identified a number of quality assurance issues on the use of software in Department of Energy (DOE) facilities for analyzing hazards, and designing and operating controls that prevent or mitigate potential accidents. The development and maintenance of a collection, or ''toolbox,'' of multiple-site use, standard solution, Software Quality Assurance (SQA)-compliant safety software is one of the major improvements identified in the associated DOE Implementation Plan (IP). The DOE safety analysis toolbox will contain a set of appropriately quality-assured, configuration-controlled, safety analysis codes, recognized for DOE-broad, safety basis applications. Currently, six widely applied safety analysis computer codes have been designated for toolbox consideration. While the toolbox concept considerably reduces SQA burdens among DOE users of these codes, many users of unique, single-purpose, or single-site software may still have sufficient technical justification to continue use of their computer code of choice, but are thwarted by the multiple-site condition on toolbox candidate software. The process discussed here provides a roadmap for an equivalency argument, i.e., establishing satisfactory SQA credentials for single-site software that can be deemed ''toolbox-equivalent''. The process is based on the model established to meet IP Commitment 4.2.1.2: Establish SQA criteria for the safety analysis ''toolbox'' codes. Implementing criteria that establish the set of prescriptive SQA requirements are based on implementation plan/procedures from the Savannah River Site, also incorporating aspects of those from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (SNL component) and the Yucca Mountain Project. The major requirements are met with evidence of a software quality assurance plan, software requirements and design documentation, user's instructions, test report, a

  16. Surveillance Analysis Computer System (SACS) software design document (SDD)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Glasscock, J.A.

    1995-09-01

    This document contains the Software Design Description for Phase II of the SACS project, and Impact Level 3Q system

  17. 242-A evaporator safety analysis report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CAMPBELL, T.A.

    1999-05-17

    This report provides a revised safety analysis for the upgraded 242-A Evaporator (the Evaporator). This safety analysis report (SAR) supports the operation of the Evaporator following life extension upgrades and other facility and operations upgrades (e.g., Project B-534) that were undertaken to enhance the capabilities of the Evaporator. The Evaporator has been classified as a moderate-hazard facility (Johnson 1990). The information contained in this SAR is based on information provided by 242-A Evaporator Operations, Westinghouse Hanford Company, site maintenance and operations contractor from June 1987 to October 1996, and the existing operating contractor, Waste Management Hanford (WMH) policies. Where appropriate, a discussion address the US Department of Energy (DOE) Orders applicable to a topic is provided. Operation of the facility will be compared to the operating contractor procedures using appropriate audits and appraisals. The following subsections provide introductory and background information, including a general description of the Evaporator facility and process, a description of the scope of this SAR revision,a nd a description of the basic changes made to the original SAR.

  18. Risk D&D Rapid Prototype: Scenario Documentation and Analysis Tool

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unwin, Stephen D.; Seiple, Timothy E.

    2009-05-28

    Report describes process and methodology associated with a rapid prototype tool for integrating project risk analysis and health & safety risk analysis for decontamination and decommissioning projects.

  19. Overview of the preliminary safety analysis of the National Ignition Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brereton, S.; McLouth, L.; Odell, B.

    1997-06-01

    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a proposed U.S. Department of Energy inertial confinement laser fusion facility. The candidate sites for locating the NIF are: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the preferred site. The NIF will operate by focusing 192 individual laser beams onto a tiny deuterium-tritium target located at the center of a spherical target chamber. The NIF has been classified as a low hazard, radiological facility on the basis of a preliminary hazards analysis and according to the DOE methodology for facility classification. This requires that a safety analysis report be prepared under DOE Order 5481.1B, Safety Analysis and Review System. A Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) has been approved, which documents and evaluates the safety issues associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the NIF. 10 refs., 6 figs., 4 tabs.

  20. GCtool for fuel cell systems design and analysis : user documentation.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ahluwalia, R.K.; Geyer, H.K.

    1999-01-15

    GCtool is a comprehensive system design and analysis tool for fuel cell and other power systems. A user can analyze any configuration of component modules and flows under steady-state or dynamic conditions. Component models can be arbitrarily complex in modeling sophistication and new models can be added easily by the user. GCtool also treats arbitrary system constraints over part or all of the system, including the specification of nonlinear objective functions to be minimized subject to nonlinear, equality or inequality constraints. This document describes the essential features of the interpreted language and the window-based GCtool environment. The system components incorporated into GCtool include a gas flow mixer, splitier, heater, compressor, gas turbine, heat exchanger, pump, pipe, diffuser, nozzle, steam drum, feed water heater, combustor, chemical reactor, condenser, fuel cells (proton exchange membrane, solid oxide, phosphoric acid, and molten carbonate), shaft, generator, motor, and methanol steam reformer. Several examples of system analysis at various levels of complexity are presented. Also given are instructions for generating two- and three-dimensional plots of data and the details of interfacing new models to GCtool.

  1. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - February 2013 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 3 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - February 2013 February 2013 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of February 2013 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - February 2013 (2.74 MB)

  2. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - November 2012 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 2 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - November 2012 November 2012 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of November 2012 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - November 2012 (2.17 MB)

  3. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - October 2012 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 2 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - October 2012 October 2012 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of October 2012 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - October 2012 (1.52 MB) More

  4. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - September 2011 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 1 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - September 2011 September 2011 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of September 2011 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - September 2011 (679.94

  5. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - September 2013 |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy 3 Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - September 2013 September 2013 An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning. The report discusses the quantitative analysis of September 2013 and past information for information exchange and continual learning. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences - September 2013 (3.6 MB)

  6. Oak Ridge National Laboratory site data for safety-analysis report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fitzpatrick, F.C.

    1982-12-01

    The Oak Ridge National Laboratory site data contained herein were compiled in support of the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Oak Ridge Operations Office Order OR 5481.1. That order sets forth assignment of responsibilities for safety analysis and review responsibilities and provides guidance relative to the content and format of safety analysis reports. The information presented in this document is intended for use by reference in individual safety analysis reports where applicable to support accident analyses or the establishment of design bases of significance to safety, and it is applicable only to Oak Ridge National Laboratory facilities in Bethel and Melton Valleys. This information includes broad descriptions of the site characteristics, radioactive waste handling and monitoring practices, and the organization and operating policies at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The historical background of the Laboratory is discussed briefly and the overall physical situation of the facilities is described in the following paragraphs.

  7. Liquid-metal fast-breeder reactors: Preliminary safety and environmental information document. Volume VI

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-01-01

    Information is presented concerning LMFBR design characteristics; uranium-plutonium/uranium recycle homogeneous core; uranium-plutonium/uranium spiked recycle heterogeneous core; uranium-plutonium/uranium spiked recycle homogeneous core; uranium-plutonium/thorium spiked recycle heterogeneous core; uranium-plutonium/thorium spiked recycle homogeneous core; thorium-plutonium/thorium spiked recycle homogeneous core; denatured uranium-233/thorium cycle homogeneous core; safety consideration for the LMFBR; and environmental considerations.

  8. Safety analysis of in-use vehicle wrapping cylinder

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The focus of this presentation is on the security analysis for wrapped cylinders used in vehicles and analyzing safety conditions and environmental effects through testing.

  9. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – December 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  10. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – March 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  11. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – September 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  12. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – July 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  13. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – June 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  14. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – June 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  15. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – February 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  16. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – October 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  17. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – May 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  18. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – August 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  19. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – June 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  20. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – August 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  1. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – November 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  2. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – April 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  3. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – January 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  4. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – August 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  5. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – May 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  6. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – January 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  7. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – December 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  8. Monthly Analysis of Electrical Safety Occurrences – April 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An analysis of the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) reports that was requested by the Electrical Safety Community for information exchange and continual learning.

  9. Water Resistant Container Technical Basis Document for the TA-55 Criticality Safety Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, Paul Herrick; Teague, Jonathan Gayle

    2015-04-30

    Criticality safety at TA-55 relies on nuclear material containers that are water resistant to prevent significant amounts of water from coming into contact with fissile material in the event of a fire that causes a breach of glovevbox confinement and subsequent fire water ingress. A “water tight container” is a container that will not allow more than 50ml of water ingress when fully submerged, except when under sufficient pressure to produce structural discontinuity. There are many types of containers, welded containers, hermetically sealed containers, filtered containers, etc.

  10. Hazard screening application guide. Safety Analysis Report Update Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1992-06-01

    The basic purpose of hazard screening is to group precesses, facilities, and proposed modifications according to the magnitude of their hazards so as to determine the need for and extent of follow on safety analysis. A hazard is defined as a material, energy source, or operation that has the potential to cause injury or illness in human beings. The purpose of this document is to give guidance and provide standard methods for performing hazard screening. Hazard screening is applied to new and existing facilities and processes as well as to proposed modifications to existing facilities and processes. The hazard screening process evaluates an identified hazards in terms of the effects on people, both on-site and off-site. The process uses bounding analyses with no credit given for mitigation of an accident with the exception of certain containers meeting DOT specifications. The process is restricted to human safety issues only. Environmental effects are addressed by the environmental program. Interfaces with environmental organizations will be established in order to share information.

  11. PAT-1 safety analysis report addendum.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Weiner, Ruth F.; Schmale, David T.; Kalan, Robert J.; Akin, Lili A.; Miller, David Russell; Knorovsky, Gerald Albert; Yoshimura, Richard Hiroyuki; Lopez, Carlos; Harding, David Cameron; Jones, Perry L.; Morrow, Charles W.

    2010-09-01

    The Plutonium Air Transportable Package, Model PAT-1, is certified under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations Part 71 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) per Certificate of Compliance (CoC) USA/0361B(U)F-96 (currently Revision 9). The purpose of this SAR Addendum is to incorporate plutonium (Pu) metal as a new payload for the PAT-1 package. The Pu metal is packed in an inner container (designated the T-Ampoule) that replaces the PC-1 inner container. The documentation and results from analysis contained in this addendum demonstrate that the replacement of the PC-1 and associated packaging material with the T-Ampoule and associated packaging with the addition of the plutonium metal content are not significant with respect to the design, operating characteristics, or safe performance of the containment system and prevention of criticality when the package is subjected to the tests specified in 10 CFR 71.71, 71.73 and 71.74.

  12. Safety assessment document (SAD) for the Princeton Beta Experiment Modification (PBX-M)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stencel, J.R.; Parsells, R.F.

    1988-04-01

    The Princeton Beta Experiment-Modification (PBX-M) is an experimental device of the tokamak type. A tokamak is characterized by a strong toroidal magnetic field composed of an externally driven component parallel to the torus centerline modified by the field produced by a transformer-driven current (OH) in the confined plasma. A second magnetic field parallel to the major toroidal axis is added to provide radial equilibrium for the plasma. As an advanced tokamak, PBX-M will have additional magnetic fields to reshape the plasma cross section from a circle into a kidney bean shape; it will also be equipped with 6MW or more of auxiliary heating power provided by four neutral beam injectors, with RF systems, and with an extensive set of diagnostics. Potential hazards associated with PBX-M, which are analyzed in this report, result from energy stored in the magnetic fields, high voltages necessary for the operation of some of the equipment and diagnostics, neutron radiation when the neutral beams are run with deuterium and x-rays, especially those emitted as a result of plasma-wall interaction. This report satisfies the requirements set forth in the PPPL Health and Safety Directives, specifically HSD-5003, and in DOE Order 5481.1B and its Chicago operations supplement (DOE86, DOE82).

  13. Technical support document: Survey data used in revising the energy conservation requirements in the manufactured home construction and safety standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, A.D.; Conner, C.C.

    1992-02-01

    This report documents data used in the development of revised energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. The approach used in developing the proposed standard revision is a cost-benefit analysis in which the costs of energy conservation measures (ECM) are balanced against the benefits of energy savings. The analysis used to develop the recommendations for revision of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) energy conservation standards for manufactured housing requires information on specific ECMs. This technical support document contains the data from two of the three surveys that were used primarily to characterize the available ECMs and their associated costs. The analyses of these data are provided in separate reports. 5 refs.

  14. Hazard Analysis Database report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Niemi, B.J.

    1997-08-12

    This document describes and defines the Hazard Analysis Database for the Tank Waste Remediation System Final Safety Analysis Report.

  15. DOE's Safety Bulletin No. 2011-01, Events Beyond Design Safety Basis

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Analysis, March 2011 | Department of Energy DOE's Safety Bulletin No. 2011-01, Events Beyond Design Safety Basis Analysis, March 2011 DOE's Safety Bulletin No. 2011-01, Events Beyond Design Safety Basis Analysis, March 2011 PURPOSE This Safety Alert provides information on a safety concern related to the identification and mitigation of events that may fall outside those analyzed in the documented safety analysis. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in

  16. Safety Analysis Report Update Program: Overview and Phase 1 implementation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-08-01

    During FY 1989, the DOE-Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) office formed joint Operating Contractor/DOE-ORO organizations to address safety analysis related issues. The Safety Analysis Report Working Group (SARWG) took on the task of developing a strategy to address the issue of updating SARs to today's standards. The resulting SAR Update Program was approved by the Safety Analysis Report Management Group (SARMG) and on November 6, 1989, was accepted by the senior management of DOE-ORO, and its operating contractors, including Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. This SAR Update Program consists of five phases: Phase 0 -- continued operation evaluations; Phase 1 -- hazard classification and qualitative analysis; Phase 1A -- updated operational safety requirements; Phase 2 -- quantitative accident analysis; and, Phase 3 -- complete DOE-approved SARs. 8 refs., 17 figs., 6 tabs.

  17. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This paper addresses why the use of an Integrated Safety Analysis (“ISA”) is appropriate for fuel recycling facilities1 which would be licensed under new regulations currently being considered by...

  18. Stage Right operational safety analysis and evaluation of Pantex personnel operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rountree, S.L.K.; Whitehurst, H.O.; Tomlin, E.H.; Restrepo, L.F.; White, J. |

    1995-01-01

    This report documents a study (Stage Right Operational Safety Analysis) that was performed to evaluate the effects of new Stage Right operations on the safety of Pantex personnel who perform the operations and maintain the equipment. The primary concern of the evaluation was for personnel safety during Stage Right operations, but operations equipment damage and degradation also were taken into account. This analysis evaluates safety of the work process in the staging of dismantled nuclear weapon pits within the modified Richmond magazines only. This Stage Right Process and Operational Safety Analysis includes the following processes: moving the pelletized drums from the pallet trailer to the pallet turner, staging of pallets and removal of pallets from the magazine, recovery from an incident in a magazine, setting up, opening, and closing a Zone 4 magazine, inventory of pelletized drums in the magazines, transporting pelletized drums from Zone 12 to Zone 4, and maintenance on the shielded lift truck that involves removal of the cab shielding. The analysis includes the following undesirable consequences: injury to personnel, breach of an AL-R8 container, drop of a loaded pallet, damage to equipment, and equipment unreliability.

  19. SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR TANK 241-AZ-101 MIXER PUMP PROCESS TEST

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HAMMOND DM; HARRIS JP; MOUETTE P

    1997-06-09

    This document contains the completed safety analysis which establishes the safety envelope for performing the mixer pump process test in Tank 241-AZ-101. This process test is described in TF-210-OTP-001. All equipment necessary for the mixer pump test has been installed by Project W-151. The purpose of this document is to describe and analyze the mixer pump test for Aging Waste Facility (AWF) Tank 241-AZ-101 and to address the 'yes/maybe' responses marked for evaluation questions identified in Unreviewed Safety Question Evaluation (USQE) TF-94-0266. The scope of this document is limited to the performance of the mixer pump test for Tank 241-AZ-101. Unreviewed Safety Question Determination (USQD) TF-96-0018 verified that the installation of two mixer pumps into Tank 241-AZ-101 was within the current Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Authorization Basis. USQDs TF-96-0461, TF-96-0448, and TF-96-0805 verified that the installation of the in-tank video camera, thermocouples, and Ultrasonic Interface Level Analyzer (URSILLA), respectively, were within the current TWRS Authorization Basis. USQD TF-96-1041 verified that the checkout testing of the installed equipment was within the current TWRS Authorization Basis. Installation of the pumps and equipment has been completed. An evaluation of safety considerations associated with operation of the mixer pumps for the mixer pump test is provided in this document. This document augments the existing AWF authorization basis as defined in the Interim Safety Basis (Stahl 1997), and as such, will use the existing Interim Operational Safety Requirements (IOSRs) of Heubach 1996 to adequately control the mixer pump test. The hazard and accident analysis is limited to the scope and impact of the mixer pump test, and therefore does not address hazards already addressed by the current AWF authorization basis. This document does not evaluate removal of the mixer pumps. Safety considerations for removal of the pumps will be addressed by

  20. Analysis and decision document in support of acquisition of steam supply for the Hanford 200 Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, D.R.; Daellenbach, K.K.; Hendrickson, P.L.; Kavanaugh, D.C.; Reilly, R.W.; Shankle, D.L.; Smith, S.A.; Weakley, S.A.; Williams, T.A. ); Grant, T.F. )

    1992-02-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is now evaluating its facility requirements in support of its cleanup mission at Hanford. One of the early findings is that the 200-Area steam plants, constructed in 1943, will not meet future space heating and process needs. Because the 200 Area will serve as the primary area for waste treatment and long-term storage, a reliable steam supply is a critical element of Hanford operations. This Analysis and Decision Document (ADD) is a preliminary review of the steam supply options available to the DOE. The ADD contains a comprehensive evaluation of the two major acquisition options: line-term versus privatization. It addresses the life-cycle costs associated with each alternative, as well as factors such as contracting requirements and the impact of market, safety, security, and regulatory issues. Specifically, this ADD documents current and future steam requirements for the 200 Area, describes alternatives available to DOE for meeting these requirements, and compares the alternatives across a number of decision criteria, including life-cycle cost. DOE has currently limited the ADD evaluation alternatives to replacing central steam plants rather than expanding the study to include alternative heat sources, such as a distributed network of boilers or heat pumps. Thirteen project alternatives were analyzed in the ADD. One of the alternatives was the rehabilitation of the existing 200-East coal-fired facility. The other twelve alternatives are combinations of (1) coal- or gas-fueled plants, (2) steam-only or cogeneration facilities, (3) primary or secondary cogeneration of electricity, and (4) public or private ownership.

  1. Safety analysis approaches or mixed transuranic waste.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Courtney, J. C.; Dwight, C. C.; Forrester, R. J.; Lehto, M. A.; Pan, Y. C.

    1999-02-10

    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has completed a survey of assumptions and techniques used for safety analyses at seven sites that handle or store mixed transuranic (TRU) waste operated by contractors for the US Department of Energy (DOE). While approaches to estimating on-site and off-site consequences of hypothetical accidents differ, there are commonalities in all of the safety studies. This paper identifies key parameters and methods used to estimate the radiological consequences associated with release of waste forms under abnormal conditions. Specific facilities are identified by letters with their safety studies listed in a bibliography rather than as specific references so that similarities and differences are emphasized in a nonjudgmental manner. References are provided for specific parameters used to project consequences associated with compromise of barriers and dispersion of potentially hazardous materials. For all of the accidents and sites, estimated dose commitments are well below guidelines even using highly conservative assumptions. Some of the studies quantified the airborne concentrations of toxic materials; this paper only addresses these analyses briefly, as an entire paper could be dedicated to this subject.

  2. Complete Experiment Safety Documentation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Complaint Form Complaint Form The Office of Inspector General (OIG) maintains a Hotline to facilitate the reporting of allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs or operations. To submit an allegation to the OIG, complete the form below. Acknowledgement * I acknowledge that I have read the Office of Inspector General Hotline section of the OIG website regarding issues which should be reported to the OIG, complaint processing, anonymity and

  3. Underground Test Area Subproject Phase I Data Analysis Task. Volume VII - Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-12-01

    Volume VII of the documentation for the Phase I Data Analysis Task performed in support of the current Regional Flow Model, Transport Model, and Risk Assessment for the Nevada Test Site Underground Test Area Subproject contains the tritium transport model documentation. Because of the size and complexity of the model area, a considerable quantity of data was collected and analyzed in support of the modeling efforts. The data analysis task was consequently broken into eight subtasks, and descriptions of each subtask's activities are contained in one of the eight volumes that comprise the Phase I Data Analysis Documentation.

  4. Documentation and analysis for packaging for surface moisture measurement system 7A containers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clem, D.K.

    1996-06-17

    This documentation and analysis for packaging documents that two, procured, carbon steel 5-gal drums meet all applicable U.S.Department of Transportation-7A requirements. One container will be used to transport a 0.009 Ci 252 Cf source and the other to transport a 1.7 Ci Am-Be source to and from various 200 Area tank farms.

  5. Sandia Energy - SCADA Documents

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Documents Home Stationary Power Safety, Security & Resilience of Energy Infrastructure Grid Modernization Cyber Security for Electric Infrastructure National Supervisory Control...

  6. MODEL 9977 B(M)F-96 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR PACKAGING

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Abramczyk, G; Paul Blanton, P; Kurt Eberl, K

    2006-05-18

    This Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) documents the analysis and testing performed on and for the 9977 Shipping Package, referred to as the General Purpose Fissile Package (GPFP). The performance evaluation presented in this SARP documents the compliance of the 9977 package with the regulatory safety requirements for Type B packages. Per 10 CFR 71.59, for the 9977 packages evaluated in this SARP, the value of ''N'' is 50, and the Transport Index based on nuclear criticality control is 1.0. The 9977 package is designed with a high degree of single containment. The 9977 complies with 10 CFR 71 (2002), Department of Energy (DOE) Order 460.1B, DOE Order 460.2, and 10 CFR 20 (2003) for As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles. The 9977 also satisfies the requirements of the Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material--1996 Edition (Revised)--Requirements. IAEA Safety Standards, Safety Series No. TS-R-1 (ST-1, Rev.), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria (2000). The 9977 package is designed, analyzed and fabricated in accordance with Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, 1992 edition.

  7. ARM - Publications: Science Team Meeting Documents: Analysis of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ground-based radiation and cloud measurements from CRYSTAL-FACE Analysis of ground-based radiation and cloud measurements from CRYSTAL-FACE Mather, James Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comstock, Jennifer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operates a mobile observing system, the PNNL Atmospheric Remote Sensing Laboratory (PARSL) that is designed to study clouds and aerosols and their effect on atmospheric radiation. The design of

  8. Safety analysis for tank 241-AZ-101 mixer pump process test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Milliken, N.J., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-08-01

    This document establishes the safety envelope for Project W-151,the process test of two mixer pumps in AWF waste tank 241-AZ-101.

  9. Wind energy conversion system analysis model (WECSAM) computer program documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Downey, W T; Hendrick, P L

    1982-07-01

    Described is a computer-based wind energy conversion system analysis model (WECSAM) developed to predict the technical and economic performance of wind energy conversion systems (WECS). The model is written in CDC FORTRAN V. The version described accesses a data base containing wind resource data, application loads, WECS performance characteristics, utility rates, state taxes, and state subsidies for a six state region (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana). The model is designed for analysis at the county level. The computer model includes a technical performance module and an economic evaluation module. The modules can be run separately or together. The model can be run for any single user-selected county within the region or looped automatically through all counties within the region. In addition, the model has a restart capability that allows the user to modify any data-base value written to a scratch file prior to the technical or economic evaluation. Thus, any user-supplied data for WECS performance, application load, utility rates, or wind resource may be entered into the scratch file to override the default data-base value. After the model and the inputs required from the user and derived from the data base are described, the model output and the various output options that can be exercised by the user are detailed. The general operation is set forth and suggestions are made for efficient modes of operation. Sample listings of various input, output, and data-base files are appended. (LEW)

  10. Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels and the Resin Regeneration Facility Safety Analysis Report, Executive Summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shedrow, C.B.

    1999-11-29

    The Safety Analysis Report documents the safety authorization basis for the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels (RBOF) and the Resin Regeneration Facility (RRF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The present mission of the RBOF and RRF is to continue in providing a facility for the safe receipt, storage, handling, and shipping of spent nuclear fuel assemblies from power and research reactors in the United States, fuel from SRS and other Department of Energy (DOE) reactors, and foreign research reactors fuel, in support of the nonproliferation policy. The RBOF and RRF provide the capability to handle, separate, and transfer wastes generated from nuclear fuel element storage. The DOE and Westinghouse Savannah River Company, the prime operating contractor, are committed to managing these activities in such a manner that the health and safety of the offsite general public, the site worker, the facility worker, and the environment are protected.

  11. Safety analysis report for packaging (onsite) steel drum

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCormick, W.A.

    1998-09-29

    This Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) provides the analyses and evaluations necessary to demonstrate that the steel drum packaging system meets the transportation safety requirements of HNF-PRO-154, Responsibilities and Procedures for all Hazardous Material Shipments, for an onsite packaging containing Type B quantities of solid and liquid radioactive materials. The basic component of the steel drum packaging system is the 208 L (55-gal) steel drum.

  12. Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) Documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neubauer, J.

    2014-12-01

    The deployment and use of lithium-ion batteries in automotive and stationary energy storage applications must be optimized to justify their high up-front costs. Given that batteries degrade with use and storage, such optimizations must evaluate many years of operation. As the degradation mechanisms are sensitive to temperature, state-of-charge histories, current levels, and cycle depth and frequency, it is important to model both the battery and the application to a high level of detail to ensure battery response is accurately predicted. To address these issues, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed the Battery Lifetime Analysis and Simulation Tool (BLAST) suite of tools. This suite of tools pairs NREL's high-fidelity battery degradation model with a battery electrical and thermal performance model, application-specific electrical and thermal performance models of the larger system (e.g., an electric vehicle), application-specific system use data (e.g., vehicle travel patterns and driving data), and historic climate data from cities across the United States. This provides highly realistic, long-term predictions of battery response and thereby enables quantitative comparisons of varied battery use strategies.

  13. Analysis of key safety metrics of thorium utilization in LWRs

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Ade, Brian J.; Bowman, Stephen M.; Worrall, Andrew; Powers, Jeffrey

    2016-04-08

    Here, thorium has great potential to stretch nuclear fuel reserves because of its natural abundance and because it is possible to breed the 232Th isotope into a fissile fuel (233U). Various scenarios exist for utilization of thorium in the nuclear fuel cycle, including use in different nuclear reactor types (e.g., light water, high-temperature gas-cooled, fast spectrum sodium, and molten salt reactors), along with use in advanced accelerator-driven systems and even in fission-fusion hybrid systems. The most likely near-term application of thorium in the United States is in currently operating light water reactors (LWRs). This use is primarily based on conceptsmore » that mix thorium with uranium (UO2 + ThO2) or that add fertile thorium (ThO2) fuel pins to typical LWR fuel assemblies. Utilization of mixed fuel assemblies (PuO2 + ThO2) is also possible. The addition of thorium to currently operating LWRs would result in a number of different phenomenological impacts to the nuclear fuel. Thorium and its irradiation products have different nuclear characteristics from those of uranium and its irradiation products. ThO2, alone or mixed with UO2 fuel, leads to different chemical and physical properties of the fuel. These key reactor safety–related issues have been studied at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and documented in “Safety and Regulatory Issues of the Thorium Fuel Cycle” (NUREG/CR-7176, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2014). Various reactor analyses were performed using the SCALE code system for comparison of key performance parameters of both ThO2 + UO2 and ThO2 + PuO2 against those of UO2 and typical UO2 + PuO2 mixed oxide fuels, including reactivity coefficients and power sharing between surrounding UO2 assemblies and the assembly of interest. The decay heat and radiological source terms for spent fuel after its discharge from the reactor are also presented. Based on this evaluation, potential impacts on safety requirements and identification of

  14. Facility Safety

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2013-06-21

    DOE-STD-1104 contains the Department's method and criteria for reviewing and approving nuclear facility's documented safety analysis (DSA). This review and approval formally document the basis for DOE, concluding that a facility can be operated safely in a manner that adequately protects workers, the public, and the environment. Therefore, it is appropriate to formally require implementation of the review methodology and criteria contained in DOE-STD-1104.

  15. Safety

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    safety Safety All JLF participants must comply fully with all LLNL safety regulations and procedures by becoming a Registered User of the facility. All JLF participants must complete available LLNL safety training: HS5200-W Laser Safety HS4258-W Beryllium Awareness HS4261-W Lead Awareness HS5220-W Electrical Safety Awareness HS6001-W General Employee Radiological HS4240-W Chemical Safety HS4680-W PPE To access these training modules link here [LTRAIN] from inside LLNL, or here from anywhere. All

  16. FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Programs is a set of common Functional Area Qualification Standards (FAQS) and ... More Documents & Publications FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety ...

  17. Corporate Analysis of DOE Safety Performance | Department of...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Current Safety Performance Trends The Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, ... Strategic Safety Goals Occupational Safety Performance Occurrence Reporting Trends For ...

  18. Final safety analysis report for the Ground Test Accelerator (GTA), Phase 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-10-01

    This document is the second volume of a 3 volume safety analysis report on the Ground Test Accelerator (GTA). The GTA program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is the major element of the national Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) program, which is supported by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO). A principal goal of the national NPB program is to assess the feasibility of using hydrogen and deuterium neutral particle beams outside the Earth`s atmosphere. The main effort of the NPB program at Los Alamos concentrates on developing the GTA. The GTA is classified as a low-hazard facility, except for the cryogenic-cooling system, which is classified as a moderate-hazard facility. This volume consists of failure modes and effects analysis; accident analysis; operational safety requirements; quality assurance program; ES&H management program; environmental, safety, and health systems critical to safety; summary of waste-management program; environmental monitoring program; facility expansion, decontamination, and decommissioning; summary of emergency response plan; summary plan for employee training; summary plan for operating procedures; glossary; and appendices A and B.

  19. Underground Test Area Subproject Phase I Data Analysis Task. Volume II - Potentiometric Data Document Package

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-12-01

    Volume II of the documentation for the Phase I Data Analysis Task performed in support of the current Regional Flow Model, Transport Model, and Risk Assessment for the Nevada Test Site Underground Test Area Subproject contains the potentiometric data. Because of the size and complexity of the model area, a considerable quantity of data was collected and analyzed in support of the modeling efforts. The data analysis task was consequently broken into eight subtasks, and descriptions of each subtask's activities are contained in one of the eight volumes that comprise the Phase I Data Analysis Documentation.

  20. YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT EAST-WEST DRIFT SYSTEM SAFETY ANALYSIS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NA

    1999-06-08

    The purpose of this analysis is to systematically identify and evaluate hazards related to the design of the Yucca Mountain Project Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) East-West Cross Drift. This analysis builds upon prior ESF System Safety Analyses and incorporates TS Main Drift scenarios, where applicable, into the East-West Drift scenarios. This System Safety Analysis (SSA) focuses on the personnel safety and health hazards associated with the engineered design of the East-West Drift. The analysis also evaluates other aspects of the East-West Drift, including purchased equipment (e.g., scientific mapping platform) or Systems/Structures/Components (SSCs) and out-of-tolerance conditions. In addition to recommending design mitigation features, the analysis identifies the potential need for procedures, training, or Job Safety Analyses (JSAs). The inclusion of this information in the SSA is intended to assist the organization(s) (e.g., constructor, Safety and Health, design) responsible for these aspects of the East-West Drift in evaluating personnel hazards and augment the information developed by these organizations. The SSA is an integral part of the systems engineering process, whereby safety is considered during planning, design, testing, and construction. A largely qualitative approach is used which incorporates operating experiences and recommendations from vendors, the constructor and the operating contractor. The risk assessment in this analysis characterizes the scenarios associated with East-West Drift SSCs in terms of relative risk and includes recommendations for mitigating all identified hazards. The priority for recommending and implementing mitigation control features is: (1) Incorporate measures to reduce risks and hazards into SSC designs. (2) Add safety features and capabilities to existing designs. (3) Develop procedures and conduct training to increase worker awareness of potential hazards, reduce exposure to hazards, and inform personnel of the

  1. Safety analysis of optically ignited explosive and pyrotechnic devices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merson, J.A.; Salas, F.J.; Holswade, S.

    1994-05-01

    The future of optical ordnance depends on the acceptance, validation and verification of the stated safety enhancement claims of optical ordnance over existing electrical explosive devices (EED`s). Sandia has been pursuing the development of optical ordnance, with the primary motivation of this effort being the enhancement of explosive safety by specifically reducing the potential of premature detonation that can occur with low energy electrically ignited explosive devices. By using semiconductor laser diodes for igniting these devices, safety improvements can be made without being detrimental to current system concerns since the inputs required for these devices are similar to electrical systems. Laser Diode Ignition (LDI) of the energetic material provides the opportunity to remove the bridgewire and electrically conductive pins from the charge cavity, creating a Faraday cage and thus isolating the explosive or pyrotechnic materials from stray electrical ignition sources. Recent results from our continued study of safety enhancements are presented. The areas of investigation which are presented include: (1) unintended optical source analysis, specifically lightning insensitivity, (2) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and electrostatic discharge (ESD) insensitivity analysis, and (3) powder safety.

  2. Safety analysis -- 200 Area Savannah River Plant, F-Canyon Operations. Supplement 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beary, M.M.; Collier, C.D.; Fairobent, L.A.; Graham, R.F.; Mason, C.L.; McDuffee, W.T.; Owen, T.L.; Walker, D.H.

    1986-02-01

    The F-Canyon facility is located in the 200 Separations Area and uses the Purex process to recover plutonium from reactor-irradiated uranium. The irradiated uranium is normally in the form of solid or hollow cylinders called slugs. These slugs are encased in aluminum cladding and are sent to the F-Canyon from the Savannah River Plant (SRP) reactor areas or from the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels (RBOF). This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) documents an analysis of the F-Canyon operations and is an update to a section of a previous SAR. The previous SAR documented an analysis of the entire 200 Separations Area operations. This SAR documents an analysis of the F-Canyon and is one of a series of documents for the Separations Area as specified in the Savannah River Implementation Plans. A substantial amount of the information supporting the conclusions of this SAR is found in the Systems Analysis. Some F-Canyon equipment has been updated during the time between the Systems Analysis and this SAR and a complete description of this equipment is included in this report. The primary purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate that the F-Canyon can be operated without undue risk to onsite or offsite populations and to the environment. In this report, risk is defined as the expected frequency of an accident, multiplied by the resulting radiological consequence in person-rem. The units of risk for radiological dose are person-rem/year. Maximum individual exposure values have also been calculated and reported.

  3. safety

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    contractor at the Nevada National Security Site, has been recognized by the Department of Energy for excellence in occupational safety and health protection. National Nuclear...

  4. Safety

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering ...

  5. System for the Analysis of Global Energy Markets - Vol. I, Model Documentation

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2003-01-01

    Documents the objectives and the conceptual and methodological approach used in the development of projections for the International Energy Outlook. The first volume of this report describes the System for the Analysis of Global Energy Markets (SAGE) methodology and provides an in-depth explanation of the equations of the model.

  6. Methods and criteria for safety analysis (FIN L2535)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-12-01

    In response to the NRC request for a proposal dated October 20, 1992, Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) submit this proposal to provide contractural assistance for FIN L2535, ``Methods and Criteria for Safety Analysis,`` as specified in the Statement of Work attached to the request for proposal. The Statement of Work involves development of safety analysis guidance for NRC licensees, arranging a workshop on this guidance, and revising NRC Regulatory Guide 3.52. This response to the request for proposal offers for consideration the following advantages of WSRC in performing this work: Experience, Qualification of Personnel and Resource Commitment, Technical and Organizational Approach, Mobilization Plan, Key Personnel and Resumes. In addition, attached are the following items required by the NRC: Schedule II, Savannah River Site - Job Cost Estimate, NRC Form 189, Project and Budget Proposal for NRC Work, page 1, NRC Form 189, Project and Budget Proposal for NRC Work, page 2, Project Description.

  7. Nuclear criticality safety guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pruvost, N.L.; Paxton, H.C.

    1996-09-01

    This technical reference document cites information related to nuclear criticality safety principles, experience, and practice. The document also provides general guidance for criticality safety personnel and regulators.

  8. Thermohydraulic and Safety Analysis for CARR Under Station Blackout Accident

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wenxi Tian; Suizheng Qiu; Guanghui Su; Dounan Jia [Xi'an Jiaotong University, 28 Xianning Road, Xi'an 710049 (China); Xingmin Liu - China Institute of Atomic Energy

    2006-07-01

    A thermohydraulic and safety analysis code (TSACC) has been developed using Fortran 90 language to evaluate the transient thermohydraulic behaviors and safety characteristics of the China Advanced Research Reactor(CARR) under Station Blackout Accident(SBA). For the development of TSACC, a series of corresponding mathematical and physical models were considered. Point reactor neutron kinetics model was adopted for solving reactor power. All possible flow and heat transfer conditions under station blackout accident were considered and the optional models were supplied. The usual Finite Difference Method (FDM) was abandoned and a new model was adopted to evaluate the temperature field of core plate type fuel element. A new simple and convenient equation was proposed for the resolution of the transient behaviors of the main pump instead of the complicated four-quadrant model. Gear method and Adams method were adopted alternately for a better solution to the stiff differential equations describing the dynamic behaviors of the CARR. The computational result of TSACC showed the enough safety margin of CARR under SBA. For the purpose of Verification and Validation (V and V), the simulated results of TSACC were compared with those of Relap5/Mdo3. The V and V result indicated a good agreement between the results by the two codes. Because of the adoption of modular programming techniques, this analysis code is expected to be applied to other reactors by easily modifying the corresponding function modules. (authors)

  9. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Documented Safety Analyses to Meet Subpart B of 10 CFR 830

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2011-12-19

    Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Subpart B, Safety Basis Requirements, requires the contractor responsible for a Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facility to analyze the facility, the work to be performed, and the associated hazards and to identify the conditions, safe boundaries, and hazard controls necessary to protect workers, the public, and the environment from adverse consequences. Supersedes DOE G 421.1-2.

  10. Document Details Document Number

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Document Details Document Number Date of Document Document Title/Description [Links below to each document] D195066340 Not listed. N/A REVISIONS IN STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF COLUMBIA RIVER BASALT GROUP D196000240 Not listed. N/A EPA DENIAL OF LINER LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS D196005916 Not listed. N/A LATE CENOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONIC EVOLUTION WITHIN SUBSIDING BASIN SOUTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON D196025993 RHO-BWI-ST-14 N/A SUPRABASALT SEDIMENTS OF COLD CREEK SYNCLINE AREA

  11. Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Self-Assessment...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    In accordance CNS Standard Operating Procedure SOP-016, Senior Technical Safety Manager ... More Documents & Publications 2011 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report - ...

  12. DOE's Approach to Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis and Management

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Presenter: Dr. James O'Brien, Director, Office of Nuclear Safety, Office of Health, Safety and Security, US Department of Energy

  13. Application of coupled codes for safety analysis and licensing issues

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Langenbuch, S.; Velkov, K.

    2006-07-01

    An overview is given on the development and the advantages of coupled codes which integrate 3D neutron kinetics into thermal-hydraulic system codes. The work performed within GRS by coupling the thermal-hydraulic system code ATHLET and the 3D neutronics code QUABOX/CUBBOX is described as an example. The application of the coupled codes as best-estimate simulation tools for safety analysis is discussed. Some examples from German licensing practices are given which demonstrate how the improved analytical methods of coupled codes have contributed to solve licensing issues related to optimized and more economical use of fuel. (authors)

  14. Criticality Safety Analysis Of As-loaded Spent Nuclear Fuel Casks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Banerjee, Kaushik; Scaglione, John M

    2015-01-01

    The final safety analysis report (FSAR) or the safety analysis report (SAR) for a particular spent nuclear fuel (SNF) cask system documents models and calculations used to demonstrate that a system meets the regulatory requirements under all normal, off-normal, and accident conditions of spent fuel storage, and normal and accident conditions of transportation. FSAR/SAR calculations and approved content specifications are intended to be bounding in nature to certify cask systems for a variety of fuel characteristics with simplified SNF loading requirements. Therefore, in general, loaded cask systems possess excess and uncredited criticality margins (i.e., the difference between the licensing basis and the as-loaded calculations). This uncredited margin could be quantified by employing more detailed cask-specific evaluations that credit the actual as-loaded cask inventory, and taking into account full (actinide and fission product) burnup credit. This uncredited criticality margin could be potentially used to offset (1) uncertainties in the safety basis that needs to account for the effects of system aging during extended dry storage prior to transportation, and (2) increases in SNF system reactivity over a repository performance period (e.g., 10,000 years or more) as the system undergoes degradation and internal geometry changes. This paper summarizes an assessment of cask-specific, as-loaded criticality margins for SNF stored at eight reactor sites (215 loaded casks were analyzed) under fully flooded conditions to assess the margins available during transportation after extended storage. It is observed that the calculated keff margin varies from 0.05 to almost 0.3 keff for the eight selected reactor sites, demonstrating that significant uncredited safety margins are present. In addition, this paper evaluates the sufficiency of this excess margin in applications involving direct disposal of currently loaded SNF casks.

  15. Criticality Safety Analysis Of As-loaded Spent Nuclear Fuel Casks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Banerjee, Kaushik; Scaglione, John M

    2015-01-01

    The final safety analysis report (FSAR) or the safety analysis report (SAR) for a particular spent nuclear fuel (SNF) cask system documents models and calculations used to demonstrate that a system meets the regulatory requirements under all normal, off-normal, and accident conditions of spent fuel storage, and normal and accident conditions of transportation. FSAR/SAR calculations and approved content specifications are intended to be bounding in nature to certify cask systems for a variety of fuel characteristics with simplified SNF loading requirements. Therefore, in general, loaded cask systems possess excess and uncredited criticality margins (i.e., the difference between the licensing basis and the as-loaded calculations). This uncredited margin could be quantified by employing more detailed cask-specific evaluations that credit the actual as-loaded cask inventory, and taking into account full (actinide and fission product) burnup credit. This uncredited criticality margin could be potentially used to offset (1) uncertainties in the safety basis that needs to account for the effects of system aging during extended dry storage prior to transportation, and (2) increases in SNF system reactivity over a repository performance period (e.g., 10,000 years or more) as the system undergoes degradation and internal geometry changes. This paper summarizes an assessment of cask-specific, as-loaded criticality margins for SNF stored at eight reactor sites (215 loaded casks were analyzed) under fully flooded conditions to assess the margins available during transportation after extended storage. It is observed that the calculated keff margin varies from 0.05 to almost 0.3 Δkeff for the eight selected reactor sites, demonstrating that significant uncredited safety margins are present. In addition, this paper evaluates the sufficiency of this excess margin in applications involving direct disposal of currently loaded SNF casks.

  16. CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Los Alamos National Laboratory TA 55

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) | Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) January 8, 2015 Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) This Criteria Review and Approach Document (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) provides objectives, criteria,

  17. Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety analysis for safety assessment of nuclear power plants

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Di Maio, Francesco; Zio, Enrico; Smith, Curtis; Rychkov, Valentin

    2015-07-06

    The present special issue contains an overview of the research in the field of Integrated Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Assessment (IDPSA) of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Traditionally, safety regulation for NPPs design and operation has been based on Deterministic Safety Assessment (DSA) methods to verify criteria that assure plant safety in a number of postulated Design Basis Accident (DBA) scenarios. Referring to such criteria, it is also possible to identify those plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) and activities that are most important for safety within those postulated scenarios. Then, the design, operation, and maintenance of these “safety-related” SSCs andmore » activities are controlled through regulatory requirements and supported by Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA).« less

  18. Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety analysis for safety assessment of nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Di Maio, Francesco; Zio, Enrico; Smith, Curtis; Rychkov, Valentin

    2015-07-06

    The present special issue contains an overview of the research in the field of Integrated Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Assessment (IDPSA) of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Traditionally, safety regulation for NPPs design and operation has been based on Deterministic Safety Assessment (DSA) methods to verify criteria that assure plant safety in a number of postulated Design Basis Accident (DBA) scenarios. Referring to such criteria, it is also possible to identify those plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) and activities that are most important for safety within those postulated scenarios. Then, the design, operation, and maintenance of these “safety-related” SSCs and activities are controlled through regulatory requirements and supported by Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA).

  19. Application programming interface document for the modernized Transient Reactor Analysis Code (TRAC-M)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahaffy, J. [Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA (United States); Boyack, B.E.; Steinke, R.G. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States)

    1998-05-01

    The objective of this document is to ease the task of adding new system components to the Transient Reactor Analysis Code (TRAC) or altering old ones. Sufficient information is provided to permit replacement or modification of physical models and correlations. Within TRAC, information is passed at two levels. At the upper level, information is passed by system-wide and component-specific data modules at and above the level of component subroutines. At the lower level, information is passed through a combination of module-based data structures and argument lists. This document describes the basic mechanics involved in the flow of information within the code. The discussion of interfaces in the body of this document has been kept to a general level to highlight key considerations. The appendices cover instructions for obtaining a detailed list of variables used to communicate in each subprogram, definitions and locations of key variables, and proposed improvements to intercomponent interfaces that are not available in the first level of code modernization.

  20. Final safety analysis report for the Ground Test Accelerator (GTA), Phase 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-10-01

    This document is the third volume of a 3 volume safety analysis report on the Ground Test Accelerator (GTA). The GTA program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is the major element of the national Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) program, which is supported by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO). A principal goal of the national NPB program is to assess the feasibility of using hydrogen and deuterium neutral particle beams outside the Earth`s atmosphere. The main effort of the NPB program at Los Alamos concentrates on developing the GTA. The GTA is classified as a low-hazard facility, except for the cryogenic-cooling system, which is classified as a moderate-hazard facility. This volume consists of appendices C through U of the report

  1. Final safety analysis report for the Ground Test Accelerator (GTA), Phase 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-10-01

    This document is the first volume of a 3 volume safety analysis report on the Ground Test Accelerator (GTA). The GTA program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is the major element of the national Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) program, which is supported by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO). A principal goal of the national NPB program is to assess the feasibility of using hydrogen and deuterium neutral particle beams outside the Earth`s atmosphere. The main effort of the NPB program at Los Alamos concentrates on developing the GTA. The GTA is classified as a low-hazard facility, except for the cryogenic-cooling system, which is classified as a moderate-hazard facility. This volume consists of an introduction, summary/conclusion, site description and assessment, description of facility, and description of operation.

  2. Data development technical support document for the aircraft crash risk analysis methodology (ACRAM) standard

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kimura, C.Y.; Glaser, R.E.; Mensing, R.W.; Lin, T.; Haley, T.A.; Barto, A.B.; Stutzke, M.A.

    1996-08-01

    The Aircraft Crash Risk Analysis Methodology (ACRAM) Panel has been formed by the US Department of Energy Office of Defense Programs (DOE/DP) for the purpose of developing a standard methodology for determining the risk from aircraft crashes onto DOE ground facilities. In order to accomplish this goal, the ACRAM panel has been divided into four teams, the data development team, the model evaluation team, the structural analysis team, and the consequence team. Each team, consisting of at least one member of the ACRAM plus additional DOE and DOE contractor personnel, specializes in the development of the methodology assigned to that team. This report documents the work performed by the data development team and provides the technical basis for the data used by the ACRAM Standard for determining the aircraft crash frequency. This report should be used to provide the generic data needed to calculate the aircraft crash frequency into the facility under consideration as part of the process for determining the aircraft crash risk to ground facilities as given by the DOE Standard Aircraft Crash Risk Assessment Methodology (ACRAM). Some broad guidance is presented on how to obtain the needed site-specific and facility specific data but this data is not provided by this document.

  3. Conversion Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the NIST Research Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diamond, D. J.; Baek, J. S.; Hanson, A. L.; Cheng, L-Y; Brown, N.; Cuadra, A.

    2015-01-30

    The NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is a reactor-laboratory complex providing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the nation with a world-class facility for the performance of neutron-based research. The heart of this facility is the NIST research reactor (aka NBSR); a heavy water moderated and cooled reactor operating at 20 MW. It is fueled with high-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel elements. A Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) program is underway to convert the reactor to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This program includes the qualification of the proposed fuel, uranium and molybdenum alloy foil clad in an aluminum alloy, and the development of the fabrication techniques. This report is a preliminary version of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) that would be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for approval prior to conversion. The report follows the recommended format and content from the NRC codified in NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-power Reactors,” Chapter 18, “Highly Enriched to Low-Enriched Uranium Conversions.” The emphasis in any conversion SAR is to explain the differences between the LEU and HEU cores and to show the acceptability of the new design; there is no need to repeat information regarding the current reactor that will not change upon conversion. Hence, as seen in the report, the bulk of the SAR is devoted to Chapter 4, Reactor Description, and Chapter 13, Safety Analysis.

  4. Processes and Procedures for Application of CFD to Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard W. Johnson; Richard R. Schultz; Patrick J. Roache; Ismail B. Celik; William D. Pointer; Yassin A. Hassan

    2006-09-01

    Traditionally, nuclear reactor safety analysis has been performed using systems analysis codes such as RELAP5, which was developed at the INL. However, goals established by the Generation IV program, especially the desire to increase efficiency, has lead to an increase in operating temperatures for the reactors. This increase pushes reactor materials to operate towards their upper temperature limits relative to structural integrity. Because there will be some finite variation of the power density in the reactor core, there will be a potential for local hot spots to occur in the reactor vessel. Hence, it has become apparent that detailed analysis will be required to ensure that local hot spots do not exceed safety limits. It is generally accepted that computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes are intrinsically capable of simulating fluid dynamics and heat transport locally because they are based on first principles. Indeed, CFD analysis has reached a fairly mature level of development, including the commercial level. However, CFD experts are aware that even though commercial codes are capable of simulating local fluid and thermal physics, great care must be taken in their application to avoid errors caused by such things as inappropriate grid meshing, low-order discretization schemes, lack of iterative convergence and inaccurate time-stepping. Just as important is the choice of a turbulence model for turbulent flow simulation. Turbulence models model the effects of turbulent transport of mass, momentum and energy, but are not necessarily applicable for wide ranges of flow types. Therefore, there is a well-recognized need to establish practices and procedures for the proper application of CFD to simulate flow physics accurately and establish the level of uncertainty of such computations. The present document represents contributions of CFD experts on what the basic practices, procedures and guidelines should be to aid CFD analysts to obtain accurate estimates of

  5. The Oak Ridge Research Reactor: Safety analysis: Volume 2, Supplement 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, D.H.; Hamrick, T.P.

    1987-06-29

    The Oak Ridge Research Reactor (ORR) was constructed in the mid 1950s. Since it is an older facility, the issue of life-limiting conditions or material deterioration resulting from prolonged exposure to the normal operating environment is an item that should be addressed in the safety analysis for the ORR. Life-limiting conditions were considered in the original design of ORR; but due to the limited data that were available at that time on material performance in research reactors, various studies were completed during the first 10 years of operation at ORR to verify the applicable life-limiting parameters. Based on today's knowledge of life limiting conditions and the previous 30 years of operating experience at the ORR facility, the three specific areas of concern are addressed in this supplement: (1) embrittlement of the structures due to radiation damage, which is described in Section 2; (2) fatigue due to the effects of both thermal cycling and vibration, which is addressed in Section 3; and (3) the effects of corrosion on the integrity of the primary system, which is described in Section 4. The purpose of this document is to provide a review of the applicable safety studies which have been performed, and to state the status of the ORR with regard to embrittlement, fatigue (due to thermal cycling and vibration), and corrosion.

  6. Criticality safety analysis on fissile materials in Fukushima reactor cores

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liu, Xudong; Lemaitre-Xavier, E.; Ahn, Joonhong; Hirano, Fumio

    2013-07-01

    The present study focuses on the criticality analysis for geological disposal of damaged fuels from Fukushima reactor cores. Starting from the basic understanding of behaviors of plutonium and uranium, a scenario sequence for criticality event is considered. Due to the different mobility of plutonium and uranium in geological formations, the criticality safety is considered in two parts: (1) near-field plutonium system and (2) far-field low enriched uranium (LEU) system. For the near-field plutonium system, a mathematical analysis for pure-solute transport was given, assuming a particular buffer material and waste form configuration. With the transport and decay of plutonium accounted, the critical mass of plutonium was compared with the initial load of a single canister. Our calculation leads us to the conclusion that our system with the initial loading being the average mass of plutonium in an assembly just before the accident is very unlikely to become critical over time. For the far-field LEU system, due to the uncertainties in the geological and geochemical conditions, calculations were made in a parametric space that covers the variation of material compositions and different geometries. Results show that the LEU system could not remain sub-critical within the entire parameter space assumed, although in the iron-rich rock, the neutron multiplicity is significantly reduced.

  7. DNFSB 2002-1 Software Quality Assurance Improvement Plan Commitment 4.2.1.2: Safety Quality Assurance Plan and Criteria for the Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    EH-4.2.1.2-Criteria Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2002-1 Software Quality Assurance Improvement Plan Commitment 4.2.1.2: Software Quality Assurance Plan and Criteria for the Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environment, Safety and Health 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20585-2040 November 2003 Software Quality Assurance Criteria for Safety Analysis Codes November 2003 INTENTIONALLY BLANK ii Software Quality Assurance Criteria

  8. Providing Nuclear Criticality Safety Analysis Education through Benchmark Experiment Evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John D. Bess; J. Blair Briggs; David W. Nigg

    2009-11-01

    One of the challenges that today's new workforce of nuclear criticality safety engineers face is the opportunity to provide assessment of nuclear systems and establish safety guidelines without having received significant experience or hands-on training prior to graduation. Participation in the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) and/or the International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP) provides students and young professionals the opportunity to gain experience and enhance critical engineering skills.

  9. Safety analysis of high pressure 3He-filled micro-channels for thermal neutron detection.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ferko, Scott M.; Galambos, Paul C.; Derzon, Mark Steven; Renzi, Ronald F.

    2008-11-01

    This document is a safety analysis of a novel neutron detection technology developed by Sandia National Laboratories. This technology is comprised of devices with tiny channels containing high pressure {sup 3}He. These devices are further integrated into large scale neutron sensors. Modeling and preliminary device testing indicates that the time required to detect the presence of special nuclear materials may be reduced under optimal conditions by several orders of magnitude using this approach. Also, these devices make efficient use of our {sup 3}He supply by making individual devices more efficient and/or extending the our limited {sup 3}He supply. The safety of these high pressure devices has been a primary concern. We address these safety concerns for a flat panel configuration intended for thermal neutron detection. Ballistic impact tests using 3 g projectiles were performed on devices made from FR4, Silicon, and Parmax materials. In addition to impact testing, operational limits were determined by pressurizing the devices either to failure or until they unacceptably leaked. We found that (1) sympathetic or parasitic failure does not occur in pressurized FR4 devices (2) the Si devices exhibited benign brittle failure (sympathetic failure under pressure was not tested) and (3) the Parmax devices failed unacceptably. FR4 devices were filled to pressures up to 4000 + 100 psig, and the impacts were captured using a high speed camera. The brittle Si devices shattered, but were completely contained when wrapped in thin tape, while the ductile FR4 devices deformed only. Even at 4000 psi the energy density of the compressed gas appears to be insignificant compared to the impact caused by the incoming projectile. In conclusion, the current FR4 device design pressurized up to 4000 psi does not show evidence of sympathetic failure, and these devices are intrinsically safe.

  10. Packaging Review Guide for Reviewing Safety Analysis Reports for Packagings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DiSabatino, A; Biswas, D; DeMicco, M; Fisher, L E; Hafner, R; Haslam, J; Mok, G; Patel, C; Russell, E

    2007-04-12

    This Packaging Review Guide (PRG) provides guidance for Department of Energy (DOE) review and approval of packagings to transport fissile and Type B quantities of radioactive material. It fulfills, in part, the requirements of DOE Order 460.1B for the Headquarters Certifying Official to establish standards and to provide guidance for the preparation of Safety Analysis Reports for Packagings (SARPs). This PRG is intended for use by the Headquarters Certifying Official and his or her review staff, DOE Secretarial offices, operations/field offices, and applicants for DOE packaging approval. This PRG is generally organized at the section level in a format similar to that recommended in Regulatory Guide 7.9 (RG 7.9). One notable exception is the addition of Section 9 (Quality Assurance), which is not included as a separate chapter in RG 7.9. Within each section, this PRG addresses the technical and regulatory bases for the review, the manner in which the review is accomplished, and findings that are generally applicable for a package that meets the approval standards. This Packaging Review Guide (PRG) provides guidance for DOE review and approval of packagings to transport fissile and Type B quantities of radioactive material. It fulfills, in part, the requirements of DOE O 460.1B for the Headquarters Certifying Official to establish standards and to provide guidance for the preparation of Safety Analysis Reports for Packagings (SARPs). This PRG is intended for use by the Headquarters Certifying Official and his review staff, DOE Secretarial offices, operations/field offices, and applicants for DOE packaging approval. The primary objectives of this PRG are to: (1) Summarize the regulatory requirements for package approval; (2) Describe the technical review procedures by which DOE determines that these requirements have been satisfied; (3) Establish and maintain the quality and uniformity of reviews; (4) Define the base from which to evaluate proposed changes in scope