National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for facilities disturb hazardous

  1. WIPP Documents - Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (RCRA)

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

    Hazardous Waste Facility Permit The WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) effective April 15, 2011 WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to manage, store, and dispose of contact-handled and remote-handled transuranic mixed waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Mixed waste contains radioactive and chemically hazardous components. Information Repository Documents related to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit

  2. Hazard evaluation for 244-AR vault facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BRAUN, D.J.

    1999-08-25

    This document presents the results of a hazard identification and evaluation performed on the 244-AR Vault Facility to close a USQ (USQ No.TF-98-0785, Potential Inadequacy in Authorization Basis (PIAB): To Evaluate Miscellaneous Facilities Listed In HNF-2503 And Not Addressed In The TWRS Authorization Basis) that was generated as part of an evaluation of inactive TWRS facilities. A hazard evaluation for the Hanford Site 244-AR Vault Facility was performed. The process and results of the hazard evaluation are provided in this document. A previous hazard evaluation was performed for the 244-AR Vault Facility in 1996 in support of the Basis for Interim Operation (BIO) (HNF-SD-WM-BIO-001, 1998, Revision 1) of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS). The results of that evaluation are provided in the BIO. Upon review of those results it was determined that hazardous conditions that could lead to the release of radiological and toxicological material from the 244-AR vaults due to flooding was not addressed in the original hazards evaluation. This supplemental hazard evaluation addresses this oversight of the original hazard evaluation. The results of the hazard evaluation were compared to the current TWRS BIO to identify any hazardous conditions where Authorization Basis (AB) controls may not be sufficient or may not exist. This document is not part of the AB and is not a vehicle for requesting changes to the AB. It is only intended to provide information about hazardous conditions associated with the condition and configuration of the 244-AR vault facility. The AB Control Decision process could be used to determine the applicability and adequacy of existing AB controls as well as any new controls that may be needed for the identified hazardous conditions associated with 244-AR vault flooding. This hazard evaluation does not constitute an accident analysis.

  3. Cold Vacuum Drying Facility hazard analysis report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krahn, D.E.

    1998-02-23

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) hazard analysis to support the CVDF phase 2 safety analysis report (SAR), and documents the results. The hazard analysis was performed in accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for US Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports, and implements the requirements of US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.

  4. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan This ...

  5. Exploratory Studies Facility Subsurface Fire Hazards Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard C. Logan

    2002-03-28

    The primary objective of this Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) is to confirm the requirements for a comprehensive fire and related hazards protection program for the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) are sufficient to minimize the potential for: The occurrence of a fire or related event; A fire that causes an unacceptable on-site or off-site release of hazardous or radiological material that will threaten the health and safety of employees, the public or the environment; Vital U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs suffering unacceptable interruptions as a result of fire and related hazards; Property losses from a fire and related events exceeding limits established by DOE; and Critical process controls and safety class systems being damaged as a result of a fire and related events.

  6. Exploratory Studies Facility Subsurface Fire Hazards Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. L. Kubicek

    2001-09-07

    The primary objective of this Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) is to confirm the requirements for a comprehensive fire and related hazards protection program for the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) are sufficient to minimize the potential for: (1) The occurrence of a fire or related event. (2) A fire that causes an unacceptable on-site or off-site release of hazardous or radiological material that will threaten the health and safety of employees, the public or the environment. (3) Vital US. Department of Energy (DOE) programs suffering unacceptable interruptions as a result of fire and related hazards. (4) Property losses from a fire and related events exceeding limits established by DOE. (5) Critical process controls and safety class systems being damaged as a result of a fire and related events.

  7. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Fact Sheet | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Fact...

  8. 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.

  9. Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) Hazards Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    COVEY, L.I.

    2000-11-28

    This report documents the hazards assessment for the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) located on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site. This hazards assessment was conducted to provide the emergency planning technical basis for WESF. DOE Orders require an emergency planning hazards assessment for each facility that has the potential to reach or exceed the lowest level emergency classification.

  10. Hazards Assessment Document of the New Waste Transfer Facility (NWTF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pareizs, J.M.

    1993-06-01

    This Hazards Assessment Document for the New Waste Transfer Facility (NWTF) has been prepared in accordance with the Interim Hazards Classification Guide for Non-Reactor Facilities at Savannah River Site. The conclusion of this assessment is that the facility is a High Hazard Nuclear Facility. The NWTF consists of all facilities installed by Project S-3122. The NWTF contains three segments. Segment 1 consists of the cells containing the diversion box and pump pits, with a Facility Segment Use Category (FSUC) determined to be High Hazard. Segment 2 is the building that encloses the cells. The FSUC of Segment 2 has been determined to be Low Hazard. Segment 3 consists of all parts of the facility external to the main building; this segment contains the ventilation system and HEPA filters and includes the diesel fuel tank. The FSUC of Segment 3 is Low Hazard.

  11. Preliminary hazards analysis for the National Ignition Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brereton, S.J.

    1993-10-01

    This report documents the Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA) for the National Ignition Facility (NIF). In summary, it provides: a general description of the facility and its operation; identification of hazards at the facility; and details of the hazards analysis, including inventories, bounding releases, consequences, and conclusions. As part of the safety analysis procedure set forth by DOE, a PHA must be performed for the NIF. The PHA characterizes the level of intrinsic potential hazard associated with a facility, and provides the basis for hazard classification. The hazard classification determines the level of safety documentation required, and the DOE Order governing the safety analysis. The hazard classification also determines the level of review and approval required for the safety analysis report. The hazards of primary concern associated with NIF are radiological and toxicological in nature. The hazard classification is determined by comparing facility inventories of radionuclides and chemicals with threshold values for the various hazard classification levels and by examining postulated bounding accidents associated with the hazards of greatest significance. Such postulated bounding accidents cannot take into account active mitigative features; they must assume the unmitigated consequences of a release, taking into account only passive safety features. In this way, the intrinsic hazard level of the facility can be ascertained.

  12. Hazards assessment for the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Calley, M.B.; Jones, J.L. Jr.

    1994-09-19

    This report documents the hazards assessment for the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which is operated by EG&G Idaho, Inc., for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The hazards assessment was performed to ensure that this facility complies with DOE and company requirements pertaining to emergency planning and preparedness for operational emergencies. DOE Order 5500.3A requires that a facility-specific hazards assessment be performed to provide the technical basis for facility emergency planning efforts. This hazards assessment was conducted in accordance with DOE Headquarters and DOE Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) guidance to comply with DOE Order 5500.3A. The hazards assessment identifies and analyzes hazards that are significant enough to warrant consideration in a facility`s operational emergency management program. This hazards assessment describes the WERF, the area surrounding WERF, associated buildings and structures at WERF, and the processes performed at WERF. All radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials stored, used, or produced at WERF were identified and screened. Even though the screening process indicated that the hazardous materials could be screened from further analysis because the inventory of radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials were below the screening thresholds specified by DOE and DOE-ID guidance for DOE Order 5500.3A, the nonradiological hazardous materials were analyzed further because it was felt that the nonradiological hazardous material screening thresholds were too high.

  13. WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit - 2008 Update

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kehrman, R.F.; Most, W.A.

    2008-07-01

    Important new changes to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) were implemented during 2007. The challenge was to implement these changes without impacting shipping schedules. Many of the changes required advanced preparation and coordination in order to transition to the new waste analysis paradigm, both at the generator sites and at the WIPP without interrupting the flow of waste to the disposal facility. Not only did aspects of waste characterization change, but also a new Permittees' confirmation program was created. Implementing the latter change required that new equipment and facilities be obtained, personnel hired, trained and qualified, and operating procedures written and approved without interruption to the contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste shipping schedule. This was all accomplished successfully with no delayed or cancelled shipments. Looking forward to 2008 and beyond, proposed changes that will deal with waste in the DOE TRU waste complex is larger than the TRUPACT-IIs can handle. Size reduction of the waste would lead to unnecessary exposure risk and ultimately create more waste. The WIPP is working to have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certify the TRUPACT-III. The TRUPACT-III will be able to accommodate larger sized TRU mixed waste. Along with this new NRC-certified shipping cask, a new disposal container, the Standard Large Box, must be proposed in a permit modification. Containers for disposal of TRU mixed waste at the WIPP must meet the DOT 7A standards and be filtered. Additionally, as the TRUPACT-III/Standard Large Box loads and unloads from the end of the shipping cask, the proposed modification will add horizontal waste handling techniques to WIPP's vertical CH TRU waste handling operations. Another major focus will be the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit reapplication. The WIPP received its HWFP in October of 1999 for a term of ten years. The regulations and the HWFP require that a new permit application be

  14. OAR 340-105 - DEQ Hazardous Management Facility Permits | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: OAR 340-105 - DEQ Hazardous Management Facility PermitsLegal Abstract Establishes basic permitting requirements for...

  15. Pantex Facility 10-Year Natural Phenomena Flood Hazard Analysis

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Pantex Facility 10-Year Natural Phenomena Flood Hazard Analysis Presented by and October, 2011 Presentation Outline I. Introductions II. Pantex III. 10 Year Update IV. Final ...

  16. Pantex Facility 10-Year Natural Phenomena Flood Hazard Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Pantex Facility 10-Year Natural Phenomena Flood Hazard Analysis Presented by B&W Technical Services, Pantex and Pro2Serve October, 2011

  17. Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) Final Hazard Category Determination

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HUTH, L.L.

    2001-06-06

    The Liquid Effluent Retention Facility was designed to store 242-A Evaporator process condensate and other liquid waste streams for treatment at the 200 East Area Effluent Treatment Facility. The Liquid Effluent Retention Facility has been previously classified as a Category 3 Nonreactor Nuclear Facility. As defined in Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports (DOE 1992, DOE 1997), Category 3 Nuclear Facilities have the potential for significant localized (radiological) consequences. However, based on current facility design, operations, and radioactive constituent concentrations, the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility does not have the potential for significant localized (radiological) consequences and is categorized as a Radiological Facility. This report documents the final hazard categorization process performed in accordance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. This report describes the current configuration and operations of the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility. Also included is a preliminary hazard categorization, which is based on current and proposed radioactive and hazardous material inventories, a preliminary hazards and accident analysis, and a final hazard category determination. The results of the hazards and accident analysis, based on the current configuration and operations of the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and the current and proposed radioactive and hazardous material inventories, demonstrate that the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility does not have the potential for significant localized (radiological) consequences. Based on the final hazard category analysis, the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility is a Radiological Facility. The final hazard category determination is based on a comparative evaluation of the consequence basis for the Category 3 threshold quantities to the calculated consequences for credible releases The basis for

  18. Approaches for Developing Uniform Hazard Spectra at Critical Facilities |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy Presentation from the May 2015 Seismic Lessons-Learned Panel Meeting. Approaches for Developing Uniform Hazard Spectra at Critical Facilities (615.57 KB) More Documents & Publications Approaches for Developing Uniform Hazard Spectra at Critical Facilities Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of 2014 Seismic Study on WTP Design Evaluation of the SRS Seismic Hazard Considering the EPRI 2013 Ground Motion Model

  19. Federal-facilities Hazardous-Waste Compliance Manual. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-01-09

    In the continuing effort to achieve a higher level of compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) at Federal facilities, the Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Office (FFHWCO) has developed the Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Manual. The manual includes an overview of the Federal-facilities hazardous-waste compliance program, relevant statutory authorities, model provisions for Federal facility agreements, enforcement and other applicable guidance, Federal facilities docket and NPL listings, data-management information, selected DOD and DOE program guidance, and organization charts and contacts. This compendium is intended to be used as a reference by Regional RCRA and CERCLA enforcement personnel and Regional Counsels, particularly as an orientation guide for new Federal facilities staff.

  20. EA-0688: Hazardous Waste Staging Facility, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of a proposal to construct the Hazardous Waste Staging Facility that would help to alleviate capacity problems as well as provide a single compliant...

  1. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Analysis Plan | Department of Energy The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan This document was used to determine facts and conditions during the Department of Energy Accident Investigation Board's investigation into the radiological release event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Additional documents referenced and listed in the Phase 2 Radiological Release

  2. Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Hazards Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE, R.D.

    2000-08-07

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) Hazard Analysis to support the CVDF Final Safety Analysis Report and documents the results. The hazard analysis was performed in accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, ''Preparation Guide for US. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports,'' and implements the requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, ''Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.''

  3. 233-S plutonium concentration facility hazards assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Broz, R.E.

    1994-12-19

    This document establishes the technical basis in support of Emergency Planning activities for the 233-S Plutonium Concentration Facility on the Hanford Site. The document represents an acceptable interpretation of the implementing guidance document for DOE ORDER 5500.3A. Through this document, the technical basis for the development of facility specific Emergency Action Levels and the Emergency Planning Zone is demonstrated.

  4. 340 Facility emergency preparedness hazards assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CAMPBELL, L.R.

    1998-11-25

    This document establishes the technical basis in support of Emergency Planning activities for the 340 Facility on the Hanford Site. Through this document, the technical basis for the development of facility specific Emergency Action Levels and Emergency Planning Zone, is demonstrated.

  5. ALTERNATE APPROACH TO HAZARD CATEGORIZATION FOR SALTSTONE FACILITY AT SRS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roy, B.

    2009-04-28

    The Saltstone Facility at Savannah River Site (SRS) was originally segmented into two segments: the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF) and the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Based on the inventory of radionuclides available for release the SPF and SDF were categorized as Nonreactor Hazard Category (HC)-3. The hazard categorization recognized the SDF will contain contributions of radionuclides which would exceed the HC-2 Threshold Quantity (TQ) in the form of grout. However it was determined not to impact the facility hazard categorization based on the grout being in a solid, monolithic form which was not easily dispersible. But, the impact of a quantity of unset grout expected to be present at the vault following operation of the process was not addressed. A Potential Inadequacy in Safety Analysis (PISA) was later issued based on the hazard categorization determination for the facility not addressing unset grout. This initiated a re-evaluation of the accident scenarios within the hazards analysis. During this re-evaluation, the segmentation of the facility was challenged based on the potential interaction between facility segments; specifically, the leachate return line and the grout transfer line, which were considered separate segments, are located in close proximity at one point. such that for certain events (NPH as well as External Vehicle Impact) both could be damaged simultaneously and spill contents on the ground that could commingle. This would violate the guideline for segmentation. Therefore, the Hazard Categorization (HC) was reevaluated based on the facility being a single segment and including the additional unset grout as part of total inventory. This total inventory far exceeded the limit for HC-2 TQ and made the facility's initial categorization as HC-2. However, alternative analysis methodology based on credible release fractions allowed in DOE-STD-1027-92 (Ref.1) showed that the Saltstone facility could still be categorized as Hazard Category

  6. Liquid Effluent Retention Facility/Effluent Treatment Facility Hazards Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Simiele, G.A.

    1994-09-29

    This document establishes the technical basis in support of Emergency Planning activities for the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and Effluent Treatment Facility the Hanford Site. The document represents an acceptable interpretation of the implementing guidance document for DOE ORDER 5500.3A. Through this document, the technical basis for the development of facility specific Emergency Action Levels and the Emergency Planning Zone is demonstrated.

  7. Sandia Lightning Simulation Facility Building 888. Hazards assessment document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Banda, Z.; Barnett, B.

    1994-10-01

    The Department of Energy Order 5500.3A requires facility-specific hazards assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. This hazards assessment document describes the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the Sandia Lightning Simulation Facility, Building 888. The entire inventory was screened according to the potential airborne impact to onsite and offsite individuals. The air dispersion model, ALOHA, estimated pollutant concentrations downwind from the source of a release, taking into consideration the toxicological and physical characteristics of the release site, the atmospheric conditions, and the circumstances of the release. The greatest distance at which a postulated facility event will produce consequences exceeding the Early Severe Health Effects threshold is 23 meters. The highest emergency classification is a Site Area Emergency. The Emergency Planning Zone is 65 meters.

  8. Sandia Administrative Micrographics Facility, Building 802: Hazards assessment document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Swihart, A.

    1994-12-01

    The Department of Energy Order 5500.3A requires facility-specific hazards assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. This hazards assessment document describes the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the Sandia Administrative Micrographics Facility, Building 802. The entire inventory was screened according to the potential airborne impact to onsite and offsite individuals. The air dispersion model, ALOHA, estimated pollutant concentrations downwind from the source of a release, taking into consideration the toxicological and physical characteristics of the release site, the atmospheric conditions, and the circumstances of the release. The greatest distance at which a postulated facility event will produce consequences exceeding the Early Severe Health Effects threshold is 33 meters. The highest emergency classification is a Site Area Emergency. The Emergency Planning Zone is 75 meters.

  9. Hazard categorization and classification for the sodium storage facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Van Keuren, J.C.

    1994-08-30

    The Sodium Storage Facility is planned to be constructed in the 400 area for long term storage of sodium from the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). It will contain four large sodium storage tanks. Three of the tanks have a capacity of 80,000 gallons of sodium each, and the fourth will hold 52,500 gallons. The tanks will be connected by piping with each other and to the FFTF. Sodium from the FFTF primary and secondary Heat Transport Systems (HTS), Interim Decay Storage (IDS), and the Fuel Storage Facility (FSF) will be transferred to the facility, and stored there in a frozen state pending final disposition. A Hazard Classification has been performed in order to evaluate the potential toxic consequences of a sodium fire according to the provisions of DOE Order 5481.1B. The conclusion of these evaluations is that the Sodium Storage Facility meets the requirements of the lowest Hazard Category, i.e., radiological facility, and the Hazard Classification is recommended to be moderate.

  10. Fire Hazard Analysis for the Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JOHNSON, B.H.

    1999-08-19

    This Fire Hazard Analysis assesses the risk from fire within individual fire areas in the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility at the Hanford Site in relation to existing or proposed fire protection features to ascertain whether the objectives of DOE Order 5480.7A Fire Protection are met.

  11. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Public Comments to Community Relations Plan

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

    Annual Summary of Comments for July 2012 through August 2013 Last saved on: 8/30/2013 Annual Summary of CRP comment for July 2011- August 2012 1 SECTION COMMENT POST? 2.0 & 4.0 1. Fix broken links on pages 3 and 4 for the HWA permit. Yes 2.0 2. Revise a sentence on page 4 to: "Limits on LANL waste facilities may be found in Attachment J of the Permit." Yes 3. Delete Section 5.3.7 on RACER. Provide a description of Intellus. Yes 2.0 Yes 5.1 Yes Hazardous Waste Facility Permit

  12. The Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bailey, L.L.

    1991-01-01

    The Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Facility (HW/MWDF) will provide permanent Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted storage, treatment, and disposal for hazardous and mixed waste generated at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) that cannot be disposed of in existing or planned SRS facilities. Final design is complete for Phase I of the project, the Disposal Vaults. The Vaults will provide RCRA permitted, above-grade disposal capacity for treated hazardous and mixed waste generated at the SRS. The RCRA Part B Permit application was submitted upon approval of the Permit application, the first Disposal Vault is scheduled to be operational in mid 1994. The technical baseline has been established for Phase II, the Treatment Building, and preliminary design work has been performed. The Treatment Building will provide RCRA permitted treatment processes to handle a variety of hazardous and mixed waste generated at SRS in preparation for disposal. The processes will treat wastes for disposal in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR). A RCRA Part B Permit application has not yet been submitted to SCDHEC for this phase of the project. The Treatment Building is currently scheduled to be operational in late 1996.

  13. The Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bailey, L.L.

    1991-12-31

    The Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Facility (HW/MWDF) will provide permanent Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted storage, treatment, and disposal for hazardous and mixed waste generated at the Department of Energy`s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) that cannot be disposed of in existing or planned SRS facilities. Final design is complete for Phase I of the project, the Disposal Vaults. The Vaults will provide RCRA permitted, above-grade disposal capacity for treated hazardous and mixed waste generated at the SRS. The RCRA Part B Permit application was submitted upon approval of the Permit application, the first Disposal Vault is scheduled to be operational in mid 1994. The technical baseline has been established for Phase II, the Treatment Building, and preliminary design work has been performed. The Treatment Building will provide RCRA permitted treatment processes to handle a variety of hazardous and mixed waste generated at SRS in preparation for disposal. The processes will treat wastes for disposal in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA`s) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR). A RCRA Part B Permit application has not yet been submitted to SCDHEC for this phase of the project. The Treatment Building is currently scheduled to be operational in late 1996.

  14. Ross Hazardous and Toxic Materials Handling Facility: Environmental Assessment.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    URS Consultants, Inc.

    1992-06-01

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns a 200-acre facility in Washington State known as the Ross Complex. Activities at the Ross Complex routinely involve handling toxic substances such as oil-filled electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organic and inorganic compounds for preserving wood transmission poles, and paints, solvents, waste oils, and pesticides and herbicides. Hazardous waste management is a common activity on-site, and hazardous and toxic substances are often generated from these and off-site activities. The subject of this environmental assessment (EA) concerns the consolidation of hazardous and toxic substances handling at the Complex. This environmental assessment has been developed to identify the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposal. It has been prepared to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine if the proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. In addition to the design elements included within the project, mitigation measures have been identified within various sections that are now incorporated within the project. This facility would be designed to improve the current waste handling practices and to assist BPA in meeting Federal and state regulations.

  15. Design characteristics for facilities which process hazardous particulate

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Abeln, S.P.; Creek, K.; Salisbury, S.

    1998-12-01

    Los Alamos National Laboratory is establishing a research and processing capability for beryllium. The unique properties of beryllium, including light weight, rigidity, thermal conductivity, heat capacity, and nuclear properties make it critical to a number of US defense and aerospace programs. Concomitant with the unique engineering properties are the health hazards associated with processing beryllium in a particulate form and the potential for worker inhalation of aerosolized beryllium. Beryllium has the lowest airborne standard for worker protection compared to all other nonradioactive metals by more than an order of magnitude. This paper describes the design characteristics of the new beryllium facility at Los Alamos as they relate to protection of the workforce. Design characteristics to be reviewed include; facility layout, support systems to minimize aerosol exposure and spread, and detailed review of the ventilation system design for general room air cleanliness and extraction of particulate at the source.

  16. Hazardous Waste Certification Plan: Hazardous Waste Handling Facility, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-02-01

    The purpose of this plan is to describe the organization and methodology for the certification of hazardous waste (HW) handled in the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) Hazardous Waste Handling Facility (HWHF). The plan also incorporates the applicable elements of waste reduction, which include both up-front minimization and end- product treatment to reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste; segregation of the waste as it applies to certification; and executive summary of the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for the HWHF and a list of the current and planned implementing procedures used in waste certification. The plan provides guidance from the HWHF to waste generators, waste handlers, and the Systems Group Manager to enable them to conduct their activities and carry out their responsibilities in a manner that complies with several requirements of the Federal Resource Conservation and Resource Recovery Act (RCRA), the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT), and the State of California, Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22.

  17. Fire Hazard Analysis for the Cold Vacuum Drying facility (CVD) Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SINGH, G.

    2000-09-06

    The CVDF is a nonreactor nuclear facility that will process the Spent Nuclear Fuels (SNF) presently stored in the 105-KE and 105-KW SNF storage basins. Multi-canister overpacks (MCOs) will be loaded (filled) with K Basin fuel transported to the CVDF. The MCOs will be processed at the CVDF to remove free water from the fuel cells (packages). Following processing at the CVDF, the MCOs will be transported to the CSB for interim storage until a long-term storage solution can be implemented. This operation is expected to start in November 2000. A Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) is required for all new facilities and all nonreactor nuclear facilities, in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.7A, Fire Protection. This FHA has been prepared in accordance with DOE 5480.7A and HNF-PRO-350, Fire Hazard Analysis Requirements. Additionally, requirements or criteria contained in DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) RL Implementing Directive (RLID) 5480.7, Fire Protection, or other DOE documentation are cited, as applicable. This FHA comprehensively assesses the risk of fire at the CVDF to ascertain whether the specific objectives of DOE 5480.7A are met. These specific fire protection objectives are: (1) Minimize the potential for the occurrence of a fire. (2) Ensure that fire does not cause an onsite or offsite release of radiological and other hazardous material that will threaten the public health and safety or the environment. (3) Establish requirements that will provide an acceptable degree of life safety to DOE and contractor personnel and ensure that there are no undue hazards to the public from fire and its effects in DOE facilities. (4) Ensure that vital DOE programs will not suffer unacceptable delays as a result of fire and related perils. (5) Ensure that property damage from fire and related perils does not exceed an acceptable level. (6) Ensure that process control and safety systems are not damaged by fire or related perils. This FHA is based on the

  18. Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility groundwater monitoring report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thompson, C.Y.

    1993-03-01

    During fourth quarter 1992, samples from 18 groundwater monitoring wells of the AMB series at the Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility were analyzed for certain heavy metals, indicator parameters, radionuclides, volatile organic compounds, and other constituents. Six parameters exceeded final Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS) and the Savannah River Site Flag 2 criteria during the quarter. The results for fourth quarter 1992 are fairly consistent with the rest of the year's data. Tetrachloroethylene exceeded the final PDWS in well AMB 4D only two of the four quarters; in the other three wells in which it was elevated, it was present at similar levels throughout the year. Trichloroethylene consistently exceeded its PDWS in wells AMB 4A, 4B, 4D, 5, and 7A during the year. Trichloroethylene was elevated in well AMB 6 only during third and fourth quarters and in well AMB 7 only during fourth quarter. Total alpha-emitting radium was above the final PDWS for total radium in well AMB 5 at similar levels throughout the year and exceeded the PDWS during one of the three quarters it was analyzed for (third quarter 1992) in well AMB 10B.

  19. Guide for the Mitigation of Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and NonNuclear Facilities

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

    2000-03-28

    This document provides guidance in implementing the Natural Phenomena Hazard (NPH) mitigation requirements of DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety, Section 4.4, "Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation." This Guide does not establish or invoke any new requirements. Any apparent conflicts arising from the NPH guidance would defer to the requirements in DOE O 420.1. No cancellation.

  20. Natural Phenomena Hazard Analysis and Design Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities

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

    2012-08-03

    This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD)-1020-2012, Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities, provides criteria and guidance for the analysis and design of facility structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are necessary to implement the requirements of DOE Order (O) 420.1C, Facility Safety, and to ensure that the SSCs will be able to effectively perform their intended safety functions under the effects of natural phenomena hazards (NPHs).

  1. EM Prepares to Demolish Most Hazardous Hanford Site Facility...

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

    Facility (green), followed by 242-Z (red), the main processing building (blue), ... Facility (green), followed by 242-Z (red), the main processing building (blue), ...

  2. Fire hazards analysis of transuranic waste storage and assay facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Busching, K.R., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-07-31

    This document analyzes the fire hazards associated with operations at the Central Waste Complex. It provides the analysis and recommendations necessary to ensure compliance with applicable fire codes.

  3. Tank waste remediation system FSAR hazard identification/facility configuration verification report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mendoza, D.P., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-05-01

    This document provides the results of the Tank Waste Remediation System Final Safety Analysis Report (TWRS FSAR) hazards identification/facility configuration activities undertaken from the period of March 7, 1996 to May 31, 1996. The purpose of this activity was to provide an independent overview of the TWRS facility specific hazards and configurations that were used in support of the TWRS FSAR hazards and accident analysis development. It was based on a review of existing published documentation and field inspections. The objective of the verification effort was to provide a `snap shot` in time of the existing TWRS facility hazards and configurations and will be used to support hazards and accident analysis activities.

  4. Category 3 threshold quantities for hazard categorization of nonreactor facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mandigo, R.L.

    1996-02-13

    This document provides the information necessary to determine Hazard Category 3 threshold quantities for those isotopes of interest not listed in WHC-CM-4-46, Section 4, Table 1.''Threshold Quantities.''

  5. F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility Semiannual Correction Action Report, Vol. I and II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, J.

    1999-11-18

    The groundwater in the uppermost aquifer beneath the F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) at the Savannah River Site is routinely monitored for selected hazardous and radioactive constituents. This report presents the results of the required groundwater monitoring program.

  6. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) Guidance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook:...

  7. Facilities Condition and Hazards Assessment for Materials and Fuel Complex Facilities MFC-799, 799A, and 770C

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gary Mecham; Don Konoyer

    2009-11-01

    The Materials & Fuel Complex (MFC) facilities 799 Sodium Processing Facility (a single building consisting of two areas: the Sodium Process Area (SPA) and the Carbonate Process Area (CPA), 799A Caustic Storage Area, and 770C Nuclear Calibration Laboratory have been declared excess to future Department of Energy mission requirements. Transfer of these facilities from Nuclear Energy to Environmental Management, and an associated schedule for doing so, have been agreed upon by the two offices. The prerequisites for this transfer to occur are the removal of nonexcess materials and chemical inventory, deinventory of the calibration source in MFC-770C, and the rerouting and/or isolation of utility and service systems. This report provides a description of the current physical condition and any hazards (material, chemical, nuclear or occupational) that may be associated with past operations of these facilities. This information will document conditions at time of transfer of the facilities from Nuclear Energy to Environmental Management and serve as the basis for disposition planning. The process used in obtaining this information included document searches, interviews and facility walk-downs. A copy of the facility walk-down checklist is included in this report as Appendix A. MFC-799/799A/770C are all structurally sound and associated hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions are well defined and well understood. All installed equipment items (tanks, filters, etc.) used to process hazardous materials remain in place and appear to have maintained their integrity. There is no evidence of leakage and all openings are properly sealed or closed off and connections are sound. The pits appear clean with no evidence of cracking or deterioration that could lead to migration of contamination. Based upon the available information/documentation reviewed and the overall conditions observed during the facilities walk-down, it is concluded that these facilities may be disposed of

  8. Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for Department of Energy Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    This DOE standard gives design and evaluation criteria for natural phenomena hazards (NPH) effects as guidance for implementing the NPH mitigation requirements of DOE 5480.28. Goal of the criteria is to assure that DOE facilities can withstand the effects of earthquakes, extreme winds, tornadoes, flooding, etc. They apply to the design of new facilities and the evaluation of existing facilities; they may also be used for modification and upgrading of the latter.

  9. Waste management facilities cost information for hazardous waste. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shropshire, D.; Sherick, M.; Biagi, C.

    1995-06-01

    This report contains preconceptual designs and planning level life-cycle cost estimates for managing hazardous waste. The report`s information on treatment, storage, and disposal modules can be integrated to develop total life-cycle costs for various waste management options. A procedure to guide the US Department of Energy and its contractor personnel in the use of cost estimation data is also summarized in this report.

  10. Hazard Classification of the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2012-05-01

    The Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is constructing a new facility to replace remote-handled low-level radioactive waste disposal capability for INL and Naval Reactors Facility operations. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) will continue until the facility is full or closed for remediation (estimated at approximately fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility is the highest ranked alternative and will provide RH-LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate RH-LLW for the foreseeable future. As a part of establishing a safety basis for facility operations, the facility will be categorized according to DOE-STD-1027-92. This classification is important in determining the scope of analyses performed in the safety basis and will also dictate operational requirements of the completed facility. This paper discusses the issues affecting hazard classification in this nuclear facility and impacts of the final hazard categorization.

  11. Closure of hazardous and mixed radioactive waste management units at DOE facilities. [Contains glossary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-06-01

    This is document addresses the Federal regulations governing the closure of hazardous and mixed waste units subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. It provides a brief overview of the RCRA permitting program and the extensive RCRA facility design and operating standards. It provides detailed guidance on the procedural requirements for closure and post-closure care of hazardous and mixed waste management units, including guidance on the preparation of closure and post-closure plans that must be submitted with facility permit applications. This document also provides guidance on technical activities that must be conducted both during and after closure of each of the following hazardous waste management units regulated under RCRA.

  12. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-02-01

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  13. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-05-01

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  14. Hazard Evaluation for Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Sludge at the Solid Waste Treatment Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SCHULTZ, M.V.

    2000-08-22

    As part of the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) storage basin clean-up project, sludge that has accumulated in the K Basins due to corrosion of damaged irradiated N Reactor will be loaded into containers and placed in interim storage. The Hanford Site Treatment Complex (T Plant) has been identified as the location where the sludge will be stored until final disposition of the material occurs. Long term storage of sludge from the K Basin fuel storage facilities requires identification and analysis of potential accidents involving sludge storage in T Plant. This report is prepared as the initial step in the safety assurance process described in DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports and HNF-PRO-704, Hazards and Accident Analysis Process. This report documents the evaluation of potential hazards and off-normal events associated with sludge storage activities. This information will be used in subsequent safety analyses, design, and operations procedure development to ensure safe storage. The hazards evaluation for the storage of SNF sludge in T-Plant used the Hazards and Operability Analysis (HazOp) method. The hazard evaluation identified 42 potential hazardous conditions. No hazardous conditions involving hazardous/toxic chemical concerns were identified. Of the 42 items identified in the HazOp study, eight were determined to have potential for onsite worker consequences. No items with potential offsite consequences were identified in the HazOp study. Hazardous conditions with potential onsite worker or offsite consequences are candidates for quantitative consequence analysis. The hazardous conditions with potential onsite worker consequences were grouped into two event categories, Container failure due to overpressure - internal to T Plant, and Spill of multiple containers. The two event categories will be developed into accident scenarios that will be quantitatively analyzed to determine release consequences. A third category, Container failure due to

  15. Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Draft Community Relations Plan

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

    Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Draft Community Relations Plan Comment/Suggestion Form Instructions for completing the form: Please reference the section in the plan that your comments and suggestions address. Example: Section 1.0. General comments are also useful to plan improvment. Please include ideas for implementation of your suggestion, and your contact information for further discussion. Public comments and suggestions are received year round. A summary of comments are posted each year at

  16. Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) groundwater monitoring report, second quarter 1992

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thompson, C.Y.

    1992-09-01

    During second quarter 1992, 18 groundwater monitoring wells of the AMB series at the Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility (Met Lab HWMF) were visited for sampling. Groundwater samples were analyzed for certain heavy metals, indicator parameters, radionuclides, volatile organic compounds, and other constituents. This report describes the results that exceeded the US Environmental Protection Agency Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS) and the Savannah River Site flagging criteria during the quarter.

  17. Development of Probabilistic Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) Parameters for Moderate and High Hazard Facilities at INEEL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S. M. Payne; V. W. Gorman; S. A. Jensen; M. E. Nitzel; M. J. Russell; R. P. Smith

    2000-03-01

    Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) horizontal and vertical response spectra are developed for moderate and high hazard facilities or Performance Categories (PC) 3 and 4, respectively, at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The probabilistic DBE response spectra will replace the deterministic DBE response spectra currently in the U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) Architectural Engineering Standards that govern seismic design criteria for several facility areas at the INEEL. Probabilistic DBE response spectra are recommended to DOE Naval Reactors for use at the Naval Reactor Facility at INEEL. The site-specific Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) developed by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Federal Services are used as the basis for developing the DBE response spectra. In 1999, the UHS for all INEEL facility areas were recomputed using more appropriate attenuation relationships for the Basin and Range province. The revised UHS have lower ground motions than those produced in the 1996 INEEL site-wide probabilistic ground motion study. The DBE response spectra were developed by incorporating smoothed broadened regions of the peak accelerations, velocities, and displacements defined by the site-specific UHS. Portions of the DBE response spectra were adjusted to ensure conservatism for the structural design process.

  18. Construction and operation of replacement hazardous waste handling facility at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Environmental Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-09-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA), DOE/EA-0423, for the construction and operation of a replacement hazardous waste handling facility (HWHF) and decontamination of the existing HWHF at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), Berkeley, California. The proposed facility would replace several older buildings and cargo containers currently being used for waste handling activities and consolidate the LBL`s existing waste handling activities in one location. The nature of the waste handling activities and the waste volume and characteristics would not change as a result of construction of the new facility. Based on the analysis in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed action would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 USC. 4321 et seq. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

  19. F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility Correction Action Report, Third and Fourth Quarter 1998, Volumes I and II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, J.

    1999-04-23

    The groundwater in the uppermost aquifer beneath the F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF), also known as the F-Area Seepage Basins, at the Savannah Site (SRS) is monitored periodically for selected hazardous and radioactive constituents. This report presents the results of the required groundwater monitoring program.

  20. Natural phenomena hazards evaluation of equipment and piping of Gaseous Diffusion Plant Uranium Enrichment Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Singhal, M.K.; Kincaid, J.H.; Hammond, C.R.; Stockdale, B.I.; Walls, J.C.; Brock, W.R.; Denton, D.R.

    1995-12-31

    In support of the Gaseous Diffusion Plant Safety Analysis Report Upgrade program (GDP SARUP), a natural phenomena hazards evaluation was performed for the main process equipment and piping in the uranium enrichment buildings at Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. In order to reduce the cost of rigorous analyses, the evaluation methodology utilized a graded approach based on an experience data base collected by SQUG/EPRI that contains information on the performance of industrial equipment and piping during past earthquakes. This method consisted of a screening walkthrough of the facility in combination with the use of engineering judgment and simple calculations. By using these screenings combined with evaluations that contain decreasing conservatism, reductions in the time and cost of the analyses were significant. A team of experienced seismic engineers who were trained in the use of the DOE SQUG/EPRI Walkdown Screening Material was essential to the success of this natural phenomena hazards evaluation.

  1. SOFTWARE TOOLS THAT ADDRESS HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ISSUES DURING NUCLEAR FACILITY D and D

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    M. COURNOYER; R. GRUNDEMANN

    2001-03-01

    The 49-year-old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Facility is where analytical chemistry and metallurgical studies on samples of plutonium and nuclear materials are conduct in support of the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program. The CMR Facility is expected to be decontaminated and decommissioned (D and D) over the next ten to twenty years. Over the decades, several hazardous material issues have developed that need to be address. Unstable chemicals must be properly reassigned or disposed of from the workspace during D and D operation. Materials that have critical effects that are primarily chronic in nature, carcinogens, reproductive toxin, and materials that exhibit high chronic toxicity, have unique decontamination requirements, including the decontrolling of areas where these chemicals were used. Certain types of equipment and materials that contain mercury, asbestos, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls have special provisions that must be addressed. Utilization of commercially available software programs for addressing hazardous material issues during D and D operations such as legacy chemicals and documentation are presented. These user-friendly programs eliminate part of the tediousness associated with the complex requirements of legacy hazardous materials. A key element of this approach is having a program that inventories and tracks all hazardous materials. Without an inventory of chemicals stored in a particular location, many important questions pertinent to D and D operations can be difficult to answer. On the other hand, a well-managed inventory system can address unstable and highly toxic chemicals and hazardous material records concerns before they become an issue. Tapping into the institutional database provides a way to take advantage of the combined expertise of the institution in managing a cost effective D and D program as well as adding a quality assurance element to the program. Using laboratory requirements as a logic flow

  2. ORNL necessary and sufficient standards for environment, safety, and health. Final report of the Identification Team for other industrial, radiological, and non-radiological hazard facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-07-01

    This Necessary and Sufficient (N and S) set of standards is for Other Industrial, Radiological, and Non-Radiological Hazard Facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). These facility classifications are based on a laboratory-wide approach to classify facilities by hazard category. An analysis of the hazards associated with the facilities at ORNL was conducted in 1993. To identify standards appropriate for these Other Industrial, Radiological, and Non-Radiological Hazard Facilities, the activities conducted in these facilities were assessed, and the hazards associated with the activities were identified. A preliminary hazards list was distributed to all ORNL organizations. The hazards identified in prior hazard analyses are contained in the list, and a category of other was provided in each general hazard area. A workshop to assist organizations in properly completing the list was held. Completed hazard screening lists were compiled for each ORNL division, and a master list was compiled for all Other Industrial, Radiological Hazard, and Non-Radiological facilities and activities. The master list was compared against the results of prior hazard analyses by research and development and environment, safety, and health personnel to ensure completeness. This list, which served as a basis for identifying applicable environment, safety, and health standards, appears in Appendix A.

  3. Hazardous medical waste generation rates of different categories of health-care facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Komilis, Dimitrios; Fouki, Anastassia; Papadopoulos, Dimitrios

    2012-07-15

    Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We calculated hazardous medical waste generation rates (HMWGR) from 132 hospitals. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Based on a 22-month study period, HMWGR were highly skewed to the right. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The HMWGR varied from 0.00124 to 0.718 kg bed{sup -1} d{sup -1}. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer A positive correlation existed between the HMWGR and the number of hospital beds. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We used non-parametric statistics to compare rates among hospital categories. - Abstract: Goal of this work was to calculate the hazardous medical waste unit generation rates (HMWUGR), in kg bed{sup -1} d{sup -1}, using data from 132 health-care facilities in Greece. The calculations were based on the weights of the hazardous medical wastes that were regularly transferred to the sole medical waste incinerator in Athens over a 22-month period during years 2009 and 2010. The 132 health-care facilities were grouped into public and private ones, and, also, into seven sub-categories, namely: birth, cancer treatment, general, military, pediatric, psychiatric and university hospitals. Results showed that there is a large variability in the HMWUGR, even among hospitals of the same category. Average total HMWUGR varied from 0.012 kg bed{sup -1} d{sup -1}, for the public psychiatric hospitals, to up to 0.72 kg bed{sup -1} d{sup -1}, for the public university hospitals. Within the private hospitals, average HMWUGR ranged from 0.0012 kg bed{sup -1} d{sup -1}, for the psychiatric clinics, to up to 0.49 kg bed{sup -1} d{sup -1}, for the birth clinics. Based on non-parametric statistics, HMWUGR were statistically similar for the birth and general hospitals, in both the public and private sector. The private birth and general hospitals generated statistically more wastes compared to the corresponding public hospitals. The infectious/toxic and toxic medical wastes appear to be 10% and 50% of the total hazardous medical wastes

  4. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Hazards Analysis Report for the Low-Activity Waste Facility Reagent Systems – July 2015

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Hazards Analysis Report for the Low-Activity Waste Facility Reagent Systems

  5. Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History and Cleanup of Most Hazardous Facility at Hanford

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    RICHLAND, Wash. – The Department of Energy is releasing the sixth chapter of The Hanford Story video series to the public today. "Plutonium Finishing Plant" provides viewers with a look at the history and cleanup of the highest hazard facility remaining at the Hanford Site.

  6. Hazardous Materials Verification and Limited Characterization Report on Sodium and Caustic Residuals in Materials and Fuel Complex Facilities MFC-799/799A

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gary Mecham

    2010-08-01

    This report is a companion to the Facilities Condition and Hazard Assessment for Materials and Fuel Complex Sodium Processing Facilities MFC-799/799A and Nuclear Calibration Laboratory MFC-770C (referred to as the Facilities Condition and Hazards Assessment). This report specifically responds to the requirement of Section 9.2, Item 6, of the Facilities Condition and Hazards Assessment to provide an updated assessment and verification of the residual hazardous materials remaining in the Sodium Processing Facilities processing system. The hazardous materials of concern are sodium and sodium hydroxide (caustic). The information supplied in this report supports the end-point objectives identified in the Transition Plan for Multiple Facilities at the Materials and Fuels Complex, Advanced Test Reactor, Central Facilities Area, and Power Burst Facility, as well as the deactivation and decommissioning critical decision milestone 1, as specified in U.S. Department of Energy Guide 413.3-8, “Environmental Management Cleanup Projects.” Using a tailored approach and based on information obtained through a combination of process knowledge, emergency management hazardous assessment documentation, and visual inspection, this report provides sufficient detail regarding the quantity of hazardous materials for the purposes of facility transfer; it also provides that further characterization/verification of these materials is unnecessary.

  7. Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility groundwater monitoring report. Fourth quarter 1992 and 1992 summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thompson, C.Y.

    1993-03-01

    During fourth quarter 1992, samples from 18 groundwater monitoring wells of the AMB series at the Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility were analyzed for certain heavy metals, indicator parameters, radionuclides, volatile organic compounds, and other constituents. Six parameters exceeded final Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS) and the Savannah River Site Flag 2 criteria during the quarter. The results for fourth quarter 1992 are fairly consistent with the rest of the year`s data. Tetrachloroethylene exceeded the final PDWS in well AMB 4D only two of the four quarters; in the other three wells in which it was elevated, it was present at similar levels throughout the year. Trichloroethylene consistently exceeded its PDWS in wells AMB 4A, 4B, 4D, 5, and 7A during the year. Trichloroethylene was elevated in well AMB 6 only during third and fourth quarters and in well AMB 7 only during fourth quarter. Total alpha-emitting radium was above the final PDWS for total radium in well AMB 5 at similar levels throughout the year and exceeded the PDWS during one of the three quarters it was analyzed for (third quarter 1992) in well AMB 10B.

  8. Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility groundwater monitoring report: First quarter 1992

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thompson, C.Y.

    1992-06-01

    During first quarter 1992, 18 groundwater monitoring wells of the AMB series at the Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facility (Metlab HWMF) at Savannah River Plant were visited for sampling. Groundwater samples were analyzed for certain heavy metals, indicator parameters, radionuclides, volatile organic compounds, and other constituents. This report describes the results that exceeded the US Environmental Protection Agency Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS) and the Savannah River Site flagging criteria during the quarter. Tetrachloroethylene exceeded the PDWS in wells AMB 4A, 5, and 7A; trichloroethylene exceeded the PDWS in wells AMB 4A, 4B, 4D, 5, and 7A; and total alpha-emitting radium (radium-224 and radium-226) exceeded the PDWS in well AMB 5. Total organic halogens exceeded the Flag 2 criterion in wells AMB 4A, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, and IODD; manganese was elevated in wells AMB 4D and TODD; iron was elevated in well AMB TODD; and pH was elevated in well AMB 10A.

  9. F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility groundwater monitoring report, Third and fourth quarters 1995: Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-03-01

    Groundwater at the F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) is monitored in compliance with applicable regulations. Monitoring results are compared to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) Groundwater Protection Standard (GWPS). Historically and currently, gross alpha, nitrates, nonvolatile beta, and tritium are among the primary constituents to exceed standards. Numerous other radionuclides and hazardous constituents also exceed the GWPS in the groundwater during the second half of 1995, notably cadmium, lead, radium-226, radium-228, strontium-90, and total alpha-emitting radium. The elevated constituents were found primarily in the water table (aquifer zone IIB{sub 2}), however, several other aquifer unit monitoring wells contained elevated levels of constituents. Water-level maps indicate that the groundwater flow rates and directions at the F-Area HWMF have remained relatively constant since the basins ceased to be active in 1988.

  10. Hazard Baseline Documentation

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

    1995-12-04

    This standard establishes uniform Office of Environmental Management (EM) guidance on hazard baseline documents that identify and control radiological and non-radiological hazards for all EM facilities.

  11. Waste management facilities cost information for transportation of radioactive and hazardous materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Feizollahi, F.; Shropshire, D.; Burton, D.

    1995-06-01

    This report contains cost information on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Complex waste streams that will be addressed by DOE in the programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) project. It describes the results of the task commissioned by DOE to develop cost information for transportation of radioactive and hazardous waste. It contains transportation costs for most types of DOE waste streams: low-level waste (LLW), mixed low-level waste (MLLW), alpha LLW and alpha MLLW, Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) LLW and DOE equivalent waste, transuranic (TRU) waste, spent nuclear fuel (SNF), and hazardous waste. Unit rates for transportation of contact-handled (<200 mrem/hr contact dose) and remote-handled (>200 mrem/hr contact dose) radioactive waste are estimated. Land transportation of radioactive and hazardous waste is subject to regulations promulgated by DOE, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and state and local agencies. The cost estimates in this report assume compliance with applicable regulations.

  12. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    The report constitutes a comprehensive site-specific risk assessment for the WTI incineration facility located in East Liverpool, OH. Volume I is a description of the components and methodologies used in the risk assessment and provides a summary of the major results from the three components of the assessment.

  13. Methods for developing seismic and extreme wind-hazard models for evaluating critical structures and equipment at US Department of Energy facilities and commercial plutonium facilities in the United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coats, D.W.; Murray, R.C.; Bernreuter, D.L.

    1981-02-04

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is developing seismic and wind hazard models for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The work is part of a three-phase effort to establish building design criteria developed with a uniform methodology for seismic and wind hazards at the various DOE sites throughout the United States. In Phase 1, LLNL gathered information on the sites and their critical facilities, including nuclear reactors, fuel-reprocessing plants, high-level waste storage and treatment facilities, and special nuclear material facilities. Phase 2 - development of seismic and wind hazard models - is discussed in this paper, which summarizes the methodologies used by seismic and extreme-wind experts and gives sample hazard curves for the first sites to be modeled. These hazard models express the annual probability that the site will experience an earthquake (or windspeed) greater than some specified magnitude. In the final phase, the DOE will use the hazards models and LLNL-recommended uniform design criteria to evaluate critical facilities. The methodology presented in this paper also was used for a related LLNL study - involving the seismic assessment of six commercial plutonium fabrication plants licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Details and results of this reassessment are documented in reference.

  14. M-Area and Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Groundwate Monitoring and Corrective-Action Report, First and Second Quarters 1998, Volumes I, II, & III

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, J.

    1998-10-30

    This report describes the groundwater monitoring and corrective-action program at the M-Area Hazardous waste Management Facility (HWMF) and the Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab) HWMF at the Savannah river Site (SRS) during first and second quarters 1998. This program is required by South Carolina Hazardous Waste Permit SC1-890-008-989 and Section 264.100(g) of the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. Report requirements are described in the 1995 RCRA Renewal Permit, effective October 5, 1995, Section IIIB.H.11.b for the M-Area HWMF and Section IIIG.H.11.b for the Met Lab HWMF.

  15. Enterprise Assessments Operational Awareness Record for the Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low-Activity Facility Wide Draft Hazard Analysis Report – June 2015

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness Record for the Review of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low-Activity Facility-Wide Draft Hazard Analysis Report

  16. Hazards Survey and Hazards Assessments

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

    1997-08-21

    This volume is to assist DOE Operations/Field Offices and operating contractors in complying with the DOE O 151.1 requirement that Hazards Surveys and facility-specific Hazards Assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. Canceled by DOE G 151.1-2.

  17. Risk assessment of CST-7 proposed waste treatment and storage facilities Volume I: Limited-scope probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of proposed CST-7 waste treatment & storage facilities. Volume II: Preliminary hazards analysis of proposed CST-7 waste storage & treatment facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sasser, K.

    1994-06-01

    In FY 1993, the Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Management Group [CST-7 (formerly EM-7)] requested the Probabilistic Risk and Hazards Analysis Group [TSA-11 (formerly N-6)] to conduct a study of the hazards associated with several CST-7 facilities. Among these facilities are the Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility (HWTF), the HWTF Drum Storage Building (DSB), and the Mixed Waste Receiving and Storage Facility (MWRSF), which are proposed for construction beginning in 1996. These facilities are needed to upgrade the Laboratory`s storage capability for hazardous and mixed wastes and to provide treatment capabilities for wastes in cases where offsite treatment is not available or desirable. These facilities will assist Los Alamos in complying with federal and state requlations.

  18. Reduction of COD in leachate from a hazardous waste landfill adjacent to a coke-making facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Banerjee, K.; O`Toole, T.J.

    1995-12-01

    A hazardous waste landfill adjacent to a coke manufacturing facility was in operation between July 1990 and December 1991. A system was constructed to collect and treat the leachate from the landfill prior to discharge to the river. Occasionally, the discharge from the treatment facility exceeded the permit limitations for Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and Total Organic Carbon (TOC). The objectives of this study were to determine treatment methods which would enable compliance with the applicable discharge limits; to establish the desired operating conditions of the process; and to investigate the effect of various parameters such as pH, catalyst dosage, and reaction time on the COD destruction efficiency. The characteristics of the landfill leachate in question were significantly variable in terms of chemical composition. A review of the influent quality data suggests that the COD concentration ranges between 80 and 390 mg/l. The oxidation processes using Fenton`s reagent or a combination of UV/hydrogen peroxide/catalyst are capable of reducing the COD concentration of the leachate below the discharge limitation of 35 mg/l. The estimated capital cost associated with the Fenton`s reagent process is approximately $525,000, and the annual operating and maintenance cost is $560,000. The estimated capital cost for the UV/hydrogen peroxide/catalyst treatment system is $565,000. The annual operating and maintenance cost of this process would be approximately $430,000.

  19. Facility Safety

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

    1996-10-24

    Establishes facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation.

  20. Facility Safety

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

    1995-11-16

    Establishes facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation.

  1. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Delegation of Safety Basis Approval Authority for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 Nuclear Facilities … April 2016

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

    Review of the Delegation of Safety Basis Approval Authority for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 Nuclear Facilities April 2016 Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments Office of Environment, Safety and Health Assessments Office of Enterprise Assessments U.S. Department of Energy i Table of Contents Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary

  2. 40 CFR Part 266, Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (DOE)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the management of hazardous waste through Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 266, under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

  3. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory response to the December 13, 1991, Congressional inquiry on offsite release of hazardous and solid waste containing radioactive materials from Department of Energy facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shapiro, C.; Garcia, K.M.; McMurtrey, C.D.; Williams, K.L.; Jordan, P.J.

    1992-05-01

    This report is a response to the December 13, 1991, Congressional inquiry that requested information on all hazardous and solid waste containing radioactive materials sent from Department of Energy facilities to offsite facilities for treatment or disposal since January 1, 1981. This response is for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Other Department of Energy laboratories are preparing responses for their respective operations. The request includes ten questions, which the report divides into three parts, each responding to a related group of questions. Part 1 answers Questions 5, 6, and 7, which call for a description of Department of Energy and contractor documentation governing the release of waste containing radioactive materials to offsite facilities. Offsite'' is defined as non-Department of Energy and non-Department of Defense facilities, such as commercial facilities. Also requested is a description of the review process for relevant release criteria and a list of afl Department of Energy and contractor documents concerning release criteria as of January 1, 1981. Part 2 answers Questions 4, 8, and 9, which call for information about actual releases of waste containing radioactive materials to offsite facilities from 1981 to the present, including radiation levels and pertinent documentation. Part 3 answers Question 10, which requests a description of the process for selecting offsite facilities for treatment or disposal of waste from Department of Energy facilities. In accordance with instructions from the Department of Energy, the report does not address Questions 1, 2, and 3.

  4. Health assessment for Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage Facility Hazardous Waste Material, Milford, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Region 1. CERCLIS No. NHD981067614. Preliminary report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-06-11

    Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage Facility Hazardous Waste Site (Fletcher's Paint Site) in Milford, New Hampshire, consists of three distinct entities: Fletcher's Paint Works at 21 Elm Street, Fletcher's Paint Storage Facility on Mill Street, and a drainage ditch leading from the storage facility property to Hampshire Paper Company property. The aggregation of these three properties was based on the similar nature of operations and wastes, the close proximity of the areas, the same target population, and the same underlying aquifer at risk of contamination. The aggregated site has contributed to the contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air with various volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs), heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environmental monitoring related to the Fletcher's Paint Site has consisted of sampling of the Keyes Well by the NH WSPCC, and sampling at the paint works, storage facility and drainage ditch by NUS Corporation and EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD). Contaminant levels at each location is discussed individually. Based upon the available information, the Fletcher's Paint NPL Site is considered to be of potential public health concern because of the risk to public health caused by potential exposure to hazardous substances, such as VOCs, PCBs, PAHs, and heavy metals, at concentrations that may result in adverse health effects. Exposure to contaminated soil and surface water, and potentially contaminated fish may be occurring. The site is located in a densely populated part of town, while the storage facility is readily accessible to children walking to and from school.

  5. 3Q/4Q99 F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility Corrective Action Report - Third and Fourth Quarter 1999, Volumes I and II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, J.

    2000-05-12

    Savannah River Site (SRS) monitors groundwater quality at the F-Area Hazardous Waste management Facility (HWMF) and provides results of this monitoring to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) semiannually as required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. SRS also performs monthly sampling of the Wastewater Treatment Unit (WTU) effluent in accordance with Section C of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) application.

  6. Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-01, Enforcement of 10 CFR 830.120 (Quality Assurance Rule) for Facilities below Hazard Category III

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    EGS: 99-01 Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 July 1, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR DOE PAAA COORDINATORS CONTRACTOR PAAA COORDINATORS FROM: R. KEITH CHRISTOPHER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATION SUBJECT: Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-01: Enforcement of 10 CFR Part 830.120 (Quality Assurance Rule) for Facilities below Hazard Category III Section 1.3 of the Operational Procedures for Enforcement, published in June 1998, provides the opportunity for the Office of Enforcement and

  7. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incineration facility (East Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 1. Executive summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-05-01

    Contents: Introduction and Summary of Results; Facility Background; Facility Emissions; Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Modeling of Emissions; Human Health Risk Assessment; Screening Ecological Risk Assessment; Accident Analysis; Additional Analysis in Response to Peer Review Recommendations; References.

  8. Facility Representatives

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

    2011-03-01

    This standard, DOE-STD-1063, Facility Representatives, defines the duties, responsibilities and qualifications for Department of Energy (DOE) Facility Representatives, based on facility hazard classification; risks to workers, the public, and the environment; and the operational activity level. This standard provides the guidance necessary to ensure that DOE’s hazardous nuclear and non-nuclear facilities have sufficient staffing of technically qualified facility representatives (FRs) to provide day-to-day oversight of contractor operations.

  9. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incineration facility (East Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 2. Introduction

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-05-01

    Contents: Overview; Facility Background; Risk Assessment History at WTI; Peer Review Comments and Key Assumptions; and References.

  10. Enterprise Assessments Operational Awareness Record for the Review of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant High-Level Waste Facility Concentrate Receipt/Melter Feed/Glass Formers Reagent Hazards Analysis Event Tables – June 2015

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness Record for the Review of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant High-Level Waste Facility Concentrate Receipt/Melter Feed/Glass Formers Reagent Hazards Analysis Event Tables

  11. Facilities

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

    Facilities Facilities LANL's mission is to develop and apply science and technology to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; reduce global threats; and solve other emerging national security and energy challenges. Contact Operator Los Alamos National Laboratory (505) 667-5061 Some LANL facilities are available to researchers at other laboratories, universities, and industry. Unique facilities foster experimental science, support the Lab's security mission

  12. Facilities

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

    Secure and Sustainable Energy Future Mission/Facilities Facilities Tara Camacho-Lopez 2016-04-06T18:06:13+00:00 National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF) facility_nsttf_slide NSTTF's primary goal is to provide experimental engineering data for the design, construction, and operation of unique components and systems in proposed solar thermal electrical plants, which have three generic system architectures: line-focus (trough and continuous linear Fresnel reflector systems), point-focus central

  13. 3Q/4Q00 Annual M-Area and Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective-Action Report - Third and Fourth Quarters 2000 - Volumes I, II, and II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cole, C.M. Sr.

    2001-04-17

    This report describes the groundwater monitoring and corrective-action program at the M-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) and the Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab) HWMF at the Savannah River Site (SRS) during 2000. This program is required by South Carolina Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Permit SC1890008989 and Section 264.100(g) of the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

  14. ARM - SGP Rural Driving Hazards

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

    Rural Driving Hazards SGP Related Links Virtual Tour Facilities and Instruments Central Facility Boundary Facility Extended Facility Intermediate Facility Radiometric Calibration Facility Geographic Information ES&H Guidance Statement Operations Science Field Campaigns Visiting the Site Summer Training SGP Fact Sheet Images Information for Guest Scientists Contacts SGP Rural Driving Hazards The rural location of the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site facilities requires that visitors travel on

  15. Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-01: Enforcement of 10 CFR Part 830.120 (Quality Assurance Rule) for Facilities below Hazard Category III

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Section 1.3 of the Operational Procedures for Enforcement, published in June 1998, provides the opportunity for the Office of Enforcement and Investigation (EH Enforcement) periodically to issue clarifying guidance regarding the processes used in its enforcement activities. During the past 18 months, EH Enforcement has identified a number of examples in which both DOE and contractor organizations have incorrectly exempted activities from applicability of the DOE Quality Assurance Rule 10 CFR 830.120 (QA Rule). The contractors excluded these activities on the basis that the QA Rule did not apply if the activity was classified as less than a Hazard Category III under DOE Standard 1027-92 (Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports). Standard 1027 provides guidance for determining whether a facility, activity or area requires a Safety Analysis Report but it does not provide a basis for exclusion from the provisions of the QA Rule.

  16. Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-01:Enforcement of 10 CFR Part 830.120 (Quality Assurance Rule)for Facilities Below Hazard Category III

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Section 1.3 of the Operational Procedures for Enforcement, published in June 1998, provides the opportunity for the Office of Enforcement and Investigation (EH Enforcement) periodically to issue clarifying guidance regarding the processes used in its enforcement activities. During the past 18 months, EH Enforcement has identified a number of examples in which both DOE and contractor organizations have incorrectly exempted activities fromapplicability of the DOE Quality Assurance Rule 10 CFR 830.120 (QA Rule). The contractors excluded these activities on the basis that the QA Rule did not apply if the activity was classified as less than a Hazard Category III under DOE Standard 1027-92 (Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports). Standard 1027 provides guidance for determining whether a facility, activity or area requires a Safety Analysis Report but it does not provide a basis for exclusion from the provisions of the QA Rule.

  17. Hazard baseline documentation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01

    This DOE limited technical standard establishes uniform Office of Environmental Management (EM) guidance on hazards baseline documents that identify and control radiological and nonradiological hazards for all EM facilities. It provides a road map to the safety and health hazard identification and control requirements contained in the Department`s orders and provides EM guidance on the applicability and integration of these requirements. This includes a definition of four classes of facilities (nuclear, non-nuclear, radiological, and other industrial); the thresholds for facility hazard classification; and applicable safety and health hazard identification, controls, and documentation. The standard applies to the classification, development, review, and approval of hazard identification and control documentation for EM facilities.

  18. Facilities

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

    Facilities The the WTGa1 turbine (aka DOE/SNL #1) retuns to power as part of a final series of commissioning tests. Permalink Gallery First Power for SWiFT Turbine Achieved during Recommissioning Facilities, News, Renewable Energy, SWIFT, Wind Energy, Wind News First Power for SWiFT Turbine Achieved during Recommissioning The Department of Energy's Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility reached an exciting milestone with the return to power production of the WTGa1 turbine (aka DOE/SNL #1)

  19. Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    to existing hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, and for 10-year NPH ... of Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Facilities; ...

  20. An Application of the SSHAC Level 3 Process to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Nuclear Facilities at the Hanford Site, Eastern Washington, USA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coppersmith , Kevin J.; Bommer, Julian J.; Bryce, Robert W.; Mcduffie, Stephen M.; Lisle, Greg A.

    2013-08-22

    Under the sponsorship of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the electric utility Energy Northwest, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is conducting a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) within the framework of a SSHAC Level 3 procedure (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee; Budnitz et al., 1997). Specifically, the project is being conducted following the guidelines and requirements specified in NUREG-2117 (USNRC, 2012b) and consistent with approach given in the American Nuclear Standard ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. The collaboration between DOE and Energy Northwest is spawned by the needs of both organizations for an accepted PSHA with high levels of regulatory assurance that can be used for the design and safety evaluation of nuclear facilities. DOE committed to this study after performing a ten-year review of the existing PSHA, as required by DOE Order 420.1C. The study will also be used by Energy Northwest as a basis for fulfilling the NRC’s 10CFR50.54(f) requirement that the western US nuclear power plants conduct PSHAs in conformance with SSHAC Level 3 procedures. The study was planned and is being carried out in conjunction with a project Work Plan, which identifies the purpose of the study, the roles and responsibilities of all participants, tasks and their associated schedules, Quality Assurance (QA) requirements, and project deliverables. New data collection and analysis activities are being conducted as a means of reducing the uncertainties in key inputs to the PSHA. It is anticipated that the results of the study will provide inputs to the site response analyses at multiple nuclear facility sites within the Hanford Site and at the Columbia Generating Station.

  1. Hazard classification process at LLNL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hildum, J. S., LLNL

    1998-05-01

    An essential part of Integrated Safety Management is the identification of hazards in the workplace and the assessment of possible consequences of accidents involving those hazards. The process of hazard classification suggested by the DOE orders on Safety Analysis is the formalization of this identification and assessment for hazards that might cause harm to the public or workers external to the operation. Possible injury to workers in the facility who are exposed to the hazard is not considered in the designation of the hazard classification for facilities at LLNL, although worker safety is discussed in facility Safety Basis documentation.

  2. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 2. Introduction. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    This volume provides a description of the facility, and its location and setting in the three-state area of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; an overview of previous risk assessments conducted by U.S. EPA for this site, including the preliminary assessment of inhalation exposure and the screening-level risk analyses of indirect exposure; and a summary of comments provided by the Peer Review Panel on the Project Plan.

  3. Microsoft Word - Appendix C - Soil Disturbance Evaluation Procedure.docx

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Rocky Flats Site Soil Disturbance Evaluation Procedure This page intentionally left blank U.S. Department of Energy Rocky Flats Site Operations Guide July 2013 Doc. No. S03037-6.0 Page C-1 Soil Disturbance Evaluation Process Purpose: The purpose of this Soil Disturbance Evaluation Process is to identify hazards and regulatory requirements so that appropriate work control steps, including regulatory agency and/or engineering approvals, are implemented to address and mitigate the hazard and/or

  4. Automated Hazard Analysis

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2003-06-26

    The Automated Hazard Analysis (AHA) application is a software tool used to conduct job hazard screening and analysis of tasks to be performed in Savannah River Site facilities. The AHA application provides a systematic approach to the assessment of safety and environmental hazards associated with specific tasks, and the identification of controls regulations, and other requirements needed to perform those tasks safely. AHA is to be integrated into existing Savannah River site work control andmore » job hazard analysis processes. Utilization of AHA will improve the consistency and completeness of hazard screening and analysis, and increase the effectiveness of the work planning process.« less

  5. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Permit Number NEV HW0101, Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, Patrick

    2014-02-14

    This report summarizes the EPA identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream, a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility, the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream, a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken, a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received, any unusual occurrences, and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101.

  6. Natural Phenomena Hazards Program | Department of Energy

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

    Natural Phenomena Hazards Program Natural Phenomena Hazards Program Natural Phenomena Hazards Overview The Department of Energy (DOE) Natural Phenomena Hazards Program develops and maintains state-of-the-art program standards and guidance for DOE facilities exposed to natural phenomena hazards (NPHs). This program applies to both conventional, nuclear hazard category 1, 2, and 3, and radiological facilities. Direction and guidance is given for seismic, extreme wind, tornado, precipitation,

  7. F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility groundwater monitoring report. Third and fourth quarters 1996, Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-03-01

    SRS monitors groundwater quality at the F-Area HWMF as mandated by the permit and provides results of this monitoring to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) semiannually as required by the permit. The facility is describes in the introduction to Module III, Section C, of the permit. The F-Area HWMF well network monitors three district hydrostratigraphic units in the uppermost aquifer beneath the facility. The hydrostratigraphy at the F-Area HWMF is described in permit section IIIC.H.2, and the groundwater monitoring system is described in IIIC.H.4 and Appendix IIIC-B. A detailed description of the uppermost aquifer is included in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B post-closure care permit application for the F-Area HWMF submitted to SCDHEC in December 1990. Sampling and analysis are conducted as required by section IIIC.H.6 at the intervals specified in permit sections IIIC.H.10 and Appendix IIIC-D for the constituents specified in Appendix IIIC-D. Groundwater quality is compared to the GWPS list in section IIIC.H.1 and Appendix IIIC-A.

  8. 1Q/2Q00 M-Area and Metallurgical Laboratory Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective-Action Report - First and Second Quarters 2000 - Volumes I, II, and II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, J.

    2000-10-24

    This report describes the groundwater monitoring and corrective-action program at the M-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) and the Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab) HWMF at the Savannah River site (SRS) during first and second quarters of 2000.

  9. Class 1 Permit Modification Notification Addition of Structures within Technical Area 54, Area G, Pad 11, Dome 375 Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, July 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vigil-Holterman, Luciana R.; Lechel, Robert A.

    2012-08-31

    The purpose of this letter is to notify the New Mexico Environment Department-Hazardous Waste Bureau (NMED-HWB) of a Class 1 Permit Modification to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit issued to the Department of Energy (DOE) and Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS) in November 2010. The modification adds structures to the container storage unit at Technical Area (TA) 54 Area G, Pad 11. Permit Section 3.1(3) requires that changes to the location of a structure that does not manage hazardous waste shall be changed within the Permit as a Class 1 modification without prior approval in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), {section}270.42(a)(1). Structures have been added within Dome 375 located at TA-54, Area G, Pad 11 that will be used in support of waste management operations within Dome 375 and the modular panel containment structure located within Dome 375, but will not be used as waste management structures. The Class 1 Permit Modification revises Figure 36 in Attachment N, Figures; and Figure G.12-1 in Attachment G.12, Technical Area 54, Area G, Pad 11 Outdoor Container Storage Unit Closure Plan. Descriptions of the structures have also been added to Section A.4.2.9 in Attachment A, TA - Unit Descriptions; and Section 2.0 in Attachment G.12, Technical Area 54, Area G, Pad 11 Outdoor Container Storage Unit Closure Plan. Full description of the permit modification and the necessary changes are included in Enclosure 1. The modification has been prepared in accordance with 40 CFR {section}270.42(a)(l). This package includes this letter and an enclosure containing a description of the permit modification, text edits of the Permit sections, and the revised figures (collectively LA-UR-12-22808). Accordingly, a signed certification page is also enclosed. Three hard copies and one electronic copy of this submittal will be delivered to the NMED-HWB.

  10. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22

    The order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and the System Engineer Program.Chg 1 incorporates the use of DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process, mandatory for Hazard Category 1, 2 and 3 nuclear facilities. Cancels DOE O 420.1A.

  11. Preliminary Feasibility, Design, and Hazard Analysis of a Boiling Water Test Loop Within the Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Test Reactor National Scientific User Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Douglas M. Gerstner

    2009-05-01

    The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is a pressurized light-water reactor with a design thermal power of 250 MW. The principal function of the ATR is to provide a high neutron flux for testing reactor fuels and other materials. The ATR and its support facilities are located at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). A Boiling Water Test Loop (BWTL) is being designed for one of the irradiation test positions within the. The objective of the new loop will be to simulate boiling water reactor (BWR) conditions to support clad corrosion and related reactor material testing. Further it will accommodate power ramping tests of candidate high burn-up fuels and fuel pins/rods for the commercial BWR utilities. The BWTL will be much like the pressurized water loops already in service in 5 of the 9 “flux traps” (region of enhanced neutron flux) in the ATR. The loop coolant will be isolated from the primary coolant system so that the loop’s temperature, pressure, flow rate, and water chemistry can be independently controlled. This paper presents the proposed general design of the in-core and auxiliary BWTL systems; the preliminary results of the neutronics and thermal hydraulics analyses; and the preliminary hazard analysis for safe normal and transient BWTL and ATR operation.

  12. Tank farms hazards assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Broz, R.E.

    1994-09-30

    Hanford contractors are writing new facility specific emergency procedures in response to new and revised US Department of Energy (DOE) Orders on emergency preparedness. Emergency procedures are required for each Hanford facility that has the potential to exceed the criteria for the lowest level emergency, an Alert. The set includes: (1) a facility specific procedure on Recognition and Classification of Emergencies, (2) area procedures on Initial Emergency Response and, (3) an area procedure on Protective Action Guidance. The first steps in developing these procedures are to identify the hazards at each facility, identify the conditions that could release the hazardous material, and calculate the consequences of the releases. These steps are called a Hazards Assessment. The final product is a document that is similar in some respects to a Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The document could br produced in a month for a simple facility but could take much longer for a complex facility. Hanford has both types of facilities. A strategy has been adopted to permit completion of the first version of the new emergency procedures before all the facility hazards Assessments are complete. The procedures will initially be based on input from a task group for each facility. This strategy will but improved emergency procedures in place sooner and therefore enhance Hanford emergency preparedness. The purpose of this document is to summarize the applicable information contained within the Waste Tank Facility ``Interim Safety Basis Document, WHC-SD-WM-ISB-001`` as a resource, since the SARs covering Waste Tank Operations are not current in all cases. This hazards assessment serves to collect, organize, document and present the information utilized during the determination process.

  13. Facility Floorplan

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

    facility floorplan Facility Floorplan

  14. Hazard Analysis Database Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GAULT, G.W.

    1999-10-13

    The Hazard Analysis Database was developed in conjunction with the hazard analysis activities conducted in accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for US Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports, for the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The FSAR is part of the approved TWRS Authorization Basis (AB). This document describes, identifies, and defines the contents and structure of the TWRS FSAR Hazard Analysis Database and documents the configuration control changes made to the database. The TWRS Hazard Analysis Database contains the collection of information generated during the initial hazard evaluations and the subsequent hazard and accident analysis activities. The database supports the preparation of Chapters 3,4, and 5 of the TWRS FSAR and the USQ process and consists of two major, interrelated data sets: (1) Hazard Evaluation Database--Data from the results of the hazard evaluations; and (2) Hazard Topography Database--Data from the system familiarization and hazard identification.

  15. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22

    This Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for Department of Energy facilities, which includes nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards mitigation, and the System Engineer Program. Cancels DOE O 420.1A. DOE O 420.1B Chg 1 issued 4-19-10.

  16. Facility Representatives

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

    2006-04-06

    REPLACED BY DOE-STD-1063 | SUPERSEDING DOE-STD-1063-2000 (MARCH 2000) The purpose of the DOE Facility Representative Program is to ensure that competent DOE staff personnel are assigned to oversee the day-to-day contractor operations at DOE’s hazardous nuclear and non-nuclear facilities.

  17. October 2014 Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Meeting - Tuesday...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Seismic Hazard Analysis for Nuclear Facilities at the Hanford Site, Eastern Washington, USA Natural Phenomena Hazards DOE-STD 1020-2012 & DOE Handbook A Probabilistic Approach to...

  18. DOE Standard 1020 - Natural Phenomena Hazard analysis and Design...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    DOE Standard 1020 - Natural Phenomena Hazard analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities DOE Standard 1020 - Natural Phenomena Hazard analysis and Design Criteria for DOE ...

  19. Review of Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Requirements Currently...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Review of Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Requirements Currently Applied to the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) Review of Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH)...

  20. K Basin Hazard Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PECH, S.H.

    2000-08-23

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the K Basins Hazard Analysis, which provides the foundation for the K Basins Final Safety Analysis Report. This hazard analysis was performed in accordance with guidance provided by DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports and implements the requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Report.

  1. K Basins Hazard Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WEBB, R.H.

    1999-12-29

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the K Basins Hazard Analysis, which provides the foundation for the K Basins Safety Analysis Report (HNF-SD-WM-SAR-062, Rev.4). This hazard analysis was performed in accordance with guidance provided by DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports and implements the requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Report.

  2. Preliminary hazards analysis -- vitrification process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coordes, D.; Ruggieri, M.; Russell, J.; TenBrook, W.; Yimbo, P.

    1994-06-01

    This paper presents a Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA) for mixed waste vitrification by joule heating. The purpose of performing a PHA is to establish an initial hazard categorization for a DOE nuclear facility and to identify those processes and structures which may have an impact on or be important to safety. The PHA is typically performed during and provides input to project conceptual design. The PHA is then followed by a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) performed during Title 1 and 2 design. The PSAR then leads to performance of the Final Safety Analysis Report performed during the facility`s construction and testing. It should be completed before routine operation of the facility commences. This PHA addresses the first four chapters of the safety analysis process, in accordance with the requirements of DOE Safety Guidelines in SG 830.110. The hazards associated with vitrification processes are evaluated using standard safety analysis methods which include: identification of credible potential hazardous energy sources; identification of preventative features of the facility or system; identification of mitigative features; and analyses of credible hazards. Maximal facility inventories of radioactive and hazardous materials are postulated to evaluate worst case accident consequences. These inventories were based on DOE-STD-1027-92 guidance and the surrogate waste streams defined by Mayberry, et al. Radiological assessments indicate that a facility, depending on the radioactive material inventory, may be an exempt, Category 3, or Category 2 facility. The calculated impacts would result in no significant impact to offsite personnel or the environment. Hazardous materials assessment indicates that a Mixed Waste Vitrification facility will be a Low Hazard facility having minimal impacts to offsite personnel and the environment.

  3. Chemical process hazards analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-01

    The Office of Worker Health and Safety (EH-5) under the Assistant Secretary for the Environment, Safety and Health of the US Department (DOE) has published two handbooks for use by DOE contractors managing facilities and processes covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rule for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (29 CFR 1910.119), herein referred to as the PSM Rule. The PSM Rule contains an integrated set of chemical process safety management elements designed to prevent chemical releases that can lead to catastrophic fires, explosions, or toxic exposures. The purpose of the two handbooks, ``Process Safety Management for Highly Hazardous Chemicals`` and ``Chemical Process Hazards Analysis,`` is to facilitate implementation of the provisions of the PSM Rule within the DOE. The purpose of this handbook ``Chemical Process Hazards Analysis,`` is to facilitate, within the DOE, the performance of chemical process hazards analyses (PrHAs) as required under the PSM Rule. It provides basic information for the performance of PrHAs, and should not be considered a complete resource on PrHA methods. Likewise, to determine if a facility is covered by the PSM rule, the reader should refer to the handbook, ``Process Safety Management for Highly Hazardous Chemicals`` (DOE- HDBK-1101-96). Promulgation of the PSM Rule has heightened the awareness of chemical safety management issues within the DOE. This handbook is intended for use by DOE facilities and processes covered by the PSM rule to facilitate contractor implementation of the PrHA element of the PSM Rule. However, contractors whose facilities and processes not covered by the PSM Rule may also use this handbook as a basis for conducting process hazards analyses as part of their good management practices. This handbook explains the minimum requirements for PrHAs outlined in the PSM Rule. Nowhere have requirements been added beyond what is specifically required by the rule.

  4. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 5. Human health risk assessment (HHRA): Evaluation of potential risks from multipathway exposure to emissions. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) portion of the WTI Risk Assessment involves the integration of information about the facility with site-specific data for the surrounding region and population to characterize the potential human health risks due to emissions from the facility. The estimation of human health risks is comprised of the following general steps: (1) identification of substances of potential concern; (2) estimation of the nature and magnitude of chemical releases from the WTI facility; (3) prediction of the atmospheric transport of the emitted contaminants; (4) determination of the types of adverse effects associated with exposure to the substances of potential concern (referred to as hazard identification), and the relationship between the level of exposure and the severity of any health effect (referred to as dose-response assessment); (5) estimation of the magnitude of exposure (referred to as exposure assessment); and (6) characterization of the health risks associated with exposure (referred to as risk characterization).

  5. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 3. Characterization of the nature and magnitude of emissions. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    This report constitutes a comprehensive site-specific risk assessment for the WTI incineration facility located in East Liverpool, OH. Volume III of the report describes the methods used to estimate both stack and fugitive emission rates from the facility.

  6. Facility Safety

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

    2000-11-20

    The objective of this Order is to establish facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation. The Order has Change 1 dated 11-16-95, Change 2 dated 10-24-96, and the latest Change 3 dated 11-22-00 incorporated. The latest change satisfies a commitment made to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in response to DNFSB recommendation 97-2, Criticality Safety.

  7. Hanford Site-Wide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

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

    J Digital Seismic Hazard Products J.1 Appendix J Digital Seismic Hazard Products This appendix contains the digital data associated with the seismic hazard results presented in Chapter 10 for use in subsequent development of soil hazard curves for various facilities. These results include mean and fractile baserock hazard curves, mean and fractile baserock uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS), magnitude and distance deaggregation of the mean rock hazard, and deaggregation earthquake (DE)

  8. DOE Standard 1020 - Natural Phenomena Hazard analysis and Design Criteria

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

    for DOE Facilities | Department of Energy Standard 1020 - Natural Phenomena Hazard analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities DOE Standard 1020 - Natural Phenomena Hazard analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD)-1020-2012, Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities, provides criteria and guidance for the analysis and design of facility structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are necessary to

  9. 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. Cancels DOE O 420.1B, DOE G 420.1-2 and DOE G 420.1-3.

  10. Facility Safety

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

    1995-10-13

    Establishes facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation. Cancels DOE 5480.7A, DOE 5480.24, DOE 5480.28 and Division 13 of DOE 6430.1A. Canceled by DOE O 420.1A.

  11. Cold Weather Hazards

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

    0 Cold Weather Hazards June 2010 NSA_cwh_Rev10.doc 1 Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility/ North Slope of Alaska/Adjacent Arctic Ocean (ACRF/NSA/AAO) Cold Weather Hazards Winter Conditions at the North Slope of Alaska The North Slope of Alaska is north of the Arctic Circle at latitudes ranging from 69 to 72 degrees. Barrow, the largest town on the North Slope (pop. 4500), is the site of a National Weather Service Station, which has been active for several decades, so the

  12. 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.

  13. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 6. Screening ecological risk assessment (SERA). Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    This report constitutes a comprehensive site-specific risk assessment for the WTI incineration facility located in East Liverpool, OH. The Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA) is an analysis of the potential significance of risks to ecological receptors (e.g., plants, fish, wildlife) from exposure to facility emissions. The SERA was performed using conservative assumptions and approaches to determine if a further, more refined analysis is warranted. Volume VI describes in detail the methods used in the SERA and reports the results of the SERA in terms of site-specific risks to ecological receptors.

  14. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 7. Accident analysis: Selection and assessment of potential release scenarios. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    This report constitutes a comprehensive site-specific risk assessment for the WTI incineration facility located in East Liverpool, OH. The Accident Analysis is an evaluation of the likelihood of occurrence and resulting consequences from several general classes of accidents that could potentially occur during operation of the facility. The Accident Analysis also evaluates the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures in reducing off-site impacts. Volume VII describes in detail the methods used to conduct the Accident Analysis and reports the results of evaluations of likelihood and consequence for the selected accident scenarios.

  15. Robots for hazardous duties: Military, space, and nuclear facility applications. January 1987-September 1991 (Citations from the NTIS Data Base). Rept. for Jan 87-Sep 91

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-08-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning the design and application of robots used in place of humans where the environment could be hazardous. Military applications include autonomous land vehicles, robotic howitzers, and battlefield support operations. Space operations include docking, maintenance, and mission support, both intra-vehicular and extra-vehicular activities. Nuclear applications include operations within the containment vessel, radioactive waste operations, fueling operations, and plant security. Many of the articles reference control techniques and the use of expert systems in robotic operations. Applications involving industrial manufacturing, walking robots, and robot welding are cited in other published searches in the series. (Contains 172 citations with title list and subject index.)

  16. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 4. Atmospheric dispersion and deposition modeling of emissions. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    The report constitutes a comprehensive site-specific risk assessment for the WTI incineration facility located in East Liverpool, OH. Volume IV describes the air dispersion model used to estimate air concentrations and particle deposition, as well as the results of the modeling exercise.

  17. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incinerator facility (east Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 1. Executive summary. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    This report constitutes a comprehensive site-specific risk assessment for the WTI incineration facility located in East Liverpool, OH. Volume I is a description of the components and methodologies used in the risk assessment and provides a summary of the major results from the three components of the assessment.

  18. Hazardous Location

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

    ... ORO-BJC-K25WASTMAN-1999-0010 DOE FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES Conduct of Operations, Safety BJC FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES OP - Conduct of Operations HAZARDS FireNFPA, Other WORK ACTIVITY ...

  19. NSTP 2002-2 Methodology for Final Hazard Categorization for Nuclear...

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

    NSTP 2002-2 Methodology for Final Hazard Categorization for Nuclear Facilities from Category 3 to Radiological (111302). NSTP 2002-2 Methodology for Final Hazard Categorization ...

  20. Volcanic hazards of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and adjacent areas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hackett, W.R.; Smith, R.P.

    1994-12-01

    Potential volcanic hazards are assessed, and hazard zone maps are developed for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) and adjacent areas. The basis of the hazards assessment and mapping is the past volcanic history of the INEL region, and the apparent similarity of INEL volcanism with equivalent, well-studied phenomena in other regions of active volcanism, particularly Hawaii and Iceland. The most significant hazards to INEL facilities are associated with basaltic volcanism, chiefly lava flows, which move slowly and mainly threaten property by inundation or burning. Related hazards are volcanic gases and tephra, and ground disturbance associated with the ascent of magma under the volcanic zones. Several volcanic zones are identified in the INEL area. These zones contain most of the volcanic vents and fissures of the region and are inferred to be the most probable sites of future INEL volcanism. Volcanic-recurrence estimates are given for each of the volcanic zones based on geochronology of the lavas, together with the results of field and petrographic investigations concerning the cogenetic relationships of INEL volcanic deposits and associated magma intrusion. Annual probabilities of basaltic volcanism within the INEL volcanic zones range from 6.2 {times} 10{sup {minus}5} per year (average 16,000-year interval between eruptions) for the axial volcanic zone near the southern INEL boundary and the Arco volcanic-rift zone near the western INEL boundary, to 1 {times} 10{sup {minus}5} per year (average 100,000-year interval between eruptions) for the Howe-East Butte volcanic rift zone, a geologically old and poorly defined feature of the central portion of INEL. Three volcanic hazard zone maps are developed for the INEL area: lava flow hazard zones, a tephra (volcanic ash) and gas hazard zone, and a ground-deformation hazard zone. The maps are useful in land-use planning, site selection, and safety analysis.

  1. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit Number NEV HW0101 Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report Calendar Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2012-02-16

    This report summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream; a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility; the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream; a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken; a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received; any unusual occurrences; and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101.

  2. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit Number NEV HW0101 Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report Calendar Year 2012, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, P. M.

    2013-02-21

    This report summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream, a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility, the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream, a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken, a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received, any unusual occurrences, and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101, issued 10/17/10.

  3. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit Number NEV HW0101 Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report - Calendar Year 2014

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, Patrick

    2015-02-17

    This report summarizes the EPA identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream, a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility, the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream, a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken, a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received, any unusual occurrences, and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101.

  4. B Plant facility description

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chalk, S.E.

    1996-10-04

    Buildings 225B, 272B, 282B, 282BA, and 294B were removed from the B Plant facility description. Minor corrections were made for tank sizes and hazardous and toxic inventories.

  5. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incineration facility (East Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 6. Screening ecological risk assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-05-01

    The Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA) includes an evaluation of available biotic information from the site vicinity to provide a preliminary description of potential ecological receptors (e.g., rare, threatened and endangered species; migratory birds; and important game species), and important ecological habitats (e.g., wetland areas). A conceptual site model is developed that describe show stressors associated with the WTI facility might affect the ecological components in the surrounding environment through the development and evaluation of specific ecological endpoints. Finally, an estimate of the potential for current and/or future adverse impacts to the biotic component of the environment is provided, based on the integration of potential exposures of ecological receptors to WTI emissions and toxicological threshold values.

  6. Waveguide disturbance detection method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Korneev, Valeri A.; Nihei, Kurt T.; Myer, Larry R.

    2000-01-01

    A method for detection of a disturbance in a waveguide comprising transmitting a wavefield having symmetric and antisymmetric components from a horizontally and/or vertically polarized source and/or pressure source disposed symmetrically with respect to the longitudinal central axis of the waveguide at one end of the waveguide, recording the horizontal and/or vertical component or a pressure of the wavefield with a vertical array of receivers disposed at the opposite end of the waveguide, separating the wavenumber transform of the wavefield into the symmetric and antisymmetric components, integrating the symmetric and antisymmetric components over a broad frequency range, and comparing the magnitude of the symmetric components and the antisymmetric components to an expected magnitude for the symmetric components and the antisymmetric components for a waveguide of uniform thickness and properties thereby determining whether or not a disturbance is present inside the waveguide.

  7. Location standards for RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs). RCRA Information Brief

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-10-01

    This bulletin describes RCRA location standards for hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities.

  8. Natural Phenomena Hazards Performance Categorization Guidelines...

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

    ... with a large (200 MW) Category A reactor ... 1 Consider an emergency diesel generator in a Hazard Category I facility that has been classified as a "safety-significant" system ...

  9. Natural Phenomena Hazard Analysis and Design Criteria for Department...

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

    20-2012, Natural Phenomena Hazard Analysis and Design Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities by Diane Johnson This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD)-1020-2012,...

  10. The Adequacy of DOE Natural Phenomena Hazards Performance Goals...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Adequacy of DOE Natural Phenomena Hazards Performance Goals from an Accident Analysis Perspective Jeff Kimball Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Staff Department of Energy NPH ...

  11. Workers Complete Highest Hazard Demolition Preparations at Hanford Site |

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

    Department of Energy Highest Hazard Demolition Preparations at Hanford Site Workers Complete Highest Hazard Demolition Preparations at Hanford Site July 28, 2016 - 1:20pm Addthis Employees in the Americium Recovery Facility remove piping. Employees in the Americium Recovery Facility remove piping. A rendering of the PFP complex. Demolition will start with the 236-Z (Plutonium Reclamation Facility) in green, progress to 242-Z (Americium Recovery Facility) in red, to 234-5Z (main processing

  12. Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project: Seismic Hazard Models for Department of Energy Sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coats, D.W.; Murray, R.C.

    1984-11-01

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has developed seismic and wind hazard models for the Office of Nuclear Safety (ONS), Department of Energy (DOE). The work is part of a three-phase effort aimed at establishing uniform building design criteria for seismic and wind hazards at DOE sites throughout the US. In Phase 1, LLNL gathered information on the sites and their critical facilities, including nuclear reactors, fuel-reprocessing plants, high-level waste storage and treatment facilities, and special nuclear material facilities. In Phase 2, development of seismic and wind hazard models, was initiated. These hazard models express the annual probability that the site will experience an earthquake or wind speed greater than some specified magnitude. This report summarizes the final seismic hazard models and response spectra recommended for each site and the methodology used to develop these models. 15 references, 2 figures, 1 table.

  13. Hazard Evaluation for 244-CR Vault

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GRAMS, W.H.

    1999-08-19

    This document presents the results of a hazards identification and evaluation performed on the 244-CR Vault to close a USQ (USQ No.TF-98-0785, Potential Inadequacy in Authorization Basis (PIAB): To Evaluate Miscellaneous Facilities Listed In HNF-2503 And Not Addressed In The TWRS Authorization Basis) that was generated as part of an evaluation of inactive TWRS facilities.

  14. Fire Hazards Listing

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

    Hazards Listing Fire Hazards Listing Focusing on fire prevention and protection. Contact Fire Management Officer Manuel J. L'Esperance Emergency Management (505) 667-1692 Email Currently reported fire hazards Below are the currently reported fire hazards. The list is updated each day by the close of business. Current fire hazards Hazard Description Date Submitted Status No hazards currently reported. Legend: R=Resolved, P=Pending, NAR=No Action Required

  15. Facility Safety - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

    facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH)...

  16. Fire hazard analysis for the fuel supply shutdown storage buildings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    REMAIZE, J.A.

    2000-09-27

    The purpose of a fire hazards analysis (FHA) is to comprehensively assess the risk from fire and other perils within individual fire areas in a DOE facility in relation to proposed fire protection so as to ascertain whether the objectives of DOE 5480.7A, Fire Protection, are met. This Fire Hazards Analysis was prepared as required by HNF-PRO-350, Fire Hazards Analysis Requirements, (Reference 7) for a portion of the 300 Area N Reactor Fuel Fabrication and Storage Facility.

  17. Health-hazard evaluation report HETA 91-338-2187, IMC Corporation, Sterlington, Louisiana

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kiefer, M.; Tepper, A.; Miller, R.

    1992-03-01

    In response to a request from an authorized representative of the Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 762, an investigation was made of potential hazards for asbestos abatement contract workers at IMC Corporation, (SIC-2869), Sterlington, Louisiana. The IMC facility consisted of two ammonia facilities, a nitroparaffin (NP) facility, and a NP derivatives facility. An explosion occurred on May 1, 1991 in the NP facility, caused by a faulty compressor. During the post explosion renovation activities, an asbestos abatement firm was working on site due to the large amounts of asbestos (1332214) insulation which had been disturbed by the explosion. Records indicated that several workers complained of ill effects and odors on June 17 and 19. The incidents were investigated but no chemical exposure explanation was found. Routine and complaint based industrial hygiene monitoring was primarily area monitoring and not substance specific. Of the 25 workers interviewed, 22 had symptoms they felt were related to their work at IMC. The symptoms included those of the upper respiratory tract, central nervous system, and gastrointestinal system. The most common included diarrhea, nausea, headache, dizziness, and cough, each experienced by significantly more than half the subjects. The symptoms could not be linked conclusively to any specific chemical release, job task, work location, or food or drink source.

  18. http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/hwb/hwb_facil.html

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Statutes & Regulations Notifiers LANL Order Documents Contact Us Hazardous Waste Facilities This Web Page provides links to public notices and information on New Mexico hazardous ...

  19. Hazardous and Radioactive Mixed Waste

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

    1982-12-31

    To establish hazardous waste management procedures for facilities operated under authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The procedures will follow. to the extent practicable, regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Although Department of Energy (DOE) operations conducted under authority other than the AEA are subject to EPA or State regulations conforming with RCRA, facilities administered under the authority of the AEA are not bound by such requirements.

  20. Using Supercomputers to Improve Seismic Hazard Maps | Argonne Leadership

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

    Computing Facility seismic hazard map This U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard map shows the maximum level of shaking expected to occur once in about 500 years, with warmer red regions expected to experience the strongest shaking. SCEC's earthquake system science research program uses high-performance computing to improve probabilistic seismic hazard maps like these. U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Map (2008) showing Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) with Probability of Exceedance of

  1. Hanford Site Hazards Guide

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

    Hanford Site Hazards Guide 2016 Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited Hanford Site Hazards Guide Contents ASBESTOS .............................................................................................................................................. 2 BERYLLIUM ........................................................................................................................................... 4 CHEMICAL SAFETY

  2. Office of Nuclear Safety Basis and Facility Design

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design establishes safety basis and facility design requirements and expectations related to analysis and design of nuclear facilities to ensure protection of workers and the public from the hazards associated with nuclear operations.

  3. K Basins fuel encapsulation and storage hazard categorization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Porten, D.R.

    1994-12-01

    This document establishes the initial hazard categorization for K-Basin fuel encapsulation and storage in the 100 K Area of the Hanford site. The Hazard Categorization for K-Basins addresses the potential for release of radioactive and non-radioactive hazardous material located in the K-Basins and their supporting facilities. The Hazard Categorization covers the hazards associated with normal K-Basin fuel storage and handling operations, fuel encapsulation, sludge encapsulation, and canister clean-up and disposal. The criteria categorizes a facility based on total curies per radionuclide located in the facility. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 display the results in section 5.0. In accordance with DOE-STD-1027 and the analysis provided in section 5.0, the K East Basin fuel encapsulation and storage activity and the K West Basin storage are classified as a {open_quotes}Category 2{close_quotes} Facility.

  4. Canister storage building hazard analysis report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krahn, D.E.; Garvin, L.J.

    1997-07-01

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the Canister Storage Building (CSB) hazard analysis to support the final CSB safety analysis report (SAR) and documents the results. The hazard analysis was performed in accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for US Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Report, and implements the requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Report.

  5. Track 3: Exposure Hazards

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    ISM Workshop Presentations Knoxville Convention Center, Knoxville, TN August 2009 Track 3: Exposure Hazards

  6. Hazardous waste operational plan for site 300

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roberts, R.S.

    1982-02-12

    This plan outlines the procedures and operations used at LLNL's Site 300 for the management of the hazardous waste generated. This waste consists primarily of depleted uranium (a by-product of U-235 enrichment), beryllium, small quantities of analytical chemicals, industrial type waste such as solvents, cleaning acids, photographic chemicals, etc., and explosives. This plan details the operations generating this waste, the proper handling of this material and the procedures used to treat or dispose of the hazardous waste. A considerable amount of information found in this plan was extracted from the Site 300 Safety and Operational Manual written by Site 300 Facility personnel and the Hazards Control Department.

  7. Phase 2 fire hazard analysis for the canister storage building

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sadanaga, C.T., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-07-01

    The fire hazard analysis assesses the risk from fire in a facility to ascertain whether the fire protection policies are met. This document provides a preliminary FHA for the CSB facility. Open items have been noted in the document. A final FHA will be required at the completion of definitive design, prior to operation of the facility.

  8. Preliminary Hazards Analysis Plasma Hearth Process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aycock, M.; Coordes, D.; Russell, J.; TenBrook, W.; Yimbo, P.

    1993-11-01

    This Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA) for the Plasma Hearth Process (PHP) follows the requirements of United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.23 (DOE, 1992a), DOE Order 5480.21 (DOE, 1991d), DOE Order 5480.22 (DOE, 1992c), DOE Order 5481.1B (DOE, 1986), and the guidance provided in DOE Standards DOE-STD-1027-92 (DOE, 1992b). Consideration is given to ft proposed regulations published as 10 CFR 830 (DOE, 1993) and DOE Safety Guide SG 830.110 (DOE, 1992b). The purpose of performing a PRA is to establish an initial hazard categorization for a DOE nuclear facility and to identify those processes and structures which may have an impact on or be important to safety. The PHA is typically performed during and provides input to project conceptual design. The PRA then is followed by a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) performed during Title I and II design. This PSAR then leads to performance of the Final Safety Analysis Report performed during construction, testing, and acceptance and completed before routine operation. Radiological assessments indicate that a PHP facility, depending on the radioactive material inventory, may be an exempt, Category 3, or Category 2 facility. The calculated impacts would result in no significant impact to offsite personnel or the environment. Hazardous material assessments indicate that a PHP facility will be a Low Hazard facility having no significant impacts either onsite or offsite to personnel and the environment.

  9. Facility Representatives

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

    ... Guidance for Hazard Analysis-Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances"; ... deficiencies. f. Minor e vents or problems are frequently clues that indicate ...

  10. Addressing concerns related to geologic hazards at the site of the proposed Transuranic Waste Facility , TA-63, Los Alamos National Laboratory: focus on the current Los Alamos Seismic Network earthquake catalog, proximity of identified seismic events to the proposed facility , and evaluation of prev

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roberts, Peter M.; Schultz-Fellenz, Emily S.; Kelley, Richard E.

    2012-04-02

    . Understanding the subtle differences between Tshirege Member cooling units and the nature of the contacts between cooling units is critical to identifying the presence or absence of faults associated with the Pajarito fault system on the Pajarito Plateau. The Los Alamos Seismic Network (LASN) continuously monitors local earthquake activity in the Los Alamos area in support of LANL's Seismic Hazards program. Seismic monitoring of LANL facilities is a requirement of DOE Order 420.1B (Facility Safety). LASN currently consists of nine permanent seismic instrument field stations that telemeter real-time sensitive ground motion data to a central recording facility. Four of these stations are located on LANL property, with three of those within 2.5 miles of TA-63. The other five stations are in remote locations in the Jemez Mountains, Valles Caldera, St Peters Dome, and the Caja del Rio plateau across the Rio Grande from the Los Alamos area. Local earthquakes are defined as those with locations within roughly 100 miles of Los Alamos. Plate 1 shows the current LASN station locations and all local earthquakes recorded from 1973 through 2011. During this time period, LASN has detected and recorded over 850 local earthquakes in north-central New Mexico. Over 650 of these were located within about 50 miles of Los Alamos, and roughly 60 were within 10 miles. The apparent higher density of earthquakes close to Los Alamos, relative to the rest of north-central New Mexico, is due largely to the fact that LASN is a sensitive local seismic network, recording many very small nearby events (magnitude less than 1.0) that are undetectable at greater distances.

  11. Hazard Communication Training - Upcoming Implementation Date for New Hazard

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

    Communication Standard | Department of Energy Hazard Communication Training - Upcoming Implementation Date for New Hazard Communication Standard Hazard Communication Training - Upcoming Implementation Date for New Hazard Communication Standard Hazard Communication Training - 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, requires all DOE Federal and contractor employees with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces to complete new Hazard Communication Training. Upcoming Implementation Date for

  12. Nuclear Facilities Production Facilities

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Facilities Production Facilities Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Sand 2011-4582P. ENERGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Gamma Irradiation Facility (GIF) The GIF provides test cells for the irradiation of experiments with high-intensity gamma ray sources. The main features

  13. 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.

  14. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the 325 Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-12-31

    The Applied Chemistry Laboratory (325 Facility) houses radiochemistry research, radioanalytical service, radiochemical process development, and hazardous and mixed hazardous waste treatment activities. The laboratories and specialized facilities enable work ranging from that with nonradioactive materials to work with picogram to kilogram quantities of fissionable materials and up to megacurie quantities of other radionuclides. The special facilities include two shielded hot-cell areas that provide for process development or analytical chemistry work with highly radioactive materials, and a waste treatment facility for processing hazardous, mixed, low-level, and transuranic wastes generated by Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Radioactive material storage and usage occur throughout the facility and include a large number of isotopes. This material is in several forms, including solid, liquid, particulate, and gas. Some of these materials are also heated during testing which can produce vapors. The research activities have been assigned to the following activity designations: High-Level Hot Cell, Hazardous Waste Treatment Unit, Waste Form Development, Special Testing Projects, Chemical Process Development, Analytical Hot Cell, and Analytical Chemistry. The following summarizes the airborne and liquid effluents and the results of the Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan (FEMP) determination for the facility. The complete monitoring plan includes characterization of effluent streams, monitoring/sampling design criteria, a description of the monitoring systems and sample analysis, and quality assurance requirements.

  15. Hazard function theory for nonstationary natural hazards

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

    Read, Laura K.; Vogel, Richard M.

    2016-04-11

    Impact from natural hazards is a shared global problem that causes tremendous loss of life and property, economic cost, and damage to the environment. Increasingly, many natural processes show evidence of nonstationary behavior including wind speeds, landslides, wildfires, precipitation, streamflow, sea levels, and earthquakes. Traditional probabilistic analysis of natural hazards based on peaks over threshold (POT) generally assumes stationarity in the magnitudes and arrivals of events, i.e., that the probability of exceedance of some critical event is constant through time. Given increasing evidence of trends in natural hazards, new methods are needed to characterize their probabilistic behavior. The well-developed field ofmore » hazard function analysis (HFA) is ideally suited to this problem because its primary goal is to describe changes in the exceedance probability of an event over time. HFA is widely used in medicine, manufacturing, actuarial statistics, reliability engineering, economics, and elsewhere. HFA provides a rich theory to relate the natural hazard event series (X) with its failure time series (T), enabling computation of corresponding average return periods, risk, and reliabilities associated with nonstationary event series. This work investigates the suitability of HFA to characterize nonstationary natural hazards whose POT magnitudes are assumed to follow the widely applied generalized Pareto model. We derive the hazard function for this case and demonstrate how metrics such as reliability and average return period are impacted by nonstationarity and discuss the implications for planning and design. As a result, our theoretical analysis linking hazard random variable X with corresponding failure time series T should have application to a wide class of natural hazards with opportunities for future extensions.« less

  16. U.A.C. R315-3: Application and Permit Procedures for Hazardous...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    3: Application and Permit Procedures for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal...

  17. CRAD, Hazard Analysis- July 25, 2014 (IEA CRAD 31-1, REV. 0)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Criteria Review and Approach Document (IEA CRAD 31-1, REV. 0) provides objectives, criteria, and approaches for reviewing Nuclear Facility Hazard Analysis.

  18. TECHNICAL BASIS DOCUMENT FOR NATURAL EVENT HAZARDS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KRIPPS, L.J.

    2006-07-31

    This technical basis document was developed to support the documented safety analysis (DSA) and describes the risk binning process and the technical basis for assigning risk bins for natural event hazard (NEH)-initiated accidents. The purpose of the risk binning process is to determine the need for safety-significant structures, systems, and components (SSC) and technical safety requirement (TSR)-level controls for a given representative accident or represented hazardous conditions based on an evaluation of the frequency and consequence. Note that the risk binning process is not applied to facility workers, because all facility worker hazardous conditions are considered for safety-significant SSCs and/or TSR-level controls.

  19. Advanced Materials Laboratory hazards assessment document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barnett, B.; Banda, Z.

    1995-10-01

    The Department of Energy Order 55OO.3A requires facility-specific hazards assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. This hazards assessment document describes the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the AML. The entire inventory was screened according to the potential airborne impact to onsite and offsite individuals. The air dispersion model, ALOHA, estimated pollutant concentrations downwind from the source of a release, taking into consideration the toxicological and physical characteristics of the release site, the atmospheric conditions, and the circumstances of the release. The greatest distance at which a postulated facility event will produce consequences exceeding the Early Severe Health Effects threshold is 23 meters. The highest emergency classification is a General Emergency. The Emergency Planning Zone is a nominal area that conforms to DOE boundaries and physical/jurisdictional boundaries such as fence lines and streets.

  20. Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Meeting - October 2011 | Department of

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

    Energy 1 Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Meeting - October 2011 On October 25-26, 2011, the DOE Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) hosted a Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) working meeting in Germantown, Maryland. The meeting brought together approximately 80 experts involved in the characterization of, and mitigation against, natural hazards that can impact critical facilities. The meeting was valuable for sharing and discussing research in NPH analysis and mitigation, as well as best practices

  1. Fire hazards analysis for solid waste burial grounds

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McDonald, K.M.

    1995-09-28

    This document comprises the fire hazards analysis for the solid waste burial grounds, including TRU trenches, low-level burial grounds, radioactive mixed waste trenches, etc. It analyzes fire potential, and fire damage potential for these facilities. Fire scenarios may be utilized in future safety analysis work, or for increasing the understanding of where hazards may exist in the present operation.

  2. Guidance manual for hazardous waste incinerator permits. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1983-07-01

    The manual provides guidance to the permit writer for designating facility - specific operating conditions necessary to comply with the RCRA standards for hazardous waste incinerators. Each section of the incineration regulation is addressed, including: waste analysis, designation of principal organic hazardous constituents and requirements for operation, inspection and monitoring. Guidance is also provided for evaluating incinerator performance data and trial burn procedures.

  3. Modified hazard ranking system for sites with mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes. User manual.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hawley, K.A.; Peloquin, R.A.; Stenner, R.D.

    1986-04-01

    This document describes both the original Hazard Ranking System and the modified Hazard Ranking System as they are to be used in evaluating the relative potential for uncontrolled hazardous substance facilities to cause human health or safety problems or ecological or environmental damage. Detailed instructions for using the mHRS/HRS computer code are provided, along with instructions for performing the calculations by hand. Uniform application of the ranking system will permit the DOE to identify those releases of hazardous substances that pose the greatest hazard to humans or the environment. However, the mHRS/HRS by itself cannot establish priorities for the allocation of funds for remedial action. The mHRS/HRS is a means for applying uniform technical judgment regarding the potential hazards presented by a facility relative to other facilities. It does not address the feasibility, desirability, or degree of cleanup required. Neither does it deal with the readiness or ability of a state to carry out such remedial action, as may be indicated, or to meet other conditions prescribed in CERCLA. 13 refs., 13 figs., 27 tabs.

  4. Hazardous constituent source term. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-11-17

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has several facilities that either generate and/or store transuranic (TRU)-waste from weapons program research and production. Much of this waste also contains hazardous waste constituents as regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Toxicity characteristic metals in the waste principally include lead, occurring in leaded rubber gloves and shielding. Other RCRA metals may occur as contaminants in pyrochemical salt, soil, debris, and sludge and solidified liquids, as well as in equipment resulting from decontamination and decommissioning activities. Volatile organic compounds (VOCS) contaminate many waste forms as a residue adsorbed on surfaces or occur in sludge and solidified liquids. Due to the presence of these hazardous constituents, applicable disposal regulations include land disposal restrictions established by Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). The DOE plans to dispose of TRU-mixed waste from the weapons program in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) by demonstrating no-migration of hazardous constituents. This paper documents the current technical basis for methodologies proposed to develop a post-closure RCRA hazardous constituent source term. For the purposes of demonstrating no-migration, the hazardous constituent source term is defined as the quantities of hazardous constituents that are available for transport after repository closure. Development of the source term is only one of several activities that will be involved in the no-migration demonstration. The demonstration will also include uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of contaminant transport.

  5. An OSHA based approach to safety analysis for nonradiological hazardous materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yurconic, M.

    1992-08-01

    The PNL method for chemical hazard classification defines major hazards by means of a list of hazardous substances (or chemical groups) with associated trigger quantities. In addition, the functional characteristics of the facility being classified is also be factored into the classification. In this way, installations defined as major hazard will only be those which have the potential for causing very serious incidents both on and off site. Because of the diversity of operations involving chemicals, it may not be possible to restrict major hazard facilities to certain types of operations. However, this hazard classification method recognizes that in the industrial sector major hazards are most commonly associated with activities involving very large quantities of chemicals and inherently energetic processes. These include operations like petrochemical plants, chemical production, LPG storage, explosives manufacturing, and facilities which use chlorine, ammonia, or other highly toxic gases in bulk quantities. The basis for this methodology is derived from concepts used by OSHA in its proposed chemical process safety standard, the Dow Fire and Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, and the International Labor Office`s program on chemical safety. For the purpose of identifying major hazard facilities, this method uses two sorting criteria, (1) facility function and processes and (2) quantity of substances to identify facilities requiringclassification. Then, a measure of chemical energy potential (material factor) is used to identify high hazard class facilities.

  6. An OSHA based approach to safety analysis for nonradiological hazardous materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yurconic, M.

    1992-08-01

    The PNL method for chemical hazard classification defines major hazards by means of a list of hazardous substances (or chemical groups) with associated trigger quantities. In addition, the functional characteristics of the facility being classified is also be factored into the classification. In this way, installations defined as major hazard will only be those which have the potential for causing very serious incidents both on and off site. Because of the diversity of operations involving chemicals, it may not be possible to restrict major hazard facilities to certain types of operations. However, this hazard classification method recognizes that in the industrial sector major hazards are most commonly associated with activities involving very large quantities of chemicals and inherently energetic processes. These include operations like petrochemical plants, chemical production, LPG storage, explosives manufacturing, and facilities which use chlorine, ammonia, or other highly toxic gases in bulk quantities. The basis for this methodology is derived from concepts used by OSHA in its proposed chemical process safety standard, the Dow Fire and Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, and the International Labor Office's program on chemical safety. For the purpose of identifying major hazard facilities, this method uses two sorting criteria, (1) facility function and processes and (2) quantity of substances to identify facilities requiringclassification. Then, a measure of chemical energy potential (material factor) is used to identify high hazard class facilities.

  7. Identification of chemical hazards for security risk analysis activities.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jaeger, Calvin Dell

    2005-01-01

    The presentation outline of this paper is: (1) How identification of chemical hazards fits into a security risk analysis approach; (2) Techniques for target identification; and (3) Identification of chemical hazards by different organizations. The summary is: (1) There are a number of different methodologies used within the chemical industry which identify chemical hazards: (a) Some develop a manual listing of potential targets based on published lists of hazardous chemicals or chemicals of concern, 'expert opinion' or known hazards. (b) Others develop a prioritized list based on chemicals found at a facility and consequence analysis (offsite release affecting population, theft of material, product tampering). (2) Identification of chemical hazards should include not only intrinsic properties of the chemicals but also potential reactive chemical hazards and potential use for activities off-site.

  8. DOE-STD-1063-2000 - Facility Representatives

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

    ... Safety Analysis Reports * DOE-EM-STD-5502-94, Hazard Baseline Documentation * DOE-EM-STD-5505-96, Operations Assessments * DOE Facility Representative Functional Area ...

  9. ARM - SGP Extended Facility

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

    Extended Facility SGP Related Links Virtual Tour Facilities and Instruments Central Facility Boundary Facility Extended Facility Intermediate Facility Radiometric Calibration...

  10. ARM - SGP Intermediate Facility

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

    Intermediate Facility SGP Related Links Virtual Tour Facilities and Instruments Central Facility Boundary Facility Extended Facility Intermediate Facility Radiometric Calibration...

  11. ARM - SGP Central Facility

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

    Central Facility SGP Related Links Virtual Tour Facilities and Instruments Central Facility Boundary Facility Extended Facility Intermediate Facility Radiometric Calibration...

  12. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the 324 Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-11-01

    The 324 Facility [Waste Technology Engineering Laboratory] in the 300 Area primarily supports the research and development of radioactive and nonradioactive waste vitrification technologies, biological waste remediation technologies, spent nuclear fuel studies, waste mixing and transport studies, and tritium development programs. All of the above-mentioned programs deal with, and have the potential to, release hazardous and/or radioactive material. The potential for discharge would primarily result from (1) conducting research activities using the hazardous materials, (2) storing radionuclides and hazardous chemicals, and (3) waste accumulation and storage. This report summarizes the airborne and liquid effluents, and the results of the Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan (FEMP) determination for the facility. The complete monitoring plan includes characterizing effluent streams, monitoring/sampling design criteria, a description of the monitoring systems and sample analysis, and quality assurance requirements.

  13. Facility Representatives

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

    ... Guidance for Hazard Analysis-Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances; or ... DOE-STD-1063-2011 13 f. Minor events or problems are frequently clues that indicate ...

  14. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the 327 Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-11-01

    The 327 Facility [Post-Irradiation Testing Laboratory] provides office and laboratory space for Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) scientific and engineering staff conducting multidisciplinary research in the areas of post-irradiated fuels and structural materials. The facility is designed to accommodate the use of radioactive and hazardous materials in the conduct of these activities. This report summarizes the airborne emissions and liquid effluents and the results of the Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan (FEMP) determination for the facility. The complete monitoring plan includes characterization of effluent streams, monitoring/sampling design criteria, a description of the monitoring systems and sample analysis, and quality assurance requirements.

  15. Hazard communication program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Porter, E.A.

    1994-10-04

    Implements Internal Publication No. WHC-IP-0914. Section 1.1, providing management and employee guidance for working with hazardous chemicals and physical agents.

  16. Ecosystem carbon storage capacity as affected by disturbance...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    and tausub 1 is the residence time of the carbon pool affected by disturbances (biomass pool in this study). The disturbance regime is characterized by the mean disturbance...

  17. Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417) | Department of Energy

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

    Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417) Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417) The Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report (Form OE-417) collects information on electric ...

  18. Pulse homodyne field disturbance sensor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    McEwan, Thomas E.

    1997-01-01

    A field disturbance sensor operates with relatively low power, provides an adjustable operating range, is not hypersensitive at close range, allows co-location of multiple sensors, and is inexpensive to manufacture. The sensor includes a transmitter that transmits a sequence of transmitted bursts of electromagnetic energy. The transmitter frequency is modulated at an intermediate frequency. The sequence of bursts has a burst repetition rate, and each burst has a burst width and comprises a number of cycles at a transmitter frequency. The sensor includes a receiver which receives electromagnetic energy at the transmitter frequency, and includes a mixer which mixes a transmitted burst with reflections of the same transmitted burst to produce an intermediate frequency signal. Circuitry, responsive to the intermediate frequency signal indicates disturbances in the sensor field. Because the mixer mixes the transmitted burst with reflections of the transmitted burst, the burst width defines the sensor range. The burst repetition rate is randomly or pseudo-randomly modulated so that bursts in the sequence of bursts have a phase which varies. A second range-defining mode transmits two radio frequency bursts, where the time spacing between the bursts defines the maximum range divided by two.

  19. Pulse homodyne field disturbance sensor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    McEwan, T.E.

    1997-10-28

    A field disturbance sensor operates with relatively low power, provides an adjustable operating range, is not hypersensitive at close range, allows co-location of multiple sensors, and is inexpensive to manufacture. The sensor includes a transmitter that transmits a sequence of transmitted bursts of electromagnetic energy. The transmitter frequency is modulated at an intermediate frequency. The sequence of bursts has a burst repetition rate, and each burst has a burst width and comprises a number of cycles at a transmitter frequency. The sensor includes a receiver which receives electromagnetic energy at the transmitter frequency, and includes a mixer which mixes a transmitted burst with reflections of the same transmitted burst to produce an intermediate frequency signal. Circuitry, responsive to the intermediate frequency signal indicates disturbances in the sensor field. Because the mixer mixes the transmitted burst with reflections of the transmitted burst, the burst width defines the sensor range. The burst repetition rate is randomly or pseudo-randomly modulated so that bursts in the sequence of bursts have a phase which varies. A second range-defining mode transmits two radio frequency bursts, where the time spacing between the bursts defines the maximum range divided by two. 12 figs.

  20. Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Biomass Facility | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Resource Recovery Facility Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Biomass Facility Facility Huntington Resource Recovery Facility...

  1. Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Biomass Facility | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sherman Energy Facility Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Biomass Facility Facility Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Sector...

  2. Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for the uranium trioxide facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lohrasbi, J.; Johnson, D.L.; De Lorenzo, D.S.

    1993-12-01

    A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-01. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated at a minimum of every three years.

  3. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the plutonium uranium extraction facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiegand, D.L.

    1994-09-01

    A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-01. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated at a minimum of every three years.

  4. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greager, E.M.

    1997-12-11

    A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-01. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether these systems are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan will ensure long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated, at a minimum, every 3 years.

  5. Facility Clearance Program | National Nuclear Security Administration |

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    (NNSA) Facility Clearance Program The Facility Clearance (FCL) Program regulates DOE approval of a Federal or contractor facility's eligibility to access, receive, generate, reproduce, store, transmit, or destroy classified information or matter, special nuclear material (SNM), other hazardous material presenting a potential radiological, chemical, or biological sabotage threat, and/or DOE property of significant monetary value, exclusive of facilities and land values (hereinafter referred

  6. Risk assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous waste incineration facility (East Liverpool, Ohio). Volume 5. Human health risk assessment; evaluation of potential risks from multipathway exposure to emissions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-05-01

    The report provide estimates of: (1) individual risks based on central tendency exposure; (2) individual risks based on maximum environmental concentrations; (3) risks to highly exposed or susceptible subgroups of the population (e.g., subsistence farmers and school children); (4) risks associated with specific activities that may result in elevated exposures (e.g., subsistence fishermen and deer hunters); and (5) population risk. This approach allows for the estimation of risks to specific segments of the population taking into consideration activity patterns, number of individuals, and actual locations of individuals in these subgroups with respect to the facility. The fate and transport modeling of emissions from the facility to estimate exposures to identified subgroups is described.

  7. Ashton Extended Facility

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

    Ashton Extended Facility Map

  8. Byron Extended Facility

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

    Byron Extended Facility Map

  9. Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project: Flood hazard models for Department of Energy sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Savy, J.B.; Murray, R.C.

    1988-05-01

    For eight sites, the evaluation of flood hazards was considered in two steps. First, a screening assessment was performed to determine whether flood hazards may impact DOE operations. The screening analysis consisted of a preliminary flood hazard assessment that provides an initial estimate of the site design basis. The second step involves a review of the vulnerability of on-site facilities by the site manager; based on the results of the preliminary flood hazard assessment and a review of site operations, the manager can decide whether flood hazards should be considered a part of the design basis. The scope of the preliminary flood hazard analysis was restricted to evaluating the flood hazards that may exist in proximity to a site. The analysis does not involve an assessment of the potential of encroachment of flooding at specific on-site locations. Furthermore, the screening analysis does not consider localized flooding at a site due to precipitation (i.e., local run-off, storm sewer capacity, roof drainage). These issues were reserved for consideration by the DOE site manager. 9 refs., 18 figs.

  10. User Facilities

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

    User Facilities User Facilities User facility agreements allow Los Alamos partners and other entities to conduct research at our unique facilities. In 2011, LANL hosted more than 1,200 users at CINT, LANSCE, and NHMFL. Users came from across the DOE complex, from international academia, and from industrial companies from 45 states across the U.S. Unique world-class user facilities foster rich research opportunities Through its technology transfer efforts, LANL can implement user facility

  11. Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-16

    The order establishes requirements for verifying readiness for startup of new Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations, and for restart of existing Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations that have been shut down. Adm Chg 1, dated 4-2-13, supersedes DOE O 425.1D.

  12. Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-16

    The order establishes requirements for verifying readiness for startup of new Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations, and for restart of existing Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations that have been shut down. Cancels DOE O 425.1C. Adm Chg 1, dated 4-2-13.

  13. 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.

  14. NGNP SITE 2 HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wayne Moe

    2011-10-01

    The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project initiated at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) by the U.S. Department of Energy pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, is based on research and development activities supported by the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. The principal objective of the NGNP Project is to support commercialization of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology. The HTGR is a helium-cooled and graphite-moderated reactor that can operate at temperatures much higher than those of conventional light water reactor (LWR) technologies. Accordingly, it can be applied in many industrial applications as a substitute for burning fossil fuels, such as natural gas, to generate process heat in addition to producing electricity, which is the principal application of current LWRs. Nuclear energy in the form of LWRs has been used in the U.S. and internationally principally for the generation of electricity. However, because the HTGR operates at higher temperatures than LWRs, it can be used to displace the use of fossil fuels in many industrial applications. It also provides a carbon emission-free energy supply. For example, the energy needs for the recovery and refining of petroleum, for the petrochemical industry and for production of transportation fuels and feedstocks using coal conversion processes require process heat provided at temperatures approaching 800 C. This temperature range is readily achieved by the HTGR technology. This report summarizes a site assessment authorized by INL under the NGNP Project to determine hazards and potential challenges that site owners and HTGR designers need to be aware of when developing the HTGR design for co-location at industrial facilities, and to evaluate the site for suitability considering certain site characteristics. The objectives of the NGNP site hazard assessments are to do an initial screening of representative sites in order to identify potential challenges and restraints

  15. Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports | Department of Energy

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

    Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports The Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs within the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Environment, Health, Safety and Security organization, establishes nuclear safety requirements related to safety management programs that are essential to the safety of DOE nuclear facilities. In addition, establishes requirements for facility design and operation for facility-wide hazards that are not unique to

  16. Parametric Hazard Function Estimation.

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1999-09-13

    Version 00 Phaze performs statistical inference calculations on a hazard function (also called a failure rate or intensity function) based on reported failure times of components that are repaired and restored to service. Three parametric models are allowed: the exponential, linear, and Weibull hazard models. The inference includes estimation (maximum likelihood estimators and confidence regions) of the parameters and of the hazard function itself, testing of hypotheses such as increasing failure rate, and checking ofmore » the model assumptions.« less

  17. Natural phenomena hazards site characterization criteria

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-03-01

    The criteria and recommendations in this standard shall apply to site characterization for the purpose of mitigating Natural Phenomena Hazards (wind, floods, landslide, earthquake, volcano, etc.) in all DOE facilities covered by DOE Order 5480.28. Criteria for site characterization not related to NPH are not included unless necessary for clarification. General and detailed site characterization requirements are provided in areas of meteorology, hydrology, geology, seismology, and geotechnical studies.

  18. Mr. James Bearzi, Chief Hazardous Waste Bureau

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

    Carlsbad , New Mexico 88221 October 12, 2010 New Mexico Environment Department 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6303 Subject: Notification of Results of Evaluation of Sampling Line Loss, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Number NM4890139088 - TSDF Dear Mr. Bearzi: As required under Permit Condition IV.F.5.e, the Permittees are hereby notifying the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) of the results of the evaluation of the loss of

  19. NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL: Preliminary Disturbance...

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

    NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL: Preliminary Disturbance Report (40.43 KB) More Documents & Publications North American Electric Reliability Council Power Outage Update ...

  20. Hazard analysis for 300 Area N Reactor Fuel Fabrication and Storage Facilty

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, D.J.; Brehm, J.R.

    1994-01-25

    This hazard analysis (HA) has been prepared for the 300 Area N Reactor Fuel Fabrication and Storage Facility (Facility), in compliance with the requirements of Westinghouse Hanford Company (Westinghouse Hanford) controlled manual WHC-CM-4-46, Nonreactor Facility Safety Analysis Manual, and to the direction of WHC-IP-0690, Safety Analysis and Regulation Desk Instructions, (WHC 1992). An HA identifies potentially hazardous conditions in a facility and the associated potential accident scenarios. Unlike the Facility hazard classification documented in WHC-SD-NR-HC-004, Hazard Classification for 300 Area N Reactor Fuel Fabrication and Storage Facility, (Huang 1993), which is based on unmitigated consequences, credit is taken in an HA for administrative controls or engineered safety features planned or in place. The HA is the foundation for the accident analysis. The significant event scenarios identified by this HA will be further evaluated in a subsequent accident analysis.

  1. Report Wildland Fire Area Hazard

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

    Sighting (check box if animal poses serious threat) Trails (accessegress) Hazard Trees (falling, fire hazard) Utilities (Lab employees: use Form 1821 (pdf) to report utility...

  2. Siting analyses for existing facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ford, K.; Mannan, M. [RMT/Jones and Neuse, Inc., Austin, TX (United States)

    1996-08-01

    The term {open_quotes}facility siting{close_quotes} refers to the spacial relationships between process units, process equipment within units, and the location of buildings relative to process equipment. Facility siting is an important consideration for the safe operation of manufacturing facilities. Paragraph (d) of the Process Safety Management (PSM) rule (29 CFR 1910.119) requires employers to document the codes and standards used for designing process equipment. This documentation includes facility siting. The regulation also requires employers to document that the design of the facility complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. In addition, paragraph (e) of the PSM regulation requires that facility siting be evaluated during Process Hazard Analyses. Facility siting issues may also need to be considered in emergency planning and response which are required under paragraph (n) of the PSM rule. This paper will demonstrate, by utilizing an example, one technique for evaluating whether buildings could be affected by a catastrophic incident and for determining if these buildings should be included in the PSM programs developed at the facility such as Process Hazard Analysis and Mechanical Integrity. In addition, this example will illustrate a methodology for determining if the buildings are designed and located in accordance with good engineering practice and industry standards.

  3. ORISE: Hazard Assessments

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

    Hazard Assessments The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) analyzes accumulated data to identify potential workplace hazards to which individuals or groups of workers may be exposed. ORISE assesses both chemical and radiation exposures, and conducts both internal and external radiation dose assessments. Our capabililities include: Linkage of exposure data to site rosters Assessment of retrospective exposures Preparation of assessment protocols Design and testing of dose

  4. Automated Job Hazards Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    AJHA Program - The Automated Job Hazard Analysis (AJHA) computer program is part of an enhanced work planning process employed at the Department of Energy's Hanford worksite. The AJHA system is routinely used to performed evaluations for medium and high risk work, and in the development of corrective maintenance work packages at the site. The tool is designed to ensure that workers are fully involved in identifying the hazards, requirements, and controls associated with tasks.

  5. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the tank farm facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crummel, G.M.

    1998-05-18

    A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

  6. User Facilities

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

    User Facilities User Facilities A new research frontier awaits! Our door is open, and we thrive on mutually beneficial partnerships and collaborations that drive innovations and new technologies. Unique world-class user facilities foster rich research opportunities Through its technology transfer efforts, Los Alamos National Laboratory can implement user facility agreements that allow its partners and other entities to conduct research at many of its unique facilities. While our largest user

  7. Evaluation of cement kiln laboratories testing hazardous waste derived fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nichols, R.E.

    1998-12-31

    Cement kiln operators wishing to burn hazardous waste derived fuels in their kilns must submit applications for Resource Conservation Recovery Act permits. One component of each permit application is a site-specific Waste Analysis Plan. These Plans describe the facilities` sampling and analysis procedures for hazardous waste derived fuels prior to receipt and burn. The Environmental Protection Agency has conducted on-site evaluations of several cement kiln facilities that were under consideration for Resource Conservation Recovery Act permits. The purpose of these evaluations was to determine if the on-site sampling and laboratory operations at each facility complied with their site-specific Waste Analysis Plans. These evaluations covered sampling, laboratory, and recordkeeping procedures. Although all the evaluated facilities were generally competent, the results of those evaluations revealed opportunities for improvement at each facility. Many findings were noted for more than one facility. This paper will discuss these findings, particularly those shared by several facilities (specific facilities will not be identified). Among the findings to be discussed are the ways that oxygen bombs were scrubbed and rinsed, the analytical quality control used, Burn Tank sampling, and the analysis of pH in hazardous waste derived fuels.

  8. Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cadwallader, L.C.

    2005-05-15

    Experimental fusion facilities present a variety of hazards to the operators and staff. There are unique or specialized hazards, including magnetic fields, cryogens, radio frequency emissions, and vacuum reservoirs. There are also more general industrial hazards, such as a wide variety of electrical power, pressurized air and cooling water systems in use, there are crane and hoist loads, working at height, and handling compressed gas cylinders. This paper outlines the projectile hazard associated with compressed gas cylinders and methods of treatment to provide for compressed gas safety. This information should be of interest to personnel at both magnetic and inertial fusion experiments.

  9. High Frequency Ground Motion Simulation for Seismic Hazard Analysis |

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

    Argonne Leadership Computing Facility Ground motion simulations reveal regions at risk Ground motion simulations reveal regions at risk of strong shaking during a possible magnitude-8 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. For the CyberShake project, reciprocal simulations of all known possible quakes are combined to estimate the total probabilistic hazard for California. Credit: Geoffrey Ely, Argonne National Laboratory High Frequency Ground Motion Simulation for Seismic Hazard Analysis PI

  10. Sandia National Laboratories Hazardous Waste (RCRA) Information Repository

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

    Index Permit Documents in this category include the RCRA Facility Operating Permit, applications, modification requests, and correspondence. Some of these documents are also available through the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Hazardous Waste Bureau. Hazardous and mixed wastes are generated during ongoing operations at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). These wastes are stored or treated in one of nine on-site Permitted Units. The wastes and treatment residues are then packaged

  11. IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT HAZARDS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K.L. Ashley

    2005-03-23

    Aircraft hazards were determined to be potentially applicable to a repository at Yucca Mountain in the ''Monitored Geological Repository External Events Hazards Screening Analysis'' (BSC 2004, Section 6.4.1). That determination was conservatively based on limited knowledge of flight data in the area of concern and on crash data for aircraft of the type flying near Yucca Mountain. The purpose of this report is to identify specific aircraft hazards that may be applicable to a Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR) at Yucca Mountain using NUREG-0800, ''Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' (NRC 1987, Section 3.5.1.6), as guidance for the inclusion or exclusion of identified aircraft hazards. NUREG-0800 is being used here as a reference because some of the same considerations apply. The intended use of this report is to provide inputs for further screening and analysis of the identified aircraft hazards based on the criteria that apply to Category 1 and 2 event sequence analyses as defined in 10 CFR 63.2 (see Section 4). The scope of this technical report includes the evaluation of military, private, and commercial use of airspace in the 100-mile regional setting of the MGR at Yucca Mountain with the potential for reducing the regional setting to a more manageable size after consideration of applicable screening criteria (see Section 7).

  12. Identification of Aircraft Hazards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. Ashley

    2006-12-08

    Aircraft hazards were determined to be potentially applicable to a repository at Yucca Mountain in ''Monitored Geological Repository External Events Hazards Screening Analysis'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 174235], Section 6.4.1). That determination was conservatively based upon limited knowledge of flight data in the area of concern and upon crash data for aircraft of the type flying near Yucca Mountain. The purpose of this report is to identify specific aircraft hazards that may be applicable to a monitored geologic repository (MGR) at Yucca Mountain, using NUREG-0800, ''Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' (NRC 1987 [DIRS 103124], Section 3.5.1.6), as guidance for the inclusion or exclusion of identified aircraft hazards. The intended use of this report is to provide inputs for further screening and analysis of identified aircraft hazards based upon the criteria that apply to Category 1 and Category 2 event sequence analyses as defined in 10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 176544] (Section 4). The scope of this report includes the evaluation of military, private, and commercial use of airspace in the 100-mile regional setting of the repository at Yucca Mountain with the potential for reducing the regional setting to a more manageable size after consideration of applicable screening criteria (Section 7).

  13. Mr. John E. Kieling, Chief Hazardous Waste Bureau

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

    P 0. Box 3090 Carlsbad , New Mexico 88221 FEB 2 9 2016 New Mexico Environment Department 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6303 Subject: Transmittal of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 2015 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report Dear Mr. Kieling: In accordance with the requirements of Part 2, Section 2.14.2 of the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit NM4890139088-TSDF, please find the enclosed CD-ROM and hardcopy of the 2015 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report (Report) for the

  14. Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project: Preliminary flood hazards estimates for screening Department of Energy sites, Albuquerque Operations Office

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCann, M.W. Jr.; Boissonnade, A.C.

    1988-05-01

    As part of an ongoing program, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is directing the Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project (NPHMP) on behalf of the Department of Energy (DOE). A major part of this effort is the development of probabilistic definitions of natural phenomena hazards; seismic, wind, and flood. In this report the first phase of the evaluation of flood hazards at DOE sites is described. Unlike seismic and wind events, floods may not present a significant threat to the operations of all DOE sites. For example, at some sites physical circumstances may exist that effectively preclude the occurrence of flooding. As a result, consideration of flood hazards may not be required as part of the site design basis. In this case it is not necessary to perform a detailed flood hazard study at all DOE sites, such as those conducted for other natural phenomena hazards, seismic and wind. The scope of the preliminary flood hazard analysis is restricted to evaluating the flood hazards that may exist in proximity to a site. The analysis does involve an assessment of the potential encroachment of flooding on-site at individual facility locations. However, the preliminary flood hazard assessment does not consider localized flooding at a site due to precipitation (i.e., local run-off, storm sewer capacity, roof drainage). These issues are reserved for consideration by the DOE site manager. 11 refs., 84 figs., 61 tabs.

  15. Natural Phenomena Hazards DOE-STD 1020-2012 & DOE Handbook | Department of

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

    Energy Natural Phenomena Hazards DOE-STD 1020-2012 & DOE Handbook Natural Phenomena Hazards DOE-STD 1020-2012 & DOE Handbook Natural Phenomena Hazards DOE-STD 1020-2012 & DOE Handbook Mark Blackburn P.E. Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs AU, 32 October 21, 2014 Natural Phenomena Hazards DOE-STD 1020-2012 & DOE Handbook (267.25 KB) More Documents & Publications Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities Standard Review Plan

  16. Hazardous fluid leak detector

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gray, Harold E.; McLaurin, Felder M.; Ortiz, Monico; Huth, William A.

    1996-01-01

    A device or system for monitoring for the presence of leaks from a hazardous fluid is disclosed which uses two electrodes immersed in deionized water. A gas is passed through an enclosed space in which a hazardous fluid is contained. Any fumes, vapors, etc. escaping from the containment of the hazardous fluid in the enclosed space are entrained in the gas passing through the enclosed space and transported to a closed vessel containing deionized water and two electrodes partially immersed in the deionized water. The electrodes are connected in series with a power source and a signal, whereby when a sufficient number of ions enter the water from the gas being bubbled through it (indicative of a leak), the water will begin to conduct, thereby allowing current to flow through the water from one electrode to the other electrode to complete the circuit and activate the signal.

  17. 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.

  18. ORISE: Facilities

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

    ORISE Facilities Unique laboratories and training centers among the assets managed on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) is home to a number of on- and off-site facilities that support the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) science education and research mission. From on-site medical laboratories to radiation emergency medicine training facilities, ORISE facilities are helping to address national needs in the following areas:

  19. Science Facilities

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

    Facilities Science Facilities The focal point for basic and applied R&D programs with a primary focus on energy but also encompassing medical, biotechnology, high-energy physics, and advanced scientific computing programs. Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies» Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT)» Electron Microscopy Lab» Ion Beam Materials Lab» Isotope Production Facility» Los Alamos Neutron Science Center» Lujan Center» Matter-Radiation Interactions in

  20. Biosafety Facilities

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

    2007-07-11

    The Guide assists DOE/NNSA field elements and operating contractors in incorporating hazardous biological agents/toxins into emergency management programs, as required by DOE O 151.1C. No cancellation.

  1. Site maps and facilities listings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01

    In September 1989, a Memorandum of Agreement among DOE offices regarding the environmental management of DOE facilities was signed by appropriate Assistant Secretaries and Directors. This Memorandum of Agreement established the criteria for EM line responsibility. It stated that EM would be responsible for all DOE facilities, operations, or sites (1) that have been assigned to DOE for environmental restoration and serve or will serve no future production need; (2) that are used for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed hazardous waste materials that have been properly characterized, packaged, and labelled, but are not used for production; (3) that have been formally transferred to EM by another DOE office for the purpose of environmental restoration and the eventual return to service as a DOE production facility; or (4) that are used exclusively for long-term storage of DOE waste material and are not actively used for production, with the exception of facilities, operations, or sites under the direction of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. As part of the implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement, Field Offices within DOE submitted their listings of facilities, systems, operation, and sites for which EM would have line responsibility. It is intended that EM facility listings will be revised on a yearly basis so that managers at all levels will have a valid reference for the planning, programming, budgeting and execution of EM activities.

  2. Mr. John E. Kieling, Bureau Chief Hazardous Waste Bureau

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

    AUG 2 9 2014 New Mexico Environment Department 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1 Santa Fe, NM 87508-6303 Mr. Tom Blaine, Division Director Environmental Health Division Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, Room 4050 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Subject: Request for Additional Extension of Storage Time at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Facility, Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Number NM4890139088-TSDF Reference: New Mexico Environment Department correspondence from Ryan Flynn to

  3. Mr. John E. Kieling, Bureau Chief Hazardous Waste Bureau

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

    2 2015 Ms. Kathryn Roberts, Division Director Resource Protection Division New Mexico Environment Department 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1 Santa Fe, NM 87508-6303 Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, Room 4050 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Subject: Request for Additional Extension of Storage Time at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Facility, Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Number NM4890139088-TSDF Reference: New Mexico Environment Department correspondence from Ryan Flynn to Jose

  4. Wheelabrator Millbury Facility Biomass Facility | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Facility Facility Wheelabrator Millbury Facility Sector Biomass Facility Type Municipal Solid Waste Location Worcester County, Massachusetts Coordinates 42.4096528, -71.8571331...

  5. Advanced Manufacturing Processes Laboratory Building 878 hazards assessment document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wood, C.; Thornton, W.; Swihart, A.; Gilman, T.

    1994-07-01

    The introduction of the hazards assessment process is to document the impact of the release of hazards at the Advanced Manufacturing Processes Laboratory (AMPL) that are significant enough to warrant consideration in Sandia National Laboratories` operational emergency management program. This hazards assessment is prepared in accordance with the Department of Energy Order 5500.3A requirement that facility-specific hazards assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. This hazards assessment provides an analysis of the potential airborne release of chemicals associated with the operations and processes at the AMPL. This research and development laboratory develops advanced manufacturing technologies, practices, and unique equipment and provides the fabrication of prototype hardware to meet the needs of Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico (SNL/NM). The focus of the hazards assessment is the airborne release of materials because this requires the most rapid, coordinated emergency response on the part of the AMPL, SNL/NM, collocated facilities, and surrounding jurisdiction to protect workers, the public, and the environment.

  6. Beamlines & Facilities

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

    Imaging Group: Beamlines The X-ray Micrscopy and Imaging Group operates several beamlines and facilities. The bending magnet beamline (2-BM) entertaines 2 general user programs in...

  7. Hazard Communication Training - Upcoming Implementation Date...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Hazard Communication Training - Upcoming Implementation Date for New Hazard Communication Standard Hazard Communication Training - 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, ...

  8. Utah. Code. Ann. 19-6-108: New nonhazardous solid or hazardous...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8: New nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste operation plans for facility or site Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute:...

  9. Glass Formulation and Fabrication Laboratory, Building 864, Hazards assessment document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Banda, Z.; Wood, C.L.

    1995-08-01

    The Department of Energy Order 5500.3A requires facility-specific hazards assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. This hazards assessment document describes the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the Glass Formulation and Fabrication Laboratory, Building 864. The entire inventory was screened according to the potential airborne impact to onsite and offsite individuals. The air dispersion model, ALOHA, estimated pollutant concentrations downwind from the source of a release, taking into consideration the toxicological and physical characteristics of the release site, the atmospheric conditions, and the circumstances of the release. The greatest distances at which a postulated facility event will produce consequences exceeding the ERPG-2 threshold is 96 meters. The highest emergency classification is a Site Area Emergency. The Emergency Planning Zone is 100 meters.

  10. Simulation Technology Laboratory Building 970 hazards assessment document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wood, C.L.; Starr, M.D.

    1994-11-01

    The Department of Energy Order 5500.3A requires facility-specific hazards assessments be prepared, maintained, and used for emergency planning purposes. This hazards assessment document describes the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the Simulation Technology Laboratory, Building 970. The entire inventory was screened according to the potential airborne impact to onsite and offsite individuals. The air dispersion model, ALOHA, estimated pollutant concentrations downwind from the source of a release, taking into consideration the toxicological and physical characteristics of the release site, the atmospheric conditions, and the circumstances of the release. The greatest distances at which a postulated facility event will produce consequences exceeding the ERPG-2 and Early Severe Health Effects thresholds are 78 and 46 meters, respectively. The highest emergency classification is a Site Area Emergency. The Emergency Planning Zone is 100 meters.