Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's enabling legislation  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

ENABLING STATUTE OF THE ENABLING STATUTE OF THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 42 U.S.C. § 2286 et seq. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1989 (Pub. L. No. 100-456, September 29, 1988), AS AMENDED BY NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1991 (Pub. L. No. 101-510, November 5, 1990), NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FISCAL YEARS 1992 AND 1993 (Pub. L. No. 102-190, December 5, 1991), ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-486, October 24, 1992), NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FISCAL YEAR 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-160, November 30, 1993), FEDERAL REPORTS ELIMINATION ACT OF 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-362, November 10, 1998), NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FISCAL YEAR 2001 (Pub. L. No. 106-398, October 30, 2000), AND

2

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October 2012 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility [HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02] The Office of 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 parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12 Technical Services, LLC (B&W Y-12) design project team leadership; and an open public

3

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October 2012 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility [HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02] The Office of 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 parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12 Technical Services, LLC (B&W Y-12) design project team leadership; and an open public

4

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October 2012 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility [HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02] The Office of 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 parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12 Technical Services, LLC (B&W Y-12) design project team leadership; and an open public

5

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2001-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

6

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

1996-12-30T23:59:59.000Z

7

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

1999-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

8

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's first decade  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Concern over the safety of the United States' defense nuclear reactors in the late 1980s led to congressional creation of an independent oversight board. The Defense Nuclear Facility Safeties Board (DNFSB) is responsible for overseeing safety issues at the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear facilities and issuing recommendations on operations and safety at these facilities, which include South Carolina's Savannah River Site, Texas' Pantex facility, Colorado's Rocky Flats Depot, and others. This article provides an historical overview of the DNFSB's first decade and discusses its relationship and interaction with the Department of Energy and congressional oversight committees as well as the recommendations it has issued on nuclear safety. An assessment of DNFSB's future prospects concludes the article.

Bert Chapman

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

9

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2000-11-20T23:59:59.000Z

10

September 10, 2010 HSS Briefing to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) on Union Activities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Labor Union and Stakeholder Labor Union and Stakeholder Outreach and Collaboration Office of Health, Safety and Security Briefing to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Briefing to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Leadership Commitment Leadership Commitment " h "It is imperative that we communicate and establish relationships with those elements that train manage and elements that train, manage and represent our workforce to improve the safety culture at DOE sites." safety culture at DOE sites. Glenn S. Podonsky Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer 2 History History History History October 2006: Formation of HSS to provide an integrated DOE HQ-level function for health, safety, environment, and security into one unified office. February 2007: Established HSS Focus Group -

11

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Review at the Nevada National Security Site  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

NNSS-2011-001 NNSS-2011-001 Site: Nevada National Security Site Subject: Office of Independent Oversight's Office of Environment, Safety and Health Evaluations Activity Report for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Review at the Nevada National Security Site Dates of Activity 02/14/2011 - 02/17/2011 Report Preparer William Macon Activity Description/Purpose: The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Independent Oversight, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), visited the Nevada Site Office (NSO) and the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) from February 14-17, 2011. The purpose of the visit was to observe the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) review and maintain operational awareness of NNSS activities. Result:

12

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

13

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

14

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety...  

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

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October...

15

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

SciTech Connect

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.

NONE

1999-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

16

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

SciTech Connect

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.

None

2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

17

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility, October 2012  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HSS Independent Activity Report - HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 0 Report Number: HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02 Site: Y-12 UPF Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) Dates of Activity: October 2, 2012 Report Preparer: Timothy Mengers Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of 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 parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12

18

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

SciTech Connect

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.

None

2001-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

19

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

20

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

1995-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

22

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

23

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2002-05-20T23:59:59.000Z

24

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

25

CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

26

APS Experiment Safety Review Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Charter for the APS Experiment Safety Review Board May 12, 2011 1. Purpose The APS Experiment Safety Review Board (ESRB) advises the AES Division Director on the safe implementation of experiments performed by APS users on the experiment hall floor. The ESRB reviews each experiment that is submitted to the APS via the APS Experiment Safety Assessment System (ESAF). These experiments are conducted in beamline endstations in the APS Experiment Hall. 2. Membership The ESRB members are appointed by the AES Division Director. The current members of the ESRB are: Bruce Glagola AES - Chair Edmund Chang AES Paul Rossi XSD Nena Moonier AES Tom Barkalow PSC Patricia Pedergnana AES Wendy VanWingeren AES 3. Method After an experiment is submitted to the APS Experiment Safety Review system

27

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

FACILITY SAFETY (FS) FACILITY SAFETY (FS) OBJECTIVE FS.1 - (Core Requirement 7) Facility safety documentation in support of SN process operations,is in place and has been implemented that describes the safety envelope of the facility. The, safety documentation should characterize the hazards/risks associated with the facility and should, identify preventive and mitigating measures (e.g., systems, procedures, and administrative, controls) that protect workers and the public from those hazards/risks. (Old Core Requirement 4) Criteria 1. A DSA has been prepared by FWENC, approved by DOE, and implemented to reflect the SN process operations in the WPF. (10 CFR 830.200, DOE-STD-3009-94) 2. A configuration control program is in place and functioning such that the DSA is

28

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Safety Basis Safety Basis FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: A fully compliant Nuclear Facility Safety Basis. Program is implemented and maintained across the site. REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830 Subpart B Guidance:  DOE STD 3009  DOE STD 1104  DOE STD  DOE G 421.1-2 Implementation Guide For Use in Developing Documented Safety Analyses To Meet Subpart B Of 10 CFR 830  DOE G 423.1-1 Implementation Guide For Use In Developing Technical Safety Requirements  DOE G 424.1-1 Implementation Guide For Use In Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements Performance Objective 1: Contractor Program Documentation The site contractor has developed an up-to-date, comprehensive, compliant, documented nuclear facility safety basis and associated implementing mechanisms and procedures for all required nuclear facilities and activities (10 CFR

29

CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis 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. CRADs provide a recommended approach and the types of information to gather to assess elements of a DOE contractor's programs. CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis More Documents & Publications CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements Site Visit Report, Livermore Site Office - February 2011 FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Safety Specialist

30

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  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety and Security Safety and Security Report to the Secretary on the 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 February 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Department-wide Action Plan for the Columbia Accident and Davis-Besse Event ........... 3 3.0 Comprehensive Operating Experience Program ................................................................. 5

31

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.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Safety and Security Safety and Security Report to the Secretary on the 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 February 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Department-wide Action Plan for the Columbia Accident and Davis-Besse Event ........... 3 3.0 Comprehensive Operating Experience Program ................................................................. 5

32

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

a recommended approach and the types of information to gather to assess elements of a DOE contractor's programs. CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements...

33

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

34

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OP.1 - (Core Requirements 4 and 6) Sufficient numbers of qualified personnel are available to conduct and support operations. Adequate facilities and equipment are available to ensure operational support services are adequate for operations. The level of knowledge of managers, operations personnel, and support personnel is adequate based on reviews of examinations and examination results and selected interviews of personnel. (Old Core Requirements 3, 8, 13, and 19) Criteria 1. Minimum staffing requirements for safe operations have been established for operations personnel, supervisors, and managers. These staffing levels are met and are consistent with the safety basis requirements and assumptions. (DOE O 5480.19; WPF DSA) 2. All ES&H matrix support functions are identified for system operations. Adequate

35

Safety of Accelerator Facilities - DOE Directives, Delegations...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Health, Environmental Protection, Facility Authorization, Safety The order defines accelerators and establishes accelerator specific safety requirements and approval authorities...

36

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

and effectively implemented, with line management responsibility for control of safety. (Old Core Requirement 11) Criteria 1. Operations and support personnel fully...

37

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2001-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

38

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2004-07-23T23:59:59.000Z

39

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2011-07-21T23:59:59.000Z

40

CRAD, Facility Safety- Documented Safety Analysis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs: Nuclear Facility Training  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety (HS-30) Safety (HS-30) Office of Nuclear Safety Home » Directives » Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules » Nuclear Safety Workshops Technical Standards Program » Search » Approved Standards » Recently Approved » RevCom for TSP » Monthly Status Reports » Archive » Feedback DOE Nuclear Safety Research & Development Program Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design (HS-31) Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design - About Us » Nuclear Policy Technical Positions/Interpretations » Risk Assessment Working Group » Criticality Safety » DOE O 420.1C Facility Safety » Beyond Design Basis Events Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs (HS-32) Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs - About Us » Facility Representative Program

42

340 waste handling facility interim safety basis  

SciTech Connect

This document presents an interim safety basis for the 340 Waste Handling Facility classifying the 340 Facility as a Hazard Category 3 facility. The hazard analysis quantifies the operating safety envelop for this facility and demonstrates that the facility can be operated without a significant threat to onsite or offsite people.

VAIL, T.S.

1999-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

43

340 Waste handling facility interim safety basis  

SciTech Connect

This document presents an interim safety basis for the 340 Waste Handling Facility classifying the 340 Facility as a Hazard Category 3 facility. The hazard analysis quantifies the operating safety envelop for this facility and demonstrates that the facility can be operated without a significant threat to onsite or offsite people.

Stordeur, R.T.

1996-10-04T23:59:59.000Z

44

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM The Facility Disposition Safety Strategy (FDSS) Review Module is a tool that assists DOE federal...

45

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy Review Module Facility Disposition Safety Strategy Review Module March 2010 CD-0 O 0 OFFICE OF Facilit C CD-1 F ENVIRO Standard R ty Dispos Rev Critical Decis CD-2 M ONMENTAL Review Plan sition Saf view Module sion (CD) Ap CD March 2010 L MANAGE n (SRP) fety Strat e pplicability D-3 EMENT tegy CD-4 Post Ope eration Standard Review Plan, 2 nd Edition, March 2010 i FOREWORD The Standard Review Plan (SRP) 1 provides a consistent, predictable corporate review framework to ensure that issues and risks that could challenge the success of Office of Environmental Management (EM) projects are identified early and addressed proactively. The internal EM project review process encompasses key milestones established by DOE O 413.3A, Change 1, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, DOE-STD-1189-2008,

46

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

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

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

47

Radiological Safety Training for Accelerator Facilities  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

HANDBOOK RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY TRAINING FOR ACCELERATOR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public...

48

February 2, 2004, Board announcement of changes in the Public Meeting previously scheduled for February 3, 2004 on safety oversight  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of the "Government in the Sunshine Act" (5 U.S.C. § 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) meeting. FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 69 Fed. Reg. 1,699 (January 12, 2004). PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 9:00 a.m., February 3, 2004. CHANGES IN THE MEETING: On February 9, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., the Board will hear from the Department of Energy's Office of Environment, Safety, and Health concerning its roles and responsibilities in the oversight process of defense nuclear facilities. This testimony was previously scheduled for the February 3, 2004, public meeting. The meeting will be held at the

49

January 7, 2013, Department letter accepting Board Recommendation 2012-2, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

7, 2013 7, 2013 The Honorable PeterS. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana A venue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledges receipt of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) Recommendation 2012-2, Iianford Tank Fanns Flammable Gas Safety Strategy, issued on September 28, 2012, published in the Federal Register on October 12, 20 12, and accepts the Recommendation. The Board acknowledged in its Recommendation that some improvements had been made to the specific administrative controls used for flamn1able gas monitoring, but noted that more work was needed to make the ventilation systetn a credited safety control. DOE agrees. In developing an Implementation Plan (IP), DOE will take the

50

Charter for the ARM Climate Research Facility Science Board  

SciTech Connect

The objective of the ARM Science Board is to promote the Nations scientific enterprise by ensuring that the best quality science is conducted at the DOEs 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.

Ferrell, W

2013-03-08T23:59:59.000Z

51

December 14, 2004, Board letter providing Board Technical Report DNFSB/TECH-35, Safety Management of Complex, High-Hazard Organizations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

1 Conwdy, Chalrmm 1 Conwdy, Chalrmm DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES , I SAFETY BOARD A J bggenberger, V i ~ e Charman John I Mansfield K Brucc lwdtthewa 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C 20004-290 1 (202) 694-7000 December 14,2004 The Honorable Spencer Abraham Secretary of Energy 1 000 Independence Avenue, S W Washington, DC 20585- 1000 Dear Secretary Abraham: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) issued Recommendation 2004- I, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations, on May 2 1, 2004. On July 2 1,2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) accepted Recommendation 2004- 1 . The enclosed technical report, DNFSBITECH-35, Safety Management of Complex, High-Hazard Organizations, provides background information and ideas for implementing the Recommendation.

52

Defense Nuclear Facilitiets Safety Board Visit and Site Lead Planning Activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HSS Independent Activity Report - HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 1 Report Number: HIAR LANL-2012-08-16 Site: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Visit and Site Lead Planning Activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Dates of Activity : 08/14/2012 - 08/16/2012 Report Preparer: Robert Freeman Activity Description/Purpose: The purpose of this Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) activity was to maintain site operational awareness of key nuclear safety performance areas of interest to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), monitor ongoing site oversight and planning activities for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) nuclear facilities, and identify and initiate

53

Defense Nuclear Facilitiets Safety Board Visit and Site Lead Planning Activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HSS Independent Activity Report - HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 1 Report Number: HIAR LANL-2012-08-16 Site: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Visit and Site Lead Planning Activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Dates of Activity : 08/14/2012 - 08/16/2012 Report Preparer: Robert Freeman Activity Description/Purpose: The purpose of this Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) activity was to maintain site operational awareness of key nuclear safety performance areas of interest to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), monitor ongoing site oversight and planning activities for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) nuclear facilities, and identify and initiate

54

December 16, 2005, Board letter regarding the new DOE Manual on Integrated Safety Management  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

6,2005 6,2005 The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S W Washington, DC 20585- 1000 Dear Secretary Bodman: The Department of Energy (DOE) submitted its implementation plan for Recommendation 2004- 1 , Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations, to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) on June 10,2005. Commitment 22 under that implementation plan deals with issuing and implementing expectations for DOE organizations regarding the implementation of Integrated Safety Management (ISM). In particular, Deliverable B is a new DOE Manual on ISM. The due date associated with the manual is December 2005. It is important to note that ISM has been one of the primary success stories of the defense nuclear complex. Your staff has been working with the Board's staff to achieve a satisfactory

55

December 27, 2011, Department letter transmitting the Implementation Plan for Board Recommendation 2011-1, Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

December 27,2011 December 27,2011 The Honorable Peter S. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is the Depmiment of Energy's (DOE's) Implementation Plan (IP) for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) Recommendation 2011-1, Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). On June 30, 20 II, the Department accepted Recommendation 20 Il-l in a letter to the Board, which was published in the Federal Register. On August 12,2011, the Board sought additional clarification about this acceptance, and on September 19,2011, I transmitted clarification to the Board, which was also published in the Federal Register. The IP provides DOE's approach to address the Board's three sub-recommendations

56

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

57

Nano Research Facility Lab Safety Manual Nano Research Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 Nano Research Facility Lab Safety Manual Nano Research Facility: Weining Wang Office: Brauer rules and procedures (a) Accidents and spills for chemicals Not containing Nano-Materials Spills of non for chemicals Containing Nano-Materials In a fume hood small spills of nano-materials in a liquid may

Subramanian, Venkat

58

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Presentations - DOE Safety Oversight Policy, Practices, and Implementation  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Kyle E. McSlarrow, Kyle E. McSlarrow, Deputy Secretary of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public hearing October 21,2003 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board for providing me the opportunity to address you today. In my role as the Deputy Secretary of Energy, I serve as the Department's Chief Operating Officer and have responsibility for providing direction to all DOE organizations, including NNSA. The subject of today's hearing - safety oversight - is a critical component of the Department's management system. The Secretary and I take our responsibility to ensure the Department's missions are performed safely very seriously, and the Secretary has made this clear from his first year in office. For example, the Secretary stated, in remarks at the 2001 Executive Safety

59

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Hon. Rafael Moure-Eraso Chairperson Hon. John S issued the following recommendations to Texas Tech University pursuant to our investigation with the responsibility of ensuring that remedial actions are implemented in a timely manner. I am writing to inform you

Rock, Chris

60

Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules DOE provides safety requirements and guidance in a number of forms. One form in which we publish...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

Office of Nuclear Safety Basis and Facility Design  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

62

Board Staff Perspectives Quality Council  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Nuclear Facilities Safety Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Th B d & T h i l S ff Q li A The Board & Technical Staff Quality Assurance Perspectives for 2011 2010 Dr. W. San Horton, PMP, CSQE Member of the Technical Staff Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DISCLAIMER The ie s and opinions presented are solel the a thor's No information contained in the presentation nor an associated The views and opinions presented are solely the author's. No information contained in the presentation nor any associated discussion should be construed as official or unofficial views or positions of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board T i Topics B i I f ti B d * Basic Information on Board * Who, what, mission, size, location * Organization of the Board and the Board's staff

63

Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

64

September 8, 1995, Board announcement of a Public Meeting on tthe status of public health and safety issues pertaining to K-East Basin activities at the Hanford Site  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Notice is hereby given of an open meeting of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Notice is hereby given of an open meeting of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) with representatives of the Department of Energy O E ) regarding the Department's standards-based safety management program. The purpose of the meeting is twofold: (1) for DOE to provide information to the Board regarding the status of DOE'S review and revision of nuclear safety Orders and rules, and (2) to allow the Deputy Secretary of Energy to obtain the preliminary advice of individual Board members in i d e n m g any significant safety issues raised by the Board's review of draft revisions to date. No Board decision will be reached, nor will agency business be finally disposed of during the session. This meeting is noticed pursuant to the provisions of the

65

National Ignition Facility Project Site Safety Program  

SciTech Connect

This Safety Program for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) presents safety protocols and requirements that management and workers shall follow to assure a safe and healthful work environment during activities performed on the NIF Project site. The NIF Project Site Safety Program (NPSSP) requires that activities at the NIF Project site be performed in accordance with the ''LLNL ES&H Manual'' and the augmented set of controls and processes described in this NIF Project Site Safety Program. Specifically, this document: (1) Defines the fundamental NIF site safety philosophy. (2) Defines the areas covered by this safety program (see Appendix B). (3) Identifies management roles and responsibilities. (4) Defines core safety management processes. (5) Identifies NIF site-specific safety requirements. This NPSSP sets forth the responsibilities, requirements, rules, policies, and regulations for workers involved in work activities performed on the NIF Project site. Workers are required to implement measures to create a universal awareness that promotes safe practice at the work site and will achieve NIF management objectives in preventing accidents and illnesses. ES&H requirements are consistent with the ''LLNL ES&H Manual''. This NPSSP and implementing procedures (e.g., Management Walkabout, special work procedures, etc.,) are a comprehensive safety program that applies to NIF workers on the NIF Project site. The NIF Project site includes the B581/B681 site and support areas shown in Appendix B.

Dun, C

2003-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

66

August 3, 2011, Board letter forwarding public comments concerning Recommendation 2011-1, Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

S. W S. W i n o h , C h a i n ~ ~ a ~ ~ DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES Icssie H. Roberson, Vice Chairmall SAFETY BOARD Jofm E. Mansfield Waslhgton, DC 20004-2901 Joseph F. Bader August 3,201 1 The Honorable Steven Chu Secretary of Energy U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 Dear Secretary Chu: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6 2286d(a), the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published Recommendation 201 1-1, Safety Cultlcl-e at the Waste Trentineitt aiid I~nmzobilizatio~i Pinlit, in the Federal Register and invited comments, data, views, or argutnents concerning the Recomtnendation frotn interested persons by July 20, 2011. The enclosed comments concerning Recommendation 201 1-1 have been received by the Board and made available to the public on the Board's internet web site, As required by 42

67

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Conduct of Operations - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Management - Idaho...

68

ACCELERATOR TEST FACILITY SAFETY ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT TABLE OF...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Revised: March 1, 2010 i ACCELERATOR TEST FACILITY SAFETY ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY ......

69

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

70

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

145-2008 145-2008 April 2008 DOE HANDBOOK Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities DOE-HDBK-1145-2008 Program Management Guide

71

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

NOT MEASUREMENT NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1145-2013 March 2013 DOE HANDBOOK Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities U.S. Department of Energy TRNG-0061 Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. ii Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities DOE-HDBK-1145-2013 Program Management Foreword

72

CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS  

SciTech Connect

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].

C.E. Sanders

2005-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

73

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Presentations - ESE Safety Oversight Policy, Practices, and Implementation  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Energy, Science and Environment Energy, Science and Environment Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Hearing October 21, 2003 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board for inviting me to address you today. I welcome this opportunity to tell you about the progress the Department has made in assuring safe operations while accomplishing its missions. For my part, I am proud of the record to date. First, we need to understand the historical context underlying the actions of this Administration. The DOE of the 80's was in denial of its defense environmental responsibilities, liabilities and risks. This culminated in the FBI raid on Rocky Flats in 1989. The DOE of the 90's acknowledged the responsibilities and liabilities but didn't understand the risks and couldn't develop systems and processes for addressing them.

74

September 26, 2011, Department letter transmitting the Implementation Plan for Board Recommendation 2010-1, Safety Analysis Requirements for Defining Adequate Protection for the Public and the Workers.  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

September 26, 2011 September 26, 2011 The Honorable Peter S. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2941 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is the Department of Energy's Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2010-1, Safety Analysis Requirements for Defining Adequate Protection for the Public and the Workers. This Plan provides the Department's approach for updating its Documented Safety Analysis Standards and requirements to clarify them in regards to performance of hazard and accident analysis and the identification of safety controls. I have assigned Dr. James B. O'Brien, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Safety in the Office of Health, Safety and Security, as the Department's Responsible

75

Radiological Safety Training for Accelerator Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

TS TS NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1108-2002 May 2002 Reaffirmation with Change Notice 2 July 2013 DOE HANDBOOK RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY TRAINING FOR ACCELERATOR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Site at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/ Change Notice No.2 Radiological Training for Accelerator Facilities Page/Section Change Throughout the document: Program Management Guide Instructor's Guide Student's Guide "Shall" and "Must" statements Revised to: Program Management Instructor's Material Student's Material Reworded to non-mandatory language unless associated with a requirement

76

Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities  

SciTech Connect

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.

Lee C. Cadwallader

2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

77

Safety Plan for County and District Personnel and Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Safety Plan for County and District Personnel and Facilities Table of Contents Purpose and Scope of the Plan 2 Governance and Safety Committees Defined 2 Part I: Accident Reporting and Investigation 4 Processes 5 · Additional Training Resources 6 Part III: Safety Requirements for WSU Extension Facilities 7

Collins, Gary S.

78

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

79

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

SciTech Connect

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).

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

80

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

SciTech Connect

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).

Rule, Keith [PPPL

2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Safety System - September 25, 2009 | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Safety System Functionality Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities, and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 64-17, Rev 0 ) This document establishes the protocols used by...

82

Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DOE HDBK-1113-2008 DOE HDBK-1113-2008 April 2008 DOE HANDBOOK RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY TRAINING FOR URANIUM FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy FSC 6910 Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1113-2008 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Site at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/ DOE-HDBK-1113-2008 iii Foreword This Handbook describes a recommended implementation process for additional training as outlined in DOE-STD-1098-99, Radiological Control (RCS). Its purpose is to assist those individuals, Department of Energy (DOE) employees, Managing and Operating (M&O) contractors, and Managing and Integrating

83

Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Nuclear Safety » Nuclear and Facility Safety Nuclear Safety » Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives DOE Order (O) 252.1A, Technical Standards Program DOE O 252.1A promotes DOE's use of Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS) as the primary method for application of technical standards and establishes and manages the DOE Technical Standards Program (TSP) including technical standards development, information, activities, issues, and interactions. HS-30 Contact: Jeff Feit DOE Policy (P) 420.1, Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy DOE P 420.1, documents the Department's nuclear safety policy to design, construct, operate, and decommission its nuclear facilities in a manner that ensures adequate protection of workers, the public, and the environment. HS-30 Contact: James O'Brien

84

Electrical Safety Assessment Plan--NNSA/NSO IOD Facility Representative,  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Electrical Safety Assessment Plan--NNSA/NSO IOD Facility Electrical Safety Assessment Plan--NNSA/NSO IOD Facility Representative, 12/03 Electrical Safety Assessment Plan--NNSA/NSO IOD Facility Representative, 12/03 An assessment of the Electrical Safety (ES) program at XXXX was conducted during the week of December XX-XX, 2003. The assessment team evaluated the program using the programmatic areas and specific Lines of Inquiry (LOI) contained in the approved Assessment plan provided. The team consisted of the Facility Representative from National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as ES, Subject Matter Expert support. The assessment plan identified 5 areas of review for Electrical Safety. An integrated process has been established to ensure electrical safety hazards are identified and that adequate controls are defined and

85

OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE | Department  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE December 1, 2010 - 12:00pm Addthis OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE Oak Ridge, TN - The Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) provides the onsite disposal capability for the majority of cleanup-generated wastes on the Oak Ridge Reservation. EMWMF has continued a long-standing pattern of safe, complaint operations with 3,000 days without a lost workday case since operations commenced on May 28, 2002. The EMWMF has placed 1.5 million tons of waste and fill in the facility. The EMWMF receives waste from many Oak Ridge cleanup projects, including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-funded projects, multiple

86

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect

Data and calculations from previous criticality safety evaluations and analyses were used to evaluate criticality safety for the entire Tank Farms facility to support the continued waste storage mission. This criticality safety evaluation concludes that a criticality accident at the Tank Farms facility is an incredible event due to the existing form (chemistry) and distribution (neutron absorbers) of tank waste. Limits and controls for receipt of waste from other facilities and maintenance of tank waste condition are set forth to maintain the margin subcriticality in tank waste.

WEISS, E.V.

2000-12-15T23:59:59.000Z

87

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

February 1996 February 1996 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 2 Date November 2005 DOE STANDARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFETY BASIS DOCUMENTS (DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES AND TECHNICAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS) U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, Fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Adminis tration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000.

88

The Safety and Tritium Applied Research Facility  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Device, Facility, and Operation / Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tritium Science and Technology Tsukuba, Japan November 12-16, 2001

R. A. Anderl; D. A. Petti; K. A. McCarthy; G. R. Longhurst

89

FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD HEALTH, SAFETY AND...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE November 14, 2013 Richland, WA Topics in this Meeting Summary Opening ......

90

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

91

CFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Proximal Probes Facility  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Proximal Probes Facility Proximal Probes Facility Building 735 This COSA form must be completed for all experimenters working in the CFN and must be submitted to the CFN User Office for badge access. CFN Safety Awareness Policy: Each user must be instructed in the safe procedures in CFN related activities. CFN Facility Laboratory personnel shall keep readily available all relevant instructions and safety literature. Employee/Guest Name Life/Guest Number Department/Division ES&H Coordinator/Ext. Facility Manager COSA Trainer Guest User Staff USER ADMINISTRATION Checked in at User Administration and has valid BNL ID badge Safety Approval Form (SAF) approved. Training requirements completed (Indicate additional training specified in SAF or ESR in lines provided below): Select ESRs

92

CFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Electronic Nanomaterials Facility  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Electronic Nanomaterials Facility Electronic Nanomaterials Facility Building 735 This COSA form must be completed for all experimenters working in the CFN and must be submitted to the CFN User Office for badge access. CFN Safety Awareness Policy: Each user must be instructed in the safe procedures in CFN related activities. CFN Facility Laboratory personnel shall keep readily available all relevant instructions and safety literature. Employee/Guest Name Life/Guest Number Department/Division ES&H Coordinator/Ext. Facility Manager COSA Trainer Guest User Staff USER ADMINISTRATION Checked in at User Administration and has valid BNL ID badge Safety Approval Form (SAF) approved. Training requirements completed (Indicate additional training specified in SAF or ESR in lines provided below):

93

CFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Electron Microscopy Facility  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Electron Microscopy Facility Electron Microscopy Facility Building 735 This COSA form must be completed for all experimenters working in the CFN and must be submitted to the CFN User Office for badge access. CFN Safety Awareness Policy: Each user must be instructed in the safe procedures in CFN related activities. CFN Facility Laboratory personnel shall keep readily available all relevant instructions and safety literature. Employee/Guest Name Life/Guest Number Department/Division ES&H Coordinator/Ext. Facility Manager COSA Trainer Guest User Staff USER ADMINISTRATION Checked in at User Administration and has valid BNL ID badge Safety Approval Form (SAF) approved. Training requirements completed (Indicate additional training specified in SAF or ESR in lines provided below):

94

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Not Available

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

95

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Seylar, Roland F.

2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

96

Policy Statement 3, Board Oversight of Department of Energy Decommissioning  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

3 3 Date: August 19, 1996 Subject Policy Statement on Board oversight of Department of Energy decommissioning activities at defense nuclear facilities. Summary This policy statement describes the decommissioning phase of a DOE defense nuclear facility and identifies the Board's safety oversight responsibilities for decommisioning activities. John T. Conway, Chairman Congress directed the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) to oversee Department of Energy (DOE) practices at defense nuclear facilities that could adversely affect public health and safety during any stage in the life cycle of those facilities, from design, construction, and operation through decommissioning. The Board's objective during decommissioning is identical to its objective during any other phase of a facility's life cycle: to ensure that DOE provides adequate protection of worker and public health and safety at defense nuclear facilities. Congress specifically tasked the Board with reviewing and evaluating:

97

Facility Safety (For Informational Purposes Only)  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2014-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

98

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

99

Idaho Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency, Saves  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency, Saves Taxpayer Dollars Idaho Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency, Saves Taxpayer Dollars August 27, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis The box retrieval forklift carriage is used to lift a degraded box as retrieval personnel monitor progress. The box retrieval forklift carriage is used to lift a degraded box as retrieval personnel monitor progress. The new soft-sided overpack is placed for shipment for treatment and repackaging. The new soft-sided overpack is placed for shipment for treatment and repackaging. The box retrieval forklift carriage is used to lift a degraded box as retrieval personnel monitor progress. The new soft-sided overpack is placed for shipment for treatment and repackaging.

100

Safety assessment for the rf Test Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Radio Frequency Test Facility (RFTF) is a part of the Magnetic Fusion Program's rf Heating Experiments. The goal of the Magnetic Fusion Program (MFP) is to develop and demonstrate the practical application of fusion. RFTF is an experimental device which will provide an essential link in the research effort aiming at the realization of fusion power. This report was compiled as a summary of the analysis done to ensure the safe operation of RFTF.

Nagy, A.; Beane, F. (eds.)

1984-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

Fuel Storage Facility Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect

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.

Linderoth, C.E.

1984-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

102

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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...

103

Facility Siting and Layout Optimization Based on Process Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

) that identifies potential layouts by minimizing overall costs. This approach gives the coordinates of each facility in a continuous plane, and estimates for the total length of pipes, the land area, and the selection of safety devices. Finally, the 3D...

Jung, Seungho

2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

104

2012 Facility Representative/Safety System Oversight/Fire Safety Workshop - Registrants  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Representative / Safety System Oversight Workshop Facility Representative / Safety System Oversight Workshop DOE Fire Safety Workshop Federal Technical Capability Panel (FTCP) Meeting May 14 - 18, 2012, at the Alexis park Resort Hotel, Las Vegas, NV Registrants As of 5/15/2012 Total Number: 218 First Name Last Name Government /Contractor Agency Secretarial Office Site Position Training Course FTCP FS 5/15 FS 5/16 FR/SSO Plenary FR Track SSO Track Fire Safety Training Tour Ron Alderson Government Employee DOE NNSA Nevada SSO SAF-271 No No No Yes No Yes No No Josh Allen Government Employee DOE EM Richland FR No No No No Yes Yes No No No Mark Alsdorf Government Employee DOE HSS Headquarters NTC Safety Training Manager SAF-271 Yes No No Yes No No No No Xavier Aponte Government Employee

105

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Biennial Report, Fiscal Years 1993--1994. Volume 6  

SciTech Connect

In Fiscal Year 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (``the Panel``) handled 30 proceedings. In Fiscal Year 1994, the Panel handled 36 proceedings. The cases addressed issues in the construction, operation, and maintenance of commercial nuclear power reactors and other activities requiring a license form the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This report sets out the Panel`s caseload during the year and summarizes, highlight, and analyzes how the wide- ranging issues raised in those proceedings were addressed by the Panel`s judges and licensing boards.

NONE

1995-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

106

DOE | Office of Health, Safety and Security | 2012 Facility Representative,  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Representative Facility Representative Office of Nuclear Safety Home Facility Representative Home Annual Facility Rep Workshop › 2012 › 2011 › 2010 › 2009 › 2008 › 2007 › 2006 › 2005 › 2004 › 2003 › 2002 › 2001 › 2000 DOE Safety Links › ORPS Info › Operating Experience › DOE Lessons Learned › Accident Investigation Assessment Tools › FR CRADs › Surveillance Guides › Manager's Guide for Safety and Health Subject Matter Links General Program Information › Program Mission Statement › Program Directives and Guidance › FR of the Year Award Program › FR of the Year Award › FR Program Assessment Guide (Appendix B, DOE STD 1063-2011) FR Quarterly Performance Indicators Training & Qualification Information › Qualification Standards › Energy Online Courses

107

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect

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.

Laycak, D T

2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

108

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

109

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Oversight Assessment of Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project May 2011 January 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project

110

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Oversight Assessment of Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project May 2011 January 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project

111

2012 Facility Representative/Safety System Oversight/Fire Safety Workshop Agenda  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Representative  Safety System Oversight  Fire Safety Facility Representative  Safety System Oversight  Fire Safety Overall Workshop Agenda May 14-18, 2012  Alexis Park Hotel  Las Vegas, Nevada Monday, May 14, 2012 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. SAF-271, SSO Assessments (Day 1) Zeus B Quality Assurance Overview for FR/SSO Personnel Zeus A 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Workshop Registration Zeus Foyer Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Fire Safety Workshop Track Begins (see track agenda) Parthenon 4 SAF-271, SSO Assessments (Day 2) Zeus B . Safety Culture Workshop Zeus A Federal Technical Capability Panel Parthenon 2 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Workshop Registration Zeus Foyer Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:30 a.m. - 7:45 a.m. Workshop Registration Zeus Foyer 8:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. FR/SSO Tracks Begin; Plenary session with Fire Safety Track Parthenon 2 & 4

112

TRANSPORTATION CASK RECEIPT/RETURN FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS  

SciTech Connect

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].

C.E. Sanders

2005-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

113

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DOE O 420.1B, FACILITY SAFETY DOE O 420.1B, FACILITY SAFETY Order Module--DOE O 420.1B, FACILITY SAFETY To ensure that new DOE hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities are designed and constructed in a manner that ensures adequate protection to the public, workers, and the environment from nuclear hazards. To ensure that major modifications to hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities comply with the design and construction requirements for new hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. To ensure that new DOE nuclear reactors comply with the requirements of DOE O 420.1B and the design requirements of DOE O 5480.30, Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria. DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 420.1B Facility Safety More Documents & Publications Order Module--DOE O 420.2B, SAFETY OF ACCELERATOR FACILITIES

114

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This report documents the results of the Type B Accident Investigation Board (Board) investigation of the October 6, 2009, hand injury at the Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) Salt Waste Processing Facility construction site.

115

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

SciTech Connect

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.

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

116

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting - DOE Safety Oversight Policy, Practices, and Implementation  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

0 21 2 2 2 3 24 25 11 planned oversight model will address this issue. That concludes my remarks this morning subject to any questions from the Board. I look forward to hearing from the representatives of the Department. CHAIRMAN CONWAY: Mr. McSlarrow, welcome. MR. McSLARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I appreciate having the opportunity to address you today. In my role, as the Deputy Secretary of Energy, I serve as the Department's Chief Operating Officer, and I have responsibility for providing direction to all DOE organizations, including "SA. The subject of today's event, safety oversight, is a critical component of the Department's management system. The Secretary and I take our responsibility to ensure the Department's missions are

117

Impacts of criticality safety on hot fuel examination facility operations  

SciTech Connect

The Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF) complex comprises four large hot cells. These cells are used to support the nation's nuclear energy program, especially the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor, by providing nondestructive and destructive testing of irradiated reactor fuels and furnishing the hot cell services required for operation of Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II). Because it is a research rather than a production facility, HFEF assignments are varied and change from time to time to meet the requirements of our experimenters. Such a variety of operations presents many challenges, especially for nuclear criticality safety. The following operations are reviewed to assure that accidental criticality is not possible, and that all rules and regulations are met: transportation, temporary storage, examinations, and disposition.

Garcia, A.S.; Courtney, J.C.; Bacca, J.P.

1985-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

118

The Fast Flux Test Facility built on safety  

SciTech Connect

No other high-tech industry has grown as fast as the nuclear industry. The information available to the general public has not kept pace with the rapid growth of nuclear data---its growth has outpaced its media image and the safety of nuclear facilities has become a highly debated issue. This book is an attempt to bridge the gap between the high-tech information of the nuclear industry and its understanding by the general public. It explains the three levels of defense at the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and why these levels provide an acceptable margin to protect the general public and on-site personnel, while achieving FFTF's mission to provide research and development for the US Department of Energy (DOE).

Not Available

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

119

Fast Flux Test Facility final safety analysis report. Amendment 73  

SciTech Connect

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.

Gantt, D.A.

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

120

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Facility 10CFR830 Safety Basis Related to Facility Experiments  

SciTech Connect

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), a DOE Category A reactor, was designed to provide an irradiation test environment for conducting a variety of experiments. The ATR Safety Analysis Report, determined by DOE to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, provides versatility in types of experiments that may be conducted. This paper addresses two general types of experiments in the ATR facility and how safety analyses for experiments are related to the ATR safety basis. One type of experiment is more routine and generally represents greater risks; therefore this type of experiment is addressed with more detail in the safety basis. This allows individual safety analyses for these experiments to be more routine and repetitive. The second type of experiment is less defined and is permitted under more general controls. Therefore, individual safety analyses for the second type of experiment tend to be more unique from experiment to experiment. Experiments are also discussed relative to "major modifications" and DOE-STD-1027-92. Application of the USQ process to ATR experiments is also discussed.

Tomberlin, Terry Alan

2002-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

122

Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Facility 10CFR830 Safety Basis Related to Facility Experiments  

SciTech Connect

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), a DOE Category A reactor, was designed to provide an irradiation test environment for conducting a variety of experiments. The ATR Safety Analysis Report, determined by DOE to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, provides versatility in types of experiments that may be conducted. This paper addresses two general types of experiments in the ATR facility and how safety analyses for experiments are related to the ATR safety basis. One type of experiment is more routine and generally represents greater risks; therefore this type of experiment is addressed with more detail in the safety basis. This allows individual safety analyses for these experiments to be more routine and repetitive. The second type of experiment is less defined and is permitted under more general controls. Therefore, individual safety analyses for the second type of experiment tend to be more unique from experiment to experiment. Experiments are also discussed relative to ''major modifications'' and DOE-STD-1027-92. Application of the USQ process to ATR experiments is also discussed.

Tomberlin, T.A.

2002-06-19T23:59:59.000Z

123

December 4, 2003, Board Public Meeting - Board Member Opening Remarks  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Armed Services Committee made reference to the goals Armed Services Committee made reference to the goals that they were setting for the Board. The "basic goals," and I ' m quoting now from its report, "The basic goals in establishing an independent safety oversight board are to assure and enhance the safety of operations of DOE's nuclear facilities, and to restore public confidence that these facilities are operated without undue risk to public health and safety. " Now the report set forth, of course, a number of responsibilities given to the Board, but the report also went on to say, "Above all, the Board should be instrumental in restoring public confidence in DOE's management capabilities, a clear prerequisite for the continued production of the nuclear materials vital to the nation's security."

124

Independent Oversight Review of the Idaho National Laboratory Fuel Conditioning Facility Safety Basis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT REVIEW OF THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY FUEL CONDITIONING FACILITY SAFETY BASIS April 2010 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security Office of Independent Oversight i INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT REVIEW OF THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY FUEL CONDITIONING FACILITY SAFETY BASIS Table of Contents Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... iii 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1

125

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide - November 2002  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Oak Ridge Operations Office 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 Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................... iii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................iv List of Tables......................................................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

126

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

127

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

128

National ignition facility environment, safety, and health management plan  

SciTech Connect

The ES&H Management Plan describes all of the environmental, safety, and health evaluations and reviews that must be carried out in support of the implementation of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) Project. It describes the policy, organizational responsibilities and interfaces, activities, and ES&H documents that will be prepared by the Laboratory Project Office for the DOE. The only activity not described is the preparation of the NIF Project Specific Assessment (PSA), which is to be incorporated into the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (PEIS). This PSA is being prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) with input from the Laboratory participants. As the independent NEPA document preparers ANL is directly contracted by the DOE, and its deliverables and schedule are agreed to separately with DOE/OAK.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

129

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

420.2B, SAFETY OF ACCELERATOR FACILITIES 420.2B, SAFETY OF ACCELERATOR FACILITIES Order Module--DOE O 420.2B, SAFETY OF ACCELERATOR FACILITIES This module will discuss the objectives and requirements associated with the Order and the contractor requirements document. We have provided an example to help familiarize you with the material. The example will also help prepare you for the practice at the end of this module and for the criterion test. Before continuing, you should obtain a copy of the Order at DOE Directives, Regulations, and Standards Portal Home Page or through the course manager. You may need to refer to these documents to complete the example, practice, and criterion test. DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 420.1B Facility Safety More Documents & Publications Order Module--DOE O 420.1B, FACILITY SAFETY

130

DOE's Approach to Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis and Management  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

131

Policy Name: Bicycle, Rollerblade, Scooter ad Skate Board Policy Originating/Responsible Department: Department of University Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Policy Name: Bicycle, Rollerblade, Scooter ad Skate Board Policy Originating/Responsible Department of University Safety Policy: The University encourages the use of bicycles, rollerblades, scooters for the use of bicycles, roller blades, scooters and skateboards on campus. Purpose: The purpose

132

Policy Name: Bicycle, Rollerblade, Scooter ad Skate Board Policy Originating/Responsible Department: Department of University Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Policy Name: Bicycle, Rollerblade, Scooter ad Skate Board Policy Originating/Responsible Department Safety Policy: The University encourages the use of bicycles, rollerblades, scooters and skateboards for the use of bicycles, roller blades, scooters and skateboards on campus. Purpose: The purpose

Carleton University

133

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Not Available

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

134

Design and Development of an ADC/DAC Evaluation Board for NIJ Public Safety Radio  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

present all the input/output ports of the ADC/DAC board. 2 #12;A PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE to implement on a 4-layer PCB ADC ~ $21 (1k), DAC ~ $10 (1k) Figure 2: Image of ADC/DAC board. ADC/DAC Board Rx/Tx Board Overview IB DAC Output ADC Input ADI Interface to FPGA Board EXT_CLK_DAC CLK_ADC IA QB QA IA IB QB

Ellingson, Steven W.

135

December 22, 1998, Board announcement of public meeting scheduled for February 3, 1998, regarding Recommendations 95-2 and 93-3.  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

2 2 '9E ~4:25Pfl P.2 3670-01 DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Pursuant to the provision of the "Government in the Sunshine Act" (5 U.S.C. ~ 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) meeting described below. TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9:00 a.m., February 3, 1999. PLACE: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public Hearing Room, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004. STATUS: Open. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will convene the ninth quarterly briefing regarding the status of progress of the activities a&ociated with the Department of Energy's Implementation Plans for the Board's Recommendation 95-2, Megrated Safety Management ("ISM") and Recommendation 93-3, Improving DOE Technical Capability in Defense Nuclear Facilities Programs.

136

DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities The original release of DOE-STD-1120-98 provided integrated safety management guidance for enhancing worker, public, and environmental protection during all facility disposition activities. 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

137

DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities The original release of DOE-STD-1120-98 provided integrated safety management guidance for enhancing worker, public, and environmental protection during all facility disposition activities. 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

138

ESnet Policy Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

ESnet Policy Board About ESnet Our Mission The Network ESnet History Governance & Policies ESnet Policy Board ESCC Acceptable Use Policy Facility Data Policy Career Opportunities...

139

U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility Safety  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals, Self-Study Guide U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals, Self-Study Guide This is an open-book evaluation. Complete the questions, and submit your answers (hand-written or electronically) to the Training Center. Someone will check and grade your answers. If you achieve a score of at least 80%, you will receive a completion certificate. Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions More Documents & Publications Requirements in DOE O 5480.19, Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities Cross-referenced to DOE O 422.1, Conduct of Operations. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear Facility

140

Integrated Safety Analysis: Why It Is Appropriate for Fuel Recycling Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Integrated Safety Analysis: Why It Is Appropriate for Fuel Recycling Facilities Executive Summary This paper addresses why the use of an Integrated Safety Analysis ("ISA") is appropriate for fuel recycling facilities 1 which would be licensed under new regulations currently being considered by NRC. The use of the ISA for fuel facilities under Part 70 is described and compared to the use of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment ("PRA") for reactor facilities. A basis is provided for concluding that future recycling facilities - which will possess characteristics similar to today's fuel cycle facilities and distinct from reactors - can best be assessed using established qualitative or semi-quantitative ISA techniques to achieve and demonstrate safety in an effective and efficient manner.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

NASA Benchmarks Safety Functions Assessment plan - Developed By NNSA/Nevada Site Office Facility Representative Division  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SAFETY FUNCTIONS SAFETY FUNCTIONS Assessment Plan Developed By NNSA/Nevada Site Office Facility Representative Division Performance Objective: Management should be proactive in addressing safety-related issues. Management should have an established system to provide a ranking of safety considerations founded upon risk-based priorities. Criteria: A system is in place to provide a ranking of safety considerations founded upon risk-based priorities. (DOE/EH-0135) Procedures clearly define management's responsibility for safety- related decisions and provide for the escalation of matters in an appropriate time frame. (DOE/EH-0135) Management promotes safety programs and the organization's safety culture through sponsoring and attending safety meetings. (DOE/EH- 0135) Management encourages and supports effective programs for reporting

142

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Superconducting Magnet Safety Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) facilities present unique hazards or steel reinforced concrete, these ferromagnetic materials may have an effect on the magnetic field environmental temperature control is required (2) Structural support for heavy equipment and vibration control

Maroncelli, Mark

143

Facility Representative Program: 2007 Facility Representative Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

7 Facility Representative Workshop 7 Facility Representative Workshop May 15 - 17, 2007 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Final Day 1: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:00 a.m. Opening Remarks Joanne Lorence, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. Welcome from the Nevada Site Office Gerald Talbot, Manager, Nevada Site Office 8:30 a.m. Videotaped Remarks from the Deputy Secretary The Honorable Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy 8:45 a.m. Keynote Address - Safety Oversight Perspective and Expectations Glenn Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, Office of Health, Safety and Security 9:10 a.m. Facility Representative of the Year Presentation Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

144

Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility, Appendix A  

SciTech Connect

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.

Cerruti, S.J.

1997-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

145

Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers (EERE)

criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and System Engineer Program. DOE ORDER (O) 252.1A, TECHNICAL STANDARDS PROGRAM DOE O 252.1A promotes...

146

Interim Safety Basis for Fuel Supply Shutdown Facility  

SciTech Connect

This ISB, in conjunction with the IOSR, provides 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 or the facility is shut down. It is concluded that the risks associated with tha current and anticipated mode of the facility, uranium disposition, clean up, and transition activities required for permanent closure, are within risk guidelines.

BENECKE, M.W.

2000-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

147

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

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.

NONE

1996-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

148

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

149

Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility, Appendix B  

SciTech Connect

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.

Cerruti, S.J.

1997-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

150

Perspectives from the Board's Technical Staff  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

from the Board's from the Board's Technical Staff AP Poloski, S Sircar, MW Dunlevy, F Bamdad, SA Stokes June 5, 2012 This presentation contains information collected by the Board's technical staff and no official support or endorsement of these remarks by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is intended or should be inferred. Outline * Purpose: Review the values used by DOE contractors for dispersion analysis against DOE directives * Summary of Staff Complex-wide Review * Areas of Discussion - methods for determining atmospheric stability class; - use of extremely stable (G) atmospheric stability class; - selection of atmospheric dispersion coefficients; - correction for wind speed height; - selection of surface roughness; - adjusting dispersion coefficients due to surface roughness;

151

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

SciTech Connect

This Department of Energy (DOE) is approved for use by all components of DOE. It 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 with these guidelines will provide consistency and uniformity in Criticality Safety Evaluations (CSEs) across the complex and will document compliance with DOE Order 5480.24 requirements as they pertain to CSEs.

NONE

1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

152

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

153

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

154

CFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Advanced Optical Methods Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

(Indicate additional training specified in SAF or ESR in lines provided below): Select ESRs 20 User AdminCFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Advanced Optical Methods Facility Building 735 procedures in CFN related activities. CFN Facility Laboratory personnel shall keep readily available all

Ohta, Shigemi

155

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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 Safety Basis portion of an Operational Readiness Review at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility.

156

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

157

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

158

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE Order 420.1C, Facility Safety  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE Order 420.1C, Facility Safety, and its supporting directives, DOE?STD?1020?2012, Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities, and DOE?STD?1066?2012, Fire Protection

159

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

160

DOE Honors Idaho Facility with Safety Award | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers (EERE)

It relies on cooperation between managers, employees, and DOE to continuously improve health and safety programs. "I'm pleased to see this continuation of the VPP tradition at...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

CFN Operations and Safety Awareness (COSA) Checklist Soft-Bio Nanomaterials Facility  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Soft-Bio Nanomaterials Facility Soft-Bio Nanomaterials Facility Building 735 This COSA form must be completed for all experimenters working in the CFN and must be submitted to the CFN User Office for badge access. CFN Safety Awareness Policy: Each user must be instructed in the safe procedures in CFN related activities. CFN Facility Laboratory personnel shall keep readily available all relevant instructions and safety literature. Employee/Guest Name Life/Guest Number Department/Division ES&H Coordinator/Ext. Facility Manager COSA Trainer Guest User Staff USER ADMINISTRATION Checked in at User Administration and has valid BNL ID badge Safety Approval Form (SAF) approved. Training requirements completed (Indicate additional training specified in SAF or ESR in lines provided below):

162

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

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Nanofabrication (Clean Room) Facility Nanofabrication (Clean Room) Facility Building 735 This COSA form must be completed for all experimenters working in the CFN and must be submitted to the CFN User Office for badge access. CFN Safety Awareness Policy: Each user must be instructed in the safe procedures in CFN related activities. CFN Facility Laboratory personnel shall keep readily available all relevant instructions and safety literature. Employee/Guest Name Life/Guest Number Department/Division ES&H Coordinator/Ext. Facility Manager COSA Trainer Guest User Staff USER ADMINISTRATION Checked in at User Administration and has valid BNL ID badge Safety Approval Form (SAF) approved. Training requirements completed (Indicate additional training specified in SAF or ESR in lines provided below):

163

Review of Safety Basis Development for the Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

of5 of5 U.S. Department of Energy Subject: Review of Safety Basis Development for the Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility - Inspection Criteria, Approach, and Line:~ HS: Rev: Eff. Date: HSS CRAD 45-57 0 January 31,2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Acting Direc or, Office of Sifety and Emergency Management Evaluations Date: January 31, 2013 Criteria Review and Approach Document LL.v. ~·M Criteria Lead:ife\riew of Safety Basis Development for the Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility Page 1 of 5 Date: January 31, 2013 1.0 PURPOSE Within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), the Office of Enforcement and Oversight, Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) mission is to assess the effectiveness of the

164

Environmental Management Advisory Board Charter | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Services » Communication & Engagement » EMAB » Environmental Services » Communication & Engagement » EMAB » Environmental Management Advisory Board Charter Environmental Management Advisory Board Charter The Environmental Management Advisory Board's (EMAB)'s most recent charter outlines the objective, structure, and scope of the Board. EMAB Charter More Documents & Publications SEAB Charter 2012 Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee Charter EM SSAB Charter Waste Management Nuclear Materials & Waste Tank Waste and Waste Processing Waste Disposition Packaging and Transportation Site & Facility Restoration Deactivation & Decommissioning (D&D) Facility Engineering Soil & Groundwater Sustainability Program Management Safety Security Quality Assurance Budget & Performance Acquisition Compliance Project Management

165

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

F F Testimony of William L. Hicks Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board December 3,2003 Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to provide some thoughts for the consideration of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) as you review the status of DOE, including NNSA, oversight and management of contracts and contractors. As noted in the notice of this series of public meetings, t'he Board "will focus on what impacts, if any, DOE's new initiatives may have or might have had upon assuring adequate protection of the health and safety of the public and workers at DOE's defense nuclear facilities." My experience includes 30 years in the Navy nuclear program and over 12 years within the DOE and NNSA complex associated with operations, oversight,

166

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

167

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This report documents the results of the Type B Accident Investigation Board investigation of the June 14, 2010, employee puncture wound at the Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) F-TRU Wste Facility located in the F Canyon Facility.

168

Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facilities Facilities Facilities LANL's mission is to develop and apply science and technology to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; reduce global threats; and solve other emerging national security and energy challenges. Contact Operator Los Alamos National Laboratory (505) 667-5061 Some LANL facilities are available to researchers at other laboratories, universities, and industry. Unique facilities foster experimental science, support LANL's security mission DARHT accelerator DARHT's electron accelerators use large, circular aluminum structures to create magnetic fields that focus and steer a stream of electrons down the length of the accelerator. Tremendous electrical energy is added along the way. When the stream of high-speed electrons exits the accelerator it is

169

Review of Safety Basis Development for the Los Alamos National Laboratory Transuranic Waste Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

of6 of6 Subject: Review of Safety Basis HS: HSS CRAD 45-59 U.S. Department of Development for the Los Alamos Rev: 0 National Laboratory Transuranic Eff. Date: May 6, 2013 Energy Waste Facility - Criteria and Review Approach Document Office of Safety and ~ Emergency Management Acting Djector, Of~e of Safety and Evaluations Emergency Management Evaluations Date: May 6, 2013 firo,~ Page 1of6 Criteria and Review e;dJatnes 0. Low Approach Document Date: May 6, 2013 1.0 PURPOSE Within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), the Office of Enforcement and Oversight, Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) mission is to assess the effectiveness of the environment, safety, health, and emergency management systems and practices used by line and

170

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Analysis 4. Fire Protection 5. Pressure Safety 6. Industrial Hygiene 7. Other ES&H Issues This document, the more stringent requirement will govern. 11.3.1 DOE O 420.1B ­ Facility Safety a) Fire protection system Program a) Fire protection b) Pressure safety c) Industrial hygiene d) Biological safety e) Electrical

Ohta, Shigemi

171

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Shedrow, C.B.

1999-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

172

May 11, 2000, Board announcement of a public meeting on recommendations 95-2 and 98-1, scheduled for May 31, 2000 at 9 AM to be held at the DNFSB Public Hearing Room in Washington D.C.  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

3670-01 3670-01 DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Pursuant to the provision of the "Govemrnent in the Sunshine Act" (5 U.S.C. $ 552 b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's ("Board") meeting described below. TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9:00 a.m., May31, 2000. PLACE: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 352, Washington, DC 20004. STATUS: Open. Hearing Room, MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will convene the thirteenth quarterly briefing regarding the status of progress of the activities associated with the Department of Energy's Implementation Plan for the Board's Recommendation 95-2, Safety Management. Specific matters will include recent and planned site verification reviews, actions needed to achieve fill implementation by September

173

Radiological safety at Argonne national laboratory's heavy ion research facility  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper discusses the radiological safety system to be employed at the Argonne tandemlinac accelerator system (ATLAS). The design parameters of ATLAS that affect safety have remained unchanged since ATLAS construction began in 1982. The specialized radiological safety considerations of ATLAS were discussed in 1982 [1]. This paper will present the details of the hardware, the administrative controls, and the radiation monitoring that will be in effect when beam is produced in April 1985. The experimental hall utilizing the maximum energy beam ( ? 27 MeV per nucleon) from the completed ATLAS has been partitioned with shielding blocks into its final configuration. Because scientists want access to some of the partitioned-off areas while beam is present in other areas, an interlock and logic system allowing such occupancy has been designed. The rationale and hardware of the system will be discussed. Since one of the potential radiation hazards is high-energy forward-directed neutrons from any location where the beam impinges (such as collimators, bending and focussing systems, experimental targets, and beam stops), radiation surveys and hazard assessments are necessary for the administrative controls that allow occupancy of various areas. Because of the various uses of ATLAS, neutrons (the dominant beam hazard) will be non-existent in some experiments and will be of energies ? 10 MeV for a few experiments. These conditions may exist at specific locations during beam preparation but may change rapidly when beam is finally delivered to an experimental area. Monitoring and assessing such time varying and geographically changing hazards will be a challenge since little data will be available on source terms until various beams are produced of sufficient intensity and energy to make measurements. How the operating division for ATLAS and the Argonne safety division are addressing this aspect through administrative controls will also be discussed.

R.H. Cooke; R.A. Wynveen

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

174

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Testimony - Attachment 3  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Linton Brooks, Administrator Linton Brooks, Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration W .S. Department of Energy Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board October 2 1,2003 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) current practices for oversight and management of the contracts and contractors that accomplish the mission assigned to NNSA under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. We understand that the Board particularly wants to focus on the impact NNSA's reengineering may have on assuring adequate protection of the health and safety of the public and workers at NNSA's defense nuclear facilities. I fully understand my personal responsibility for assuring the safety of NNSA's

175

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

SciTech Connect

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.

NONE

1990-09-19T23:59:59.000Z

176

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting - Board Opening Remarks  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

PUBLIC MEETING ON OVERSIGHT PUBLIC MEETING ON OVERSIGHT + + + + + WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 3 , 2003 + + + + + The Board met in the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Hearing Room at 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W. , Suite 300, Washington, D.C., at 9 : 0 0 a.m., John T. Conway, Chairman, presiding. PRESENT JOHN T. CONWAY A.J. EGGENBERGER JOHN E. MANSFIELD R. BRUCE MATTHEWS STAFF PRESENT RICHARD A. AZZARO JAMES J. McCONNELL KENNETH M. PUSATERI ALSO PRESENT DANIEL E. GLENN MICHAEL B. MALLORY WILLIAM J. BRUMLY DENNIS R. RUDDY Chairman Vice Chairman Board Member Board Member General Counsel Deputy Technical Director General Manager Manager, Pantex Site Office General Manager, BWXT Pantex, LLC Manager, Y-12 Site Office General Manager, BWXT Y-12, LLC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

177

Closure of 324 Facility potential HEPA filter failure unreviewed safety questions  

SciTech Connect

This document summarizes the activities which occurred to resolve an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) for the 324 Facility [Waste Technology Engineering Laboratory] involving Potential HEPA Filter Breach. The facility ventilation system had the capacity to fail the HEPA filters during accident conditions which would totally plug the filters. The ventilation system fans were modified which lowered fan operating parameters and prevented HEPA filter failures which might occur during accident conditions.

Enghusen, M.B.

1997-11-07T23:59:59.000Z

178

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility safety equipment list  

SciTech Connect

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.

IRWIN, J.J.

1999-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

179

Revision of the RFIC Board for NIJ Public Safety S.M. Shajedul Hasan  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

12 C Layout 19 Bradley Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering, 432 Durham Hall, Virginia to build a another prototype MMR, which will be more compact and will have less cable connections. Hence just two boards for the present study using the quickest manufacturing time, the PCB fabrication

Ellingson, Steven W.

180

Appraisal of the Uranium Processing Facility Safety Basis Preliminary Safety Design Report Process at the Y-12 National Security Complex, May 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Appraisal of the Appraisal of the Uranium Processing Facility Safety Basis Preliminary Safety Design Report Process at the Y-12 National Security Complex May 2011 May 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U. S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Scope..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

Appraisal of the Uranium Processing Facility Safety Basis Preliminary Safety Design Report Process at the Y-12 National Security Complex, May 2013  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Appraisal of the Appraisal of the Uranium Processing Facility Safety Basis Preliminary Safety Design Report Process at the Y-12 National Security Complex May 2011 May 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U. S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Scope..................................................................................................................................................... 2

182

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 420.1B Facility Safety  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

0.1B 0.1B FACILITY SAFETY NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION LEARNING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHANGE NO: 2 DOE O 420.1B Level: Familiar Date: 12/1/08 1 DOE ORDER O 420.1B FACILITY SAFETY FAMILIAR LEVEL _________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the listed resources, you will be able to perform the following: 1. State the purpose of implementing DOE O 420.1B. 2. State who is responsible for complying with the requirements of this Order. 3. State the general and design requirements for nuclear safety. 4. State the general programmatic requirements for an acceptable fire protection program. 5. State the fire protection design requirements for a comprehensive fire protection

183

Lessons learnt from ITER safety & licensing for DEMO and future nuclear fusion facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

One of the strong motivations for pursuing the development of fusion energy is its potentially low environmental impact and very good safety performance. But this safety and environmental potential can only be fully realized by careful design choices. For DEMO and other fusion facilities that will require nuclear licensing, S&E objectives and criteria should be set at an early stage and taken into account when choosing basic design options and throughout the design process. Studies in recent decades of the safety of fusion power plant concepts give a useful basis on which to build the S&E approach and to assess the impact of design choices. The experience of licensing ITER is of particular value, even though there are some important differences between ITER and DEMO. The ITER project has developed a safety case, produced a preliminary safety report and had it examined by the French nuclear safety authorities, leading to the licence to construct the facility. The key technical issues that arose during ...

Taylor, Neill

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

184

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

4 4 BRIEFING REQUEST FORMAT FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Date of Request: __________________ Requested by: __________________ Phone #: __________________ Briefing Objective: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Briefing Date: __________________ Time: __________________ Duration: __________________ Location: 8th Floor Conference Room Other: _____________________ Classified: Yes ____________________ No ____________________ Board Members Requested: Conway ___________________ DiNunno ________________ Eggenberger _______________ Mansfield

185

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Y-12 National Security Complex Urnaium Processing Facility Project, June 2012  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Y-12 National Security Complex Y-12 National Security Complex Uranium Processing Facility Project May 2011 June 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Independent Oversight Assessment of Safety Culture at the Y-12 National Security Complex Uranium Processing Facility Project Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Results and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 3

186

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Y-12 National Security Complex Urnaium Processing Facility Project, June 2012  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Y-12 National Security Complex Y-12 National Security Complex Uranium Processing Facility Project May 2011 June 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Independent Oversight Assessment of Safety Culture at the Y-12 National Security Complex Uranium Processing Facility Project Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Results and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 3

187

Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Fire Suppression Vital Safety System, January 2012  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

the the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Fire Suppression Vital Safety System January 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

188

Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Fire Suppression Vital Safety System, January 2012  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

the the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Fire Suppression Vital Safety System January 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

189

Notices DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Draft Revised Strategic Plan for FY  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

65979 Federal Register 65979 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 213 / Monday, November 4, 2013 / Notices hq.doe.gov, or by facsimile to 202-586- 8008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lamont Jackson (Program Office) at 202-586-0808, or by email to Lamont.Jackson@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On February 19, 2009, DOE issued Order No. EA-145-D, which authorized Powerex to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using

190

Safety Analysis (SA) of the decontamination facility, Building 419, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory  

SciTech Connect

This safety analysis was performed for the Manager, Plant Services at LLNL and fulfills the requirements of DOE Order 5481.1. The analysis was based on field inspections, document review, computer calculations, and extensive input from Waste Management personnel. It was concluded that the maximum quantities of radioactive materials that safety procedures allow to be handled in this building do not pose undue risks on- or off-site even in postulated severe accidents. Risk from the various hazards at this facility vary from low to moderate as specified in DOE Order 5481.1. Recommendations are made for improvements that will reduce risks even further.

Odell, B.N.

1980-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

191

DOE-HDBK-1145-2001; Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SENSITIVE SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1145-2001 August 2001 DOE STANDARD Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities DOE-HDBK-1145-2001 Program Management Guide Foreword This Handbook describes an implementation process for training as recommended in

192

Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

3009-94 3009-94 July 1994 CHANGE NOTICE NO.1 January 2000 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 2 April 2002 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 3 March 2006 DOE STANDARD PREPARATION GUIDE FOR U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITY DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-3009-94 Page ii This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. DOE-STD-3009-94 Page iii Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses Table of Changes

193

W-1 Sodium Loop Safety Facility experiment centerline fuel thermocouple performance. [LMFBR  

SciTech Connect

The W-1 Sodium Loop Safety Facility (SLSF) experiment is the fifth in a series of experiments sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the National Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) Safety Assurance Program. The experiments are being conducted under the direction of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL). The irradiation phase of the W-1 SLSF experiment was conducted between May 27 and July 20, 1979, and terminated with incipient fuel pin cladding failure during the final boiling transient. Experimental hardware and facility performed as designed, allowing completion of all planned tests and test objectives. This paper focuses on high temperature in-fuel thermocouples and discusses their development, fabrication, and performance in the W-1 experiment.

Meyers, S.C.; Henderson, J.M.

1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

194

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE-STD-1195-2011, Design of Safety Significant Safety Instrumented Systems Used at DOE Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE-STD-1195-2011 which provides requirements and guidance for the design, procurement, installation, testing, maintenance, operation, and quality assurance of safety instrumented systems (SIS) that may be used at Department of Energy (DOE) nonreactor nuclear facilities for safety significant (SS) functions.

195

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

A General Description A General Description The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) is an independent organization within the executive branch chartered with the responsibility of providing recommendations and advice to the President and the Secretary of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at Department of Energy (Department) defense nuclear facilities. In operation since in October 1989, the Board 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 Board consists of five Board members appointed by the President for staggered five year terms. The Board is supported by almost 100 technical and administrative staff personnel and an annual budget of $22 million. The Board's enabling legislation authorizes a staff of up to 150 personnel. The Board headquarters is located in Washington D.C., at 625 Indiana Avenue NW. Ten Board staff personnel are currently on two-three year rotational assignment at the following DOE sites: Los Alamos, Livermore, Pantex, Hanford, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River.

196

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Oak Ridge Operations Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions Name: Organization: Directions: This is an open-book evaluation. Complete the questions, and submit your answers (hand-written or electronically) to the Training Center. Someone will check and grade your answers. If you achieve a score of at least 80%, you will receive a completion certificate. Questions: 1. What is safety basis (SB)? 2. How does SB fit with integrated safety management (ISM)? 3. In what primary DOE documents can requirements and guidance for SB be found? 4. What are the "graded approach" factors that DOE takes into account in ensuring that the level of analysis and documentation and the actions used to comply with the requirements are

197

Electrical Safety Assessment Plan - Developed By NNSA/NSO IOD Facility Representative  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

December 2003 December 2003 An assessment of the Electrical Safety (ES) program at XXXX was conducted during the week of December XX-XX, 2003. The assessment team evaluated the program using the programmatic areas and specific Lines of Inquiry (LOI) contained in the approved Assessment plan provided. The team consisted of the Facility Representative from National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as ES, Subject Matter Expert support. The assessment plan identified 5 areas of review for Electrical Safety. An integrated process has been established to ensure electrical safety hazards are identified and that adequate controls are defined and implemented. The M&O contractor and other NTS Users management actively participate in the ES program. An implemented Work Control process is in place that ensures

198

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Oak Ridge Operations Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions Name: Organization: Directions: This is an open-book evaluation. Complete the questions, and submit your answers (hand-written or electronically) to the Training Center. Someone will check and grade your answers. If you achieve a score of at least 80%, you will receive a completion certificate. Questions: 1. What is safety basis (SB)? 2. How does SB fit with integrated safety management (ISM)? 3. In what primary DOE documents can requirements and guidance for SB be found? 4. What are the "graded approach" factors that DOE takes into account in ensuring that the level of analysis and documentation and the actions used to comply with the requirements are

199

Facility Representative Program: 2003 Facility Representative Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

3 Facility Representative Workshop 3 Facility Representative Workshop May 13 - 15, 2003 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Day 1: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Theme: Program Successes and Challenges 8:00 a.m. John Evans, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. Welcome Kathleen Carlson Manager, Nevada Site Office 8:30 a.m. Keynote Address Savannah River Site and Facility Reps - A Shared History and Common Future Jeffrey M. Allison Manager, Savannah River Operations Office 9:00 a.m. Videotaped Remarks from the Deputy Secretary Kyle E. McSlarrow, Deputy Secretary of Energy 9:10 a.m. Facility Representative of the Year Presentation Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

200

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2014-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Presentations - ESE Safety Oversight Policy, Practices, and Implementation  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

De@artment of Energy De@artment of Energy Safety Management In Energy, Science and Environment DNFSB Public Meeting Bob Card Under Secretary October 2 I,2003 Historical Context + The DOE of the 80's (and before) was in denial of its defense environmental responsibilities, liabilities and risks - This culminated in the FBI raid on Rocky Flats in 1989 + The DOE of the 90's acknowledged the responsibilities and liabilities but didn't understand the risks and couldn't develop systems and processes for addressing them + The DNFSB was chartered in 1988 and became an effective agent for helping DOE understand risk priorities and safety systems for addressing them This is Not Your Father's DOE The President and Secretary Want, and Have Achieved, Game Changing Strategies

202

ESnet Policy Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

ESnet Policy Board Larry Smarr Jagdeep Singh Kristin Rauschenbach Cees de Laat David Foster David Clark Vinton Cerf ESCC Acceptable Use Policy Facility Data Policy Career...

203

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Disposal Facility (ERDF), and 2) the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 budget request and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. The Board also authorized its chair to sign...

204

November 24, 2009, Board Public Meeting on Oversight of Complex, High Hazard Nuclear Operations - Transcript  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

2-234-4433 2-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + + + + + DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD + + + + + WEDNESDAY MAY 12, 2010 + + + + + The Board met in the DNFSB Hearing Room at 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C., Peter S. Winokur, Chairman, presiding. PRESENT: PETER S. WINOKUR, Chairman JOHN E. MANSFIELD, Vice Chairman JOSEPH F. BADER, Board Member LARRY W. BROWN, Board Member JESSIE H. ROBERSON, Board Member STAFF PRESENT: RICHARD A. AZZARO, General Counsel TIMOTHY J. DWYER, Technical Director

205

December 5, 2012, Deparment letter transmitting the Implementation Plan for Recommendation 2012-1, Savannah River Site Building 235-F Safety.  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Washington, DC 20585 Washington, DC 20585 December 5, 2012 The Honorable Peter S. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is the Department of Energy's (DOE) Implementation Plan (IP) for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) Recommendation 2012-1, Savannah River Site Building 235-F Sq(et identifing the Depatiment's actions to reduce the hazards

206

November 21, 2006, Board letter providing feedback on the 2004-1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

November 21, 2006 November 21, 2006 The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 Dear Secretary Bodman: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) received your letter of October 12, 2006, enclosing the revised Implementation Plan (IP) for the Board’s Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. The Board has reviewed the IP and finds it to be responsive to the Recommendation. The Board would also like to take this opportunity to close Recommendation 95-2, Safety Management. The Recommendation 2004-1 IP and the recently issued Department of Energy (DOE) Manual 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System Manual, contain the actions necessary to reinvigorate Integrated Safety Management (ISM). In addition, DOE has taken an

207

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

SciTech Connect

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.

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

1999-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

208

Review of the Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility Safety Basis and Design Development, August 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Savannah River Site Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility Safety Basis and Design Development May 2011 August 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Scope and Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3

209

Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility Tritium Gas Containment Vital Safety System, January 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Independent Oversight Review of the Independent Oversight Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility Tritium Gas Containment Vital Safety System January 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background...................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Scope................................................................................................................................................ 1

210

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Presentations - DOE Independent Safety Oversight  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HEARING HEARING Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance October 21,2003 1 Office of Independent Oversight 1 and Performance Assurance 1 h.?s=- Role of Independent Oversight l Direct Report to the Secretary of Energy l Oversight for both NNSA and ESE l DOE's Corporate Oversight Entity l Provides Independent Performance-Based Evaluations Ytl l Well-Established Inspection Processes Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance OA's Technical Competence l Dedicated Team of Experienced Inspectors l Extensive Managerial and Technical Expertise l Technical Qualification Program and External Certifications Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance ? Some Key Inspection Focus Areas i l ISM Programs LY.W 0 Safety Systems

211

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

SciTech Connect

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.

King, J J

2010-12-02T23:59:59.000Z

212

Facility Representative Program: 2001 Facility Representative Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

1 Facility Representative Workshop 1 Facility Representative Workshop May 15 - 17, 2001 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Day 1: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Theme: Program Successes and Challenges 8:00 a.m. - Logistics Announcements & Opening Remarks - Joe Arango, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. - Welcome - Debbie Monette, Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Operations Office 8:30 a.m. - Keynote Address - Ralph Erickson, National Nuclear Security Administration 9:00 a.m.- DOE Facility Representative of the Year Presentation - Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 9:30 a.m. - Break 9:50 a.m. - Program Summary - Joe Arango 10:10 a.m. - Management Panel/Questions and Answers

213

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  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

214

DOE-STD-1120-2005; Integration of Environment Safety and Health into Facility Disposition Activities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

20-2005 20-2005 Volume 1 of 2 April 2005 DOE STANDARD INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH INTO FACILITY DISPOSITION ACTIVITIES Volume 1 of 2: Documented Safety Analysis for Decommissioning and Environmental Restoration Projects U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE TS i This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; (423) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000.

215

Coordination Meeting with National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Field Office Safety Basis Review Team Leader for Transuranic Waste Facility Preiminary Documented Safety Analysis Report  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HIAR-LANL-2013-04-08 HIAR-LANL-2013-04-08 Site: Los Alamos National Laboratory Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for Coordination Meeting with National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Field Office Safety Basis Review Team Leader for Transuranic Waste Facility Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis Report Dates of Activity : 04/08/13 Report Preparer: James O. Low Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) staff visited the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to coordinate with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Los Alamos Field Office (NA-00-LA) Safety Basis Review Team (SBRT) Leader for review of the revised preliminary documented safety analysis (PDSA) for the Transuranic Waste

216

Coordination Meeting with National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Field Office Safety Basis Review Team Leader for Transuranic Waste Facility Preiminary Documented Safety Analysis Report  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HIAR-LANL-2013-04-08 HIAR-LANL-2013-04-08 Site: Los Alamos National Laboratory Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for Coordination Meeting with National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Field Office Safety Basis Review Team Leader for Transuranic Waste Facility Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis Report Dates of Activity : 04/08/13 Report Preparer: James O. Low Activity Description/Purpose: The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) staff visited the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to coordinate with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Los Alamos Field Office (NA-00-LA) Safety Basis Review Team (SBRT) Leader for review of the revised preliminary documented safety analysis (PDSA) for the Transuranic Waste

217

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

SciTech Connect

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.

NIELSEN, D L

2004-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

218

Office of Health, Safety and Security Report to the Secretary of Energy- February 2011  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

219

June 2010, Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Assistance Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Assistance Nuclear Safety, Quality Assurance and Environment Information Notice June 2010 1 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: On August 12, 2009, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued Recommendation 2009-1, Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense Nuclear Facilities. This recommendation focused on the need for clear direction on use of quantitative risk assessments in nuclear safety applications at defense nuclear facilities. The Department of Energy (DOE) is presently analyzing directives, standards, training, and other tools that may support more effective development and use of

220

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Flynn, N.C. Bechtel Jacobs

2008-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

Safety Basis Requirements for Nonnuclear Facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site-Specific Work Smart Standards Revision 1  

SciTech Connect

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. This standard provides information on: Objectives; Applicability; Safety analysis requirements; Control selection and maintenance; Documentation requirements; Safety basis review, approval, and renewal; and Safety basis implementation.

Beach, R; Brereton, S; Failor, R; Hildum, S; Spagnolo, S; Van Warmerdam, C

2003-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

222

May 15, 2012, Federal Technical Capability Program Face to Face Meeting … Speech: Safety Culture And Training and Competency  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Safety Safety Culture Safety Culture And Training and Competency Joseph F. Bader Board Member Board Member Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Thanks to Tim Hunt and Doug Minnema Objectives * Discuss the Board's approach to staff training * Review the Board's concerns about safety culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) * Understand what group culture is and why it is an g p y important part of nuclear operations * Explore the linkage between safety culture and training and competency June 2012 DOE FTCP Meeting 2 The Board's Technical Staff * Currently about 85 Technical Staff members. * Essentially all of the Technical Staff members have at least one technical master's degree, ~20% have a PhD. * Extensive experience in nuclear, mechanical, electrical,

223

August 1, 2003, Board announcement of a Public Meeting on the Department of Energy oversight - September 10, 2003  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

§ 552b), § 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) meeting described below. The Board will also conduct a series of public hearings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2286b and invites any interested persons or groups to present any comments, technical information, or data concerning safety issues related to the matters to be considered. TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9:00 - 12:00 a.m., September 10, 2003. PLACE: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public Hearing Room, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004-2001. Additionally, as a part of the Board's E-Government initiative, the meeting will be presented live through Internet video streaming. A link to this presentation will be available on the home page of the

224

2009 VHA Facility Quality and Safety Report - Infrastructure | Data.gov  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Infrastructure Infrastructure Consumer Data Apps Challenges Resources About Blogs Let's Talk Feedback Consumer You are here Data.gov » Communities » Consumer » Data 2009 VHA Facility Quality and Safety Report - Infrastructure Dataset Summary Description The 2008 Hospital Report Card was mandated by the FY08 Appropriations Act, and focused on Congressionally-mandated metrics applicable to general patient populations. The 2009 VHA Facility Quality and Safety Repor report, not required by Congress, shifts to Veteran-centered metrics, and includes information related to infrastructure, care provided in outpatient and hospital settings, quality of care within given patient populations, accreditation status, patient satisfaction and patient outcomes for FY2008. The data in this report have been compiled from multiple sources throughout VHA. This dataset is a compilation of available services within each medical center, whether a medical center is accreditated by Joint commission and/or CARF and details the number of admissions by bed section, admissions per 1000 uniques, and average length of stay by bed sections. Total number of outpatient visits, number of unique patients and the medical center staffing.

225

Toolbox Safety Talk Safety Data Sheets (SDS)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Toolbox Safety Talk Safety Data Sheets (SDS) Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety-in sheet to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Chemical manufacturers are required to produce Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for all chemicals produced. "Safety Data Sheets", previously referred

Pawlowski, Wojtek

226

Safety System Oversight Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility Tritium Gas Handling System  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Site Visit Report Site Visit Report Safety System Oversight Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility Tritium Gas Handling System INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This report documents the results of the Office of Health, Safety and Security's (HSS) review of a safety system oversight (SSO) assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility (WETF) tritium gas handling system (TGHS). The assessment evaluated the TGHS's ability to perform as required by safety bases and other applicable requirements. The assessment was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Los Alamos Site Office (LASO) and was conducted October 25 - November 5, 2010. LASO was the overall lead organization for the evaluation, which included independent

227

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

William Brumley, Manager NNSA Y-12 Site Office U.S. Department of Energy Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board December 3, 2003 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Y-12 Site Office's processes for contractor oversight and our role in ensuring the missions assigned to the NNSA are accomplished. I understand that the Board has particular questions on the status of our oversight, our personnel, and our plans for future changes to our oversight model. I am prepared to address these questions for you today. I have a BS in Nuclear Engineering from North Carolina State University, am registered

228

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Presentations - DNFSB Staff Remarks  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

James J. McConnell James J. McConnell Deputy Technical Director, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board October 21, 2003 Good morning, my name is Jim McConnell and I am the Deputy Technical Director for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. At the beginning of the first session on oversight held in September, I provided some remarks on behalf of the Board's staff concerning the role of oversight in the larger system by which DOE directs its activities. I am pleased this morning to add to that discussion focusing more specifically on DOE's current and planned oversight activities. At the last public meeting I described the system that DOE uses in its roles as customer, owner, and enforcer, to communicate its expectations to its contractors and the methods DOE uses to ensure that

229

Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DOE-STD-3009-94 July 1994 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 12 January 2000 5 December 24 April 20021 DOE STANDARD PREPARATION GUIDE FOR U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITY DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSISANALYSES REPORTS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. TS This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161;

230

DOE-HDBK-1113-98, CN 1, Reaffirm; Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

REAFFIRMATION WITH REAFFIRMATION WITH ERRATA April 2005 DOE HANDBOOK RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY TRAINING FOR URANIUM FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy FSC 6910 Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-HDBK-1113-98 ii This document has been reproduced from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. DOE-HDBK-1113-98 iii April 2005 Reaffirmation with Errata Changes to DOE-HDBK-1113-98, Radiological

231

DOE-HDBK-1113-98, CH 1; Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

3-9 8 February 199 8 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1 December 2002 DOE HANDBOOK RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY TRAINING FOR URANIUM FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy FSC 6910 Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. A pproved for public release; dist ribution is unlim ited. DOE-HDBK-1113-98 This document has been reproduced from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. DOE-HDBK-1113-98 iii Foreword This Handbook describes a recommended implementation process for additional training as outlined in

232

Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreator Nuclear Facility Document Safety Analysis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SENSITIVE DOE-STD-3009-94 July 1994 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1 January 2000 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 2 April 2002 DOE STANDARD PREPARATION GUIDE FOR U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITY DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. TS TS This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161;

233

Sodium Loop Safety Facility W-2 experiment fuel pin rupture detection system. [LMFBR  

SciTech Connect

The objective of the Sodium Loop Safety Facility (SLSF) W-2 experiment is to characterize the combined effects of a preconditioned full-length fuel column and slow transient overpower (TOP) conditions on breeder reactor (BR) fuel pin cladding failures. The W-2 experiment will meet this objective by providing data in two technological areas: (1) time and location of cladding failure, and (2) early post-failure test fuel behavior. The test involves a seven pin, prototypic full-length fast test reactor (FTR) fuel pin bundle which will be subjected to a simulated unprotected 5 cents/s reactivity transient overpower event. The outer six pins will provide the necessary prototypic thermal-hydraulic environment for the center pin.

Hoffman, M.A.; Kirchner, T.L.; Meyers, S.C.

1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

234

Accident safety analysis for 300 Area N Reactor Fuel Fabrication and Storage Facility  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the accident safety analysis is to identify and analyze a range of credible events, their cause and consequences, and to provide technical justification for the conclusion that uranium billets, fuel assemblies, uranium scrap, and chips and fines drums can be safely stored in the 300 Area N Reactor Fuel Fabrication and Storage Facility, the contaminated equipment, High-Efficiency Air Particulate filters, ductwork, stacks, sewers and sumps can be cleaned (decontaminated) and/or removed, the new concretion process in the 304 Building will be able to operate, without undue risk to the public, employees, or the environment, and limited fuel handling and packaging associated with removal of stored uranium is acceptable.

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

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

235

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Larson, H L

2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

236

DOE-STD-6002-96; DOE Standard Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

6002-96 6002-96 May 1996 DOE STANDARD SAFETY OF MAGNETIC FUSION FACILITIES: REQUIREMENTS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; (423) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE96009495 DOE-STD-6002-96 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD....................................................................................................................... v

237

January 20, 2006, Board letter forwarding DNFSB Technical Report 36,  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

[DNFSB LETTERHEAD] [DNFSB LETTERHEAD] January 20, 2006 The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 Dear Secretary Bodman: In its response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board’s (Board) Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Organizations, the Department of Energy (DOE) committed to revitalizing Integrated Safety Management (ISM) with “a set of actions the Department will pursue to re-confirm that ISM will be the foundation of the Department’s safety management approach and to address identified weaknesses in implementation”. The enclosed technical report, DNFSB/TECH-36, Integrated Safety Management: The Foundation for an Effective Safety Culture, provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the

238

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM STATUS, 6/21/1999 | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM STATUS, 6/21/1999 FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM STATUS, 6/21/1999 FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM STATUS, 6/21/1999 Since September, 1993, the Office of Field Management has served as the Department's corporate advocate for the Facility Representative Program. The Facility Representative (FR) is a critical technical position serving as line management's "eyes and ears" for operational safety in our contractor-operated facilities. I recognize the importance of the FR Program, and commit the Office of Field Integration (FI) to its continued crosscutting support. The FI staff continues to work with your staff members and with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) staff on FR Program issues, including staffing, training and qualification, recruitment, and retention. The Board is clearly interested in the

239

December 16, 2003, Board Public Meeting - Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ralph E. Erickson, Manager Los Alamos Site Office National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board December 16, 2003 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the Los Alamos Site office's current practices for oversight and management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). There are four priorities at LANL in my mind in the following order - safety, security, environmental compliance and program. My responsibility as Manager is to ensure that my staff and the staff of the management and operating contractor carry out these four in accordance with the laws and the orders governing the DOE. To effectively accomplish

240

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

7 7 TESTIMONY Daniel E. Glenn, Manager Pantex Site Office National Nuclear Security Administration U. S. Department of Energy Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board December 3 and 4, 2003 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the Pantex Site Office's (PXSO) current practices for oversight and management of the Management and Operating contractor activities at the Pantex Plant. Transition from the long-standing roles and responsibilities to the re-engineered NNSA presents some challenges, but these changes are needed as we strive to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and most importantly the safety of our site operations. I fully support the NNSA Reengineering effort and believe that appropriate level of Contractor

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

Letter from Nuclear Energy Institute regarding Integrated Safety Analysis: Why it is Appropropriate for Fuel Recycling Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

082 l F: 202.533.0166 l rxm@nei.org l www.nei.org 082 l F: 202.533.0166 l rxm@nei.org l www.nei.org Rod McCullum DIRECTOR FUEL CYCLE PROJECTS NUCLEAR GENERATION DIVISION September 10, 2010 Ms. Catherine Haney Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Subject: Integrated Safety Analysis: Why It Is Appropriate for Fuel Recycling Facilities Project Number: 689 Dear Ms. Haney: 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 intended as an information source for the NRC and should serve as a foundation for discussion with industry representatives on the issue.

242

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

SciTech Connect

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.

JACKSON, M.W.

2002-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

243

Facility Data Policy  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Data Policy About ESnet Our Mission The Network ESnet History Governance & Policies ESnet Policy Board ESCC Acceptable Use Policy Facility Data Policy Career Opportunities...

244

Revisions to the Facility Safety Order and DOE?STD?1066  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Presenter: Jim Bisker, Fire Protection Program Manager, Office of Health, Safety and Security (HS?32)

245

Evaluation of replacement tritium facility (RTF) compliance with DOE safety goals using probabilistic consequence assessment methodology. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect

The Savannah River Site (SRS), operated by the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) for the US Department of Energy (DOE), is a major center for the processing of nuclear materials for national defense, deep-space exploration, and medical treatment applications in the United States. As an integral part of the DOE`s effort to modernize facilities, implement improved handling and processing technology, and reduce operational risk to the general public and onsite workers, transition of tritium processing at SRS from the Consolidated Tritium Facility to the Replacement Tritium Facility (RTF) began in 1993. To ensure that operation of new DOE facilities such as RTF present minimum involuntary and voluntary risks to the neighboring public and workers, indices of risk have been established to serve as target levels or safety goals of performance for assessing nuclear safety. These goals are discussed from a historical perspective in the initial part of this paper. Secondly, methodologies to quantify risk indices are briefly described. Lastly, accident, abnormal event, and normal operation source terms from RTF are evaluated for consequence assessment purposes relative to the safety targets.

O`Kula, K.R.; East, J.M.; Moore, M.L.

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

246

February 9, 2004, Board Public Meeting Presentations - Beverly A. Cook  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Beverly Cook, Assistant Secretary Beverly Cook, Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health U.S. Department of Energy Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board February 9,2004 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board, for this opportunity to address you today. You have invited me to speak on the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Environment, Safety and Health in the oversight process. In keeping with some of the questions you have sent to me, I would like to expand my remarks somewhat to the role of EH in assuring safety of the operations of the Department of Energy. I will speak to both my role personally, and that of my organization. I will also address efforts underway to improve DOES performance, and where I continue to be concerned. I would like to start with some of my overall assumptions. I absolutely believe that our

247

The whole-body counting facility at the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority after relocation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority new location...funded by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...Measurements of gamma-radiation from the human body...ORTEC. MCA emulator software version 6.0. 2000......

L. del Risco Norrlid; I. stergren

2011-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

248

October 24, 2003, Criteria and Guidelines For the Assessment of Safety System Software and Firmware at Defense Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

3.1 3.1 Revision 3 October 24, 2003 U. S. Department of Energy Criteria and Guidelines For the Assessment of Safety System Software and Firmware at Defense Nuclear Facilities October 24, 2003 CRAD - 4.2.3.1 Revision 3 October 24, 2003 i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS...................................................................................................................................ii GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................2

249

DOE-STD-101-92; Compilation of Nuclear Safety Criteria Potential Application to DOE Nonreactor Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

-1O1-92 -1O1-92 DE92 011016 COMPILATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY CRITERIA POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO DOE NONREACTOR FACILITIES Published: March 1992 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Standards Washington,DC 20585 This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Informa- tion, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from (423) 576-8401. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Order No. DE92011016 DOE-STD-101-92 CONTENTS FOREWORD 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Sources of Criteria and Format 1.3 Safety Analysis Report Criteria

250

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Printable Printable copy Comment Reference Material Enabling Statute for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 42 U.S.C. § 2286 et seq., National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989, (P.L. 100-456, September 29, 1988), as amended by National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1991, (P.L. 101-510, November 5, 1990), National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (P.L. 102-190, December 5, 1991), Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486, October 24, 1992), and National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103-160, November 30, 1994). Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Policy Statement PS-1, "Criteria for Judging the Adequacy of Department Responses and Implementation Plans for Board Recommendations," October 19, 1990.

251

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)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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...

252

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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...

253

Incentives for the Department's Facility Representative Program,  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Incentives for the Department's Facility Representative Program, Incentives for the Department's Facility Representative Program, 12/17/1998 Incentives for the Department's Facility Representative Program, 12/17/1998 The Department's Revised Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 93-3 has once again underscored the Department's commitment to maintaining the technical capability necessary to safely manage and operate our defense nuclear facilities. Attracting and retaining highly qualified employees and placing them in our critical technical positions is vital to fi.dfilling this commitment. You have identified 95'% of your Facility Representative positions as critical technical positions. The Office of Field Management has noted a 12'?40annual attrition rate of Facility Representatives from the Facility

254

Toolbox Safety Talk Ladder Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Toolbox Safety Talk Ladder Safety Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health Section Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Slips, trips, and falls constitute the majority of general industry elevated work tasks. Like any tool, ladders must be used properly to ensure employee safety. GENERAL

Pawlowski, Wojtek

255

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Testimony - Attachment 2  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

' ' TESTIMONY Kyle E. McSlarrow, Deputy Secretary of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public hearing October 21,2003 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board for providing me the opportunity to address you today. In my role as the Deputy Secretary of Energy, I serve as the Department's Chief Operating Officer and have responsibility for providing direction to all DOE organizations, including NNSA. The subject of today's hearing - safety oversight - is a critical component of the Department's management system. The Secretary and I take our responsibility to ensure the Department's missions are performed safely very seriously, and the Secretary has made this clear from his first year in office. For example, the Secretary stated, in remarks at the 2001 Executive Safety

256

Criticality safety aspects of decontamination and decommissioning at defense nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

Defense nuclear facilities have operated for forty years with a well-defined mission to produce weapons components for the nation. With the end of the cold war, the facilities` missions have changed to one of decontamination and decommissioning. Off-normal operations and use of new procedures, such as will exist during these activities, have often been among the causal factors in previous criticality accidents at process facilities. This paper explores the similarities in causal factors in previous criticality accidents to the conditions existing in current defense nuclear facilities undergoing the transition to decontamination and decommissioning. Practices to reduce the risk to workers, the public, and the environment are recommended.

Croucher, D.W.

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

257

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

SciTech Connect

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).

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

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

258

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

259

Preclosure radiological safety analysis for accident conditions of the potential Yucca Mountain Repository: Underground facilities; Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project  

SciTech Connect

This preliminary preclosure radiological safety analysis assesses the scenarios, probabilities, and potential radiological consequences associated with postulated accidents in the underground facility of the potential Yucca Mountain repository. The analysis follows a probabilistic-risk-assessment approach. Twenty-one event trees resulting in 129 accident scenarios are developed. Most of the scenarios have estimated annual probabilities ranging from 10{sup {minus}11}/yr to 10{sup {minus}5}/yr. The study identifies 33 scenarios that could result in offsite doses over 50 mrem and that have annual probabilities greater than 10{sup {minus}9}/yr. The largest offsite dose is calculated to be 220 mrem, which is less than the 500 mrem value used to define items important to safety in 10 CFR 60. The study does not address an estimate of uncertainties, therefore conclusions or decisions made as a result of this report should be made with caution.

Ma, C.W.; Sit, R.C.; Zavoshy, S.J.; Jardine, L.J. [Bechtel National, Inc., San Francisco, CA (United States); Laub, T.W. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

1992-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

260

COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON BOARD OF TRUSTEES  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Kassebaum, Secretary to the Board of Trustees; Gail Long, Internal Auditor; Monica Scott, VP for Facilities of the Board to focus his time and energy on his family and business interests. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Kasman, Alex

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

November 24, 2009, Board Public Meeting on Oversight of Complex, High Hazard Nuclear Operations - Transcript  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433 Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + + + + + DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD + + + + + OVERSIGHT OF COMPLEX, HIGH-HAZARD NUCLEAR OPERATIONS + + + + + TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24, 2009 + + + + + The Board met in the DNFSB Hearing Room at 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004, at 9:00 a.m., John E. Mansfield, Vice Chairman, presiding. UPRESENTU : JOHN E. MANSFIELD, Ph.D., Vice Chairman JOSEPH F. BADER, Board Member LARRY W. BROWN, Board Member PETER S. WINOKUR, Ph.D., Board Member USTAFF PRESENTU : RICHARD A. AZZARO, General Counsel TIMOTHY J. DWYER, Technical Director BRIAN GROSNER, General Manager RICHARD E. TONTODONATO, Deputy Technical Director Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

262

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

SciTech Connect

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.

KESSLER, S.F.

2000-08-10T23:59:59.000Z

263

Order Module--DOE O 420.1B, FACILITY SAFETY  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

To ensure that new DOE hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities are designed and constructed in a manner that ensures adequate protection to the public, workers, and the environment from...

264

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

2-Criteria 2-Criteria Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2002-1 Software Quality Assurance Improvement Plan Commitment 4.2.1.2: Software Quality Assurance Plan and Criteria for the Safety Analysis Toolbox Codes U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environment, Safety and Health 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20585-2040 November 2003 Software Quality Assurance Criteria for Safety Analysis Codes November 2003 INTENTIONALLY BLANK ii Software Quality Assurance Criteria for Safety Analysis Codes November 2003 FOREWORD This document discusses the Software Quality Assurance plan, and criteria and implementation procedures to be used to evaluate designated, safety-related computer software for the

265

December 4, 2003, Board Public Meeting Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

TM TM Westinghouse Savannah River Company "Assessment Program" Presentation to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board R. A. Pedde 12/4/03 TM 2 Overview WSRC Assessment Program Line Oversight/Contractor Assurance System Technical Staffing Corrective Action Program Program Enhancements Closing Remarks Questions & Answers TM 3 Assessment Program WSRC Recognizes that a Robust Assessment Program is Key to: ⎟ Meeting the Integrated Safety Management System's Requirements and Expectations for "Feedback & Improvement" ⎟ Meeting the Requirements of the Quality Assurance Rule and Order, ⎟ Identifying and Correcting Precursor Problems Before a More Serious Incident Occurs, and, ⎟ Ensuring Continuous Improvement Throughout the Organization

266

Safety Enhancements Continue at WIPP  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

actions have already been implemented. The site developed an Executive Safety and Quality Review Board to ensure adequate oversight as changes and updates to all safety related...

267

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

SciTech Connect

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.

TOMASZEWSKI, T.A.

2000-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

268

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2003-08-27T23:59:59.000Z

269

Type B Accident Investigation Board Report for the January 11, 2006, Personal Injury During Table Saw Use at the Heyrend Way Facility, Idaho Falls, Idaho  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This report is an independent product of the Type B Accident Investigation Board appointed by Elizabeth D. Sellers, Manager, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy.

270

April 27, 2010, Department letter transmitting revised Implementation Plan for Recommendation 2009-1, Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense Nuclear Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

April 27, 20 10 April 27, 20 10 The Honorable Peter S. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-294 1 Dear Mr. Chairman: In a letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board dated February 1, 20 10, I reaffirmed our acceptance of Recommendation 2009- 1, Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense Nuclear Facilities, and committed to several changes to the Department's Plan for implementing the recommendations therein. Enclosed please find the revised Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safity Board Recommendation 2009-1 that incorporates those changes. I want to express my thanks for your staffs input on this revision and look forward to similar contributions as we revise the Department's Nuclear Safety Policy and implement

271

August 17, 2005, Department letter forwarding the Department's implementation plan in response to the Board's recommendation 2005-1, Nuclear Material Packaging  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

August 17,2005 August 17,2005 The Honorable A . J. Eggenberger Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004 - 2901 Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased to forward the enclosed Implementation Plan (Plan) for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) Recommendation 2005-1, Nuclear Material Packaging. This Plan provides the Department's approach to ensure safe storage and handling of nuclear material at our sites. We appreciate the support provided by the Board and its staff during the development of this Plan. We will keep you informed of our progress in completing the Plan. I have assigned Mr. Richard M. Stark as the responsible manager for ensuring the Plan's successful completion. You may contact Mr. Stark at (301) 903-4407 to answer any

272

Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (LBL Facilities), April 23, 2013 (HSS CRAD 45-58, Rev. 0)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

U.S. Department of U.S. Department of Energy Subject: Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immob ilization Plant (LBL Facilities) - C riteria and Review Approach D oc um~ HS: HSS CRAD 45-58 Rev: 0 Eff. Date: April 23, 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Acting Di rec or, Office of Safety and Emergency Nltanagement Evaluations Date: Apri l 23 , 20 13 Criteria and Review Approach Document ~~ trd,James Low Date: April 23 , 20 13 1.0 PURPOSE Within the Office of H.ealth, Safety and Security (HSS), the Office of Enforcement and Overs ight, Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) miss io n is to assess the effectiveness of the environment, safety, health, and emergency management systems and practices used by line and

273

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities Documented Safety Analyses  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

3009-94 3009-94 PREPARATION GUIDE FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITY DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES DOE-STD-3009-94 Familiar Level June 2011 1 DOE-STD-3009-94 PREPARATION GUIDE FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITY DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES FAMILIAR LEVEL _______________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the resources listed below, you will be able to answer the following questions: 1. What are five general requirements for contractors who are responsible for a hazard category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facility, as related to establishing a safety basis? 2. What actions must a contractor take when it is made aware of a potential inadequacy of

274

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

I I OVERVIEW 1. INTRODUCTION. This Manual presents the process the Department of Energy (Department) will use to interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) and its staff. The requirements and guidance in this Manual apply to Departmental personnel, including employees of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), who are to use this Manual to facilitate the quality and responsiveness of the Departmental interactions with the Board and its staff. Attachment 1, Contractor Requirements Document (CRD), provides requirements that can be applied to contractors and subcontractors responsible for managing and operating Departmental facilities, as adapted to meet site-specific needs. Contractor compliance with the CRD will be required consistent with the conditions set forth in the controlling contract.

275

Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety, Risk Information Notice,  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety, Risk Information Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety, Risk Information Notice, June 2010 Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety, Risk Information Notice, June 2010 On August 12, 2009, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued Recommendation 2009-1, Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense Nuclear Facilities. This recommendation focused on the need for clear direction on use of quantitative risk assessments in nuclear safety applications at defense nuclear facilities. The Department of Energy (DOE) is presently analyzing directives, standards, training, and other tools that may support more effective development and use of risk assessment. Working with the Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety and the Chief of Nuclear Safety, staff from the Office of Health,

276

December 4, 2003, Board Public Meeting Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Henschel Henschel Jim Henschel WTP Project Director WTP Project Director Presented to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board December 4, 2003 Bechtel National, Inc. U.S. Department of Energy Contractor Oversight 2 Safety - Quality Oversight Design Construction Procurement 3 WTP Project Success Factors -- Safety -- Quality -- Compliance -- Technical -- Schedule -- Cost 4 QA Independent Audits/Surveillance Oversight Hierarchy DOE DNFSB EPA WA Ecology, Health Management/Self-Assessments Worker Self-Check Supervisory Check Second-Party Check DOE Client/Regulators Quality Assurance Organization Functional/Line Organization Industrial and Academic Reviews Corporate Oversight of Safety, Quality and Technical External Self- Assessments 5 Requirements Flow To Assessment Process Contract Commitments 10CFR 830 Subpart A

277

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board gustav Sample Search Results  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

278

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board savannah Sample Search Results  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

279

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board paducah Sample Search Results  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

280

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board public Sample Search Results  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board osteoporosis Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

282

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board portsmouth Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

283

E-Print Network 3.0 - advisory board shun-ichi Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Ride Safety Advisory Board Could not Contact 1 Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission... Armstrong County Board of Assistance 1 Asian ... Source: Sibille, Etienne - Center for the...

284

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Use of Administrative Controls for Specific Safety Functions, Use of Administrative Controls for Specific Safety Functions, 10/21/03. Use of Administrative Controls for Specific Safety Functions, 10/21/03. 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 discrete operator actions or administrative contols that are required to control or mitigrate the consequences of accidents at DOE nuclear facilities. The Bpard noted that the DOE does not have adequate set of requirements for the design, implemnation and maintenance of important safety-related adminisitrative controls toensure that they will be effective and realiable. The Board recommended that DOE promulgate a set of requirements to establish

285

Report to the Secretary of Energy on Beyond Design Basis Event Pilot Evaluations, Results and Recommendations for Improvements to Enhance Nuclear Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

In the six months after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took several actions to review the safety of its nuclear facilities and identify situations where near-term improvements could be made.

286

Corporate Board Meeting Minutes  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

th th Environmental Management Quality Assurance Corporate Board Meeting Minutes February 16, 2011 - Oak Ridge, TN Page 1 of 17 Voting Board Members in Attendance (general attendance sheet for the meeting is attached): *Greg Hayward - Idaho Robert Brown - Oak Ridge Ray Corey - Richland *Bill Rowland - Savannah River Bud Danielson -Chief of Nuclear Safety T.J. Jackson - EMCBC Ken Picha (chair) - Headquarters Acting EM-20 Russell McCallister - Portsmouth/Paducah Bob Murray (vice-chair) - Headquarters EM-23 No Voting Member Present - Carlsbad Jonathan (JD) Dowell - River Protection *Note: The by-laws require the voting member to be the Site Manager or assistant/deputy manager. The noted

287

February 13, 1995, Board announcement of a Public Meeting on the DOE Plutonium Vulnerability Study  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

§552b), §552b), notice is hereby given of the following Board meeting and staff briefing: FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Previously announced in the February 14, 1995, Federal Register. PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 2:00 p.m., February 21, 1995. CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Board is broadening the scope of matters to be considered by adding the following information: The Board will also convene a panel of nationally-recognized experts to discuss the DOE Plutonium Vulnerability Study and to address questions that may arise from the results of this study. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Robert M. Andersen, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 208-6387.

288

Toolbox Safety Talk Articulating Boom Work Platforms  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Toolbox Safety Talk Articulating Boom Work Platforms Environmental Health & Safety Facilities sign-in sheet to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Articulating boom work platforms Articulating Boom Work Platforms Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health Section 395 Pine Tree

Pawlowski, Wojtek

289

ORNL results for Test Case 1 of the International Atomic Energy Agency`s research program on the safety assessment of Near-Surface Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities  

SciTech Connect

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) started the Coordinated Research Program entitled ```The Safety Assessment of Near-Surface Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities.`` The program is aimed at improving the confidence in the modeling results for safety assessments of waste disposal facilities. The program has been given the acronym NSARS (Near-Surface Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety Assessment Reliability Study) for ease of reference. The purpose of this report is to present the ORNL modeling results for the first test case (i.e., Test Case 1) of the IAEA NSARS program. Test Case 1 is based on near-surface disposal of radionuclides that are subsequently leached to a saturated-sand aquifer. Exposure to radionuclides results from use of a well screened in the aquifer and from intrusion into the repository. Two repository concepts were defined in Test Case 1: a simple earth trench and an engineered vault.

Thorne, D.J.; McDowell-Boyer, L.M.; Kocher, D.C.; Little, C.A. [Oak Ridge National Lab., Grand Junction, CO (United States); Roemer, E.K. [Oak Ridge Inst. for Science and Education, TN (United States)

1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

290

Quality Assurance Corporate Board | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Quality Assurance » Quality Quality Assurance » Quality Assurance Corporate Board Quality Assurance Corporate Board The Office of Environmental Management (EM) Quality Assurance Corporate Board is an executive board that includes both senior U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and contractor representatives who are involved with construction, operating, and decommissioning projects. The Board acts in an advisory capacity to the EM Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Safety and Security Program, who is the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Board. Decisions on the Corporate Board's recommendations are acted on by EM senior management. The Corporate Board provides the management structure to integrate the independently managed federal and contractor Quality Assurance Programs into a single corporate entity. The Board serves as a consensus-building

291

Workplace Responsibilities System Approved by Board of Governors on December 17, 2004 Workplace Safety and Environmental Protection Page 1 of 10  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

safety performance is the creation of a culture that secures involvement and participation at all levels Safety and Environmental Protection Page 1 of 10 WORKPLACE RESPONSIBILITIES SYSTEM 1 Abstract The safety of Saskatchewan employee obligations according to The Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations. Health

Saskatchewan, University of

292

September 10, 2003, Board Public Meeting Presentations - Lessons Learned from Nuclear Power Industry  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DAVIS DAVIS - - BESSE REACTOR VESSEL HEAD DEGRADATION BESSE REACTOR VESSEL HEAD DEGRADATION LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD PUBLIC MEETING PUBLIC MEETING September 10, 2003 September 10, 2003 Ed Hackett, Project Director Ed Hackett, Project Director Project Directorate II Project Directorate II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission EMH1@NRC.GOV EMH1@NRC.GOV DAVIS DAVIS - - BESSE RACTOR VESSEL HEAD DEGRADATION BESSE RACTOR VESSEL HEAD DEGRADATION BACKGROUND BACKGROUND FEBRUARY, 2002 FEBRUARY, 2002 -

293

Advisory Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

and the intellectual and work environment; and the efficiency, effectiveness, and safe conduct of operations. The Board should become familiar with the Laboratory site and...

294

Office of Nuclear Safety  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Office of Nuclear Safety (HS-30) Office of Nuclear Safety (HS-30) Office of Nuclear Safety Home » Directives » Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules » Nuclear Safety Workshops Technical Standards Program » Search » Approved Standards » Recently Approved » RevCom for TSP » Monthly Status Reports » Archive » Feedback DOE Nuclear Safety Research & Development Program Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design (HS-31) Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design - About Us » Nuclear Policy Technical Positions/Interpretations » Risk Assessment Working Group » Criticality Safety » DOE O 420.1C Facility Safety » Beyond Design Basis Events Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs (HS-32) Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs - About Us

295

APS Experiment Safety Review Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

work. The Committee will solicit other representatives to participate in standing or ad hoc subcommittees as deemed necessary. Committee members can solicit nominations of...

296

Toolbox Safety Talk Machine Shop Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Toolbox Safety Talk Machine Shop Safety Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Machine shops are an integral part of the Cornell University be taken seriously. Many of the most frequently cited OSHA safety standards pertain to machine safeguarding

Pawlowski, Wojtek

297

October 21, 2003, Board Public Meeting Testimony - Attachment 6  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Glenn Podonsky Glenn Podonsky Director, Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance U.S. Department of Energy Before the DFfense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board October 21,2003 Introductory Remarks Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify today. My office - the Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance - was established by the Secretary of Energy as the independent evaluation element of the Department's integrated oversight system. We are responsible for evaluating environment, safety, and health; emergency management; cyber security; and safeguards and security programs at Department of Energy sites. Consistent with the scope of this hearing, I will focus my testimony today on our safety oversight role. Role of Independent Oversight

298

Integrated Safety Management  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety Management BEHAVIOR (SAFETY CULTURE) - principles of behavior (values) - align motivations PLAN WORK define project scope define facility functional requirements define and...

299

Post-test analysis of dryout test 7B' of the W-1 Sodium Loop Safety Facility Experiment with the SABRE-2P code. [LMFBR  

SciTech Connect

An understanding of conditions that may cause sodium boiling and boiling propagation that may lead to dryout and fuel failure is crucial in liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor safety. In this study, the SABRE-2P subchannel analysis code has been used to analyze the ultimate transient of the in-core W-1 Sodium Loop Safety Facility experiment. This code has a 3-D simple nondynamic boiling model which is able to predict the flow instability which caused dryout. In other analyses dryout has been predicted for out-of-core test bundles and so this study provides additional confirmation of the model.

Rose, S.D.; Dearing, J.F.

1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

300

September 24, 2003, Board announcement of a series of Public Meetings regarding the Department of Energy's oversight scheduled for October 21  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

two two meetings described below. The Board will also conduct a series of public hearings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 8 2286b and invites any interested persons or groups to present any comments, technical information, or data concerning safety issues related to the matters to be considered. TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9:00 a.m., October 21,2003, and 9:00 a.m., October 23, 2003. PLACE: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public Hearing Room, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004-2001. Additionally, as a part of the Board's E-Government initiative, the meetings will be presented live through Internet video streaming. A link to these presentations will be available on the Board's web site (www.dnfsb.gov). STATUS: Open. While the Government in the Sunshine Act does not require that the

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Committee Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

team. She will be working closely with the Hanford Advisory Board (Board or HAB). Waste Treatment Plant Safety Culture Advice (joint topic with the Tank Waste Committee) Health,...

302

October 24, 2003, Assessment Criteria and Guidelines for Determining the Adequacy of Software Used in the Safety Analysis and Design of Defense Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

4.1 4.1 Revision 3 October 24, 2003 U. S. Department of Energy Assessment Criteria and Guidelines for Determining the Adequacy of Software Used in the Safety Analysis and Design of Defense Nuclear Facilities October 24, 2003 CRAD - 4.2.4.1 Revision 3 October 24, 2003 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................iii GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2

303

Report to the Secretary of Energy on Beyond Design Basis Event Pilot Evaluations, Results and Recommendations for Improvements to Enhance Nuclear Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities, January 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

In the six months after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took several actions to review the safety of its nuclear facilities and identify situations where near-term improvements could be made. These actions and recommendations were addressed in an August 2011 report to the Secretary of Energy, Review of Requirements and Capabilities for Analyzing and Responding to Beyond Design Basis Events.

304

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting - Transcript  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 7 Thank you. CHAIRMANCONWAY: Okay. Our first witness this morning is Dan Glenn, Manager of the Pantex Site Office, who is an employee of DOE/NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration]. And, Dan, I will put in the record your background, which will go into the record prior to your speaking. Welcome, Dan. MR. GLENN: Thank you, sir. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and members of the audience. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the Pantex Site Office's current practices for oversight and management of our management and operating contractor activities at the Pantex Plant. Transition from the long-standing roles and responsibilities to the re-engineered NNSA

305

May 21, 2004, Board letter forwarding Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

John I Conway, Chdmnm A J Fggenberger, Vice C h u m a n John F Mmsfield R Bruce lMalrhews 625 Indmna Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washmgton, D C 20004-290 1 (202) 694-7000 May 2 1,2004 The Honorable Spencer Abraham Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585- 1000 Dear Secretary Abraham: On May 2 1 , 2004, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 8 2286d(a), unanimously approved Recommendation 2004-1, which is enclosed for your consideration. Recommendation 2004- 1 deals with Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. After your receipt of this recommendation and as required by 42 U.S.C. 0 2286d(a), the Board will promptly make it available to the public. The Board believes that the

306

4Q CY2007, Facility Representative Program Performance Indicators  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

6, 2008 6, 2008 MEMORANDUM FROM: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATNE TO THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD OFFICE OF HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY SUBJECT: Facility Representative Program Performance Indicators Quarterly Report, October - December (4th Quarter CY2007) Attached is the Facility Representative (FR) Program Performance Indicators Quarterly Report covering the period from October to December 2007. Data for these indicators are gathered by Field elements quarterly per DOE-STD- 1063-2006, Facility Representatives, and reported to Headquarters program offices for evaluation and feedback to improve the FR Program. A summary of this quarter's data concluded: 83% Fully Qualified (last Quarter was 82%) 85% Staffing Level (last Quarter was 93%) 45% Time Spent in the Field (DOE goal is >40%)

307

2Q CY2007, Facility Representative Program Performance Indicators  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

0,2007 0,2007 M E M 0 R A N D ; p s ' X Z FROM: M RK B. WHI DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD OFFICE OF HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY SUBJECT: Facility Representative Program Performance Indicators Quarterly Report, April - June (2nd Quarter CY2007) Attached is the Facility Representative (FR) Program Performance Indicators Quarterly Report covering the period from April to June 2007. Data for these indicators are gathered by Field elements quarterly per DOE-STD-1063-2006, Facility Representatives, and reported to Headquarters program offices for evaluation and feedback to improve the FR Program. A summary of this quarter's data concluded: 74% Fully Qualified (last Quarter was 72%) 94% Staffing Level (last Quarter was 9 1 %)

308

The Process, Methods and Tool Used To Integrate Safety During Design of a Category 2 Nuclear Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Presenter: Lynn J. Harkey, SDIT Project Engineer, Uranium Processing Facility Project, B&W Y-12 Track 5-2

309

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

actions, demonstrate a highpriority commitment to comply with these requirements. (Old Core Requirements 14 and 8) Criteria 1. A QA program has been approved by DOE and...

310

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

competence commensurate with responsibility for the range of duties assigned. (DOE P 450.4; 10 CFR 830, Subpart A, Criterion 2) 4. Operation managers fully understand...

311

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Criteria 1. A radiological protection program has been established and implemented. (10 CFR 830.204(b)(5); 10 CFR 835; DOE O 5400.5; DOE N 441.3) 2. The radiological protection...

312

Review of Nevada Site Office Criticality Safety Assessments at the Criticality Experiments Facility and Training Assembly for Criticality Safety and Appraisal of the Criticality Experiments Facility Startup Plan, October 2011  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This report provides the results of an independent oversight review of criticality safety assessment activities conducted by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nevada Site Office

313

July 12, 2006, Department letter forwarding the Department's revised implementation plan in response to the Board's recommendation 2004-2, Active Confinement Systems  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

1 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 The Honorable A. J. Eggenberger Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004 - 2901 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is a revised Department of Energy (DOE) Implementation Plan (IP) in response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-2, Active Conjinement Systems. The changes in Revision 1 of the IP are summarized in the "Background" section of Revision 1. This revision establishes a phased-in schedule for several commitments relating to confinement systems in the DOE complex. This phased-in schedule reflects an increased understanding of the time and resources that are needed at several DOE sites to effectively review new and existing facility active confinement ventilation systems

314

Waste minimization at a plutonium processing facility  

SciTech Connect

As part of Los Alamos National Laboratory`s (LANL) mission to reduce the nuclear danger throughout the world, the plutonium processing facility at LANL maintains expertise and skills in nuclear weapons technologies as well as leadership in all peaceful applications of plutonium technologies, including fuel fabrication for terrestrial and space reactors and heat sources and thermoelectric generators for space missions. Another near-term challenge resulted from two safety assessments performed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the U.S. Department of Energy during the past two years. These assessments have necessitated the processing and stabilization of plutonium contained in tons of residues so that they can be stored safely for an indefinite period. This report describes waste streams and approaches to waste reduction of plutonium management.

Pillay, K.K.S. [Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM (United States)

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

315

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

SciTech Connect

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)

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

1986-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

316

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

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.

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

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

317

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

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.

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

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

318

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

the Board will focus include the technical implications of very long-term dry storage of commercial spent, facility operation and design, and waste storage and disposal. con266vf #12;con266vf 2 The Board to have responsibility under existing law for the long-term management and disposition of DOE-owned spent

319

Board of Governors Awards  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Tim Fister Earns Henderson Prize from University of Washington Tim Fister Earns Henderson Prize from University of Washington Challenge Met as APS Sends Final Chambers to LCLS A Marriage of Hardware and Hard Work Shaken but Not Stirred 2008 Rosalind Franklin Young Investigator Award APS News Archives: 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 2000 Subscribe to APS News rss feed Board of Governors Awards JUNE 3, 2008 Bookmark and Share The UChicago Argonne, LLC Board of Governors for Argonne will honor 10 employees and one child of an employee with awards at its 2008 Awards Program on Tuesday, June 24, 2008. Included in that number are two Advanced Photon Source (APS) staff members, a member of the Scientific User Facilities Directorate, and the son of another APS staffer. Outstanding Service Awards (OSAs), the highest honor the university gives

320

Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Minnesota Agri-Power Plant and Associated Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

85 85 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 1998 / Notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth M. Pursateri or Andrew L. Thibadeau at the address above or telephone (202) 208-6400. Dated: October 1, 1998. John T. Conway, Chairman. Appendix-Transmittal Letter to the Secretary of Energy DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 208-6400 SECRET-RESTRICTED DATA September 30, 1998 The Honorable Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585- 1000 Dear Secretary Richardson: On September 30, 1998, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2286a(a)(5), unanimously approved Recommendation 98-2, which is enclosed for

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

Facility Representative Program: 2010 Facility Representative Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

10 Facility Representative Workshop 10 Facility Representative Workshop May 12 - 13, 2010 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees | Summary Report Workshop Agenda and Presentations Day 1: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:00 a.m. Opening Remarks James Heffner, Facility Representative Program Manager Earl Hughes, Safety System Oversight Program Manager Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Assistance Office of Health, Safety and Security 8:15 a.m. Welcome from the Nevada Site Office John Mallin, Deputy Assistant Manager for Site Operations Nevada Site Office 8:30 a.m. Workshop Keynote Address Todd Lapointe Chief of Nuclear Safety Central Technical Authority Staff 9:15 a.m. Facility Representative and Safety System Oversight Award Ceremony James Heffner, Facility Representative Program Manager

322

SUBJECT: Guidance on Retention of Facility Representative Technical  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

SUBJECT: Guidance on Retention of Facility Representative Technical SUBJECT: Guidance on Retention of Facility Representative Technical Competence during Reductions in Force, 4/21/1998 SUBJECT: Guidance on Retention of Facility Representative Technical Competence during Reductions in Force, 4/21/1998 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. Retaining highly qualified employees in critical technical skills areas is vital to the maintenance of these technical capabilities. The Department has therefore committed in the revised R? to the development of a model that offices can use to proactively manage and preserve critical technical capabilities. During the

323

SI Safety Information  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Information Information Policies and Procedures Radiation Safety Device List (full version)(compressed version) APS QA APS Safety Page DOE Orders DOE Order 420.2 (11/08/95) DOE Order 420.2A (01/08/01) Accelerator Safety Implementation Guide for DOE Order 420.2 DOE Order 420.2B (07/23/04) Expires (07/23/08) (html) (pdf) Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE O 420.2B (html) (pdf) Safety of Accelerator Facilities (02/18/05) Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE O 420.2B (pdf) Safety of Accelerator Facilities (7/1/05) ESH Manual Guidance 5480.25 Guidance for an Accelerator Facility Safety Program 5480.25 Guidance (09/01/93) Bases & Rationale for Guidance for an Accelerator Facitlity Safety Program (October 1994) NCRP Report No. 88 "Radiation Alarms and Access Control Systems" (1987) ISBN

324

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

325

Type B Investigation Board Report on the April 2, 2002, Worker Fall from Shoring/Scaffolding Structure at the Savannah River Site Tritium Extraction Facility Construction Site  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

On April 2, 2002, a carpenter helping to erect shoring/scaffolding fell about 52 and struck his head. He sustained head injuries requiring hospitalization that exceeded the threshold for a Type B investigation in accordance with Department of Energy (DOE) Order 225.1A, Accident Investigation. The accident occurred at the DOEs Savannah River Site (SRS) at the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) construction site.

326

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

4 4 2004 BY MONTH: JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC This list last updated Friday, August 09, 2013 DECEMBER December 29, 2004, Department letter reporting completion of the Office of Environmental Management's (EM) portion of Commitment 4.2.3.3 in the 2002-1 implementation plan, Quality Assurance for Safety-Related Software at Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities, which requires the assessment of EM's safety software. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC] December 23, 2004, Department letter forwarding the Department’s implementation plan in response to Board Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC] December 22, 2004, Department letter regarding Facility Representatives staffing and training recruitment for the National Nuclear Security Administration sites. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC]

327

Accident Investigation of the June 17, 2012, Construction Accident- Structural Steel Collapse at The Over pack Storage Expansion #2 at the Naval Reactors Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This report documents the Naval Reactors investigation into the collapse ofa partially-erected spent fuel storage building, Overpack Storage Expansion #2 (OSE2), at the Naval Reactors Facility. The Accident Investigation Board inspected the scene, collected physical and photographic evidence, interviewed involved personnel, and reviewed relevant documents to determine the key causes of the accident. Based on the information gathered during the investigation, the Board identified several engineering and safety deficiencies that need to be addressed to prevent recurrence.

328

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SITE-SPECIFIC ADVISORY BOARD  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Washington, D.C. 20585 Washington, D.C. 20585 April 25, 2013 2 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board - April 25, 2013 Meeting Minutes LIST OF ACRONYMS AB - Advisory Board ANL - Argonne National Laboratory ARP - Accelerator Retrieval Project BNL - Brookhaven National Laboratory BRC - Blue Ribbon Commission CAB - Citizens Advisory Board D&D - Decontamination & Decommissioning DDFO - Deputy Designated Federal Officer DOE - Department of Energy DUF6 - Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride DWPF - Defense Waste Processing Facility EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EM - DOE Office of Environmental Management EM SSAB - DOE Office of Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY - Fiscal Year

329

Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Committee Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety and Environmental Protection Committee Page 1 Final Meeting Summary April 19, 2012 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION...

330

March 1, 2013, DOE/Union Leadership Safety Culture Meeting - Meeting Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

3-12-13 3-12-13 DOE/Union Leadership Safety Culture Meeting March 1, 2013 Meeting Summary History:  DOE's Office of Enforcement and Oversight [Independent Oversight], within HSS, conducted an independent assessment of the nuclear safety culture and management of nuclear safety concerns at DOE's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) in response to a Recommendation by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.  As a result of the safety culture weaknesses unveiled, DOE embarked on a mission to determine the extent of the condition, and HSS was tasked to conduct independent assessments at 5 primary DOE nuclear facilities.  DOE is currently pursuing corrective actions. A consolidated report of the Independent

331

The digital preservation facility  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Critical listening should be an essential part of all archiving and restoration facilities quality control. We review the priorities and requirements for listening spaces ranging from the individual collector and small community archives to large?scale facilities. Examples discussed include the Library of Congress Culpepper facility university libraries and commercial facilities. Adapting listening rooms to the requirements of n?channel audio are discussed. Public recommendations of the Sound Preservation Board of the Library of Congress will be reviewed.

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

332

Chapter 10 Health and Safety  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Transmission facilities can also become a target for vandalism, sabotage, and terrorism. BPA designs its facilities to meet safety requirements to prevent or reduce these risks....

333

Quarterly report on the Ferrocyanide Safety Program for the period ending September 30, 1995  

SciTech Connect

This is the eighteenth 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 (DOE 1994b), 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 2.0 through 4.0.

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

1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

334

CRAD, Criteria and Guidelines For the Assessment of Safety System Software and Firmware at Defense Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

The purpose and scope of this CRAD is to provide a set of consistent assessment criteria and guidelines for the assessment of safety system software and firmware that performs an SC or SS function, as described in the Background section. The scope of the assessment, henceforth, is called "I&C software."

335

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements  

Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (EERE)

Propane Board and Propane Board and Dealer Requirements to someone by E-mail Share Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements on Facebook Tweet about Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements on Twitter Bookmark Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements on Google Bookmark Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements on Delicious Rank Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements on Digg Find More places to share Alternative Fuels Data Center: Propane Board and Dealer Requirements on AddThis.com... More in this section... Federal State Advanced Search All Laws & Incentives Sorted by Type Propane Board and Dealer Requirements The Idaho Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Public Safety Act established the

336

Safety Communications  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Communications Communications New Staff & Guests Safety Topics ISM Plan Safety Communications Questions about safety and environmental compliance should first be directed to your supervisor or work lead. The Life Sciences Division Safety Coordinator Scott Taylor at setaylor@lbl.gov , 486-6133 (office), or (925) 899-4355 (cell); and Facilities Manager Peter Marietta at PMarietta@lbl.gov, 486-6031 (office), or 967-6596 (cell), are also sources of information. Your work group has a representative to the Division Environment, Health, & Safety Committee. This representative can provide safety guidance and offer a conduit for you to pass on your concerns or ideas. A list of current representatives is provided below. Additional safety information can be obtained on-line from the Berkeley Lab

337

Toolbox Safety Talk Lock/Tag/Verify  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Energy Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health Section 395 Pine Tree Rd. Suite 210 Energy Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health Section 395 Pine Tree Rd. Suite 210Toolbox Safety Talk Lock/Tag/Verify The Control of Hazardous Energy Environmental Health & Safety

Pawlowski, Wojtek

338

DOE-STD-3007-93 CN-1; DOE Standard Guidelines For Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

7-93 7-93 November 1993 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1 September 1998 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NON-REACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; (423) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. Order No. DE98003918 Change Notice No. 1 DOE-STD-3007-93 September 1998

339

Nuclear Engineer (Criticality Safety)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This position is located in the Nuclear Safety Division (NSD) which has specific responsibility for managing the development, analysis, review, and approval of non-reactor nuclear facility safety...

340

ARM - Facility News Article  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

4, 2013 [Facility News] 4, 2013 [Facility News] Work Cut Out for ARM Science Board Bookmark and Share With a new fixed site on the horizon in the Azores, a third ARM Mobile Facility gearing up for action in the Arctic, and more aircraft probes and sensors than scientists can shake a stick at, the ARM Facility continues to expand its considerable suite of assets for conducting climate research. Along with this impressive inventory comes the responsibility to ensure the Facility is supporting the highest-value science possible. Enter the ARM Science Board. This eleven-member group annually reviews complex proposals for use of the ARM mobile and aerial facilities. To maintain excellence and integrity in the review process, each member serves a renewable term of two years, with membership updated annually.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

Health Safety and Environmental Protection Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Meeting Summary March 10, 2011 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE March 10, 2011 Richland, WA Topics in this...

342

2015 DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop - Badging and...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

2015 DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop - Badging and Facility Information 2015 DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop - Badging and Facility Information January...

343

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition...

344

Safety & Quality Assurance  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Together, our Facility Operations Division and Engineering, Safety and Quality Division work to ensure EM conducts its operations and cleanup safely through sound practices. These divisions ensure...

345

DOE 2010 Safety and Security Reform Project - HSS Directives Disposition and Status (December 4, 2012)  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

10 Safety and Security Reform Project - HSS Directives Disposition and Status (December 4, 2012) 10 Safety and Security Reform Project - HSS Directives Disposition and Status (December 4, 2012) Page 1 of 3 2010 HSS Directives Disposition Status Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy Revise Complete - see Policy 420.1. Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment Revise Complete - see Order 458.1. Order 5480.19, Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities Revise Complete - see Order 422.1. Order 5480.20A, Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification, and Certification Requirements Revise Complete - see Order 426.2. Order 5480.30, Nuclear Reactor Design Criteria Re-certify Complete - re-certified. Manual 140.1-1B, Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Re-certify Complete - re-certified.

346

Facility Representative Program: 2004 Facility Representative Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

4 Facility Representative Workshop 4 Facility Representative Workshop May 18 - 20, 2004 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Final Day 1: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 Theme: Program Successes and Challenges 8:00 a.m. Opening Remarks John Evans, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. Welcome Kathy Carlson, Nevada Site Office Manager 8:30 a.m. Videotaped Remarks from the Deputy Secretary Kyle E. McSlarrow, Deputy Secretary of Energy Deputy Secretary's Remarks 8:40 a.m. Keynote Address - NNSA Evaluation of Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Brigadier General Ronald J. Haeckel, Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Applications, NNSA Other Information: NASA’S Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report

347

Environmental Management Advisory Board Charter | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Services » Communication & Engagement » EMAB » Environmental Services » Communication & Engagement » EMAB » Environmental Management Advisory Board Charter Environmental Management Advisory Board Charter The Environmental Management Advisory Board's (EMAB)'s most recent charter outlines the objective, structure, and scope of the Board. EMAB Charter More Documents & Publications SEAB Charter 2012 Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee Charter Electricity Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy: Advisory Committee Charter, August 9, 2012 Waste Management Nuclear Materials & Waste Tank Waste and Waste Processing Waste Disposition Packaging and Transportation Site & Facility Restoration Deactivation & Decommissioning (D&D) Facility Engineering Soil & Groundwater Sustainability Program Management

348

Tank Waste Corporate Board Meeting 07/29/09 | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

9/09 9/09 Tank Waste Corporate Board Meeting 07/29/09 The following documents are associated with the Tank Waste Corporate Board Meeting held on July 29th, 2009. Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program Retrieval and Repackaging of RH-TRU Waste - General Presentation Modular Hot Cell Technology Tank Waste System Integrated Project Team Gunite Tanks Waste Retrieval and Closure Operations at Oak Ridge Nattional Laboratory Integrated Facilities Disposition Program Oak Ridge National Laboratory TRU Waste Processing Center Tank Waste Processing Supernate Processing System Chemical Cleaning Program Review Enhanced Chemical Cleaning Hanford Single-Shell Tank Integrity Program Modeling the Performance of Engineered Systems for Closure and Near-Surface Disposal Nuclear Safety R&D in the Waste Processing Technology Development &

349

March 10, 2005, Board letter forwarding Recommendation 2005-1, Nuclear Material Packaging  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

FACLLTIlEs FACLLTIlEs SAFETYBOARD John T. Conway, Chairman A.J. Eggenberger, Vice Chairman Joseph F. Bader John E. Mansfield R. Bruce Matthews 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Wa5hington. D.C. 20004-2901 (202) 694-7000 March 10, 2005 The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 Dear Secretary Bodman: On March 10,2005, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 9 2286a(a)(5), unanimously approved Recommendation 2005- 1, Nuclear Material Packaging, which is enclosed for your consideration. This recommendation addresses issuance of a requirement that nuclear material packaging meet technically justified criteria for safe storage and handling outside of engineered contamination barriers.

350

CRAD, Radiological Controls - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Safety & Health - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Engineering - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Conduct of Operations - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility...

351

CRAD, Management - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

- Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Conduct of Operations - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility...

352

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting Speaker Presentations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

from Mike Mallory Before the DNFSB December 3, 2003 from Mike Mallory Before the DNFSB December 3, 2003 Page 0 Testimony of Mike Mallory, BWXT Pantex President and General Manager Before the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Regarding Contractor Assurance System at Pantex Plant December 3, 2003 Testimony from Mike Mallory Before the DNFSB December 3, 2003 Page 1 The Contractor Assurance System at BWXT Pantex Introduction Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the Contractor Assurance System at BWXT Pantex. I am Mike Mallory, the President and General Manager of BWXT Pantex, the M&O contractor of the Pantex Plant for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. BWXT Pantex is responsible for five core missions at Pantex. 1) We evaluate, retrofit and repair

353

BRIEFING NOTE SUMMARY OF MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE MANAGEMENT BOARD  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

the System - would be crucial if the necessary improvements to the health and safety culture across Imperial for election to the Fellowship of the College and two for election to its Associateship. HEALTH AND SAFETY UPDATE 3. The Board noted that Professor John Wood would succeed Professor Smith as the College Safety

354

ARM - ARM Safety Policy  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety Policy Safety Policy About Become a User Recovery Act Mission FAQ Outreach Displays History Organization Participants Facility Statistics Forms Contacts Facility Documents ARM Management Plan (PDF, 335KB) Field Campaign Guidelines (PDF, 1.1MB) ARM Climate Research Facility Expansion Workshop (PDF, 1.46MB) Facility Activities ARM and the Recovery Act Contributions to International Polar Year Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send ARM Safety Policy The ARM Climate Research Facility safety policy states that all activities for which the ARM Climate Research Facility has primary responsibility will be conducted in such a manner that all reasonable precautions are taken to protect the health and safety of employees and the general public. All

355

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Department of Energy Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework DOE's Nuclear Safety Enabling Legislation Regulatory Enforcement & Oversight Regulatory Governance Atomic Energy Act 1946 Atomic Energy Act 1954 Energy Reorganization Act 1974 DOE Act 1977 Authority and responsibility to regulate nuclear safety at DOE facilities 10 CFR 830 10 CFR 835 10 CFR 820 Regulatory Implementation Nuclear Safety Radiological Safety Procedural Rules ISMS-QA; Operating Experience; Metrics and Analysis Cross Cutting DOE Directives & Manuals DOE Standards Central Technical Authorities (CTA) Office of Health, Safety, and Security (HSS) Line Management SSO/ FAC Reps 48 CFR 970 48 CFR 952 Federal Acquisition Regulations External Oversight *Defense Nuclear Facility

356

Independent Oversight Assessment, Salt Waste Processing Facility...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) 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 of Energy...

357

SEAS Safety Program SEAS SAFETY PROGRAM 2013-2014  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

SEAS Safety Program SEAS SAFETY PROGRAM 2013-2014 Program Structure and Responsibilities Dr. Anas Chalah #12;SEAS Safety Program SEAS Safety Program Structure We have developed a great model of collaboration among · EHSEM · SEAS Safety Program · SEAS Facilities which accounts for the regulatory component

358

SEAS Safety Program SEAS SAFETY PROGRAM 2012-2103  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

SEAS Safety Program SEAS SAFETY PROGRAM 2012-2103 Program Structure and Responsibilities Dr. Anas Chalah #12;SEAS Safety Program SEAS Safety Program Structure We have developed a great model of collaboration among · EHSEM · SEAS Safety Program · SEAS Facilities which accounts for the regulatory component

359

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

5 5 2005 BY MONTH: JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC This list last updated Tuesday, April 02, 2013 DECEMBER December 29, 2005, Department letter transmitting Exclusion Reports consistent with Commitment 8.3 of the Department of Energy's Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 2004-2, Active Confinement Systems. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC] December 27, 2005, Department letter forwarding the Deputy Secretary's memorandum regarding the Department's process criteria and attributes for delegations of safety responsibilities, completing Commitment 9A in the 2004-1 implementation plan, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC] December 22, 2005, Department letter regarding the Comprehensive Flowsheet Review of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). [HTML] [PDF] [DOC]

360

Advisory Board Meets to Discuss EM Cleanup's Future | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Advisory Board Meets to Discuss EM Cleanup's Future Advisory Board Meets to Discuss EM Cleanup's Future Advisory Board Meets to Discuss EM Cleanup's Future December 6, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin, second from right, speaks with members of the Environmental Management Advisory Board this week as EM Deputy Assistant Secretary, Safety, Security and Quality Programs, Matthew Moury, second from left, listens. EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin, second from right, speaks with members of the Environmental Management Advisory Board this week as EM Deputy Assistant Secretary, Safety, Security and Quality Programs, Matthew Moury, second from left, listens. WASHINGTON, D.C. - EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin this week sought guidance from the Environmental Management Advisory Board

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

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

362

December 17, 1998 Memo, Incentives for the Department's Facility Representative Program  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

mE mE F 1325.8 (a89) EFG (U7-W) United States Government Department of Energy memorandum DATE: December 17, 1998 REPLY TO ATTN OF: FM- 10(J. Hassenfeldt, 202 586-1643) SUBJECT Incentives for the Department's Facility Representative Program TO:Distribution The Department's Revised Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 93-3 has once again underscored the Department's commitment to maintaining the technical capability necessary to safely manage and operate our defense nuclear facilities. Attracting and retaining highly qualified employees and placing them in our critical technical positions is vital to fi.dfilling this commitment. You have identified 95'% of your Facility Representative positions as critical technical positions. The Office of Field Management has noted a 12'?40 annual attrition rate of Facility Representatives

363

Technical Safety Requirements  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Safety Requirements Safety Requirements FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: Contractor has developed, maintained, and received DOE Field Office Approval for the necessary operating conditions of a facility. The facility has also maintained an inventory of safety class and safety significant systems and components. REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830.205, Nuclear Safety Rule.  DOE-STD-3009-2002, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses.  DOE-STD-1186-2004, Specific Administrative Controls. Guidance:  DOE G 423.1-1, Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements.  NSTP 2003-1, Use of Administrative Controls for Specific Safety Functions. Performance Objective 1: Contractor Program Documentation

364

Documented Safety Analysis  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Documented Safety Analysis Documented Safety Analysis FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: A document that provides an adequate description of the hazards of a facility during its design, construction, operation, and eventual cleanup and the basis to prescribe operating and engineering controls through Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) or Administrative Controls (AC). REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830.204, Nuclear Safety Rule  DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard Categorization, 1992.  DOE-STD-1104-96, Change Notice 1, Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Documents (documented Safety Analyses and Technical Safety Requirements), dated May 2002.  DOE-STD-3009-2002, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, Change Notice No. 2, April 2002.

365

Office of Health, Safety and Security Report to the Secretary of Energy -  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Office of Health, Safety and Security Report to the Secretary of Office of Health, Safety and Security Report to the Secretary of Energy - February 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security Report to the Secretary of Energy - February 2011 February 2011 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 The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) performed an effectiveness review of the DOE Action Plan for the Columbia space shuttle accident and Davis-Besse event and the comprehensive operating experience program. The review was performed to fulfill Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan to Improve Oversight of

366

December 3, 2003, Board Public Meeting - Board Member Remarks  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

"and enhance the safety of operations of DOE'S nuclear "and enhance the safety of operations of DOE'S nuclear facilities and to restore public confidence that these facilities are operated without undue risk to public health and safety. These hearings are in accordance with that mandate from the Congress, and we are holding these public hearings in order to ensure the public that we are doing our job, and that the DOE is moving ahead and doing its job in a safe manner. So that is part of the reasons we are holding this series of hearings. Dr. Eggenberger? VICE CHAIRMAN EGGENBERGER: I have no questions at this time. When the first witness appears, I have an extensive line of questioning. CHAIRMAN CONWAY: Okay. Dr. Mansfield? DR. MANSFIELD: Nothing at this time. CHAIRMAN CONWAY: Dr. Matthews?

367

Microsoft PowerPoint - January Safety Culture.pptx [Read-Only...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Culture Presentation to Hanford Advisory Board Steve Pfaff February 9, 2012 Safety Culture * Safety culture is an organization's values and behaviors modeled by its leaders and...

368

Safety Basis Criteria & Review Approach Documents | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Safety Basis Criteria & Review Approach Documents Safety Basis Criteria & Review Approach Documents Safety Basis Criteria & Review Approach Documents Documents Available for Download CRAD, Safety Basis - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Safety Basis - Idaho Accelerated Retrieval Project Phase II CRAD, Safety Basis - Los Alamos National Laboratory TA 55 SST Facility CRAD, Safety Basis - Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility CRAD, Safety Basis - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor CRAD, Safety Basis - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor Contractor ORR CRAD, Safety Basis - Oak Ridge National Laboratory TRU ALPHA LLWT Project CRAD, Safety Basis - Y-12 Enriched Uranium Operations Oxide Conversion Facility

369

CRITICALITY SAFETY (CS)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Objective CS.1 - A criticality safety program is established, sufficient numbers of qualified personnel are provided, and adequate facilities and equipment are available to ensure criticality safety support services are adequate for safe operations. (Core Requirements 1, 2, and 6) Criteria * Functions, assignments, responsibilities, and reporting relationships are clearly defined, understood, and effectively implemented. * Operations support personnel for the criticality safety area are adequately staffed and trained. Approach Record Review: Review the documentation that establishes the Criticality Safety Requirements (CSRs) for appropriateness and completeness. Review for adequacy and completion the criticality safety personnel training records that indicate training on facility procedures and systems under

370

ORSSAB monthly board meeting  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

The ORSSAB monthly board meeting is open to the public. The board will hear a presentation and discuss the development of a comprehensive mercury strategy for the Oak Ridge Reservation.

371

Hanford Advisory Board Values  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Values Adopted: November 2, 2012 1 Since its founding in 1994, the Hanford Advisory Board (Board) has issued more than 260 pieces of consensus advice on a myriad of topics related...

372

Facilities Management | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers (EERE)

and dispositions NE owned facilities and capabilities. The Idaho Site-Wide Safeguards and Security program ensures the safety, operability, and security of these...

373

Operational Readiness Review: Savannah River Replacement Tritium Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Operational Readiness Review (ORR) is one of several activities to be completed prior to introducing tritium into the Replacement Tritium Facility (RTF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The Secretary of Energy will rely in part on the results of this ORR in deciding whether the startup criteria for RTF have been met. The RTF is a new underground facility built to safely service the remaining nuclear weapons stockpile. At RTF, tritium will be unloaded from old components, purified and enriched, and loaded into new or reclaimed reservoirs. The RTF will replace an aging facility at SRS that has processed tritium for more than 35 years. RTF has completed construction and is undergoing facility startup testing. The final stages of this testing will require the introduction of limited amounts of tritium. The US Department of Energy (DOE) ORR was conducted January 19 to February 4, 1993, in accordance with an ORR review plan which was developed considering previous readiness reviews. The plan also considered the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendations 90-4 and 92-6, and the judgements of experienced senior experts. The review covered three major areas: (1) Plant and Equipment Readiness, (2) Personnel Readiness, and (3) Management Systems. The ORR Team was comprised of approximately 30 members consisting of a Team Leader, Senior Safety Experts, and Technical Experts. The ORR objectives and criteria were based on DOE Orders, industry standards, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations guidelines, recommendations of external oversight groups, and experience of the team members.

Not Available

1993-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

374

Commonwealth Telecommunications Board  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... THE ninth General Report of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board covers the year ended December 31, 1956 (pp. 56. London : Commonwealth ... Board covers the year ended December 31, 1956 (pp. 56. London : Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, 1968). During this year the first trans-Atlantic telephone cable was opened ...

1958-06-14T23:59:59.000Z

375

Office of Independent Oversight's Office of Environment, Safety and Health Evaluations Activity Report for the Visit at the LANL CMRR Project Facility Construction Site, November 1-5, 2010  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Office of Independent Oversight's Office of Environment, Safety and Health Office of Independent Oversight's Office of Environment, Safety and Health Evaluations Activity Report for the Visit at the LANL CMRR Project Facility Construction Site, November 1-5, 2010 The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Independent Oversight, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted an orientation visit on November 1-5, 2010, at the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) project site at the Department of Energy Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The purpose of the visit was to determine ways in which HSS would be able to carry out its independent oversight responsibilities with respect to this project in a method that encourages integration with DOE-LANL. The orientation visit was conducted by the HSS LANL Site Lead and an HSS contractor.

376

Electrical safety guidelines  

SciTech Connect

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.

Not Available

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

377

Facility Safety | Department of Energy  

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

two requirements documents to express identical sets of requirements for two distinct organizational groups. The first, Order 414.1C, applies to practically all DOE...

378

Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

DOE O 252.1A promotes DOE's use of Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS) as the primary method for application of technical standards and establishes and manages the DOE Technical Standards Program ...

379

Integrated Facilities Disposition Program  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facilities Facilities Disposition Program Tank Waste Corporate Board Meeting at ORNL Sharon Robinson Dirk Van Hoesen Robert Jubin Brad Patton July 29, 2009 2 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy The Integrated Facility Disposition Program (IFDP) addresses the remaining EM Scope at both ORNL and Y-12 Cost Range: $7 - $14B Schedule: 26 Years 3 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy Scope of work * Treatment and disposition of legacy materials and waste * D&D 327 (1.5 M ft 2 ) excess facilities generating >2 M yd 3 debris * Soil and groundwater remedial actions generating >1 M yd 3 soils * Facilities surveillance and maintenance * Reconfiguration of waste management facilities * Ongoing waste management operations * Project management

380

Survey for Safety Software Used in Design of Structures, Systems, and Components  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Design Software Survey September 2003 1 Design Software Survey September 2003 1 Survey of Safety Software Used in Design of Structures, Systems, and Components 1. Introduction The Department's Implementation Plan for Software Quality Assurance (SQA) that was developed in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2002-01, Quality Assurance for Safety-Related Software, includes a commitment (4.2.1.5) to conduct a survey of design codes currently in use to determine if any should be included as part of the toolbox codes. The toolbox codes are a small number of standard computer models (codes) supporting DOE safety analysis that have widespread use and appropriate qualification. Generally, the toolbox codes will have been developed and maintained within the DOE complex. However, the toolbox may also include

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

Toolbox Safety Talk Woodworking Machines  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Toolbox Safety Talk Woodworking Machines Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety & Health to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Machine shops are an integral part of the Cornell University for many student courses and elective activities. Woodworking machines can pose a myriad of hazards

Pawlowski, Wojtek

382

Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection Committee Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

May 9, 2013 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE May 9, 2013 Richland, WA Topics in this Meeting Summary Opening...

383

Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection Committee Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

August 8, 2013 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE August 8, 2013 Richland, WA Topics in this Meeting Summary...

384

Health Safety and Environmental Protection Committee Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Meeting Summary May 10, 2011 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE May 10, 2011 Richland, WA Topics in this...

385

Criticality Safety | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

at Department of Energy Non Reactor Nuclear Facilities DOE-STD-1135-99, Guidance for Nuclear Criticality Safety Engineer Training and Qualification Contact Garrett Smith...

386

Kitchen Knife Safety  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Kitchen Knife Safety 1) Use a good quality cutting board (flat and stable). 2) Use a kitchen towel underneath a cutting board so that it won't slip. Observe above: Warped and unbalanced cutting board vs. flat and well-anchored board. 3) Sharp knives are safer knives. Dull knives can skip, slide, snag, or get stuck while cutting, leaving you off balance. 4) Use the right knife for the job. a. Serrated knives are long and lean that help grip and saw through the crust of rustic breads without using too much strength. b. Paring knives are used for smaller foods, such as limes, cherry tomatoes or shallots, for better control and lighter weight (less chance of skipping off of a smaller cutting surface). c. Chef's knives (one of the most used in the kitchen) can be used for

387

Seismic Safety Guide  

SciTech Connect

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.

Eagling, D.G. (ed.)

1983-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

388

Utility Sounding Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Reports, Publications, and Research Utility Toolkit Sponsored E-Source Membership Utility Potential Calculator EE Maximization Tool Conduit Utility Sounding Board Residential...

389

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

issues are subjects of large scale integrated testing that is just beginning. Scott said small scale testing indicated problems with Hanford Advisory Board Page 12 Final Meeting...

390

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Hanford Advisory Board Page 7 Final Meeting Summary March 4, 2010 External independent review team summary of observations and conclusions in regard to HAB advice to DOE * The...

391

University of Delaware | CCEI Advisory Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Advisory Board Our advisory board is comprised of the following distinguished board members: Image Name Affiliation BACK TO TOP...

392

Safety System Oversight: 2010 Safety System Oversight Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety System Oversight Workshop Safety System Oversight Workshop May 12 - 13, 2010 Las Vegas, NV 2010 Facility Representative and Safety System Oversight Workshops Summary: PDF SSO Steering Committee Meeting Minutes: PDF 2009 Safety System Oversight Annual Award Workshop Agenda: PDF Workshop Presentations: Panel Discussion on the Integration of Facility Representatives and Safety System Oversight Personnel at Site Programs Presentation Panel Highlights Introduction, Goals, and Objectives for SSO Workshop Community Update Demographic Survey Results Introduction of the Safety System Oversight Steering Committee Earl Hughes Presentation Oak Ridge Fire Protection SSO Program Pat Smith, Oak Ridge Office Presentation Commercial Grade Dedication Fran Lemieux, NSTec, Nevada Test Site Presentation

393

Self-imposed self-assessment program at a DOE Nuclear Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Nuclear Materials and Technology (NMT) Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has implemented a performance-based self-assessment program at the TA-55 plutonium facility. The program was conceptualized and developed by LANL`s internal assessment group, AA-2. The management walkaround program fosters continuous improvement in NMT products and performance of its activities. The program, based on experience from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, is endorsed at the site by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) personnel and by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. The self-assessment program focuses on how work is actually performed rather than on paperwork or process compliance. Managers critically and continually assess ES&H, conduct of operations, and other functional area requirements.

Geoffrion, R.R.; Loud, J.J.; Walter, E.C. [Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM (United States)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

394

AVIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS BYLAWS AND PROTOCOLS  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

AVIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AVIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS BYLAWS AND PROTOCOLS The Department of Energy strives to manage its Aviation Program toward the highest standards of safety, efficiency, fairness in contracting, preservation of competition in the private sector, open communication, prudent property management, and the best examples of resource management. Toward these ends, the Department has established a management structure led by a Board of Directors comprising active Federal employee aviation managers from the Department. AUTHORITY: The following authorities serve as basis for this structure and system: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-126, FMR 102.33, DEAR 109, DOE Order 440.2B, Aviation Management Review Team Report, March 1999, and Secretary of Energy Appointment and Delegation of Authority, April 15, 1999.

395

Readiness Assessment for MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility - Advanced...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

NS.1 Facility safety documentation that describes the "safety envelope" for the AR Project II activities is in place and has been implemented to meet the following criteria:...

396

H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Department of Energy Pt. 835 H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS 1. The USQ process is an important tool to evaluate whether changes affect the safety basis. A contractor must use the USQ proc- ess to ensure that the safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility is not undermined by changes in the facility, the work performed, the associated hazards, or other factors that support the adequacy of the safety basis. 2. The USQ process permits a contractor to make physical and procedural changes to a nuclear facility and to conduct tests and ex- periments without prior approval, provided these changes do not cause a USQ. The USQ process provides a contractor with the flexi- bility needed to conduct day-to-day oper- ations by requiring only those changes and tests with a potential to impact the safety

397

H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

3 3 Department of Energy Pt. 835 H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS 1. The USQ process is an important tool to evaluate whether changes affect the safety basis. A contractor must use the USQ proc- ess to ensure that the safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility is not undermined by changes in the facility, the work performed, the associated hazards, or other factors that support the adequacy of the safety basis. 2. The USQ process permits a contractor to make physical and procedural changes to a nuclear facility and to conduct tests and ex- periments without prior approval, provided these changes do not cause a USQ. The USQ process provides a contractor with the flexi- bility needed to conduct day-to-day oper- ations by requiring only those changes and tests with a potential to impact the safety

398

Facility Centered Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Science and Technology Operations - Facility Operations Director Managed Facilities, August 2011  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Review Report Review Report Facility Centered Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Science and Technology Operations - Facility Operations Director Managed Facilities May 2011 August 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Conduct of the FCA ......................................................................................................................... 2

399

Facility Centered Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Science and Technology Operations - Facility Operations Director Managed Facilities, August 2011  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Review Report Review Report Facility Centered Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Science and Technology Operations - Facility Operations Director Managed Facilities May 2011 August 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Conduct of the FCA ......................................................................................................................... 2

400

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled by them. The Hanford Advisory Board (Board) is concerned that during cleanup of the Hanford Site, many...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

* The Board advises Ecology to make past versions of the Permit available for public review to promote Permit comparisons. * The Board advises Ecology to explicitly reserve...

402

Stanford University Committee on Health and Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

to ensuring safety is a consideration in what is done in all activities at Stanford (Safety Culture) #12Stanford University Committee on Health and Safety 2011 Public Meeting June 27, 2010 5:00-6:30 Stanford Environmental Safety Facility #12;University Committee on Health & Safety June 27, 2011 Public

403

Independent Oversight Review, Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility- August 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Review of the Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility Safety Basis and Design Development.

404

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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...

405

CHRPR Neutron Board Replacement Manual  

SciTech Connect

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

Erikson, Rebecca L.; Myjak, Mitchell J.

2013-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

406

ARM - ARM Science Board  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Research Facility Expansion Workshop (PDF, 1.46MB) Facility Activities ARM and the Recovery Act Contributions to International Polar Year Comments? We would love to hear...

407

Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

1993-01-19T23:59:59.000Z

408

DE-AC05-00OR22725 Modification No. 341  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

-14 Withdrawal of Work ..................................................11 H-22 Nuclear Facility Safety (Modified).............................................................................11 H-23 Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board

409

Third Radiation Effects Research Foundation Board of Councilors Meeting  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Third Radiation Effects Research Foundation Board of Councilors Third Radiation Effects Research Foundation Board of Councilors Meeting Held in Hiroshima Third Radiation Effects Research Foundation Board of Councilors Meeting Held in Hiroshima July 22, 2013 - 4:54pm Addthis Third Radiation Effects Research Foundation Board of Councilors Meeting Held in Hiroshima The third Board of Councilors (BOC) meeting was held on June 18-19 at the Hiroshima Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), a bi-national U.S.-Japan research organization. The BOC is the highest decision-making body at RERF, consisting of eight Councilors elected from the United States and Japan. A total of 23 participants, including 8 Councilors from the United States and Japan and officials from the U.S. and Japanese Governments, were present at the meeting. The Office of Health, Safety and

410

Establishing the Office of Environmental Management Quality Assurance Corporate Board  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

DISTRIBUTIO DISTRIBUTIO FROM: DAE Y. CHUNG DEPUTY ASSISTA@SECRETARY FOR SAFETY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT: Establishing the Office of Environmental Management Quality Assurance Corporate Board The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce the Office of Environmental Management (EM) Quality Assurance (QA) Corporate Board which implements EM'S policy and guidance and promotes lessons learned and best practices across the sites. The Corporate Board provides the management structure to integrate the independently managed federal and contractor QA Programs into a single corporate entity. The Board serves as a consensus-building body to facilitate institutionalization of a QA Management System across the EM-Complex. The Corporate Board concept originated from the EM Quality Improvement Initiative in

411

Facility Representative Program: Facility Representative Program Sponsors  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Representative Program Sponsors Facility Representative Program Sponsors There are 29 Facility Representative Program Sponsors Office Name Title E-Mail Phone ASO Larry Pendexter ES&H Div Dir (Argonne) larry.pendexter@ch.doe.gov 630-252-1485 BHSO Bob Desmarais Operations Management Division Director desmarai@bnl.gov 631-344-5434 CBFO Glenn Gamlin Facility Representative Supervisor glenn.gamlin@wipp.ws 575-234-8136 CBFO Casey Gadbury Operations Manager casey.gadbury@wipp.ws 575-234-7372 FSO Mark Bollinger Deputy Manager Mark.Bollinger@ch.doe.gov 630-840-8130 FSO John Scott FR Team Lead john.scott@ch.doe.gov 630-840-2250 HS-30 James O'Brien Director, Office of Nuclear Safety James.O'Brien@hq.doe.gov 301-903-1408 HS-32 Earl Hughes Facility Representative Program Manager Earl.Hughes@hq.doe.gov 202-586-0065

412

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & HEALTH (ISH)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

BASIS (SB) BASIS (SB) OBJECTIVE SB.1 Facility safety documentation is in place and has been implemented that describes the "safety envelope" of the facility. The safety documentation should characterize the hazards/risks associated with the facility and should identify preventive and mitigating measures (systems, procedures, administrative controls, etc.) that protect workers and the public form those hazards/risks. Safety structures, systems and components (SSCs) are defined and a system to maintain control over their designs and modification is established. (Core Requirement 7) Criteria 1. The TA-55 SST Facility safety basis and related documentation address the full spectrum of hazards/risks associated with operations. 2. Controls designed to mitigate the consequence of analyzed TA-55 SST Facility

413

board | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

board board Dataset Summary Description The Alabama State Oil and Gas Board publishes well record permits to the public as they are approved. This dataset is comprised of 50 recent well record permits from 2/9/11 - 3/18/11. The dataset lists the well name, county, operator, field, and date approved, among other fields. State's make oil and gas data publicly available for a range of topics. Source Geological Survey of Alabama Date Released February 09th, 2011 (3 years ago) Date Updated March 18th, 2011 (3 years ago) Keywords Alabama board gas oil state well records Data application/vnd.ms-excel icon Well records 2/9/11 - 3/18/11 (xls, 28.7 KiB) Quality Metrics Level of Review Some Review Comment Temporal and Spatial Coverage Frequency Time Period License License Open Data Commons Attribution License

414

ORSSAB monthly board meeting  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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.

415

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

different now; the superstructure is gone and they removed a tank from the 107-N ion exchange building; they are making good progress Hanford Advisory Board Page 4 Final Meeting...

416

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

the Board to review the permits, but there will be at least a 120-day comment period for review. Jane said that on a personal note, she thinks the state budget is woeful. She said...

417

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

(DOE-ORP) thanking them for their efforts to secure cleanup funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Board did not take action on a draft letter...

418

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Agency (EPA), said EPA recently had a very good meeting with the National Remedy Review Board, who visited Hanford to review the 300 Area, K Area, and Unit Process One...

419

Health and Safety Training Reciprocity  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2014-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

420

Occupational Safety & Health Criteria & Review Approach Documents |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Occupational Safety & Health Criteria & Review Approach Documents Occupational Safety & Health Criteria & Review Approach Documents Occupational Safety & Health Criteria & Review Approach Documents Documents Available for Download CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Idaho MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Idaho Accelerated Retrieval Project Phase II CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Los Alamos National Laboratory TA 55 SST Facility CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor CRAD, Occupational Safety & Health - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor Contractor ORR

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


421

DRAFT Bear Safety Plan  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Bear Safety Plan June 2010 Bear Safety Plan June 2010 NSA_bsp_Rev9.doc 1 Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility/ North Slope of Alaska/Adjacent Arctic Ocean (ACRF/NSA/AAO) Bear Safety Plan Background As a major part of DOE's participation in the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the North Slope of Alaska (NSA) and Adjacent Arctic Ocean (AAO) Climate Research Facility (ACRF) exists on the North Slope of Alaska with its Central Facility near the town of Barrow. A secondary facility exists at Atqasuk, a town 100km inland from Barrow. Other instrumentation locations in more remote areas on the North Slope may be established in later stages of the project. Polar bears, and to a lesser extent, brown bears (barren ground grizzly) are significant hazards within the ACRF/NSA/AAO

422

BNL | Accelerator Test Facility  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Accelerator Test Facility Accelerator Test Facility Home Core Capabilities Photoinjector S-Band Linac Laser Systems CO2 Laser Nd:Yag Laser Beamlines Beamline Simulation Data Beamline Parameters Beam Diagnostics Detectors Beam Schedule Operations Resources Fact Sheet (.pdf) Image Library Upgrade Proposal (.pdf) Publications ES&H Experiment Start-up ATF Handbook Laser Safety Collider-Accelerator Dept. C-AD ES&H Resources Staff Users' Place Apply for Access ATF photo ATF photo ATF photo ATF photo ATF photo A user facility for advanced accelerator research The Brookhaven Accelerator Test Facility (ATF) is a proposal driven, steering committee reviewed facility that provides users with high-brightness electron- and laser-beams. The ATF pioneered the concept of a user facility for studying complex properties of modern accelerators and

423

General Engineer / Physical Scientist (Facility Representative)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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,...

424

Supervisory General Engineer (Facility Engineering Division Director)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

A successful candidate in this position will lead the Facility Engineering Division by providing internal and independent safety system oversight of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) operations in...

425

Safety Management System Policy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

POLICY POLICY Washington, D.C. Approved: 4-25-11 SUBJECT: INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT POLICY PURPOSE AND SCOPE To establish the Department of Energy's (DOE) expectation for safety, 1 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. This Policy cancels and supersedes DOE Policy (P) 411.1, Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Policy, dated 1-28-97; DOE P 441.1, DOE Radiological Health and Safety Policy, dated 4-26-96; DOE P 450.2A, Identifying, Implementing and Complying with Environment, Safety and Health Requirements, dated 5-15-96; DOE P 450.4, Safety Management

426

Safety System Oversight  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety System Oversight Safety System Oversight Office of Nuclear Safety Home Safety System Oversight Home Annual SSO/FR Workshop DOE Safety Links › ORPS Info › Operating Experience Summary › DOE Lessons Learned › Accident Investigation Program Assessment Tools › SSO CRADS Subject Matter Links General Program Information › Program Mission Statement › SSO Program Description › SSO Annual Award Program › SSO Annual Award › SSO Steering Committee › SSO Program Assessment CRAD SSO Logo Items Site Leads and Steering Committee Archive Facility Representative Contact Us HSS Logo SSO SSO Program News Congratulations to Ronnie L. Alderson of Nevada Field Office, the Winner of the 2012 Safety System Oversight Annual Award! 2012 Safety System Oversight Annual Award Nominees SSO Staffing Analysis

427

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Safety Shoes  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Safety Shoes and Boots Safety Tip #21 Don't let your day guards) can be used in conjunction with standard safety shoes. Safety boots Safety boots come in many varieties, and which you will use will depend on the specific hazards you face. Boots offer more protection

Minnesota, University of

428

CRAD, Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 | Department  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 CRAD, Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 December 22, 2009 Engineering Design and Safety Basis Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities, and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 64-19, Rev. 0) The engineering design and safety basis inspection will evaluate the effectiveness of programs and processes for the design and safety basis of selected safety structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of a nuclear facility. The nuclear facility may be an existing facility, a major modification to an existing facility, or a new facility under construction. Accordingly, the safety basis for the facility, for example, a documented safety analysis (DSA) or a preliminary documented safety analysis (PDSA),

429

CRAD, Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 | Department  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 CRAD, Engineering Design and Safety Basis - December 22, 2009 December 22, 2009 Engineering Design and Safety Basis Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities, and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 64-19, Rev. 0) The engineering design and safety basis inspection will evaluate the effectiveness of programs and processes for the design and safety basis of selected safety structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of a nuclear facility. The nuclear facility may be an existing facility, a major modification to an existing facility, or a new facility under construction. Accordingly, the safety basis for the facility, for example, a documented safety analysis (DSA) or a preliminary documented safety analysis (PDSA),

430

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, CSP Laboratory Safety Compliance Specialist (951) 827-2528 sarah.meyer@ucr.edu (vacant) Integrated

431

Safety System Oversight Assessment, Los Alamos National Laboratory- May 2011  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Safety System Oversight Assessment of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility Tritium Gas Handling System

432

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

transportation, radioactive waste management, quality assurance, procurement, conduct of operations, design and system facility engineering, safety system maintenance,...

433

Facility Representative Program: 2006 Facility Representative Workshop  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

6 Facility Representative Workshop 6 Facility Representative Workshop May 16 - 19, 2006 Knoxville, Tennessee Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Final To view Pictures, scroll the mouse over the Picture icon To view Presentations, Picture Slideshows and Video, click on the icon Day 1: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:00 a.m. Opening Remarks John Evans, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. Welcome from Oak Ridge Office Gerald Boyd, Manager, Oak Ridge Office 8:25 a.m. Welcome from Y-12 Site Office Theodore Sherry, Manager, Y-12 Site Office 8:35 a.m. Videotaped Remarks from the Deputy Secretary The Honorable Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy 8:40 a.m. Keynote Address - Safety Oversight at Environmental Management Activities Dr. Inés Triay, Chief Operating Officer, Office of Environmental Management

434

Pipeline Safety (Pennsylvania) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Pipeline Safety (Pennsylvania) Pipeline Safety (Pennsylvania) Pipeline Safety (Pennsylvania) < Back Eligibility Utility Investor-Owned Utility Industrial Municipal/Public Utility Rural Electric Cooperative Program Info State Pennsylvania Program Type Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission 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 engaged in the transportation of natural gas and other gas by pipeline. The Commission is authorized to enforce federal safety standards as an agent for the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety. The safety standards apply to the design, installation, operation,

435

Renewing Board Certification  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Many persons argue that certification of a specialist indicates that he is up-to-date and competent at the time of examination but this does not prove that he continues indefinitely thereafter to be competent and aware of all important new knowledge in his field. This is obviously true and, as the certifying... Like gross anatomy class and the first night on call as an intern, the medical specialty board examination is a rite of passage for physicians. Dr. Robert Steinbrook reports that in 2005, board certification is in the midst of two fundamental changes.

Steinbrook R.

2005-11-10T23:59:59.000Z

436

QA Corporate Board Meeting - February 2010 (Teleconference) ...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

QA Corporate Board Meeting - February 2010 (Teleconference) QA Corporate Board Meeting - February 2010 (Teleconference) 6thEM Quality Assurance Corporate Board Meeting Agenda for...

437

California Air Resources Board | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Air Resources Board Jump to: navigation, search Logo: California Air Resources Board Name: California Air Resources Board Place: Sacramento, California Website: http:...

438

Quality Assurance Corporate Board | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Corporate Board Quality Assurance Corporate Board The Office of Environmental Management (EM) Quality Assurance Corporate Board is an...

439

Toolbox Safety Talk Waste Anesthetic Gas (WAG)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Toolbox Safety Talk Waste Anesthetic Gas (WAG) Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety-in sheet to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Anesthetic gas and vapors that leak into the surrounding room during medical or research procedures are considered waste anesthetic gas (WAG). These gases

Pawlowski, Wojtek

440

Radiation Safety Guide For Ancillary Personnel  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, facilities, and public safety staff) who occasionally work in areas posted with the radiation symbol rules, you can ensure your safety while working in areas posted with the radiation symbol. 1. Follow allRadiation Safety Guide For Ancillary Personnel University of Washington Radiation Safety Office 203

Wilcock, William

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


441

The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB or Board) welcomes public comment...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Hanford Advisory Board (HAB or Board) welcomes public comment on cleanup of the Hanford Site. Those wishing to make public comment during the meeting should sign in and notify the...

442

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Board (Board) would like to thank the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) agencies for the 200-UP-1 Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study (RIFS), Proposed Plan, and Interim Record of...

443

MAGNET CELL SAFETY PROCEDURE SP-16 Revision 02  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

MAGNET CELL SAFETY PROCEDURE SP-16 Page i Revision 02 July 19, 2006 NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC: MAGNET CELL SAFETY PROCEDURE ______________________________________________________ HEAD of MAGNET ______________________________________________________ HEAD of FACILITIES John Kynoch #12;MAGNET CELL SAFETY PROCEDURE SP-16 Pageii Revision 02 July 19

Weston, Ken

444

Old Dominion University Annual Security and Fire Safety Report  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Protection Features in Residence Halls____________________ 21 Residential Facilities Fire Safety AmenitiesOld Dominion University 2012 Annual Security and Fire Safety Report All statements and policies _________________________________________ 17 Fire Safety ______________________________________________________________ 19 Residence Halls

445

February 28, 2006, Department letter reporting completion of NNSA portion of Commitment 23 in the 2004-1 implementation plan, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations, which requires the development of site office action plans to improve the consistency and reliability of work planning and work control at the activity level, including the incorporation of Integrated Safety Management core functions  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Washington, DC 20585 Washington, DC 20585 February 28, 2006 OFFICE O F THE ADMINISTRATOR The Honorable A. J. Eggenberger Ch a i rm an Defensc Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004-2901 Dear Mr. Chairman: On Julie 10, 2005, Secretary Bodnian submitted the Department's Iiizplenzentution Plun to Itizpt-ove Oversight qf'Nucleur Operutions in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2004- I , Oversight qf Complex, High-Hrrzurd Nucleur Openrtiotzs. Section 5.3 of the Implementation Plan (IP) addresses Revitalizing Integruted SU/i-'ty Munagernent Implementution, and Subsection 5.3.2 addresses Work Plunning mil Work Control ut the Activity Level. Commitment 23 of the 1P requires development of site office action plans to improve the consistency and reliability of work

446

Worker Safety and Health Enforcement Letter issued to Los Alamos National Security, LLC, related to Worker Beryllium Exposure during Machining at the Los Alamos National Laboratorys Beryllium Technology Facility, May 29, 2013 (WEL-2013-01)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

29, 2013 29, 2013 Dr. Charles F. McMillan, President Los Alamos National Security, LLC Los Alamos National Laboratory Mailstop A 100, Drop Point 03140071S Bikini Atoll Road, TA-3 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87454 WEL-2013-01 Dear Dr. McMillan: The Office of Health, Safety and Security's Office of Enforcement and Oversight evaluated the circumstances surrounding a work evolution performed at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area 3, Building 141, Beryllium Technology Facility (BTF), on July 11, 2012. The work evolution resulted in a worker exposure to beryllium in excess of the Department of Energy (DOE) action level of 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter for an 8-hour, time-weighted average. Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), which manages and

447

BRIEFING NOTE SUMMARY OF MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE MANAGEMENT BOARD  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

with a draft of the College's Health and Safety Policy Statement, which had been produced by the Health. ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE 6. The Pro-Rector for Development and Corporate Affairs reported to the Institute's science rather than to its infrastructure and, second, of the Board's own policy that buildings

448

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always General site safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always General site safety During the course of construction barrier at least 5 feet (1.5m) high having a fire-resistance rating of at least one half hour. Site Safety and Clean-up Safety Tip #20 Safety has no quitting time. All contractors should clean up their debris, trash

Minnesota, University of

449

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Safety Tip #22  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Safety Tip #22 Mowing Operations Mowing unsafely just doesn for out-of-control vehicles. Wear hearing protection and a safety vest. Wear a hard hat and safety goggles of this safety tip sheet. Please refrain from reading the information verbatim--paraphrase it instead

Minnesota, University of

450

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee (SEAB) on Shale Gas  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee (SEAB) on Shale Gas of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee (SEAB) on Shale Gas Production Posts Draft Report Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee (SEAB) on Shale Gas Production Posts Draft Report November 10, 2011 - 1:12pm Addthis WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee (SEAB) on Shale Gas Production released its second and final ninety-day report reviewing the progress that has been made in implementing the twenty recommendations in its initial report of August 18, 2011. The Subcommittee was tasked with producing a report on the immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of shale gas development. The Subcommittee believes that these recommendations, if implemented, would help to assure that the nation's considerable shale

451

Safety for Users  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety for Users Safety for Users Safety for Users Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." All users and staff participate in creating a culture and environment where performing research using the proper safeguards and fulfilling all safety requirements result in the success of the facility and its scientific program. The documents and guidance below will assist users and staff to achieve these goals. How Do I...? A series of fact sheets that explain what users need to know and do when preparing to conduct experiments at the ALS. Complete Experiment Safety Documentation? Work with Biological Materials? Work with Chemicals? Work with Regulated Soil? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS?

452

The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Status Update  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

NWTRB NWTRB www.nwtrb.gov U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board The U S Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Status Update Presented to: National Transportation Stakeholders Forum Presented By: National Transportation Stakeholders Forum Mark Abkowitz May 11, 2011 The Board's Statutory Mandate * The 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) established the U S Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board established the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. * The Board evaluates the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to: - transportation, packaging and storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) - site characterization, design, development, and operations of facilities for

453

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & HEALTH (ISH)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HEALTH (ISH) HEALTH (ISH) OBJECTIVE ISH.1 A comprehensive industrial safety & health program has been implemented to address applicable safety requirements at the TA 55 SST Facility. (Core Requirements 1, 3, and 4) Criteria * Procedures are implemented to address applicable industrial & health safety issues. * An adequate number of trained personnel are available to support SST facility regarding industrial safety & health concerns. * Portable fire extinguishers are appropriate for the class of fire they are expected to fight and are located within the proper distance. * Cranes, hooks, slings, and other rigging are plainly marked as to their capacity and inspected prior to use. * Forklifts and other powered lifting devices are adequately inspected.

454

Advisory Board Chris Donnelly,  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Michael DeBonis, Maine Forest Service J.B. Cullen, New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands Steven Forest Service's Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, the seven states of New England and New, and cooperators at various levels of public and private service. The Center has a fourteen member Advisory Board

Schweik, Charles M.

455

Hanford Advisory Board Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

glad to be back with the Board, noting Susan will remain on the project as a strategic advisor. Cathy also introduced Melissa Thom, EnviroIssues, who is also back with the Board...

456

Arduino Board Design Nicholas Skadberg  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Arduino Board Design Nicholas Skadberg 4/30/09 EE290 Dr. Pushkin Kachroo #12;Abstract In an effort an Arduino Atmega 168 controller chip and an Arduino Duemilanove circuit board. The device is controlled

Kachroo, Pushkin

457

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

3 3 2003 BY MONTH: JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC This list last updated Friday, August 09, 2013 DECEMBER December 31, 2003, Department letter reporting completion of Commitments 4.2.2 in implementation plan 2002-3, Requirements for the Design, Implementation, and Maintenance of Administrative Controls and Commitment 4.1.5 in the Department's Software Quality Assurance Implementation Plan with the submission of the DOE Technical Standard on Specific Administrative Controls and the revised DOE Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities and Authorities Manual (FRAM). [HTML] [PDF] [DOC] December 31, 2003, Board letter forwarding a staff report on the Oxide Conversion Facility in Building 9212 at Y-12. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC] December 24, 2003, Department letter regarding Commitment 4.2.1.5 in implementation plan 2002-1, Quality Assurance for Safety-Related Software, requiring the Department to conduct a survey of design codes currently in use to determine if any should be included as part of the toolbox codes. [HTML] [PDF] [DOC]

458

Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Program (Maryland) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Siting Program (Maryland) Facility Siting Program (Maryland) Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Program (Maryland) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Industrial Investor-Owned Utility Municipal/Public Utility Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Transportation Utility Program Info State Maryland Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Maryland Department of the Environment 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 nuclear waste facilities. This legislation describes the factors considered by the Board in making siting decisions. The Board is authorized to enact rules and regulations pertaining to the siting of hazardous and low-level nuclear

459

Rates for Alternate Energy Production Facilities (Iowa) | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Rates for Alternate Energy Production Facilities (Iowa) Rates for Alternate Energy Production Facilities (Iowa) Rates for Alternate Energy Production Facilities (Iowa) < Back Eligibility Municipal/Public Utility Utility Savings Category Alternative Fuel Vehicles Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Buying & Making Electricity Water Home Weatherization Solar Wind Program Info State Iowa Program Type Generating Facility Rate-Making Provider Iowa Utilities Board 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 contracts to purchase power from such facilities, and/or provide supplemental or backup power to alternate energy production facilities. Uniform rates for these transactions will be set by the board. Some exemptions apply

460

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Strategic Plan FY 20082013  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

on compliance activities, in conduct- ing its evaluation, the Board will encourage DOE through its science its review of DOE activities into three technical areas: preclosure operations, including surface-facility design and operations and the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


461

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

462

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the tank farm facility  

SciTech Connect

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.

Crummel, G.M.

1998-05-18T23:59:59.000Z

463

LANSCE | Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Isotope Production Facility (IPF) Lujan Neutron Scattering Center Materials Test Station (MTS) Proton Radiography (pRad) Ultracold Neutrons (UCN) Weapons Neutron Research Facility...

464

Office of Nuclear Safety - Directives  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives The HSS Office of Nuclear Safety is the responsible office for the development, interpretation, and revision of the following Department of Energy (DOE) directives. Go to DOE's Directives Web Page to view these directives. DOE Order (O) 252.1A, Technical Standards Program DOE O 252.1A promotes DOE's use of Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS) as the primary method for application of technical standards and establishes and manages the DOE Technical Standards Program (TSP) including technical standards development, information, activities, issues, and interactions. HS-30 Contact: Jeff Feit DOE Policy (P) 420.1, Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy DOE P 420.1, documents the Department's nuclear safety policy to design, construct, operate, and decommission its nuclear facilities in a manner that ensures adequate protection of workers, the public, and the environment.

465

On-board Diagnostics  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

On-board On-board Diagnostics for Big Data J. Zurawski ⇤ , S. Balasubramanian ⇤ , A. Brown ‡ , E. Kissel † , A. Lake ⇤ , M. Swany † , B. Tierney ⇤ and M. Zekauskas ‡ ⇤ Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA Email: {zurawski, sowmya, andy, bltierney}@es.net † Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, Bloomington, IN, USA Email: {ezkissel, swany}@indiana.edu ‡ Internet2 Ann Arbor, MI, USA Email: {aaron, matt}@internet2.edu Abstract-Big science data necessitates the requirement to incorporate state-of-the-art technologies and processes into science workflows. When transferring "big data", the network infrastructure connects sites for storage, analysis and data transfer. A component that is often overlooked within the network is a robust measurement and testing infrastructure that

466

Cold Vacuum Drying Facility hazard analysis report  

SciTech Connect

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.

Krahn, D.E.

1998-02-23T23:59:59.000Z

467

Introduction to LNG vehicle safety. Topical report  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

468

August 25, 2009, Board letter providing an outline of topics to be addressed at the September 29, 2009, public meeting on Recommendation 2004-1, and inviting the Secretary to testify  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington. D.C. 20004-2901 Peter S . Winokur (202) 694-7000 August 25,2009 The Honorable Steven Chu Secretary of Energy U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S W Washington, DC 20585-1000 Dear Secretary Chu: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) is planning a series of public hearings on the Department of Energy's (DOE) implementation of Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations, issued May 21,2004. The DOE Implementation Plan for this recommendation should have been completed by now. Unfortunately, major commitments remain incomplete and others need to be reviewed and reinforced by cognizant managers to reaffirm the continued achievement of their purposes and

469

Estimating Fire Risks at Industrial Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect

The Savannah River Site (SRS) has a wide variety of nuclear production facilities that include chemical processing facilities, machine shops, production reactors, and laboratories. Current safety documentation must be maintained for the nuclear facilities at SRS. Fire Risk Analyses (FRAs) are used to support the safety documentation basis. These FRAs present the frequency that specified radiological and chemical consequences will be exceeded. The consequence values are based on mechanistic models assuming specific fire protection features fail to function as designed.

Coutts, D.A.

1999-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

470

B PLANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

2003-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

471

Argonne CNM: Safety Training  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Safety at Work Safety at Work (printable pdf version) In case of emergency or if you need help or assistance dial Argonne's Protective Force: 911 (from Argonne phones) or (630) 252-1911 (from cell phones) As a staff member or user at the Center for Nanoscale Materials (CNM), you need to be aware of safety regulations at Argonne National Laboratory. You are also required to have taken any safety, orientation, and training classes or courses specified by your User Work Authorization(s) and/or work planning and control documents prior to beginning your work. For safety and security reasons, it is necessary to know of all facility users present in the CNM (Buildings 440 and 441). Users are required to sign in and out in the visitors logbook located in Room A119. Some detailed emergency information is provided on the Argonne National Laboratory web site. Brief instructions and general guidelines follow.

472

UNBC SAFETY CHECKLIST SAFETY CHECKLIST  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 UNBC SAFETY CHECKLIST SAFETY CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PAGE Please use the following table below needs, contact the Risk & Safety Department at 250-960- (5530) for further instructions. This safety. The safety checklist also helps you to establish due diligence under Federal and Provincial safety laws

Northern British Columbia, University of

473

Facility Representative Program  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Representative Facility Representative Office of Nuclear Safety Home Facility Representative Home Annual Facility Rep Workshop › 2012 › 2011 › 2010 › 2009 › 2008 › 2007 › 2006 › 2005 › 2004 › 2003 › 2002 › 2001 › 2000 DOE Safety Links › ORPS Info › Operating Experience › DOE Lessons Learned › Accident Investigation Assessment Tools › FR CRADs › Surveillance Guides › Manager's Guide for Safety and Health Subject Matter Links General Program Information › Program Mission Statement › Program Directives and Guidance › FR of the Year Award Program › FR of the Year Award › FR Program Assessment Guide (Appendix B, DOE STD 1063-2011) FR Quarterly Performance Indicators Training & Qualification Information › Qualification Standards › Energy Online Courses

474

MAX Fluid Dynamics facility  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

MAX Fluid Dynamics facility MAX Fluid Dynamics facility Capabilities Engineering Experimentation Reactor Safety Testing and Analysis Overview Nuclear Reactor Severe Accident Experiments MAX NSTF SNAKE Aerosol Experiments System Components Laser Applications Robots Applications Other Facilities Other Capabilities Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE on Flickr MAX Fluid Dynamics facility Providing high resolution data for development of computational tools that model fluid flow and heat transfer within complex systems such as the core of a nuclear reactor. 1 2 3 4 5 Hot and cold air jets are mixed within a glass tank while laser-based anemometers and a high-speed infrared camera characterize fluid flow and heat transfer behavior. Click on image to view larger size image.

475

Nuclear Facility Design  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Design Design FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: Headquarters and Field organizations and their contractors ensure that nuclear facilities are designed to assure adequate protection for the public, workers, and the environment from nuclear hazards. REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830.120  10 CFR 830 subpart B  DOE O 413.3  DOE O 420.1B  DOE O 414.1C  DOE O 226.1  DOE M 426.1  DEAR 970-5404-2 Guidance:  DOE G 420.1-1  Project Management Practices, Integrated Quality ( Rev E, June 2003)  DOE Implementation Plan for DNSB Recommendation 2004-2 Performance Objective 1: Contractor Program Documentation Contracts between and the contractors who operate nuclear facilities contain adequate requirements concerning the conduct of nuclear facility safety design for nuclear facility capital projects and major modifications and the

476

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

477

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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.

2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

478

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

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.

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

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

479

ANNUAL SECURITY & FIRE SAFETY REPORT  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Maxwell, Bruce D.

480

The Office of Health, Safety and Security  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Home Outreach Event Calendar for DOE Nuclear Weapons Workers Covered Facilities Database Chronic Beryllium Disease Awareness Health and Safety HSS Logo Find Facilities The Department has created the Facility List Database to provide public access to summaries of information collected on the facilities listed in the Federal Register. The summary for each facility includes the following information: Facility Name Also Known As State Location Time Period Facility Type (Atomic Weapons Employer/Beryllium Vendor/Department of Energy) Facility Description The information in the database can be accessed in four different ways: View Covered Facilities by Facility Name Display the record for a specific covered facility. Please note that the facilities in this database represent coverage for Part B and E and that not all facilities provide coverage under both parts. For more information on benefits and coverage, contact a DOL resource center.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facilities safety board" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


481

Hanford Advisory Board HAB  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

from two to 16 tanks per farm. TPA: Tri-Party Agreement, the informal name for the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order signed by the U.S. Department of Energy,...

482

Chapter 3 - Safety Offshore  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This chapter focuses on specific issues to do with managing safety in offshore oil and gas facilities. The distinctions between drilling, pipelines and production are described. Offshore special issues include congestion, the number of people onboard, hurricanes/cyclones and dropped objects.

Ian Sutton

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

483

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

taken out of context to extrapolate Board agreement on other subject matters. cc: Scott Samuelson, Manager, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection Stacy...

484

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

taken out of context to extrapolate Board agreement on other subject matters. cc: Scott Samuelson, Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection Dana Bryson,...

485

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

taken out of context to extrapolate Board agreement on other subject matters. cc: Scott Samuelson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection Stacy Charboneau, Deputy...

486

HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD A Site Specific Advisory Board, Chartered...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

other materials requiring macroencapsulation treatment to meet Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Land Disposal Restrictions prior to disposal, the Board provides the...

487

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE G 450.4-1B Integrated Safety...  

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

and implemented. Controls may include site or facility commitments, such as conduct of operations and maintenance programs; worker safety programs; specified safety systems; or...

488

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Requirements for employers  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Requirements for employers · Fallprotectionsandproperuseofrelated-safety equipmentsuchaslifelines,harness · Properuseofdangeroustools,thenecessaryprecautionstotake,andtheuseof theprotectiveandemergencyequipmentrequired. Safety Training and Education Safety Tip #18 Get smart. Use safety from the start. All

Minnesota, University of

489

Outgoing Board Correspondence - Hanford Site  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Hedges Board Diversity and Other Effectiveness Issues 122012 David Huizenga, Scott Samuelson, and Matt McCormick Tank Closure and Waste Management Final Environmental Impact...

490

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

a committee charged with identifying future technology needs for offshore oil and gas development. Dr. Hunter serves on many advisory boards for universities and government...

491

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (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,...

492

Hanford Advisory Board Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

June 6-7, 2013 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD June 6-7, 2013 Richland, WA Topics in this Meeting Summary Executive Summary ......

493

Hanford Advisory Board Page 1  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

February 7-8, 2013 FINAL MEETING SUMMARY HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD February 7-8, 2013 Richland, WA Topics in This Meeting Summary Executive Summary ......

494

Safety Basis Report  

SciTech Connect

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.

R.J. Garrett

2002-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

495

Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations - Guidance Documents  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Guidance Documents Guidance Documents Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office Protocols Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for the Development and Maintenance of Criteria and Review Approach Documents, July 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight, November 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for Required Reading, June 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for Small Team Oversight Activities, June 2012 (Rev. 1) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Qualification Standard for the Site Lead Program, May 2011 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for Site Leads, May 2011

496

Independent Oversight Review, Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility- January 2012  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Fire Suppression Vital Safety System

497

UNBC SAFETY CHECKLIST SAFETY CHECKLIST  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 UNBC SAFETY CHECKLIST SAFETY CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PAGE Please use the following table below needs, contact the Risk & Safety Department at 250-960- (5530) for further instructions. This safety to remain safe here at UNBC. The safety checklist also helps you to establish due diligence under Federal

Northern British Columbia, University of

498

State Oil and Gas Board State Oil and Gas Board Address Place...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Board State Oil and Gas Board Address Place Zip Website Alabama Oil and Gas Board Alabama Oil and Gas Board Hackberry Lane Alabama http www gsa state al us ogb ogb html Alaska...

499

CRITICALITY SAFETY TRAINING AT FLUOR HANFORD (FH)  

SciTech Connect

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.

TOFFER, H.

2005-05-02T23:59:59.000Z

500

High Level Waste Corporate Board Charter | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers (EERE)

High Level Waste Corporate Board Charter High Level Waste Corporate Board Charter High Level Waste Corporate Board Charter More Documents & Publications Corporate Board By-Laws...