Sample records for facilities safety board

  1. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale...

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

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale Govan, Departmental Representative to the DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale Govan,...

  2. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    1996-12-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The manual defines the process DOE will use to interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and its staff. Canceled by DOE M 140.1-1A. Does not cancel other directives.

  3. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    1999-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

    This Manual presents the process the Department of Energy will use to interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) and its staff. Cancels DOE M 140.1-1.

  4. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    2001-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

    This Manual presents the process the Department of Energy will use to interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) and its staff. Cancels DOE M 140.1-1A.

  5. Facility Safety

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

    2000-11-20T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  6. Facility Safety

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

    1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

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

  7. Facility Safety

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

    1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. Annual Report To Congress. Department of Energy Activities Relating to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Calendar Year 2003

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    2004-02-28T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (Department) submits an Annual Report to Congress each year detailing the Department’s activities relating to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), which provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. In 2003, the Department continued ongoing activities to resolve issues identified by the Board in formal recommendations and correspondence, staff issue reports pertaining to Department facilities, and public meetings and briefings. Additionally, the Department is implementing several key safety initiatives to address and prevent safety issues: safety culture and review of the Columbia accident investigation; risk reduction through stabilization of excess nuclear materials; the Facility Representative Program; independent oversight and performance assurance; the Federal Technical Capability Program (FTCP); executive safety initiatives; and quality assurance activities. The following summarizes the key activities addressed in this Annual Report.

  9. Annual report to Congress: Department of Energy activities relating to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, calendar year 1998

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1999-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the ninth Annual Report to the Congress describing Department of Energy (Department) activities in response to formal recommendations and other interactions with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board). The Board, an independent executive-branch agency established in 1988, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of energy regarding public health and safety issues at the Department`s defense nuclear facilities. The Board also reviews and evaluates the content and implementation of health and safety standards, as well as other requirements, relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department`s defense nuclear facilities. The locations of the major Department facilities are provided. During 1998, Departmental activities resulted in the proposed closure of one Board recommendation. In addition, the Department has completed all implementation plan milestones associated with four other Board recommendations. Two new Board recommendations were received and accepted by the Department in 1998, and two new implementation plans are being developed to address these recommendations. The Department has also made significant progress with a number of broad-based initiatives to improve safety. These include expanded implementation of integrated safety management at field sites, a renewed effort to increase the technical capabilities of the federal workforce, and a revised plan for stabilizing excess nuclear materials to achieve significant risk reduction.

  10. Annual report to Congress: Department of Energy activities relating to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Calendar Year 1999

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the tenth Annual Report to the Congress describing Department of Energy activities in response to formal recommendations and other interactions with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board). The Board, an independent executive-branch agency established in 1988, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's defense nuclear facilities. The Board also reviews and evaluates the content and implementation of health and safety standards, as well as other requirements, relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department's defense nuclear facilities. During 1999, Departmental activities resulted in the closure of nine Board recommendations. In addition, the Department has completed all implementation plan milestones associated with three Board recommendations. One new Board recommendation was received and accepted by the Department in 1999, and a new implementation plan is being developed to address this recommendation. The Department has also made significant progress with a number of broad-based initiatives to improve safety. These include expanded implementation of integrated safety management at field sites, opening of a repository for long-term storage of transuranic wastes, and continued progress on stabilizing excess nuclear materials to achieve significant risk reduction.

  11. Annual report to Congress. Department of Energy activities relating to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, calendar year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    2001-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Annual Report to the Congress describes the Department of Energy's activities in response to formal recommendations and other interactions with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. During 2000, the Department completed its implementation and proposed closure of one Board recommendation and completed all implementation plan milestones associated with two additional Board recommendations. Also in 2000, the Department formally accepted two new Board recommendations and developed implementation plans in response to those recommendations. The Department also made significant progress with a number of broad-based safety initiatives. These include initial implementation of integrated safety management at field sites and within headquarters program offices, issuance of a nuclear safety rule, and continued progress on stabilizing excess nuclear materials to achieve significant risk reduction.

  12. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  13. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  14. Facility Safety

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

    1995-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  15. Facility Safety

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

    2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  16. Facility Safety

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

    2002-05-20T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish facility safety requirements for the Department of Energy, including National Nuclear Security Administration. Cancels DOE O 420.1. Canceled by DOE O 420.1B.

  17. Facility Safety

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

    2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Safety Basis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  19. Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs establishes nuclear safety requirements related to safety management programs that are essential to the safety of DOE nuclear facilities.

  20. Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power Administration wouldDECOMPOSITIONPortal Decision Support forDeep Insights from8, 2014

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

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

    Change, Safety, The order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety,...

  2. APS Experiment Safety Review Board

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

    participates in project reviews as requested, recommends laser safety policy, reviews accident investigation conclusions, and evaluates plans to protect personnel where laser...

  3. National Transportation Safety Board Office of Aviation Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Droegemeier, Kelvin K.

    NWS and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular "Aviation Weather Services", AC 00 Electronics Engineer Federal Aviation Administration 1 UTC ­ is an abbreviation for Coordinated Universal Time1 National Transportation Safety Board Office of Aviation Safety Washington, D.C. 20594

  4. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2004-07-23T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish accelerator-specific safety requirements which, when supplemented by other applicable safety and health requirements, will serve to prevent injuries and illnesses associated with Department of Energy (DOE) or National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) accelerator operations. Cancels DOE O 420.2A. Certified 5-13-08. Canceled by DOE O 420.2C.

  5. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2011-07-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The order defines accelerators and establishes accelerator specific safety requirements and approval authorities which, when supplemented by other applicable safety and health requirements, promote safe operations to ensure protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Cancels DOE O 420.2B.

  6. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2001-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish accelerator-specific safety requirements which, when supplemented by other applicable safety and health requirements, will serve to prevent injuries and illnesses associated with Department of Energy (DOE) or National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) accelerator operations. Cancels DOE O 420.2. Canceled by DOE O 420.2B.

  7. CRAD, Facility Safety- Technical Safety Requirements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  8. Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Standard identifies safety requirements for magnetic fusion facilities. Safety functions are used to define outcomes that must be achieved to ensure that exposures to radiation, hazardous materials, or other hazards are maintained within acceptable limits. Requirements applicable to magnetic fusion facilities have been derived from Federal law, policy, and other documents. In addition to specific safety requirements, broad direction is given in the form of safety principles that are to be implemented and within which safety can be achieved.

  9. Facility Safety Plan CMS Complexes CMS410

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooper, G

    2007-06-14T23:59:59.000Z

    Laboratory management requires that the controls specified in this Facility Safety Plan (FSP) be applied to efficiently and safely perform operations within these facilities. Any operation conducted in these facilities that involves activities not commonly performed by the public, requires an Integrated Work Sheet to determine the appropriate level of safety documentation.

  10. Nano Research Facility Lab Safety Manual Nano Research Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Subramanian, Venkat

    1 Nano Research Facility Lab Safety Manual Nano Research Facility: Weining Wang Office: Brauer---chemical, biological, or radiological. Notify the lab manager, Dr. Yujie Xiong at 5-4530. Eye Contact: Promptly flush

  11. Facility Safety (9-23-10)--Withdrawn

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

    2010-09-23T23:59:59.000Z

    Withdrawn, 5-19-2014--This approval includes revision of the three implementing Guides: DOE G 420.1-1, Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Criteria and Explosive Safety Criteria Guide for Use with DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety; DOE G 420.1-2, Guide for the Mitigation of Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and NonNuclear Facilities; and DOE G 420.1-3, Implementation Guide for DOE Fire Protection and Emergency Services Programs for Use with DOE O 420.1B, Facility Safety

  12. Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility Documented Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD, E.N.

    2003-10-08T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the documented safety analysis (DSA) and Central Plateau Remediation Project (CP) requirements that apply to surveillance and maintenance (S&M) activities at the Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) facility. This DSA was developed in accordance with DOE-STD-1120-98, ''Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities''. Upon approval and implementation of this document, the current safety basis documents will be retired.

  13. Charter for the ARM Climate Research Facility Science Board

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ferrell, W

    2013-03-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The objective of the ARM Science Board is to promote the Nation’s scientific enterprise by ensuring that the best quality science is conducted at the DOE’s User Facility known as the ARM Climate Research Facility. The goal of the User Facility is to serve scientific researchers by providing unique data and tools to facilitate scientific applications for improving understanding and prediction of climate science.

  14. Hot Cell Facility (HCF) Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2000-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Idaho Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency, Saves Taxpayer Dollars Idaho Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency, Saves Taxpayer Dollars...

  16. Occupational Safety Review of High Technology Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee Cadwallader

    2005-01-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This report contains reviews of operating experiences, selected accident events, and industrial safety performance indicators that document the performance of the major US DOE magnetic fusion experiments and particle accelerators. These data are useful to form a basis for the occupational safety level at matured research facilities with known sets of safety rules and regulations. Some of the issues discussed are radiation safety, electromagnetic energy exposure events, and some of the more widespread issues of working at height, equipment fires, confined space work, electrical work, and other industrial hazards. Nuclear power plant industrial safety data are also included for comparison.

  17. 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.

  18. Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Guidance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides guidance for the implementation of the requirements identified in DOE-STD-6002-96, Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements. This guidance is intended for the managers, designers, operators, and other personnel with safety responsibilities for facilities designated as magnetic fusion facilities. While the requirements in DOE-STD-6002-96 are generally applicable to a wide range of fusion facilities, this Standard, DOE-STD-6003-96, is concerned mainly with the implementation of those requirements in large facilities such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Using a risk-based prioritization, the concepts presented here may also be applied to other magnetic fusion facilities. This Standard is oriented toward regulation in the Department of Energy (DOE) environment as opposed to regulation by other regulatory agencies. As the need for guidance involving other types of fusion facilities or other regulatory environments emerges, additional guidance volumes should be prepared. The concepts, processes, and recommendations set forth here are for guidance only. They will contribute to safety at magnetic fusion facilities.

  19. Facility Safety | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently20,000 Russian NuclearandJunetrackEllen|JulyR--FOIA SupportDOE's FY3FacilityFacilityIn

  20. Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Batandjieva, B.; Warnecke, E.; Coates, R. [International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (Austria)

    2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Full text of publication follows: ensuring safety during all stages of facility life cycle is a widely recognised responsibility of the operators, implemented under the supervision of the regulatory body and other competent authorities. As the majority of the facilities worldwide are still in operation or shutdown, there is no substantial experience in decommissioning and evaluation of safety during decommissioning in majority of Member States. The need for cooperation and exchange of experience and good practices on ensuring and evaluating safety of decommissioning was one of the outcomes of the Berlin conference in 2002. On this basis during the last three years IAEA initiated a number of international projects that can assist countries, in particular small countries with limited resources. The main IAEA international projects addressing safety during decommissioning are: (i) DeSa Project on Evaluation and Demonstration of Safety during Decommissioning; (ii) R{sup 2}D{sup 2}P project on Research Reactors Decommissioning Demonstration Project; and (iii) Project on Evaluation and Decommissioning of Former Facilities that used Radioactive Material in Iraq. This paper focuses on the DeSa Project activities on (i) development of a harmonised methodology for safety assessment for decommissioning; (ii) development of a procedure for review of safety assessments; (iii) development of recommendations on application of the graded approach to the performance and review of safety assessments; and (iv) application of the methodology and procedure to the selected real facilities with different complexities and hazard potentials (a nuclear power plant, a research reactor and a nuclear laboratory). The paper also outlines the DeSa Project outcomes and planned follow-up activities. It also summarises the main objectives and activities of the Iraq Project and introduces the R{sup 2}D{sup 2} Project, which is a subject of a complementary paper.

  1. Enhancing the safety of tailings management facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meggyes, T.; Niederleithinger, E.; Witt, K.J.; Csovari, M.; Kreft-Burman, K.; Engels, J.; McDonald, C.; Roehl, K.E. [BAM, Berlin (Germany). Federal Institute for Material Research & Testing

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Unsafe tailings management facilities (TMFs) have caused serious accidents in Europe threatening human health/life and the environment. While advanced design, construction and management procedures are available, their implementation requires greater emphasis. An integrated research project funded by the European Union was carried out between 2002 and 2005 with the overall goal of improving the safety of TMFs (Sustainable Improvement in Safety of Tailings Facilities - TAILSAFE, http://www.tailsafe.com/). The objective of TAILSAFE was to develop and apply methods of parameter evaluation and measurement for the assessment and improvement of the safety state of tailings facilities, with particular attention to the stability of tailings dams and slurries, the special risks inherent when such materials include toxic or hazardous wastes, and authorization and management procedures for tailings facilities. Aspects of tailings facilities design, water management and slurry transport, non-destructive and minimally intrusive testing methods, monitoring and the application of sensors, intervention and remediation options were considered in TAILSAFE. A risk reduction framework (the TAILSAFE Parameter Framework) was established to contribute to the avoidance of catastrophic accidents and hazards from tailings facilities. Tailings from the mining and primary processing of metals, minerals and coal were included within the scope of TAILSAFE. The project focused on the avoidance of hazards by developing procedures and methods for investigating and improving the stability of tailings dams and tailings bodies.

  2. Mechanistic facility safety and source term analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PLYS, M.G.

    1999-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

    A PC-based computer program was created for facility safety and source term analysis at Hanford The program has been successfully applied to mechanistic prediction of source terms from chemical reactions in underground storage tanks, hydrogen combustion in double contained receiver tanks, and proccss evaluation including the potential for runaway reactions in spent nuclear fuel processing. Model features include user-defined facility room, flow path geometry, and heat conductors, user-defined non-ideal vapor and aerosol species, pressure- and density-driven gas flows, aerosol transport and deposition, and structure to accommodate facility-specific source terms. Example applications are presented here.

  3. Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic Plan| Department of.pdf6-OPAMDepartment6 FY 2007FY 2014Facilities

  4. Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Criteria and Explosive Safety Criteria Guide for Use with DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety

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

    2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides guidance on the application of requirements for nonreactor nuclear facilities and explosives facilities of Department of Energy (DOE) O 420.1, Facility Safety, Section 4.1, Nuclear and Explosives Safety Design Criteria. No cancellation.

  5. CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C.E. Sanders

    2005-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This design calculation revises and updates the previous criticality evaluation for the canister handling, transfer and staging operations to be performed in the Canister Handling Facility (CHF) documented in BSC [Bechtel SAIC Company] 2004 [DIRS 167614]. The purpose of the calculation is to demonstrate that the handling operations of canisters performed in the CHF meet the nuclear criticality safety design criteria specified in the ''Project Design Criteria (PDC) Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171599], Section 4.9.2.2), the nuclear facility safety requirement in ''Project Requirements Document'' (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], p. 4-206), the functional/operational nuclear safety requirement in the ''Project Functional and Operational Requirements'' document (Curry 2004 [DIRS 170557], p. 75), and the functional nuclear criticality safety requirements described in the ''Canister Handling Facility Description Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168992], Sections 3.1.1.3.4.13 and 3.2.3). Specific scope of work contained in this activity consists of updating the Category 1 and 2 event sequence evaluations as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167268], Section 7). The CHF is limited in throughput capacity to handling sealed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) canisters, defense high-level radioactive waste (DHLW), naval canisters, multicanister overpacks (MCOs), vertical dual-purpose canisters (DPCs), and multipurpose canisters (MPCs) (if and when they become available) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168992], p. 1-1). It should be noted that the design and safety analyses of the naval canisters are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of the Navy (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) and will not be included in this document. In addition, this calculation is valid for the current design of the CHF and may not reflect the ongoing design evolution of the facility. However, it is anticipated that design changes to the facility layout will have little or no impact on the criticality results and/or conclusions presented in this document. This calculation is subject to the ''Quality Assurance Requirements and Description'' (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]) because the CHF is included in the Q-List (BSC 2005 [DIRS 171190], p. A-3) as an item important to safety. This calculation is prepared in accordance with AP-3.12Q, ''Design Calculations and Analyses'' [DIRS 168413].

  6. NEW - DOE O 420.1 Chg 1, Facility Safety

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

    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, cancels DOE O 420.1C, dated 12-4-12.

  7. Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee C. Cadwallader

    2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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 assoicated with compressed gas cylinders and mthods of treatment to provide for compressed gas safety. This information should be of interest to personnel at both magnetic and inertial fusion experiments.

  8. Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cadwallader, L.C. [Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (United States)

    2005-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

    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. Documented safety analysis for 209-E Facility critical mass laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD, E.

    2003-04-23T23:59:59.000Z

    This documented safety analysis (DSA) addresses the 209-E facility and associated requirements that apply to 200 Area Facility Deactivation (AFD) activities. The DSA was developed in accordance with DOE-STD-1120-98, ''Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities''.

  10. Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE O 420.2B, Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is an aid to understanding and meeting the requirements of DOE O 420.2B, Safety of Accelerator Facilities, dated 7/23/04. It does not impose requirements beyond those stated in that Order or any other DOE Order. No cancellation.

  11. Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide ...

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

    Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Fulfills ORO Safety Basis Competency 1, 2 (Part 1), or 7 (Part 1) November 2002 Nuclear...

  12. Safety Culture And Best Practices At Japan's Fusion Research Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rule, K. [Princeton Plasma Physics Lab., Princeton, NJ (United States); King, M. [General Atomics, San Diego, CA (United States); Takase, Y. [Univ. of Tokyo (Japan); Oshima, Y. [Univ. of Tokyo (Japan); Nishimura, K. [National Institute for Fusion Science, Toki (Japan); Sukegawa, A. [Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Naka (Japan)

    2014-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety Monitor Joint Working Group (JWG) is one of the magnetic fusion research collaborations between the US Department of Energy and the government of Japan. Visits by occupational safety personnel are made to participating institutions on a biennial basis. In the 2013 JWG visit of US representatives to Japan, the JWG members noted a number of good safety practices in the safety walkthroughs. These good practices and safety culture topics are discussed in this paper. The JWG hopes that these practices for worker safety can be adopted at other facilities. It is a well-known, but unquantified, safety principle that well run, safe facilities are more productive and efficient than other facilities (Rule, 2009). Worker safety, worker productivity, and high quality in facility operation all complement each other (Mottel, 1995).

  13. Safety Culture and Best Practices at Japan's Fusion Research Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rule, Keith [PPPL

    2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety Monitor Joint Working Group (JWG) is one of the magnetic fusion research collaborations between the US Department of Energy and the government of Japan. Visits by occupational safety personnel are made to participating institutions on a biennial basis. In the 2013 JWG visit of US representatives to Japan, the JWG members noted a number of good safety practices in the safety walkthroughs. These good practices and safety culture topics are discussed in this paper. The JWG hopes that these practices for worker safety can be adopted at other facilities. It is a well-known, but unquantified, safety principle that well run, safe facilities are more productive and efficient than other facilities (Rule, 2009). Worker safety, worker productivity, and high quality in facility operation all complement each other (Mottel, 1995).

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bengston, S.J.

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Technical Safety Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KRAHN, D.E.

    1999-12-16T23:59:59.000Z

    The Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility define acceptable conditions, safe boundaries, bases thereof, and management or administrative controls required to ensure safe operation. Controls required for public safety, significant defense-in-depth, significant worker safety, and for maintaining radiological and toxicological consequences below risk evaluation guidelines are included.

  16. Safety Software Guide Perspectives for the Design of New Nuclear Facilities (U)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    VINCENT, Andrew

    2005-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

    In June of this year, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued directives DOE O 414.1C and DOE G 414.1-4 to improve quality assurance programs, processes, and procedures among its safety contractors. Specifically, guidance entitled, ''Safety Software Guide for use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance, DOE G 414.1-4'', provides information and acceptable methods to comply with safety software quality assurance (SQA) requirements. The guidance provides a roadmap for meeting DOE O 414.1C, ''Quality Assurance'', and the quality assurance program (QAP) requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance, for DOE nuclear facilities and software application activities. [1, 2] The order and guide are part of a comprehensive implementation plan that addresses issues and concerns documented in Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2002-1. [3] Safety SQA requirements for DOE as well as National Nuclear Security Administration contractors are necessary to implement effective quality assurance (QA) processes and achieve safe nuclear facility operations. DOE G 414.1-4 was developed to provide guidance on establishing and implementing effective QA processes tied specifically to nuclear facility safety software applications. The Guide includes software application practices covered by appropriate national and international consensus standards and various processes currently in use at DOE facilities. While the safety software guidance is considered to be of sufficient rigor and depth to ensure acceptable reliability of safety software at all DOE nuclear facilities, new nuclear facilities are well suited to take advantage of the guide to ensure compliant programs and processes are implemented. Attributes such as the facility life-cycle stage and the hazardous nature of each facility operations are considered, along with the category and level of importance of the software. The discussion provided herein illustrates benefits of applying the Safety Software Guide to work activities dependent on software applications and directed toward the design of new nuclear facilities. In particular, the Guide-based systematic approach with software enables design processes to effectively proceed and reduce the likelihood of rework activities. Several application examples are provided for the new facility.

  17. Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety...

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

    Health, Safety and Security (HSS) observed the public hearing of the DNFSB review of the UPF project status for integrating safety into design. The meeting was broken into three...

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

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

    Technical Safety Requirements - December 2, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0) More Documents & Publications CRAD, Nuclear Reactor Facility Operations - December 4, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-08...

  19. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis

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

    2014-11-12T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. A Focus on Offshore Safety: Recent Reports by The Marine Board of the National Research Council

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    During the last three years, the Marine Board of the National Research Council (NRC) has published four study reports that focused on enhancing safety in offshore oil and gas activities and in the marine and maritime fields. The objective of these studies was to provide recommendations for actions that will reduce or eliminate deaths and injuries, reduce pollution from accidents and operations, and protect resources and structures from loss. Several recurring themes are woven through many of these reports. The themes deal with using technology already available and demonstrated, using risk analyses to establish priorities for use of resources (such as inspection facilities and personnel) despite the lack of data for decision making, using advanced tools for inspection and monitoring, and using long-term monitoring to gauge performance. One report about improving marine pipeline safety describes the safety challenges associated with designing, regulating, and monitoring over 20,000 miles of underwater pipelines in federal and state waters. The report on the restoration and protection of marine habitats comments on the institutional, regulatory, and managerial impediments to the wider application of the best engineering technologies and practices and the ways to deal with these impediments. The report on assessment techniques for removing offshore structures provides guidance on the use of technologies and their associated hazards and the development of strategies to mitigate environmental damage when offshore structures must be removed. One of the most recent reports describes a concept for using present undersea vehicles technology and systems to perform tasks that respond to the need to monitor the condition of offshore pipelines and seabed facilities. Two studies now underway continue several of the themes noted in aforementioned reports: one theme being a review of the uses of risk assessment opportunities in an effort to find useful experience from other industries. Another current study targets the introduction of human performance and organizational system theory and practice from other industries into the maritime and offshore industries.

  1. CUNY EXPORT CONTROL PROCEDURES 10. Facilities Management / Public Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rosen, Jay

    CUNY EXPORT CONTROL PROCEDURES 10. Facilities Management / Public Safety This Section addresses Export Control Administrator, with assistance from the College's Public Safety staff, will ensure adequate resources are in place to implement the TCP, when applicable. For assistance with export control

  2. Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Volume 2, Guidance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides guidance for the implementation of the requirements identified in Vol. 1 of this Standard. This guidance is intended for the managers, designers, operators, and other personnel with safety responsibilities for facilities designated as magnetic fusion facilities. While Vol. 1 is generally applicable in that requirements there apply to a wide range of fusion facilities, this volume is concerned mainly with large facilities such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Using a risk-based prioritization, the concepts presented here may also be applied to other magnetic fusion facilities. This volume is oriented toward regulation in the Department of Energy (DOE) environment.

  3. CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health- Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a February 2006 Commencement of Operations assessment of the Occupational Safety and Industrial Hygiene programs at the MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project.

  4. Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities

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

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Volume One of this Standard has been revised to provide a Department of Energy (DOE) approved methodology for preparing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for decommissioning of nuclear facilities, as well as environmental restoration activities that involve work not done within a permanent structure. Methodologies provided in this Standard are intended to be compliant with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, Subpart B, Safety Basis Requirements. Volume Two contains the appendices that provide additional environment, safety and health (ES&H) information to complement Volume 1 of this Standard. Volume 2 of the Standard is much broader in scope than Volume 1 and satisfies several purposes. Integrated safety management expectations are provided in accordance with facility disposition requirements contained in DOE O 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management.

  5. Technical safety requirements for the Auxiliary Hot Cell Facility (AHCF).

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seylar, Roland F.

    2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    These Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) identify the operational conditions, boundaries, and administrative controls for the safe operation of the Auxiliary Hot Cell Facility (AHCF) at Sandia National Laboratories, in compliance with 10 CFR 830, 'Nuclear Safety Management.' The bases for the TSRs are established in the AHCF Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), which was issued in compliance with 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, 'Safety Basis Requirements.' The AHCF Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) apply only to the ventilation system, the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, and the inventory. Surveillance Requirements (SRs) apply to the ventilation system, HEPA filters, and associated monitoring equipment; to certain passive design features; and to the inventory. No Safety Limits are necessary, because the AHCF is a Hazard Category 3 nuclear facility.

  6. Facilities Services and Environmental Health and Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    systems and implement and track hood decommissioning Trends in energy consumption of laboratory buildings and facility maintenance, mechanical support and operational budget management. The Energy Management Office energy conservation opportunities in campus laboratories. It provides continuous laboratory systems

  7. Facility Safety (For Informational Purposes Only)

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

    2014-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

    This draft has been scheduled for final review before the Directives Review Board on 12/18/14. All major comments and concerns should be provided to your DRB representative, following your organization process. If you do not know who your representative is, please see the list of DRB members. If your office is represented by Ingrid Kolb, Director, Office of Management, please submit your major concerns and comments to the DRB Liaison, Camille Beben (Camille.Beben@hq.doe.gov; 202-586-1014). All major comments and concerns should be submitted by COB 12/16/2014.

  8. Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Guide for use with DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety

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

    2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides an acceptable approach for safety design of DOE hazard category 1, 2 and 3 nuclear facilities for satisfying the requirements of DOE O 420.1C. Cancels DOE G 420.1-1.

  9. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel annual report, Fiscal year 1992

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In Fiscal Year 1992, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (``the Panel``) handled 38 proceedings. The cases addressed issues in the construction, operation, and maintenance of commercial nuclear power reactors and other activities requiring a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This reports sets out the Panel`s caseload during the year and summarizes, highlights, and analyzes how the wide-ranging issues raised in those proceedings were addressed by the Panel`s judges and licensing boards.

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power AdministrationField8,Dist. Category UC-lFederalFY 2008Facility EngineeringFacility Ops

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) Environmental Assessments (EA)Budget » FY 2014Facilities FusionFacility

  12. Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently20,000 Russian NuclearandJunetrack graphics4 VolumeAgua Caliente(DNFSB) | Department of

  13. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Letters and Recommendations

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,39732 DOE F 243.2Dashboards DashboardsDeep Vadose Zone Deep Vadose|

  14. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale Govan,

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny:Revised Finding of No53197 This workDayton:| Department of Energy

  15. Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't YourTransport(Fact Sheet),EnergyImprovement of theResponses to PublicHydrogenDepartment

  16. Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety, Risk Information Notice, June 2010

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    On August 12, 2009, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board(DNFSB) issued Recommendation 2009?1, Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense Nuclear Facilities. Thisrecommendation focused on the...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Linderoth, C.E.

    1984-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Technical Safety Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KRAHN, D.E.

    2000-08-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility define acceptable conditions, safe boundaries, bases thereof, and management or administrative controls required to ensure safe operation during receipt of multi-canister overpacks (MCOs) containing spent nuclear fuel. removal of free water from the MCOs using the cold vacuum drying process, and inerting and testing of the MCOs before transport to the Canister Storage Building. Controls required for public safety, significant defense in depth, significant worker safety, and for maintaining radiological and toxicological consequences below risk evaluation guidelines are included.

  19. Office of Emergency Management UCF Facilities and Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Wu, Shin-Tson

    Office of Emergency Management UCF Facilities and Safety Page 1 of 3 Departments within equipment, vital records, and data. When UCF suspends normal operations, prepare to close office: · Planning how to ensure the protection of files, vital records, and valuable equipment in advance

  20. CRAD, Safety Basis- Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a May 2007 readiness assessment of the Safety Basis at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project.

  1. Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Larson, H L

    2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) for the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, which include Area 612 (A612) and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) Storage Area at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TSRs constitute requirements regarding the safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. These TSRs are derived from the Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities (DSA) (LLNL 2006). The analysis presented therein determined that the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are low-chemical hazard, Hazard Category 2 non-reactor nuclear facilities. The TSRs consist primarily of inventory limits and controls to preserve the underlying assumptions in the hazard and accident analyses. Further, appropriate commitments to safety programs are presented in the administrative controls sections of the TSRs. The WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are used by RHWM to handle and store hazardous waste, TRANSURANIC (TRU) WASTE, LOW-LEVEL WASTE (LLW), mixed waste, California combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste generated at LLNL as well as small amounts from other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, as described in the DSA. In addition, several minor treatments (e.g., drum crushing, size reduction, and decontamination) are carried out in these facilities. The WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are located in two portions of the LLNL main site. A612 is located in the southeast quadrant of LLNL. The A612 fenceline is approximately 220 m west of Greenville Road. The DWTF Storage Area, which includes Building 693 (B693), Building 696 Radioactive Waste Storage Area (B696R), and associated yard areas and storage areas within the yard, is located in the northeast quadrant of LLNL in the DWTF complex. The DWTF Storage Area fenceline is approximately 90 m west of Greenville Road. A612 and the DWTF Storage Area are subdivided into various facilities and storage areas, consisting of buildings, tents, other structures, and open areas as described in Chapter 2 of the DSA. Section 2.4 of the DSA provides an overview of the buildings, structures, and areas in the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, including construction details such as basic floor plans, equipment layout, construction materials, controlling dimensions, and dimensions significant to the hazard and accident analysis. Chapter 5 of the DSA documents the derivation of the TSRs and develops the operational limits that protect the safety envelope defined for the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. This TSR document is applicable to the handling, storage, and treatment of hazardous waste, TRU WASTE, LLW, mixed waste, California combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste received or generated in the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. Section 5, Administrative Controls, contains those Administrative Controls necessary to ensure safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. Programmatic Administrative Controls are in Section 5.6. This Introduction to the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES TSRs is not part of the TSR limits or conditions and contains no requirements related to WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES operations or to the safety analyses of the DSA.

  2. Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D

    2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

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

  4. Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) for the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, which include Area 625 (A625) and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) Storage Area at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TSRs constitute requirements regarding the safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. These TSRs are derived from the 'Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities' (DSA) (LLNL 2008). The analysis presented therein determined that the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are low-chemical hazard, Hazard Category 2 non-reactor nuclear facilities. The TSRs consist primarily of inventory limits and controls to preserve the underlying assumptions in the hazard and accident analyses. Further, appropriate commitments to safety programs are presented in the administrative controls sections of the TSRs. The WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are used by RHWM to handle and store hazardous waste, TRANSURANIC (TRU) WASTE, LOW-LEVEL WASTE (LLW), mixed waste, California combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste generated at LLNL as well as small amounts from other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, as described in the DSA. In addition, several minor treatments (e.g., size reduction and decontamination) are carried out in these facilities. The WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are located in two portions of the LLNL main site. A625 is located in the southeast quadrant of LLNL. The A625 fenceline is approximately 225 m west of Greenville Road. The DWTF Storage Area, which includes Building 693 (B693), Building 696 Radioactive Waste Storage Area (B696R), and associated yard areas and storage areas within the yard, is located in the northeast quadrant of LLNL in the DWTF complex. The DWTF Storage Area fenceline is approximately 90 m west of Greenville Road. A625 and the DWTF Storage Area are subdivided into various facilities and storage areas, consisting of buildings, tents, other structures, and open areas as described in Chapter 2 of the DSA. Section 2.4 of the DSA provides an overview of the buildings, structures, and areas in the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, including construction details such as basic floor plans, equipment layout, construction materials, controlling dimensions, and dimensions significant to the hazard and accident analysis. Chapter 5 of the DSA documents the derivation of the TSRs and develops the operational limits that protect the safety envelope defined for the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. This TSR document is applicable to the handling, storage, and treatment of hazardous waste, TRU WASTE, LLW, mixed waste, California combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste received or generated in the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. Section 5, Administrative Controls, contains those Administrative Controls necessary to ensure safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. Programmatic Administrative Controls are in Section 5.6.

  5. Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) for the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, which include Area 625 (A625) and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) Storage Area at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TSRs constitute requirements regarding the safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. These TSRs are derived from the Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities (DSA) (LLNL 2009). The analysis presented therein determined that the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are low-chemical hazard, Hazard Category 2 non-reactor nuclear facilities. The TSRs consist primarily of inventory limits and controls to preserve the underlying assumptions in the hazard and accident analyses. Further, appropriate commitments to safety programs are presented in the administrative controls sections of the TSRs. The WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are used by RHWM to handle and store hazardous waste, TRANSURANIC (TRU) WASTE, LOW-LEVEL WASTE (LLW), mixed waste, California combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste generated at LLNL as well as small amounts from other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, as described in the DSA. In addition, several minor treatments (e.g., size reduction and decontamination) are carried out in these facilities. The WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES are located in two portions of the LLNL main site. A625 is located in the southeast quadrant of LLNL. The A625 fenceline is approximately 225 m west of Greenville Road. The DWTF Storage Area, which includes Building 693 (B693), Building 696 Radioactive Waste Storage Area (B696R), and associated yard areas and storage areas within the yard, is located in the northeast quadrant of LLNL in the DWTF complex. The DWTF Storage Area fenceline is approximately 90 m west of Greenville Road. A625 and the DWTF Storage Area are subdivided into various facilities and storage areas, consisting of buildings, tents, other structures, and open areas as described in Chapter 2 of the DSA. Section 2.4 of the DSA provides an overview of the buildings, structures, and areas in the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, including construction details such as basic floor plans, equipment layout, construction materials, controlling dimensions, and dimensions significant to the hazard and accident analysis. Chapter 5 of the DSA documents the derivation of the TSRs and develops the operational limits that protect the safety envelope defined for the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. This TSR document is applicable to the handling, storage, and treatment of hazardous waste, TRU WASTE, LLW, mixed waste, California combined waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and conditionally accepted waste received or generated in the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. Section 5, Administrative Controls, contains those Administrative Controls necessary to ensure safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. Programmatic Administrative Controls are in Section 5.4.

  6. TRANSPORTATION CASK RECEIPT/RETURN FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C.E. Sanders

    2005-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this design calculation is to demonstrate that the handling operations of transportation casks performed in the Transportation Cask Receipt and Return Facility (TCRRF) and Buffer Area meet the nuclear criticality safety design criteria specified in the ''Project Design Criteria (PDC) Document'' (BSC [Bechtel SAIC Company] 2004 [DIRS 171599], Section 4.9.2.2), and the functional nuclear criticality safety requirement described in the ''Transportation Cask Receipt/Return Facility Description Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170217], Section 3.2.3). Specific scope of work contained in this activity consists of the following items: (1) Evaluate criticality effects for both dry and fully flooded conditions pertaining to TCRRF and Buffer Area operations for defense in depth. (2) Evaluate Category 1 and 2 event sequences for the TCRRF as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167268], Section 7). This evaluation includes credible fuel reconfiguration conditions. In addition to the scope of work listed above, an evaluation was also performed of modeling assumptions for commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF) regarding inclusion of plenum and end regions of the active fuel. This calculation is limited to CSNF and US Department of Energy (DOE) SNF. it should be mentioned that the latter waste form is evaluated more in depth in the ''Canister Handling Facility Criticality Safety Calculations (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167614]). Further, the design and safety analyses of the naval SNF canisters are the responsibility of the US Department of the Navy (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) and will not be included in this document. In addition, this calculation is valid for the current design of the TCRRF and Buffer Area and may not reflect the ongoing design evolution of the facility. However, it is anticipated that design changes to the facility layout will have little or no impact on the criticality results and/or conclusions presented in this document. This calculation is subject to the ''Quality Assurance Requirements and Description'' (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]) because the TCRRF is included in the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361], p. A-3) as an item important to safety. This calculation is prepared in accordance with AP-3.12Q, ''Design Calculations and Analyses'' [DIRS 168413].

  7. 3S (Safeguards, Security, Safety) based pyroprocessing facility safety evaluation plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ku, J.H.; Choung, W.M.; You, G.S.; Moon, S.I.; Park, S.H.; Kim, H.D. [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute - KAERI, 989-111 Daeduk-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-353 (Korea, Republic of)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The big advantage of pyroprocessing for the management of spent fuels against the conventional reprocessing technologies lies in its proliferation resistance since the pure plutonium cannot be separated from the spent fuel. The extracted materials can be directly used as metal fuel in a fast reactor, and pyroprocessing reduces drastically the volume and heat load of the spent fuel. KAERI has implemented the SBD (Safeguards-By-Design) concept in nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The goal of SBD is to integrate international safeguards into the entire facility design process since the very beginning of the design phase. This paper presents a safety evaluation plan using a conceptual design of a reference pyroprocessing facility, in which 3S (Safeguards, Security, Safety)-By-Design (3SBD) concept is integrated from early conceptual design phase. The purpose of this paper is to establish an advanced pyroprocessing hot cell facility design concept based on 3SBD for the successful realization of pyroprocessing technology with enhanced safety and proliferation resistance.

  8. Fast Flux Test Facility final safety analysis report. Amendment 73

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gantt, D.A.

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Amendment 73 for incorporation into the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTR) FSAR set. This page change incorporates Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) issued subsequent to Amendment 72 and approved for incorparoration before May 6, 1993. These changes include: Chapter 3, design criteria structures, equipment, and systems; chapter 5B, reactor coolant system; chapter 7, instrumentation and control systems; chapter 9, auxiliary systems; chapter 11, reactor refueling system; chapter 12, radiation protection and waste management; chapter 13, conduct of operations; chapter 17, technical specifications; chapter 20, FFTF criticality specifications; appendix C, local fuel failure events; and appendix Fl, operation at 680{degrees}F inlet temperature.

  9. Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYouTube YouTube Note: Since the.pdfBreaking ofOilNEWResponse to Time-Based Rates fromNuclear Securityand Facility Safety

  10. Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities

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

    2007-02-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This standard provides a framework for generating Criticality Safety Evaluations (CSE) supporting fissionable material operations at Department of Energy (DOE) nonreactor nuclear facilities. This standard imposes no new criticality safety analysis requirements.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  12. Superconducting Magnet Safety Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) facilities present unique hazards not found in most

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maroncelli, Mark

    Superconducting Magnet Safety Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) facilities present unique hazards not found in most laboratory environments. The NMR facilities maintain superconducting magnets which have the units. Facility design and installation: Design and installation of a new NMR facility requires a number

  13. The Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) Facility: Status-2004*

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. A. Anderl; G. R. Longhurst; R. J. Pawelko; J. P. Sharpe; S. T. Schuetz; D. A. Petti

    2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this paper is to present the current status of the development of the Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) Facility at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Designated a National User Facility by the US DOE, the primary mission of STAR is to provide laboratory infrastructure to study tritium science and technology issues associated with the development of safe and environmentally friendly fusion energy. Both tritium and non-tritium fusion safety research is pursued along three key thrust areas: (1) plasma-material interactions of plasma-facing component (PFC) materials exposed to energetic tritium and deuterium ions, (2) fusion safety concerns related to PFC material chemical reactivity and dust/debris generation, activation product mobilization, and tritium behavior in fusion systems, and (3) molten salts and fusion liquids for tritium breeder and coolant applications. STAR comprises a multi-room complex with operations segregated to permit both tritium and non-tritium activities in separately ventilated rooms. Tritium inventory in STAR is limited to 15,000 Ci to maintain its classification as a Radiological Facility. Experiments with tritium are typically conducted in glovebox environments. Key components of the tritium infrastructure have been installed and tested. This includes the following subsystems: (1) a tritium Storage and Assay System (SAS) that uses two 50-g depleted uranium beds for tritium storage and PVT/beta-scintillation analyses for tritium accountability measurements, (2) a Tritium Cleanup System (TCS) that uses catalytic oxidation and molecular sieve water absorption to remove tritiated species from glovebox atmosphere gases and gaseous effluents from experiment and process systems, and (3) tritium monitoring instrumentation for room air, glovebox atmosphere and stack effluent tritium concentration measurements. Integration of the tritium infrastructure subsystems with the experimental and laboratory process systems is planned for early in 2004. Following an operational readiness review, tritium operations will be initiated in the summer of 2004. Summary results of the performance testing of the tritium infrastructure subsystems and their integration into the laboratory operations will be presented at this conference. Current research activity includes plasma-material interaction studies with the Tritium Plasma Experiment (TPE) and tritium/chemistry interactions in the molten salt designated as Flibe (2·LiF-BeF2). The implementation of these capabilities in STAR will be described.

  14. Nuclear space power safety and facility guidelines study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mehlman, W.F.

    1995-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

    This report addresses safety guidelines for space nuclear reactor power missions and was prepared by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) under a Department of Energy grant, DE-FG01-94NE32180 dated 27 September 1994. This grant was based on a proposal submitted by the JHU/APL in response to an {open_quotes}Invitation for Proposals Designed to Support Federal Agencies and Commercial Interests in Meeting Special Power and Propulsion Needs for Future Space Missions{close_quotes}. The United States has not launched a nuclear reactor since SNAP 10A in April 1965 although many Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) have been launched. An RTG powered system is planned for launch as part of the Cassini mission to Saturn in 1997. Recently the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO) sponsored the Nuclear Electric Propulsion Space Test Program (NEPSTP) which was to demonstrate and evaluate the Russian-built TOPAZ II nuclear reactor as a power source in space. As of late 1993 the flight portion of this program was canceled but work to investigate the attributes of the reactor were continued but at a reduced level. While the future of space nuclear power systems is uncertain there are potential space missions which would require space nuclear power systems. The differences between space nuclear power systems and RTG devices are sufficient that safety and facility requirements warrant a review in the context of the unique features of a space nuclear reactor power system.

  15. Development of an auditable safety analysis in support of a radiological facility classification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kinney, M.D. [Roy F. Weston, Inc., Rockville, MD (United States); Young, B. [Dept. of Energy, Albuquerque, NM (United States)

    1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In recent years, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities commonly have been classified as reactor, non-reactor nuclear, or nuclear facilities. Safety analysis documentation was prepared for these facilities, with few exceptions, using the requirements in either DOE Order 5481.1B, Safety Analysis and Review System; or DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by development of an extensive Safety Analysis Report (SAR), which identifies hazards, assesses risks of facility operation, describes and analyzes adequacy of measures taken to control hazards, and evaluates potential accidents and their associated risks. This process is complicated by analysis of secondary hazards and adequacy of backup (redundant) systems. The traditional SAR process is advantageous for DOE facilities with appreciable hazards or operational risks. SAR preparation for a low-risk facility or process can be cost-prohibitive and quite challenging because conventional safety analysis protocols may not readily be applied to a low-risk facility. The DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management recognized this potential disadvantage and issued an EM limited technical standard, No. 5502-94, Hazard Baseline Documentation. This standard can be used for developing documentation for a facility classified as radiological, including preparation of an auditable (defensible) safety analysis. In support of the radiological facility classification process, the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project has developed an auditable safety analysis document based upon the postulation criteria and hazards analysis techniques defined in DOE Order 5480.23.

  16. Improving the regulation of safety at DOE nuclear facilities. Final report: Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The report strongly recommends that, with the end of the Cold War, safety and health at DOE facilities should be regulated by outside agencies rather than by any regulatory scheme, DOE must maintain a strong internal safety management system; essentially all aspects of safety at DOE`s nuclear facilities should be externally regulated; and existing agencies rather than a new one should be responsible for external regulation.

  17. Guidelines for preparing criticality safety evaluations at Department of Energy non-reactor nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains guidelines that should be followed when preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations that will be used to demonstrate the safety of operations performed at DOE non-reactor nuclear facilities. Adherence to these guidelines will provide consistency and uniformity in criticality safety evaluations (CSEs) across the complex and will document compliance with the requirements of DOE Order 5480.24.

  18. Style, content and format guide for writing safety analysis documents. Volume 1, Safety analysis reports for DOE nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of Volume 1 of this 4-volume style guide is to furnish guidelines on writing and publishing Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) for DOE nuclear facilities at Sandia National Laboratories. The scope of Volume 1 encompasses not only the general guidelines for writing and publishing, but also the prescribed topics/appendices contents along with examples from typical SARs for DOE nuclear facilities.

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  20. On-Line Educational Means on Radiological Protection and Accelerator General Safety Policy in Radiotherapy and Industrial Sterilization Facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Spyropoulos, B

    1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On-Line Educational Means on Radiological Protection and Accelerator General Safety Policy in Radiotherapy and Industrial Sterilization Facilities

  1. FACILITY SAFETY PLAN Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Glover Building SAFETY OFFICE: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ROOM 100 GLOVER PHONE 491-5252 Emergency Numbers

  2. Facility Siting and Layout Optimization Based on Process Safety 

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jung, Seungho

    2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

    In this work, a new approach to optimize facility layout for toxic release, fire and explosion scenarios is presented. By integrating a risk analysis in the optimization formulation, safer assignments for facility layout ...

  3. 340 Waste handling Facility Hazard Categorization and Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. J. Rodovsky

    2010-10-25T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brereton, S.; McLouth, L.; Odell, B. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States)] [and others] [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States); and others

    1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Waste sampling and characterization facility complex safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meloy, R.T., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-06-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility is a `Non-Nuclear, Radiological Facility. This document demonstrates, by analysis, that WSCF can meet the chemical and radiological inventory limits for a radiological facility. It establishes control that ensures those inventories are maintained below threshold values to preserve the `Non- Nuclear, Radiological` classification.

  6. Secure Pesticide Storage: Security and Safety-promoting Features of Pesticide Storage Facilities1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Watson, Craig A.

    PI32 Secure Pesticide Storage: Security and Safety-promoting Features of Pesticide Storage pesticide storage facility security and safety. Introduction In actual practice, the fundamental goal of "security" is always the same: effective safeguard. Therefore, certain features of a pesticide storage

  7. Safety and environmental process for the design and construction of the National Ignition Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brereton, S.J., LLNL

    1998-05-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laser fusion experimental facility currently under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). This paper describes the safety and environmental processes followed by NIF during the design and construction activities.

  8. CRAD, Criticality Safety- Y-12 Enriched Uranium Operations Oxide Conversion Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a January 2005 assessment of the Criticality Safety program at the Y-12 - Enriched Uranium Facility.

  9. CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for an assessment of the Occupational and Industrial Safety and Hygiene Program portion of an Operational Readiness Review at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility.

  10. CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health- Y-12 Enriched Uranium Operations Oxide Conversion Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a January 2005 assessment of Industrial Safety and Industrial Health programs at the Y-12 - Enriched Uranium Operations Oxide Conversion Facility.

  11. CRAD, Criticality Safety- Los Alamos National Laboratory TA 55 SST Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for an assessment of the Criticality Safety program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, TA 55 SST Facility.

  12. CRAD, Safety Basis- Y-12 Enriched Uranium Operations Oxide Conversion Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a January 2005 assessment of the Safety Basis at the Y-12 - Enriched Uranium Operations Oxide Conversion Facility.

  13. Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility, Appendix A

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cerruti, S.J.

    1997-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

    Topics covered in this appendix include: General Rules-Code of Safe Practices; 2. Personal Protective Equipment; Hazardous Material Control; Traffic Control; Fire Prevention; Sanitation and First Aid; Confined Space Safety Requirements; Ladders and Stairways; Scaffolding and Lift Safety; Machinery, Vehicles, and Heavy Equipment; Welding and Cutting-General; Arc Welding; Oxygen/Acetylene Welding and Cutting; Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring; Fall Protection; Steel Erection; Working With Asbestos; Radiation Safety; Hand Tools; Electrical Safety; Nonelectrical Work Performed Near Exposed High-Voltage Power-Distribution Equipment; Lockout/Tagout Requirements; Rigging; A-Cranes; Housekeeping; Material Handling and Storage; Lead; Concrete and Masonry Construction.

  14. Type A Accident Investigation Board report on the January 17, 1996, electrical accident with injury in Technical Area 21 Tritium Science and Fabrication Facility Los Alamos National Laboratory. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An electrical accident was investigated in which a crafts person received serious injuries as a result of coming into contact with a 13.2 kilovolt (kV) electrical cable in the basement of Building 209 in Technical Area 21 (TA-21-209) in the Tritium Science and Fabrication Facility (TSFF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). In conducting its investigation, the Accident Investigation Board used various analytical techniques, including events and causal factor analysis, barrier analysis, change analysis, fault tree analysis, materials analysis, and root cause analysis. The board inspected the accident site, reviewed events surrounding the accident, conducted extensive interviews and document reviews, and performed causation analyses to determine the factors that contributed to the accident, including any management system deficiencies. Relevant management systems and factors that could have contributed to the accident were evaluated in accordance with the guiding principles of safety management identified by the Secretary of Energy in an October 1994 letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and subsequently to Congress.

  15. Interim safety basis for fuel supply shutdown facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brehm, J.R.; Deobald, T.L.; Benecke, M.W.; Remaize, J.A.

    1995-05-23T23:59:59.000Z

    This ISB in conjunction with the new TSRs, will provide the required basis for interim operation or restrictions on interim operations and administrative controls for the Facility until a SAR is prepared in accordance with the new requirements. It is concluded that the risk associated with the current operational mode of the Facility, uranium closure, clean up, and transition activities required for permanent closure, are within Risk Acceptance Guidelines. The Facility is classified as a Moderate Hazard Facility because of the potential for an unmitigated fire associated with the uranium storage buildings.

  16. An overview of FFTF (Fast Flux Test Facility) contributions to Liquid Metal Reactor Safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Waltar, A.E.; Padilla, A. Jr.

    1990-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Fast Flux Test Facility has provided a very useful framework for testing the advances in Liquid Metal Reactor Safety Technology. During the licensing phase, the switch from a nonmechanistic bounding technique to the mechanistic approach was developed and implemented. During the operational phase, the consideration of new tests and core configurations led to use of the anticipated-transients-without-scram approach for beyond design basis events and the move towards passive safety. The future role of the Fast Flux Test Facility may involve additional passive safety and waste transmutation tests. 26 refs.

  17. Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility, Appendix B

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cerruti, S.J.

    1997-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

    This Appendix contains material from the LLNL Health and Safety Manual as listed below. For sections not included in this list, please refer to the Manual itself. The areas covered are: asbestos, lead, fire prevention, lockout, and tag program confined space traffic safety.

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

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

    2014-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

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

  19. Reactor Accident Analysis Methodology for the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility Documented Safety Analysis Upgrade

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sharp, G.L.; McCracken, R.T.

    2003-05-13T23:59:59.000Z

    The regulatory requirement to develop an upgraded safety basis for a DOE Nuclear Facility was realized in January 2001 by issuance of a revision to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 830 (10 CFR 830). Subpart B of 10 CFR 830, ''Safety Basis Requirements,'' requires a contractor responsible for a DOE Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facility to either submit by April 9, 2001 the existing safety basis which already meets the requirements of Subpart B, or to submit by April 10, 2003 an upgraded facility safety basis that meets the revised requirements. 10 CFR 830 identifies Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.70, ''Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' as a safe harbor methodology for preparation of a DOE reactor documented safety analysis (DSA). The regulation also allows for use of a graded approach. This report presents the methodology that was developed for preparing the reactor accident analysis portion of the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility (ATRC) upgraded DSA. The methodology was approved by DOE for developing the ATRC safety basis as an appropriate application of a graded approach to the requirements of 10 CFR 830.

  20. Reactor Accident Analysis Methodology for the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility Documented Safety Analysis Upgrade

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gregg L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The regulatory requirement to develop an upgraded safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility was realized in January 2001 by issuance of a revision to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 830 (10 CFR 830).1 Subpart B of 10 CFR 830, “Safety Basis Requirements,” requires a contractor responsible for a DOE Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facility to either submit by April 9, 2001 the existing safety basis which already meets the requirements of Subpart B, or to submit by April 10, 2003 an upgraded facility safety basis that meets the revised requirements.1 10 CFR 830 identifies Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants”2 as a safe harbor methodology for preparation of a DOE reactor documented safety analysis (DSA). The regulation also allows for use of a graded approach. This report presents the methodology that was developed for preparing the reactor accident analysis portion of the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility (ATRC) upgraded DSA. The methodology was approved by DOE for developing the ATRC safety basis as an appropriate application of a graded approach to the requirements of 10 CFR 830.

  1. SUBJECT: Guidance on Retention of Facility Representative Technical Competence during Reductions in Force, 4/21/1998

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Department’s Revised Implementation Plan (IP) for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 93-3 renews the Department’s commitment to maintaining the technical capability necessary to safely manage and operate defense nuclear facilities.

  2. Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE Order (0) 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

    The revision will address implementation of roles and responsibilities, improve operational efficiency using operating experience, and clarify the use of program requirements such as the Unreviewed Safety Issue and Accelerator Readiness Review.

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently20,000 Russian NuclearandJunetrackEllen|JulyR--FOIA SupportDOE's FY3FacilityFacility

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shedrow, C.B.

    1999-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Los Alamos National Laboratory corregated metal pipe saw facility preliminary safety analysis report. Volume I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1990-09-19T23:59:59.000Z

    This Preliminary Safety Analysis Report addresses site assessment, facility design and construction, and design operation of the processing systems in the Corrugated Metal Pipe Saw Facility with respect to normal and abnormal conditions. Potential hazards are identified, credible accidents relative to the operation of the facility and the process systems are analyzed, and the consequences of postulated accidents are presented. The risk associated with normal operations, abnormal operations, and natural phenomena are analyzed. The accident analysis presented shows that the impact of the facility will be acceptable for all foreseeable normal and abnormal conditions of operation. Specifically, under normal conditions the facility will have impacts within the limits posted by applicable DOE guidelines, and in accident conditions the facility will similarly meet or exceed the requirements of all applicable standards. 16 figs., 6 tabs.

  6. Facility Siting and Layout Optimization Based on Process Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jung, Seungho

    2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

    -computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used to compare the difference between the initial layout and the final layout in order to see how obstacles and separation distances affect the dispersion or overpressures of affected facilities. One of the CFD programs, ANSYS...

  7. Examining factors affecting the safety performance and design of exclusive truck facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Iragavarapu, Vichika

    2008-10-10T23:59:59.000Z

    , Yunlong Zhang Tom Wehrly Head of Department, David V. Rosowsky December 2007 Major Subject: Civil Engineering iii ABSTRACT Examining Potential Factors Affecting the Safety Performance and Design of Exclusive Truck Facilities. (December... was conducted on crash data obtained from a selected freeway segment of the New Jersey turnpike for 2002. This facility functions as a dual-dual freeway system, with inner lanes dedicated to passenger cars only and the outer lanes open to mixed traffic...

  8. Examining factors affecting the safety performance and design of exclusive truck facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Iragavarapu, Vichika

    2009-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

    , Yunlong Zhang Tom Wehrly Head of Department, David V. Rosowsky December 2007 Major Subject: Civil Engineering iii ABSTRACT Examining Potential Factors Affecting the Safety Performance and Design of Exclusive Truck Facilities. (December... was conducted on crash data obtained from a selected freeway segment of the New Jersey turnpike for 2002. This facility functions as a dual-dual freeway system, with inner lanes dedicated to passenger cars only and the outer lanes open to mixed traffic...

  9. Introduction to the nuclear criticality safety evaluation of facility X-705, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sheaffer, M.K.; Keeton, S.C.

    1993-08-16T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is the first in a series of documents that will evaluate nuclear criticality safety in the Decontamination and Recovery Facility, X-705, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. It provides an overview of the facility, categorizes its functions for future analysis, reviews existing NCS documentation, and explains the follow-on effort planned for X-705. A detailed breakdown of systems, subsystems, and operational areas is presented and cross-referenced to existing NCS documentation.

  10. Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility safety equipment list

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the safety equipment list (SEL) for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The SEL was prepared in accordance with the procedure for safety structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in HNF-PRO-516, ''Safety Structures, Systems, and Components,'' Revision 0 and HNF-PRO-097, Engineering Design and Evaluation, Revision 0. The SEL was developed in conjunction with HNF-SO-SNF-SAR-O02, Safety Analysis Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Phase 2, Supporting Installation of Processing Systems (Garvin 1998). The SEL identifies the SSCs and their safety functions, the design basis accidents for which they are required to perform, the design criteria, codes and standards, and quality assurance requirements that are required for establishing the safety design basis of the SSCs. This SEL has been developed for the CVDF Phase 2 Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and shall be updated, expanded, and revised in accordance with future phases of the CVDF SAR until the CVDF final SAR is approved.

  11. Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility safety analysis report five year currency review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Napper, P.R.; Carpenter, W.R.; Garner, R.W.

    1991-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    By DOE-ID Order 5481.1A, a five year currency review is required of the Safety Analysis Reports of all ID or ID contractor operations having hazards of a type and magnitude not routinely encountered and/or accepted by the public. In keeping with this order, a currency review has been performed of the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility (ADTRC) Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Issue 003, 1990. The objectives of this currency review were to: evaluate the content, completeness, clarity of presentation and compliance with NRC Regulatory Guides and DOE Orders, etc., and evaluate the technical content of the SAR, particularly the Technical Specifications, and to evaluate the safety of continued operation of the ATRC. The reviewers concluded that although improvements may be needed in the overall content, clarity, and demonstration of compliance with current orders and regulations, the safety of the ATRC is in no way compromised and no unreviewed safety questions were identified. 6 figs., 3 tabs.

  12. Evaluation of natural phenomena hazards as part of safety assessments for nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kot, C.A.; Hsieh, B.J.; Srinivasan, M.G.; Shin, Y.W.

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The continued operation of existing US Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities and laboratories requires a safety reassessment based on current criteria and guidelines. This also includes evaluations for the effects of Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH), for which these facilities may not have been designed. The NPH evaluations follow the requirements of DOE Order 5480.28, Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation (1993) which establishes NPH Performance Categories (PCs) for DOE facilities and associated target probabilistic performance goals. These goals are expressed as the mean annual probability of exceedance of acceptable behavior for structures, systems and components (SSCs) subjected to NPH effects. The assignment of an NPH Performance Category is based on the overall hazard categorization (low, moderate, high) of a facility and on the function of an SSC under evaluation (DOE-STD-1021, 1992). Detailed guidance for the NPH analysis and evaluation criteria are also provided (DOE-STD-1020, 1994). These analyses can be very resource intensive, and may not be necessary for the evaluation of all SSCs in existing facilities, in particular for low hazard category facilities. An approach relying heavily on screening inspections, engineering judgment and use of NPH experience data (S. J. Eder et al., 1993), can minimize the analytical effort, give reasonable estimates of the NPH susceptibilities, and yield adequate information for an overall safety evaluation of the facility. In the following sections this approach is described in more detail and is illustrated by an application to a nuclear laboratory complex.

  13. Preliminary Safety Design Report for Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy Solack; Carol Mason

    2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled low-level waste disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled low-level waste disposal for remote-handled low-level waste from the Idaho National Laboratory and for 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 low-level waste 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 preliminary safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled low-level waste disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by discussing site characteristics that impact accident analysis, by providing the facility and process information necessary to support the hazard analysis, by identifying and evaluating potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled low-level waste, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  14. DOE standard: Integration of environment, safety, and health into facility disposition activities. Volume 1: Technical standard

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Department of Energy (DOE) technical standard (referred to as the Standard) provides guidance for integrating and enhancing worker, public, and environmental protection during facility disposition activities. It provides environment, safety, and health (ES and H) guidance to supplement the project management requirements and associated guidelines contained within DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset Management (LCAM), and amplified within the corresponding implementation guides. In addition, the Standard is designed to support an Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS), consistent with the guiding principles and core functions contained in DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy, and discussed in DOE G 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System Guide. The ISMS guiding principles represent the fundamental policies that guide the safe accomplishment of work and include: (1) line management responsibility for safety; (2) clear roles and responsibilities; (3) competence commensurate with responsibilities; (4) balanced priorities; (5) identification of safety standards and requirements; (6) hazard controls tailored to work being performed; and (7) operations authorization. This Standard specifically addresses the implementation of the above ISMS principles four through seven, as applied to facility disposition activities.

  15. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for 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 conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  16. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for 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 conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  17. Management of radioactive material safety programs at medical facilities. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Camper, L.W.; Schlueter, J.; Woods, S. [and others

    1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A Task Force, comprising eight US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and two Agreement State program staff members, developed the guidance contained in this report. This report describes a systematic approach for effectively managing radiation safety programs at medical facilities. This is accomplished by defining and emphasizing the roles of an institution`s executive management, radiation safety committee, and radiation safety officer. Various aspects of program management are discussed and guidance is offered on selecting the radiation safety officer, determining adequate resources for the program, using such contractual services as consultants and service companies, conducting audits, and establishing the roles of authorized users and supervised individuals; NRC`s reporting and notification requirements are discussed, and a general description is given of how NRC`s licensing, inspection and enforcement programs work.

  18. The Greening of a Plutonium Facility through Personnel Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Infrastructure Improvements - 12108

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dodge, Robert L.; Cournoyer, Michael E. [Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1163, Los Alamos, NM 87545 (United States)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Chemical and metallurgical operations involving plutonium and other hazardous materials account for most activities performed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Plutonium Facility (TA-55). Engineered barriers provide the most effective protection from hazardous materials. These safety features serve to protect workers and provide defense in depth against the hazards associated with operations. Although not designed to specifically meet environmental requirements the safety-based design does meet or exceed the requirements of the environmental regulations enacted during and since its construction. TA-55's Waste Services Group supports this safety methodology by ensuring safe, efficient and compliant management of all radioactive and hazardous wastes generated at the TA-55. A key function of this group is the implementation of measures that lower the overall risk of radiological and hazardous material operations. Processes and procedures that reduce waste generation compared to current, prevalent processes or procedures used for the same purpose are identified. Some of these 'Best Practices' include implementation of a chemical control system, elimination of aerosol cans, reduction in hazardous waste, implementation of zero liquid discharge, and the re-cyclization of nitric acid. P2/WMin opportunities have been implemented in the areas of personnel and facility attributes, environmental compliance, energy conservation, and green focused infrastructure expansion with the overall objective of minimizing raw material and energy consumption and waste generation. This increases technical knowledge and augments operational safety. (authors)

  19. NNSA and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board certifications free up $47

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)Integrated Codes |IsLoveReferenceAgendaSecurityAbout Us / OurEnriched Uranium |million

  20. DOE standard: Integration of environment, safety, and health into facility disposition activities. Volume 2: Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This volume contains the appendices that provide additional environment, safety, and health (ES and H) information to complement Volume 1 of this Standard. Appendix A provides a set of candidate DOE ES and H directives and external regulations, organized by hazard types that may be used to identify potentially applicable directives to a specific facility disposition activity. Appendix B offers examples and lessons learned that illustrate implementation of ES and H approaches discussed in Section 3 of Volume 1. Appendix C contains ISMS performance expectations to guide a project team in developing and implementing an effective ISMS and in developing specific performance criteria for use in facility disposition. Appendix D provides guidance for identifying potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) when decommissioning facilities fall under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA) process. Appendix E discusses ES and H considerations for dispositioning facilities by privatization. Appendix F is an overview of the WSS process. Appendix G provides a copy of two DOE Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Standards memoranda that form the bases for some of the guidance discussed within the Standard. Appendix H gives information on available hazard analysis techniques and references. Appendix I provides a supplemental discussion to Sections 3.3.4, Hazard Baseline Documentation, and 3.3.6, Environmental Permits. Appendix J presents a sample readiness evaluation checklist.

  1. Peer review of the National Transportation Safety Board structural analysis of the I-35W bridge collapse.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gwinn, Kenneth West; Redmond, James Michael; Wellman, Gerald William

    2008-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Engineering Sciences Center at Sandia National Laboratories provided an independent peer review of the structural analysis supporting the National Transportation Safety Board investigation of the August 1, 2007 collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis. The purpose of the review was to provide an impartial critique of the analysis approach, assumptions, solution techniques, and conclusions. Subsequent to reviewing numerous supporting documents, a SNL team of staff and management visited NTSB to participate in analysis briefings, discussions with investigators, and examination of critical elements of the bridge wreckage. This report summarizes the opinion of the review team that the NTSB analysis effort was appropriate and provides compelling supporting evidence for the NTSB probable cause conclusion.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  3. Hanford Advisory Board Draft Advice Topic: Tank Farm Vapors...

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

    Health Safety and Environmental Protection (HSEP) Version 1 : Color: pinkyellowgreensalmonpurpleXblue Background The Hanford Advisory Board (Board) has always...

  4. Facility Safety

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

    2014-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

    Changes include invoking DOE-STD-3009 and DOE-STD-1104 as requirements documents. NOTE: The two standards are not final documents but can be found in Technical Standards RevCom at https://www.standards.doe.gov/login.jsp. Login as an SME using your email address.

  5. Preliminary safety analysis report for the Auxiliary Hot Cell Facility, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    OSCAR,DEBBY S.; WALKER,SHARON ANN; HUNTER,REGINA LEE; WALKER,CHERYL A.

    1999-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Auxiliary Hot Cell Facility (AHCF) at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) will be a Hazard Category 3 nuclear facility used to characterize, treat, and repackage radioactive and mixed material and waste for reuse, recycling, or ultimate disposal. A significant upgrade to a previous facility, the Temporary Hot Cell, will be implemented to perform this mission. The following major features will be added: a permanent shield wall; eight floor silos; new roof portals in the hot-cell roof; an upgraded ventilation system; and upgraded hot-cell jib crane; and video cameras to record operations and facilitate remote-handled operations. No safety-class systems, structures, and components will be present in the AHCF. There will be five safety-significant SSCs: hot cell structure, permanent shield wall, shield plugs, ventilation system, and HEPA filters. The type and quantity of radionuclides that could be located in the AHCF are defined primarily by SNL/NM's legacy materials, which include radioactive, transuranic, and mixed waste. The risk to the public or the environment presented by the AHCF is minor due to the inventory limitations of the Hazard Category 3 classification. Potential doses at the exclusion boundary are well below the evaluation guidelines of 25 rem. Potential for worker exposure is limited by the passive design features incorporated in the AHCF and by SNL's radiation protection program. There is no potential for exposure of the public to chemical hazards above the Emergency Response Protection Guidelines Level 2.

  6. Use of Administrative Controls for Specific Safety Functions, 10/21/03.

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    On December 11,2002, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued Recommendation 2002-3. Recommendation 2002-3 noted concerns about the lack of rigor and quality assurance accorded some...

  7. "Defense-in-Depth" Laser Safety and the National Ignition Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    King, J J

    2010-12-02T23:59:59.000Z

    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest and most energetic laser in the world contained in a complex the size of a football stadium. From the initial laser pulse, provided by telecommunication style infrared nanoJoule pulsed lasers, to the final 192 laser beams (1.8 Mega Joules total energy in the ultraviolet) converging on a target the size of a pencil eraser, laser safety is of paramount concern. In addition to this, there are numerous high-powered (Class 3B and 4) diagnostic lasers in use that can potentially send their laser radiation travelling throughout the facility. With individual beam paths of up to 1500 meters and a workforce of more than one thousand, the potential for exposure is significant. Simple laser safety practices utilized in typical laser labs just don't apply. To mitigate these hazards, NIF incorporates a multi layered approach to laser safety or 'Defense in Depth.' Most typical high-powered laser operations are contained and controlled within a single room using relatively simplistic controls to protect both the worker and the public. Laser workers are trained, use a standard operating procedure, and are required to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as Laser Protective Eyewear (LPE) if the system is not fully enclosed. Non-workers are protected by means of posting the room with a warning sign and a flashing light. In the best of cases, a Safety Interlock System (SIS) will be employed which will 'safe' the laser in the case of unauthorized access. This type of laser operation is relatively easy to employ and manage. As the operation becomes more complex, higher levels of control are required to ensure personnel safety. Examples requiring enhanced controls are outdoor and multi-room laser operations. At the NIF there are 192 beam lines and numerous other Class 4 diagnostic lasers that can potentially deliver their hazardous energy to locations far from the laser source. This presents a serious and complex potential hazard to personnel. Because of this, a multilayered approach to safety is taken. This paper presents the philosophy and approach taken at the NIF in the multi-layered 'defense-in-depth' approach to laser safety.

  8. Safety and licensing issues that are being addressed by the Power Burst Facility test programs. [PWR; BWR

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCardell, R.K.; MacDonald, P.E.

    1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper presents an overview of the results of the experimental program being conducted in the Power Burst Facility and the relationship of these results to certain safety and licensing issues. The safety issues that were addressed by the Power-Cooling-Mismatch, Reactivity Initiated Accident, and Loss of Coolant Accident tests, which comprised the original test program in the Power Burst Facility, are discussed. The resolution of these safety issues based on the results of the thirty-six tests performed to date, is presented. The future resolution of safety issues identified in the new Power Burst Facility test program which consists of tests which simulate BWR and PWR operational transients, anticipated transients without scram, and severe fuel damage accidents, is described.

  9. FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY (FFTF) A HISTORY OF SAFETY & OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NIELSEN, D L

    2004-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

    The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) is a 400-megawatt (thermal) sodium-cooled, high temperature, fast neutron flux, loop-type test reactor. The facility was constructed to support development and testing of fuels, materials and equipment for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program. FFTF began operation in 1980 and over the next 10 years demonstrated its versatility to perform experiments and missions far beyond the original intent of its designers. The reactor had several distinctive features including its size, flux, core design, extensive instrumentation, and test features that enabled it to simultaneously carry out a significant array of missions while demonstrating its features that contributed to a high level of plant safety and availability. FFTF is currently being deactivated for final closure.

  10. Order Module--DOE O 420.1B, FACILITY SAFETY | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently Asked QuestionsDepartmentGas and Oil ResearchEnergyOnHSSOpti-MN1B, FACILITY SAFETY

  11. Type A Accident Investigation Board Report on the January 17, 1996, Electrical Accident With Injury in Building 209, Technical Area 21, Tritium Science and Fabrication Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report is an independent product of the Type A Accident Investigation Board appointed by Tara O’Toole, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1).

  12. Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Flynn, N.C. Bechtel Jacobs

    2008-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC) policy is to provide a safe and healthy workplace for all employees and subcontractors. The implementation of this policy requires that operations of the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF), located one-half mile west of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12 National Security Complex, be guided by an overall plan and consistent proactive approach to environment, safety and health (ES&H) issues. The BJC governing document for worker safety and health, BJC/OR-1745, 'Worker Safety and Health Program', describes the key elements of the BJC Safety and Industrial Hygiene (IH) programs, which includes the requirement for development and implementation of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) where required by regulation (refer also to BJC-EH-1012, 'Development and Approval of Safety and Health Plans'). BJC/OR-1745, 'Worker Safety and Health Program', implements the requirements for worker protection contained in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 851. The EMWMF site-specific HASP requirements identifies safe operating procedures, work controls, personal protective equipment, roles and responsibilities, potential site hazards and control measures, site access requirements, frequency and types of monitoring, site work areas, decontamination procedures, and outlines emergency response actions. This HASP will be available on site for use by all workers, management and supervisors, oversight personnel and visitors. All EMWMF assigned personnel will be briefed on the contents of this HASP and will be required to follow the procedures and protocols as specified. The policies and procedures referenced in this HASP apply to all EMWMF operations activities. In addition the HASP establishes ES&H criteria for the day-to-day activities to prevent or minimize any adverse effect on the environment and personnel safety and health and to meet standards that define acceptable waste management practices. The HASP is written to make use of past experience and best management practices to eliminate or minimize hazards to workers or the environment from events such as fires, falls, mechanical hazards, or any unplanned release to the environment.

  13. Safety Assessment for the Kozloduy National Disposal Facility in Bulgaria - 13507

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Biurrun, E.; Haverkamp, B. [DBE TECHNOLOGY GmbH, Eschenstr. 55, D-31224 Peine (Germany)] [DBE TECHNOLOGY GmbH, Eschenstr. 55, D-31224 Peine (Germany); Lazaro, A.; Miralles, A. [Westinghouse Electric Spain SAR, Padilla 17, E-28006 Madrid (Spain)] [Westinghouse Electric Spain SAR, Padilla 17, E-28006 Madrid (Spain); Stefanova, I. [SERAW, 52 A Dimitrov Blvd, 6 Fl., 1797 Sofia (Bulgaria)] [SERAW, 52 A Dimitrov Blvd, 6 Fl., 1797 Sofia (Bulgaria)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Due to the early decommissioning of four Water-Water Energy Reactors (WWER) 440-V230 reactors at the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) near the city of Kozloduy in Bulgaria, large amounts of low and intermediate radioactive waste will arise much earlier than initially scheduled. In or-der to manage the radioactive waste from the early decommissioning, Bulgaria has intensified its efforts to provide a near surface disposal facility at Radiana with the required capacity. To this end, a project was launched and assigned in international competition to a German-Spanish consortium to provide the complete technical planning including the preparation of the Intermediate Safety Assessment Report. Preliminary results of operational and long-term safety show compliance with the Bulgarian regulatory requirements. The long-term calculations carried out for the Radiana site are also a good example of how analysis of safety assessment results can be used for iterative improvements of the assessment by pointing out uncertainties and areas of future investigations to reduce such uncertainties in regard to the potential radiological impact. The computer model used to estimate the long-term evolution of the future repository at Radiana predicted a maximum total annual dose for members of the critical group, which is carried to approximately 80 % by C-14 for a specific ingestion pathway. Based on this result and the outcome of the sensitivity analysis, existing uncertainties were evaluated and areas for reasonable future investigations to reduce these uncertainties were identified. (authors)

  14. Notice of Intent to Develop a Page Change for DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety

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

    2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The Page Change will be strictly limited in scope to changes necessary to accomplish the following objectives: (1) to invoke revised DOE-STD- 1104-20xx, Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Document, as a required method; (2) to invoke revised DOE-STD-3009-20xx, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, as a required method for new nuclear facilities as discussed below; and (3) to make miscellaneous administrative corrections and clarifications based on the one-year implementation review required by DOE O 251.1C, Departmental Directives Program. This JM is an update to one approved June 21, 2013.

  15. Safety requirements, facility user needs, and reactor concepts for a new Broad Application Test Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ryskamp, J.M. [ed.; Liebenthal, J.L.; Denison, A.B.; Fletcher, C.D.

    1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the EG&G Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program (LDRD) Broad Application Test Reactor (BATR) Project that was conducted in fiscal year 1991. The scope of this project was divided into three phases: a project process definition phase, a requirements development phase, and a preconceptual reactor design and evaluation phase. Multidisciplinary teams of experts conducted each phase. This report presents the need for a new test reactor, the project process definition, a set of current and projected regulatory compliance and safety requirements, a set of facility user needs for a broad range of projected testing missions, and descriptions of reactor concepts capable of meeting these requirements. This information can be applied to strategic planning to provide the Department of Energy with management options.

  16. Safety requirements, facility user needs, and reactor concepts for a new Broad Application Test Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ryskamp, J.M. (ed.); Liebenthal, J.L.; Denison, A.B.; Fletcher, C.D.

    1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the EG G Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program (LDRD) Broad Application Test Reactor (BATR) Project that was conducted in fiscal year 1991. The scope of this project was divided into three phases: a project process definition phase, a requirements development phase, and a preconceptual reactor design and evaluation phase. Multidisciplinary teams of experts conducted each phase. This report presents the need for a new test reactor, the project process definition, a set of current and projected regulatory compliance and safety requirements, a set of facility user needs for a broad range of projected testing missions, and descriptions of reactor concepts capable of meeting these requirements. This information can be applied to strategic planning to provide the Department of Energy with management options.

  17. Technical Safety Requirements for the B695 Segment of the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Larson, H L

    2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) Division's B695 Segment of the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TSRs constitute requirements regarding the safe operation of the B695 Segment of the DWTF. The TSRs are derived from the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the B695 Segment of the DWTF (LLNL 2004). The analysis presented there determined that the B695 Segment of the DWTF is a low-chemical hazard, Hazard Category 3, nonreactor nuclear facility. The TSRs consist primarily of inventory limits as well as controls to preserve the underlying assumptions in the hazard analyses. Furthermore, appropriate commitments to safety programs are presented in the administrative controls section of the TSRs. The B695 Segment of the DWTF (B695 and the west portion of B696) is a waste treatment and storage facility located in the northeast quadrant of the LLNL main site. The approximate area and boundary of the B695 Segment of the DWTF are shown in the B695 Segment of the DWTF DSA. Activities typically conducted in the B695 Segment of the DWTF include container storage, lab-packing, repacking, overpacking, bulking, sampling, waste transfer, and waste treatment. B695 is used to store and treat radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste, and it also contains equipment used in conjunction with waste processing operations to treat various liquid and solid wastes. The portion of the building called Building 696 Solid Waste Processing Area (SWPA), also referred to as B696S in this report, is used primarily to manage solid radioactive waste. Operations specific to the SWPA include sorting and segregating low-level waste (LLW) and transuranic (TRU) waste, lab-packing, sampling, and crushing empty drums that previously contained LLW. A permit modification for B696S was submitted to DTSC in January 2004 to store and treat hazardous and mixed waste. Upon approval of the permit modification, B696S rooms 1007, 1008, and 1009 will be able to store hazardous and mixed waste for up to 1 year. Furthermore, an additional drum crusher and a Waste Packaging Unit will be permitted to treat hazardous and mixed waste. RHWM generally processes LLW with no, or extremely low, concentrations of transuranics (i.e., much less than 100 nCi/g). Wastes processed often contain only depleted uranium and beta- and gamma-emitting nuclides, e.g., {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, {sup 3}H. Chapter 5 of the DSA documents the derivation of TSRs and develops the operational limits that protect the safety envelope defined for this facility. The DSA is applicable to the handling of radioactive waste stored and treated in the B695 Segment of the DWTF. Section 5 of the TSR, Administrative Controls, contains those Administrative Controls necessary to ensure safe operation of the B695 Segment of the DWTF. A basis explanation follows each of the requirements described in Section 5.5, Specific Administrative Controls. The basis explanation does not constitute an additional requirement, but is intended as an expansion of the logic and reasoning behind development of the requirement. Programmatic Administrative Controls are addressed in Section 5.6.

  18. Criticality safety strategy for the Fuel Cycle Facility electrorefiner at Argonne National Laboratory, West

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mariani, R.D.; Benedict, R.W. [Argonne National Lab., Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Lell, R.M.; Turski, R.B.; Fujita, E.K. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Integral Fast Reactor being developed by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) combines the advantages of metal-fueled, liquid-metal-cooled reactors and a closed fuel cycle. Presently, the Fuel Cycle Facility (FCF) at ANL-West in Idaho Falls, Idaho is being modified to recycle spent metallic fuel from Experimental Breeder Reactor II as part of a demonstration project sponsored by the Department of Energy. A key component of the FCF is the electrorefiner (ER) in which the actinides are separated from the fission products. In the electrorefining process, the metal fuel is anodically dissolved into a high-temperature molten salt and refined uranium or uranium/plutonium products are deposited at cathodes. In this report, the criticality safety strategy for the FCF ER is summarized. FCF ER operations and processes formed the basis for evaluating criticality safety and control during actinide metal fuel refining. In order to show criticality safety for the FCF ER, the reference operating conditions for the ER had to be defined. Normal operating envelopes (NOES) were then defined to bracket the important operating conditions. To keep the operating conditions within their NOES, process controls were identified that can be used to regulate the actinide forms and content within the ER. A series of operational checks were developed for each operation that wig verify the extent or success of an operation. The criticality analysis considered the ER operating conditions at their NOE values as the point of departure for credible and incredible failure modes. As a result of the analysis, FCF ER operations were found to be safe with respect to criticality.

  19. Safety Oversight of Decommissioning Activities at DOE Nuclear Sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zull, Lawrence M.; Yeniscavich, William [Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901 (United States)

    2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) is an independent federal agency established by Congress in 1988 to provide nuclear safety oversight of activities at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities. The activities under the Board's jurisdiction include the design, construction, startup, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities at DOE sites. This paper reviews the Board's safety oversight of decommissioning activities at DOE sites, identifies the safety problems observed, and discusses Board initiatives to improve the safety of decommissioning activities at DOE sites. The decommissioning of former defense nuclear facilities has reduced the risk of radioactive material contamination and exposure to the public and site workers. In general, efforts to perform decommissioning work at DOE defense nuclear sites have been successful, and contractors performing decommissioning work have a good safety record. Decommissioning activities have recently been completed at sites identified for closure, including the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, the Fernald Closure Project, and the Miamisburg Closure Project (the Mound site). The Rocky Flats and Fernald sites, which produced plutonium parts and uranium materials for defense needs (respectively), have been turned into wildlife refuges. The Mound site, which performed R and D activities on nuclear materials, has been converted into an industrial and technology park called the Mound Advanced Technology Center. The DOE Office of Legacy Management is responsible for the long term stewardship of these former EM sites. The Board has reviewed many decommissioning activities, and noted that there are valuable lessons learned that can benefit both DOE and the contractor. As part of its ongoing safety oversight responsibilities, the Board and its staff will continue to review the safety of DOE and contractor decommissioning activities at DOE defense nuclear sites.

  20. Expectations on Documented Safety Analysis for Deactivated Inactive Nuclear Facilities in a State of Long Term Surveillance & Maintenance or Decommissioning

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JACKSON, M.W.

    2002-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    DOE promulgated 10 CFR 830 ''Nuclear Safety Management'' on October 10, 2000. Section 204 of the Rule requires that contractors at DOE hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities develop a ''Documented Safety Analysis'' (DSA) that summarizes the work to be performed, the associated hazards, and hazard controls necessary to protect workers, the public, and the environment. Table 2 of Appendix A to the rule has been provided to ensure that DSAs are prepared in accordance with one of the available predetermined ''safe harbor'' approaches. The table presents various acceptable safe harbor DSAs for different nuclear facility operations ranging from nuclear reactors to decommissioning activities. The safe harbor permitted for decommissioning of a nuclear facility encompasses methods described in DOE-STD-1 120-98, ''Integration of Environment, Safety and Health into Facility Disposition Activities,'' and provisions in 29 CFR 1910.120 or 29 CFR 1926.65 (HAZWOPER). Additionally, an evaluation of public safety impacts and development of necessary controls is required when the facility being decommissioned contains radiological inventory or contamination exceeding the Rule's definition for low-level residual fixed radioactivity. This document discusses a cost-effective DSA approach that is based on the concepts of DOE-STD-I 120 and meets the 10 CFR 830 safe harbor requirements for both transition surveillance and maintenance as well as decommissioning. This DSA approach provides continuity for inactive Hanford nuclear facilities that will eventually transition into decommissioning. It also uses a graded approach that meets the expectations of DOE-STD-3011 and addresses HAZWOPER requirements to provide a sound basis for worker protection, particularly where intrusive work is being conducted.

  1. SHSD Manager Safety Engineering Group Manager

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Safety, Machine Shop Safety, Tier I Program, Traffic Safety S. Moss: Nuclear Criticality Safety G. Shepherd: Explosives Safety, Facility Authorization Basis, Nuclear Safety R. Travis: Readiness Evaluations

  2. Safety analysis--200 Area Savannah River Site: Separations Area operations Building 211-H Outside Facilities. Supplement 11, Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The H-Area Outside Facilities are located in the 200-H Separations Area and are comprised of a number of processes, utilities, and services that support the separations function. Included are enriched uranium loadout, bulk chemical storage, water handling, acid recovery, general purpose evaporation, and segregated solvent facilities. In addition, services for water, electricity, and steam are provided. This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) documents an analysis of the H-Area Outside Facilities and is one of a series of documents for the Separations Area as specified in the SR Implementation Plan for DOE order 5481.1A. The primary purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate that the facility can be operated without undue risk to onsite or offsite populations, to the environment, and to operating personnel. In this report, risks are defined as the expected frequencies of accidents, multiplied by the resulting radiological consequences in person-rem. Following the summary description of facility and operations is the site evaluation including the unique features of the H-Area Outside Facilities. The facility and process design are described in Chapter 3.0 and a description of operations and their impact is given in Chapter 4.0. The accident analysis in Chapter 5.0 is followed by a list of safety related structures and systems (Chapter 6.0) and a description of the Quality Assurance program (Chapter 7.0). The accident analysis in this report focuses on estimating the risk from accidents as a result of operation of the facilities. The operations were evaluated on the basis of three considerations: potential radiological hazards, potential chemical toxicity hazards, and potential conditions uniquely different from normal industrial practice.

  3. Safety training and safe operating procedures written for PBFA (Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator) II and applicable to other pulsed power facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Donovan, G.L.; Goldstein, S.A.

    1986-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    To ensure that work in advancing pulsed power technology is performed with an acceptably low risk, pulsed power research facilities at Sandia National Laboratories must satisfy general safety guidelines established by the Department of Energy, policies and formats of the Environment, Safety, and Health (ES and H) Department, and detailed procedures formulated by the Pulsed Power Sciences Directorate. The approach to safety training and to writing safe operating procedures, and the procedures presented here are specific to the Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II (PBFA II) Facility but are applicable as guidelines to other research and development facilities which have similar hazards.

  4. An overview of research activities on materials for nuclear applications at the INL Safety, Tritium and Applied Research facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Calderoni; P. Sharpe; M. Shimada

    2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety, Tritium and Applied Research facility at the Idaho National Laboratory is a US Department of Energy National User Facility engaged in various aspects of materials research for nuclear applications related to fusion and advanced fission systems. Research activities are mainly focused on the interaction of tritium with materials, in particular plasma facing components, liquid breeders, high temperature coolants, fuel cladding, cooling and blanket structures and heat exchangers. Other activities include validation and verification experiments in support of the Fusion Safety Program, such as beryllium dust reactivity and dust transport in vacuum vessels, and support of Advanced Test Reactor irradiation experiments. This paper presents an overview of the programs engaged in the activities, which include the US-Japan TITAN collaboration, the US ITER program, the Next Generation Power Plant program and the tritium production program, and a presentation of ongoing experiments as well as a summary of recent results with emphasis on fusion relevant materials.

  5. 1029Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices Defense Explosives Safety Board). The

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Board). The service of Mr. Bowling on the PRB has come to a close. His appointment was originally) continues to serve as the Chair of the PRB, as announced in the Federal Register of November 15, 2007 (72 FR of the PRB, as announced in the Federal Register of December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74138). This notice is published

  6. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide [Fulfills ORO Safety Basis Competency 1, 2 (Part 1), or 7 (Part 1)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    "This self-study guide provides an overview of safety basis terminology, requirements, and activities that are applicable to DOE and Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO) nuclear facilities on the Oak...

  7. Subject: Integrated Safety Analysis: Why It Is Appropriate for Fuel Recycling Facilities Project Number: 689Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Letter, 9/10/10

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Enclosed for your review is a Nuclear Energy Institute white paper on the use of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed recycling facilities. This paper is...

  8. Guidance for the design and management of a maintenance plan to assure safety and improve the predictability of a DOE nuclear irradiation facility. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Booth, R.S.; Kryter, R.C.; Shepard, R.L.; Smith, O.L. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Upadhyaya, B.R. [Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (United States). Dept. of Nuclear Engineering; Rowan, W.J.

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A program is recommended for planning the maintenance of DOE nuclear facilities that will help safety and enhance availability throughout a facility`s life cycle. While investigating the requirements for maintenance activities, a major difference was identified between the strategy suitable for a conventional power reactor and one for a research reactor facility: the latter should provide a high degree of predicted availability (referred to hereafter as ``predictability``) to its users, whereas the former should maximize total energy production. These differing operating goals necessitate different maintenance strategies. A strategy for scheduling research reactor facility operation and shutdown for maintenance must balance safety, reliability,and predicted availability. The approach developed here is based on three major elements: (1) a probabilistic risk analysis of the balance between assured reliability and predictability (presented in Appendix C), (2) an assessment of the safety and operational impact of maintenance activities applied to various components of the facility, and (3) a data base of historical and operational information on the performance and requirements for maintenance of various components. These factors are integrated into a set of guidelines for designing a new highly maintainable facility, for preparing flexible schedules for improved maintenance of existing facilities, and for anticipating the maintenance required to extend the life of an aging facility. Although tailored to research reactor facilities, the methodology has broader applicability and may therefore be used to improved the maintenance of power reactors, particularly in anticipation of peak load demands.

  9. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework

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

    overall Nuclear Safety Policy & ESH Goals Safety Basis Review and Approval In the DOE governance model, contractors responsible for the facility develop the safety basis and...

  10. Technical safety requirements (TSR) for waste receiving and processing (WRAP) facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Weidert, J.R.

    1997-11-18T23:59:59.000Z

    The scope of this TSR document is based on the WRAP Final Safety Analysis Report (HNF-SD-W026-SAR-002) and supporting documents. The administrative controls set forth in this TSR document are derived from the WRAP Final Safety Analysis Report.

  11. The safety climate of a Department of Energy nuclear facility: A sociotechnical analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, A.E.; Harbour, J.L.

    1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Government- and public-sponsored groups are increasingly demanding greater accountability by the Department of Energy`s weapons complex. Many of these demands have focused on the development of a positive safety climate, one that not only protects workers onsite, but also the surrounding populace and environment as well. These demands are, in part, a response to findings which demonstrate a close linkage between actual organizational safety performance and the organization`s safety climate, i.e., the collective attitudes employees hold concerning the level of safety in their organization. This paper describes the approach taken in the systematic assessment of the safety climate at EG&G Rocky Flats Plant (RFP).

  12. CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health- Los Alamos National Laboratory TA 55 SST Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for an assessment of the Industrial Hygiene program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory TA 55 SST Facility.

  13. Criticality Safety Evaluation Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facilities Process Water Handling System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KESSLER, S.F.

    2000-08-10T23:59:59.000Z

    This report addresses the criticality concerns associated with process water handling in the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility. The controls and limitations on equipment design and operations to control potential criticality occurrences are identified.

  14. Fuel-cycle facilities: preliminary safety and environmental information document. Volume VII

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Information is presented concerning the mining and milling of uranium and thorium; uranium hexafluoride conversion; enrichment; fuel fabrication; reprocessing; storage options; waste disposal options; transportation; heavy-water-production facilities; and international fuel service centers.

  15. Mixed and low-level waste treatment project: Appendix C, Health and safety criteria for the mixed and low-level waste treatment facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neupauer, R.M.; Thurmond, S.M.

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report contains health and safety information relating to the chemicals that have been identified in the mixed waste streams at the Waste Treatment Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Information is summarized in two summary sections--one for health considerations and one for safety considerations. Detailed health and safety information is presented in material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for each chemical.

  16. Mixed and low-level waste treatment project: Appendix C, Health and safety criteria for the mixed and low-level waste treatment facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Part 2, Chemical constituents

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neupauer, R.M.; Thurmond, S.M.

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report contains health and safety information relating to the chemicals that have been identified in the mixed waste streams at the Waste Treatment Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Information is summarized in two summary sections--one for health considerations and one for safety considerations. Detailed health and safety information is presented in material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for each chemical.

  17. Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TOMASZEWSKI, T.A.

    2000-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP), 2336W Building, on the Hanford Site is designed to receive, confirm, repackage, certify, treat, store, and ship contact-handled transuranic and low-level radioactive waste from past and present U.S. Department of Energy activities. The WRAP facility is comprised of three buildings: 2336W, the main processing facility (also referred to generically as WRAP); 2740W, an administrative support building; and 2620W, a maintenance support building. The support buildings are subject to the normal hazards associated with industrial buildings (no radiological materials are handled) and are not part of this analysis except as they are impacted by operations in the processing building, 2336W. WRAP is designed to provide safer, more efficient methods of handling the waste than currently exist on the Hanford Site and contributes to the achievement of as low as reasonably achievable goals for Hanford Site waste management.

  18. Observation challenges in a glovebox environment : behavior based safety at a plutonium facility.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Montalvo, M. L. (Maryrose L.)

    2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is one of the Nation's leading scientific and defense laboratories, owned by the Department of Energy and managed by the University of California. LANL is one of the original weapons complex labs dating back to the days of the Manhattan Project during World War II. Since then, radioactive materials research has continued at LANLs Plutonium Facility, and remains a primary responsibility of the Laboratory. The Nuclear Materials Technology Division (NMT) is a multidisciplinary organization responsible for daily operations of the Plutonium Facility and the Chemistry Research Metallurgy Facility. NMT Division is responsible for the saence, engineering and technology of plutonium and other actinides in support of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear materials disposition, and nuclear energy programs. A wide amy of activities are performed within NMT Division, such as analytical chemistry, metallurgical operations, actinide processes, waste operations, radioactive materials research and related administrative tasks.

  19. CFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Nanofabrication (Clean Room) Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Ohta, Shigemi

    -ESH-USERS [ ] [ ] [ ] Cyber Security Training GE-CYBERSEC X X X Laboratory Standard HP-IND-220 X X X Hazardous Waste HP Safety for Benchtop Workers TQ-ELECT-BENCHTOP [ ] [ ] [ ] Oxygen Deficiency Hazard TQ-ODH X X X and understood clean room orientation/protocols Gowning procedure: demonstrate proper clean room dress Personal

  20. Safety Software Quality Assurance Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities for Nuclear Facilities and Activities

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

    2003-08-27T23:59:59.000Z

    To assign roles and responsibilities for improving the quality of safety software. DOE N 411.2 (archived) extends this Notice until 01/31/2005. DOE N 411.3 extends this Notice until 1/31/06. Canceled by DOE O 414.1C. does not cancel other directives.

  1. Report on the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting: {open_quotes}The safety, status, and future of non-commercial reactors and irradiation Facilities{close_quotes}

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Silver, E.G. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN (United States)

    1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The American Nuclear Society`s International Topical Meeting, The Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, also known as SAFOR 90, was held in Boise, Idaho, September 30 to October 4, 1990. In 19 half-day sessions, 102 papers were presented which covered operating research reactors, production reactors, the use of reactors for training and research, probabilistic risk assessments applied to research reactors, plans for new facilities, and new fuels and reactor types. A special session on space reactor safety was also presented. 11 refs., 1 tab.

  2. Safety aspects related to the operation of the Cabril L/ILW disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ruiz, M.C. [Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid (Spain); Alonso, J.A. [ENRESA, Madrid (Spain). Safety and Licensing Dept.

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    In October 1992 the Spanish Ministry of Industry granted the operating permit to the Centro de Almacenamiento de El Cabril (C.A. El Cabril). The Annex 1 to this permit contains the limits and conditions related to safety and to radiological health protection, set by nuclear regulatory authority, the Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN). The main aspects of the operation regulated in the permit as well as their technical basis and practical meaning are discussed in this paper.

  3. Cost-effective facility disposition planning with safety and health lessons learned and good practices from the Oak Ridge Decontamination and Decommissioning Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An emphasis on transition and safe disposition of DOE excess facilities has brought about significant challenges to managing worker, public, and environmental risks. The transition and disposition activities involve a diverse range of hazardous facilities that are old, poorly maintained, and contain radioactive and hazardous substances, the extent of which may be unknown. In addition, many excess facilities do not have historical facility documents such as operating records, plant and instrumentation diagrams, and incident records. The purpose of this report is to present an overview of the Oak Ridge Decontamination and Decommissioning (D and D) Program, its safety performance, and associated safety and health lessons learned and good practices. Illustrative examples of these lessons learned and good practices are also provided. The primary focus of this report is on the safety and health activities and implications associated with the planning phase of Oak Ridge facility disposition projects. Section 1.0 of this report provides the background and purpose of the report. Section 2.0 presents an overview of the facility disposition activities from which the lessons learned and good practices discussed in Section 3.0 were derived.

  4. Evaluation of the US Department of Energy's occupational safety and health program for its government-owned contractor-operated facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this report is to present to Secretary of Energy James Watkins the findings and recommendations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) evaluation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) programs for worker safety and health at DOE's government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) nuclear facilities. The OSHA evaluation is based on an intensive and comprehensive review and analysis of DOE's worker safety and health programs including: written programs; safety and health inspection programs; and the adequacy of resource, training, and management controls. The evaluation began on April 10, 1990 and involved over three staff years before its conclusion. The evaluation was initiated by former Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole in response to Secretary of Energy James Watkins' request that OSHA assist him in determining the actions needed to assure that DOE has an exemplary safety and health program in place at its GOCOs. 6 figs.

  5. Board of Trustees (Idaho State Board of Education)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Barrash, Warren

    -Construction Mgmt. -Electrical and Computer Engineering -Instructional & Performance Tech. -Materials Science Compliance Planning & Facilities Jared Everett, Interim Assoc. VP -Facilities O & M -Architectural & Safety Government* Relations Bruce Newcomb Athletics*¨ Mark Coyle Internal Audit Larry Harmon Boise State

  6. Board of Trustees (Idaho State Board of Education)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Barrash, Warren

    -Construction Mgmt. -Electrical and Computer Engineering -Instructional & Performance Tech. -Materials Science & Facilities David Smith, Assoc. VP -Facilities O & M -Architectural & Engineering Services -Capital Planning & Space Management -Transportation, Parking & Environmental Health & Safety Government* Relations Bruce

  7. Order Module--DOE O 420.2B, SAFETY OF ACCELERATOR FACILITIES | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagementOPAM PolicyOfEnergy Online1of Energy 2B, SAFETY OF

  8. Technology, safety and costs of decommissioning reference nuclear fuel cycle facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elder, H.K.

    1986-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The radioactive wastes expected to result from decommissioning nuclear fuel cycle facilities are reviewed and classified in accordance with 10 CFR 61. Most of the wastes from the MOX plant (exclusive of the lagoon wastes) will require interim storage (11% Class A 49 m/sup 3/; 89% interim storage, 383 m/sup 3/). The MOX plant lagoon wastes are Class A waste (2930 m/sup 3/). All of the wastes from the U-Fab and UF/sub 6/ plants are designated as Class A waste (U-Fab 1090 m/sup 3/, UF/sub 6/ 1259 m/sup 3/).

  9. Office of Environment, Safety and Health Evaluations Appraisal...

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

    of ES&H Evaluations HSS Office of Health, Safety and Security ISM Integrated Safety Management QRB Quality Review Board TSR Technical Safety Requirement VSF Vital Systems...

  10. Conventional Facilities Chapter 11: Environment, Safety and Health 11-1 NSLS-II Preliminary Design Report

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Ohta, Shigemi

    Analysis 4. Fire Protection 5. Pressure Safety 6. Industrial Hygiene 7. Other ES&H Issues This document Program a) Fire protection b) Pressure safety c) Industrial hygiene d) Biological safety e) Electrical

  11. Pipeline Safety (Pennsylvania)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Pennsylvania legislature has empowered the Public Utility Commission to direct and enforce safety standards for pipeline facilities and to regulate safety practices of certificated utilities...

  12. Biosafety Facilities - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

    G 151.1-5, Biosafety Facilities by David Freshwater Functional areas: Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Safety and Security, The Guide assists DOENNSA field...

  13. Safety Basis Requirements for Nonnuclear Facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site-Specific Work Smart Standard Revision 3 December 2006

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beach, D; Brereton, S; Failor, R; Hildum, J; Ingram, C; Spagnolo, S; van Warmerdam, C

    2007-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This standard establishes requirements that, when coupled with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL's) Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) methods and other Work Smart Standards for assuring worker safety, assure that the impacts of nonnuclear operations authorized in LLNL facilities are well understood and controlled in a manner that protects the health of workers, the public, and the environment. All LLNL facilities shall be classified based on potential for adverse impact of operations to the health of co-located (i.e., nearby) workers and the public in accordance with this standard, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 830, Subpart B, and Department of Energy Order (DOE O) 420.2A.

  14. Management Board Briefing Note 16 October 2009 BRIEFING NOTE

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    -Rector (Commercial Development), and the College Secretary. The Board also received a Health and Safety update. The Board also received the Minutes of the PRB Meeting held on 21 September 2009; the Annual Report on Value

  15. Toolbox Safety Talk Welding & Metal Work Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Toolbox Safety Talk Welding & Metal Work Safety Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety or harmful emission giving metals. Welding Safety When welding outside of a designated welding booth, ensure injury. Avoid welding on materials such as galvanized or stainless steel in order to minimize toxic fume

  16. New Applications of Gamma Spectroscopy: Characterization Tools for D&D Process Development, Inventory Reduction Planning & Shipping, Safety Analysis & Facility Management During the Heavy Element Facility Risk Reduction Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mitchell, M; Anderson, B; Gray, L; Vellinger, R; West, M; Gaylord, R; Larson, J; Jones, G; Shingleton, J; Harris, L; Harward, N

    2006-01-23T23:59:59.000Z

    Novel applications of gamma ray spectroscopy for D&D process development, inventory reduction, safety analysis and facility management are discussed in this paper. These applications of gamma spectroscopy were developed and implemented during the Risk Reduction Program (RPP) to successfully downgrade the Heavy Element Facility (B251) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) from a Category II Nuclear Facility to a Radiological Facility. Non-destructive assay in general, gamma spectroscopy in particular, were found to be important tools in project management, work planning, and work control (''Expect the unexpected and confirm the expected''), minimizing worker dose, and resulted in significant safety improvements and operational efficiencies. Inventory reduction activities utilized gamma spectroscopy to identify and confirm isotopics of legacy inventory, ingrowth of daughter products and the presence of process impurities; quantify inventory; prioritize work activities for project management; and to supply information to satisfy shipper/receiver documentation requirements. D&D activities utilize in-situ gamma spectroscopy to identify and confirm isotopics of legacy contamination; quantify contamination levels and monitor the progress of decontamination efforts; and determine the point of diminishing returns in decontaminating enclosures and glove boxes containing high specific activity isotopes such as {sup 244}Cm and {sup 238}Pu. In-situ gamma spectroscopy provided quantitative comparisons of several decontamination techniques (e.g. TLC-free Stripcoat{trademark}, Radiac{trademark} wash, acid wash, scrubbing) and was used as a part of an iterative process to determine the appropriate level of decontamination and optimal cost to benefit ratio. Facility management followed a formal, rigorous process utilizing an independent, state certified, peer-reviewed gamma spectroscopy program, in conjunction with other characterization techniques, process knowledge, and historical records, to provide information for work planning, work prioritization, work control, and safety analyses (e.g. development of hold points, stop work points); and resulted in B251 successfully achieving Radiological status on schedule. Gamma spectroscopy helped to define operational approaches to achieve radiation exposure ALARA, e.g. hold points, appropriate engineering controls, PPE, workstations, and time/distance/shielding in the development of ALARA plans. These applications of gamma spectroscopy can be used to improve similar activities at other facilities.

  17. Mixed and low-level waste treatment project: Appendix C, Health and safety criteria for the mixed and low-level waste treatment facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Part 1, Waste streams and treatment technologies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neupauer, R.M.; Thurmond, S.M.

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes health and safety concerns associated with the Mixed and Low-level Waste Treatment Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Various hazards are described such as fire, electrical, explosions, reactivity, temperature, and radiation hazards, as well as the potential for accidental spills, exposure to toxic materials, and other general safety concerns.

  18. Mixed and low-level waste treatment project: Appendix C, Health and safety criteria for the mixed and low-level waste treatment facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neupauer, R.M.; Thurmond, S.M.

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes health and safety concerns associated with the Mixed and Low-level Waste Treatment Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Various hazards are described such as fire, electrical, explosions, reactivity, temperature, and radiation hazards, as well as the potential for accidental spills, exposure to toxic materials, and other general safety concerns.

  19. Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Program (Maryland)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board is responsible for overseeing the siting of hazardous waste facilities in Maryland, and will treat hazardous waste facilities separately from low-level...

  20. Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual - DOE Directives, Delegations...

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

    1A Admin Chg 1, Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual by Carl Sykes Functional areas: Administrative Change, Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Nuclear Safety,...

  1. Safety analysis report for the National Low-Temperature Neutron Irradiation Facility (NLTNIF) at the ORNL Bulk Shielding Reactor (BSR)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coltman, R.R. Jr.; Kerchner, H.R.; Klabunde, C.E.; Richardson, S.A.

    1986-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides information concerning: the experiment facility; experiment assembly; instrumentation and controls; materials; radioactivity; shielding; thermodynamics; estimated or measured reactivity effects; procedures; hazards; and quality assurance. (JDB)

  2. Appendix A Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    39 Appendices Appendices #12;Appendix A Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Members: Curricula to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. President Clinton appointed Dr. Cohon chairman on January 17, 1997, and Asia and on energy facility siting, including nuclear waste ship- ping and storage. In addition to his

  3. Appendix A Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    59 Appendices Appendices #12;Appendix A Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Members: Curricula Cohon to serve on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. President Clinton appointed Dr. Cohon, and Asia and on energy-facility siting, including nuclear waste shipping and storage. In addition to his

  4. Environmental Health and Safety Department

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    . Fire Safety, Radiation Safety and Hazardous Materials Facility are at other locations on campus Training Requirements If you work with: · Biological Materials · Chemical Agents · Radiological Materials

  5. Comparison of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for Fuel Cycle Facilities, 2/17/11

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    During the 580th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), February10-12, 2011, we reviewed the staff’s white paper, “A Comparison of Integrated Safety Analysisand...

  6. Quarterly report on the Ferrocyanide Safety Program for the period ending June 30, 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meacham, J.E.; Cash, R.J.; Dukelow, G.T.

    1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the thirteenth quarterly report on the progress of activities addressing the Ferrocyanide Safety Issue associated With Hanford site high-level radioactive waste tanks. Progress in the Ferrocyanide Safety Program is reviewed, including work addressing the six parts of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 90-7 (FR 1990). All work activities are described in the revised program plan (Borsheim et al. 1993), and this report follows the same format presented there. A summary of the key events occurring this quarter is presented in Section 1.2. More detailed discussions of progress are located in Sections 3.0 and 4.0.

  7. Pre-title I safety evaluation for the retrieval operations of transuranic waste drums in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rabin, M.S.

    1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Phase I of the Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facility Line Item Project includes the retrieval and safe storage of the pad drums that are stored on TRU pads 2-6 in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility (SWDF). Drums containing TRU waste were placed on these pads as early as 1974. The pads, once filled, were mounded with soil. The retrieval activities will include the excavation of the soil, retrieval of the pad drums, placing the drums in overpacks (if necessary) and venting and purging the retrieved drums. Once the drums have been vented and purged, they will be transported to other pads within the SWDF or in a designated area until they are eventually treated as necessary for ultimate shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This safety evaluation provides a bounding assessment of the radiological risk involved with the drum retrieval activities to the maximally exposed offsite individual and the co-located worker. The results of the analysis indicate that the risk to the maximally exposed offsite individual and the co-located worker using maximum frequencies and maximum consequences are within the acceptance criteria defined in WSRC Procedural Manual 9Q. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate the incremental risk from the SWDF due to the retrieval activities for use as design input only. As design information becomes available, this evaluation can be revised to satisfy the safety analysis requirements of DOE Orders 4700 and 5480.23.

  8. Facilities Management (FM) has run a highly successful safety incentive program since 2009 that has saved millions

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Webb, Peter

    that has saved millions of dollars. During the initial two-year program, 12 FM work teams avoided lost time and its employees have saved more than $3 million, while lowering the number and severity of injuries costs -- a drop of more than $1 million. These savings were generated from a $40,000 annual safety

  9. Rates for Alternate Energy Production Facilities (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Utilities Board may require public utilities furnishing gas, electricity, communications, or water to public consumers, to own alternate energy production facilities, enter into long-term...

  10. CRAD, Safety Basis - Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characteriza...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Safety Basis - Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility CRAD, Safety Basis - Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste...

  11. Independent Oversight Assessment, Salt Waste Processing Facility...

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

    Salt Waste Processing Facility Project - January 2013 January 2013 Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project The U.S. Department...

  12. Environmental, Health and Safety Assessment: ATS 7H Program (Phase 3R) Test Activities at the GE Power Systems Gas Turbine Manufacturing Facility, Greenville, SC

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1998-11-17T23:59:59.000Z

    International Technology Corporation (IT) was contracted by General Electric Company (GE) to assist in the preparation of an Environmental, Health and Safety (HI&3) assessment of the implementation of Phase 3R of the Advanced Turbine System (ATS) 7H program at the GE Gas Turbines facility located in Greenville, South Carolina. The assessment was prepared in accordance with GE's contractual agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (GE/DOE Cooperative Agreement DE-FC21-95MC3 1176) and supports compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. This report provides a summary of the EH&S review and includes the following: General description of current site operations and EH&S status, Description of proposed ATS 7H-related activities and discussion of the resulting environmental, health, safety and other impacts to the site and surrounding area. Listing of permits and/or licenses required to comply with federal, state and local regulations for proposed 7H-related activities. Assessment of adequacy of current and required permits, licenses, programs and/or plans.

  13. Independent Oversight Inspection, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility- August 2008

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Inspection of Environment, Safety and Health Programs at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

  14. School Land Board (Texas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The School Land Board oversees the use of land owned by the state or held in trust for use and benefit by the state or one of its departments, boards, or agencies. The Board is responsible for...

  15. Microsoft PowerPoint - Janaskie, 4-27-10 SSAB Excess Facilities...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Specific Advisory Board (SSAB): Advisory Board (SSAB): Transfer of Excess Facilities, Materials and Wastes Transfer of Excess Facilities, Materials and Wastes i t th Offi f E i t l...

  16. BNL | CFN Operations Safety Awareness (COSA) Training

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

    CFN Operations Safety Awareness (COSA) Training All users at the CFN must complete the CFN Operations Safety Awareness (COSA) Training before they can access the facilities. COSA...

  17. Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes - DOE Directives...

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

    2 Admin Chg 1, Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes by Carl Sykes Functional areas: Administrative Change, Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Defense...

  18. FLUOR HANFORD SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L J; JENSEN, M A

    2004-04-13T23:59:59.000Z

    This document summarizes safety management programs used within the scope of the ''Project Hanford Management Contract''. The document has been developed to meet the format and content requirements of DOE-STD-3009-94, ''Preparation Guide for US. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses''. This document provides summary descriptions of Fluor Hanford safety management programs, which Fluor Hanford nuclear facilities may reference and incorporate into their safety basis when producing facility- or activity-specific documented safety analyses (DSA). Facility- or activity-specific DSAs will identify any variances to the safety management programs described in this document and any specific attributes of these safety management programs that are important for controlling potentially hazardous conditions. In addition, facility- or activity-specific DSAs may identify unique additions to the safety management programs that are needed to control potentially hazardous conditions.

  19. CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T, Inc.'sEnergy Bush HydrogenEmissions andDepartment of EnergyDepartment of

  20. NASA Benchmarks Safety Functions Assessment plan - Developed...

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

    SAFETY FUNCTIONS Assessment Plan Developed By NNSANevada Site Office Facility Representative Division Performance Objective: Management should be proactive in addressing...

  1. UNBC Board of Governors Public Minutes March 24, 2012 Page 1 of 7 BOARD OF GOVERNORS -PUBLIC SESSION MINUTES

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Northern British Columbia, University of

    '". CARRIED 4. Business Arising a. Report on Utilization of Heat from Bio-energy Plant in First Year was requested at the last Board meeting. The University target to displace 85% of the natural gas used on campus and Safety Report This annual report was presented to the Board. 6. Finance and Audit Committee - Louise

  2. Type B Accident Investigation Board Report of the Savannah River...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Savannah River Site Hand Injury at the Salt Waste Processing Facility on October 6, 2009 Type B Accident Investigation Board Report of the Savannah River Site Hand Injury at the...

  3. Type B Accident Investigation Board Report Employee Puncture...

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

    F-TRU Waste Remediation Facility at the Savannah River Site on June 14, 2010 Type B Accident Investigation Board Report Employee Puncture Wound at the F-TRU Waste Remediation...

  4. Appendix A U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    7 Appendices Appendices #12;Appendix A U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Members: Curricula to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. President Clinton appointed Dr. Cohon chairman on January 17, 1997, and Asia and on energy facility siting, including nuclear waste shipping and storage. In addition to his

  5. *****I* ****f?* Fusion Programme Evaluation Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    of the Community's programme in the field of Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion; to appraise the environmental, safety*****I* ****f?* Report of the Fusion Programme Evaluation Board prepared for the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CHAPTER ONE: NUCLEAR FUSION AND ITS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD'S ENERGY NEEDS 1

  6. DOE handbook electrical safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Electrical Safety Handbook presents the Department of Energy (DOE) safety standards for DOE field offices or facilities involved in the use of electrical energy. It has been prepared to provide a uniform set of electrical safety guidance and information for DOE installations to effect a reduction or elimination of risks associated with the use of electrical energy. The objectives of this handbook are to enhance electrical safety awareness and mitigate electrical hazards to employees, the public, and the environment.

  7. Electrical safety guidelines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Electrical Safety Guidelines prescribes the DOE safety standards for DOE field offices or facilities involved in the use of electrical energy. It has been prepared to provide a uniform set of electrical safety standards and guidance for DOE installations in order to affect a reduction or elimination of risks associated with the use of electrical energy. The objectives of these guidelines are to enhance electrical safety awareness and mitigate electrical hazards to employees, the public, and the environment.

  8. Student Disability Services Student Advisory Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Gallo, Linda C.

    reported that the Storm Hall construction crew sometimes opens the staging area gate to wide and it blocks access to the wheelchair ramp by AL 204. Facilities Services needs to talk to the construction company:30 to 5pm. Patty went to the meeting as the Board's representative, but no one was there. Teresa called

  9. Policies,Safety&U Annual Security and Fire Safety Report

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lee, Dongwon

    ................................................................................ 5 ABOUT THE PENN STATE HARRISBURG SAFETY AND POLICE SERVICES ..... 5 Role, Authority, and Training .................................................................... 7 SECURITY OF and ACCESS TO PENN STATE HARRISBURG FACILITIES ........ 8 Special Considerations

  10. San Diego County- Design Standards for County Facilities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The San Diego County Board of Supervisors established design standards for county facilities and property. Among other requirements,  the policy requires that all new county buildings or major...

  11. Quarterly report on the Ferrocyanide Safety Program for the period ending, March 31, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cash, R.J.; Meacham, J.E.; Dukelow, G.T.

    1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This quarterly report provides a status of the activities underway on the Ferrocyanide Safety Issue at the Hanford Site, including actions in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 90-7 (FR 1990). In March 1991, a DNFSB implementation plan (Cash 1991) responding to the six parts of Recommendation 90-7 was prepared and sent to the DNFSB. A Ferrocyanide Safety Program Plan addressing the total Ferrocyanide Safety Program, including the six parts of DNFSB Recommendation 90-7, was released in October 1994 (DOE 1994b). Activities in the program plan are underway or have been completed, and the status of each is described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this report.

  12. Toolbox Safety Talk Lead Awareness

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Toolbox Safety Talk Lead Awareness Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health Section Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Lead based paint is commonly found in homes built before 1978 and many industrial paints today still contain lead. Lead overexposure is one of the leading causes of workplace

  13. Facility worker technical basis document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    EVANS, C.B.

    2003-03-21T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the technical basis for facility worker safety to support the Tank Farms Documented Safety Analysis and described the criteria and methodology for allocating controls to hazardous conditions with significant facility worker consequences and presents the results of the allocation.

  14. ORSSAB monthly board meeting

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The ORSSAB monthly board meeting is open to the public. The board will receive an update on the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee efforts at the East Tennessee Technology Park.

  15. Facility Safety | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic Plan| Department of.pdf6-OPAMDepartment6 FY 2007FY

  16. Seismic Safety Guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eagling, D.G. (ed.)

    1983-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This guide provides managers with practical guidelines for administering a comprehensive earthquake safety program. The Guide is comprehensive with respect to earthquakes in that it covers the most important aspects of natural hazards, site planning, evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings, design of new facilities, operational safety, emergency planning, special considerations related to shielding blocks, non-structural elements, lifelines, fire protection and emergency facilities. Management of risk and liabilities is also covered. Nuclear facilities per se are not dealt with specifically. The principles covered also apply generally to nuclear facilities but the design and construction of such structures are subject to special regulations and legal controls.

  17. TWRS safety program plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Calderon, L.M., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Management of Nuclear Safety, Industrial Safety, Industrial Hygiene, and Fire Protection programs, functions, and field support resources for Tank Waste Remediation Systems (TWRS) has, until recently, been centralized in TWRS Safety, under the Emergency, Safety, and Quality organization. Industrial hygiene technician services were also provided to support operational needs related to safety basis compliance. Due to WHC decentralization of safety and reengineering efforts in West Tank Farms, staffing and safety responsibilities have been transferred to the facilities. Under the new structure, safety personnel for TWRS are assigned directly to East Tank Farms, West Tank Farms, and a core Safety Group in TWRS Engineering. The Characterization Project Operations (CPO) safety organization will remain in tact as it currently exists. Personnel assigned to East Tank Farms, West Tank Farms, and CPO will perform facility-specific or project-specific duties and provide field implementation of programs. Those assigned to the core group will focus on activities having a TWRS-wide or programmatic focus. Hanford-wide activities will be the responsibility of the Safety Center of Expertise. In order to ensure an effective and consistent safety program for TWRS under the new organization program functions, goals, organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, and path forward must be clearly established. The purpose of the TWRS Safety Program Plan is to define the overall safety program, responsibilities, relationships, and communication linkages for safety personnel under the new structure. In addition, issues associated with reorganization transition are addressed, including training, project ownership, records management, and dissemination of equipment. For the purpose of this document ``TWRS Safety`` refers to all safety professionals and technicians (Industrial Safety, Industrial Hygiene, Fire Protection, and Nuclear Safety) within the TWRS organization, regardless of their location in the organization.

  18. FACILITY WORKER TECHNICAL BASIS DOCUMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SHULTZ, M.V.

    2005-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical basis document was developed to support RPP-13033, ''Tank Farms Documented Safety Analysis (DSA). It describes the criteria and methodology for allocating controls to hazardous conditions with significant facility worker (FW) consequence and presents the results of the allocation. The criteria and methodology for identifying controls that address FW safety are in accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, ''Preparation Guide for US Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses''.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. Evaluation of the US Department of Energy's occupational safety and health program for its government-owned contractor-operated facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An evaluation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) occupational safety and health programs for its government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) activities was completed by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in response to DOE's request for assistance. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide DOE with a blueprint for strengthening these programs. Under the leadership of Secretary of Energy James Watkins, DOE has launched a number of significant initiatives designed to instill a new culture of safety and health accountability within the Department. The Secretary of Energy's personal concern for safety and health was not being reflected in the priorities, resource allocation decisions and planning of DOE and GOCO managers. The report recommends that DOE consider major organizational changes, changes in priorities, and the development of operationally meaningful safety and health goals and objectives together with the accountability systems necessary to measure progress.

  1. Comparison of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and Probabilistic...

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

    Comparison of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for Fuel Cycle Facilities, 21711 Comparison of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and...

  2. EWEB – Existing Facilities Energy Efficiency Rebate Program

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) offers an extensive list of energy efficiency rebates for existing facilities that apply to both specific equipment, as well as customized rebates for more...

  3. Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria

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

    1993-01-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes nuclear safety criteria applicable to the design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements of nuclear reactor facilities and safety class structures, systems, and components (SSCs) within these facilities. Cancels paragraphs 8a and 8b of DOE 5480.6. Cancels DOE O 5480.6 in part. Certified 11-18-10.

  4. Integrated Safety Management Policy

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

    2011-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

    The policy establishes DOE's expectation for safety, including integrated safety management that will enable the Department’s mission goals to be accomplished efficiently while ensuring safe operations at all departmental facilities and activities. Cancels DOE P 411.1, DOE P 441.1, DOE P 450.2A, DOE P 450.4, and DOE P 450.7

  5. Surveillance Guide - OSS 19.2 Electrical Safety

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

    Date: Facility Representative RL Facility Representative Program March 9, 1995 Surveillance Guide OSS 19.2 Revision 0 Electrical Safety Page 5 of 8...

  6. Surveillance Guide - NSS 18.1 Criticality Safety

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

    Date: Facility Representative RL Facility Representative Program May 26, 1995 Surveillance Guide NSS-18.1 Revision 0 Criticality Safety Page 5 of 7...

  7. Surveillance Guide - NSS 18.2 Technical Safety Requirements

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

    Date: Facility Representative RL Facility Representative Program December 8, 2003 Surveillance Guide NSS 18.2 Revision 2 Technical Safety Requirements Page 5 of 5...

  8. ORSSAB Monthly Board Meeting

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The ORSSAB Monthly Board meeting is open to the public. This month, participants will be briefed on the East Tennessee Technology Park Zone 1 Soils Proposed Plan.

  9. ORSSAB monthly board meeting

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The ORSSAB monthly board meeting is open to the public. This month, participants will receive an update on the U-233 Project.

  10. ORSSAB monthly board meeting

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Board members and participants will hear a presentation and updates about "Sufficient Waste Disposal Capacity on the Oak Ridge Reservation." The meeting is open to the public.

  11. Quality Assurance Corporate Board | Department of Energy

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

    Assurance Corporate Board Quality Assurance Corporate Board The Office of Environmental Management (EM) Quality Assurance Corporate Board is an executive board that includes both...

  12. ACTION: Technical Position on the Use of National Consensus and Building Codes to Meet DOE Order 420.18, Facility Safety, Albright, 9/13/07

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The attached technical position was developed in response to line organization requests for clarification and it will be posted on the Office ofNuclear Safety and Environmental Policy web page for...

  13. Development of a pilot safety information document (PSID) for the replacement of radioactive liquid waste treatment facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Selvage, Ronald Derek

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Based on recent decisions made by Los Alamos National Laboratory concerning the development of site-wide National Environmental Policy Act documents, an effort was undertaken to develop a Pilot Safety Information Document (PSID) for the replacement...

  14. Appendix 4. Board Member Compensation PA State Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sibille, Etienne

    Agricultural Advisory Board 1 Agricultural Land Preservation Board, State 1 Agricultural Lands Condemnation for Water and Wastewater Systems and Operators, State Board for 1 Certified Real Estate Appraisers, State

  15. General Engineer / Physical Scientist (Facility Representative)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Facility Representatives (FRs) are line management's on-site technical representative with responsibility for identifying and evaluating environmental, safety and health issues and concerns,...

  16. Cold vacuum drying facility design requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the detailed design requirements for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Cold Vacuum Drying Facility. Process, safety, and quality assurance requirements and interfaces are specified.

  17. Toolbox Safety Talk Heat Stress

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Toolbox Safety Talk Heat Stress Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health Section for inducing heat stress. When the body is unable to cool itself by sweating, several heat-induced illnesses Stress · Know signs/symptoms of heat-related illnesses; monitor yourself and coworkers. · Block out

  18. Health and Safety Training Reciprocity

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

    2014-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    Establishes a policy for reciprocity of employee health and safety training among DOE entities responsible for employee health and safety at DOE sites and facilities to increase efficiency and effectiveness of Departmental operations while meeting established health and safety requirements. Does not cancel other directives.

  19. CHRPR Neutron Board Replacement Manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Erikson, Rebecca L.; Myjak, Mitchell J.

    2013-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This document will walk through the steps to exchange the neutron channel boards with gamma channel boards in the CHRPR box.

  20. Associate Vice President Facilities Management

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Milchberg, Howard

    Operations & Energy Services Jack Baker Executive Director Building & Landscape Maintenance Harry Teabout III Safety HVAC Systems HVAC Systems Administration/ Signs & Graphics Administration/ Signs & Graphics Piped-Campus Facilities Director Department of Engineering & Energy VACANT Energy Management Energy Management Engineering

  1. Homeland Security Issues for Facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    McClure, J. D.; Fisher, D.; Fenter, T.

    2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    more aware of safety, security, and protecting property and people should similar incidents occur in the future. The initial steps in facility protection are identifying potential threats and evaluating the condition of existing building infrastructure...

  2. Facility worker technical basis document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SHULTZ, M.V.

    2003-08-28T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical basis document was developed to support the Tank Farm Documented Safety Analysis (DSA). It describes the criteria and methodology for allocating controls to hazardous conditions with significant facility work consequence and presents the results of the allocation.

  3. Toolbox Safety Talk Aerial Work Platforms

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Toolbox Safety Talk Aerial Work Platforms Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Aerial work platforms are important tools and if used correctly, and equipment damage. This guide addresses safe use of aerial work platforms and provides tips to prevent

  4. SAFETY PROCEDURE SP-24 NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Weston, Ken

    affecting facility operations or equipment, including electrical, life safety, mechanical, or plumbing outages to any area in the NHMFL. Advance notice to affected areas shall be provided by the Facilities

  5. ORSSAB monthly board meeting

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Board members and participants will hear a presentation and updates about the "Y-12 Mercury Cleanup Strategy and Plan for a Y-12 Water Treatment Plant." The meeting is open to the public.

  6. ORSSAB monthly board meeting

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Board members and participants will hear a presentation and updates about the "Selection of a Remediation Strategy for Trench 13 in Melton Valley." The meeting is open to the public.

  7. Safety and Training | Advanced Photon Source

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

    Form Reference Material APS domain only Configuration Control Incidents and Follow-ups Facility Hazard Analysis Glove Selection | Safety Shoe Mobile LOM Shop Usage Recycling:...

  8. Safety and Security Enforcement Coordinator Handbook

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

    DART Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred DOE U.S. Department of Energy DSA Documented Safety Analysis EFCOG Energy Facility Contractors Group EGS Enforcement Guidance Supplement...

  9. Total safety: A new safety culture to integrate nuclear safety and operational safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saji, G. [Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Ibaraki-ken (Japan); Murphy, G.A. [ed.

    1991-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The creation of a complete and thorough safety culture is proposed for the purpose of providing additional assurance about nuclear safety and improving the performance of nuclear power plants. The safety philosophy developed a combination of the former hardware-oriented nuclear safety approach and recent operational safety concepts. The improvement of the latter, after TMI-2 and Chernobyl, has been proven very effective in reducing the total risk associated with nuclear power plants. The first part of this article introduces a {open_quotes}total safety{close_quotes} concept. This extends the concept of {open_quotes}nuclear safety{close_quotes} and makes it closer to the public perception of safety. This concept is defined by means of a taxonomy of total safety. The second part of the article shows that total safety can be achieved by integrating it into a modern quality assurance (QA) system since it is tailored to make implementation into a framework of QA easier. The author believes that the outstanding success experienced by various industries as a result of introducing the modern QA system should lead to its application for ensuring the safety and performance of nuclear facilities. 15 refs., 3 figs.

  10. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the tank farm facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crummel, G.M.

    1998-05-18T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  11. Kansas City Board of Public Utilities- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Kansas City Board of Public Utilities provides incentives for commercial customers to install, or upgrade to, energy efficiency equipment in new and existing facilities.Rebates are available...

  12. University of New Mexico Board of Regents Committees 2014-2015 Operations Committee

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maccabe, Barney

    University of New Mexico Board of Regents Committees 2014-2015 Operations Committee Regent and Facilities Committee James H. Koch, Chair Conrad D. James, Ph.D. , Vice Chair J.E. Gene Gallegos Audit N. Overton Lobo Energy Board (meets quarterly) J.E. Gene Gallegos, Vice Chair Conrad D. James, Ph

  13. Mound facility physical characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tonne, W.R.; Alexander, B.M.; Cage, M.R.; Hase, E.H.; Schmidt, M.J.; Schneider, J.E.; Slusher, W.; Todd, J.E.

    1993-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this report is to provide a baseline physical characterization of Mound`s facilities as of September 1993. The baseline characterizations are to be used in the development of long-term future use strategy development for the Mound site. This document describes the current missions and alternative future use scenarios for each building. Current mission descriptions cover facility capabilities, physical resources required to support operations, current safety envelope and current status of facilities. Future use scenarios identify potential alternative future uses, facility modifications required for likely use, facility modifications of other uses, changes to safety envelope for the likely use, cleanup criteria for each future use scenario, and disposition of surplus equipment. This Introductory Chapter includes an Executive Summary that contains narrative on the Functional Unit Material Condition, Current Facility Status, Listing of Buildings, Space Plans, Summary of Maintenance Program and Repair Backlog, Environmental Restoration, and Decontamination and Decommissioning Programs. Under Section B, Site Description, is a brief listing of the Site PS Development, as well as Current Utility Sources. Section C contains Site Assumptions. A Maintenance Program Overview, as well as Current Deficiencies, is contained within the Maintenance Program Chapter.

  14. 324 Building safety basis criteria document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    STEFFEN, J.M.

    1999-06-02T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety Basis Criteria document describes the proposed format, content, and schedule for the preparation of an updated Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Operational Safety Requirements document (OSR) for the 324 Building. These updated safety authorization basis documents are intended to cover stabilization and deactivation activities that will prepare the facility for turnover to the Environmental Restoration Contractor for final decommissioning. The purpose of this document is to establish the specific set of criteria needed for technical upgrades to the 324 Facility Safety Authorization Basis, as required by Project Hanford Procedure HNF-PRO-705, Safety Basis Planning, Documentation, Review, and Approval.

  15. Cold Vacuum Drying Facility hazard analysis report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krahn, D.E.

    1998-02-23T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  16. Tank Farms Technical Safety Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DANNA, M.A.

    2003-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    The TSRs define the acceptable conditions, safe boundaries, bases thereof, and controls to ensure safe operation during authorized activities, for facilities within the scope of the Tank Farms Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), in parallel with the DSA.

  17. Local Trip Out Logic Board Out

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Evans, Hal

    Board to Logic Board Cables ethernet style cables 1 per comparator board run these USA15toUX15 (~100m

  18. Environmental Management Advisory Board Members | Department...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Member Read Bio David W. Swindle, Jr. EMAB Board Member Read Bio Robert J. Thompson EMAB Board Member Read Bio Lenn Vincent EMAB Board Member Read Bio Waste...

  19. RESEARCH SAFETY RADIATION SAFETY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    and Communications Manager (951) 827-6303 janette.ducut@ucr.edu Beiwei Tu, MS, CIH, CSP Safety and Industrial Hygiene

  20. LANSCE | Facilities

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

    LINAC Outreach Affiliations Visiting LANSCE Facilities Isotope Production Facility Lujan Neutron Scattering Center MaRIE Proton Radiography Ultracold Neutrons Weapons Neutron...

  1. Hanford Generic Interim Safety Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lavender, J.C.

    1994-09-09T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this document is to identify WHC programs and requirements that are an integral part of the authorization basis for nuclear facilities that are generic to all WHC-managed facilities. The purpose of these programs is to implement the DOE Orders, as WHC becomes contractually obligated to implement them. The Hanford Generic ISB focuses on the institutional controls and safety requirements identified in DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.

  2. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides elaboration for the content of TSRs. Section 10 CFR 830.205 of the Nuclear Safety Management rule, requires Department of Energy (DOE) contractors responsible for category 1, 2, and 3 DOE nuclear facilities to develop Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs). These TSRs identify the limitations to each DOE owned, contractor operated nuclear facility based on the documented safety analysis (DSA) and any additional safety requirements established for the facility. Cancels DOE G 423.1-1.

  3. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides elaboration for the content of TSRs. Section 10 CFR 830.205 of the Nuclear Safety Management rule, requires Department of Energy (DOE) contractors responsible for category 1, 2, and 3 DOE nuclear facilities to develop Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs). These TSRs identify the limitations to each DOE owned, contractor operated nuclear facility based on the documented safety analysis (DSA) and any additional safety requirements established for the facility. Does not cancel other directives.

  4. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Members

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Appendix A Appendix A U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Members Jared L. Cohon, Ph.D.; Chairman On June 29, 1995, President Bill Clinton appointed Jared Cohon to the Nuclear Waste Technical, and Asia and on energy facil ity siting, including nuclear waste shipping and storage. In addition to his

  5. B PLANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD, E.N.; KERR, N.R.

    2003-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the documented safety analysis (DSA) and Central Plateau Remediation Project (CP) requirements that apply to surveillance and maintenance (S&M) activities at the 221-B Canyon Building and ancillary support structures (B Plant). The document replaces BHI-010582, Documented Safety Analysis for the B-Plant Facility. The B Plant is non-operational, deactivated and undergoing long term S&M prior to decontamination and decommissioning (D&D). This DSA is compliant with 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management, Subpart B, ''Safety Basis Requirements.'' The DSA was developed in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) standard DOE-STD-1120-98, Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities (DOE 1998) per Table 2 of 10 CFR 830 Appendix A, DOE Richland Operation Office (RL) direction (02-ABD-0053, Fluor Hanford Nuclear Safety Basis Strategy and Criteria) for facilities in long term S&M, and RL Direction (02-ABD-0091, ''FHI Nuclear Safety Expectations for Nuclear Facilities in Surveillance and Maintenance''). A crosswalk was prepared to identify potential inconsistencies between the previous B Plant safety analysis and DOE-STD-1120-98 guidance. In general, the safety analysis met the criteria of DOE-STD-1120-98. Some format and content changes have been made, including incorporating recent facility modifications and updating the evaluation guidelines and control selection criteria in accordance with RL direction (02-ABD-0053). The facility fire hazard analysis (FHA) and Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) are appended to this DSA as an aid to the users, to minimize editorial redundancy, and to provide an efficient basis for update.

  6. Introduction to LNG vehicle safety. Topical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bratvold, D.; Friedman, D.; Chernoff, H.; Farkhondehpay, D.; Comay, C.

    1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Basic information on the characteristics of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is assembled in this report to provide an overview of safety issues and practices for the use of LNG vehicles. This document is intended for those planning or considering the use of LNG vehicles, including vehicle fleet owners and operators, public transit officials and boards, local fire and safety officials, manufacturers and distributors, and gas industry officials. Safety issues and mitigation measures that should be considered for candidate LNG vehicle projects are addressed.

  7. Microsoft PowerPoint - Fire Safety workshop NQA-1 CGD 4 29 15...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear and Facility Safety Programs Workshop Fire Safety Track May 5th, 2015 Overview NQA 1 Commercial Grade Dedication Critical Characteristics Department of Energy Nuclear and...

  8. K Basin safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1994-12-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Follow Up Response from the Task Force on High Performance Computing November 30, 2014 On August 18, 2014, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board...

  10. Facility Microgrids

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ye, Z.; Walling, R.; Miller, N.; Du, P.; Nelson, K.

    2005-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Microgrids are receiving a considerable interest from the power industry, partly because their business and technical structure shows promise as a means of taking full advantage of distributed generation. This report investigates three issues associated with facility microgrids: (1) Multiple-distributed generation facility microgrids' unintentional islanding protection, (2) Facility microgrids' response to bulk grid disturbances, and (3) Facility microgrids' intentional islanding.

  11. ANNUAL SECURITY & FIRE SAFETY REPORT

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maxwell, Bruce D.

    ANNUAL SECURITY & FIRE SAFETY REPORT 2014 A guide to policies, procedures, practices, and programs implemented to keep students, faculty, and staff safe and facilities secure. www.montana.edu/reports/security.pdf #12;Inside this Report 2014 Annual Security and Fire Safety Report for Reporting Year 2013

  12. ACADEMIC BOARD Information for members

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    University of Technology, Sydney

    Principles and Quality Management Framework........................... 7 Self......................................................... 31 Attachment 2 -- Academic Board Quality Management Framework............. 32 http

  13. Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board 2009 Annual Report of the Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board 2010 Annual Report of the #12;2010 Annual Report of the Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology

  14. STAR Facility Tritium Accountancy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. J. Pawelko; J. P. Sharpe; B. J. Denny

    2007-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) facility has been established to provide a laboratory infrastructure for the fusion community to study tritium science associated with the development of safe fusion energy and other technologies. STAR is a radiological facility with an administrative total tritium inventory limit of 1.5g (14,429 Ci) [1]. Research studies with moderate tritium quantities and various radionuclides are performed in STAR. Successful operation of the STAR facility requires the ability to receive, inventory, store, dispense tritium to experiments, and to dispose of tritiated waste while accurately monitoring the tritium inventory in the facility. This paper describes tritium accountancy in the STAR facility. A primary accountancy instrument is the tritium Storage and Assay System (SAS): a system designed to receive, assay, store, and dispense tritium to experiments. Presented are the methods used to calibrate and operate the SAS. Accountancy processes utilizing the Tritium Cleanup System (TCS), and the Stack Tritium Monitoring System (STMS) are also discussed. Also presented are the equations used to quantify the amount of tritium being received into the facility, transferred to experiments, and removed from the facility. Finally, the STAR tritium accountability database is discussed.

  15. STAR facility tritium accountancy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pawelko, R. J.; Sharpe, J. P.; Denny, B. J. [Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 (United States)

    2008-07-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) facility has been established to provide a laboratory infrastructure for the fusion community to study tritium science associated with the development of safe fusion energy and other technologies. STAR is a radiological facility with an administrative total tritium inventory limit of 1.5 g (14,429 Ci) [1]. Research studies with moderate tritium quantities and various radionuclides are performed in STAR. Successful operation of the STAR facility requires the ability to receive, inventory, store, dispense tritium to experiments, and to dispose of tritiated waste while accurately monitoring the tritium inventory in the facility. This paper describes tritium accountancy in the STAR facility. A primary accountancy instrument is the tritium Storage and Assay System (SAS): a system designed to receive, assay, store, and dispense tritium to experiments. Presented are the methods used to calibrate and operate the SAS. Accountancy processes utilizing the Tritium Cleanup System (TCS), and the Stack Tritium Monitoring System (STMS) are also discussed. Also presented are the equations used to quantify the amount of tritium being received into the facility, transferred to experiments, and removed from the facility. Finally, the STAR tritium accountability database is discussed. (authors)

  16. Status and Effectiveness of DOE Efforts to Learn from Internal and External Operating Experience in Accordance with Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-1

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directedAnnual Site EnvironmentalEnergySafelyVirtual ToolkitDecommissioning(September 2014) |

  17. Assessment of technologies for hazardous waste site remediation: Non-treatment technologies and pilot scale facility implementation -- excavation -- storage technology -- safety analysis and review statement. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, H.R.; Overbey, W.K. Jr.; Koperna, G.J. Jr.

    1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this study is to assess the state-of-the-art of excavation technology as related to environmental remediation applications. A further purpose is to determine which of the excavation technologies reviewed could be used by the US Corp of Engineers in remediating contaminated soil to be excavated in the near future for construction of a new Lock and Dam at Winfield, WV. The study is designed to identify excavation methodologies and equipment which can be used at any environmental remediation site but more specifically at the Winfield site on the Kanawha River in Putnam County, West Virginia. A technical approach was determined whereby a functional analysis was prepared to determine the functions to be conducted during the excavation phase of the remediation operations. A number of excavation technologies were identified from the literature. A set of screening criteria was developed that would examine the utility and ranking of the technologies with respect to the operations that needed to be conducted at the Winfield site. These criteria were performance, reliability, implementability, environmental safety, public health, and legal and regulatory compliance. The Loose Bulk excavation technology was ranked as the best technology applicable to the Winfield site. The literature was also examined to determine the success of various methods of controlling fugitive dust. Depending upon any changes in the results of chemical analyses, or prior remediation of the VOCs from the vadose zone, consideration should be given to testing a new ``Pneumatic Excavator`` which removes the VOCs liberated during the excavation process as they outgas from the soil. This equipment however would not be needed on locations with low levels of VOC emissions.

  18. 222-S Laboratory interim safety basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WEAVER, L.L.

    2001-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this document is to establish the Interim Safety Basis (ISB) for the 222-S Laboratory. An ISB is a documented safety basis that provides the justification for the continued operation of the facility until an upgraded documented safety analysis (DSA) is prepared in compliance with 10CFR 830, Subpart B. The 222-S Laboratory ISB is based on revised facility and process descriptions and revised accident analyses that reflect current conditions.

  19. Hazard Baseline Downgrade Effluent Treatment Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blanchard, A.

    1998-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

    This Hazard Baseline Downgrade reviews the Effluent Treatment Facility, in accordance with Department of Energy Order 5480.23, WSRC11Q Facility Safety Document Manual, DOE-STD-1027-92, and DOE-EM-STD-5502-94. It provides a baseline grouping based on the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the facility. The Determination of the baseline grouping for ETF will aid in establishing the appropriate set of standards for the facility.

  20. Type A Accident Investigation Board Report of the July 28, 1998, Fatality and Multiple Injuries Resulting from Release of Carbon Dioxide at Building 648, Test Reactor Area, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report is an independent product of the Type A Accident Investigation Board appointed by Peter N. Brush, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1).

  1. CRITICALITY SAFETY TRAINING AT FLUOR HANFORD (FH)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TOFFER, H.

    2005-05-02T23:59:59.000Z

    The Fluor Hanford Criticality Safety engineers are extensively trained. The objectives and requirements for training are derived from Department of Energy (DOE) and American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society Standards (ANSI/ANS), and are captured in the Hanford Criticality Safety Program manual, HNF-7098. Qualification cards have been established for the general Criticality Safety Engineer (CSE) analyst, CSEs who support specific facilities, and for the facility Criticality Safety Representatives (CSRs). Refresher training and continuous education in the discipline are emphasized. Weekly Brown Bag Sessions keep the criticality safety engineers informed of the latest developments and historic perspectives.

  2. Toolbox Safety Talk DOT Materials of Trade

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Toolbox Safety Talk DOT ­ Materials of Trade Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety by Trades personnel that meet the definition of hazardous materials even though they may be sold as consumer commodities. The DOT regulations have exceptions for Materials of Trade (MOT). The MOT exception provides

  3. Chemical Safety Vulnerability Working Group Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report marks the culmination of a 4-month review conducted to identify chemical safety vulnerabilities existing at DOE facilities. This review is an integral part of DOE's efforts to raise its commitment to chemical safety to the same level as that for nuclear safety.

  4. Toolbox Safety Talk Articulating Boom Work Platforms

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Toolbox Safety Talk Articulating Boom Work Platforms Environmental Health & Safety Facilities sign-in sheet to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Articulating boom work platforms platforms and provides tips to prevent injuries, death, and equipment damage. More information can be found

  5. Safety Basis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R.J. Garrett

    2002-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the internal Integrated Safety Management Assessment verification process, it was determined that there was a lack of documentation that summarizes the safety basis of the current Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) site characterization activities. It was noted that a safety basis would make it possible to establish a technically justifiable graded approach to the implementation of the requirements identified in the Standards/Requirements Identification Document. The Standards/Requirements Identification Documents commit a facility to compliance with specific requirements and, together with the hazard baseline documentation, provide a technical basis for ensuring that the public and workers are protected. This Safety Basis Report has been developed to establish and document the safety basis of the current site characterization activities, establish and document the hazard baseline, and provide the technical basis for identifying structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that perform functions necessary to protect the public, the worker, and the environment from hazards unique to the YMP site characterization activities. This technical basis for identifying SSCs serves as a grading process for the implementation of programs such as Conduct of Operations (DOE Order 5480.19) and the Suspect/Counterfeit Items Program. In addition, this report provides a consolidated summary of the hazards analyses processes developed to support the design, construction, and operation of the YMP site characterization facilities and, therefore, provides a tool for evaluating the safety impacts of changes to the design and operation of the YMP site characterization activities.

  6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny:RevisedAdvisory Board Contributions EMEM STAR Certified Homes,|ASSESSMENT

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiegand, D.L.

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greager, E.M.

    1997-12-11T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  9. National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade SAFETY ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

    -00 Revision 6 DECEMBER 2014 Prepared by: _______________________ Jerry Levine Head, PPPL ESH&S Reviewed by Chair, PPPL ES&H Executive Board #12;#12;NSTX-U SAFETY ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT (SAD) Table of Contents 1

  10. Sandia National Laboratories: Excellence Award in the 2012 Facilities...

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

    Testing Excellence Award in the 2012 Facilities Environmental, Safety and Health Go Green Initiative On December 19, 2012, in Concentrating Solar Power, Energy, Events,...

  11. Waste receiving and processing facility module 1 auditable safetyanalysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bottenus, R.J.

    1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Receiving and Processing Facility Module 1 Auditable Safety Analysis analyzes postulated accidents and determines controls to prevent the accidents or mitigate the consequences.

  12. Analysis of environment, safety, and health (ES{ampersand}H) management systems for Department of Energy (DOE) Defense Programs (DP) facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neglia, A. V., LLNL

    1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary analysis and comparison of various environment, safety, and health (ES&H) management systems required of, or suggested for use by, the Departrnent of Energy Defense Programs` sites. The summary analysis is provided by means of a comparison matrix, a set of Vean diagrams that highlights the focus of the systems, and an `End Gate` filter diagram that integrates the three Vean diagrams. It is intended that this paper will act as a starting point for implementing a particular system or in establishing a comprehensive site-wide integrated ES&H management system. Obviously, the source documents for each system would need to be reviewed to assure proper implementation of a particular system. The matrix compares nine ES&H management systems against a list of elements generated by identifying the unique elements of all the systems. To simplify the matrix, the elements are listed by means of a brief title. An explanation of the matrix elements is provided in Attachment 2 entitled, `Description of System Elements.` The elements are categorized under the Total Quality Management (TQM) `Plan, Do, Check, Act` framework with the added category of `Policy`. (The TQM concept is explained in the `DOE Quality Management implementation Guidelines,` July 1997 (DOE/QM- 0008)). The matrix provides a series of columns and rows to compare the unique elements found in each of the management systems. A `V` is marked if the element is explicitly identified as part of the particular ES&H management system. An `X` is marked if the element is not found in the particular ES&H management system, or if it is considered to be inadequately addressed. A `?` is marked if incorporation of the element is not clear. Attachment I provides additional background information which explains the justification for the marks in the matrix cells. Through the Vean diagrams and the `End Gate` filter in Section 3, the paper attempts to pictorially display the focus of each system with respect to ES&H, the hazard of concern, and any limitations with respect to the TQM categories. A summary evaluation and explanation of each of the systems is provided in Section 4 of the paper. Several other ES&H systems were reviewed in preparation of the paper, but were not specifically included as a system in this matrix. Only those ES&H management systems that are potentially applicable to DOE Defense Program sites were included as part of the matrix comparison. A description of other ES&H management systems that were evaluated, but not specifically incorporated in this matrix comparison, are provided in Attachment 3 entitled, `Other ES&H Management Systems Reviewed.` In the past, it has been difficult integrating ES&H into work planning for several reasons. One barrier to this integration has been the complexity caused by the existence of several `stove pipe` ES&H systems. By analyzing the unique elements of the various ES&H systems, as well as their strengths and limitations, and their similarities and differences, it is envisioned that this paper will aid in facilitating the integration of ES&H into work planning. This paper was developed by the Office of Defense Programs (DP-45) and all questions or comments should be directed to Anthony Neglia of that office at (301) 903-3531 or Anthony.Neglia@dp.doe.gov.

  13. POST-CONSTRUCTION WILDLIFE MONITORING AT THE ATLANTIC CITY UTILITIES AUTHORITY-JERSEY ATLANTIC WIND POWER FACILITY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Firestone, Jeremy

    WIND POWER FACILITY PROJECT STATUS REPORT IV Submitted to: New Jersey Board of Public Utilities New Authority (ACUA) wind power facility. The period covered by this report is 1 January to 31 August 2009

  14. Process safety management (OSHA) and process risk management (CAA) application. Application to a coke plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Graeser, W.C.; Mentzer, W.P.

    1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accidental Release Prevention is the name of the proposed rule for the RMP Risk Management Program. The RMP was written in response to several catastrophic releases of hazardous substances. The rule is applicable to facilities that store, process or use greater than threshold quantities of 62 listed flammable chemicals and another 100 listed toxic substances. Additionally, a Risk Management Plan is registered with the EPA, Chemical Safety and Hazardous Investigation Board, state governments and the local emergency planning commission. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (specifically Section 112r) required the EPA to develop a three phase Risk Management Plan for industry: prevention program; hazard assessment; and emergency response program. The Prevention Program closely follows the OSHA`s Process Safety Management Standard. The Hazard Assessment section requires facilities to develop plans for a worst case scenario. The Emergency Response section defines the steps the facility and each employee will take if a release occurs. This section also needs to be coordinated with the Local Emergency Planning Commission. These regulations are described using Clairton Works as an example of compliance.

  15. Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    (TSR), ABD-WFM-006, Revision 2.1 Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility (WCRRF)Technical Safety Requirements (TSR), ABD-WFM-006, Revision 2.1 The...

  16. Oak Ridge Critical Experiment Facility (Building 9213)

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

    Joe has continued to hold up this facility as one of the key elements in today's nuclear criticality safety program worldwide. He attributes much of what is routine about...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L.J.

    2003-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Hanford surplus facilities programs facilities listings and descriptions. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kiser, S.K.; Witt, T.L.

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On the Hanford Site, many surplus facilities exist (including buildings, stacks, tanks, cribs, burial grounds, and septic systems) that are scheduled to be decommissioned. Many of these facilities contain large inventories of radionuclides, which present potential radiological hazards on and off the Hanford Site. Some structures with limited structural deterioration present potential radiological and industrial safety hazards to personnel. Because of the condition of these facilities, a systematic surveillance and maintenance program is performed to identify and correct potential hazards to personnel and the environment until eventual decommissioning operations are completed.

  19. Hanford Advisory Board HAB

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) EnvironmentalGyroSolé(tm) Harmonic EngineHIV andApril 8-9, Advisory Board HAB Annual

  20. Hanford Advisory Board Orientation

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) EnvironmentalGyroSolé(tm) Harmonic EngineHIV andApril 8-9, Advisory Board HABMember

  1. Hanford Advisory Board Values

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) EnvironmentalGyroSolé(tm) Harmonic EngineHIV andApril 8-9, Advisory BoardPageValues

  2. Board of Directors - SRSCRO

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOnItem NotEnergy,ARMForms About Batteries Batteries An errorABisfuel RetreatsforBoard of

  3. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Board will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on the Department's basic and applied research and development activities, economic and national security policy,...

  4. Environmental Health and Safety Radiation Control and Radiological

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Slatton, Clint

    Environmental Health and Safety Radiation Control and Radiological Services #12;· Course focuses into six departments: 1) Facility and Fire Safety Pest Control and Fire Equipment Service Units 2) Radiation Control and Radiological Services University-wide radiation protection 3) Occupational

  5. Energy Department Announces Creation of New Health, Safety and...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    the health, safety, and security of the DOE workers, facilities and the public. The new office, called the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), will help formulate and...

  6. 2015 DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop | Department...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    2015 DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop 2015 DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop WHEN: May 5 and 6, 2015 (EFCOG Meeting on May 7) WHERE: Nevada Support Facility...

  7. CRAD, Criteria and Guidelines For the Assessment of Safety System...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    and Guidelines For the Assessment of Safety System Software and Firmware at Defense Nuclear Facilities Performance Objective: The purpose and scope of this CRAD is to provide...

  8. Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments | Department...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    examine implementation of safety management programs during phases of the life cycle of a nuclear facility including operation, deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning and...

  9. DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into...

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

    of Energy (DOE) approved methodology for preparing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for decommissioning of nuclear facilities, as well as environmental restoration activities...

  10. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental...

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

    Safety, must comply with national consensus industry standards and the model building codes applicable for the state or region in which the facility is located. Certain...

  11. Safety evaluation for packaging (onsite) product removal can containers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boettger, J.S.

    1997-04-29T23:59:59.000Z

    This safety evaluation for packaging allows the transport of nine Product Removal (PR) Cans with their Containers from the PUREX Facility to the Plutonium Finishing Plant.

  12. Safety System Oversight Assessment of the Los Alamos National...

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

    Safety System Oversight Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility Tritium Gas Handling System INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This report...

  13. Sandia National Laboratories: Safety and Health Go Green Initiative

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

    Initiative Excellence Award in the 2012 Facilities Environmental, Safety and Health Go Green Initiative On December 19, 2012, in Concentrating Solar Power, Energy, Events,...

  14. Comparison of Intergrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and Probabilistic...

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

    DC 20555-0001 SUBJECT: COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED SAFETY ANALYSIS (ISA) AND PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA) FOR FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES Dear Chairman Jaczko: During the 580 th...

  15. Formal Session of the Board of Control Michigan Technological University

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    . Appointment of Nominating Committee E. 2012-2013 Room and Board and Apartment Rental Rates F. Approval for Mac Safety Statistics G. Disposal of Surplus Property #12;VIII. Other Business IX. Public Comments X. Closed,785,603 Private Foundations 2,558,749 Gifts-in-Kind 5,268,849 Grand Total $162,396,269 2 Draft #12;3 $16 $20 $22

  16. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board Kenneth L. Casavant, Chair Roger Mann, Vice-Chair Joel R of Independent Economic Analysis Board's Activities and Contributions to NPPC Fish and Wildlife Planning document of achieving the same sound biological objective exist, the alternative with the minimum economic cost

  17. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board Daniel D. Huppert, Chair Lon L. Peters, Vice-Chair Joel R. Hamilton Kenneth L. Casavant Jack A. Richards Roger Mann Paul C. Sorensen Hans Radtke Economic Review of Instream Water Supply Components of the Salmon Creek Project Independent Economic Analysis Board Northwest

  18. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board Roger Mann, Chair Noelwah R. Netusil, Vice-Chair Kenneth L. Casavant Daniel D. Huppert Joel R. Hamilton Lon L. Peters Susan S. Hanna Hans Radtke A I - 1 Economic Effects From Columbia River Basin Anadromous Salmonid Fish Production Independent Economic Analysis Board

  19. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board Hans Radtke, Chair Roger Mann, Vice-Chair Daniel D. Huppert Joel R. Hamilton Susan S. Hanna John Duffield Noelwah R. Netusil Independent Economic Analysis Board Task Number 139 Integrated Hatchery Operations: Fish and Wildlife Program Costs and Other Economic

  20. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board Daniel D. Huppert, Chair Lon L. Peters, Vice-Chair Joel R and Guidance for Economic Analysis in Subbasin Planning Independent Economic Analysis Board January 2003, document IEAB 2003-2 Summary Subbasin planning may need to consider two types of economic issues; 1

  1. Nutrient Management Advisory Board ~Approved ~

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Kaye, Jason P.

    ) to order at 10:06 AM in room 309 of the PDA Building in Harrisburg. The following Board members meeting of the Board is scheduled for April 22, 2010, from 1:00 ­ 4:00 PM, in Room 309 of the Harrisburg

  2. Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Magee, Joseph W.

    Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board 2009 Annual Report of the #12;2009 Annual Report of the Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Technology Innovation Program February 2010 #12;For Information regarding the Technology

  3. Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board 2011 Annual Report of the #12;#12;i 2011 Annual Report of the Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Technology Innovation Program March 2012 #12;ii For Information regarding the Technology

  4. Industrial Engineering Industrial Advisory Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Gelfond, Michael

    Industrial Engineering Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) #12;PURPOSE: The Texas Tech University - Industrial Engineering Industrial Ad- visory Board (IAB) is an association of professionals with a com- mon goal - promoting and developing the Texas Tech Department of Industrial Engineering and its students

  5. Weapons engineering tritium facility overview

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Najera, Larry [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2011-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

    Materials provide an overview of the Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility (WETF) as introductory material for January 2011 visit to SRS. Purpose of the visit is to discuss Safety Basis, Conduct of Engineering, and Conduct of Operations. WETF general description and general GTS program capabilities are presented in an unclassified format.

  6. CRAD, Facility Safety - Documented Safety Analysis | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China U.S. Department ofJune 2,The BigSidingState6Report,COMMENTS ONPRGMofRev.A section of

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China U.S. Department ofJune 2,The BigSidingState6Report,COMMENTSpurpose of

  8. Radiological safety training for uranium facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This handbook contains recommended training materials consistent with DOE standardized core radiological training material. These materials consist of a program management guide, instructor`s guide, student guide, and overhead transparencies.

  9. Radiological Safety Training for Accelerator Facilities

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn April 23, 2014, an OHASeptember 2010In addition to 1 |D IMEASUREMENT1-20082TS NOT

  10. Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn April 23, 2014, an OHASeptember 2010In addition to 1 |D IMEASUREMENT1-20082TS

  11. Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn April 23, 2014, an OHASeptember 2010In addition to 1 |D IMEASUREMENT1-20082TSNOT

  12. Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn April 23, 2014, an OHASeptember 2010In addition to 1 |DDOE HDBK-1113-2008 April 2008 DOE

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    EVANS, C B

    2004-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  14. Facility effluent monitoring plan for 242-A evaporator facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crummel, G.M.; Gustavson, R.D.

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the U.S. Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could affect employee or public safety or the environment. A facility effluent monitoring plan determination was performed during Calendar Year 1991 and the evaluation showed the need for a facility effluent monitoring plan. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-1. 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, as a minimum, every three years.

  15. Reactor operation safety information document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  16. Westinghouse Hanford Company safety analysis reports and technical safety requirements upgrade program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Busche, D.M.

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    During Fiscal Year 1992, the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) separately transmitted the following US Department of Energy (DOE) Orders to Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) for compliance: DOE 5480.21, ``Unreviewed Safety Questions,`` DOE 5480.22, ``Technical Safety Requirements,`` and DOE 5480.23, ``Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.`` WHC has proceeded with its impact assessment and implementation process for the Orders. The Orders are closely-related and contain some requirements that are either identical, similar, or logically-related. Consequently, WHC has developed a strategy calling for an integrated implementation of the three Orders. The strategy is comprised of three primary objectives, namely: Obtain DOE approval of a single list of DOE-owned and WHC-managed Nuclear Facilities, Establish and/or upgrade the ``Safety Basis`` for each Nuclear Facility, and Establish a functional Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) process to govern the management and preservation of the Safety Basis for each Nuclear Facility. WHC has developed policy-revision and facility-specific implementation plans to accomplish near-term tasks associated with the above strategic objectives. This plan, which as originally submitted in August 1993 and approved, provided an interpretation of the new DOE Nuclear Facility definition and an initial list of WHC-managed Nuclear Facilities. For each current existing Nuclear Facility, existing Safety Basis documents are identified and the plan/status is provided for the ISB. Plans for upgrading SARs and developing TSRs will be provided after issuance of the corresponding Rules.

  17. On the quantification of safety margins

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pagani, Lorenzo P

    2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The nuclear industry has relied on the concept of Defense in Depth (DID) and traditional safety margins to deal with the uncertainties associated with the design and operation of nuclear facilities. These concepts were ...

  18. University Services University Health and Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Minnesota, University of

    Management Storm and Waste Water Compliance Promote Environmental Health Drinking Water Quality Human with environmental, health and safety standards, rules and best practices. Through partnerships with units with Capital Planning and Project Management, Facilities Management and academic departments throughout

  19. Safety assured financial evaluation of maintenance

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Erguina, Vera

    2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Management decisions in complex industrial facilities usually consider both the economic and environmental aspects of the plant's performance. For nuclear power plants (NPPs), safety is also a very substantial issue. The objectives...

  20. Materials Sciences Division Integrated Safety Management Plan

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Materials Sciences Division Integrated Safety Management Plan Revised: February 9, 2012 Prepared by: signed Feb. 9, 2012 Rick Kelly, Facility/EH&S Manager Submitted by: signed Feb. 9, 2012 Miquel Salmeron.1 RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY THROUGH LINE MANAGEMENT............................................................5

  1. Biological Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The DOE's Biological Safety Program provides a forum for the exchange of best practices, lessons learned, and guidance in the area of biological safety. This content is supported by the Biosurety Executive Team. The Biosurety Executive Team is a DOE-chartered group. The DOE Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy provides administrative support for this group. The group identifies biological safety-related issues of concern to the DOE and pursues solutions to issues identified.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE, R.D.

    2000-08-07T23:59:59.000Z

    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. Nuclear Criticality Safety Application Guide: Safety Analysis Report Update Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. (MMES) is committed to performing and documenting safety analyses for facilities it manages for the Department of Energy (DOE). Safety analyses are performed to identify hazards and potential accidents; to analyze the adequacy of measures taken to eliminate, control, or mitigate hazards; and to evaluate potential accidents and determine associated risks. Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) are prepared to document the safety analysis to ensure facilities can be operated safely and in accordance with regulations. Many of the facilities requiring a SAR process fissionable material creating the potential for a nuclear criticality accident. MMES has long had a nuclear criticality safety program that provides the technical support to fissionable material operations to ensure the safe processing and storage of fissionable materials. The guiding philosophy of the program has always been the application of the double-contingency principle, which states: {open_quotes}process designs shall incorporate sufficient factors of safety to require at least two unlikely, independent, and concurrent changes in process conditions before a criticality accident is possible.{close_quotes} At Energy Systems analyses have generally been maintained to document that no single normal or abnormal operating conditions that could reasonably be expected to occur can cause a nuclear criticality accident. This application guide provides a summary description of the MMES Nuclear Criticality Safety Program and the MMES Criticality Accident Alarm System requirements for inclusion in facility SARs. The guide also suggests a way to incorporate the analyses conducted pursuant to the double-contingency principle into the SAR. The prime objective is to minimize duplicative effort between the NCSA process and the SAR process and yet adequately describe the methodology utilized to prevent a nuclear criticality accident.

  4. ARM - ARM Science Board

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOnItemResearchSOLICITATIONIMODI FICATION OF CONTRACTOperationsYearSafety Policy

  5. Fast Reactor Spent Fuel Processing: Experience and Criticality Safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chad Pope

    2007-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper discusses operational and criticality safety experience associated with the Idaho National Laboratory Fuel Conditioning Facility which uses a pyrometallurgical process to treat spent fast reactor metallic fuel. The process is conducted in an inert atmosphere hot cell. The process starts with chopping metallic fuel elements into a basket. The basket is lowered into molten salt (LiCl-KCl) along with a steel mandrel. Active metal fission products, transuranic metals and sodium metal in the spent fuel undergo chemical oxidation and form chlorides. Voltage is applied between the basket, which serves as an anode, and the mandrel, which serves as a cathode, causing metallic uranium in the spent fuel to undergo electro-chemical oxidation thereby forming uranium chloride. Simultaneously at the cathode, uranium chloride undergoes electro-chemical reduction and deposits uranium metal onto the mandrel. The uranium metal and accompanying entrained salt are placed in a distillation furnace where the uranium melts forming an ingot and the entrained salt boils and subsequently condenses in a separate crucible. The uranium ingots are placed in long term storage. During the ten year operating history, over one hundred criticality safety evaluations were prepared. All criticality safety related limits and controls for the entire process are contained in a single document which required over thirty revisions to accommodate the process changes. Operational implementation of the limits and controls includes use of a near real-time computerized tracking system. The tracking system uses an Oracle database coupled with numerous software applications. The computerized tracking system includes direct fuel handler interaction with every movement of material. Improvements to this system during the ten year history include introduction of web based operator interaction, tracking of moderator materials and the development of a plethora database queries to assist in day to day operations as well as obtaining historical information. Over 12,000 driver fuel elements have been processed resulting in the production of 2500 kg of 20% enriched uranium. Also, over one thousand blanket fuel elements have been processed resulting in the production of 2400 kg of depleted uranium. These operations required over 35,000 fissile material transfers between zones and over 6000 transfers between containers. Throughout all of these movements, no mass limit violations occurred. Numerous lessons were learned over the ten year operating history. From a criticality safety perspective, the most important lesson learned was the involvement of a criticality safety practitioner in daily operations. A criticality safety engineer was assigned directly to facility operations, and was responsible for implementation of limits and controls including upkeep of the associated computerized tracking files. The criticality safety engineer was also responsible for conducting fuel handler training activities including serving on fuel handler qualification oral boards, and continually assessing operations from a criticality control perspective. The criticality safety engineer also attended bimonthly project planning meetings to identify upcoming process changes that would require criticality safety evaluation. Finally, the excellent criticality safety record was due in no small part to the continual support, involvement, trust, and confidence of project and operations mana

  6. Extension Program Council's Executive Board.

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Marshall, Mary G.; Richardson, Burl B.

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    ~IB-134'-! II"I~ I~? Extension Program Council's Executive Board Mary G. Marshall and Burl B. Richardson Extension Program Development Specialists The Extension Program Council works with Extension agents to plan, implement, evaluate...

  7. Board of Trustees Dorothy Russell

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Marques, Oge

    Board of Trustees Dorothy Russell VP Financial Affairs (Chief Financial Officer) Corey King Interim & Psychological Services Housing and Residential Life Office of the Associate VP for Student Affairs and Dean

  8. Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs

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

    1995-11-22T23:59:59.000Z

    The Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs establish objectives and criteria for evaluating nuclear facility training programs. The guidance in this standard provides a framework for the systematic evaluation of training programs at nuclear facilities and is based, in part, on established criteria for Technical Safety Appraisals, Tiger Team Assessments, commercial nuclear industry evaluations, and the DOE Training Accreditation Program.

  9. Non-Motorized Facility Inventory CTS Annual Transportation Research Conference

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Minnesota, University of

    Non-Motorized Facility Inventory CTS Annual Transportation Research Conference May 23, 2012 Jesse an inventory and assessment of the non-motorized facilities along Carver County roadways 2. Identify the gaps-8 Safety Issues Identified #12;non-motorized facilities inventory #12;GIS mapping capabilities #12;An

  10. 200 Area Deactivation Project Facilities Authorization Envelope Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD, E.N.

    2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

    Project facilities as required by HNF-PRO-2701, Authorization Envelope and Authorization Agreement. The Authorization Agreements (AA's) do not identify the specific set of environmental safety and health requirements that are applicable to the facility. Therefore, the facility Authorization Envelopes are defined here to identify the applicable requirements. This document identifies the authorization envelopes for the 200 Area Deactivation.

  11. Design of the Trigger Interface and Distribution Board for CEBAF 12 GeV Upgrade

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gu, Jianhui; Dong, Hai; Cuevas, R; Gyurjyan, Vardan; Heyes, William; Jastrzembski, Edward; Kaneta, Scott; Nganga, Nicholas; Moffit, Bryan; Raydo, Benjamin; Timmer, Carl

    2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The design of the Trigger Interface and Distribution (TID) board for the 12 GeV Upgrade at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at TJNAL is described. The TID board distributes a low jitter system clock, synchronized trigger, and synchronized multi-purpose SYNC signal. The TID also initiates data acquisition for the crate. With the TID boards, a multi-crate system can be setup for experiment test and commissioning. The TID board can be selectively populated as a Trigger Interface (TI) board, or a Trigger Distribution (TD) board for the 12 GeV upgrade experiments. When the TID is populated as a TI, it can be located in the VXS crate and distribute the CLOCK/TRIGGER/SYNC through the VXS P0 connector; it can also be located in the standard VME64 crate, and distribute the CLOCK/TRIGGER/SYNC through the VME P2 connector or front panel. It initiates the data acquisition for the front crate where the TI is positioned in. When the TID is populated as a TD, it fans out the CLOCK/TRIGGER/SYNC from trigger supervisor to the front end crates through optical fibres. The TD monitors the trigger processing on the TIs, and gives feedback to the TS for trigger flow control. Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) is utilised on TID board to provide programmability. The TID boards were intensively tested on the bench, and various setups.

  12. Ris-R-1019(EN) Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    .2 Severe accidents 7 2.3 Decommissioning of research reactors 9 2.4 Nuclear information 10 3 RadiationRisø-R-1019(EN) Nuclear Safety Research and Facilities Department Annual Report 1997 Edited by B of the work of the Nuclear Safety Research and Facilities Department in 1997. The department´s research

  13. Ris-R-1104(EN) Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    .4 Radioanalytical chemistry 36 3.5 Ecophysiology 38 3.6 Radioactive waste 41 4 Nuclear facilities and services 43 4Risř-R-1104(EN) Nuclear Safety Research and Facilities Department Annual Report 1998 Edited by B, Roskilde, Denmark April 1999 #12;Abstract The report presents a summary of the work of the Nuclear Safety

  14. Ris-R-1162(EN) Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    .4 Radioanalytical chemistry 26 3.5 Radioactive waste 29 4 Nuclear facilities and services 30 4.1 Research reactor DRRisř-R-1162(EN) Nuclear Safety Research and Facilities Department Annual Report 1999 Edited by B, Denmark April 2000 #12;Abstract The report presents a summary of the work of the Nuclear Safety Research

  15. METHODOLOGIES FOR REVIEW OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF PROPOSED NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL SITES AND FACILITIES. VOLUME 9 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Nero, A.V.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    rights of way have been adequately established for all parts of the facility including: basic generation unit transmission

  16. System Design and the Safety Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ellingson, Darrel

    2008-05-06T23:59:59.000Z

    The objective of this paper is to present the Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC (BJC) Lessons Learned for system design as it relates to safety basis documentation. BJC has had to reconcile incomplete or outdated system description information with current facility safety basis for a number of situations in recent months. This paper has relevance in multiple topical areas including documented safety analysis, decontamination & decommissioning (D&D), safety basis (SB) implementation, safety and design integration, potential inadequacy of the safety analysis (PISA), technical safety requirements (TSR), and unreviewed safety questions. BJC learned that nuclear safety compliance relies on adequate and well documented system design information. A number of PIS As and TSR violations occurred due to inadequate or erroneous system design information. As a corrective action, BJC assessed the occurrences caused by systems design-safety basis interface problems. Safety systems reviewed included the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) Fluorination System, K-1065 fire alarm system, and the K-25 Radiation Criticality Accident Alarm System. The conclusion was that an inadequate knowledge of system design could result in continuous non-compliance issues relating to nuclear safety. This was especially true with older facilities that lacked current as-built drawings coupled with the loss of 'historical knowledge' as personnel retired or moved on in their careers. Walkdown of systems and the updating of drawings are imperative for nuclear safety compliance. System design integration with safety basis has relevance in the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. This paper presents the BJC Lessons Learned in this area. It will be of benefit to DOE contractors that manage and operate an aging population of nuclear facilities.

  17. Type A Accident Investigation Board Report on the June 20, 1997, Construction Fatality at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report is an independent product of the Type A Accident Investigation Board appointed by Tara O’Toole, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety & Health, U.S. Department of Energy.

  18. Tank Farms Documented Safety Analysis [Sec 1 thru 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GOETZ, T.G.

    2003-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    The Tank Farm Documented Safety Analysis documents the basis for the conclusion that authorized Tank Farms facility operations comply with the requirements of DOE 5480.23 and DOE 5480.22. This documented safety analysis establishes the safety basis for the tank farms by documenting the results of the hazard and accident analyses for the tank farm facilities and operations and describing the significant features and programs that prevent or mitigate the identified hazards. The documented safety analysis also establishes the envelope within which the tank farm facilities can continue to operate safely.

  19. Safety of Nuclear Explosive Operations

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

    2001-08-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This directive establishes responsibilities and requirements to ensure the safety of routine and planned nuclear explosive operations and associated activities and facilities. Cancels DOE O 452.2A and DOE G 452.2A-1A. Canceled by DOE O 452.2C.

  20. Vehicle Management Driver Safety Program

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Machel, Hans

    Vehicle Management and Driver Safety Program Manual Facilities & Operations / Finance & Administration Version 2 April 2012 #12;© 2012 University of Alberta. #12;The Vehicle Management and Driver of employment. Driver Acknowledgement I have received the University of Alberta, Vehicle Management and Driver

  1. SAFETY PROCEDURES ON BOARD THE SEDCOIBP-471 {JOIDES RESOLUTION)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    environment, into the daily operation of the drilling vessel. All equipment aboard the ship is installed by Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation. Funding of the University of Tokyo (Japan) National Science Foundation (United States) Natural Environment Research Council

  2. CPP-603 Underwater Fuel Storage Facility Site Integrated Stabilization Management Plan (SISMP), Volume I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denney, R.D.

    1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The CPP-603 Underwater Fuel Storage Facility (UFSF) Site Integrated Stabilization Management Plan (SISMP) has been constructed to describe the activities required for the relocation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the CPP-603 facility. These activities are the only Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) actions identified in the Implementation Plan developed to meet the requirements of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 94-1 to the Secretary of Energy regarding an improved schedule for remediation in the Defense Nuclear Facilities Complex. As described in the DNFSB Recommendation 94-1 Implementation Plan, issued February 28, 1995, an INEL Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Plan is currently under development to direct the placement of SNF currently in existing INEL facilities into interim storage, and to address the coordination of intrasite SNF movements with new receipts and intersite transfers that were identified in the DOE SNF Programmatic and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement Record, of Decision. This SISMP will be a subset of the INEL Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Plan and the activities described are being coordinated with other INEL SNF management activities. The CPP-603 relocation activities have been assigned a high priority so that established milestones will be meet, but there will be some cases where other activities will take precedence in utilization of available resources. The Draft INEL Site Integrated Stabilization Management Plan (SISMP), INEL-94/0279, Draft Rev. 2, dated March 10, 1995, is being superseded by the INEL Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Plan and this CPP-603 specific SISMP.

  3. Chemical Hazards and Safety Issues in Fusion Safety Design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cadwallader, L.C. [Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (United States)

    2003-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Radiological inventory releases have dominated accident consequences for fusion; these consequences are important to analyze and are generally the most severe result of a fusion facility accident event. However, the advent of, or plan for, large-scale usage of some toxic materials poses the additional hazard of chemical exposure from an accident event. Examples of toxic chemicals are beryllium for magnetic fusion and fluorine for laser fusion. Therefore, chemical exposure consequences must also be addressed in fusion safety assessment. This paper provides guidance for fusion safety analysis. US Department of Energy (DOE) chemical safety assessment practices for workers and the public are reviewed. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published some guidance on public exposure to releases of mixtures of chemicals, this guidance has been used to create an initial guideline for treating mixed radiological and toxicological releases in fusion; for example, tritiated hazardous dust from a tokamak vacuum vessel. There is no convenient means to judge the hazard severity of exposure to mixed materials. The chemical fate of mixed material constituents must be reviewed to determine if there is a separate or combined radiological and toxicological carcinogenesis, or if other health threats exist with radiological carcinogenesis. Recommendations are made for fusion facility chemical safety evaluation and safety guidance for protecting the public from chemical releases, since such levels are not specifically identified in the DOE fusion safety standard.

  4. Cover letter, 10/29/03, re Nuclear Safety Technical Position, Deliverable 4.2.1

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The enclosed Nuclear Safety Technical Position is Deliverable 4.2.1. under the Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilitises Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2002-3, Requirements for Design...

  5. US DOE Perspectives on Advisory Board Effectiveness - 13539

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adler, David [US DOE (United States)] [US DOE (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Federal missions on the Oak Ridge Reservation began with the Manhattan Project, and continues today with major facilities supporting the Nation's Science and National Security missions. While most of the land area on the Oak Ridge Reservation is free of environmental impacts from these activities, significant legacy contamination is associated with specific facilities and past waste management areas. In 1989, the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) was placed on National Priorities List, and DOE established its Office of Environmental Management that same year. Three years later, in 1992, the Federal Facility Agreement for the reservation was signed. Three years afterward, the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board was established to augment ongoing public involvement activities related to Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup activities. One of the early and most impactful decisions the board made was to organize the End Use Working Group. This broad-based group of board members, DOE representatives, and members of the public was formed in 1997 to study future uses for contaminated areas of the reservation. The group was instrumental in building consensus in the Oak Ridge community regarding the long-term end state of reservation lands. The group's recommendations were a fundamental input into Record's of Decision subsequently developed to establish cleanup requirements across the ORR, and they continue to influence decisions being made today. In developing its recommendations on end states, the End Use Working Group came to the realization that long-term stewardship of contaminated areas of the reservation would be necessary, in some cases in perpetuity. It was from this concept that the Oak Ridge SSAB's 15-year involvement in stewardship would begin. A stewardship committee formed by the End Use Working Group wrote Volume 1 of the Stakeholder Report on Stewardship. This document-and its companion Volume 2, which was written a year later-form a crucial foundation for stewardship planning in Oak Ridge and have been referenced around the DOE complex as other sites consider stewardship planning. From these two broad-based initiatives, the board's focus has evolved to increasingly hone in on more specific, project-based recommendations and initiatives. The Oak Ridge Reservation Site Specific Advisory Board has been a highly effective forum for soliciting community input on Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup. Experience in Oak Ridge indicates that the utility of Board recommendations is far higher when the Board is asked to focus on broad programmatic issues, and less useful when the Board attempts to provide advice and recommendations on matters related to technical or project management issues. In Oak Ridge the Board has helped shape the program on many levels including definition of end-state cleanup objectives, budget development, program sequencing, waste management, and decisions concerning preservation of history related to missions implemented on the Oak Ridge Reservation. (authors)

  6. CRITICALITY SAFETY CONTROLS AND THE SAFETY BASIS AT PFP

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kessler, S

    2009-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    With the implementation of DOE Order 420.1B, Facility Safety, and DOE-STD-3007-2007, 'Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities', a new requirement was imposed that all criticality safety controls be evaluated for inclusion in the facility Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and that the evaluation process be documented in the site Criticality Safety Program Description Document (CSPDD). At the Hanford site in Washington State the CSPDD, HNF-31695, 'General Description of the FH Criticality Safety Program', requires each facility develop a linking document called a Criticality Control Review (CCR) to document performance of these evaluations. Chapter 5, Appendix 5B of HNF-7098, Criticality Safety Program, provided an example of a format for a CCR that could be used in lieu of each facility developing its own CCR. Since the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) is presently undergoing Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D), new procedures are being developed for cleanout of equipment and systems that have not been operated in years. Existing Criticality Safety Evaluations (CSE) are revised, or new ones written, to develop the controls required to support D&D activities. Other Hanford facilities, including PFP, had difficulty using the basic CCR out of HNF-7098 when first implemented. Interpretation of the new guidelines indicated that many of the controls needed to be elevated to TSR level controls. Criterion 2 of the standard, requiring that the consequence of a criticality be examined for establishing the classification of a control, was not addressed. Upon in-depth review by PFP Criticality Safety staff, it was not clear that the programmatic interpretation of criterion 8C could be applied at PFP. Therefore, the PFP Criticality Safety staff decided to write their own CCR. The PFP CCR provides additional guidance for the evaluation team to use by clarifying the evaluation criteria in DOE-STD-3007-2007. In reviewing documents used in classifying controls for Nuclear Safety, it was noted that DOE-HDBK-1188, 'Glossary of Environment, Health, and Safety Terms', defines an Administrative Control (AC) in terms that are different than typically used in Criticality Safety. As part of this CCR, a new term, Criticality Administrative Control (CAC) was defined to clarify the difference between an AC used for criticality safety and an AC used for nuclear safety. In Nuclear Safety terms, an AC is a provision relating to organization and management, procedures, recordkeeping, assessment, and reporting necessary to ensure safe operation of a facility. A CAC was defined as an administrative control derived in a criticality safety analysis that is implemented to ensure double contingency. According to criterion 2 of Section IV, 'Linkage to the Documented Safety Analysis', of DOESTD-3007-2007, the consequence of a criticality should be examined for the purposes of classifying the significance of a control or component. HNF-PRO-700, 'Safety Basis Development', provides control selection criteria based on consequence and risk that may be used in the development of a Criticality Safety Evaluation (CSE) to establish the classification of a component as a design feature, as safety class or safety significant, i.e., an Engineered Safety Feature (ESF), or as equipment important to safety; or merely provides defense-in-depth. Similar logic is applied to the CACs. Criterion 8C of DOE-STD-3007-2007, as written, added to the confusion of using the basic CCR from HNF-7098. The PFP CCR attempts to clarify this criterion by revising it to say 'Programmatic commitments or general references to control philosophy (e.g., mass control or spacing control or concentration control as an overall control strategy for the process without specific quantification of individual limits) is included in the PFP DSA'. Table 1 shows the PFP methodology for evaluating CACs. This evaluation process has been in use since February of 2008 and has proven to be simple and effective. Each control identified i

  7. Your Supplies: 1 Plinko Board board tacked with nails

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Smith-Konter, Bridget

    numbers of runs with hits to the number of runs with misses. A Run = Bombarding Marble falls down it is not considered a run. A Hit = Bombarding Marble falls down the board and hits at least one target marble. It can hit more than one, but the run is only counted as a single "hit". A Miss = Bombarding Marble falls

  8. Insulation board and process of making

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Nowobilski, Jeffert J. (Orchard Park, NY); Owens, William J. (Kenmore, NY)

    1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Insulation board capable of bearing a load without significant loss of insulating capacity due to compression, produced by a method wherein the board is made in compliance with specified conditions of time, temperature and pressure.

  9. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Arboricultural Operations Safety Requirements LBNL Arboricultural Operation Safety Requirements

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Eisen, Michael

    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Arboricultural Operations Safety Requirements 1 of 3 LBNL reviewed with LBNL Facilities Electric Shop (6023)? * IF THE ANSWER TO 3E WAS NO, STOP THIS WORK ACTIVITY AND CONTACT FACILITIES ELECTRIC SHOP a. Name of LBNL individual consulted? #12;LBNL Arboricultural Operations

  10. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The order defines the safety management program required by 10 CFR 830.204(b)(5) for maintenance and the reliable performance of structures, systems and components that are part of the safety basis required by 10 CFR 830.202 at hazard category 1, 2 and 3 DOE nuclear facilities. Admin Chg 1, dated 3-12-2013. Cancels DOE O 433.1A.

  11. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The order defines the safety management program required by 10 CFR 830.204(b)(5) for maintenance and the reliable performance of structures, systems and components that are part of the safety basis required by 10 CFR 830.202 at hazard category 1, 2 and 3 DOE nuclear facilities. Cancels DOE O 433.1A. Admin Chg 1, dated 3-12-2013, cancels DOE O 433.1B.

  12. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2007-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

    The Order defines the safety management program required by 10 CFR 830.204(b)(5) for maintenance and the reliable performance of Structures, Systems and Components (SSCs) that are part of the safety basis required by 10 CFR 830.202.1 at hazard category 1, 2 and 3 Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. Cancels DOE O 433.1. Canceled by DOE O 433.1B.

  13. Board Advising Jeffrey L. Colesa

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lin, Xiaodong

    for advising, as measured by firm complexity, increases: (i) both advising quality and total advising increase; and (ii) the sensitivity of firm value to both advising quality and total advising increase by a director individually and by the board overall. We introduce measures of quality of advising and total

  14. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board Kenneth L. Casavant, Chair Roger Mann, Vice-Chair Joel R Application of the IEAB's Recommendations and Guidance for Economic Analysis in Subbasin Planning improvements related to economic content of the draft Clearwater Subbasin Management Plan (the draft Clearwater

  15. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    . Huppert Noelwah R. Netusil JunJie Wu Cost-Effectiveness of Fish Tagging Technologies and Programs in the Columbia River Basin1 Independent Economic Analysis Board Fish and Wildlife Program Northwest Power and Conservation Council June 2, 2013 1 This report benefitted from the meetings of the Fish Tagging Forum

  16. Senior Leadership Board of Regents

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Amin, S. Massoud

    Senior Leadership Board of Regents Associate VP Internal Audits Gail Klatt ADMINISTRATION General to the President, Government & Community Relations Jason Rohloff University of Minnesota Leadership VP Office Athletics Norwood Teague was appointed director of Intercollegiate Athletics in 2012 and oversees leadership

  17. AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Massachusetts at Amherst, University of

    AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE MASSACHUSETTS of Massachusetts ("Employer") and the Massachusetts Society of Professors/Faculty Staff Union/MTA/NEA ("Union l50E and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the parties clearly recognize their statutory

  18. Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2014-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is a guide to understanding and meeting the requirements of DOE O 420.2C, and shares lessons learned based on valuable experience within the community. Cancels DOE G 420.2-1.

  19. Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE Order 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2013-08-30T23:59:59.000Z

    This is a guide to understanding and meeting the requirements of DOE Order 420.2C and shares lessons learned based on valuable experience within the community.

  20. Board of Water Electric & Communications | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directedAnnualProperty EditCalifornia: EnergyAvignon,BelcherBlundell 1 Geothermal Facility Jump to:2Board of

  1. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 Arlington are pleased to transmit a technical report prepared by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board. Based on its review of data gathered by the DOE and the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses

  2. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 Arlington Dear Speaker Pelosi, Senator Byrd, and Secretary Bodman: The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and transporting high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The Board is required to report its findings

  3. Board of Graduate Studies 4 Mill Lane

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Zernicka-Goetz, Magdalena

    for prospective students. The Board agreed that a co-ordinated strategy was required both in relation to the two MPhil in Energy Technologies (Paper 4024) The Board approved the introduction of the new MPhil Cambridge 152 3550 External Examiners and employment checks (Paper 4025) The Board was concerned by the UK

  4. Page 1 of 2 ACADEMIC BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jones, Graeme A.

    Page 1 of 2 ACADEMIC BOARD Type: STATUTORY Nature: Senior academic committee of University Report Line: Authority to act via Articles of Government. Also reports to Board of Governors and Vice-Chancellor Timing: Four per annum Life Cycle: Three years TERMS OF REFERENCE/FUNCTIONS The Academic Board shall

  5. LASER SAFETY POLICY MANUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Houston, Paul L.

    LASER SAFETY POLICY MANUAL ISSUED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY OFFICE OF RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY and GEORGIA TECH LASER SAFETY COMMITTEE July 1, 2010 Revised July 31, 2012 #12;Laser Safety Program 1-1 #12;Laser Safety Policy Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. POLICY AND SCOPE

  6. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY GENERAL SAFETY MANUAL

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maroncelli, Mark

    ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY GENERAL SAFETY MANUAL May 10, 2002 #12;i Acknowledgements Environmental Health and Safety gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by the University Safety Council extremely helpful. #12;ii Environmental Health and Safety General Safety Manual Table of Contents Section

  7. Tank farms criticality safety manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FORT, L.A.

    2003-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This document defines the Tank Farms Contractor (TFC) criticality safety program, as required by Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart 830.204(b)(6), ''Documented Safety Analysis'' (10 CFR 830.204 (b)(6)), and US Department of Energy (DOE) 0 420.1A, Facility Safety, Section 4.3, ''Criticality Safety.'' In addition, this document contains certain best management practices, adopted by TFC management based on successful Hanford Site facility practices. Requirements in this manual are based on the contractor requirements document (CRD) found in Attachment 2 of DOE 0 420.1A, Section 4.3, ''Nuclear Criticality Safety,'' and the cited revisions of applicable standards published jointly by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) as listed in Appendix A. As an informational device, requirements directly imposed by the CRD or ANSI/ANS Standards are shown in boldface. Requirements developed as best management practices through experience and maintained consistent with Hanford Site practice are shown in italics. Recommendations and explanatory material are provided in plain type.

  8. Safety Bulletin

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

    in the documented safety analysis. BACKGROUND On March 11 , 2011 , the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan was damaged by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and the...

  9. Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting

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

    2003-08-19T23:59:59.000Z

    To ensure timely collection, reporting, analysis, and dissemination of information on environment, safety, and health issues as required by law or regulations or as needed to ensure that the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are kept fully informed on a timely basis about events that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or the workers, the environment, the intended purpose of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 210.1, DOE O 231.1, and DOE O 232.1A. Canceled by DOE O 232.2.

  10. Mobile Facility

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOnItemResearch > The EnergyCenterDioxide Capture inFacility AMF Information Science

  11. Facility Representatives

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T,OfficeEnd ofEvaluations in Covered Facilities | Department of Energy

  12. Facility Representatives

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T,OfficeEnd ofEvaluations in Covered Facilities | Department of Energy063-2011

  13. Facility Status

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power AdministrationField8,Dist. Category UC-lFederalFYRANDOM DRUG TESTING The requirementFacility

  14. RFP RHB-5-52467 Guidelines for Non-Construction Health and Safety...

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

    4 NREL Guidelines for Preparing a Subcontractor's Health and Safety Plan - Non-Construction NREL requires that all activities at the NREL facilities shall be conducted in a...

  15. DOE G 414.1-4, Safety Software Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    to implement effective quality assurance (QA) processes and achieve safe nuclear facility operations. DOE promulgated the safety software requirements and this guidance to...

  16. Review of Management of Safety Systems at the Hanford Tank Farms...

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

    Document CSE Cognizant System Engineer DOE U.S. Department of Energy DSA Documented Safety Analysis DST Double Shell Tank EIR Event Investigation Report FR Facility...

  17. Model for multi-strata safety performance measurements in the process industry

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Keren, Nir

    2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    ) benchmarking of process safety elements among facilities; and (3) use of incident data collection from various sources for industrial safety performance assessment. The methods presently available for measurement of process safety within facilities... to explore the potential of integrating data sources and harnessing these databases for industrial safety performance assessment. In this study we developed models to pursue the measurement of samples of the strata described above. The measurement...

  18. Plutonium Finishing Plant safety evaluation report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) previously known as the Plutonium Process and Storage Facility, or Z-Plant, was built and put into operation in 1949. Since 1949 PFP has been used for various processing missions, including plutonium purification, oxide production, metal production, parts fabrication, plutonium recovery, and the recovery of americium (Am-241). The PFP has also been used for receipt and large scale storage of plutonium scrap and product materials. The PFP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) was prepared by WHC to document the hazards associated with the facility, present safety analyses of potential accident scenarios, and demonstrate the adequacy of safety class structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and operational safety requirements (OSRs) necessary to eliminate, control, or mitigate the identified hazards. Documented in this Safety Evaluation Report (SER) is DOE`s independent review and evaluation of the PFP FSAR and the basis for approval of the PFP FSAR. The evaluation is presented in a format that parallels the format of the PFP FSAR. As an aid to the reactor, a list of acronyms has been included at the beginning of this report. The DOE review concluded that the risks associated with conducting plutonium handling, processing, and storage operations within PFP facilities, as described in the PFP FSAR, are acceptable, since the accident safety analyses associated with these activities meet the WHC risk acceptance guidelines and DOE safety goals in SEN-35-91.

  19. Toolbox Safety Talk Ladder Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Slips, trips, and falls constitute the majority of general industry and construction worker injuries. Falls cause 15% of all accidental deaths, and are second only to motor vehicle

  20. PALS/07/001 Science and Technology Facilities Council

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Crowther, Paul

    Executive Group to discuss the implications of the spending review Accelerator Science Advisory Board created within STFC, headed by Professor Mike Dunne, to coordinate the operation and development of its light source facilities and associated science. A research institute for photon science is also proposed

  1. Oversight Board | The Ames Laboratory

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level:Energy: Grid Integration Redefining What's Possible for RenewableSpeedingBiomass and BiofuelsOversight Board The Ames Laboratory Oversight

  2. Reactor Safety Research Programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dotson, CW

    1980-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document summarizes the work performed by Pacific Northwest laboratory from October 1 through December 31, 1979, for the Division of Reactor Safety Research within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Evaluation of nondestructive examination (NDE) techniques and instrumentation are reported; areas of investigation include demonstrating the feasibilty of determining structural graphite strength, evaluating the feasibilty of detecting and analyzing flaw growth in reactor pressure boundary systems, examining NDE reliability and probabilistic fracture mechanics, and assessing the remaining integrity of pressurized water reactor steam generator tubes where service-induced degradation has been indicated. Test assemblies and analytical support are being provided for experimental programs at other facilities. These programs include the loss-of-coolant accident simulation tests at the NRU reactor, Chalk River, Canada; the fuel rod deformation and post-accident coolability tests for the ESSOR Test Reactor Program, lspra, Italy; the blowdown and reflood tests in the test facility at Cadarache, France; the instrumented fuel assembly irradiation program at Halden, Norway; and the experimental programs at the Power Burst Facility, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. These programs will provide data for computer modeling of reactor system and fuel performance during various abnormal operating conditions.

  3. Environment, Safety and Health Reporting

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

    2011-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The order addresses DOE/NNSA receiving timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety and security of the public or workers, the environment, the operations of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 231.1A Chg 1, DOE M 231.1-1A Chg 2 and DOE N 234.1. Admin Chg 1, dated 11-28-12, cancels DOE O 231.1B.

  4. Environment, Safety and Health Reporting

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

    2011-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The order addresses DOE/NNSA receiving timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety and security of the public or workers, the environment, the operations of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 231.1A Chg 1, DOE M 231.1-1A Chg 2 and DOE N 234.1. Admin Chg 1, dated 11-28-12.

  5. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Transuranic Storage Area Retrieval Enclosure at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Revision 8

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Transuranic Storage Area Retrieval Enclosure Preliminary Safety Analysis Report was completed as required by DOE Order 5480.23. The purpose of this document is to construct a safety basis that supports the design and permits construction of the facility. The facility has been designed to the requirements of a Radioactive Solid Waste Facility presented in DOE Order 6430.1A.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PIEPHO, M.G.

    1999-10-20T23:59:59.000Z

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

  7. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    the facilities and expertise needed to address future challenges. 5 2. Develop a roadmap for achieving the vision. DOE should work with the rest of the U.S. government,...

  8. IEAB Independent Economic Analysis Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    of hydropower operations, enhance the usefulness and value of hydropower for wind integration. · New water operations. · Decommissioning of some existing hydropower facilities is expected, but power losses are small

  9. Overview of US fast-neutron facilities and testing capabilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, E.A.; Cox, C.M.; Jackson, R.J.

    1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Rather than attempt a cataloging of the various fast neutron facilities developed and used in this country over the last 30 years, this paper will focus on those facilities which have been used to develop, proof test, and explore safety issues of fuels, materials and components for the breeder and fusion program. This survey paper will attempt to relate the evolution of facility capabilities with the evolution of development program which use the facilities. The work horse facilities for the breeder program are EBR-II, FFTF and TREAT. For the fusion program, RTNS-II and FMIT were selected.

  10. Environmental assessment of general-purpose heat source safety verification testing

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to identify and evaluate potential environmental, safety, and health impacts associated with the Proposed Action to test General-Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) assemblies at the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) 10,000-Foot Sled Track Facility, Albuquerque, New Mexico. RTGs are used to provide a reliable source of electrical power on board some spacecraft when solar power is inadequate during long duration space missions. These units are designed to convert heat from the natural decay of radioisotope fuel into electrical power. Impact test data are required to support DOE`s mission to provide radioisotope power systems to NASA and other user agencies. The proposed tests will expand the available safety database regarding RTG performance under postulated accident conditions. Direct observations and measurements of GPHS/RTG performance upon impact with hard, unyielding surfaces are required to verify model predictions and to ensure the continual evolution of the RTG designs that perform safely under varied accident environments. The Proposed Action is to conduct impact testing of RTG sections containing GPHS modules with simulated fuel. End-On and Side-On impact test series are planned.

  11. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the plutonium-uranium extraction facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lohrasbi, J.; Johnson, D.L. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); De Lorenzo, D.S. [Los Alamos Technical Associates, NM (United States)

    1993-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  12. 1Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Danon, Yaron

    Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Conference April 27, 2011 #12;2Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility Nuclear Criticality Safety1Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility

  13. Using Addenda in Documented Safety Analysis Reports

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Douglas S. Swanson; Michael A. Thieme

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper discusses the use of addenda to the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Addenda were prepared for several systems and processes at the facility that lacked adequate descriptive information and hazard analysis in the DSA. They were also prepared for several new activities involving unreviewed safety questions (USQs). Ten addenda to the RWMC DSA have been prepared since the last annual update.

  14. Using Addenda in Documented Safety Analysis Reports

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Swanson, D.S.; Thieme, M.A.

    2003-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper discusses the use of addenda to the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Addenda were prepared for several systems and processes at the facility that lacked adequate descriptive information and hazard analysis in the DSA. They were also prepared for several new activities involving unreviewed safety questions (USQs). Ten addenda to the RWMC DSA have been prepared since the last annual update.

  15. Gas Pipeline Safety (Indiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This section establishes the Pipeline Safety Division within the Utility Regulatory Commission to administer federal pipeline safety standards and establish minimum state safety standards for...

  16. Environment, Safety and Health Reporting

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

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    To ensure timely collection, reporting, analysis, and dissemination of information on environment, safety, and health issues as required by law or regulations or as needed to ensure that the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration are kept fully informed on a timely basis about events that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or the workers, the environment, the intended purpose of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 210.1, DOE O 231.1, DOE O 232.1A. Canceled by DOE O 231.1B. DOE O 231.1B cancels all portions pertaining to environment, safety, and health reporting. Occurrence reporting and processing of operations information provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2012.

  17. FPS 12.1 Life Safety, 5/24/2000

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The objective of this surveillance is for the Facility Representative to verify that conditions in the plant provide an appropriate level of life safety for workers conducting operations in the...

  18. University Policy No.: SS9300 Classification: Safety and Security

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Victoria, University of

    University Policy No.: SS9300 Classification: Safety and Security Approving Authority: Board of Governors COMMUNICABLE DISEASES POLICY Effective Date: April/04 Supersedes: November/94 Last Editorial Change: Mandated Review: 1. POLICY PURPOSE The purpose of the policy is to provide direction

  19. Setting clear expectations for safety basis development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MORENO, M.R.

    2003-05-03T23:59:59.000Z

    DOE-RL has set clear expectations for a cost-effective approach for achieving compliance with the Nuclear Safety Management requirements (10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Rule) which will ensure long-term benefit to Hanford. To facilitate implementation of these expectations, tools were developed to streamline and standardize safety analysis and safety document development resulting in a shorter and more predictable DOE approval cycle. A Hanford Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment Handbook (SARAH) was issued to standardized methodologies for development of safety analyses. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (RADIDOSE) was issued for the evaluation of radiological consequences for accident scenarios often postulated for Hanford. A standard Site Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) detailing the safety management programs was issued for use as a means of compliance with a majority of 3009 Standard chapters. An in-process review was developed between DOE and the Contractor to facilitate DOE approval and provide early course correction. As a result of setting expectations and providing safety analysis tools, the four Hanford Site waste management nuclear facilities were able to integrate into one Master Waste Management Documented Safety Analysis (WM-DSA).

  20. The Texas Agricultural Cooperative Board Chairman.

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Black, William E.; Knutson, Ronald D.

    1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    19 10 7 100 5 Board chairmen usually purchase most of their supplies from cooperatives. Of the supplies that were handled, board chairmen, on the average, purchased 87 percent from their cooperative. Older board chairmen were better supply... patrons than younger ones. However, all age groups purchased a majority of their supplies from their cooperative. Table 6. Relationship of Age of Chairman to the Percent of Inputs Purcha~ from the Cooperative, Texas, 1985. Percent of Inputs Purchased...

  1. Hanford Advisory Board Page 1

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) EnvironmentalGyroSolé(tm) Harmonic EngineHIV andApril 8-9, Advisory Board

  2. Hanford Advisory Board Page 1

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) EnvironmentalGyroSolé(tm) Harmonic EngineHIV andApril 8-9, Advisory BoardPage 1

  3. Hanford Advisory Board Page 1

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) EnvironmentalGyroSolé(tm) Harmonic EngineHIV andApril 8-9, Advisory BoardPage

  4. Final Safety Evaluation Report to license the construction and operation of a facility to receive, store, and dispose of 11e.(2) byproduct material near Clive, Utah (Docket No. 40-8989)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) summarizes the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff`s review of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.`s (Envirocare`s) application for a license to receive, store, and dispose of uranium and thorium byproduct material (as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) at a site near Clive, Utah. Envirocare proposes to dispose of high-volume, low-activity Section 11e.(2) byproduct material in separate earthen disposal cells on a site where the applicant currently disposes of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), low-level waste, and mixed waste under license by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The NRC staff review of the December 23, 1991, license application, as revised by page changes dated July 2 and August 10, 1992, April 5, 7, and 10, 1993, and May 3, 6, 7, 11, and 21, 1993, has identified open issues in geotechnical engineering, water resources protection, radon attenuation, financial assurance, and radiological safety. The NRC will not issue a license for the proposed action until Envirocare adequately resolves these open issues.

  5. Board Advising Jeff Coles, Arizona St. U

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lin, Xiaodong

    .6 6 3 4 5 6 7 2 1 Board of ATW Irwin, John R. Helmerich, Hans S. Burgess, Robert W. Morrissey, William

  6. Gerig to Chair Particle Accelerator School Board

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

    2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 2000 Subscribe to APS News rss feed Gerig to Chair Particle Accelerator School Board FEBRUARY 23, 2012 Bookmark and Share Rod Gerig (PSC), Deputy...

  7. High Exposure Facility Technical Description

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carter, Gregory L.; Stithem, Arthur R.; Murphy, Mark K.; Smith, Alex K.

    2008-02-12T23:59:59.000Z

    The High Exposure Facility is a collimated high-level gamma irradiator that is located in the basement of the 318 building. It was custom developed by PNNL back in 1982 to meet the needs for high range radiological instrument calibrations and dosimeter irradiations. At the time no commercially available product existed that could create exposure rates up to 20,000 R/h. This document is intended to pass on the design criteria that was employed to create this unique facility, while maintaining compliance with ANSI N543-1974, "General Safety Standard for Installations Using Non-Medical X-Ray and Sealed Gamma-Ray Sources, Energies up to 10 MeV."

  8. Laser Safety Introduction

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    McQuade, D. Tyler

    use Integrated Safety Management here at the lab to reduce risk and work to improve the quality and safety of the work? #12;Integrated Safety Management Use (greater in size than wavelength) #12;Integrated Safety Management Remember, we

  9. Appendix 8. Gender, Race, and Ethnicity of Board Members PA State Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sibille, Etienne

    Council on 21 18 3 2 1 0 0 11 10 Agricultural Advisory Board 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 17 6 Agricultural Land Preservation Board, State 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board 6 6 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Certification of Water and Wastewater Systems Operators, State Board for 7 7 0 0 0 0 0

  10. Audit Report The Procurement of Safety Class/Safety-Significant Items at the Savannah River Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    2009-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy operates several nuclear facilities at its Savannah River Site, and several additional facilities are under construction. This includes the National Nuclear Security Administration's Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) which is designated to help maintain the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX Facility) is being constructed to manufacture commercial nuclear reactor fuel assemblies from weapon-grade plutonium oxide and depleted uranium. The Interim Salt Processing (ISP) project, managed by the Office of Environmental Management, will treat radioactive waste. The Department has committed to procuring products and services for nuclear-related activities that meet or exceed recognized quality assurance standards. Such standards help to ensure the safety and performance of these facilities. To that end, it issued Departmental Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance (QA Order). The QA Order requires the application of Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (NQA-1) for nuclear-related activities. The NQA-1 standard provides requirements and guidelines for the establishment and execution of quality assurance programs during the siting, design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. These requirements, promulgated by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, must be applied to 'safety-class' and 'safety-significant' structures, systems and components (SSCs). Safety-class SSCs are defined as those necessary to prevent exposure off site and to protect the public. Safety-significant SSCs are those whose failure could irreversibly impact worker safety such as a fatality, serious injury, or significant radiological or chemical exposure. Due to the importance of protecting the public, workers, and environment, we initiated an audit to determine whether the Department of Energy procured safety-class and safety-significant SSCs that met NQA-1 standards at the Savannah River Site. Our review disclosed that the Department had procured and installed safety-class and safety-significant SSCs that did not meet NQA-1 quality standards. Specifically, we identified multiple instances in which critical components did not meet required quality and safety standards. For example: (1) Three structural components were procured and installed by the prime contractor at Savannah River during construction of the MOX Facility that did not meet the technical specifications for items relied on for safety. These substandard items necessitated costly and time consuming remedial action to, among other things, ensure that nonconforming materials and equipment would function within safety margins; (2) In six instances, items used in the construction of TEF failed to satisfy quality standards. In one of these situations, operating procedures had to be modified to ensure that the problem item did not compromise safety; and (3) Finally, at the ISP, one component that did not meet quality standards was procured. The failure of the item could have resulted in a spill of up to 15,000 gallons of high-level radioactive waste. Based on an extensive examination of relevant internal controls and procurement practices, we concluded that these failures were attributable to inadequate attention to quality assurance at Savannah River. Simply put, Departmental controls were not adequate to prevent and/or detect quality assurance problems. For example, Federal and prime contractor officials did not expressly require that subcontractors or lower-tiered vendors comply with quality assurance requirements. Additionally, management did not effectively communicate quality assurance concerns between the several Departmental program elements operating at Savannah River. The procurement and installation of these nonconforming components resulted in cost increases. For example, as of October 2008, the MOX Facility had incurred costs of more than $680,000 due to problems associated with the procurement of $11 million of nonconforming safety-class reinforcing steel.

  11. Preliminary hazards analysis for the National Ignition Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brereton, S.J.

    1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin ofEnergy at Waste-to-Energy usingofRetrofitting Doors onNovember 14, DOE-STD-1104-96

  13. Processing a printed wiring board by single bath electrodeposition

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Meltzer, Michael P. (Oakland, CA); Steffani, Christopher P. (Livermore, CA); Gonfiotti, Ray A. (Livermore, CA)

    2010-12-07T23:59:59.000Z

    A method of processing a printed wiring board. Initial processing steps are implemented on the printed wiring board. Copper is plated on the printed wiring board from a bath containing nickel and copper. Nickel is plated on the printed wiring board from a bath containing nickel and copper and final processing steps are implemented on the printed wiring board.

  14. Processing A Printed Wiring Board By Single Bath Electrodeposition

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Meltzer, Michael P. (Oakland, CA); Steffani, Christopher P. (Livermore, CA); Gonfiotti, Ray A. (Livermore, CA)

    2003-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

    A method of processing a printed wiring board by single bath electrodeposition. Initial processing steps are implemented on the printed wiring board. Copper is plated on the printed wiring board from a bath containing nickel and copper. Nickel is plated on the printed wiring board from the bath containing nickel and copper and final processing steps are implemented on the printed wiring board.

  15. Conventional Facilities Chapter 5: Structural Engineering 5-1 NSLS-II Preliminary Design Report

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Ohta, Shigemi

    .1.2 DOE Orders DOE O5480.4 ­ Environmental Protection, Safety and Health Protection Standards DOE O413.3A420.1B ­ Facility Safety DOE O420.2B ­ Safety of Accelerator Facilities 5.1.3 Codes, Standards STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 5.1 Design Criteria 5.1.1 Codes and Standards The latest edition of the codes

  16. 2011 Annual Criticality Safety Program Performance Summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrea Hoffman

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 2011 review of the INL Criticality Safety Program has determined that the program is robust and effective. The review was prepared for, and fulfills Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) item H.20, 'Annual Criticality Safety Program performance summary that includes the status of assessments, issues, corrective actions, infractions, requirements management, training, and programmatic support.' This performance summary addresses the status of these important elements of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Assessments - Assessments in 2011 were planned and scheduled. The scheduled assessments included a Criticality Safety Program Effectiveness Review, Criticality Control Area Inspections, a Protection of Controlled Unclassified Information Inspection, an Assessment of Criticality Safety SQA, and this management assessment of the Criticality Safety Program. All of the assessments were completed with the exception of the 'Effectiveness Review' for SSPSF, which was delayed due to emerging work. Although minor issues were identified in the assessments, no issues or combination of issues indicated that the INL Criticality Safety Program was ineffective. The identification of issues demonstrates the importance of an assessment program to the overall health and effectiveness of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Issues and Corrective Actions - There are relatively few criticality safety related issues in the Laboratory ICAMS system. Most were identified by Criticality Safety Program assessments. No issues indicate ineffectiveness in the INL Criticality Safety Program. All of the issues are being worked and there are no imminent criticality concerns. Infractions - There was one criticality safety related violation in 2011. On January 18, 2011, it was discovered that a fuel plate bundle in the Nuclear Materials Inspection and Storage (NMIS) facility exceeded the fissionable mass limit, resulting in a technical safety requirement (TSR) violation. The TSR limits fuel plate bundles to 1085 grams U-235, which is the maximum loading of an ATR fuel element. The overloaded fuel plate bundle contained 1097 grams U-235 and was assembled under an 1100 gram U-235 limit in 1982. In 2003, the limit was reduced to 1085 grams citing a new criticality safety evaluation for ATR fuel elements. The fuel plate bundle inventories were not checked for compliance prior to implementing the reduced limit. A subsequent review of the NMIS inventory did not identify further violations. Requirements Management - The INL Criticality Safety program is organized and well documented. The source requirements for the INL Criticality Safety Program are from 10 CFR 830.204, DOE Order 420.1B, Chapter III, 'Nuclear Criticality Safety,' ANSI/ANS 8-series Industry Standards, and DOE Standards. These source requirements are documented in LRD-18001, 'INL Criticality Safety Program Requirements Manual.' The majority of the criticality safety source requirements are contained in DOE Order 420.1B because it invokes all of the ANSI/ANS 8-Series Standards. DOE Order 420.1B also invokes several DOE Standards, including DOE-STD-3007, 'Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities.' DOE Order 420.1B contains requirements for DOE 'Heads of Field Elements' to approve the criticality safety program and specific elements of the program, namely, the qualification of criticality staff and the method for preparing criticality safety evaluations. This was accomplished by the approval of SAR-400, 'INL Standardized Nuclear Safety Basis Manual,' Chapter 6, 'Prevention of Inadvertent Criticality.' Chapter 6 of SAR-400 contains sufficient detail and/or reference to the specific DOE and contractor documents that adequately describe the INL Criticality Safety Program per the elements specified in DOE Order 420.1B. The Safety Evaluation Report for SAR-400 specifically recognizes that the approval of SAR-400 approves the INL Criticality Safety Program. No new source requirements were released in 2011. A revision to LRD-18001 is

  17. Abbreviations and Acronyms Board U. S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Tuff nonwelded unit SNF spent nuclear fuel SZ saturated zone SZEE saturated zone expert elicitation TCw of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program." Presentation to Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. MayAbbreviations and Acronyms Board U. S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board CFR Code of Federal

  18. Safety valve

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bergman, Ulf C. (Malmoe, SE)

    1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The safety valve contains a resilient gland to be held between a valve seat and a valve member and is secured to the valve member by a sleeve surrounding the end of the valve member adjacent to the valve seat. The sleeve is movable relative to the valve member through a limited axial distance and a gap exists between said valve member and said sleeve.

  19. from Isotope Production Facility

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

    Cancer-fighting treatment gets boost from Isotope Production Facility April 13, 2012 Isotope Production Facility produces cancer-fighting actinium 2:32 Isotope cancer treatment...

  20. Fuel Fabrication Facility

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility November 2005 May 2007 June 2008 May 2012...

  1. Simplifying documentation while approaching site closure: integrated health & safety plans as documented safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, Tulanda

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    At the Fernald Closure Project (FCP) near Cincinnati, Ohio, environmental restoration activities are supported by Documented Safety Analyses (DSAs) that combine the required project-specific Health and Safety Plans, Safety Basis Requirements (SBRs), and Process Requirements (PRs) into single Integrated Health and Safety Plans (I-HASPs). By isolating any remediation activities that deal with Enriched Restricted Materials, the SBRs and PRs assure that the hazard categories of former nuclear facilities undergoing remediation remain less than Nuclear. These integrated DSAs employ Integrated Safety Management methodology in support of simplified restoration and remediation activities that, so far, have resulted in the decontamination and demolition (D&D) of over 150 structures, including six major nuclear production plants. This paper presents the FCP method for maintaining safety basis documentation, using the D&D I-HASP as an example.

  2. Fast reactor safety program. Progress report, January-March 1980

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The goal of the DOE LMFBR Safety Program is to provide a technology base fully responsive to safety considerations in the design, evaluation, licensing, and economic optimization of LMFBRs for electrical power generation. A strategy is presented that divides safety technology development into seven program elements, which have been used as the basis for the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for the Program. These elements include four lines of assurance (LOAs) involving core-related safety considerations, an element supporting non-core-related plant safety considerations, a safety R and D integration element, and an element for the development of test facilities and equipment to be used in Program experiments: LOA-1 (prevent accidents); LOA-2 (limit core damage); LOA-3 (maintain containment integrity); LOA-4 (attenuate radiological consequences); plant considerations; R and D integration; and facility development.

  3. Ris-R-1318(EN) Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    . Risø Decommissioning has the task of preparing for the decommissioning of Risø's nuclear facilitiesRisø-R-1318(EN) Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Report 2001 Edited by B. Majborn, A This report presents a summary of the work of the Nuclear Safety Research Department in 2001. The department

  4. SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF THE ARIES COMPACT STELLARATOR DESIGN

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    California at San Diego, University of

    -CS by report- ing radiological inventories, decay heat, and radioactive waste management optionsARIES-CS and the facility can meet the no-evacuation requirement. KEYWORDS: ARIES-CS, safety assessment, stellarator Note In this paper we examine the safety and environmen- tal performance of ARIES-CS by reporting radiological

  5. Construction safety in DOE. Part 1, Students guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Handwerk, E C

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is the first part of a compilation of safety standards for construction activities on DOE facilities. This report covers the following areas: general safety and health provisions; occupational health and environmental control/haz mat; personal protective equipment; fire protection and prevention; signs, signals, and barricades; materials handling, storage, use, and disposal; hand and power tools; welding and cutting; electrical; and scaffolding.

  6. Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements

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

    2001-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides information to assist in the implementation and interpretation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830.203, Unreviewed Safety Question Process, of the Nuclear Safety Management Rules for applicable nuclear facilities owned or operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Canceled by DOE N 251.93.

  7. Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements

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

    2006-07-24T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides information to assist in implementation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 830.203, "Unreviewed Safety Question Process," of the Nuclear Safety Management Rules for Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities owned or operated by the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. Cancels DOE G 424.1-1.

  8. Page 1 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Page 1 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Chemical Hygiene Programs: Operation of the Chemical: The Environmental Health and Safety Department (EHS) operates the Chemical Storage and Distribution Facility (CSDF) as a service to the entire Institution to achieve the following goals: Prevent pollution through waste

  9. Pressure safety program Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Borzileri, C.; Traini, M.

    1992-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a Research and Development facility. Programs include research in: nuclear weapons, energy, environmental, biomedical, and other DOE funded programs. LLNL is managed by the University of California for the Department of Energy. Many research and development programs require the use of pressurized fluid systems. In the early 1960`s, courses were developed to train personnel to safely work with pressurized systems. These courses served as a foundation for the Pressure Safety Program. The Pressure Safety Program is administered by the Pressure Safety Manager through the Hazards Control Department, and responsibilities include: (1) Pressure Safety course development and training, (2) Equipment documentation, tracking and inspections/retests, (3) Formal and informal review of pressure systems. The program uses accepted codes and standards and closely follows the DOE Pressure Safety Guidelines Manual. This manual was developed for DOE by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The DOE Pressure Safety Guidelines Manual defines five (5) basic elements which constitute this Pressure Safety Program. These elements are: (1) A Pressure Safety Manual, (2) A Safety Committee, (3) Personnel who are trained and qualified, (4) Documentation and accountability for each pressure vessel or system, (5) Control of the selection and the use of high pressure hardware.

  10. Guide to research facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides information on facilities at US Department of Energy (DOE) and other government laboratories that focus on research and development of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. These laboratories have opened these facilities to outside users within the scientific community to encourage cooperation between the laboratories and the private sector. The Guide features two types of facilities: designated user facilities and other research facilities. Designated user facilities are one-of-a-kind DOE facilities that are staffed by personnel with unparalleled expertise and that contain sophisticated equipment. Other research facilities are facilities at DOE and other government laboratories that provide sophisticated equipment, testing areas, or processes that may not be available at private facilities. Each facility listing includes the name and phone number of someone you can call for more information.

  11. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    con144vf UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 Dear Speaker Hastert, Senator Thurmond, and Secretary Richardson: The Nuclear Waste Technical Review with provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, Public Law 100-203. The Act requires the Board

  12. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 Arlington.C. 20585 Dear Speaker Hastert, Senator Stevens, and Secretary Bodman: The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was created by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) of 1987 and charged

  13. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    JEC187V3 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Secretary O'Leary: At the Nuclear Waste UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300 Arlington, VA

  14. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    of the overall system for managing spent fuel and defense high-level waste. The Board includes its findingsjlc029va UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300, D.C. 20585 Dear Speaker Gingrich, Senator Thurmond, and Secretary Peńa: The Nuclear Waste Technical

  15. BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Quirk, Gregory J.

    BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO CERTIFICATION NUMBER 45 2006-2007 I, Salvador Antonetti Zequeira, Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the University of Puerto Rico, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT of the President of University of Puerto Rico, approved: The System-Wide Policy and Procedures for Responding

  16. Revised 4/15/2002 _____________________________ Environment, Health, & Safety _________ __________________

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Eisen, Michael

    and non-faculty workers with the hazards (chemical, physical, biological, and radiological) present at Building 85, the Hazardous Waste Handling Facility (HWHF), regarding the safety, alarm, fire detection and non-facility workers are familiar with the hazards present at Building 85 which will enable them

  17. Safety Share from National Safety Council

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Slide Presentation by Joe Yanek, Fluor Government Group. National Safety Council Safety Share. The Campbell Institute is the “Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Center of Excellence” at the National Safety Council and provides a Forum for Leaders in EHS to exchange ideas and collaborate across industry sectors and organizational types.

  18. DOE appoints four new members to advisory board

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    DOE has appointed four new members to its Environmental Management advisory board in Oak Ridge. Leon Baker, Richard Burroughs, Terri Likens and Ed Trujillo were introduced during the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board’s February meeting.

  19. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. Reactor Safety Research Programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Edler, S. K.

    1981-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document summarizes the work performed by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) from January 1 through March 31, 1981, for the Division of Reactor Safety Research within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Evaluations of nondestructive examination (NDE) techniques and instrumentation are reported; areas of investigation include demonstrating the feasibility of determining the strength of structural graphite, evaluating the feasibility of detecting and analyzing flaw growth in reactor pressure boundary systems, examining NDE reliability and probabilistic fracture mechanics, and assessing the integrity of pressurized water reactor (PWR) steam generator tubes where service-induced degradation has been indicated. Experimental data and analytical models are being provided to aid in decision-making regarding pipeto- pipe impacts following postulated breaks in high-energy fluid system piping. Core thermal models are being developed to provide better digital codes to compute the behavior of full-scale reactor systems under postulated accident conditions. Fuel assemblies and analytical support are being provided for experimental programs at other facilities. These programs include loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) simulation tests at the NRU reactor, Chalk River, Canada; fuel rod deformation, severe fuel damage, and postaccident coolability tests for the ESSOR reactor Super Sara Test Program, Ispra, Italy; the instrumented fuel assembly irradiation program at Halden, Norway; and experimental programs at the Power Burst Facility, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). These programs will provide data for computer modeling of reactor system and fuel performance during various abnormal operating conditions.

  1. Labor and Safety: Mines and Mining Safety (Indiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This section contains labor regulations pertaining specifically to coal mine workers. The law establishes the Indiana Mining Board. The Board's duties include: collecting and distributing...

  2. Delivering safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Baldwin, N.D.; Spooner, K.G.; Walkden, P. [British Nuclear Group Ltd, Daresbury, Warrington (United Kingdom)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In the United Kingdom there have been significant recent changes to the management of civil nuclear liabilities. With the formation in April 2005 of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), ownership of the civil nuclear licensed sites in the UK, including the Magnox Reactor Stations, passed to this new organisation. The NDAs mission is to seek acceleration of the nuclear clean up programme and deliver increased value for money and, consequently, are driving their contractors to seek more innovative ways of performing work. British Nuclear Group manages the UK Magnox stations under contract to the NDA. This paper summarises the approach being taken within its Reactor Sites business to work with suppliers to enhance working arrangements at sites, improve the delivery of decommissioning programmes and deliver improvements in safety and environmental performance. The UK Magnox stations are 1. generation gas-graphite reactors, constructed in the 1950's and 1960's. Two stations are currently still operating, three are shut-down undergoing defueling and the other five are being decommissioned. Despite the distractions of industry restructuring, an uncompromising policy of demanding improved performance in conjunction with improved safety and environmental standards has been adopted. Over the past 5 years, this policy has resulted in step-changes in performance at Reactor Sites, with increased electrical output and accelerated defueling and decommissioning. The improvements in performance have been mirrored by improvements in safety (DACR of 0 at 5 sites); environmental standards (reductions in energy and water consumption, increased waste recycling) and the overall health of the workforce (20% reduction in sickness absence). These achievements have, in turn, been recognised by external bodies, resulting in several awards, including: the world's first ISRS and IERS level 10 awards (Sizewell, 2006), the NUMEX plant maintenance award (Bradwell, 2006), numerous RoSPA awards at site and sector level and nomination, at Company level, for the RoSPA George Earle trophy for outstanding performance in Health and Safety (Reactor Sites, 2006). After 'setting the scene' and describing the challenges that the company has had to respond to, the paper explains how these improvements have been delivered. Specifically it explains the process that has been followed and the parts played by sites and suppliers to deliver improved performance. With the experience of already having transitioned several Magnox stations from operations to defueling and then to decommissioning, the paper describes the valuable experience that has been gained in achieving an optimum change process and maintaining momentum. (authors)

  3. Safety, Security

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Scienceand Requirements RecentlyElectronicResourcesjobsJuly throughR EMaterialsSafety, Security

  4. Future Fixed Target Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Melnitchouk, Wolodymyr

    2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    We review plans for future fixed target lepton- and hadron-scattering facilities, including the 12 GeV upgraded CEBAF accelerator at Jefferson Lab, neutrino beam facilities at Fermilab, and the antiproton PANDA facility at FAIR. We also briefly review recent theoretical developments which will aid in the interpretation of the data expected from these facilities.

  5. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Hosts Conference Call on Shale...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy Advisory Board Hosts Conference Call on Shale Gas Draft Report Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Hosts Conference Call on Shale Gas Draft Report November 10, 2011 -...

  6. Microsoft Word - EM QA Corporate Board Meeting Minutes - Oct...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    th Environmental Management Quality Assurance Corporate Board Meeting Minutes October 27, 2014 - Nevada Site Office Page 1 of 10 Voting Board Members in Attendance: Randy Kay -...

  7. Microsoft Word - EM QA Corporate Board Meeting Minutes - February...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    th Environmental Management Quality Assurance Corporate Board Meeting Minutes February 11, 2014 - Teleconference Page 1 of 8 Voting Board Members in Attendance: Randy Kay - Idaho...

  8. Feasibility of OnBoard Thermoelectric Generation for Improved...

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

    OnBoard Thermoelectric Generation for Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy Feasibility of OnBoard Thermoelectric Generation for Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy Poster presentation at the...

  9. Type B Accident Investigation Board Report on the September 7...

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

    Accident Investigation Board Report on the September 7, 2001, Burn Accident at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Building 9210 Type B Accident Investigation Board Report on the...

  10. Facility Safeguardability Analysis In Support of Safeguards-by-Design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Philip Casey Durst; Roald Wigeland; Robert Bari; Trond Bjornard; John Hockert; Michael Zentner

    2010-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The following report proposes the use of Facility Safeguardability Analysis (FSA) to: i) compare and evaluate nuclear safeguards measures, ii) optimize the prospective facility safeguards approach, iii) objectively and analytically evaluate nuclear facility safeguardability, and iv) evaluate and optimize barriers within the facility and process design to minimize the risk of diversion and theft of nuclear material. As proposed by the authors, Facility Safeguardability Analysis would be used by the Facility Designer and/or Project Design Team during the design and construction of the nuclear facility to evaluate and optimize the facility safeguards approach and design of the safeguards system. Through a process of “Safeguards-by-Design” (SBD), this would be done at the earliest stages of project conceptual design and would involve domestic and international nuclear regulators and authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The benefits of the Safeguards-by-Design approach is that it would clarify at a very early stage the international and domestic safeguards requirements for the Construction Project Team, and the best design and operating practices for meeting these requirements. It would also minimize the risk to the construction project, in terms of cost overruns or delays, which might otherwise occur if the nuclear safeguards measures are not incorporated into the facility design at an early stage. Incorporating nuclear safeguards measures is straight forward for nuclear facilities of existing design, but becomes more challenging with new designs and more complex nuclear facilities. For this reason, the facility designer and Project Design Team require an analytical tool for comparing safeguards measures, options, and approaches, and for evaluating the “safeguardability” of the facility. The report explains how preliminary diversion path analysis and the Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection (PRPP) evaluation methodology can be adapted for evaluating and assessing the safeguardability of nuclear facilities – both existing, as well as those still on the drawing board. The advantages of the Facility Safeguardability Analysis is that it would not only give the facility designer an analytical method for evaluating and assessing the safeguards measures and approaches for the prospective facility, but also the ability to optimize the design of the facility process for enhancing facility safeguardability. The following report explains the need for Facility Safeguardability Analysis and explains how it could be used in the Safeguards-by-Design, in support of the design and construction of nuclear facilities.

  11. Reactor Safety Planning for Prometheus Project, for Naval Reactors Information

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Delmolino

    2005-05-06T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this letter is to submit to Naval Reactors the initial plan for the Prometheus project Reactor Safety work. The Prometheus project is currently developing plans for cold physics experiments and reactor prototype tests. These tests and facilities may require safety analysis and siting support. In addition to the ground facilities, the flight reactor units will require unique analyses to evaluate the risk to the public from normal operations and credible accident conditions. This letter outlines major safety documents that will be submitted with estimated deliverable dates. Included in this planning is the reactor servicing documentation and shipping analysis that will be submitted to Naval Reactors.

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

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

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

  13. uWaterloo Annual Department Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Report (Workwell Version) Reporting Year: 2012 Department: ______________________________________________

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Czarnecki, Krzysztof

    ) Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) Poster with names and locations of Faculty/Dept. Health and Safety Co (JHSC) membership. j) Location of Department HSE Board? Building) Classroom Emergency Procedures Poster? (April 11) e) In chemical labs and areas with hazardous materials

  14. Cold Vacuum Drying facility civil structural system design description (SYS 06)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PITKOFF, C.C.

    1999-07-06T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility civil - structural system. This system consists of the facility structure, including the administrative and process areas. The system's primary purpose is to provide for a facility to house the CVD process and personnel and to provide a tertiary level of containment. The document provides a description of the facility and demonstrates how the design meets the various requirements imposed by the safety analysis report and the design requirements document.

  15. Fusion safety program Annual report, Fiscal year 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Longhurst, G.R.; Cadwallader, L.C.; Carmack, W.J. [and others

    1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the major activities of the Fusion Safety Program in FY-95. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) is the designated lead laboratory, and Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company is the prime contractor for this program. The Fusion Safety Program was initiated in 1979. Activities are conducted at the INEL, at other DOE laboratories, and at other institutions. Among the technical areas covered in this report are tritium safety, beryllium safety, chemical reactions and activation product release, safety aspects of fusion magnet systems, plasma disruptions, risk assessment failure rate database development, and safety code development and application to fusion safety issues. Most of this work has been done in support of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Also included in the report are summaries of the safety and environmental studies performed by the Fusion Safety Program for the Tokamak Physics Experiment and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor and the technical support for commercial fusion facility conceptual design studies. A final activity described is work to develop DOE Technical Standards for Safety of Fusion Test Facilities.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  17. Acceptable NSLS Safety Documentation

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

    Acceptable NSLS Safety Documentation Print NSLS users who have completed NSLS Safety Module must present a copy of one of the following documents to receive ALS 1001: Safety at the...

  18. Texas Facilities Commission's Facility Management Strategic Plan

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Ramirez, J. A.

    , Texas, November 17 - 19, 2009 Facility Strategic Plan ?High Performance Building Approach ? Envelope ? Load Reduction ? (Re)Design ? Advanced Tactics ?Building Automation ? Sub-metering ? Controls ?Commissioning ? Assessment ? Continuous ?Facility... International Conference for Enhanced Building Operations, Austin, Texas, November 17 - 19, 2009 Commissioning Assessment ?30 buildings ?CC Opportunities ?O&M Improvements ?Energy/Capital Improvement Opportunities ?Quick Payback Implementation ?Levering DM...

  19. Evolution of Safety Basis Documentation for the Fernald Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, T.; Kohler, S.; Fisk, P.; Krach, F.; Klein, B.

    2004-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The objective of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fernald Closure Project (FCP), in suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, is to safely complete the environmental restoration of the Fernald site by 2006. Over 200 out of 220 total structures, at this DOE plant site which processed uranium ore concentrates into high-purity uranium metal products, have been safely demolished, including eight of the nine major production plants. Documented Safety Analyses (DSAs) for these facilities have gone through a process of simplification, from individual operating Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) to a single site-wide Authorization Basis containing nuclear facility Bases for Interim Operations (BIOs) to individual project Auditable Safety Records (ASRs). The final stage in DSA simplification consists of project-specific Integrated Health and Safety Plans (I-HASPs) and Nuclear Health and Safety Plans (N-HASPs) that address all aspects of safety, from the worker in the field to the safety basis requirements preserving the facility/activity hazard categorization. This paper addresses the evolution of Safety Basis Documentation (SBD), as DSAs, from production through site closure.

  20. RADIATION SAFETY TRAINING MANUAL Radiation Safety Office

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sibille, Etienne

    protection and the potential risks of ionizing radiation. Radiation Safety Office personnel provide.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS, PROTECTION STANDARDS, AND RADIATION SAFETY ORGANIZATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 V. BASIC RADIATION PROTECTION PRINCIPLES