Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

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

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

1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

2

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

3

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

4

Facility Safety  

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

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

1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

5

Facility Safety  

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

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

1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

6

Summary - Major Risk Factors Integrated Facility Disposition...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

& ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN EM Project: Integrated Facility Disposition Project (IFDP) ETR Report Date: August 2008 ETR-15 United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental...

7

Facility Safety  

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

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

8

Facility Safety  

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

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

9

Facility Safety  

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

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

10

Facility Safety  

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

The Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and System Engineer Program. Cancels DOE O 420.1B, DOE G 420.1-2 and DOE G 420.1-3.

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

11

Facility Safety  

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

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

12

Facility Safety  

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

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

13

Facility Safety  

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

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

14

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power SystemsResourcesFLASH2011-11-OPAMFY 2007 Total System12 EERE CongressionalDepartment

15

EIS-0287: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, EIS-0287 (September 2002) EIS-0287: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition...

16

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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...

17

CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

18

Preliminary siting characterization Salt Disposition Facility - Site B  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A siting and reconnaissance geotechnical program has been completed in S-Area at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. This program investigated the subsurface conditions for the area known as ``Salt Disposition Facility (SDF), Site B'' located northeast of H-Area and within the S-Area. Data acquired from the Site B investigation includes both field exploration and laboratory test data.

Wyatt, D.

2000-01-04T23:59:59.000Z

19

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

20

Site selection for the Salt Disposition Facility at the Savannah River Site  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this report is to identify, assess, and rank potential sites for the proposed Salt Disposition Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site.

Bowers, J.A.

2000-01-03T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Implementation Guide for Surveillance and Maintenance during Facility Transition and Disposition  

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

As DOE facilities complete mission operations and are declared excess, they pass into a transition phase that ultimately prepares them for disposition. The disposition phase of a facility's life cycle usually includes deactivation, decommissioning, and surveillance and maintenance (S&M) activities.

1999-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

22

Facility Safety - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements  

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

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

23

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

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

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

24

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...

25

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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

26

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

- (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...

27

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

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

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

28

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

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

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

29

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

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

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

30

CRAD, Facility Safety- Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

31

CRAD, Facility Safety- Technical Safety Requirements  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

32

340 waste handling facility interim safety basis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

33

340 Waste handling facility interim safety basis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

34

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

35

Supplement Analysis for the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In October 2002, DOE issued the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (DOE 2002) that provided an analysis of the potential environmental consequences of alternatives/options for the management and disposition of Sodium Bearing Waste (SBW), High-Level Waste (HL W) calcine, and HLW facilities at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), now known as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and referred to hereafter as the Idaho Site. Subsequent to the issuance of the Final EIS, DOE included the requirement for treatment of SBW in the Request for Proposals for Environmental Management activities on the Idaho Site. The new Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) Contractor identified Steam Reforming as their proposed method to treat SBW; a method analyzed in the Final EIS as an option to treat SBW. The proposed Steam Reforming process for SBW is the same as in the Final EIS for retrieval, treatment process, waste form and transportation for disposal. In addition, DOE has updated the characterization data for both the HLW Calcine (BBWI 2005a) and SBW (BBWI 2004 and BBWI 2005b) and identified two areas where new calculation methods are being used to determine health and safety impacts. Because of those changes, DOE has prepared this supplement analysis to determine whether there are ''substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns'' or ''significant new circumstances or information'' within the meaning of the Council of Environmental Quality and DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9 (c) and 10 CFR 1021.314) that would require preparation of a Supplemental EIS. Specifically, this analysis is intended to determine if: (1) the Steam Reforming Option identified in the Final EIS adequately bounds impacts from the Steam Reforming Process proposed by the new ICP Contractor using the new characterization data, (2) the new characterization data is significantly different than the data presented in the Final EIS, (3) the new calculation methods present a significant change to the impacts described in the Final EIS, and (4) would the updated characterization data cause significant changes in the environmental impacts for the action alternatives/options presented in the Final EIS. There are no other aspects of the Final EIS that require additional review because DOE has not identified any additional new significant circumstances or information that would warrant such a review.

N /A

2005-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

36

Facility Safety Plan CMS Complexes CMS410  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Cooper, G

2007-06-14T23:59:59.000Z

37

Disposition of PUREX facility tanks D5 and E6 uranium and plutonium solutions. Final report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Approximately 9 kilograms of plutonium and 5 metric tons of uranium in a 1 molar nitric acid solution are being stored in two PUREX facility vessels, tanks D5 and E6. The plutonium was accumulated during cleanup activities of the plutonium product area of the PUREX facility. Personnel at PUREX recently completed a formal presentation to the Surplus Materials Peer Panel (SMPP) regarding disposition of the material currently in these tanks. The peer panel is a group of complex-wide experts who have been chartered by EM-64 (Office of Site and Facility Transfer) to provide a third party independent review of disposition decisions. The information presented to the peer panel is provided in the first section of this report. The panel was generally receptive to the information provided at that time and the recommendations which were identified.

Harty, D.P.

1993-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

38

Superfund Policy Statements and Guidance Regarding Disposition of Radioactive Waste in Non-NRC Licensed Disposal Facilities - 13407  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This talk will discuss EPA congressional testimony and follow-up letters, as well as letters to other stakeholders on EPA's perspectives on the disposition of radioactive waste outside of the NRC licensed disposal facility system. This will also look at Superfund's historical practices, and emerging trends in the NRC and agreement states on waste disposition. (author)

Walker, Stuart [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (United States)] [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

39

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

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

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

2010-09-23T23:59:59.000Z

40

Impacts of criticality safety on hot fuel examination facility operations  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Hot Cell Facility (HCF) Safety Analysis Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2000-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

42

Implementation of safeguards and security for fissile materials disposition reactor alternative facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A number of different disposition alternatives are being considered and include facilities which provide for long-ten-n and interim storage, convert and stabilize fissile materials for other disposition alternatives, immobilize fissile material in glass and/or ceramic material, fabricate fissile material into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors, use reactor based technologies to convert material into spent fuel, and dispose of fissile material using a number of geologic alternatives. Particular attention will be given to the reactor alternatives which include existing, partially completed, advanced or evolutionary LWRs and CANDU reactors. The various reactor alternatives are all very similar and include processing which converts Pu to a usable form for fuel fabrication, a MOX fuel fab facility located in either the US or in Europe, US LWRs or the CANDU reactors and ultimate disposal of spent fuel in a geologic repository. This paper focuses on how the objectives of reducing security risks and strengthening arms reduction and nonproliferation will be accomplished and the possible impacts of meeting these objectives on facility operations and design. Some of the areas in this paper include: (1) domestic and international safeguards requirements, (2) non-proliferation criteria and measures, (3) the threat, and (4) potential proliferation risks, the impacts on the facilities, and safeguards and security issues unique to the presence of Category 1 or strategic special nuclear material.

Jaeger, C.D.; Duggan, R.A.; Tolk, K.M.

1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

43

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...

44

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

45

Occupational Safety Review of High Technology Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Lee Cadwallader

2005-01-31T23:59:59.000Z

46

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProvedDecember 2005DepartmentDecember U.S. Department-5 METRIC SUMMARY FYDisposition

47

Site Selection for the Salt Disposition Facility at the Savannah River Site  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A site selection study was conducted to identify a suitable location for the construction and operation of a new Salt Disposition Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The facility to be sited is a single processing facility and support buildings that could house either of three technology alternatives being developed by the High Level Waste Systems Engineering Team: Small Tank Tetraphenylborate Precipitation, Crystalline Silicotitanate Non-Elutable Ion Exchange or Caustic Side Solvent Extraction. A fourth alternative, Direct Disposal in grout, is not part of the site selection study because a location has been identified that is unique to this technology (i.e., Z-Area). Facility site selection at SRS is a formal, documented process that seeks to optimize siting of new facilities with respect to facility-specific engineering requirements, sensitive environmental resources, and applicable regulatory requirements. In this manner, the prime objectives of cost minimization, environmental protection, and regulatory compliance are achieved. The results from this geotechnical characterization indicated that continued consideration be given to Site B for the proposed SDF. Suitable topography, the lack of surface hydrology and floodplain issues, no significant groundwater contamination, the presence of minor soft zones along the northeast portion of footprint, and no apparent geological structure in the Gordon Aquitard support this recommendation.

Gladden, J.B.; Rueter, K.J.; Morin, J.P.

2000-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

48

Idaho High-Level Waste & Facilities Disposition, Final Environmental Impact Statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This EIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences of alternatives for managing high-level waste (HLW) calcine, mixed transuranic waste/sodium bearing waste (SBW) and newly generated liquid waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in liquid and solid forms. This EIS also analyzes alternatives for the final disposition of HLW management facilities at the INEEL after their missions are completed. After considering comments on the Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0287D), as well as information on available treatment technologies, DOE and the State of Idaho have identified separate preferred alternatives for waste treatment. DOE's preferred alternative for waste treatment is performance based with the focus on placing the wastes in forms suitable for disposal. Technologies available to meet the performance objectives may be chosen from the action alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The State of Idaho's Preferred Alternative for treating mixed transuranic waste/SBW and calcine is vitrification, with or without calcine separations. Under both the DOE and State of Idaho preferred alternatives, newly generated liquid waste would be segregated after 2005, stored or treated directly and disposed of as low-level, mixed low-level, or transuranic waste depending on its characteristics. The objective of each preferred alternative is to enable compliance with the legal requirement to have INEEL HLW road ready by a target date of 2035. Both DOE and the State of Idaho have identified the same preferred alternative for facilities disposition, which is to use performance-based closure methods for existing facilities and to design new facilities consistent with clean closure methods.

N /A

2002-10-11T23:59:59.000Z

49

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Guidance  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

50

Office of Nuclear Safety Basis and Facility Design  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

51

Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

52

Mechanistic facility safety and source term analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

PLYS, M.G.

1999-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

53

Facility Safety | Department of Energy  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergyENERGYWomentheATLANTA, GA5 &of EnergyOrganizationtotalFacility Representative AwardIn

54

National Ignition Facility Project Site Safety Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

55

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

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

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

56

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

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

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

57

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Safety System- September 25, 2009  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Nuclear Facility Safety System Functionality Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities, and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 64-17, Rev 0 )

58

CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

59

Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2005-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

60

Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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.

62

NEW - DOE O 420.1 Chg 1, Facility Safety  

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

The Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and System Engineer Program. This Page Change is limited in scope to changes necessary to invoke DOE-STD-1104, Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Document, and revised DOE-STD-3009-2014, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis as required methods. DOE O 420.1C Chg 1, dated 2-27-15, cancels DOE O 420.1C, dated 12-4-12.

63

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

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

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

64

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

65

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

66

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

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

Oak Ridge Operations Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions Name: Organization: Directions: This is an open-book evaluation. Complete the...

67

Safety analysis report for the Waste Storage Facility. Revision 2  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Bengston, S.J.

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

68

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

69

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE'S H-CANYON FACILITY: IMPACTS OF FOREIGN OBLIGATIONS ON SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US has a non-proliferation policy to receive foreign and domestic research reactor returns of spent fuel materials of US origin. These spent fuel materials are returned to the Department of Energy (DOE) and placed in storage in the L-area spent fuel basin at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The foreign research reactor returns fall subject to the 123 agreements for peaceful cooperation. These ď123 agreementsĒ are named after section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and govern the conditions of nuclear cooperation with foreign partners. The SRS management of these foreign obligations while planning material disposition paths can be a challenge.

Magoulas, V.

2013-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

70

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

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

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

71

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

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

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

72

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

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

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

73

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

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

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

74

Fissile Material Disposition Program: Deep Borehole Disposal Facility PEIS data input report for direct disposal. Direct disposal of plutonium metal/plutonium dioxide in compound metal canisters. Version 3.0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is examining options for disposing of excess weapons-usable nuclear materials [principally plutonium (Pu) and highly enriched uranium (HEU)] in a form or condition that is substantially and inherently more difficult to recover and reuse in weapons production. This report is the data input report for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The PEIS examines the environmental, safety, and health impacts of implementing each disposition alternative on land use, facility operations, and site infrastructure; air quality and noise; water, geology, and soils; biotic, cultural, and paleontological resources; socioeconomics; human health; normal operations and facility accidents; waste management; and transportation. This data report is prepared to assist in estimating the environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of a Deep Borehole Disposal Facility, an alternative currently included in the PEIS. The facility projects under consideration are, not site specific. This report therefore concentrates on environmental, safety, and health impacts at a generic site appropriate for siting a Deep Borehole Disposal Facility.

Wijesinghe, A.M.; Shaffer, R.J.

1996-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

75

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

76

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Volume 2, Guidance  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

77

Facility Safety - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunDatastreamsmmcrcalgovInstrumentsruc DocumentationP-Series toESnet4:Epitaxial ThinFOR IMMEDIATE5Facilities SomeFacilitiesFacility0.1C

78

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

79

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

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

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

80

Fuel Storage Facility Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Facility Safety - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmospheric Optical Depth7-1D: Vegetation ProposedUsing ZirconiaPolicy andExsolutionFES6FY 2011Facility Engineering

82

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

83

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

84

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Larson, H L

2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

85

West Valley Demonstration Project Phase I Decommissioning - Facility Disposition Partnering Performance Agreement  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergyENERGYWomen Owned SmallOf The 2012NuclearBradleyBudgetFurnacesLES'Nuclear Facility Coalition

86

Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Laycak, D

2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

87

Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities March 2010  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Laycak, D T

2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

88

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

89

Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility Appendix A: Safety Requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

These rules apply to all LLNL employees, non-LLNL employees (including contract labor, supplemental labor, vendors, personnel matrixed/assigned from other National Laboratories, participating guests, visitors and students) and construction contractors/subcontractors. The General Safety and Health rules shall be used by management to promote accident prevention through indoctrination, safety and health training and on-the-job application. As a condition for contracts award, all contractors and subcontractors and their employees must certify on Form S & H A-1 that they have read and understand, or have been briefed and understand, the National Ignition Facility OCIP Project General Safety Rules.

Cerruti, S.J.

1997-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

90

TRANSPORTATION CASK RECEIPT/RETURN FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

91

Facility Disposition Projects  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious Rank EERE:YearRound-UpHeat PumpRecord ofESPCofConstructionofFY 2011 Report toAnnuAlFaces of the Recovery Act

92

Integrated Facilities Disposition Program  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power.pdf11-161-LNG | Department ofHTSDOE-IG-0882 Inspection SEMIANNUALC:\Documents

93

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Deliciouscritical_materials_workshop_presentations.pdfSTD-1040-93 DOE-STD-1040-9395-95 December

94

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Deliciouscritical_materials_workshop_presentations.pdfSTD-1040-93 DOE-STD-1040-9395-95 DecemberSTD-1120-2005 Volume 2

95

The Fast Flux Test Facility built on safety  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

96

Fast Flux Test Facility final safety analysis report. Amendment 73  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

97

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

98

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

99

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

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

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

2007-02-07T23:59:59.000Z

100

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Mission Need Statement: Calcine Disposition Project Major Systems Acquisition Project  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document identifies the need to establish the Calcine Disposition Project to determine and implement the final disposition of calcine including characterization, retrieval, treatment (if necessary), packaging, loading, onsite interim storage pending shipment to a repository or interim storage facility, and disposition of related facilities.

J. T. Beck

2007-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

102

National ignition facility environment, safety, and health management plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

103

Nuclear space power safety and facility guidelines study  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Mehlman, W.F.

1995-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

104

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

105

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

106

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

107

DOE's Approach to Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis and Management  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

108

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

109

Records Disposition  

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

To assign responsibilities and authorities and to prescribe policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines for the orderly disposition of records of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its management and operating contractors. Cancels DOE O 1324.2 dated 5-28-80. Chg 1 dated 4-9-92. Canceled by DOE O 1324.2B dated 1-12-95.

1988-09-13T23:59:59.000Z

110

FACILITY SAFETY PLAN Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

111

EA-1410: Proposed Disposition of the Omega West Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This EA evaluates the environmental impacts for the proposal to remove the Omega West Facility and the remaining support structures from Los Alamos Canyon at the U.S. Department of Energy Los...

112

Records Disposition  

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

To assign responsibilities and authorities and to prescribe policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines for the orderly disposition of records of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its operating and onsite service contractors. Cancels DOE O 1324.1 dated 7-10-78. Chg 1 dated 7-2-81. Chg 2 dated 11-9-82. Canceled by DOE O 1324.2A dated 9-13-88.

1980-05-28T23:59:59.000Z

113

Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Careerlumens_placard-green.epsEnergy1.pdfMarket |21,- EA-1999-07Disposition Project VolumecoolingThe

114

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Careerlumens_placard-green.epsEnergy1.pdfMarket |21,- EA-1999-07Disposition Project

115

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Montalvo, M. L. (Maryrose L.)

2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

116

340 Waste handling Facility Hazard Categorization and Safety Analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

T. J. Rodovsky

2010-10-25T23:59:59.000Z

117

Chemical Waste Guide for Facilities Services UW Environmental Health and Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

CChemmical Fa Was aciliti Au te G ies S ugust uide Servic t 24, 2 for ces 2011 #12;Chemical Waste Guide for Facilities Services UW Environmental Health and Safety Page 2 Chemical Waste Guide ........................................................................................................... 3 Chemical Hazards

Wilcock, William

118

Safety Analysis Report: X17B2 beamline Synchrotron Medical Research Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report contains a safety analysis for the X17B2 beamline synchrotron medical research facility. Health hazards, risk assessment and building systems are discussed. Reference is made to transvenous coronary angiography. (LSP)

Gmuer, N.F.; Thomlinson, W.

1990-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

119

ESTIMATING IMPURITIES IN SURPLUS PLUTONIUM FOR DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The United States holds at least 61.5 metric tons (MT) of plutonium that is permanently excess to use in nuclear weapons programs, including 47.2 MT of weapons-grade plutonium. Surplus inventories will be stored safely by the Department of Energy (DOE) and then transferred to facilities that will prepare the plutonium for permanent disposition. The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) operates a Feed Characterization program for the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the DOE Office of Environmental Management. Many of the items that require disposition are only partially characterized, and SRNL uses a variety of techniques to predict the isotopic and chemical properties that are important for processing through the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and alternative disposition paths. Recent advances in laboratory tools, including Prompt Gamma Analysis and Peroxide Fusion treatment, provide data on the existing inventories that will enable disposition without additional, costly sampling and destructive analysis.

Allender, J.; Moore, E.

2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

120

Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility, Appendix A  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Spent Nuclear Fuel Project path forward: nuclear safety equivalency to comparable NRC-licensed facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document includes the Technical requirements which meet the nuclear safety objectives of the NRC regulations for fuel treatment and storage facilities. These include requirements regarding radiation exposure limits, safety analysis, design and construction. This document also includes administrative requirements which meet the objectives of the major elements of the NRC licensing process. These include formally documented design and safety analysis, independent technical review, and oppportunity for public involvement.

Garvin, L.J.

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

122

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

123

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

124

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

125

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

126

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 not found in most laboratory environments. The NMR facilities maintain superconducting magnets which have for asphyxiation. Once energized the field of the superconducting magnet of the spectrometer is always present

Maroncelli, Mark

127

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

128

Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility, Appendix B  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

129

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

VINCENT, Andrew

2005-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

130

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The regulatory requirement to develop an upgraded safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility was realized in January 2001 by issuance of a revision to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 830 (10 CFR 830).1 Subpart B of 10 CFR 830, ďSafety Basis Requirements,Ē requires a contractor responsible for a DOE Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facility to either submit by April 9, 2001 the existing safety basis which already meets the requirements of Subpart B, or to submit by April 10, 2003 an upgraded facility safety basis that meets the revised requirements.1 10 CFR 830 identifies Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.70, ďStandard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power PlantsĒ2 as a safe harbor methodology for preparation of a DOE reactor documented safety analysis (DSA). The regulation also allows for use of a graded approach. This report presents the methodology that was developed for preparing the reactor accident analysis portion of the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility (ATRC) upgraded DSA. The methodology was approved by DOE for developing the ATRC safety basis as an appropriate application of a graded approach to the requirements of 10 CFR 830.

Gregg L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

131

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2003-05-13T23:59:59.000Z

132

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

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

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

133

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

134

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

135

Proliferation resistance criteria for fissile material disposition  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The 1994 National Academy of Sciences study {open_quotes}Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium{close_quotes} defined options for reducing the national and international proliferation risks of materials declared excess to the nuclear weapons program. This report proposes criteria for assessing the proliferation resistance of these options. The criteria are general, encompassing all stages of the disposition process from storage through intermediate processing to final disposition including the facilities, processing technologies and materials, the level of safeguards for these materials, and the national/subnational threat to the materials.

Close, D.A.; Fearey, B.L.; Markin, J.T.; Rutherford, D.A. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Duggan, R.A.; Jaeger, C.D.; Mangan, D.L.; Moya, R.W.; Moore, L.R. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Strait, R.S. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States)

1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

136

Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProvedDecember 2005DepartmentDecember U.S. Department-5 METRIC SUMMARYFacility Safety

137

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility safety equipment list  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

138

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A new onsite, remote-handled low-level waste disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled low-level waste disposal for remote-handled low-level waste from the Idaho National Laboratory and for nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled low-level waste in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This preliminary safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled low-level waste disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by discussing site characteristics that impact accident analysis, by providing the facility and process information necessary to support the hazard analysis, by identifying and evaluating potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled low-level waste, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

Timothy Solack; Carol Mason

2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

139

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Boyd D. Christensen

2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

140

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Boyd D. Christensen

2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

142

Plutonium Disposition Program | National Nuclear Security Administrati...  

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

Disposition Plutonium Disposition Program Plutonium Disposition Program The U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA), which entered into force on...

143

The dual axis radiographic hydrodynamic test (DARHT) facility personnel safety system (PSS) control system  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The mission of the Dual Axis Radiograph Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT) Facility is to conduct experiments on dynamic events of extremely dense materials. The PSS control system is designed specifically to prevent personnel from becoming exposed to radiation and explosive hazards during machine operations and/or the firing site operation. This paper will outline the Radiation Safety System (RSS) and the High Explosive Safety System (HESS) which are computer-controlled sets of positive interlocks, warning devices, and other exclusion mechanisms that together form the PSS.

Jacquez, Edward B [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

144

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Deliciouscritical_materials_workshop_presentations.pdf MoreProgram |DOEInfrastructure Working420.1B FACILITY SAFETY

145

EIS-0229: Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The EIS will evaluate the†reasonable alternatives and potential environmental impacts for the proposed siting, construction, and operation of three types of facilities for plutonium disposition.

146

ACCELERATION OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY TRANSURANIC WASTE DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

One of Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) most significant risks is the site's inventory of transuranic waste retrievably stored above and below-ground in Technical Area (TA) 54 Area G, particularly the dispersible high-activity waste stored above-ground in deteriorating facilities. The high activity waste represents approximately 50% (by activity) of the total 292,000 PE-Ci inventory remaining to be disposed. The transuramic waste inventory includes contact-handled and remote-handled waste packaged in drums, boxes, and oversized containers which are retrievably stored both above and below-ground. Although currently managed as transuranic waste, some of the inventory is low-level waste that can be disposed onsite or at approved offsite facilities. Dispositioning the transuranic waste inventory requires retrieval of the containers from above and below-ground storage, examination and repackaging or remediation as necessary, characterization, certification and loading for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad New Mexico, all in accordance with well-defined requirements and controls. Although operations are established to process and characterize the lower-activity contact-handled transuranic waste containers, LAN L does not currently have the capability to repack high activity contact-handled transuranic waste containers (> 56 PE-Ci) or to process oversized containers with activity levels over 0.52 PE-Ci. Operational issues and compliance requirements have resulted in less than optimal processing capabilities for lower activity contact-handled transuranic waste containers, limiting preparation and reducing dependability of shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Since becoming the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract in June 2006, Los Alamos National Security (LANS) L.L.C. has developed a comprehensive, integrated plan to effectively and efficiently disposition the transuranic waste inventory, working in concert with the Department of Energy Los Alamos Site Office, Carlsbad Field Office and the Department of Energy Headquaeters. Rather than simply processing containers as retrieved, the plan places priority on efficient curie disposition, a direct correlation to reducing risk. Key elements of the approch include balancing inventory and operational risks, tailoring methods to meet requirements, optimizing existing facilities, equipment and staff, and incorporating best practices from other Department of Energy sites. With sufficient funding this will enable LANL to ship the above-ground high activity contact-handled transuranic waste offsite by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 and to disposition the remaining above- and below-ground contact-handled and remote-handled transuranic waste inventory by December 2010. Nearly 70% of the contact-handled transuranic waste containers, including the high activity waste, require processing and repackaging before characterization and certification for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. LANL is employing a balanced risk approach that accomplishes significant long-term risk reduction by accepting short-term increased facility operations risk under well-developed and justified interim controls. Reviews of facility conditions and additional analyses show that the Waste Characterization, Reduction and Repackaging Facility and the Radioassay and Nondestructive Testing Facility are the most appropriate facilities to safetly remediate, repackage, and ship lower activity and the remaining high activity drums. Updated safety documentation supporting limited Hazard Category 2 operations in these facilities has been developed. Once approved, limited-term operations to process the high activity drums can begin in early 2007, building upon the experience base established performing Hazard Category 3 operations processing lower activity waste in these facilities. LANL is also implementing a series of actions to improve and sustain operations for processing contact-handled transuranic waste inventory. Building 412 Decontamination and Volume Facility and Dom

O'LEARY, GERALD A. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2007-01-04T23:59:59.000Z

147

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Boyd D. Christensen

2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

148

Facility Safety  

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

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

149

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

150

A HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR DISPOSITION OF LONG-LIVED RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

During the past 45 years, one of the most challenging scientific, engineering, socio-economic, and political tasks and obligations of our time has been to site and develop technical, politically acceptable, solutions to the safe disposition of long-lived radioactive materials (LLRMs). However, at the end of the year 2002, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site in the United States of America (USA) hosts the world's only operating LLRM-disposal system, which (1) is based on the LLRM-disposal principles recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1957, i.e., deep geological disposal in a ''stable'' salt vault/repository, (2) complies with the nation's ''Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes'', and (3) may receive 175,584 cubic meters (m3) of transuranic radioactive waste (TRUW)a. Pending the scheduled opening of repositories for once-used nuclear fuel (OUNF) in the USA, Sweden, and Finland in the years 2010, 2015, and 2017, respectively, LLRM-disposal solutions remain the missing link in all national LLRM-disposition programs. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, many nations with nuclear programs have chosen a ''spectator'' stance in terms of enhancing the global nuclear safety culture and the nuclear renaissance, and have either ''slow-tracked'' or deferred their LLRM-disposal programs to allow time for an informed national consensus to evolve based on LLRM-disposition experiences and solutions gained elsewhere. In the meantime, LLRMs will continue to amass in different types and levels of safeguarded storage facilities around the world. In an attempt to contribute to the enhancement of the global nuclear safety culture and the nuclear renaissance, the authors developed the sample holistic approach for synergistic disposition of LLRMs comprising LLRM-disposition components considered either ''proven'' or ''promising'' by the authors. The fundamental principles of the holistic approach are: (1) Risk minimization; (2) Minimization of the LLRM volume requiring deep geological disposal; and (3) LLRM-disposition flexibility. An integral element of these principles is to allow time for LLRM-disposition solutions to evolve/mature technically, financially, and politically. Furthermore, contingent upon the desired outcome(s), available financial, scientific, and technical resources, and political will, these components may be implemented separately or in combinations by one or a group of nations.

Eriksson, Leif G.; Dials, George E.; Parker, Frank L.

2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

151

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

152

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

153

Risk-Informing Safety Reviews for Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper describes a methodology used to model potential accidents in fuel cycle facilities that employ chemical processes to separate and purify nuclear materials. The methodology is illustrated with an example that uses event and fault trees to estimate the frequency of a specific energetic reaction that can occur in nuclear material processing facilities. The methodology used probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)-related tools as well as information about the chemical reaction characteristics, information on plant design and operational features, and generic data about component failure rates and human error rates. The accident frequency estimates for the specific reaction help to risk-inform the safety review process and assess compliance with regulatory requirements.

Mubayi, V.; Azarm, A.; Yue, M.; Mukaddam, W.; Good, G.; Gonzalez, F.; Bari, R.A.

2011-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

154

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

155

B PLANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

156

DISPOSITION PATHS FOR ROCKY FLATS GLOVEBOXES: EVALUATING OPTIONS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC has the responsibility for closure activities at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). One of the challenges faced for closure is the disposition of radiologically contaminated gloveboxes. Evaluation of the disposition options for gloveboxes included a detailed analysis of available treatment capabilities, disposal facilities, and lifecycle costs. The Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC followed several processes in determining how the gloveboxes would be managed for disposition. Currently, multiple disposition paths have been chosen to accommodate the needs of the varying styles and conditions of the gloveboxes, meet the needs of the decommissioning team, and to best manage lifecycle costs. Several challenges associated with developing a disposition path that addresses both the radiological and RCRA concerns as well as offering the most cost-effective solution were encountered. These challenges included meeting the radiological waste acceptance criteria of available disposal facilities, making a RCRA determination, evaluating treatment options and costs, addressing void requirements associated with disposal, and identifying packaging and transportation options. The varying disposal facility requirements affected disposition choices. Facility conditions that impacted decisions included radiological and chemical waste acceptance criteria, physical requirements, and measurement for payment options. The facility requirements also impacted onsite activities including management strategies, decontamination activities, and life-cycle cost.

Lobdell, D.; Geimer, R.; Larsen, P.; Loveland, K.

2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

157

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

158

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

159

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

160

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Characterizing Surplus US Plutonium for Disposition - 13199  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The United States (US) has identified 61.5 metric tons (MT) of plutonium that is permanently excess to use in nuclear weapons programs, including 47.2 MT of weapons-grade plutonium. Surplus inventories will be stored safely by the Department of Energy (DOE) and then transferred to facilities that will prepare the plutonium for permanent disposition. The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) operates a Feed Characterization program for the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (OFMD) of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the DOE Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM). SRNL manages a broad program of item tracking through process history, laboratory analysis, and non-destructive assay. A combination of analytical techniques allows SRNL to predict the isotopic and chemical properties that qualify materials for disposition through the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). The research also defines properties that are important for other disposition paths, including disposal to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as transuranic waste (TRUW) or to high-level waste (HLW) systems. (authors)

Allender, Jeffrey S. [Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken SC 29808 (United States)] [Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken SC 29808 (United States); Moore, Edwin N. [Moore Nuclear Energy, LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken SC 29808 (United States)] [Moore Nuclear Energy, LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken SC 29808 (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

162

Characterizing surplus US plutonium for disposition  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The United States (US) has identified 61.5 metric tons (MT) of plutonium that is permanently excess to use in nuclear weapons programs, including 47.2 MT of weapons-grade plutonium. Surplus inventories will be stored safely by the Department of Energy (DOE) and then transferred to facilities that will prepare the plutonium for permanent disposition. The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) operates a Feed Characterization program for the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (OFMD) of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the DOE Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM). SRNL manages a broad program of item tracking through process history, laboratory analysis, and non-destructive assay. A combination of analytical techniques allows SRNL to predict the isotopic and chemical properties that qualify materials for disposition through the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). The research also defines properties that are important for other disposition paths, including disposal to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as transuranic waste (TRUW) or to high-level waste (HLW) systems.

Allender, Jeffrey S.; Moore, Edwin N.

2013-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

163

SELECTION OF SURPLUS PLUTONIUM MATERIALS FOR DISPOSITION TO WIPP  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing a Surplus Plutonium Disposition (SPD) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Included in the evaluation are up to 6 metric tons (MT) of plutonium in the form of impure oxides and metals for which a disposition plan has not been decided, among options that include preparation as feed for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility; disposing to high-level waste through the Savannah River Site (SRS) HB Line and H Canyon; can-in-canister disposal using the SRS Defense Waste Processing Facility; and preparation for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). DOE and SRS have identified at least 0.5 MT of plutonium that, because of high levels of chemical and isotopic impurities, is impractical for disposition by methods other than the WIPP pathway. Characteristics of these items and the disposition strategy are discussed.

Allender, J.; Mcclard, J.; Christopher, J.

2012-06-08T23:59:59.000Z

164

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

165

Proliferation resistance criteria for fissile material disposition issues  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The 1994 National Acdaemy of Sciences study ``Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium`` defined options for reducing the national and international proliferation risks of materials declared excess to the nuclear weapons program. This paper proposes criteria for assessing the proliferation resistance of these options as well defining the ``Standards`` from the report. The criteria are general, encompassing all stages of the disposition process from storage through intermediate processing to final disposition including the facilities, processing technologies and materials, the level of safeguards for these materials, and the national/subnational threat to the materials.

Rutherford, D.A.; Fearey, B.L.; Markin, J.T.; Close, D.A. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Tolk, K.M.; Mangan, D.L. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Moore, L. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States)

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

166

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

167

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

168

Chemical Safety Vulnerability Working Group report. Volume 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Chemical Safety Vulnerability (CSV) Working Group was established to identify adverse conditions involving hazardous chemicals at DOE facilities that might result in fires or explosions, release of hazardous chemicals to the environment, or exposure of workers or the public to chemicals. A CSV Review was conducted in 148 facilities at 29 sites. Eight generic vulnerabilities were documented related to: abandoned chemicals and chemical residuals; past chemical spills and ground releases; characterization of legacy chemicals and wastes; disposition of legacy chemicals; storage facilities and conditions; condition of facilities and support systems; unanalyzed and unaddressed hazards; and inventory control and tracking. Weaknesses in five programmatic areas were also identified related to: management commitment and planning; chemical safety management programs; aging facilities that continue to operate; nonoperating facilities awaiting deactivation; and resource allocations. Volume 1 contains the Executive summary; Introduction; Summary of vulnerabilities; Management systems weaknesses; Commendable practices; Summary of management response plan; Conclusions; and a Glossary of chemical terms.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

169

Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Preliminary Quality Assurance...  

Energy Savers [EERE]

Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Preliminary Quality Assurance Implementation Plan Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Preliminary Quality Assurance Implementation Plan The primary...

170

HANFORD SAFETY ANALYSIS & RISK ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK (SARAH)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

EVANS, C B

2004-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

171

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

172

Reducing nuclear danger through intergovernmental technical exchanges on nuclear materials safety management  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The United States and Russia are dismantling nuclear weapons and generating hundreds of tons of excess plutonium and high enriched uranium fissile nuclear materials that require disposition. The U.S. Department of Energy and Russian Minatom organizations.are planning and implementing safe, secure storage and disposition operations for these materials in numerous facilities. This provides a new opportunity for technical exchanges between Russian and Western scientists that can establish an improved and sustained common safety culture for handling these materials. An initiative that develops and uses personal relationships and joint projects among Russian and Western participants involved in fissile nuclear materials safety management contributes to improving nuclear materials nonproliferation and to making a safer world. Technical exchanges and workshops are being used to systematically identify opportunities in the nuclear fissile materials facilities to improve and ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the environment.

Jardine, L.J. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States); Peddicord, K.L. [Texas A and M Univ., College Station, TX (United States); Witmer, F.E.; Krumpe, P.F. [USDOE, Washington, DC (United States); Lazarev, L.; Moshkov, M. [Radievyj Inst., Leningrad (Russian Federation)

1997-04-09T23:59:59.000Z

173

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

174

SHSD Manager Safety Engineering Group Manager  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

175

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

P. Calderoni; P. Sharpe; M. Shimada

2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1986-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

178

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Careerlumens_placard-green.epsEnergy1.pdfMarket |21,- EA-1999-07Disposition Project Volume 2PREMIUM

179

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Careerlumens_placard-green.epsEnergy1.pdfMarket |21,- EA-1999-07Disposition Project Volume 2PREMIUM

180

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Careerlumens_placard-green.epsEnergy1.pdfMarket |21,- EA-1999-07Disposition Project Volume

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Upgrades to meet LANL SF, 121-2011, hazardous waste facility permit requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Members of San IIdefonso have requested information from LANL regarding implementation of the revision to LANL's Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the RCRA Permit). On January 26, 2011, LANL staff from the Waste Disposition Project and the Environmental Protection Division will provide a status update to Pueblo members at the offices of the San IIdefonso Department of Environmental and Cultural Preservation. The Waste Disposition Project presentation will focus on upgrades and improvements to LANL waste management facilities at TA-50 and TA-54. The New Mexico Environment Department issued LANL's revised Hazardous Waste Facility permit on November 30, 2010 with a 30-day implementation period. The Waste Disposition Project manages and operates four of LANL's permitted facilities; the Waste Characterization, Reduction and Repackaging Facility (WCRRF) at TA-SO, and Area G, Area L and the Radioassay and Nondestructive Testing facility (RANT) at TA-54. By implementing a combination of permanent corrective action activities and shorter-term compensatory measures, WDP was able to achieve functional compliance on December 30, 2010 with new Permit requirements at each of our facilities. One component of WOP's mission at LANL is centralized management and disposition of the Laboratory's hazardous and mixed waste. To support this mission objective, WOP has undertaken a project to upgrade our facilities and equipment to achieve fully compliant and efficient waste management operations. Upgrades to processes, equipment and facilities are being designed to provide defense-in-depth beyond the minimum, regulatory requirements where worker safety and protection of the public and the environment are concerned. Upgrades and improvements to enduring waste management facilities and operations are being designed so as not to conflict with future closure activities at Material Disposal Area G and Material Disposal Area L.

French, Sean B [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Johns - Hughes, Kathryn W [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2011-01-21T23:59:59.000Z

182

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

183

Assistant Manager for Waste Disposition  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The incumbent of this position is responsible for providing overall leadership and direction for oversight of assigned contractor and Federal programs and activities associated with the disposition...

184

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

185

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

186

Major Risk Factors Integrated Facility Disposition Project -...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

through private property to waters of the State of Tennessee, and its uptake by fish, plants, and other animal life. DOE, regulators, and the public need to have reasonable...

187

Hight-Level Waste & Facilities Disposition  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunDatastreamsmmcrcalgovInstrumentsruc DocumentationP-SeriesFlickr FlickrGuidedCH2MLLC High-Rate,Highlights Highlights Below

188

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework  

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

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

189

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Weidert, J.R.

1997-11-18T23:59:59.000Z

190

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

191

PROJECT STRATEGY FOR THE REMEDIATION AND DISPOSITION OF LEGACY TRANSURANIC WASTE AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, South Carolina, USA  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper discusses the Savannah River Site Accelerated Transuranic (TRU) Waste Project that was initiated in April of 2009 to accelerate the disposition of remaining legacy transuranic waste at the site. An overview of the project execution strategy that was implemented is discussed along with the lessons learned, challenges and improvements to date associated with waste characterization, facility modifications, startup planning, and remediation activities. The legacy waste was generated from approximately 1970 through 1990 and originated both on site as well as at multiple US Department of Energy sites. Approximately two thirds of the waste was previously dispositioned from 2006 to 2008, with the remaining one third being the more hazardous waste due to its activity (curie content) and the plutonium isotope Pu-238 quantities in the waste. The project strategy is a phased approach beginning with the lower activity waste in existing facilities while upgrades are made to support remediation of the higher activity waste. Five waste remediation process lines will be used to support the full remediation efforts which involve receipt of the legacy waste container, removal of prohibited items, venting of containers, and resizing of contents to fit into current approved waste shipping containers. Modifications have been minimized to the extent possible to meet the accelerated goals and involve limited upgrades to address life safety requirements, radiological containment needs, and handling equipment for the larger waste containers. Upgrades are also in progress for implementation of the TRUPACT III for the shipment of Standard Large Boxes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the US TRU waste repository. The use of this larger shipping container is necessary for approximately 20% of the waste by volume due to limited size reduction capability. To date, approximately 25% of the waste has been dispositioned, and several improvements have been made to the overall processing plan as well as facility processing rates. These lessons learned, challenges, and improvements will be discussed to aid other sites in their efforts to conduct similar activities.

Rodriguez, M.

2010-12-17T23:59:59.000Z

192

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

193

Independent Assessment of the Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Salt Disposition Alternatives Evaluation  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report presents the results of the Independent Project Evaluation (IPE) Team assessment of the Westinghouse Savannah River Company High-Level Waste Salt Disposition Systems Engineering (SE) Team's deliberations, evaluations, and selections. The Westinghouse Savannah River Company concluded in early 1998 that production goals and safety requirements for processing SRS HLW salt to remove Cs-137 could not be met in the existing In-Tank Precipitation Facility as currently configured for precipitation of cesium tetraphenylborate. The SE Team was chartered to evaluate and recommend an alternative(s) for processing the existing HLW salt to remove Cs-137. To replace the In-Tank Precipitation process, the Savannah River Site HLW Salt Disposition SE Team downselected (October 1998) 140 candidate separation technologies to two alternatives: Small-Tank Tetraphenylborate (TPB) Precipitation (primary alternative) and Crystalline Silicotitanate (CST) Nonelutable Ion Exchange (backup alternative). The IPE Team, commissioned by the Department of Energy, concurs that both alternatives are technically feasible and should meet all salt disposition requirements. But the IPE Team judges that the SE Team's qualitative criteria and judgments used in their downselection to a primary and a backup alternative do not clearly discriminate between the two alternatives. To properly choose between Small-Tank TPB and CST Ion Exchange for the primary alternative, the IPE Team suggests the following path forward: Complete all essential R and D activities for both alternatives and formulate an appropriate set of quantitative decision criteria that will be rigorously applied at the end of the R and D activities. Concurrent conceptual design activities should be limited to common elements of the alternatives.

J. T. Case (DOE-ID); M. L. Renfro (INEEL)

1998-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

194

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

195

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

196

Alternative technical summary report for direct disposition in deep boreholes: Direct disposal of plutonium metal/plutonium dioxide in compound canisters, Version 4.0. Fissile Materials Disposition Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report summarizes and compares the Immobilized and Direct Beep Borehole Disposition Alternatives. The important design concepts, facility features and operational procedures are briefly described, and a discussion of the issues that affect the evaluation of each alternative against the programmatic assessment criteria that have been established for selecting the preferred alternatives for plutonium disposition.

Wijesinghe, A.M.

1996-08-23T23:59:59.000Z

197

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

198

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

199

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

200

Chemical Safety Vulnerability Working Group report. Volume 3  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Chemical Safety Vulnerability (CSV) Working Group was established to identify adverse conditions involving hazardous chemicals at DOE facilities that might result in fires or explosions, release of hazardous chemicals to the environment, or exposure of workers or the public to chemicals. A CSV Review was conducted in 148 facilities at 29 sites. Eight generic vulnerabilities were documented related to: abandoned chemicals and chemical residuals; past chemical spills and ground releases; characterization of legacy chemicals and wastes; disposition of legacy chemicals; storage facilities and conditions; condition of facilities and support systems; unanalyzed and unaddressed hazards; and inventory control and tracking. Weaknesses in five programmatic areas were also identified related to: management commitment and planning; chemical safety management programs; aging facilities that continue to operate; nonoperating facilities awaiting deactivation; and resource allocations. Volume 3 consists of eleven appendices containing the following: Field verification reports for Idaho National Engineering Lab., Rocky Flats Plant, Brookhaven National Lab., Los Alamos National Lab., and Sandia National Laboratories (NM); Mini-visits to small DOE sites; Working Group meeting, June 7--8, 1994; Commendable practices; Related chemical safety initiatives at DOE; Regulatory framework and industry initiatives related to chemical safety; and Chemical inventory data from field self-evaluation reports.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

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

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

202

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

203

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

204

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

205

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

206

Depleted uranium disposition study -- Supplement, Revision 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Department of Energy Office of Weapons and Materials Planning has requested a supplemental study to update the recent Depleted Uranium Disposition report. This supplemental study addresses new disposition alternatives and changes in status.

Becker, G.W.

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

207

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 (OSTI)

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

208

Toolbox Safety Talk Hot Work Safety Procedures  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Toolbox Safety Talk Hot Work Safety Procedures Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety-in sheet to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. "Hot Work" is defined as any temporary WORK Obtain a hot work permit from your supervisor or safety rep. Ensure fire/smoke detection

Pawlowski, Wojtek

209

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

210

Disposition of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators Currently Located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory - 12232  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded SEC Federal Services Corporation (SEC) a 34-building demolition and disposal (D and D) project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) that included the disposition of six Strontium (Sr-90) powered Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) stored outside of ORNL Building 3517. Disposition of the RTGs is very complex both in terms of complying with disposal facility waste acceptance criteria (WAC) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for packaging and transportation in commerce. Two of the RTGs contain elemental mercury which requires them to be Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) compliant prior to disposal. In addition, all of the RTGs exceed the Class C waste concentration limits under Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Waste Classification Guidelines. In order to meet the LDR requirements and Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) WAC, a site specific treatability variance for mercury was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow macro-encapsulation to be an acceptable treatment standard for elemental mercury. By identifying and confirming the design configuration of the mercury containing RTGs, the SEC team proved that the current configuration met the macro-encapsulation standard of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 268.45. The SEC Team also worked with NNSS to demonstrate that all radioisotope considerations are compliant with the NNSS low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility performance assessment and WAC. Lastly, the SEC team determined that the GE2000 Type B cask met the necessary size, weight, and thermal loading requirements for five of the six RTGs. The sixth RTG (BUP-500) required a one-time DOT shipment exemption request due to the RTG's large size. The DOT exemption justification for the BUP-500 relies on the inherent robust construction and material make-up of the BUP- 500 RTG. DOE-ORO, SEC, and the entire SEC RTG team are nearing the conclusion of the Sr-90 RTG disposition challenge - a legacy now 50 years in the making. Over 600,000 Ci of Sr-90 waste await disposal and its removal from ORNL will mark an historical moment in the clean-up of the cold-war legacy in the ORNL central industrial area. Elimination (i.e., removal) of the RTGs will reduce security risks at ORNL and disposal will permanently eliminate security risks. The RTGs will eventually decay to benign levels within a reasonable timeframe relative to radiological risks posed by long-lived isotopes. The safety authorization basis at ORNL Building 3517 will be reduced enabling greater operational flexibility in future clean-out and D and D campaigns. Upon disposition the Department of Energy will realize reduced direct and indirect surveillance and maintenance costs that can be reapplied to accelerated and enhanced clean-up of the Oak Ridge Reservation. At present, waste profiles for the RTGs are developed and under review by NNSS RWAP staff and approval authorities. Disposition schedule is driven by the availability of compliant shipping casks necessary to safely transport the RTGs from ORNL to NNSS. The first disposal of the RCA RTG is expected in April 2012 and the remaining RTGs disposed in 2012 and 2013. (authors)

Glenn, J. [U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, 200 Administrative Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37830 (United States); Patterson, J.; DeRoos, K. [SEC Federal Services Corporation (SEC), 2800 Solway Road, Knoxville, TN 37931 (United States); Patterson, J.E.; Mitchell, K.G. [Strata-G, LLC, 2027 Castaic Lane, Knoxville, TN 37932 (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

211

Pipeline Safety (Pennsylvania)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

212

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

213

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2007-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

214

Toolbox Safety Talk Welding & Metal Work Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Pawlowski, Wojtek

215

Chemical Safety Vulnerability Working Group report. Volume 2  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Chemical Safety Vulnerability (CSV) Working Group was established to identify adverse conditions involving hazardous chemicals at DOE facilities that might result in fires or explosions, release of hazardous chemicals to the environment, or exposure of workers or the public to chemicals. A CSV Review was conducted in 148 facilities at 29 sites. Eight generic vulnerabilities were documented related to: abandoned chemicals and chemical residuals; past chemical spills and ground releases; characterization of legacy chemicals and wastes; disposition of legacy chemicals; storage facilities and conditions; condition of facilities and support systems; unanalyzed and unaddressed hazards; and inventory control and tracking. Weaknesses in five programmatic areas were also identified related to: management commitment and planning; chemical safety management programs; aging facilities that continue to operate; nonoperating facilities awaiting deactivation; and resource allocations. Volume 2 consists of seven appendices containing the following: Tasking memorandums; Project plan for the CSV Review; Field verification guide for the CSV Review; Field verification report, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.; Field verification report, Oak Ridge Reservation; Field verification report, Savannah River Site; and the Field verification report, Hanford Site.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

216

Alternative technical summary report for immobilized disposition in deep boreholes: Immobilized disposal of plutonium in coated ceramic pellets in grout without canisters, Version 4.0. Fissile materials disposition program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper summarizes and compares the immobilized and direct borehole disposition alternatives previously presented in the alternative technical summary. The important design concepts, facility features and operational procedures are first briefly described. This is followed by a discussion of the issues that affect the evaluation of each alternative against the programmatic assessment criteria that have been established for selecting the preferred alternatives for plutonium disposition.

Wijesinghe, A.M.

1996-08-23T23:59:59.000Z

217

Fissile Materials Disposition | National Nuclear Security Administrati...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

uranium have become surplus to the defense needs of both the United States and Russia. The Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) plays an important role in...

218

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition NNSS Capabilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has tasked the WDD working group to disposition the large inventory of legacy classified weapon components scattered across the complex.

Pat Arnold

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

219

Personal Property Disposition - Community Reuse Organizations...  

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

Owen (signed) Director, Office of Worker and Community Transition Department of Energy Washington, DC 20505 January 22, 2003 Disposition of Excess Personal Property...

220

Supplement to the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

On May 22, 1997, DOE published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (62 Federal Register 28009) announcing its decision to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that would tier from the analysis and decisions reached in connection with the ''Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic EIS (Storage and Disposition PEIS)''. ''The Surplus Plutonium Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement'' (SPD Draft EIS) (DOWEIS-0283-D) was prepared in accordance with NEPA and issued in July 1998. It identified the potential environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives for the proposed siting, construction, and operation of three facilities for plutonium disposition. These three facilities would accomplish pit disassembly and conversion, immobilization, and MOX fuel fabrication. For the alternatives that included MOX fuel fabrication, the draft also described the potential environmental impacts of using from three to eight commercial nuclear reactors to irradiate MOX fuel. The potential impacts were based on a generic reactor analysis that used actual reactor data and a range of potential site conditions. In May 1998, DCE initiated a procurement process to obtain MOX fuel fabrication and reactor irradiation services. The request for proposals defined limited activities that may be performed prior to issuance of the SPD EIS Record of Decision (ROD) including non-site-specific work associated with the development of the initial design for the MOX fuel fabrication facility, and plans (paper studies) for outreach, long lead-time procurements, regulatory management, facility quality assurance, safeguards, security, fuel qualification, and deactivation. No construction on the proposed MOX facility would begin before an SPD EIS ROD is issued. In March 1999, DOE awarded a contract to Duke Engineering & Services; COGEMA, Inc.; and Stone & Webster (known as DCS) to provide the requested services. The procurement process included the environmental review specified in DOE's NEPA regulations in 10 CFR 1021.216. The six reactors selected are Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 in South Carolina McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 in North Carolina, and North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 in Virginia. The Supplement describes the potential environmental impacts of using MOX fuel in these six specific reactors named in the DCS proposal as well as other program changes made since the SPD Draft EIS was published.

N /A

1999-05-14T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Management response plan for the Chemical Safety Vulnerability Working Group report. Volume 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Chemical Safety Vulnerability (CSV) Working Group was established to identify adverse conditions involving hazardous chemicals at DOE facilities that might result in fires or explosions, release of hazardous chemicals to the environment, or exposure of workers or the public to chemicals. A CSV Review was conducted in 146 facilities at 29 sites. Eight generic vulnerabilities were documented related to: abandoned chemicals and chemical residuals; past chemical spills and ground releases; characterization of legacy chemicals and wastes; disposition of legacy chemicals; storage facilities and conditions; condition of facilities and support systems; unanalyzed and unaddressed hazards; and inventory control and tracking. Weaknesses in five programmatic areas were also identified related to: management commitment and planning; chemical safety management programs; aging facilities that continue to operate; nonoperating facilities awaiting deactivation; and resource allocations. Volume 1 contains a discussion of the chemical safety improvements planned or already underway at DOE sites to correct facility or site-specific vulnerabilities. The main part of the report is a discussion of each of the programmatic deficiencies; a description of the tasks to be accomplished; the specific actions to be taken; and the organizational responsibilities for implementation.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

222

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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...

223

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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...

224

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

and in place for supervisors, operators, support staff, and maintenance personnel. (10 CFR 830.204(b)(5); 10 CFR 830, Subpart A, Criterion 2) 2. Training and qualification...

225

Processing and Disposition of Special Actinide Target Materials - 13138  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Department of Energy (DOE) manages an inventory of materials that contains a range of long-lived radioactive isotopes that were produced from the 1960's through the 1980's by irradiating targets in high-flux reactors at the Savannah River Site (SRS) to produce special heavy isotopes for DOE programmatic use, scientific research, and industrial and medical applications. Among the products were californium-252, heavy curium (including Cm-246 through Cm-248), and plutonium-242 and -244. Many of the isotopes are still in demand today, and they can be recovered from the remaining targets previously irradiated at SRS or produced from the recovered isotopes. Should the existing target materials be discarded, the plutonium (Pu) and curium (Cm) isotopes cannot be replaced readily with existing production sources. Some of these targets are stored at SRS, while other target material is stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) at several stages of processing. The materials cannot be stored in their present form indefinitely. Their long-term management involves processing items for beneficial use and/or for disposition, using storage and process facilities at SRS and ORNL. Evaluations are under way for disposition options for these materials, and demonstrations of improved flow sheets to process the materials are being conducted at ORNL and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). The disposition options and a management evaluation process have been developed. Processing demonstrations and evaluations for these unique materials are under way. (authors)

Robinson, Sharon M.; Patton, Brad D. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (United States)] [Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (United States); Allender, Jeffrey S. [Savannah River National Laboratory (United States)] [Savannah River National Laboratory (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

226

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  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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

227

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 Disposition Decision Analysis and...  

Energy Savers [EERE]

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 Disposition Decision Analysis and Timeline Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 Disposition Decision Analysis and Timeline This Report to Congress provides a...

228

EM Makes Significant Progress on Dispositioning Transuranic Waste...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

EM Makes Significant Progress on Dispositioning Transuranic Waste at Idaho Site EM Makes Significant Progress on Dispositioning Transuranic Waste at Idaho Site December 24, 2013 -...

229

Feasibility study for a transportation operations system cask maintenance facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for the development of a waste management program for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW). The program will include a transportation system for moving the nuclear waste from the sources to a geologic repository for permanent disposal. Specially designed casks will be used to safely transport the waste. The cask systems must be operated within limits imposed by DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Department of Transportation (DOT). A dedicated facility for inspecting, testing, and maintaining the cask systems was recommended by the General Accounting Office (in 1979) as the best means of assuring their operational effectiveness and safety, as well as regulatory compliance. In November of 1987, OCRWM requested a feasibility study be made of a Cask Maintenance Facility (CMF) that would perform the required functions. 46 refs., 16 figs., 13 tabs.

Rennich, M.J.; Medley, L.G.; Attaway, C.R.

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

230

Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In December 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published the ''Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition PEIS)'' (DOE 1996a). That PEIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences of alternative strategies for the long-term storage of weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) and the disposition of weapons-usable plutonium that has been or may be declared surplus to national security needs. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the ''Storage and Disposition PEIS'', issued on January 14, 1997 (DOE 1997a), outlines DOE's decision to pursue an approach to plutonium disposition that would make surplus weapons-usable plutonium inaccessible and unattractive for weapons use. DOE's disposition strategy, consistent with the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the ''Storage and Disposition PEIS'', allows for both the immobilization of some (and potentially all) of the surplus plutonium and use of some of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing domestic, commercial reactors. The disposition of surplus plutonium would also involve disposal of both the immobilized plutonium and the MOX fuel (as spent nuclear fuel) in a potential geologic repository.

N /A

1999-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

231

Evaluation of Calcine Disposition Path Forward  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document describes an evaluation of the baseline and two alternative disposition paths for the final disposition of the calcine wastes stored at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The pathways are evaluated against a prescribed set of criteria and a recommendation is made for the path forward.

Birrer, S.A.; Heiser, M.B.

2003-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

232

Evaluation of Calcine Disposition - Path Forward  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document describes an evaluation of the baseline and two alternative disposition paths for the final disposition of the calcine wastes stored at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The pathways are evaluated against a prescribed set of criteria and a recommendation is made for the path forward.

Steve Birrer

2003-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

233

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

234

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

235

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

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

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

236

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

237

EIS-0283: Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives for the disposition of surplus plutonium.

238

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

239

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Rabin, M.S.

1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

240

SLIGHTLY IRRADIATED FUEL (SIF) INTERIM DISPOSITION PROJECT  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CH2M HILL PRC) is proud to submit the Slightly Irradiated Fuel (SIF) Interim Disposition Project for consideration by the Project Management Institute as Project of the Year for 2010. The SIF Project was a set of six interrelated sub-projects that delivered unique stand-alone outcomes, which, when integrated, provided a comprehensive and compliant system for storing high risk special nuclear materials. The scope of the six sub-projects included the design, construction, testing, and turnover of the facilities and equipment, which would provide safe, secure, and compliant Special Nuclear Material (SNM) storage capabilities for the SIF material. The project encompassed a broad range of activities, including the following: Five buildings/structures removed, relocated, or built; Two buildings renovated; Structural barriers, fencing, and heavy gates installed; New roadways and parking lots built; Multiple detection and assessment systems installed; New and expanded communication systems developed; Multimedia recording devices added; and A new control room to monitor all materials and systems built. Project challenges were numerous and included the following: An aggressive 17-month schedule to support the high-profile Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) decommissioning; Company/contractor changeovers that affected each and every project team member; Project requirements that continually evolved during design and construction due to the performance- and outcome-based nature ofthe security objectives; and Restrictions imposed on all communications due to the sensitive nature of the projects In spite of the significant challenges, the project was delivered on schedule and $2 million under budget, which became a special source of pride that bonded the team. For years, the SIF had been stored at the central Hanford PFP. Because of the weapons-grade piutonium produced and stored there, the PFP had some of the tightest security on the Hanford nuclear reservation. Workers had to pass through metal detectors when they arrived at the plant and materials leaving the plant had to be scanned for security reasons. Whereas other high-security nuclear materials were shipped from the PFP to Savannah River, S.C. as part ofa Department of Energy (DOE) program to consolidate weapons-grade plutonium, it was determined that the SIF should remain onsite pending disposition to a national repository. Nevertheless, the SIF still requires a high level of security that the PFP complex has always provided. With the 60-year PFP mission of producing and storing plutonium concluded, the environmental cleanup plans for Hanford call for the demolition of the 63-building PFP complex. Consequently, if the SIF remained at PFP it not only would have interfered with the environmental cleanup plans, but would have required $100 million in facility upgrades to meet increased national security requirements imposed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A new smaller and more cost-effective area was needed to store this material, which led to the SIF Project. Once the SIF project was successfully completed and the SIF was safely removed from PFP, the existing Protected Area at PFP could be removed, and demolition could proceed more quickly without being encumbered by restrictive security requirements that an active Protected Area requires. The lightened PFP security level brought by safely removing and storing the SIF would also yield lowered costs for deactivation and demolition, as well as reduce overall life-cycle costs.

NORTON SH

2010-02-23T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

242

Capturing Process Knowledge for Facility Deactivation and Decommissioning  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for the disposition of a vast number of facilities at numerous sites around the country which have been declared excess to current mission...

243

Nuclear Engineer (Criticality Safety)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

244

Facility stabilization project, fiscal year 1998 -- Multi-year workplan (MYWP) for WBS 1.4  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The primary Facility Stabilization mission is to provide minimum safe surveillance and maintenance of facilities and deactivate facilities on the Hanford Site, to reduce risks to workers, the public and environment, transition the facilities to a low cost, long term surveillance and maintenance state, and to provide safe and secure storage of special nuclear materials, nuclear materials, and nuclear fuel. Facility Stabilization will protect the health and safety of the public and workers, protect the environment and provide beneficial use of the facilities and other resources. Work will be in accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement), local, national, international and other agreements, and in compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws. The stakeholders will be active participants in the decision processes including establishing priorities, and in developing a consistent set of rules, regulations, and laws. The work will be leveraged with a view of providing positive, lasting economic impact in the region. Effectiveness, efficiency, and discipline in all mission activities will enable Hanford Site to achieve its mission in a continuous and substantive manner. As the mission for Facility Stabilization has shifted from production to support of environmental restoration, each facility is making a transition to support the Site mission. The mission goals include the following: (1) Achieve deactivation of facilities for transfer to EM-40, using Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) plant deactivation as a model for future facility deactivation; (2) Manage nuclear materials in a safe and secure condition and where appropriate, in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards rules; (3) Treat nuclear materials as necessary, and store onsite in long-term interim safe storage awaiting a final disposition decision by US Department of Energy; (4) Implement nuclear materials disposition directives. In the near term these are anticipated to mostly involve transferring uranium to other locations for beneficial use. Work will be in accordance with the Tri-Party Agreement, and other agreements and in compliance with all applicable Federal, state and local laws. The transition to deactivation will be accomplished through a phased approach, while maintaining the facilities in a safe and compliant configuration. In addition, Facility Stabilization will continue to maintain safe long-term storage facilities for Special Nuclear Material (SNM), Nuclear Material (NM), and Nuclear Fuel (NF). The FSP deactivation strategy aligns with the deactivate facilities mission outlined in Hanford Site SE documentation. Inherent to the FSP strategies are specific Hanford Strategic Plan success indicators such as: reduction of risks to workers, the public and environment; increasing the amount of resources recovered for other uses; reduction/elimination of inventory and materials; and reduction/elimination of costly mortgages.

Floberg, W.C.

1997-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

245

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...

246

Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review Overview and Management Oversight...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review During Facility Operations and Transitions Volume 4 - Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review During Facility Decommissioning and Environmental...

247

324 Facility special-case waste assessment in support of 324 closure (TPA milestone M-89-05)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-89-05, requires US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office to complete a 324 Facility Special-Case Waste Assessment in Support of 324 Closure. This document, HNF-1270, has been prepared with the intent of meeting this regulatory commitment. Alternatives for the special-case wastes located in the 324 Building were defined and analyzed. Based on the criteria of safety, environmental, complexity of interfaces, risk, cost, schedule, and long-term operability and maintainability, the best alternative was chosen. Waste packaging and transportation options are also included in the recommendations. The waste disposition recommendations for the B-Cell dispersibles/tank heels and High-Level Vault packaged residuals are to direct them to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility (PUREX) Number 2 storage tunnel.

Hobart, R.L.

1998-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

248

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Gary Mecham; Don Konoyer

2009-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

249

NRC comprehensive records disposition schedule. Revision 3  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Title 44 US Code, ``Public Printing and Documents,`` regulations issued by the General Service Administration (GSA) in 41 CFR Chapter 101, Subchapter B, ``Management and Use of Information and Records,`` and regulations issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in 36 CFR Chapter 12, Subchapter B, ``Records Management,`` require each agency to prepare and issue a comprehensive records disposition schedule that contains the NARA approved records disposition schedules for records unique to the agency and contains the NARA`s General Records Schedules for records common to several or all agencies. The approved records disposition schedules specify the appropriate duration of retention and the final disposition for records created or maintained by the NRC. NUREG-0910, Rev. 3, contains ``NRC`s Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule,`` and the original authorized approved citation numbers issued by NARA. Rev. 3 incorporates NARA approved changes and additions to the NRC schedules that have been implemented since the last revision dated March, 1992, reflects recent organizational changes implemented at the NRC, and includes the latest version of NARA`s General Records Schedule (dated August 1995).

NONE

1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

250

ANL-W MOX fuel lead assemblies data report for the surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement (EIS). This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. The DOE Office of fissile Materials Disposition (DOE-MD) has developed a dual-path strategy for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. One of the paths is to disposition surplus plutonium through irradiation of MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors. MOX fuel consists of plutonium and uranium oxides (PuO{sub 2} and UO{sub 2}), typically containing 95% or more UO{sub 2}. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. The paper describes the following: Site map and the LA facility; process descriptions; resource needs; employment requirements; wastes, emissions, and exposures; accident analysis; transportation; qualitative decontamination and decommissioning; post-irradiation examination; LA fuel bundle fabrication; LA EIS data report assumptions; and LA EIS data report supplement.

O`Connor, D.G.; Fisher, S.E.; Holdaway, R. [and others

1997-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

251

U.S. and Russia Sign Plutonium Disposition Agreement | National...  

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

Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home About Us Our History NNSA Timeline U.S. and Russia Sign Plutonium Disposition Agreement U.S. and Russia Sign Plutonium Disposition...

252

Master EM Project Definition Rating Index - Facility Disposition Definitions  

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Office of Inspector General Office0-72.pdfGeorgeDoesn't32 Master EM Project Definition Rating Index - Environmental43

253

Major Risk Factors Integrated Facility Disposition Project - Oak Ridge |  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProvedDecemberInitiatives InitiativesShipping Goal | Department ofMIEContractsDepartment

254

Major Risk Factors to the Integrated Facility Disposition Project  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergyENERGY TAX POLICIES7.pdfFuel2007 |KSRS25RV*)BoydLorettaLynn00,Slide 1 The CurrentTech Fact

255

Major Risk Factors Integrated Facility Disposition Project - Oak Ridge  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power.pdf11-161-LNG | DepartmentEnergyMagna: Product Capabilities D D e e p p a a r r t t m m

256

Major Risk Factors to the Integrated Facility Disposition Project |  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power.pdf11-161-LNG | DepartmentEnergyMagna: Product Capabilities D D e e p p a a r r t t m

257

Assessment of the Integrated Facility Disposition Project at Oak Ridge  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergy Cooperation |South42.2 (April 2012)Tie Ltd |Line, LLC:LLCOffshoreContinental ©National

258

Analysis of disposition alternatives for radioactively contaminated scrap metal  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Millions of tonnes of slightly radioactive, scrap iron and steel, stainless steel, and copper are likely to become available as nuclear and other facilities and equipment are withdrawn from service. Disposition of this material is an international policy issue under consideration currently. The major alternatives for managing this material are to either develop a regulatory process for decontamination and recycling that will safeguard human health or to dispose of the scrap and replace the metal stocks. To evaluate the alternatives, we estimate quantities of scrap arising from nuclear power plant decommissioning, evaluate potential price impacts of recycling on regional markets, and assess the health and environmental impacts of the management alternatives. We conclude that decontaminating and recycling the scrap is the superior alternative.

Nieves, L.A.; Chen, S.Y.; Kohout, E.J.; Nabelssi, B.; Tilbrook, R.W.; Wilson, S.E.

1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

259

Life cycle costs for the domestic reactor-based plutonium disposition option  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Projected constant dollar life cycle cost (LCC) estimates are presented for the domestic reactor-based plutonium disposition program being managed by the US Department of Energy Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (DOE/MD). The scope of the LCC estimate includes: design, construction, licensing, operation, and deactivation of a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility (FFF) that will be used to purify and convert weapons-derived plutonium oxides to MOX fuel pellets and fabricate MOX fuel bundles for use in commercial pressurized-water reactors (PWRs); fuel qualification activities and modification of facilities required for manufacture of lead assemblies that will be used to qualify and license this MOX fuel; and modification, licensing, and operation of commercial PWRs to allow irradiation of a partial core of MOX fuel in combination with low-enriched uranium fuel. The baseline cost elements used for this document are the same as those used for examination of the preferred sites described in the site-specific final environmental impact statement and in the DOE Record of Decision that will follow in late 1999. Cost data are separated by facilities, government accounting categories, contract phases, and expenditures anticipated by the various organizations who will participate in the program over a 20-year period. Total LCCs to DOE/MD are projected at approximately $1.4 billion for a 33-MT plutonium disposition mission.

Williams, K.A.

1999-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

260

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

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

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

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

- 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...

262

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

263

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

264

Development of a Techno-Economic Model to Optimize DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The National Spent Nuclear Fuel (NSNF) Program is evaluating final disposition of spent nuclear fuel (SNE) in the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. Final disposition of SNF may require that the fuel be treated to minimize material concerns. The treatments may range from electrometallurgical treatment (EMT) and chemical dissolution to engineering controls. Treatment options and treatment locations will depend on fuel type and location of the fuel. One of the first steps associated with selecting one or more sites for treating SNF in the DOE complex is to determine the cost of each option. An economic analysis will assist in determining which fuel treatment alternative attains the optimum disposition of SNF at the lowest possible cost to the government and the public. For this study, a set of questions was developed for the EMT process for fuels at several locations. The set of questions addresses all issues associated with design, construction, and operation of a production facility. A matrix table was developed to determine questions applicable to various fuel treatment options. A work breakdown structure (WBS) was developed to identify a treatment process and costs from initial design to shipment of treatment products to final disposition. Costs can be applied to determine the life cycle cost of each option. This technique can also be applied to other treatment techniques for treating SNF.

Ramer, R. J.; Plum, M. M.; Adams, J. P.; Dahl, C. A.

1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

265

Independent Oversight Assessment, Salt Waste Processing Facility...  

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

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

266

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

267

Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes - DOE Directives...  

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

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

268

Study of plutonium disposition using the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The end of the cold war and the resulting dismantlement of nuclear weapons has resulted in the need for the U.S. to disposition 50 to 100 metric tons of excess of plutonium in parallel with a similar program in Russia. A number of studies, including the recently released National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study, have recommended conversion of plutonium into spent nuclear fuel with its high radiation barrier as the best means of providing long-term diversion resistance to this material. The NAS study {open_quotes}Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium{close_quotes} identified light water reactor spent fuel as the most readily achievable and proven form for the disposition of excess weapons plutonium. The study also stressed the need for a U.S. disposition program which would enhance the prospects for a timely reciprocal program agreement with Russia. This summary provides the key findings of a GE study where plutonium is converted into Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel and a 1350 MWe GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) is utilized to convert the plutonium to spent fuel. The ABWR represents the integration of over 30 years of experience gained worldwide in the design, construction and operation of BWRs. It incorporates advanced features to enhance reliability and safety, minimize waste and reduce worker exposure. For example, the core is never uncovered nor is any operator action required for 72 hours after any design basis accident. Phase 1 of this study was documented in a GE report dated May 13, 1993. DOE`s Phase 1 evaluations cited the ABWR as a proven technical approach for the disposition of plutonium. This Phase 2 study addresses specific areas which the DOE authorized as appropriate for more in-depth evaluations. A separate report addresses the findings relative to the use of existing BWRs to achieve the same goal.

NONE

1994-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

269

RESEARCH SAFETY RADIATION SAFETY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

RESEARCH SAFETY RADIATION SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT LABORATORY SAFETY AUDITS & COMPLIANCE BIOSAFETY and ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT and MISSION CONTINUITY FIRE PREVENTION and LIFE SAFETY GENERAL SAFETY TRAINING

270

LLNL MOX fuel lead assemblies data report for the surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. The DOE Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (DOE-MD) has developed a dual-path strategy for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. One of the paths is to disposition surplus plutonium through irradiation of MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors. MOX fuel consists of plutonium and uranium oxides (PuO{sub 2} and UO{sub 2}), typically containing 95% or more UO{sub 2}. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. LLNL has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. This includes receipt and storage of PuO{sub 2} powder, fabrication of MOX fuel pellets, assembly of fuel rods and bundles, and shipping of the packaged fuel to a commercial reactor site. Support activities will take place within a Category 1 area. Building 332 will be used to receive and store the bulk PuO{sub 2} powder, fabricate MOX fuel pellets, and assemble fuel rods. Building 334 will be used to assemble, store, and ship fuel bundles. Only minor modifications would be required of Building 332. Uncontaminated glove boxes would need to be removed, petition walls would need to be removed, and minor modifications to the ventilation system would be required.

O`Connor, D.G.; Fisher, S.E.; Holdaway, R. [and others

1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

271

PROGRESS IN REDUCING THE NUCLEAR THREAT: UNITED STATES PLUTONIUM CONSOLIDATION AND DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States identified 61.5 metric tons (MT) of plutonium and larger quantities of enriched uranium that are permanently excess to use in nuclear weapons programs. The Department of Energy (DOE) also began shutting down, stabilizing, and removing inventories from production facilities that were no longer needed to support weapons programs and non-weapons activities. The storage of 'Category I' nuclear materials at Rocky Flats, Sandia National Laboratories, and several smaller sites has been terminated to reduce costs and safeguards risks. De-inventory continues at the Hanford site and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Consolidation of inventories works in concert with the permanent disposition of excess inventories, including several tonnes of plutonium that have already been disposed to waste repositories and the preparation for transfers to the planned Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (for the bulk of the excess plutonium) and alternative disposition methods for material that cannot be used readily in the MOX fuel cycle. This report describes status of plutonium consolidation and disposition activities and their impacts on continuing operations, particularly at the Savannah River Site.

Allender, J.; Koenig, R.; Davies, S.

2009-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

272

FLUOR HANFORD SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

GARVIN, L J; JENSEN, M A

2004-04-13T23:59:59.000Z

273

Used fuel disposition research and development roadmap - FY10 status.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Since 1987 the U.S. has focused research and development activities relevant to the disposal of commercial used nuclear fuel and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) owned spent nuclear fuel and high level waste on the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. At the same time, the U.S. successfully deployed a deep geologic disposal facility for defense-related transuranic waste in bedded salt at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In 2009 the DOE established the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign (UFDC) within the Office of Nuclear Energy. The Mission of the UFDC is to identify alternatives and conduct scientific research and technology development to enable storage, transportation and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes generated by existing and future nuclear fuel cycles. The U.S. national laboratories have participated on these programs and has conducted research and development related to these issues to a limited extent. However, a comprehensive research and development (R&D) program investigating a variety of geologic media has not been a part of the U.S. waste management program since the mid 1980s. Such a comprehensive R&D program is being developed in the UFDC with a goal of meeting the UFDC Grand Challenge to provide a sound technical basis for absolute confidence in the safety and security of long-term storage, transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes from the nuclear energy enterprise. The DOE has decided to no longer pursue the development of a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Since a repository site will ultimately have to be selected, sited, characterized, designed, and licensed, other disposal options must now be considered. In addition to the unsaturated volcanic tuff evaluated at Yucca Mountain, several different geologic media are under investigation internationally and preliminary assessments indicate that disposal of used nuclear fuel and high level waste in these media is feasible. Considerable progress has been made in the U.S. and other nations in understanding disposal concepts in different geologic media, but gaps in knowledge still exist. A principal aspect of concern to the UFDC as it considers the broad issues of siting a repository in different geologic media are the marked differences in the regulatory bases for assessing suitability and safety of a repository between the U.S. and other nations. Because the probability based - risked informed nature of the current U.S. regulations for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel is sufficiently different from other regulations, information gained in previous studies, while useful, likely need to be supplemented to enable more convincing communication with the public, better defense of the numerical models, and stronger safety cases. Thus, it was recognized when the UFDC was established that there were readily identified disposal-related R&D opportunities to address knowledge gaps. An effort to document these research opportunities was a key component of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 engineered system, natural system, and system-level modeling activities for a range of disposal environments. A principal contribution to identifying these gaps was a workshop held to gather perspectives from experts both within and external to the UFDC regarding R&D opportunities. In the planning for FY2010 it was expected that these activities would culminate with a UFDC research and development roadmap that would identify the knowledge gaps, discuss the R&D needed to fill these gaps, and prioritize the proposed R&D over both the near- and long-term. A number of knowledge gaps and needed R&D were identified and are discussed in this report. However, these preliminary R&D topics have not been evaluated in detail nor have they been prioritized to support future planning efforts. This will be completed in FY11 and the final UFDC Research and Development Roadmap will be completed. This report discusses proposed R&D topics in three areas related to repository siting, design, and performance: natural systems

Nutt, W. M. (Nuclear Engineering Division)

2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

274

Disposition and transportation of surplus radioactive low specific activity nitric acid. Volume 1, Environmental Assessment  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

DOE is deactivating the PUREX plant at Hanford; this will involve the disposition of about 692,000 liters (183,000 gallons) of surplus nitric acid contaminated with low levels of U and other radionuclides. The nitric acid, designated as low specific activity, is stored in 4 storage tanks at PUREX. Five principal alternatives were evaluated: transfer for reuse (sale to BNF plc), no action, continued storage in Hanford upgraded or new facility, consolidation of DOE surplus acid, and processing the LSA nitric acid as waste. The transfer to BNF plc is the preferred alternative. From the analysis, it is concluded that the proposed disposition and transportation of the acid does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA; therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.

NONE

1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

275

The ultimate disposition of depleted uranium  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Depleted uranium (DU) is produced as a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Over 340,000 MTU of DU in the form of UF{sub 6} have been accumulated at the US government gaseous diffusion plants and the stockpile continues to grow. An overview of issues and objectives associated with the inventory management and the ultimate disposition of this material is presented.

Lemons, T.R. [Uranium Enrichment Organization, Oak Ridge, TN (United States)

1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

276

DOE handbook electrical safety  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

277

Electrical safety guidelines  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

278

High Purity Germanium Gamma-PHA Assay of Uranium Storage Pigs for 321-M Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Analytical Development Section of SRTC was requested by the Facilities Disposition Division (FDD) to determine the holdup of enriched uranium in the 321-M facility as part of an overall deactivation project of the facility. The 321-M facility was used to fabricate enriched uranium fuel assemblies, lithium-aluminum target tubes, neptunium assemblies, and miscellaneous components for the production reactors. The facility also includes the 324-M storage building and the passageway connecting it to 321-M. The results of the holdup assays are essential for determining compliance with the Solid Waste's Waste Acceptance Criteria, Material Control and Accountability, and to meet criticality safety controls. This report describes and documents the use of a portable HPGe detector and EG and G Dart system that contains a high voltage power supply, signal processing electronics, a personal computer with Gamma-Vision software, and space to store and manipulate multiple 4096-channel g-ray spectra to assay for 235U content in 268 uranium shipping and storage pigs. This report includes a description of three efficiency calibration configurations and also the results of the assay. A description of the quality control checks is included as well.

Dewberry, R.A.

2001-09-18T23:59:59.000Z

279

DRAFT EM SSAB Chairźs Meeting Waste Disposition Strategies...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

EM HQ Updates Waste Disposition Overview Christine Gelles Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management Office of Environmental Management EM SSAB Chairs Meeting 5...

280

Request For Records Disposition Authority-Nuclear Weapons | Department...  

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

Authority-Nuclear Weapons Request For Records Disposition Authority-Nuclear Weapons This document identifies the nuclear weapon records generated by the Department of Energy's...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

282

INCIDENT # CHARGE SECTION OF NYS PENAL LAW DISPOSITION TYPE REPORTED TO PLACE OF OCCURRENCE DATE & TIME OF OCCURRENCE DATE & TIME REPORTED 1304224 None  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

INCIDENT # CHARGE SECTION OF NYS PENAL LAW DISPOSITION TYPE REPORTED TO PLACE OF OCCURRENCE DATE Public Safety Department Music Building 6442 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11367 April 29, 2013 2:15PM Building 6660 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11367 May 1, 2013 12:15PM May 1, 2013 2:50PM 1305279 None Petit

Johnson Jr.,, Ray

283

Safeguards and security requirements for weapons plutonium disposition in light water reactors  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper explores the issues surrounding the safeguarding of the plutonium disposition process in support of the United States nuclear weapons dismantlement program. It focuses on the disposition of the plutonium by burning mixed oxide fuel in light water reactors (LWR) and addresses physical protection, material control and accountability, personnel security and international safeguards. The S and S system needs to meet the requirements of the DOE Orders, NRC Regulations and international safeguards agreements. Experience has shown that incorporating S and S measures into early facility designs and integrating them into operations provides S and S that is more effective, more economical, and less intrusive. The plutonium disposition safeguards requirements with which the US has the least experience are the implementation of international safeguards on plutonium metal; the large scale commercialization of the mixed oxide fuel fabrication; and the transportation to and loading in the LWRs of fresh mixed oxide fuel. It is in these areas where the effort needs to be concentrated if the US is to develop safeguards and security systems that are effective and efficient.

Thomas, L.L.; Strait, R.S. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States). Fission Energy and Systems Safety Program

1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

284

Development of a techno-economic model to optimization DOE spent nuclear fuel disposition  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of the National Spent Nuclear Fuel (NSNF) Program conducted by Lockheed Martin Idaho Technology Co. (LMITCO) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is to evaluate what to do with the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. Final disposition of the SNF may require that the fuel be treated to minimize material concerns. The treatments may range from electrometallurgical treatment and chemical dissolution to engineering controls. Treatment options and treatment locations will depend on the fuel type and the current locations of the fuel. One of the first steps associated with selecting one or more sites for treating the SNF in the DOE complex is to determine the cost of each option. An economic analysis will assist in determining which fuel treatment alternative attains the optimum disposition of SNF at the lowest possible cost to the government and the public. For this study, a set of questions was developed for the electrometallurgical treatment process for fuels at several locations. The set of questions addresses all issues associated with the design, construction, and operation of a production facility. A matrix table was developed to determine questions applicable to various fuel treatment options. A work breakdown structure (WBS) was developed to identify a treatment process and costs from initial design to shipment of treatment products to final disposition. Costs will be applied to determine the life-cycle cost of each option. This technique can also be applied to other treatment techniques for treating spent nuclear fuel.

Ramer, R.J.; Plum, M.M.; Adams, J.P.; Dahl, C.A.

1997-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

285

Facility Safety | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProvedDecember 2005DepartmentDecember U.S. Department-5 METRIC SUMMARYFacility

286

Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmospheric Optical Depth7-1D: Vegetation Proposed Newcatalyst phasesData Files Data Files 1B&W Y-12studies in ionand Minor8, 2014

287

Seismic Safety Guide  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

288

Waste Disposition Update by Christine Gelles  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergy Cooperation | Department of EnergyDepartmentEnergy WRPSWaste Disposition Update

289

Waste Disposition Update by Doug Tonkay  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergy Cooperation | Department of EnergyDepartmentEnergy WRPSWaste Disposition

290

Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) facility preclosure work plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The dangerous waste permit identification number (WA7890008967)was issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology. This identification number encompasses a number of treatment, storage, and/or disposal units within the Hanford Facility. One of these treatment, storage, and/or disposal units is the PUREX Facility,currently undergoing a phased closure. The PUREX Facility Preclosure Work Plan submittal differs from closure plans previously submitted by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office to the Washington State Department of Ecology,in that the closure process occurs in three distinct phases as part of the decommissioning process (i.e., transition,surveillance and maintenance, and disposition). Final closure will occur during the disposition phase. This phased decommissioning process is implemented because development of a complete closure plan during the transition phase is impractical and future land use determinations have not been identified. The objective of the transition phase is to place the PUREX Facility in a safe configuration with respect to human health and the environment. Following the transition phase activities, the PUREX Facility will begin the surveillance and maintenance phase of 10 or more years until disposition phase activities commence. The closure plan for the PUREX facility will be prepared during the disposition phase. For purposes of this documentation, the PUREX Facility does not include the PUREX Storage Tunnels. The PUREX Storage Tunnels are an operating storage unit(DOE/RL-94-24).

Bhatia, R.K., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-07-09T23:59:59.000Z

291

High Purity Germanium Gamma-PHA Assay of Uranium in Scrap Cans for 321-M Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Analytical Development Section of SRTC was requested by the Facilities Disposition Division to determine the holdup of enriched uranium in the 321-M facility as part of an overall deactivation project of the facility. This report includes a description of two efficiency calibration configurations and also the results of the assay. A description of the quality control checks is included as well.

Salaymeh, S.R.

2002-03-22T23:59:59.000Z

292

A little here, a little there, a fairly big problem everywhere: Small quantity site transuranic waste disposition alternatives  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Small quantities of transuranic (TRU) waste represent a significant challenge to the waste disposition and facility closure plans of several sites in the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. This paper presents the results of a series of evaluations, using a systems engineering approach, to identify the preferred alternative for dispositioning TRU waste from small quantity sites (SQSs). The TRU waste disposition alternatives evaluation used semi-quantitative data provided by the SQSs, potential receiving sites, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to select and recommend candidate sites for waste receipt, interim storage, processing, and preparation for final disposition of contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) TRU waste. The evaluations of only four of these SQSs resulted in potential savings to the taxpayer of $33 million to $81 million, depending on whether mobile systems could be used to characterize, package, and certify the waste or whether each site would be required to perform this work. Small quantity shipping sites included in the evaluation included the Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL), University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR), Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), and Mound Laboratory. Candidate receiving sites included the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Savannah River Site (SRS), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Oak Ridge (OR), and Hanford. At least 14 additional DOE sites having TRU waste may be able to save significant money if cost savings are similar to the four evaluated thus far.

D. Luke; D. Parker; J. Moss; T. Monk (INEEL); L. Fritz (DOE-ID); B. Daugherty (SRS); K. Hladek (WM Federal Services Hanford); S. Kosiewicx (LANL)

2000-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

293

A Little Here, A Little There, A Fairly Big Problem Everywhere: Small Quantity Site Transuranic Waste Disposition Alternatives  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Small quantities of transuranic (TRU) waste represent a significant challenge to the waste disposition and facility closure plans of several sites in the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. This paper presents the results of a series of evaluations, using a systems engineering approach, to identify the preferred alternative for dispositioning TRU waste from small quantity sites (SQSs). The TRU waste disposition alternatives evaluation used semi-quantitative data provided by the SQSs, potential receiving sites, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to select and recommend candidate sites for waste receipt, interim storage, processing, and preparation for final disposition of contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) TRU waste. The evaluations of only four of these SQSs resulted in potential savings to the taxpayer of $33 million to $81 million, depending on whether mobile systems could be used to characterize, package, and certify the waste or whether each site would be required to perform this work. Small quantity shipping sites included in the evaluation included the Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL), University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR), Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), and Mound. Candidate receiving sites included the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Savannah River Site (SRS), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Oak Ridge (OR), and Hanford. At least 14 additional DOE sites having TRU waste may be able to save significant money if cost savings are similar to the four evaluated thus far.

Luke, Dale Elden; Parker, Douglas Wayne; Moss, J.; Monk, Thomas Hugh; Fritz, Lori Lee; Daugherty, B.; Hladek, K.; Kosiewicx, S.

2000-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

294

Readiness Assessment for MF-628 Drum Treatment Facility - Advanced...  

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

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:...

295

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

296

Integrated Safety Management Policy  

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

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

2011-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

297

Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria  

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

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

298

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

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

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

299

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

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

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

300

Weapons-grade plutonium dispositioning. Volume 2: Comparison of plutonium disposition options  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Secretary of Energy requested the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on International Security and Arms Control to evaluate disposition options for weapons-grade plutonium. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) offered to assist the NAS in this evaluation by investigating the technical aspects of the disposition options and their capability for achieving plutonium annihilation levels greater than 90%. This report was prepared for the NAS to document the gathered information and results from the requested option evaluations. Evaluations were performed for 12 plutonium disposition options involving five reactor and one accelerator-based systems. Each option was evaluated in four technical areas: (1) fuel status, (2) reactor or accelerator-based system status, (3) waste-processing status, and (4) waste disposal status. Based on these evaluations, each concept was rated on its operational capability and time to deployment. A third rating category of option costs could not be performed because of the unavailability of adequate information from the concept sponsors. The four options achieving the highest rating, in alphabetical order, are the Advanced Light Water Reactor with plutonium-based ternary fuel, the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor with plutonium-based fuel, the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor with uranium-plutonium-based fuel, and the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor with plutonium-based fuel. Of these four options, the Advanced Light Water Reactor and the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor do not propose reprocessing of their irradiated fuel. Time constraints and lack of detailed information did not allow for any further ratings among these four options. The INEL recommends these four options be investigated further to determine the optimum reactor design for plutonium disposition.

Brownson, D.A.; Hanson, D.J.; Blackman, H.S. [and others

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Enforcement handbook: Enforcement of DOE nuclear safety requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Handbook provides detailed guidance and procedures to implement the General Statement of DOE Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy or Policy). A copy of this Enforcement Policy is included for ready reference in Appendix D. The guidance provided in this Handbook is qualified, however, by the admonishment to exercise discretion in determining the proper disposition of each potential enforcement action. As discussed in subsequent chapters, the Enforcement and Investigation Staff will apply a number of factors in assessing each potential enforcement situation. Enforcement sanctions are imposed in accordance with the Enforcement Policy for the purpose of promoting public and worker health and safety in the performance of activities at DOE facilities by DOE contractors (and their subcontractors and suppliers) who are indemnified under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act. These indemnified contractors, and their suppliers and subcontractors, will be referred to in this Handbook collectively as DOE contractors. It should be remembered that the purpose of the Department`s enforcement policy is to improve nuclear safety for the workers and the public, and this goal should be the prime consideration in exercising enforcement discretion.

NONE

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

302

The ultimate disposition of depleted uranium  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Significant amounts of the depleted uranium (DU) created by past uranium enrichment activities have been sold, disposed of commercially, or utilized by defense programs. In recent years, however, the demand for DU has become quite small compared to quantities available, and within the US Department of Energy (DOE) there is concern for any risks and/or cost liabilities that might be associated with the ever-growing inventory of this material. As a result, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. (Energy Systems), was asked to review options and to develop a comprehensive plan for inventory management and the ultimate disposition of DU accumulated at the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs). An Energy Systems task team, under the chairmanship of T. R. Lemons, was formed in late 1989 to provide advice and guidance for this task. This report reviews options and recommends actions and objectives in the management of working inventories of partially depleted feed (PDF) materials and for the ultimate disposition of fully depleted uranium (FDU). Actions that should be considered are as follows. (1) Inspect UF{sub 6} cylinders on a semiannual basis. (2) Upgrade cylinder maintenance and storage yards. (3) Convert FDU to U{sub 3}O{sub 8} for long-term storage or disposal. This will include provisions for partial recovery of costs to offset those associated with DU inventory management and the ultimate disposal of FDU. Another recommendation is to drop the term tails'' in favor of depleted uranium'' or DU'' because the tails'' label implies that it is waste.'' 13 refs.

Not Available

1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

303

The Use of the Hanford Onsite Packaging and Transportation Safety Program to Meet Cleanup Milestones Under the Hanford Site Cleanup 2015 Vision and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - 12403  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Hanford Site presents unique challenges in meeting the U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) 2015 Cleanup Vision. CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC), its subcontractors, and DOE-RL were challenged to retrieve, transport and remediate a wide range of waste materials. Through a collaborative effort by all Hanford Onsite Central Plateau Cleanup Team Members, disposition pathways for diverse and seemingly impossible to ship wastes were developed under a DOE Order 460.1C-compliant Hanford Onsite Transportation Safety Program. The team determined an effective method for transporting oversized compliant waste payloads to processing and disposition facilities. The use of the onsite TSD packaging authorizations proved to be vital to safely transporting these materials for processing and eventual final disposition. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided additional resources to expedite planning and execution of these important cleanup milestones. Through the innovative and creative use of the TSD, the Hanford Onsite Central Plateau Cleanup Team Members have developed and are executing an integrated project plan that enables the safe and compliant transport of a wide variety of difficult-to-transport waste items, accelerating previous cleanup schedules to meet cleanup milestones. (authors)

Lavender, John C. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA 99354 (United States); Edwards, W. Scott [Areva Federal Services, Richland, WA 99354 (United States); Macbeth, Paul J.; Self, Richard J. [U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, Richland, WA 99352 (United States); West, Lori D. [Materials and Energy Corporation, Richland, WA 99354 (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

304

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

305

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Selvage, Ronald Derek

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

306

Health and Safety Training Reciprocity  

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

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

307

Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) [SEC 1 THRU 11  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) is located on the US Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in south central Washington State. The DOE Richland Operations (DOE-RL) Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC) is with Fluor Hanford Inc. (FH). Westinghouse Safety Management Systems (WSMS) provides management support to the PFP facility. Since 1991, the mission of the PFP has changed from plutonium material processing to preparation for decontamination and decommissioning (D and D). The PFP is in transition between its previous mission and the proposed D and D mission. The objective of the transition is to place the facility into a stable state for long-term storage of plutonium materials before final disposition of the facility. Accordingly, this update of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) reflects the current status of the buildings, equipment, and operations during this transition. The primary product of the PFP was plutonium metal in the form of 2.2-kg, cylindrical ingots called buttoms. Plutonium nitrate was one of several chemical compounds containing plutonium that were produced as an intermediate processing product. Plutonium recovery was performed at the Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF) and plutonium conversion (from a nitrate form to a metal form) was performed at the Remote Mechanical C (RMC) Line as the primary processes. Plutonium oxide was also produced at the Remote Mechanical A (RMA) Line. Plutonium processed at the PFP contained both weapons-grade and fuels-grade plutonium materials. The capability existed to process both weapons-grade and fuels-grade material through the PRF and only weapons-grade material through the RMC Line although fuels-grade material was processed through the line before 1984. Amounts of these materials exist in storage throughout the facility in various residual forms left from previous years of operations.

ULLAH, M K

2001-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

308

Americium/Curium Disposition Life Cycle Planning Study  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

At the request of the Department of Energy Savannah River Office (DOE- SR), Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) evaluated concepts to complete disposition of Americium and Curium (Am/Cm) bearing materials currently located at the Savannah River Site (SRS).

Jackson, W.N. [Westinghouse Savannah River Company, AIKEN, SC (United States); Krupa, J.; Stutts, P.; Nester, S.; Raimesch, R.

1998-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

309

EIS-0327: Disposition of Scrap Metals Programmatic EIS  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This EIS will evaluate the environmental impacts of policy alternatives for the disposition of scrap metals (primarily carbon steel and stainless steel) that may have residual surface radioactivity. DOE is cancelling this EIS.

310

Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Guide for use with DOE O 420...  

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

CURRENT DOE G 420.1-1A, Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Guide for use with DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety by Pranab Guha Functional areas: Facility Safety, Nonreactor Nuclear...

311

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

312

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

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

transportation, radioactive waste management, quality assurance, procurement, conduct of operations, design and system facility engineering, safety system maintenance,...

313

Supervisory General Engineer (Facility Engineering Division Director)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

314

General Engineer / Physical Scientist (Facility Representative)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

315

Cold vacuum drying facility design requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

IRWIN, J.J.

1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

316

TRACKING SURPLUS PLUTONIUM FROM WEAPONS TO DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Supporting nuclear nonproliferation and global security principles, beginning in 1994 the United States has withdrawn more than 50 metric tons (MT) of government-controlled plutonium from potential use in nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration, established protocols for the tracking of this "excess" and "surplus" plutonium, and for reconciling the current storage and utilization of the plutonium to show that its management is consistent with the withdrawal policies. Programs are underway to ensure the safe and secure disposition of the materials that formed a major part of the weapons stockpile during the Cold War, and growing quantities have been disposed as waste, after which they are not included in traditional nuclear material control and accountability (NMC&A) data systems. A combination of resources is used to perform the reconciliations that form the basis for annual reporting to DOE, to U.S. Department of State, and to international partners including the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Allender, J.; Beams, J.; Sanders, K.; Myers, L.

2013-07-16T23:59:59.000Z

317

LANL MOX fuel lead assemblies data report for the surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. LANL has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. This includes receipt and storage of PuO{sub 2} powder, fabrication of MOX fuel pellets, assembly of fuel rods and bundles, and shipping of the packaged fuel to a commercial reactor site. Support activities will take place within both Category 1 and 2 areas. Technical Area (TA) 55/Plutonium Facility 4 will be used to store the bulk PuO{sub 2} powder, fabricate MOX fuel pellets, assemble rods, and store fuel bundles. Bundles will be assembled at a separate facility, several of which have been identified as suitable for that activity. The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (at TA-3) will be used for analytical chemistry support. Waste operations will be conducted in TA-50 and TA-54. Only very minor modifications will be needed to accommodate the LA program. These modifications consist mostly of minor equipment upgrades. A commercial reactor operator has not been identified for the LA irradiation. Postirradiation examination (PIE) of the irradiated fuel will take place at either Oak Ridge National Laboratory or ANL-W. The only modifications required at either PIE site would be to accommodate full-length irradiated fuel rods. Results from this program are critical to the overall plutonium distribution schedule.

Fisher, S.E.; Holdaway, R.; Ludwig, S.B. [and others

1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

318

Hanford MOX fuel lead assemblies data report for the surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. Six initial site combinations were proposed: (1) Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) with support from Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), (2) Hanford, (3) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with support from Pantex, (4) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), (5) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), and (6) Savannah River Site (SRS). After further analysis by the sites and DOE-MD, five site combinations were established as possible candidates for producing MOX LAs: (1) ANL-W with support from INEEL, (2) Hanford, (3) LANL, (4) LLNL, and (5) SRS. Hanford has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. An alternate approach would allow fabrication of fuel pellets and assembly of fuel rods in an S and S Category 1 facility. In all, a total of three LA MOX fuel fabrication options were identified by Hanford that could accommodate the program. In every case, only minor modification would be required to ready any of the facilities to accept the equipment necessary to accomplish the LA program.

O`Connor, D.G.; Fisher, S.E.; Holdaway, R. [and others

1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

319

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

320

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1991-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Associate Vice President Facilities Management  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Milchberg, Howard

322

Los Alamos National Laboratory summary plan to fabricate mixed oxide lead assemblies for the fissile material disposition program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report summarizes an approach for using existing Los Alamos National Laboratory (Laboratory) mixed oxide (MOX) fuel-fabrication and plutonium processing capabilities to expedite and assure progress in the MOX/Reactor Plutonium Disposition Program. Lead Assembly MOX fabrication is required to provide prototypic fuel for testing in support of fuel qualification and licensing requirements. It is also required to provide a bridge for the full utilization of the European fabrication experience. In part, this bridge helps establish, for the first time since the early 1980s, a US experience base for meeting the safety, licensing, safeguards, security, and materials control and accountability requirements of the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, a link is needed between the current research and development program and the production of disposition mission fuel. This link would also help provide a knowledge base for US regulators. Early MOX fabrication and irradiation testing in commercial nuclear reactors would provide a positive demonstration to Russia (and to potential vendors, designers, fabricators, and utilities) that the US has serious intent to proceed with plutonium disposition. This report summarizes an approach to fabricating lead assembly MOX fuel using the existing MOX fuel-fabrication infrastructure at the Laboratory.

Buksa, J.J.; Eaton, S.L.; Trellue, H.R.; Chidester, K.; Bowidowicz, M.; Morley, R.A.; Barr, M.

1997-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

323

Optimization and implementation study of plutonium disposition using existing CANDU Reactors. Final report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Since early 1994, the Department of Energy has been sponsoring studies aimed at evaluating the merits of disposing of surplus US weapons plutonium as Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel in existing commercial Canadian Pressurized Heavy Water reactors, known as CANDU`s. The first report, submitted to DOE in July, 1994 (the 1994 Executive Summary is attached), identified practical and safe options for the consumption of 50 to 100 tons of plutonium in 25 years in some of the existing CANDU reactors operating the Bruce A generating station, on Lake Huron, about 300 km north east of Detroit. By designing the fuel and nuclear performance to operate within existing experience and operating/performance envelope, and by utilizing existing fuel fabrication and transportation facilities and methods, a low cost, low risk method for long term plutonium disposition was developed. In December, 1995, in response to evolving Mission Requirements, the DOE requested a further study of the CANDU option with emphasis on more rapid disposition of the plutonium, and retaining the early start and low risk features of the earlier work. This report is the result of that additional work.

NONE

1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

324

NASA Benchmarks Safety Functions Assessment plan - Developed...  

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

safety meetings how those goals can be met. (DOEEH- 0135) References: DOE 5480.19, "Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities." NV M 111.XC, "Functions,...

325

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

326

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

327

FUEL CYCLE POTENTIAL WASTE FOR DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The United States (U.S.) currently utilizes a once-through fuel cycle where used nuclear fuel (UNF) is stored on-site in either wet pools or in dry storage systems with ultimate disposal in a deep mined geologic repository envisioned. Within the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program (FCR&D) develops options to the current commercial fuel cycle management strategy to enable the safe, secure, economic, and sustainable expansion of nuclear energy while minimizing proliferation risks by conducting research and development of advanced fuel cycles, including modified open and closed cycles. The safe management and disposition of used nuclear fuel and/or nuclear waste is a fundamental aspect of any nuclear fuel cycle. Yet, the routine disposal of used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste remains problematic. Advanced fuel cycles will generate different quantities and forms of waste than the current LWR fleet. This study analyzes the quantities and characteristics of potential waste forms including differing waste matrices, as a function of a variety of potential fuel cycle alternatives including: (1) Commercial UNF generated by uranium fuel light water reactors (LWR). Four once through fuel cycles analyzed in this study differ by varying the assumed expansion/contraction of nuclear power in the U.S; (2) Four alternative LWR used fuel recycling processes analyzed differ in the reprocessing method (aqueous vs. electro-chemical), complexity (Pu only or full transuranic (TRU) recovery) and waste forms generated; (3) Used Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel derived from the recovered Pu utilizing a single reactor pass; and (4) Potential waste forms generated by the reprocessing of fuels derived from recovered TRU utilizing multiple reactor passes.

Jones, R.; Carter, J.

2010-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

328

FUEL CYCLE POTENTIAL WASTE FOR DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The United States (U.S.) currently utilizes a once-through fuel cycle where used nuclear fuel (UNF) is stored on-site in either wet pools or in dry storage systems with ultimate disposal in a deep mined geologic repository envisioned. Within the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program (FCR&D) develops options to the current commercial fuel cycle management strategy to enable the safe, secure, economic, and sustainable expansion of nuclear energy while minimizing proliferation risks by conducting research and development of advanced fuel cycles, including modified open and closed cycles. The safe management and disposition of used nuclear fuel and/or nuclear waste is a fundamental aspect of any nuclear fuel cycle. Yet, the routine disposal of used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste remains problematic. Advanced fuel cycles will generate different quantities and forms of waste than the current LWR fleet. This study analyzes the quantities and characteristics of potential waste forms including differing waste matrices, as a function of a variety of potential fuel cycle alternatives including: (1) Commercial UNF generated by uranium fuel light water reactors (LWR). Four once through fuel cycles analyzed in this study differ by varying the assumed expansion/contraction of nuclear power in the U.S. (2) Four alternative LWR used fuel recycling processes analyzed differ in the reprocessing method (aqueous vs. electro-chemical), complexity (Pu only or full transuranic (TRU) recovery) and waste forms generated. (3) Used Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel derived from the recovered Pu utilizing a single reactor pass. (4) Potential waste forms generated by the reprocessing of fuels derived from recovered TRU utilizing multiple reactor passes.

Carter, J.

2011-01-03T23:59:59.000Z

329

324 Building safety basis criteria document  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

STEFFEN, J.M.

1999-06-02T23:59:59.000Z

330

Fissile material disposition program final immobilization form assessment and recommendation  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in its role as the lead laboratory for the development of plutonium immobilization technologies for the Department of Energy`s Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (MD), has been requested by MD to recommend an immobilization technology for the disposition of surplus weapons- usable plutonium. The recommendation and supporting documentation was requested to be provided by September 1, 1997. This report addresses the choice between glass and ceramic technologies for immobilizing plutonium using the can-in-canister approach. Its purpose is to provide a comparative evaluation of the two candidate technologies and to recommend a form based on technical considerations.

Cochran, S.G.; Dunlop, W.H.; Edmunds, T.A.; MacLean, L.M.; Gould, T.H. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)

1997-10-03T23:59:59.000Z

331

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the tank farm facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

332

K Basin safety analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1994-12-16T23:59:59.000Z

333

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

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

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

334

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

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

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

335

Transportable Vitrification System RCRA Closure Practical Waste Disposition Saves Time And Money  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Transportable Vitrification System (TVS) was a large-scale vitrification system for the treatment of mixed wastes. The wastes contained both hazardous and radioactive materials in the form of sludge, soil, and ash. The TVS was developed to be moved to various United States Department of Energy (DOE) facilities to vitrify mixed waste as needed. The TVS consists of four primary modules: (1) Waste and Additive Materials Processing Module; (2) Melter Module; (3) Emissions Control Module; and (4) Control and Services Module. The TVS was demonstrated at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) during September and October of 1997. During this period, approximately 16,000 pounds of actual mixed waste was processed, producing over 17,000 pounds of glass. After the demonstration was complete it was determined that it was more expensive to use the TVS unit to treat and dispose of mixed waste than to direct bury this waste in Utah permitted facility. Thus, DOE had to perform a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure of the facility and find a reuse for as much of the equipment as possible. This paper will focus on the following items associated with this successful RCRA closure project: TVS site closure design and implementation; characterization activities focused on waste disposition; pollution prevention through reuse; waste minimization efforts to reduce mixed waste to be disposed; and lessons learned that would be integrated in future projects of this magnitude.

Brill, Angie; Boles, Roger; Byars, Woody

2003-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

336

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

337

Cold Vacuum Drying Facility hazard analysis report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

338

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.

339

SRS MOX fuel lead assemblies data report for the surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impact statement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. Six initial site combinations were proposed: (1) Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) with support from Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), (2) Hanford, (3) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with support from Pantex, (4) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), (5) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), and (6) Savannah River Site(SRS). After further analysis by the sites and DOE-MD, five site combinations were established as possible candidates for producing MOX LAs: (1) ANL-W with support from INEEL, (2) Hanford, (3) LANL, (4) LLNL, and (5) SRS. SRS has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. An alternate approach would allow fabrication of fuel pellets and assembly of fuel rods in an S and S Category 2 or 3 facility with storage of bulk PuO{sub 2} and assembly, storage, and shipping of fuel bundles in an S and S Category 1 facility. The total Category 1 approach, which is the recommended option, would be done in the 221-H Canyon Building. A facility that was never in service will be removed from one area, and a hardened wall will be constructed in another area to accommodate execution of the LA fuel fabrication. The non-Category 1 approach would require removal of process equipment in the FB-Line metal production and packaging glove boxes, which requires work in a contamination area. The Immobilization Hot Demonstration Program equipment in the Savannah River Technology Center would need to be removed to accommodate pellet fabrication. This work would also be in a contaminated area.

O`Connor, D.G.; Fisher, S.E.; Holdaway, R. [and others

1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

340

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

342

Safety Basis Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

343

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

344

CRITICALITY SAFETY TRAINING AT FLUOR HANFORD (FH)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

345

Chemical Safety Vulnerability Working Group Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

346

Toolbox Safety Talk Waste Anesthetic Gas (WAG)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Toolbox Safety Talk Waste Anesthetic Gas (WAG) Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety into the surrounding room during medical or research procedures are considered waste anesthetic gas (WAG). These gases. Please refer to the EHS Waste Anesthetic Gas Standard Operating Procedure for complete information

Pawlowski, Wojtek

347

Facility Microgrids  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2005-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

348

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

349

Engineering evaluation of alternatives for the disposition of Niagara Falls Storage Site, its residues and wastes  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The final disposition scenarios selected by DOE for assessment in this document are consistent with those stated in the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Niagara Falls Storage Site (NFSS) (DOE, 1983d) and the modifications to the alternatives resulting from the public scoping process. The scenarios are: take no action beyond interim remedial measures other than maintenance and surveillance of the NFSS; retain and manage the NFSS as a long-term waste management facility for the wastes and residues on the site; decontaminate, certify, and release the NFSS for other use, with long-term management of the wastes and residues at other DOE sites; and partially decontaminate the NFSS by removal and transport off site of only the more radioactive residues, and upgrade containment of the remaining wastes and residues on site. The objective of this document is to present to DOE the conceptual engineering, occupational radiation exposure, construction schedule, maintenance and surveillance requirements, and cost information relevant to design and implementation of each of the four scenarios. The specific alternatives within each scenario used as the basis for discussion in this document were evaluated on the bases of engineering considerations, technical feasibility, and regulatory requirements. Selected alternatives determined to be acceptable for each of the four final disposition scenarios for the NFSS were approved by DOE to be assessed and costed in this document. These alternatives are also the subject of the EIS for the NFSS currently being prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). 40 figures, 38 tables.

Not Available

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

350

Lessons Learned from Three Mile Island Packaging, Transportation and Disposition that Apply to Fukushima Daiichi Recovery  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Following the massive earthquake and resulting tsunami damage in March of 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, interest was amplified for what was done for recovery at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) in the United States following its meltdown in 1979. Many parallels could be drawn between to two accidents. This paper presents the results of research done into the TMI-2 recovery effort and its applicability to the Fukushima Daiichi cleanup. This research focused on three topics: packaging, transportation, and disposition. This research work was performed as a collaboration between Japanís Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Hundreds of TMI-2 related documents were searched and pertinent information was gleaned from these documents. Other important information was also obtained by interviewing employees who were involved first hand in various aspects of the TMI-2 cleanup effort. This paper is organized into three main sections: (1) Transport from Three Mile Island to Central Facilities Area at INL, (2) Transport from INL Central Receiving Facility to INL Test Area North (TAN) and wet storage at TAN, and (3) Transport from TAN to INL Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) and Dry Storage at INTEC. Within each of these sections, lessons learned from performing recovery activities are presented and their applicability to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant cleanup are outlined.

Layne Pincock; Wendell Hintze; Dr. Koji Shirai

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

351

SNM measurement uncertainites: potential impacts for materials disposition  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A discussion of nuclear material measurement uncertainties and impacts to the Materials Disposition (MD) Program is presented. Many of the options under consideration by the disposition program present new measurement challenges include significant material processing throughputs, a variety of material forms, unique waste streams, and difficult-to-measure matrices. There are also some questions regarding the ability to achieve International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification requirements and to achieve measurement uncertainties that are small enough to meet the IAEA loss detection goals. We present a detailed formalism for determining the measurement error for nondestructive assay systems applied to the MD Program, which is an essential component for planning the safeguards and security of these systems.

Fearey, B.L.; Burr, T.L.; Pickrell, M.M.

1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

352

Update of the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Implementation Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Campaign Implementation Plan provides summary level detail describing how the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign (UFDC) supports achievement of the overarching mission and objectives of the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Fuel Cycle Technologies Program The implementation plan begins with the assumption of target dates that are set out in the January 2013 DOE Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (http://energy.gov/downloads/strategy-management-and-disposal-used-nuclear-fuel-and-high-level-radioactive-waste). These target dates and goals are summarized in section III. This implementation plan will be maintained as a living document and will be updated as needed in response to progress in the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign and the Fuel Cycle Technologies Program.

Jens Birkholzer; Robert MacKinnon; Kevin McMahon; Sylvia Saltzstein; Ken Sorenson; Peter Swift

2014-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

353

Accelerating the disposition of transuranic waste from LANL - 9495  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was established during World War II with a single mission -- to design and build an atomic bomb. In the 65 years since, nuclear weapons physics, design and engineering have been the Laboratory's primary and sustaining mission. Experimental and process operations -- and associated cleanout and upgrade activities -- have generated a significant inventory of transuranic (TRU) waste that is stored at LANL's Technical Area 54, Material Disposal Area G (MDA G). When the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) opened its doors in 1999, LANL's TRU inventory totaled about 10,200 m{sup 3}, with a plutonium 239-equivalent curie (PE Ci) content of approximately 250,000 curies. By December 2008, a total of about 2,300 m3 (61,000 PE Ci) had been shipped to WIPP from LANL. This has resulted in a net reduction of about 1,000 m{sup 3} of TRU inventory over that time frame. This paper presents progress in dispositioning legacy and newly-generated transuranic waste (TRU) from ongoing missions at the LANL. The plans for, and lessons learned, in dispositioning several hundred high-activity TRU waste drums are reviewed. This waste population was one of the highest risks at LANL. Technical challenges in disposition of the high-activity drums are presented. These provide a preview of challenges to be addressed in dispositioning the remaining 6,800 m{sup 3} of TRU stored above ground and 2,400 m{sup 3} of TRU waste that is 'retrievably' stored below-grade. LANL is using subcontractors for much of this work and has formed a strong partnership with WIPP and its contractor to address this cleanup challenge.

Shepard, Mark D [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Stiger, Susan G [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Blankenhorn, James A [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Rael, George J [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Moody, David C [U.S DOE

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

354

Hazard Baseline Downgrade Effluent Treatment Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Blanchard, A.

1998-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

355

OFFICE OF FACILITIES ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS Strategic and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Engineering Museum Support Services Bruce Kendall Director Sheryl Kolasinski DD/CoS Facilities Master Planning Management Engineering &Design Management Technical Services Fire Protection Occupational Safety OccupationalOFFICE OF FACILITIES ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS Strategic and Administrative Management Julie

Mathis, Wayne N.

356

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Greager, E.M.

1997-12-11T23:59:59.000Z

357

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the plutonium uranium extraction facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Wiegand, D.L.

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

358

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

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

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

359

Waste receiving and processing facility module 1 auditable safetyanalysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Bottenus, R.J.

1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

360

Hanford safety analysis and risk assessment handbook (SARAH)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

GARVIN, L.J.

2003-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

FACILITIES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FIMS) DATA VALIDATION...  

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

not scored xii) Year Acquired - Validated not scored xiii) Disposition Date (Archived data) xiv) Disposition Method (Archived data) xv) Net Proceeds (Archived data) b) The...

362

Report of the Task Group on operation Department of Energy tritium facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report discusses the following topics on the operation of DOE Tritium facilities: Environment, Safety, and Health Aspects of Tritium; Management of Operations and Maintenance Functions; Safe Shutdown of Tritium Facilities; Management of the Facility Safety Envelope; Maintenance of Qualified Tritium Handling Personnel; DOE Tritium Management Strategy; Radiological Control Philosophy; Implementation of DOE Requirements; Management of Tritium Residues; Inconsistent Application of Requirements for Measurement of Tritium Effluents; Interdependence of Tritium Facilities; Technical Communication among Facilities; Incorporation of Confinement Technologies into New Facilities; Operation/Management Requirements for New Tritium Facilities; and Safety Management Issues at Department of Energy Tritium Facilities.

Not Available

1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

363

Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

for DOE and NRC to exchange information related to safety issues associated with non-reactor nuclear facilities. The NRC-DOE Inter-Agency nuclear safety information sharing...

364

Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn Merit Badges at the HAMMER Training Facility Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn...

365

Microsoft Word - CX-MountainAvenueDispositionFY12_WEB.doc  

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

1, 2012 REPLY TO ATTN OF: KEPR-4 SUBJECT: Environmental Clearance Memorandum Joan Kendall Realty Specialist - TERR-3 Proposed Action: Disposition of Mountain Avenue Substation and...

366

www.nasa.gov WSTF SAFETY AND HEALTH CAPABILITIES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

a positive safety culture where employees and management work together to identify hazards and eliminate jobwww.nasa.gov WSTF SAFETY AND HEALTH CAPABILITIES SUMMARY The White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) offices support all WSTF test activities and general industrial safety

367

Guidelines for ACUC Oversight of Satellite Facilities, Study Areas, Laboratories and other Animal Activity Areas  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Guidelines for ACUC Oversight of Satellite Facilities, Study Areas, Laboratories and other Animal? · Are pharmaceuticals in-date? Are chemical-grade materials in use for compounds for which pharmaceutical preparations familiar with procedures for receipt and disposition of animals and transport containers? If applicable

Bandettini, Peter A.

368

International Facility Management Association Strategic Facility  

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

Facility Management Association Strategic Facility Planning: A WhIte PAPer Strategic Facility Planning: A White Paper on Strategic Facility Planning 2009 | International...

369

Safety evaluation for packaging (onsite) product removal can containers  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Boettger, J.S.

1997-04-29T23:59:59.000Z

370

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

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

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

371

Sandia National Laboratories: Safety and Health Go Green Initiative  

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

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

372

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

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

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

373

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

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

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

374

Final Demolition and Disposition of 209-E Critical Mass Laboratory - 12267  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The 209-E Critical Mass Laboratory was constructed in 1960 to provide a heavy shielded reactor room where quantities of plutonium or uranium in solution could be brought to near-critical configurations under carefully controlled and monitored conditions. In the late 1980's, the responsible contractor, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), was directed by the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare the facility for unoccupied status. The facility was demolished under a Removal Action Work Plan pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The funding for this project was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The primary rooms of concern with regards to contamination in 209-E facility, which is over 9,000 square feet, are the criticality assembly room (CAR), the mix room, and the change room. The CAR contained two reactor hoods (HO-140 and HO-170), which each had a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter system. The CAR contained 13 tanks ranging from 38 L (10 gal) to 401 L (106 gal). Tanks TK-109 and TK-110 are below grade, and were removed as part of this demolition and disposition remedy. Nonradiological and radiological hazardous substances were removed, decontaminated, or fixed in place, prior to demolition. Except for the removal of below grade tanks TK-109 and TK-110, the facility was demolished to slab-on-grade. PNNL performed stabilization and deactivation activities that included removal of bulk fissile material and chemicals, flushing tanks, stabilizing contamination within gloveboxes and hoods, and packaging and removing waste. The removal of the contaminated plutonium equipment and materials from the 209E facility presented a number of challenges similar in nature to those associated with the inventory reduction and cleanup activities at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Although there were no bulk fissile materials or chemicals within the facility, there were residual radiological materials (isotopes of plutonium and americium) in the tanks and hoods. The complexity of the remedy was present because of the various configurations of the tanks and hoods, combined with the residual contaminants. Because of the weight and dimensional configuration, size reduction of the slab tanks, as well as removal and disposal of the different material used for moderation and absorption, were two examples of challenges that were resolved to complete the remedy. One of the key methods developed and implemented at the facility was the design and construction of a shroud to allow the cutting of the Pu contaminated tanks. The shroud design, development and implementation at the 209E Project was an example of enhanced work planning and task hazards analysis with worker involvement. This paper will present the lessons learned from the 209E facility inventory reduction activities including the shroud and other methodologies used. The initial Lessons Learned discussion for this project was scheduled for late January 2012. This facility is the first open-air demolition of a highly contaminated plutonium-contaminated facility accomplished by CH2M Hill under the Plateau Remediation Contract. The demolition was completed without spread of contamination to the workers and the surrounding area. As with any project of this complexity, there are significant accomplishments, as well as experience that can be applied to future demolition of plutonium-contaminated facilities on the Hanford Site. These experiences will be documented at a later date. (authors)

Woolery, Wade [US Department of Energy, Richland WA (United States); Dodd, Edwin III [CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company, Richland WA (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

375

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious Rank EERE:YearRound-Up fromDepartmentTie Ltd:June 2015 <Ones |Laboratory, JuneDid y ouRev. 0)

376

CRAD, New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious Rank EERE:YearRound-Up fromDepartmentTie Ltd:June 2015 <Ones |Laboratory, JuneDid yRequirements - December

377

Tag: Safety  

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

8all en Best Practices Workshop for Safety Culture http:www.y12.doe.goveshbest-practices-workshop-safety-culture

378

Safety Information for Families  

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

Safety Information for Families Checking your home for hazards 22 safety items no home should be without Home Safety Checklists Helpful links Home Safety Council Hunter Safety:...

379

Radiological safety training for uranium facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

380

Toolbox Safety Talk Facility Flood Response  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

water, drain waste vent wastes ("sewage"), steam condensate, high ambient humidity, process chilled water, and rain, ground, and surface run-off water. The uncontrolled presence of water can create or Building Coordinator should ascertain the level of damage to building surfaces and materials, and determine

Pawlowski, Wojtek

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Radiological Safety Training for Accelerator Facilities  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarlyEnergy 0611__Joint_DOE_GoJ_AMS_Data_v3.pptx More Documents &DOE.F 1325.8 (08-93)DepartmentTS NOT

382

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarlyEnergy 0611__Joint_DOE_GoJ_AMS_Data_v3.pptx More Documents &DOE.F 1325.8 (08-93)DepartmentTS

383

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarlyEnergy 0611__Joint_DOE_GoJ_AMS_Data_v3.pptx More Documents &DOE.F 1325.8 (08-93)DepartmentTSNOT

384

Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarlyEnergy 0611__Joint_DOE_GoJ_AMS_Data_v3.pptx More Documents &DOE.F 1325.8CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1DOE

385

Facility Safety (For Informational Purposes Only)  

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

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

386

Biological Safety  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

387

Used Fuel Disposition Research & Development | Department of Energy  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmosphericNuclear SecurityTensile Strain Switched Ferromagnetism inS-4500II Field Emission SEMUsed Fuel Disposition Research &

388

Reactor operation safety information document  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1990-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

389

221-U Facility concrete and reinforcing steel evaluations specification for the canyon disposition initiative (CDI)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This describes a test program to establish the in-situ material properties of the reinforced concrete in Building 221-U for comparison to the original design specifications. Field sampling and laboratory testing of concrete and reinforcing steel structural materials in Building 221-U for design verification will be undertaken. Forty seven samples are to be taken from radiologically clean exterior walls of the canyon. Laboratory testing program includes unconfined compressive strength of concrete cores, tensile strength of reinforcing steel, and petrographic examinations of concrete cores taken from walls below existing grade.

Baxter, J.T.

1998-05-28T23:59:59.000Z

390

DOE/EIS-0287 Idaho High-Level Waste & Facilities Disposition...  

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

-5 . No offsite transportation would occur. At INEEL - The estimated number of latent cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles of INTEC related to waste processing...

391

Idaho High-Level Waste & Facilities Disposition, Final Environmental Impact Statement  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergyENERGY TAX POLICIES7.pdfFuel CellandVehicles &Standards forITCNational Environmental

392

EIS-0287: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power SystemsResources DOE ZeroThreeEnergy DrivingDCertain Plutonium7: Amended Record

393

Summary - Major Risk Factors Integrated Facility Disposition Project (IFDP) Oak Ridge, TN  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power.pdf11-161-LNGInternational EnergyCommittee onGASRainey STAR Center | ETR-19 UnitedK

394

Weapons engineering tritium facility overview  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Najera, Larry [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2011-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

395

Disposition of plutonium as non-fertile fuel for water reactors  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This is the final report of a three-year, Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The original intent of this project was to investigate the possible use of a new fuel form as a means of dispositioning the declared surplus inventory of weapons-grade plutonium. The focus soon changed, however, to managing the larger and rapidly growing inventories of plutonium arising in commercial spent nuclear fuel through implementation of a new fuel form in existing nuclear reactors. LANL embarked on a parallel path effort to study fuel performance using advanced physics codes, while also demonstrating the ability to fabricate a new fuel form using standard processes in LANL's Plutonium Facility. An evolutionary fuel form was also examined which could provide enhanced performance over standard fuel forms, but which could be implemented in a much shorter time frame than a completely new fuel form. Recent efforts have focused on implementation of results into global energy models and development of follow-on funding to continue this research.

Chidester, K.; Eaton, S.L.; Ramsey, K.B.

1998-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

396

On the quantification of safety margins  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Pagani, Lorenzo P

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

397

University Services University Health and Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Minnesota, University of

398

Safety assured financial evaluation of maintenance  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Erguina, Vera

2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

399

Materials Sciences Division Integrated Safety Management Plan  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

400

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the tank farms facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy 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 specific guidelines. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated as a minimum every three years.

Bachand, D.D.; Crummel, G.M.

1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

DOE plutonium disposition study: Analysis of existing ABB-CE Light Water Reactors for the disposition of weapons-grade plutonium. Final report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Core reactivity and basic fuel management calculations were conducted on the selected reactors (with emphasis on the System 80 units as being the most desirable choice). Methods used were identical to those reported in the Evolutionary Reactor Report. From these calculations, the basic mission capability was assessed. The selected reactors were studied for modification, such as the addition of control rod nozzles to increase rod worth, and internals and control system modifications that might also be needed. Other system modifications studied included the use of enriched boric acid as soluble poison, and examination of the fuel pool capacities. The basic geometry and mechanical characteristics, materials and fabrication techniques of the fuel assemblies for the selected existing reactors are the same as for System 80+. There will be some differences in plutonium loading, according to the ability of the reactors to load MOX fuel. These differences are not expected to affect licensability or EPA requirements. Therefore, the fuel technology and fuel qualification sections provided in the Evolutionary Reactor Report apply to the existing reactors. An additional factor, in that the existing reactor availability presupposes the use of that reactor for the irradiation of Lead Test Assemblies, is discussed. The reactor operating and facility licenses for the operating plants were reviewed. Licensing strategies for each selected reactor were identified. The spent fuel pool for the selected reactors (Palo Verde) was reviewed for capacity and upgrade requirements. Reactor waste streams were identified and assessed in comparison to uranium fuel operations. Cost assessments and schedules for converting to plutonium disposition were estimated for some of the major modification items. Economic factors (incremental costs associated with using weapons plutonium) were listed and where possible under the scope of work, estimates were made.

Not Available

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

402

Generation!and!Disposition!of!Municipal!Solid!Waste! (MSW)!in!the!United!States!A!National!Survey!  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

! 1! ! Generation!and!Disposition!of!Municipal!Solid!Waste! (MSW Waste (MSW) Generation and Disposition in the U.S., in collaboration with Ms. Nora Goldstein of Bio in 2012 and in 2013 EEC and BioCycle agreed that the 2013 Survey of Waste Generation and Disposition

403

MANAGING HANFORD'S LEGACY NO-PATH-FORWARD WASTES TO DISPOSITION  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office (RL) has adopted the 2015 Vision for Cleanup of the Hanford Site. This vision will protect the Columbia River, reduce the Site footprint, and reduce Site mortgage costs. The CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company's (CHPRC) Waste and Fuels Management Project (W&FMP) and their partners support this mission by providing centralized waste management services for the Hanford Site waste generating organizations. At the time of the CHPRC contract award (August 2008) slightly more than 9,000 m{sup 3} of waste was defined as 'no-path-forward waste.' The majority of these wastes are suspect transuranic mixed (TRUM) wastes which are currently stored in the low-level Burial Grounds (LLBG), or stored above ground in the Central Waste Complex (CWC). A portion of the waste will be generated during ongoing and future site cleanup activities. The DOE-RL and CHPRC have collaborated to identify and deliver safe, cost-effective disposition paths for 90% ({approx}8,000 m{sup 3}) of these problematic wastes. These paths include accelerated disposition through expanded use of offsite treatment capabilities. Disposal paths were selected that minimize the need to develop new technologies, minimize the need for new, on-site capabilities, and accelerate shipments of transuranic (TRU) waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

WEST LD

2011-01-13T23:59:59.000Z

404

Nuclear Criticality Safety Application Guide: Safety Analysis Report Update Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

405

Evaluation of Possible Surrogates for Validation of the Oxidation Furnace for the Plutonium Disposition Project  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Plutonium Disposition project (PuD) is considering an alternative furnace design for direct metal oxidation (DMO) of plutonium metal to use as a feed for potential disposition routes. The proposed design will use a retort to oxidize the feed at temperatures up to 500 C. The atmosphere will be controlled using a metered mixture of oxygen, helium and argon to control the oxidation at approximately 400 torr. Since plutonium melts at 664 C, and may potentially react with retort material to form a lower melting point eutectic, the oxidation process will be controlled by metering the flow of oxygen to ensure that the bulk temperature of the material does not exceed this temperature. A batch processing time of <24 hours is desirable to meet anticipated furnace throughput requirements. The design project includes demonstration of concept in a small-scale demonstration test (i.e., small scale) and validation of design in a full-scale test. These tests are recommended to be performed using Pu surrogates due to challenges in consideration of the nature of plutonium and operational constraints required when handling large quantities of accountable material. The potential for spreading contamination and exposing workers to harmful levels of cumulative radioactive dose are motivation to utilize non-radioactive surrogates. Once the design is demonstrated and optimized, implementation would take place in a facility designed to accommodate these constraints. Until then, the use of surrogates would be a safer, less expensive option for the validation phase of the project. This report examines the potential for use of surrogates in the demonstration and validation of the DMO furnace for PuD. This report provides a compilation of the technical information and process requirements for the conversion of plutonium metal to oxide by burning in dry environments. Several potential surrogates were evaluated by various criteria in order to select a suitable candidate for large scale demonstration. First, the structure of the plutonium metal/oxide interface was compared to potential surrogates. Second the data for plutonium oxidation kinetics were reviewed and rates for oxidation were compared with surrogates. The criteria used as a basis for recommendation was selected in order to provide a reasonable oxidation rate during the validation phase. Several reference documents were reviewed and used to compile the information in this report. Since oxidation of large monolithic pieces of plutonium in 75% oxygen is the preferable oxidizing atmosphere for the intended process, this report does not focus on the oxidation of powders, but focuses instead on larger samples in flowing gas.

Duncan, A.

2007-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

406

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY EMPLOYEE SAFETY ORIENTATION  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

: FS Vancouver: Ops CHEMICAL SAFETY 27265 CONTRACTOR SAFETY 23867 EARLY RETURN TO WORK 23011 EMERGENCYENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY EMPLOYEE SAFETY ORIENTATION SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY DEPARTMENT Discovery Park - MTF 8888 University Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5

407

Facility effluent monitoring plan for 242-A evaporator facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the U.S. Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could affect employee or public safety or the environment. A facility effluent monitoring plan determination was performed during Calendar Year 1991 and the evaluation showed the need for a facility effluent monitoring plan. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-1. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated, as a minimum, every three years.

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

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

408

Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Hazards Analysis Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

CROWE, R.D.

2000-08-07T23:59:59.000Z

409

System Design and the Safety Basis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Ellingson, Darrel

2008-05-06T23:59:59.000Z

410

Ris-R-1104(EN) Nuclear Safety Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

411

Ris-R-1162(EN) Nuclear Safety Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

412

Ris-R-1019(EN) Nuclear Safety Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

413

Safety of Nuclear Explosive Operations  

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

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

2001-08-07T23:59:59.000Z

414

Vehicle Management Driver Safety Program  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Machel, Hans

415

Safety Values  

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

* Work-related injuries, illnesses and environmental incidents are preventable. * A just culture exists where safety and environmental concerns are brought forward without fear of...

416

Radiation Safety  

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

Weeks of training * 15 of that is OJT * General Code of Operating Rules * Air Brake & Train Handling * System Special Instructions * Safety Instructions * Federal Regulations *...

417

Chemical Hazards and Safety Issues in Fusion Safety Design  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2003-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

418

Reactor-Based Plutonium Disposition: Opportunities, Options, and Issues  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The end of the Cold War has created a legacy of surplus fissile materials (plutonium and highly enriched uranium) in the United States (U.S.) and the former Soviet Union. These materials pose a danger to national and international security. During the past few years, the U.S. and Russia have engaged in an ongoing dialog concerning the safe storage and disposition of surplus fissile material stockpiles. In January 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the U. S. would pursue a dual track approach to rendering approximately 50 metric tons of plutonium inaccessible for use in nuclear weapons. One track involves immobilizing the plutonium by combining it with high-level radioactive waste in glass or ceramic ''logs''. The other method, referred to as reactor-based disposition, converts plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for nuclear reactors. The U.S. and Russia are moving ahead rapidly to develop and demonstrate the technology required to implement the MOX option in their respective countries. U.S. MOX fuel research and development activities were started in the 1950s, with irradiation of MOX fuel rods in commercial light water reactors (LWR) from the 1960s--1980s. In all, a few thousand MOX fuel rods were successfully irradiated. Though much of this work was performed with weapons-grade or ''near'' weapons-grade plutonium--and favorable fuel performance was observed--the applicability of this data for licensing and use of weapons-grade MOX fuel manufactured with modern fuel fabrication processes is somewhat limited. The U.S. and Russia are currently engaged in an intensive research, development, and demonstration program to support implementation of the MOX option in our two countries. This paper focuses on work performed in the U.S. and provides a brief summary of joint U.S./Russian work currently underway.

Greene, S.R.

1999-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

419

Non-Motorized Facility Inventory CTS Annual Transportation Research Conference  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Minnesota, University of

420

200 Area Deactivation Project Facilities Authorization Envelope Document  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

DODD, E.N.

2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs  

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

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

1995-11-22T23:59:59.000Z

422

Nuclear Safety  

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

and Management Services Department at INL involves providing advanced risk and reliability analytical capabilities to support complex engineered facilities and processes. The...

423

Procedures for the Proper Disposition of Equipment and Materials Through  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Material (ACM) 1. Description a. Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral that was used Health and Safety ~ Radiation Protection #12;Environmental Protection ~ Occupational Health and Safety ~ Radiation Protection Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Items Prohibited from Sale or Transfer A

Maroncelli, Mark

424

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Safety Policy  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, periodically inspect the facilities and work with the Safety office to identify hazards and unsafe work safety and health hazards. Supervisors are responsible for supervising and training workers in safe work reporting accidents, hazards, near-miss incidents and unsafe work practices to a supervisor, the Safety

425

Ris-R-984(EN) Nuclear Safety Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, Roskilde April 1997 #12;Abstract The report presents a summary of the work of the Nuclear Safety Re- search programmes and the Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Programme. This report describes the work of the departmentRis√ł-R-984(EN) Nuclear Safety Research and Facilities Department Annual Report 1996 Edited by B

426

Complications Associated with Long-Term Disposition of Newly-Generated Transuranic Waste: A National Laboratory Perspective  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is a multipurpose national laboratory delivering specialized science and engineering solutions for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Sponsorship of INL was formally transferred to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) by Secretary Spencer Abraham in July 2002. The move to NE, and designation as the DOE lead nuclear energy laboratory for reactor technology, supports the nationís expanding nuclear energy initiatives, placing INL at the center of work to develop advanced Generation IV nuclear energy systems; nuclear energy/hydrogen coproduction technology; advanced nuclear energy fuel cycle technologies; and providing national security answers to national infrastructure needs. As a result of the Laboratoryís NE mission, INL generates both contact-handled and remote-handled transuranic (TRU) waste from ongoing operations. Generation rates are relatively small and fluctuate based on specific programs and project activities being conducted; however, the Laboratory will continue to generate TRU waste well into the future in association with the NE mission. Currently, plans and capabilities are being established to transfer INLís contact-handled TRU waste to the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant (AMWTP) for certification and disposal to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Remote-handled TRU waste is currently placed in storage at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC). In an effort to minimize future liabilities associated with the INL NE mission, INL is evaluating and assessing options for the management and disposition of all its TRU waste on a real-time basis at time of generation. This paper summarizes near-term activities to minimize future re handling of INLís TRU waste, as well as, potential complications associated with the long-term disposition of newly-generated TRU waste. Potential complications impacting the disposition of INL newly-generated TRU waste include, but are not limited to: 1) required remote-handled TRU packaging configuration(s) vs. current facility capabilities, 2) long-term NE mission activities, 3) WIPP certification requirements, and 4) budget considerations.

B.J. Orchard; L.A. Harvego; T.L. Carlson; R.P. Grant

2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

427

EM Makes Significant Progress on Dispositioning Transuranic Waste at Idaho Site  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho Ė EM and contractor CH2M-WG, IDAHO, LLC (CWI) made significant progress in 2013 dispositioning transuranic (TRU) waste and helping ship it out of Idaho.

428

Environmental behavior of hafnium : the impact on the disposition of weapons-grade plutonium  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Experimental and analytical studies were performed to examine the environmental behavior of hafnium and its utility as a neutron poison for the disposition of weapons-grade plutonium in Yucca Mountain. The hydrolysis of ...

Cerefice, Gary Steven

1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

429

US weapons-useable plutonium disposition policy: implementation of the MOX fuel option  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

US WEAPONS-USEABLE PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION POLICY: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOX FUEL OPTION A Thesis by VANESSA L. GONZALEZ Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas ARM University in partial fulfillment of the requirements... for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 1998 Major Subject: Political Science US WEAPONS-USEABLE PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION POLICY: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOX FUEL OPTION A Thesis by VANESSA L. GONZALEZ Submitted to Texas ARM University in partial fulfillment...

Gonzalez, Vanessa L

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

430

Department Safety Representatives Department Safety Representative  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Department Safety Representatives Overview Department Safety Representative Program/Operations Guidance Document The Department Safety Representative (DSR) serves a very important role with implementation of safety, health, and environmental programs on campus. The role of the DSR is to assist

Pawlowski, Wojtek

431

Idaho National Laboratory Safety Presentations  

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

* Hand Tool Safety * Protect Your Hearing * Water Safety * Home Firearms Safety * Bicycle Safety * Pedestrian Safety * Others Outdoor Survival Safety (K-Middle School) What to...

432

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

emergencies, Le. , accidents at nuclear facilities, there isas a result of nuclear accidents; these are the Protectiveassociated with a nuclear accident is of greater importance

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

433

Safety Bulletin  

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

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

434

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY GENERAL SAFETY MANUAL  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Maroncelli, Mark

435

LASER SAFETY POLICY MANUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Houston, Paul L.

436

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Eisen, Michael

437

Safety, Security & Fire Report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

2013 Safety, Security & Fire Report Stanford University #12;Table of Contents Public Safety About the Stanford University Department of Public Safety Community Outreach & Education Programs Emergency Access Transportation Safety Bicycle Safety The Jeanne Clery and Higher Education Act Timely Warning

Straight, Aaron

438

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

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

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

2014-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

439

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

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

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

2013-08-30T23:59:59.000Z

440

BLENDING STUDY FOR SRR SALT DISPOSITION INTEGRATION: TANK 50H SCALE-MODELING AND COMPUTER-MODELING FOR BLENDING PUMP DESIGN, PHASE 2  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Salt Disposition Integration (SDI) portfolio of projects provides the infrastructure within existing Liquid Waste facilities to support the startup and long term operation of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). Within SDI, the Blend and Feed Project will equip existing waste tanks in the Tank Farms to serve as Blend Tanks where 300,000-800,000 gallons of salt solution will be blended in 1.3 million gallon tanks and qualified for use as feedstock for SWPF. Blending requires the miscible salt solutions from potentially multiple source tanks per batch to be well mixed without disturbing settled sludge solids that may be present in a Blend Tank. Disturbing solids may be problematic both from a feed quality perspective as well as from a process safety perspective where hydrogen release from the sludge is a potential flammability concern. To develop the necessary technical basis for the design and operation of blending equipment, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) completed scaled blending and transfer pump tests and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling. A 94 inch diameter pilot-scale blending tank, including tank internals such as the blending pump, transfer pump, removable cooling coils, and center column, were used in this research. The test tank represents a 1/10.85 scaled version of an 85 foot diameter, Type IIIA, nuclear waste tank that may be typical of Blend Tanks used in SDI. Specifically, Tank 50 was selected as the tank to be modeled per the SRR, Project Engineering Manager. SRNL blending tests investigated various fixed position, non-rotating, dual nozzle pump designs, including a blending pump model provided by the blend pump vendor, Curtiss Wright (CW). Primary research goals were to assess blending times and to evaluate incipient sludge disturbance for waste tanks. Incipient sludge disturbance was defined by SRR and SRNL as minor blending of settled sludge from the tank bottom into suspension due to blending pump operation, where the sludge level was shown to remain constant. To experimentally model the sludge layer, a very thin, pourable, sludge simulant was conservatively used for all testing. To experimentally model the liquid, supernate layer above the sludge in waste tanks, two salt solution simulants were used, which provided a bounding range of supernate properties. One solution was water (H{sub 2}O + NaOH), and the other was an inhibited, more viscous salt solution. The research performed and data obtained significantly advances the understanding of fluid mechanics, mixing theory and CFD modeling for nuclear waste tanks by benchmarking CFD results to actual experimental data. This research significantly bridges the gap between previous CFD models and actual field experiences in real waste tanks. A finding of the 2009, DOE, Slurry Retrieval, Pipeline Transport and Plugging, and Mixing Workshop was that CFD models were inadequate to assess blending processes in nuclear waste tanks. One recommendation from that Workshop was that a validation, or bench marking program be performed for CFD modeling versus experiment. This research provided experimental data to validate and correct CFD models as they apply to mixing and blending in nuclear waste tanks. Extensive SDI research was a significant step toward bench marking and applying CFD modeling. This research showed that CFD models not only agreed with experiment, but demonstrated that the large variance in actual experimental data accounts for misunderstood discrepancies between CFD models and experiments. Having documented this finding, SRNL was able to provide correction factors to be used with CFD models to statistically bound full scale CFD results. Through the use of pilot scale tests performed for both types of pumps and available engineering literature, SRNL demonstrated how to effectively apply CFD results to salt batch mixing in full scale waste tanks. In other words, CFD models were in error prior to development of experimental correction factors determined during this research, which provided a technique to use CFD models fo

Leishear, R.; Poirier, M.; Fowley, M.

2011-05-26T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Tank farms criticality safety manual  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

FORT, L.A.

2003-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

442

Microsoft Word - 11-21605_Nuclear_Facility_Boundary_White_Paper...  

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

those specified for the nuclear - industrial facility boundary. g. Functions from NGNP white paper, INLEXT-10-19509, "Structures, Systems, and Components Safety Classification,"...

443

Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting  

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

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

2003-08-19T23:59:59.000Z

444

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

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

2007-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

445

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

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

2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

446

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

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

2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

447

Plutonium Finishing Plant safety evaluation report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Not Available

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

448

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY ORIENTATION HANDBOOK Environmental Health and Safety Office safety & Safety Office 494-2495 (Phone) 494-2996 (Fax) Safety.Office@dal.ca (E-mail) www.dal.ca/safety (Web) Radiation Safety Office 494-1938 (Phone) 494-2996 (Fax) Melissa.Michaud@dal.ca (E-mail) University

Brownstone, Rob

449

Reactor Safety Research Programs  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Dotson, CW

1980-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

450

Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning Program Surveillance and Maintenance Plan, Revision 2  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M) Plan describes the activities performed between deactivation and final decommissioning of the following facilities located on the Nevada National Security Site, as documented in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order under the Industrial Sites program as decontamination and decommissioning sites: ? Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (EMAD) Facility: o EMAD Building (Building 25-3900) o Locomotive Storage Shed (Building 25-3901) ? Test Cell C (TCC) Facility: o Equipment Building (Building 25-3220) o Motor Drive Building (Building 25-3230) o Pump Shop (Building 25-3231) o Cryogenic Lab (Building 25-3232) o Ancillary Structures (e.g., dewars, water tower, piping, tanks) These facilities have been declared excess and are in various stages of deactivation (low-risk, long-term stewardship disposition state). This S&M Plan establishes and implements a solid, cost-effective, and balanced S&M program consistent with federal, state, and regulatory requirements. A graded approach is used to plan and conduct S&M activities. The goal is to maintain the facilities in a safe condition in a cost-effective manner until their final end state is achieved. This plan accomplishes the following: ? Establishes S&M objectives and framework ? Identifies programmatic guidance for S&M activities to be conducted by National Security Technologies, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) ? Provides present facility condition information and identifies hazards ? Identifies facility-specific S&M activities to be performed and their frequency ? Identifies regulatory drivers, NNSA/NFO policies and procedures, and best management practices that necessitate implementation of S&M activities ? Provides criteria and frequencies for revisions and updates ? Establishes the process for identifying and dispositioning a condition that has not been previously identified or documented ? Provides instructions for implementing annual S&M inspections and activities The following facilities that were included in Revision 1 of this plan have reached final disposition and are no longer in the S&M program: ? Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly Facility, Building 25-3110 ? Test Cell A Facility, Building 25-3113 ? TCC Facility, Building 25-3210 ? Pluto Disassembly Facility, Building 26-2201 ? Super Kukla Facility, Building 27-5400

Poderis, Reed J. [NSTec] [NSTec; King, Rebecca A. [NSTec] [NSTec

2013-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

451

DEVELOPMENT OF GLASS AND CRYSTALLINE CERAMIC FORMS FOR DISPOSITION OF EXCESS PLUTONIUM  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has identified up to 50 metric tons of excess plutonium that needs to be dispositioned. The bulk of the material is slated to be blended with uranium and fabricated into a Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel for subsequent burning in commercial nuclear reactors. Excess plutonium-containing impurity materials making it unsuitable for fabrication into MOX fuel will need to be dispositioned via other means. Glass and crystalline ceramics have been developed and studied as candidate forms to immobilize these impure plutonium feeds. A titanate-based ceramic was identified as an excellent actinide material host. This composition was based on Synroc compositions previously developed for nuclear waste immobilization. These titanate ceramics were found to be able to accommodate extremely high quantities of fissile material and exhibit excellent aqueous durability. A lanthanide borosilicate (LaBS) glass was developed to accommodate high concentrations of plutonium and to be very tolerant of impurities yet still maintain good aqueous durability. Recent testing of alkali borosilicate compositions showed promise of using these compositions to disposition lower concentrations of plutonium using existing high level waste vitrification processes. The developed waste forms all appear to be suitable for Pu disposition. Depending on the actual types and concentrations of the Pu residue streams slated for disposition, each waste form offers unique advantages.

Marra, James; Cozzi, A; Crawford, C.; Herman, C.; Marra, John; Peeler, D.

2009-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

452

Environment, Safety and Health Reporting  

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

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

2011-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

453

Environment, Safety and Health Reporting  

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

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

2011-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

454

Gas Pipeline Safety (Indiana)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This section establishes the Pipeline Safety Division within the Utility Regulatory Commission to administer federal pipeline safety standards and establish minimum state safety standards for...

455

Electrical Safety Committee Charter  

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

ANL Electrical Safety Page DOE Electrical Safety Handbook General Statement Home & Office Equipment Statement APS Electrical Safety Update Guidelines for Working on Voltages < 240...

456

Safety Overview Committee (SOC)  

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

(SOC) Charter 1. Purpose The Safety Overview Committee establishes safety policies and ad hoc safety committees. 2. Membership Membership will include the following individuals:...

457

Asymptotic Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Asymptotic safety is a set of conditions, based on the existence of a nontrivial fixed point for the renormalization group flow, which would make a quantum field theory consistent up to arbitrarily high energies. After introducing the basic ideas of this approach, I review the present evidence in favor of an asymptotically safe quantum field theory of gravity.

R. Percacci

2008-11-18T23:59:59.000Z

458

Environment, Safety and Health Reporting  

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

To ensure timely collection, reporting, analysis, and dissemination of information on environment, safety, and health issues as required by law or regulations or as needed to ensure that the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration are kept fully informed on a timely basis about events that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or the workers, the environment, the intended purpose of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 210.1, DOE O 231.1, DOE O 232.1A. Canceled by DOE O 231.1B. DOE O 231.1B cancels all portions pertaining to environment, safety, and health reporting. Occurrence reporting and processing of operations information provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2012.

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

459

Machine Shop Safety Tips & Safety Guidelines GENERAL SAFETY TIPS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Machine Shop Safety Tips & Safety Guidelines GENERAL SAFETY TIPS · Safety glasses with side shields distance away from moving machine parts, work pieces, and cutters. · Use hand tools for their designed to oil, clean, adjust, or repair any machine while it is running. Stop the machine and lock the power

Veiga, Pedro Manuel Barbosa

460

Setting clear expectations for safety basis development  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

DOE-RL has set clear expectations for a cost-effective approach for achieving compliance with the Nuclear Safety Management requirements (10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Rule) which will ensure long-term benefit to Hanford. To facilitate implementation of these expectations, tools were developed to streamline and standardize safety analysis and safety document development resulting in a shorter and more predictable DOE approval cycle. A Hanford Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment Handbook (SARAH) was issued to standardized methodologies for development of safety analyses. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (RADIDOSE) was issued for the evaluation of radiological consequences for accident scenarios often postulated for Hanford. A standard Site Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) detailing the safety management programs was issued for use as a means of compliance with a majority of 3009 Standard chapters. An in-process review was developed between DOE and the Contractor to facilitate DOE approval and provide early course correction. As a result of setting expectations and providing safety analysis tools, the four Hanford Site waste management nuclear facilities were able to integrate into one Master Waste Management Documented Safety Analysis (WM-DSA).

MORENO, M.R.

2003-05-03T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "facility disposition safety" 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

Generation!and!Disposition!of!Municipal!Solid!Waste! (MSW)!in!the!United!States!A!National!Survey!  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

! 1! ! Generation!and!Disposition!of!Municipal!Solid!Waste! (MSW on Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Generation and Disposition in the U.S., in collaboration with Ms. Nora Goldstein was not carried out in 2012 and in 2013 EEC and BioCycle agreed that the 2013 Survey of Waste Generation

Columbia University

462

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY and HEALTH  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

MARYLAND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY and HEALTH ACT safety and health protection on the job STATE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM Complaints about State Program administration may be made to Regional Administrator, Occupational Safety

Weaver, Harold A. "Hal"

463

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Department of Occupational Health and Safety Revised December 2009 #12;Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Management System 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Management of Health and Safety

464

INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT OF STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER AT THE SEPARATIONS PROCESS RESEARCH UNIT (SPRU) DISPOSITION PROJECT, NEW YORK  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently evaluating the water management procedures at the Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU). The facility has three issues related to water management that require technical assistance: (1) due to a excessive rainfall event in October, 2010, contaminated water collected in basements of G2 and H2 buildings. As a result of this event, the contractor has had to collect and dispose of water offsite; (2) The failure of a sump pump at a KAPL outfall resulted in a Notice of Violation issued by the New York State Department of Environment and Conservation (NYSDEC) and subsequent Consent Order. On-site water now requires treatment and off-site disposition; and (3) stormwater infiltration has resulted in Strontium-90 levels discharged to the storm drains that exceed NR standards. The contractor has indicated that water management at SPRU requires major staff resources (at least 50 persons). The purpose of this review is to determine if the contractor's technical approach warrants the large number of staff resources and to ensure that the technical approach is compliant and in accordance with federal, state and NR requirements.

Abitz, R.; Jackson, D.; Eddy-Dilek, C.

2011-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

465

Decommissioning of Active Ventilation Systems in a Nuclear R and D Facility to Prepare for Building Demolition (Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning Project, Canada) - 13073  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Whiteshell Laboratories (WL) is a nuclear research establishment owned by the Canadian government and operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) since the early 1960's. WL is currently under a decommissioning license and the mandate is to remediate the nuclear legacy liabilities in a safe and cost effective manner. The WL Project is the first major nuclear decommissioning project in Canada. A major initiative underway is to decommission and demolish the main R and D Laboratory complex. The Building 300 R and D complex was constructed to accommodate laboratories and offices which were mainly used for research and development associated with organic-cooled reactors, nuclear fuel waste management, reactor safety, advanced fuel cycles and other applications of nuclear energy. Building 300 is a three storey structure of approximately 16,000 m{sup 2}. In order to proceed with building demolition, the contaminated systems inside the building have to be characterized, removed, and the waste managed. There is a significant focus on volume reduction of radioactive waste for the WL project. The active ventilation system is one of the significant contaminated systems in Building 300 that requires decommissioning and removal. The active ventilation system was designed to manage hazardous fumes and radioactivity from ventilation devices (e.g., fume hoods, snorkels and glove boxes) and to prevent the escape of airborne hazardous material outside of the laboratory boundary in the event of an upset condition. The system includes over 200 ventilation devices and 32 active exhaust fan units and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. The strategy to remove the ventilation system was to work from the laboratory end back to the fan/filter system. Each ventilation duct was radiologically characterized. Fogging was used to minimize loose contamination. Sections of the duct were removed by various cutting methods and bagged for temporary storage prior to disposition. Maintenance of building heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) balancing was critical to ensure proper airflow and worker safety. Approximately 103 m{sup 3} of equipment and materials were recovered or generated by the project. Low level waste accounted for approximately 37.4 m{sup 3}. Where possible, ducting was free released for metal recycling. Contaminated ducts were compacted into B-1000 containers and stored in a Shielded Modular Above-Ground Storage Facility (SMAGS) on the WL site awaiting final disposition. The project is divided into three significant phases, with Phases 1 and 2 completed. Lessons learned during the execution of Phases 1 and 2 have been incorporated into the current ventilation removal. (authors)

Wilcox, Brian; May, Doug; Howlett, Don; Bilinsky, Dennis [Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Ara Mooradian Way, Pinawa, Manitoba (Canada)] [Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Ara Mooradian Way, Pinawa, Manitoba (Canada)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

466

Fuel qualification issues and strategies for reactor-based surplus plutonium disposition  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed irradiation of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in existing commercial reactors as a disposition method for surplus plutonium from the weapons program. The burning of MOX fuel in reactors is supported by an extensive technology base; however, the infrastructure required to implement reactor-based plutonium disposition does not exist domestically. This report identifies and examines the actions required to qualify and license weapons-grade (WG) plutonium-based MOX fuels for use in domestic commercial light-water reactors (LWRs).

Cowell, B.S.; Copeland, G.L.; Moses, D.L.

1997-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

467

Safety analysis, 200 Area, Savannah River Plant: Separations area operations  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The nev HB-Line, located on the fifth and sixth levels of Building 221-H, is designed to replace the aging existing HB-Line production facility. The nev HB-Line consists of three separate facilities: the Scrap Recovery Facility, the Neptunium Oxide Facility, and the Plutonium Oxide Facility. There are three separate safety analyses for the nev HB-Line, one for each of the three facilities. These are issued as supplements to the 200-Area Safety Analysis (DPSTSA-200-10). These supplements are numbered as Sup 2A, Scrap Recovery Facility, Sup 2B, Neptunium Oxide Facility, Sup 2C, Plutonium Oxide Facility. The subject of this safety analysis, the, Plutonium Oxide Facility, will convert nitrate solutions of {sup 238}Pu to plutonium oxide (PuO{sub 2}) powder. All these new facilities incorporate improvements in: (1) engineered barriers to contain contamination, (2) barriers to minimize personnel exposure to airborne contamination, (3) shielding and remote operations to decrease radiation exposure, and (4) equipment and ventilation design to provide flexibility and improved process performance.

Perkins, W.C.; Lee, R.; Allen, P.M.; Gouge, A.P.

1991-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

468

Safety harness  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A safety harness to be worn by a worker, especially a worker wearing a plastic suit thereunder for protection in a radioactive or chemically hostile environment, which safety harness comprises a torso surrounding portion with at least one horizontal strap for adjustably securing the harness about the torso, two vertical shoulder straps with rings just forward of the of the peak of the shoulders for attaching a life-line and a pair of adjustable leg supporting straps releasibly attachable to the torso surrounding portion. In the event of a fall, the weight of the worker, when his fall is broken and he is suspended from the rings with his body angled slightly back and chest up, will be borne by the portion of the leg straps behind his buttocks rather than between his legs. Furthermore, the supporting straps do not restrict the air supplied through hoses into his suit when so suspended.

Gunter, Larry W. (615 Sand Pit Rd., Leesville, SC 29070)

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

469

FPS 12.1 Life Safety, 5/24/2000  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The objective of this surveillance is for the Facility Representative to verify that conditions in the plant provide an appropriate level of life safety for workers conducting operations in the...

470

Safety valve  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

The safety valve contains a resilient gland to be held between a valve seat and a valve member and is secured to the valve member by a sleeve surrounding the end of the valve member adjacent to the valve seat. The sleeve is movable relative to the valve member through a limited axial distance and a gap exists between said valve member and said sleeve.

Bergman, Ulf C. (Malmoe, SE)

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

471

Russell Furr Laboratory Safety &  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Russell Furr Director 8/20/13 Laboratory Safety & Compliance #12;#12;Research Safety Full Time Students Part- Time #12; Organizational Changes Office of Research Safety Research Safety Advisors Safety Culture Survey Fire Marshal Inspections Laboratory Plans Review New Research Safety Initiatives

472

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Office of Inspector GeneralDepartment of Energy fromComments onReplyofRetiring ProcurementReturn onRevenueNOT

473

Final Safety Evaluation Report to license the construction and operation of a facility to receive, store, and dispose of 11e.(2) byproduct material near Clive, Utah (Docket No. 40-8989)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) summarizes the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff`s review of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.`s (Envirocare`s) application for a license to receive, store, and dispose of uranium and thorium byproduct material (as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) at a site near Clive, Utah. Envirocare proposes to dispose of high-volume, low-activity Section 11e.(2) byproduct material in separate earthen disposal cells on a site where the applicant currently disposes of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), low-level waste, and mixed waste under license by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The NRC staff review of the December 23, 1991, license application, as revised by page changes dated July 2 and August 10, 1992, April 5, 7, and 10, 1993, and May 3, 6, 7, 11, and 21, 1993, has identified open issues in geotechnical engineering, water resources protection, radon attenuation, financial assurance, and radiological safety. The NRC will not issue a license for the proposed action until Envirocare adequately resolves these open issues.

Not Available

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

474

2011 Annual Criticality Safety Program Performance Summary  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The 2011 review of the INL Criticality Safety Program has determined that the program is robust and effective. The review was prepared for, and fulfills Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) item H.20, 'Annual Criticality Safety Program performance summary that includes the status of assessments, issues, corrective actions, infractions, requirements management, training, and programmatic support.' This performance summary addresses the status of these important elements of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Assessments - Assessments in 2011 were planned and scheduled. The scheduled assessments included a Criticality Safety Program Effectiveness Review, Criticality Control Area Inspections, a Protection of Controlled Unclassified Information Inspection, an Assessment of Criticality Safety SQA, and this management assessment of the Criticality Safety Program. All of the assessments were completed with the exception of the 'Effectiveness Review' for SSPSF, which was delayed due to emerging work. Although minor issues were identified in the assessments, no issues or combination of issues indicated that the INL Criticality Safety Program was ineffective. The identification of issues demonstrates the importance of an assessment program to the overall health and effectiveness of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Issues and Corrective Actions - There are relatively few criticality safety related issues in the Laboratory ICAMS system. Most were identified by Criticality Safety Program assessments. No issues indicate ineffectiveness in the INL Criticality Safety Program. All of the issues are being worked and there are no imminent criticality concerns. Infractions - There was one criticality safety related violation in 2011. On January 18, 2011, it was discovered that a fuel plate bundle in the Nuclear Materials Inspection and Storage (NMIS) facility exceeded the fissionable mass limit, resulting in a technical safety requirement (TSR) violation. The TSR limits fuel plate bundles to 1085 grams U-235, which is the maximum loading of an ATR fuel element. The overloaded fuel plate bundle contained 1097 grams U-235 and was assembled under an 1100 gram U-235 limit in 1982. In 2003, the limit was reduced to 1085 grams citing a new criticality safety evaluation for ATR fuel elements. The fuel plate bundle inventories were not checked for compliance prior to implementing the reduced limit. A subsequent review of the NMIS inventory did not identify further violations. Requirements Management - The INL Criticality Safety program is organized and well documented. The source requirements for the INL Criticality Safety Program are from 10 CFR 830.204, DOE Order 420.1B, Chapter III, 'Nuclear Criticality Safety,' ANSI/ANS 8-series Industry Standards, and DOE Standards. These source requirements are documented in LRD-18001, 'INL Criticality Safety Program Requirements Manual.' The majority of the criticality safety source requirements are contained in DOE Order 420.1B because it invokes all of the ANSI/ANS 8-Series Standards. DOE Order 420.1B also invokes several DOE Standards, including DOE-STD-3007, 'Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities.' DOE Order 420.1B contains requirements for DOE 'Heads of Field Elements' to approve the criticality safety program and specific elements of the program, namely, the qualification of criticality staff and the method for preparing criticality safety evaluations. This was accomplished by the approval of SAR-400, 'INL Standardized Nuclear Safety Basis Manual,' Chapter 6, 'Prevention of Inadvertent Criticality.' Chapter 6 of SAR-400 contains sufficient detail and/or reference to the specific DOE and contractor documents that adequately describe the INL Criticality Safety Program per the elements specified in DOE Order 420.1B. The Safety Evaluation Report for SAR-400 specifically recognizes that the approval of SAR-400 approves the INL Criticality Safety Program. No new source requirements were released in 2011. A revision to LRD-18001 is

Andrea Hoffman

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

475

Audit Report The Procurement of Safety Class/Safety-Significant Items at the Savannah River Site  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Department of Energy operates several nuclear facilities at its Savannah River Site, and several additional facilities are under construction. This includes the National Nuclear Security Administration's Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) which is designated to help maintain the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX Facility) is being constructed to manufacture commercial nuclear reactor fuel assemblies from weapon-grade plutonium oxide and depleted uranium. The Interim Salt Processing (ISP) project, managed by the Office of Environmental Management, will treat radioactive waste. The Department has committed to procuring products and services for nuclear-related activities that meet or exceed recognized quality assurance standards. Such standards help to ensure the safety and performance of these facilities. To that end, it issued Departmental Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance (QA Order). The QA Order requires the application of Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (NQA-1) for nuclear-related activities. The NQA-1 standard provides requirements and guidelines for the establishment and execution of quality assurance programs during the siting, design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. These requirements, promulgated by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, must be applied to 'safety-class' and 'safety-significant' structures, systems and components (SSCs). Safety-class SSCs are defined as those necessary to prevent exposure off site and to protect the public. Safety-significant SSCs are those whose failure could irreversibly impact worker safety such as a fatality, serious injury, or significant radiological or chemical exposure. Due to the importance of protecting the public, workers, and environment, we initiated an audit to determine whether the Department of Energy procured safety-class and safety-significant SSCs that met NQA-1 standards at the Savannah River Site. Our review disclosed that the Department had procured and installed safety-class and safety-significant SSCs that did not meet NQA-1 quality standards. Specifically, we identified multiple instances in which critical components did not meet required quality and safety standards. For example: (1) Three structural components were procured and installed by the prime contractor at Savannah River during construction of the MOX Facility that did not meet the technical specifications for items relied on for safety. These substandard items necessitated costly and time consuming remedial action to, among other things, ensure that nonconforming materials and equipment would function within safety margins; (2) In six instances, items used in the construction of TEF failed to satisfy quality standards. In one of these situations, operating procedures had to be modified to ensure that the problem item did not compromise safety; and (3) Finally, at the ISP, one component that did not meet quality standards was procured. The failure of the item could have resulted in a spill of up to 15,000 gallons of high-level radioactive waste. Based on an extensive examination of relevant internal controls and procurement practices, we concluded that these failures were attributable to inadequate attention to quality assurance at Savannah River. Simply put, Departmental controls were not adequate to prevent and/or detect quality assurance problems. For example, Federal and prime contractor officials did not expressly require that subcontractors or lower-tiered vendors comply with quality assurance requirements. Additionally, management did not effectively communicate quality assurance concerns between the several Departmental program elements operating at Savannah River. The procurement and installation of these nonconforming components resulted in cost increases. For example, as of October 2008, the MOX Facility had incurred costs of more than $680,000 due to problems associated with the procurement of $11 million of nonconforming safety-class reinforcing steel.

None

2009-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

476

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the plutonium-uranium extraction facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Lohrasbi, J.; Johnson, D.L. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); De Lorenzo, D.S. [Los Alamos Technical Associates, NM (United States)

1993-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

477

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility Module 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in 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. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure lonq-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated as a minimum every three years.

Lewis, C.J.

1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

478

Overview of US fast-neutron facilities and testing capabilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

479

Sealed Source Security and Disposition: Progress and Prospects - 13515  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Due to their high activity and portability, unsecured or abandoned sealed sources could cause significant health or environmental damage. Further, some of these sources could be used either individually or in aggregate in radiological dispersal devices commonly referred to as 'dirty bombs', resulting in significant social disruption and economic impacts in the billions of dollars. Disposal access for disused sealed sources, however, has been a serious challenge. From 2008 to 2012, sealed source disposal was available to only 14 states; additionally, waste acceptance criteria for sealed sources at the low-level waste disposal facilities in operation both prior to and after 2012 exclude some common yet potentially dangerous sealed sources. Recent developments, however, suggest that significant improvement in addressing this challenge is possible, although challenges remain. These developments include 1) the initiation of operations at the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility in Andrews County, Texas; 2) the potential for significant revisions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 1995 'Final Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation' (1995 BTP); and 3) the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's (UDEQ) approval of a license variance for sealed source disposal at the EnergySolutions LLRW disposal facility near Clive, Utah. (authors)

Jennison, Meaghan [National Nuclear Security Administration, Washington, DC (United States)] [National Nuclear Security Administration, Washington, DC (United States); Martin, David W. [National Nuclear Security Administration/Energetics Inc., Washington, DC (United States)] [National Nuclear Security Administration/Energetics Inc., Washington, DC (United States); Cuthbertson, Abigail [US DOE, Washington, DC (United States)] [US DOE, Washington, DC (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

480

Environmental Health & Safety Office of Radiological Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Environmental Health & Safety Office of Radiological Safety Page 1 of 2 FORM LU-1 Revision 01 1 safety training and submit this registration to the LSO prior to u