Sample records for helium-48 cfr subpart

  1. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Miscellaneous and other units (40 CFR part 264, subpart X and 40 CFR 265, subparts P, Q, and R) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module describes the basic requirements and types of units of 40 CFR 264, Subpart X and standards for broadly defined treatment processes - Thermal Treatment (Part 265, Subpart P); Chemical, Physical, and Biological Treatment (Subpart Q); and Underground Injection (Subpart R). It explains when corrective action applies to these subparts and presents the relationship between Part 264, Subpart X, and Part 265, Subparts P, Q, and R.

  2. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Miscellaneous and other units (40 cfr part 264, subpart x and 40 cfr part 265, subparts p, q, and r) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module describes the basic requirements and types of units of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart X and standards for broadly defined treatment processes - Thermal treatment (Part 265, Subpart P); chemical, physical, and biological treatment (Subpart Q); and underground injection (Subpart R). Explains when corrective action applies to these subparts. It presents the relationship between Part 264, Subpart X, and Part 265, Subparts P, Q, and R.

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

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

    2001-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    2011-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (40 cfr parts 264/265, subparts a-e) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The management of hazardous waste at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) plays a large and critical role in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory scheme. The training module presents an overview of the general TSDF standards found in 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subparts A through E.

  6. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Consideration, underground interconnections among bodies of surface water, groundwater, and underground sources of drinking the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and their interconnections. A USDW is defined in 40 CFR §191.22 (2000

  7. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Compliance sources of drinking water are expected to be affected by the disposal system, underground interconnections Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and their interconnections. A USDW is defined in 40 CFR §191.228 (U.S. EPA 1993

  8. Technical support for amending standards for management of uranium byproduct materials: 40 cfr part 192-subpart d. Background information document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending 40 CFR 192, Subpart D, dealing with disposal of uranium mill tailings at non-operational sites licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an agreement state pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978. The Background Information Document (BID) was prepared in support of the rulemaking proceedings for EPA's action. The BID only considers long-term disposal of tailings at facilities licensed by the NRC or an agreement state, and designated Title II facilities in the UMTRCA.

  9. Implementing 10 CFR Part 830 Subpart B at WIPP

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCormick, J.; Ortiz, C.; Carter, M.; Niemi, B.; Farrell, R.

    2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

    Implementation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 830, Subpart B Nuclear Safety Management (1) was accomplished at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in a timely and efficient manner. The primary reason the transition went smoothly was that the existing safety analysis was relatively new, initially developed in 1995, and written in accordance with the safe harbor document DOE-STD-3009 (2). The WIPP Safety Analysis Report (SAR) (3) is kept up-to-date with the unreviewed safety question (USQ) process and thorough oversight and input provided by DOE-Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) documented in the annual safety evaluation report (SER) process.

  10. Draft forecast of the final report for the comparison to 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B, for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bertram-Howery, S.G.; Marietta, M.G.; Anderson, D.R.; Gomez, L.S.; Rechard, R.P. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA)); Brinster, K.F.; Guzowski, R.V. (Science Applications International Corp., Albuquerque, NM (USA))

    1989-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The United States Department of Energy is planning to dispose of transuranic wastes, which have been generated by defense programs, at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The WIPP Project will assess compliance with the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This report forecasts the planned 1992 document, Comparison to 40 CFR, Part 191, Subpart B, for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). 130 refs., 36 figs., 11 tabs.

  11. Preliminary comparison with 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bertram-Howery, S.G.; Marietta, M.G.; Rechard, R.P.; Anderson, D.R. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA)); Swift, P.N. (Tech. Reps., Inc., Albuquerque, NM (USA)); Baker, B.L. (Technadyne Engineering Consultants, Inc., Albuquerque, NM (USA)); Bean, J.E. Jr.; McCurley, R.D.; Rudeen, D.K. (New Mexico Engineering Research Inst., Albuquerque, NM (USA)); Beyeler, W.; Brinster, K.F.; Guzowski, R.V.; Sch

    1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is planned as the first mined geologic repository for transuranic (TRU) wastes generated by defense programs of the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Before disposing of waste at the WIPP, the DOE must evaluate compliance with the United states Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Standard, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR Part 191, US EPA, 1985). Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is evaluating long-term performance against criteria in Subpart B of the Standard. Performance assessment'' as used in this report includes analyses for the Containment Requirements ({section} 191.13(a)) and the Individual Protection Requirements ({section} 191.15). Because proving predictions about future human actions or natural events is not possible, the EPA expects compliance to be determined on the basis of specified quantitative analyses and informed, qualitative judgment. The goal of the WIPP performance-assessment team at SNL is to provide as detailed and thorough a basis as practical for the quantitative aspects of that decision. This report summarizes SNL's late-1990 understanding of the WIPP Project's ability to evaluate compliance with Subpart B. 245 refs., 88 figs., 23 tabs.

  12. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Tanks (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart j) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module identifies, based on tank contents and operation, tanks that are regulated under parts 264/265, subpart J. It defines specific terms pertaining to hazardous waste tanks, and provides CFR or Federal Register citations. It distinguishes `new tanks` from `existing tanks` and identifies how this status affects applicable regulations. It discusses secondary containment requirements for liners, vaults, and double-walled tanks, as well as secondary containment for ancillary equipment. It identifies which of the hazardous waste requirements were promulgated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) and non-HSWA authority and explains how each applies in authorized and unauthorized states.

  13. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to tanks (40 CFR part 264/265, subpart J) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module identifies, based on tank contents and operation, tanks that are regulated under Parts 264/265, Subpart J. It defines specific terms pertaining to hazardous waste tanks and provides CFR or Federal Register citations. It distinguishes new tanks from existing tanks and identifies how this status affects applicable regulations. It also discusses secondary containment requirements for liners, vaults, and double-walled tanks, as well as secondary containment for ancillary equipment. It identifies which of the hazardous waste requirements were promulgated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) and non-HSWA authority and explains how each applies in authorized and unauthorized states.

  14. Notice of Intent to Revise DOE G 414.1-1B, Management and Independent Assessments Guide for Use with 10 CFR, Part 830, Subpart A, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance; DOE M 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System Manual; and DOE O 226.1A

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

    2013-04-18T23:59:59.000Z

    This memorandum provides justification for revising DOE G 414.1-1B, Management and Independent Assessments Guide for Use With 10 CFR, Part 830, Subpart A, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance; DOE M 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System Manual; and DOE O 226.1A, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy.

  15. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (40 CFR parts 264/265, subparts A-E) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of the general treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) standards found in 40 CFR parts 264/265, subparts A through E. It identifies and explains each exclusion from parts 264/265, and provides definitions of excluded units, such as wastewater treatment unit and elementary neutralization unit. It locates and describes the requirements for waste analysis and personnel training. It also describes the purpose of a contingency plan and lists the emergency notification procedures. It describes manifest procedures and responsibilities, and lists the unmanifested waste reporting requirements.

  16. INTERPRETATION REGARDING EXEMPTION RELIEF UNDER 10 C.F.R. PART...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    RELIEF, AND NON-COMPLIANT 'DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES' SUBJECT TO 10 C.F.R. PART 830, NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT, SUBPART B, SAFETY BASIS REQUIREMENTS INTERPRETATION REGARDING...

  17. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C Compliance Recertification Application 2004 GLOSSARY OF TERMS1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    protection standards for management (Subpart A) and disposal (Subparts B and C) of spent nuclear fuel Part 191. Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes. This regulation sets environmental radiation

  18. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Air emission standards (40 cfr parts 264/265, subparts aa, bb, and cc) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides a regulatory overview of the RCRA air emission standards as they apply to hazardous waste facilities. It outlines the history of RCRA air emission standards as well as the air emission controls required by the standards. It explains the difference in the parts 264/265 and subparts AA, BB and CC, air emission standards. It summarizes the requirements of each of these subparts and identifies the types of units subject to these requirements as well as specific exemptions.

  19. Order Module--SAFETY SOFTWARE GUIDE FOR USE WITH 10 CFR 830,...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Order Module--SAFETY SOFTWARE GUIDE FOR USE WITH 10 CFR 830, SUBPART A, QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND DOE O 414.1C, QUALITY ASSURANCE Order Module--SAFETY SOFTWARE GUIDE FOR...

  20. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Boilers and indutrial furnaces (40 CFR part 266, subpart H) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module summarizes the regulations affecting hazardous waste processes in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). It defines boilers and industrial furnaces and describes the criteria associated with the definitions. It explains the difference in applicability between regulations found in Part 266, Subpart H, and those found in Part 266, Subpart E. It describes the requirements for processing hazardous waste in BIFs, including the distinctions between permitted and interim status units and explains the requirements for the specially regulated BIF units and gives examples of each.

  1. 40 CFR Ch. I (7101 Edition)Pt. 61, Subpt. V, Table 2 TABLE 2 TO PART 61, SUBPART V.--SURGE

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    . Ore bodies depleted by uranium solution extraction and which remain under- ground do not constitute to owners or operators of facilities li- censed to manage uranium byproduct materials during and following the processing of uranium ores, commonly referred to as uranium mills and their associated tailings. This subpart

  2. Quality Assurance Management System Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance

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

    2005-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides information on principles and practices used to establish and implement an effective quality assurance program or quality management system in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 830. Cancels DOE G 414.1-2. Canceled by DOE G 414.1-2B.

  3. RCRA corrective action permit requirements and modifications under proposed Subpart S rule. RCRA Information Brief

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coalgate, J.

    1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Corrective action is required under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sections 3004(u) and(v) which were added by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). In response to HSWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) proposed a comprehensive corrective action program under 40 CFR 264 Subpart S [55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990]. Although Subpart S is still only proposed, it is being implemented by the EPA Regions until the rule is finalized. Proposed Subpart S corrective action applies to releases to any media from any solid waste management unit (SWMU) at a treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF). Corrective action requirements under proposed Subpart S are imposed through permit conditions or, for interim status facilities, through a RCRA Section 3008(h) order. In general, upon initial regulation of a TSDF, the owner or operator submits a Part A permit application, notifying the regulatory agency of waste management activities. The Part A consists of a form containing general information about the facility, the unit(s) affected, and the wastes managed in the units. Part B of the permit application provides detailed information on the facility, the units affected, and the waste managed. The Part B permit application may consist of several volumes of information. Proposed Subpart S requirements, would be contained in the Part B permit application. The Part B permit application proposes requirements and conditions intended to respond to the various RCRA requirements for permitted units. This submittal initiates the negotiation process for regulated SWMUS, whereby the requirements and conditions for unit operation are established. The term of the permit is typically 5 or 10 years, after which a permit renewal or issuance of a new permit is required. This Information Brief provides information on the permit requirements and process under proposed Subpart S.

  4. Suspect/Counterfeit Items Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1B, Quality Assurance

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

    2004-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides guidance to assist DOE/NNSA and its contractors in mitigating the safety threat of suspect/counterfeit items (S/CIs). Cancels DOE G 440.1-6, Implementation Guide for use with Suspect/Counterfeit Items Requirements of DOE O 440.1, Worker Protection Management; 10 CFR 830.120; and DOE O 5700.6C, Quality Assurance, dated 6-30-97. Canceled by DOE G 414.1-2B.

  5. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Plan - 40 CFR 98

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Deborah L. Layton; Kimberly Frerichs

    2010-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Plan is to meet the monitoring plan requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98.3(g)(5). This GHG Monitoring Plan identifies procedures and methodologies used at the Idaho National Laboratory Site (INL Site) to collect data used for GHG emissions calculations and reporting requirements from stationary combustion and other regulated sources in accordance with 40 CFR 98, Subparts A and other applicable subparts. INL Site Contractors determined subpart applicability through the use of a checklist (Appendix A). Each facility/contractor reviews operations to determine which subparts are applicable and the results are compiled to determine which subparts are applicable to the INL Site. This plan is applicable to the 40 CFR 98-regulated activities managed by the INL Site contractors: Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP), Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP), and Naval Reactors Facilities (NRF).

  6. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Plan - 40 CFR 98

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Deborah L. Layton; Kimberly Frerichs

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Plan is to meet the monitoring plan requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98.3(g)(5). This GHG Monitoring Plan identifies procedures and methodologies used at the Idaho National Laboratory Site (INL Site) to collect data used for GHG emissions calculations and reporting requirements from stationary combustion and other regulated sources in accordance with 40 CFR 98, Subparts A and other applicable subparts. INL Site Contractors determined subpart applicability through the use of a checklist (Appendix A). Each facility/contractor reviews operations to determine which subparts are applicable and the results are compiled to determine which subparts are applicable to the INL Site. This plan is applicable to the 40 CFR 98-regulated activities managed by the INL Site contractors: Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP), Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP), and Naval Reactors Facilities (NRF).

  7. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Hazardous waste incinerators (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart o) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module introduces the concept of burning hazardous wastes in units regulated under RCRA and outlines the requirements for one type of device - the incinerator. It explains what an incinerator is and how incinerators are regulated, and states the conditions under which an owner/operator may be exempt from subpart O. It defines principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC) and describes the criteria under which a POHC is selected. It defines destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) and describes the interaction between compliance with performance standards and compliance with incinerator operating conditions established in the permit. It defines and explains the purpose of a `trial burn`.

  8. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart O) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module introduces the concept of burning hazardous wastes in units regulated under RCRA and outlines the requirements for one type of device - the incinerator. It explains what an incinerator is and how incinerators are regulated and states the conditions under which an owner/operator may be exempt from Subpart O. It defines principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC) and describes the criteria under which a POHC is selected and defines destruction and removal efficiency (DRE). It describes the interaction between compliance with performance standards and compliance with incinerator operating conditions established in the permit. It also defines and explains the purpose of a trial burn.

  9. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Used oil (40 CFR part 266, subparts E, and part 279) updated as of 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides an overview of the used oil management program and explains the different regulatory scenarios that can apply to used oil. It distinguishes between Used Oil Management Standards of Part 279 and the former Used Oil Regulations under Part 266, Subpart E. It identifies the different types of used oil handlers and their requirements under the used oil management standards, and summarizes the requirements for the used oil handlers under the former program. It explains the difference between on- and off-specification used oil and distinguishes between the recycling presumption and the rebuttable presumption. It describes how present regulations will become effective in both authorized and unauthorized states. It explains under what circumstances used oil filters may be disposed of as non-hazardous. It also describes four pathways of potential regulation of used oil under the former program and compares differences with the present used oil management standards.

  10. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Petitions, delistings, and variances (40 CFR part 260, subpart C) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module reviews the regulations governing rulemaking petitions, specifies who may petition EPA to modify or revoke any provision in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265 and 268, and what may be changed through the petition process. It lists the different components of a petition, and the steps in the petitioning, review, and decision process. It also specifies the applicability of equivalent methods and states the information needed for this type of petition. It describes the process in petitioning for a new or equivalent method. It specifies the purpose of delisting, what can be delisted, and the implications of a delisting petition. It outlines the delisting procedures and provides citations for them. It cites the federal registers that describe the EPA`s composite model for landfills (EPACML) which EPA currently uses as a tool in evaluating delisting petitions and identifies the types of variances granted.

  11. EA-1463: 10 CFR 433: Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Commercial and High-Rise Multi-Family Residential Buildings and 10 CFR 435: Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Residential Low-Rise Residential Buildings

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The EA examines the potential environmental impacts of the Final Rule on building habitability and the outdoor environment. To identify the potential environmental impacts that may result from implementing the Final Rule for new Federal commercial and residential buildings, DOE compared the Final Rule with the “no-action alternative” of using the current Federal standards – 10 CFR Part 434 and 10 CFR Part 435 Subpart C (referred to as the “no-action alternative”).

  12. Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Subpart 903...

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

    before Congress or pursuant to this subpart; or employee refusal to engage in illegal or dangerous activities, when such disclosure, participation, or refusal pertains to...

  13. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    River Site TRU transuranic WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WTS Washington TRU Solutions DOE/WIPP-09 Procedure NQA Nuclear Quality Assurance ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory QA quality assurance QAPD Quality Assurance Program Document RH-TRU remote-handled transuranic SNL Sandia National Laboratories SRS Savannah

  14. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Institute for Regulatory Science SNL Sandia National Laboratories SRS Savannah River Site T transmissivity National Laboratory MP Management Procedure NAS National Academy of Sciences NEA/OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and Abbreviations BCLDP Battelle Columbus Laboratory Decommissioning Project CAO Carlsbad Area Office CARD

  15. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    but not limited to: cementation, shredding, supercompaction, incineration, vitrification, improved waste canisters

  16. NAPSR Top Priorities for 2014

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

    such as limiting compliance to CFR Part 192 Subparts: "A" General Requirements; "I" Corrosion Control; "K" Uprating; "L" Operations; "M" Maintenance and CFR Part 199 Anti-drug...

  17. Surveillance Guide - OSS 19.3 Confined Space Entry

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

    2.6 29 CFR 1910, Subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment 2.7 29 CFR 1910, Subpart Q, Welding, Cutting and Brazing 3.0 Requirements Implemented This surveillance is conducted to...

  18. Status of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant compliance with 40 CFR 191B, December 1992

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marietta, M.G.; Anderson, D.R.

    1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Before disposing of transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the US Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with long-term regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is conducting iterative performance assessments (PAs) of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for final compliance evaluations. This paper describes the 1992 preliminary comparison with Subpart B of the Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191), which regulates long-term releases of radioactive waste. Results of the 1992 PA are preliminary, and cannot be used to determine compliance or noncompliance with EPA regulations because portions of the modeling system and data base are incomplete. Results are consistent, however, with those of previous iterations of PA, and the SNL WIPP PA Department has high confidence that compliance with 40 CFR 191B can be demonstrated. Comparison of predicted radiation doses from the disposal system also gives high confidence that the disposal system is safe for long-term isolation.

  19. LLNL NESHAPs 2004 Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harrach, R; Gallegos, G; Peterson, R; Wilson, K; Harrach, R J; Gallegos, G M; Peterson, S R; Wilson, K R

    2005-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This annual report is prepared pursuant to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs; Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61, Subpart H). Subpart H governs radionuclide emissions to air from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities.

  20. astatine 191: Topics by E-print Network

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

    OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and Abbreviations BCLDP Battelle Columbus Laboratory Decommissioning Project CAO Carlsbad Area Office CARD 208 Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C...

  1. Conceptual design report for Project W-420, stack monitoring upgrade

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lott, D.T., Fluor Daniel Hanford

    1997-03-10T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the Conceptual Design for the upgrade of seven designated Tank Farm stacks to meet NESHAP Title 40, CFR, Part 61, Sub-part H requirements.

  2. Microsoft Word - DOE-ID-INL-12-027 _INL-12-105_.doc

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

    ATR from compliance with 40 CFR, Subpart ZZZZ emission standards, and to reduce the carbon footprint at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and reduce the amount of diesel...

  3. Microsoft Word - Ostrander Line Swap CX.doc

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

    Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B4.11 "Construction of electric power substations... or relocation of existing electric powerlines..."...

  4. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C Compliance Recertification Application 2004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    at the repository, and every five years thereafter until the decommissioning of the facility is completed. The first at DOE sites across the country. Ongoing decommissioning and dismantlement work at these sites will generate more TRU wastes, as will continuing operations to maintain the nation's nuclear arsenal. Disposal

  5. Human Reliability Program 10 CFR, part 712 Subpart B Medical Standards

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    HRP Policy is the responsibility of the Office of Departmental Personnel Security Policy (HS-1.4). The Office of Worker Safety and Health Assistance (HS-12), has responsibility within the DOE Human Reliability Programs (HRP) to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are in place and used at HQ and the DOE sites to monitor HRP-designated worker's health and fitness-for-duty.

  6. 10 C.F.R. PART 835-OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION, Subpart...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under section 1701 of the Atomic Energy Act; 2. Activities conducted under the authority of the Director, Naval Nuclear...

  7. Order Module--SAFETY SOFTWARE GUIDE FOR USE WITH 10 CFR 830, SUBPART A,

    Energy Savers [EERE]

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

  8. 50 CFR 216: Subpart I - General Regulations Governing Small Takes of Marine

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to:Ezfeedflag JumpID-fTriWildcat 1 Windthe Commission |Information EffluentU.S.C. 552Mammals

  9. 10 C.F.R. PART 835-OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION, Subpart A - General Provisions

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015ofDepartment ofCBFO-13-3322 2013 ANNUALThisImageEnergy

  10. INTERPRETATION REGARDING EXEMPTION RELIEF UNDER 10 C.F.R. PART 820, SUBPART

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYouTube YouTube Note: Since the.pdfBreaking of Blythe SolarContaminationCurrentHydronic71INFOGRAPHIC:17/2013 PageE,

  11. Subpart 52

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

    SAFETY DATA (JAN 1997) ALTERNATE I (JUL 1995) ... 72 I-55 FAR 52.223-5 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RIGHT-TO-KNOW INFORMATION (AUG 2003) ALTERNATE I (AUG 2003) (AS...

  12. Subpart 52

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

    Safety Data, Alternate I (Jul 1995) (b) Nothing identified to date. Jan 1997 52.223-5 Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information, Alternate I (May 2011) May 2011 52.223-10...

  13. 10 CFR 1021 -- Department of Energy: National Environmental Policy...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    10 CFR 1021 -- Department of Energy: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures 10 CFR 1021 -- Department of Energy: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing...

  14. Data-assessment reports for CEMS (continuous emission monitoring systems) at Subpart DA facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walsh, G.

    1989-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    EPA promulgated minimum quality assurance (QA) requirements for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix F. Appendix F requires the development of site-specific QA plans and the reporting of results of EPA specified QA activities each calendar quarter. The report of QA activities under Appendix F is called a Data Assessment Report (DAR). The DAR includes identifying and descriptive information for the CEMS, results of periodic audits, identification of periods when calibration drift exceeds specified criteria, identification of periods when the analyzers or CEMS are out of control (OOC), and descriptions of corrective actions in response to OOC conditions. The principal objective of the study is an evaluation of the information in DARs for the first and second quarters of calendar year 1988. Secondary study objectives include the establishment of contacts with agency staff who normally receive the DARs each quarter and identification of facilities for which DARs were apparently not received, for follow-up by the appropriate agency.

  15. Accuracy and reliability of CEMS at subpart DA (electric utilities) facilities. [Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walsh, G.; Mans, K.

    1990-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    EPA promulgated minimum quality assurance (QA) requirements for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix F. Appendix F requires Da source owners to develop site-specific QA plans and report the results of EPA specified QA activities each calendar quarter. The first calendar quarter for which a report was to be submitted is January through March 1988. The report of QA activities under Appendix F is called a Data Assessment Report (DAR). The DAR includes identifying and descriptive information for the CEMS, results of periodic audits, identification of periods when calibration drift exceeds specific criteria, identification of periods when the analyzers of CEMS are out of control (OOC), and descriptions of corrective actions in response to OOC conditions. An OOC period occurs when an analyzer or a CEMS fails to meet criteria specified in Appendix F. The criteria are expressed in terms of CEMS relative accuracy, analyzer accuracy, and analyzer drift. The principle objective of the study is an evaluation of the information in DARs for six quarters from January 1988 through June 1989. Secondary study objectives include the establishment of contacts with agency staff who normally receive the DARs each quarter and identification of facilities for which DARs were apparently not received, for follow-up by the appropriate agency.

  16. FOIA 10CFR, Code of Federal Regulations for the Freedom of Information Act

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    FOIA 10CFR, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the Freedom of Information Act is 10 CFR 1004, as posted on the U.S. Department of Energy website.

  17. Freedom of Information Act FOIA 10CFR

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

    Freedom of Information Act Freedom of Information Act Regulations Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the Freedom of Information Act is 10 CFR 1004 THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT...

  18. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C Compliance Recertification Application 2004 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Laboratory-East ANL-W Argonne National Laboratory-West ANSI American National Standards Institute APD Application for Permission to Drill API American Petroleum Institute ARCO ARCO Medical Products Company ASER

  19. OGE Form 450, 5 CFR Part 2634, Subpart I U.S. Office of Government Ethics (December 2011) Form Approved

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    duties and private financial interests or affiliations. The information you provide will only be used action by your employing agency or other authority. Knowing and willful falsification of information required to be reported may also subject you to criminal prosecution. Privacy Act Statement Title I

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613PortsmouthBartlesvilleAbout »Department of2 DOE F 1300.2Million to Promote

  1. File:CFR-2011-title36-vol2-part251-subpartB.pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are8COaBulkTransmissionSitingProcess.pdf Jump to: navigation,Size of this preview: 463Map.pdfFile

  2. Microsoft Word - Walla_Walla_hydroproject_CX.docx

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

    - TEP-CSB-1 Proposed Action: Columbia Rural Electric Association Walla Walla Hydroelectric Project Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B4.1...

  3. Microsoft Word - CX-AlveyWoodPolesA-LE-AE-LH-AC-TBRT-FY12_WEB...

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

    Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.3 Routine maintenance Location: Various transmission lines located in Linn and Lane counties, Oregon. Refer to Project Location Attachment...

  4. RL-721 Document ID Number: REV4 NEPA REVIEW SCREENING FORM

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

    20, Rev 0 I. Project Title: MSA Annual Categorical Exclusion for Drop-Off, Collection, and Transfer Facilities for Recyclable Materials under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B,...

  5. (Created 10/12) UNL Environmental Health and Safety (402) 472-4925 http://ehs.unl.edu

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Farritor, Shane

    to their work. · 29 CFR 1910, Subparts O, (Machinery and Machine Guarding), Q (Welding, Cutting, and Brazing with machines using laser technology. · Eye damage caused by foreign objects emitted from the machine (e

  6. Microsoft Word - CF-Radio-Comm-Upgrades-CX.doc

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

    Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B4.6: "Additions or modifications to electric power transmission facilities that would not affect the environment beyond the previously...

  7. Microsoft Word - CoastMiddleForksWillamette_Wildish__CX.doc

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

    of Wildish Property Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 2009-017-00, Contract BPA-004959 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.25 Transfer, lease,...

  8. Microsoft Word - Poorman Ponds_CX Memo_20120607.docx

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

    Poorman Ponds Property Funding Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 2009-003-00 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.25 Transfer, lease, disposition,...

  9. Microsoft Word - Old Highway Bridge_CX Memo_20120608.docx

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

    Old Highway Bridge Property Funding Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 2009-003-00 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.25 Transfer, lease,...

  10. Microsoft Word - Upper Jocko River Final Draft CX 7-15-2013.docx

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

    Upper Jocko River Property funding Fish and Wildlife Project No. and Contract No.: 2002-003-00, BPA-007168 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021):...

  11. Microsoft Word - JockoSpringCreek_Scott_Acquisition_CX_Final...

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

    purchase of Jocko Spring Creek Property. Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 2002-003-00, Contract BPA-44646 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021):...

  12. Microsoft Word - MissionCreek_Kingston_Acquisition_CX_final.doc

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

    purchase of the Mission Creek Property. Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 2002-003-00, Contract BPA-44646 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.25...

  13. Microsoft Word - Little Shell Final Draft CX 7-15-2013

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

    Little Shell Property funding Fish and Wildlife Project No. and Contract No.: 2002-003-00, BPA-007168 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.25...

  14. Microsoft Word - Yamhill_Oaks_Gahr_CX.doc

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

    of Yamhill Oaks (Gahr) Property Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 2009-017-00, Contract BPA-004959 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.25...

  15. Microsoft Word - CX-AlveyDistWoodPoles_FY13_WEB.docx

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

    Alvey District Wood Pole Replacement Projects PP&A Project No.: 2663 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.3 Routine maintenance Location: Various...

  16. Microsoft Word - CX-NorthBendWoodPoles_FY13_WEB.docx

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

    North Bend District Wood Pole Replacement Projects PP&A Project No.: 2658 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.3 Routine maintenance Location:...

  17. RL-721 REV? I. Project Title: NEPA REVIEW SCREENING FORM Document...

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

    9, Rev 1 MSA Annual Categorical Exclusion for Facilities to Store Packaged Hazardous Waste for 90 Days or Less under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B6.4 for Calendar Year 2014...

  18. Clean Air Act Requirements: Uranium Mill Tailings

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    EPA'S Clean Air Act Requirements: Uranium Mill Tailings Radon Emissions Rulemaking Reid J. Rosnick requirements for operating uranium mill tailings (Subpart W) Status update on Subpart W activities Outreach/Communications #12;3 EPA Regulatory Requirements for Operating Uranium Mill Tailings (Clean Air Act) · 40 CFR 61

  19. Radiation Safety Training Guide for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection

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

    1999-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides an acceptable methodology for establishing and operating a radiation safety training program that will comply with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (DOE 1998a), hereinafter referred to as 10 CFR 835. In particular, this Guide provides guidance for achieving compliance with subpart J of 10 CFR 835. Canceled by DOE G 441.1-1B.

  20. EPA Review of Standards for Uranium and Thorium Milling Facilities @ 40 CFR Parts 61 and 192.

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Environmental Protection Agency: 40 CFR 190; Texas Department of State Health Services, Title 30 of the Texas

  1. Title 18 CFR 4 Licenses, Permits, Exemptions, and Determination...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Title 18 CFR 4 Licenses, Permits, Exemptions, and Determination of Project Costs Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document-...

  2. Title 43 CFR 46 Implementation of the National Environmental...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Regulation: Title 43 CFR 46 Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969Legal Abstract Part 1502 - Implementation of the National Environmental...

  3. Title 40 CFR 1502.3 Statutory Requirements for Environmental...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Title 40 CFR 1502.3 Statutory Requirements for Environmental Impact Statements Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document-...

  4. Title 36 CFR 214 Postdecisional Administrative Review Process...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Title 36 CFR 214 Postdecisional Administrative Review Process for Occupancy or Use of National Forest System Lands and Resources Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference...

  5. Title 50 CFR 402 Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 50 CFR 402 Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as...

  6. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations: 40 CFR...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to library Legal Document- Secondary Legal SourceSecondary Legal Source: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations: 40 CFR 1500 - 1518Legal Author CEQ Published NA...

  7. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 10 CFR Parts 433 and...

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

    environmental assessment for Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 433, Sustainable Design and Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Commercial and High-Rise Multi-Family Residential...

  8. 50 CFR 216 - Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Mammals (2014). Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?title50CFR216-RegulationsGoverningtheTakingandImportingofMarineMammals&oldid790887" Categories:...

  9. Title 33 CFR 115 Bridge Locations and Clearances: Administrative...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 33 CFR 115 Bridge Locations and Clearances: Administrative ProceduresLegal...

  10. Letter to Mr. Podonsky from DOE and Contractor Attorneys' Association concerning 10 CFR 851 implementation issues, May 21, 2007

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Memorandum to Mr. Podonsky from DOE and Contractor Attorneys' Association concerning 10 CFR 851 implementation issues, May 21, 2007

  11. Safety Software Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance

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

    2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

    The revision to DOE G 414.1-4 will conform to the revised DOE O 414.1D and incorporate new information and lessons learned since 2005, including information gained as a result of the February 2011, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, GAO-11-143.

  12. Safety Software Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance

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

    2005-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides acceptable methods for implementing the safety software quality assurance requirements of draft DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance. Certified 11-3-10. No cancellation.

  13. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Drip pads (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart w) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1990, EPA promulgated listings for wastes from wood preserving processes. Many of these wastes are generated by allowing preservative to drip from wood onto concrete pads, called drip pads. To facilitate proper handling of these wastes, EPA developed design and operating standards for drip pads used to manage hazardous wastes. This module explains these standards. It defines a drip pad and summarizes the design and operating standards for drip pads. It describes the relationship between generator accumulation provisions and drip pads.

  14. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Closure/post-closure (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart G) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module explains the difference between closure and post-closure and lists the types of facilities that are subject to closure/post-closure. It defines the difference between partial and final closure. It specifies who submits a closure plan and when a closure plan must be submitted, listed the steps in the process, states the time frame for submittal and identifies when and how a closure must be amended. It explains the time frame for notification of closure and the deadlines for beginning and completing closure. It specifies which facilities need contingent post-closure plans, lists the elements of post-closure, and cites the requirements. It specifies the conditions and timing for amending a post-closure plan, and states who must certify closure/post-closure.

  15. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Containment buildings (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart DD) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1992, EPA developed standards for a new hazardous waste management unit called a containment building. Containment buildings, which are essentially waste piles enclosed in a building, facilitate management of bulky materials without triggering land disposal and land disposal restrictions (LDR). This module outlines the regulatory history and purpose of containment buildings. It discusses the relationship between LDR and containment buildings, summarizes the design and operating standards applicable to containment buildings, and describes the relationship between generator accumulation standards and containment buildings.

  16. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Closure/post-closure (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart g) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module explains the difference between closure and post-closure. It lists the types of facilities that are subject to closure/post-closures and defines the difference between partial and final closure. It specifies who submits a closure plan and when a closure plan must be submitted, lists the steps in the process, and states the time frame for submittal. It identifies when and how a closure must be amended. It explains the time frame for notification of closure and the deadlines for beginning and completing closure. It specifies which facilities need contingent post-closure plans and lists and the elements of post-closure and cites the requirements. It specifies the conditions and timing for amending a post-closure plan and states who must certify closure/post-closure.

  17. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Used oil (40 cfr part 266, subparts e, and part 279) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module reviews the various regulatory requirements associated with used oil management. The goal of the training module is to provide an overview of the used oil management program and to explain the different regulatory scenarios that can apply to used oil. The module begins by briefly tracing the developmental history of the regulations concerning used oil. A summary of the present used oil management program, as well as a brief summary of the former program, provides a basic comparison and introduction to both programs.

  18. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Containers (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart i; section 261.7) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module reviews two sets of regulatory requirements for containers: requirements that pertain to the management of hazardous waste containers and regulations governing residues of hazardous waste in empty containers. It defines `container` and `empty container` and provides examples and citations for each. It provides an overview of the requirements for the design and operation of hazardous waste containers. It explains the difference between the container standards set out in part 264 and part 265. It states the requirements for rendering a hazardous waste container `RCRA empty`. It explains when container rinsate must be managed as a hazardous waste.

  19. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Groundwater monitoring (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart F) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents the requirements for groundwater monitoring at interim status and permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. It describes the groundwater monitoring criteria for interim status and permitted facilities. It explains monitoring well placement and outlines the three stages of the groundwater monitoring program for permitted facilities.

  20. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Drip pads (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart W) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1990, EPA promulgated listings for wastes from wood preserving processes. Many of these wastes are generated by allowing preservative to drip from wood onto concrete pads, called drip pads. To facilitate proper handling of these wastes, EPA developed design and operating standards for drip pads used to manage hazardous wastes. This module defines a drip pad, summarizes the design and operating standards for drip pads and describes the relationship between generator accumulation provisions and drip pads.

  1. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Boilers and industrial furnaces (40 cfr part 266, subpart h) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module summarizes the regulations affecting hazardous waste processes in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). If defines boilers and industrial furnaces and describes the criteria associated with the definitions. It describes the requirements for processing hazardous waste in BIFs, including the distinctions between permitted and interim status units. It explains the requirements for the specially regulated BIFs and gives examples of each.

  2. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Containment buildings (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart dd) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module outlines the regulatory history and purpose of containment buildings. It disucsses the relationship between LDR and containment buildings. It summarizes the design and operating standard applicable to containment buildings and describes the relationship between generator accumulation standards and containment buildings.

  3. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: RCRA financial assurance (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart h) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module addresses financial assurance standards explaining first mechanisms and then the extent of coverage required. It describes the applicability of financial assurance for closure and post-closure and identifies necessary factors for calculating cost estimates. It explains allowable mechanisms for financial assurance, including which mechanisms can be used together and under what conditions. It explains how financial assurance works when a company owns several facilities or when a company is owned by one or more larger companies. It presents the financial assurance requirements for accident liability coverage. It identifies who is subject to sudden versus nonsudden liability provisions and cites applicable definitions. It specifies the amount of liability coverage required for single and multiple facilities. It lists allowable mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms that can be used to satisfy financial assurance liability requirements.

  4. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Land disposal units (40 cfr parts 264/265, subparts k, l, m, n) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides an overview of the requirements for landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment units. It summarizes the differences between interim status (Part 265) and permitted (Part 264) standards for land disposal units. It defines `surface impoundment` and distinguishes surface impoundments from tanks and describes surface impoundment retrofitting and retrofitting variance procedures. It explains the connection between land disposal standards, post-closure, and groundwater monitoring.

  5. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Financial assurance (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart H) updated as of 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module addresses financial assurance standards explaining first the mechanisms and then the extent of coverage required. It describes the applicability of financial assurance for closure and post-closure and identifies necessary factors for calculating cost estimates. It explains allowable mechanisms for financial assurance, including which mechanisms can be used together and under what conditions. It also explains how financial assurance works when a company owns several facilities or when a company is owned by one or more larger companies. It presents the financial assurance requirements for accident liability coverage. It identifies who is subject to sudden versus nonsudden liability provisions and cites applicable definitions. It specifies the amount of liability coverage required for single facilities and multiple facilities and lists allowable mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms that can be used to satisfy financial assurance liability requirements.

  6. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Groundwater monitoring (40 cfr parts 264/265, subpart f) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents the requirements for groundwater monitoring at interim status and permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The goal of the module is to explain the standards and specific requirements for groundwater monitoring programs at interim status and permitted facilities.

  7. 29 CFR Part 1960; Basic Program Elements for Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Related Matters; Subpart 1 for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2UraniumEnergyDepartment ofEnergyDryers; Requestunder Federal

  8. 1995 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): Radionuclides. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Under Section 61.94 of 40 CFR 61, Subpart H (National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities), each DOE facility must submit an annual report documenting compliance. This report addresses the Section 61.94 reporting requirements for operations at INEL for CY 1995. For that year, airborne radionuclide emissions from INEL operations were calculated to result in a maximum individual dose to a member of the public of 1.80E-02 mrem (1.80E-07 Sievert), well below the 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, regulatory standard of 10 mrem per year (1.0E-04 Sievert per year).

  9. 40 CFR Ch. I (7101 Edition) 61.20 coverage by a standard that applies

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    excavation made for the purpose of removing ma- terial containing uranium for the prin- cipal purpose] Subpart B--National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Underground Uranium Mines SOURCE: 54 FR of this subpart are ap- plicable to the owner or operator of an active underground uranium mine which: (a) Has

  10. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Steven Jahn

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Steven Jahn 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  11. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Susan Leckband

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Susan Leckband 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  12. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Mark Strauch

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Mark Strauch 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  13. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Mark Fisher

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Mark Fisher 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  14. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Scott Yundt

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Scott Yundt 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  15. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Richard L. Dickson

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Richard L. Dickson 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  16. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Curtis Valle

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Curtis Valle 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  17. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Faye Vleger

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Faye Vleger 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  18. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Anoop Agrawal

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Anoop Agrawal 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  19. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Cameron Anderson

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Cameron Anderson 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  20. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Timothy Bolden

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Timothy Bolden 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  1. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Joseph Herndon

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Joseph Herndon 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  2. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Jamie Stalker

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Jamie Stalker 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  3. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Ed Kvartek

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Ed Kvartek 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  4. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- John Walter

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: John Walter 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  5. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Cheryl Floreen

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Cheryl Floreen 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  6. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Troy Bodily

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Troy Bodily 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  7. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Reginald Gaylord

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Reginald Gaylord 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  8. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Pete Stafford

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Pete Stafford 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  9. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Mario Moreno

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Mario Moreno 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  10. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Roby Enge

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Roby Enge 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  11. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Terry Vaughn

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Terry Vaughn 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  12. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Bret Moscon

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Bret Moscon 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  13. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Paul A. Schulte

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Paul A. Schulte 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  14. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Thomas W. Morris

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Thomas W. Morris 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  15. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Thomas Peterson

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Thomas Peterson 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  16. Title 43 CFR 429 Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, Facilities...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 43 CFR 429 Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, Facilities, and...

  17. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Michael Brisson

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Michael Brisson 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  18. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Jim Withers

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Jim Withers 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  19. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- J. Chris Cantwell

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: J. Chris Cantwell 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  20. 10 CFR - Energy | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)

    Office of Science (SC) Website

    10 CFR - Energy Grants & Contracts Support Grants & Contracts Support Home About Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) DOE National Laboratory Announcements Grants Process...

  1. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Scott Stafford

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Scott Stafford 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  2. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- William R. Kleem

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: William R. Kleem 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  3. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Kenneth Meyer

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Kenneth Meyer 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  4. Radiation-Generating Devices Guide for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection

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

    1999-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

    For use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. This Guide provides an acceptable methodology for establishing and operating a sealed radioactive source accountability and control program that will comply with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (DOE 1998a), hereinafter referred to as 10 CFR 835. In particular, this Guide provides guidance for achieving compliance with subpart M of 10 CFR 835. Canceled by DOE G 441.1-1B.

  5. Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability and Control Guide

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

    1999-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

    For use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. This Guide provides an acceptable methodology for establishing and operating a sealed radioactive source accountability and control program that will comply with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (DOE 1998a), hereinafter referred to as 10 CFR 835. In particular, this Guide provides guidance for achieving compliance with subpart M of 10 CFR 835. Canceled by DOE G 441.1-1B.

  6. Applicability of 10 CFR 851 to Savannah River Ecology Laboratory

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Letter from Bruce Diamond, Assistant General Counsel for Environment, DOE, dated November 24, 2007 to Mr. Bertsch, Director and Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, regarding Savannah Riber Ecology Laboratory's Request for Interpretive Ruling under 10 CFR 851.

  7. Title 25 CFR 224 Tribal Energy Resource Agreements Under The...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 25 CFR 224 Tribal Energy Resource Agreements Under The Indian Tribal...

  8. Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-01, Enforcement of 10 CFR...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    5, 1996). 10 CFR 830.7 states that the Rule shall apply in a graded approach to all DOE reactor and nonreactor nuclear facilities. Nonreactor nuclear facilities were defined to...

  9. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  10. 10 CFR 850, Request for Information- Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP- Christopher R. McKean

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Commenter: Christopher R. McKean 10 CFR 850 - Request for Information Docket Number: HS-RM-10-CBDPP Comment Close Date: 2/22/2011

  11. MARSAME References 10 CFR 20.1003. Standards for Protection Against Radiation, Definitions. Code of Federal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    ://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part071/full-text.html (accessed October 24, 2008). 10 CFR 820. Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activity:2.1.1.3.8.9.25.22 (accessed October 24, 2008). Abelquist, E. 2001. Decommissioning Health Physics: A Handbook for MARSSIM

  12. Implementation Guide for use with 10 CFR Part 850, Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program

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

    2001-01-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has established regulatory requirements for the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 850 (10 CFR 850) [64 Federal Register (FR) 68854]. Cancels DOE G 440.1-7. Certified 9-23-10.

  13. CX-011605: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Asbestos Removal under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.16 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.16 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  14. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the polyether polyols manufacturing industry: Summary of public comments and responses

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1999-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains a summary of public comments received on the NESHAP for Polyether Polyols Production (40 CFR 63, subpart PPP), which was proposed on September 4, 1997 (62 FR 46804). This document also provides the EPA's response to each comment, and outlines the changes made to the regulation in response to public comments.

  15. Interim-status groundwater monitoring plan for the 216-B-63 trench

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sweeney, M.D.

    1995-02-09T23:59:59.000Z

    This document outlines the groundwater monitoring plan, under RCRA regulations in 40 CFR 265 Subpart F and WAC173-300-400, for the 216-B-63 Trench. This interim status facility is being sampled under detection monitoring criteria and this plan provides current program conditions and requirements.

  16. Department of Environmental

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rubloff, Gary W.

    to minimize slips, trips and falls on the same elevation. All employees shall control fall hazards (OSHA) Construction and General Industry regulations: · "Fall Protection," 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M in their work area by maintaining good housekeeping and shall report conditions that may lead to slips, trips

  17. CX-009665: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Air Conditioning Systems for Existing Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart o, Appendix B CX(s) Applied: B1.4 Date: 12/05/2012 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  18. CX-009654: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Drop-Off, Collection, and Transfer Facilities for Recyclable Materials under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B CX(s) Applied: B1.35 Date: 12/05/2012 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  19. CX-011597: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Facility Safety and Environmental Improvements under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B2.5 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B2.5 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  20. CX-011594: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Actions to Conserve Energy or Water under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B5.1 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B5.1 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  1. CX-011607: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Air Conditioning Systems for Existing Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.4 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.4 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  2. CX-011606: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Support Buildings under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.15 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.15 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  3. CX-011609: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Transfer Actions under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.30 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.30 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  4. CX-011611: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Electronic Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.7 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.7 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  5. CX-011603: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Relocation of Buildings under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.22 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.22 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  6. Uranium Watch REGULATORY CONFUSION: FEDERALAND STATE

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Uranium Watch Report REGULATORY CONFUSION: FEDERALAND STATE ENFORCEMENT OF 40 C.F.R. PART 61 SUBPART W INTRODUCTION 1. This Uranium Watch Report, Regulatory Confusion: Federal and State Enforcement at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, San Juan County, Utah. 2. The DAQ, a Division of the Utah Department

  7. TO: Reid Rosnick, Radiation Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency FROM: Sarah M. Fields, Uranium Watch

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    : Sarah M. Fields, Uranium Watch DATE: November 25, 2009 RE: EPA REVIEW OF 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART W -- RADON NESHAP FOR OPERATING URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES Below are some issues that the Environmental radionuclide NESHAPS in a timely manner. · Failure to properly implement radionuclide NESHAPS for uranium mills

  8. CX-011599: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Drop-Off, Collection, and Transfer Facilities for Recyclable Materials under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.35 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.35 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  9. CX-011610: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Training Exercises and Simulations under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.2 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.2 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

  10. VI-19.00(A) UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND POLICY ON PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROGRAM APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT, January 19, 1999

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rubloff, Gary W.

    could result in injury or illness. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Devices worn by the employees, January 19, 1999 I. POLICY STATEMENT A. Purpose The Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Program has been OSHA Regulation 29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment. D. Department

  11. Compliance with the Clean Air Act Title VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program requirements at U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Humphreys, M.P.; Atkins, E.M.

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Title VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires promulgation of regulations to reduce and prevent damage to the earth's protective ozone layer. Regulations pursuant to Title VI of the CAA are promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40 CFR, Part 822. The regulations include ambitious production phaseout schedules for ozone depleting substances (ODS) including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform under 40 CFR 82, Subpart A. The regulations also include requirements for recycling and emissions reduction during the servicing of refrigeration equipment and technician certification requirements under Subpart F; provisions for servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners under Subpart B; a ban on nonessential products containing Class 1 ODS under Subpart C; restrictions on Federal procurement of ODS under Subpart D; labeling of products using ODS under Subpart E; and the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program under Subpart G. This paper will provide details of initiatives undertaken at US Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Facilities for implementation of requirements under the Title VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. The Stratospheric Ozone Protection Plans include internal DOE requirements for: (1) maintenance of ODS inventories; (2) ODS procurement practices; (3) servicing of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment; (4) required equipment modifications or replacement; (5) technician certification training; (6) labeling of products containing ODS; (7) substitution of chlorinated solvents; and (8) replacement of halon fire protection systems. The plans also require establishment of administrative control systems which assure that compliance is achieved and maintained as the regulations continue to develop and become effective.

  12. Questions and answers based on revised 10 CFR Part 20

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Borges, T.; Stafford, R.S.; Lu, P.Y. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Carter, D. [Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States)

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    NUREG/CR-6204 is a collection of questions and answers that were originally issued in seven sets and which pertain to revised 10 CFR Part 20. The questions came from both outside and within the NRC. The answers were compiled and provided by NRC staff within the offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Office of State Programs, and the five regional offices. Although all of the questions and answers have been reviewed by attorneys in the NRC Office of the General Counsel, they do not constitute official legal interpretations relevant to revised 10 CFR Part 20. The questions and answers do, however, reflect NRC staff decisions and technical options on aspects of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 regulatory requirements. This NUREG is being made available to encourage communication among the public, industry, and NRC staff concerning the major revisions of the NRC`s standards for protection against radiation.

  13. EA-1086: Amendments to 10 CFR Part 835 (Revised Version- 6/98)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of a proposal to issue as a final rulemaking an amended version of 10 CFR Part 835, "Occupational Radiation Protection."  The amended version provides...

  14. Title 43 CFR 2800 Rights-of-way Under the Federal Land Policy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Land Policy Management Act Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 43 CFR 2800 Rights-of-way...

  15. Title 36 CFR 215 Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Title 36 CFR 215 Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal...

  16. 10 CFR Ch. III (1-1-11 Edition) Pt. 851, App. B

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

    10:19 Feb 15, 2011 Jkt 223033 PO 00000 Frm 00632 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8002 Y:SGML223033.XXX 223033 jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CFR 623 Department of Energy Pt. 851, App. B (2)...

  17. Title 43 CFR 3204.10 What Payment Must I Submit With My Noncompetitive...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 43 CFR 3204.10 What Payment Must I Submit With My Noncompetitive Lease...

  18. Title 43 CFR 1610.7-2 Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 43 CFR 1610.7-2 Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental ConcernLegal...

  19. Title 43 CFR 3201.11 What Lands are Not Available for Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 43 CFR 3201.11 What Lands are Not Available for Geothermal Leasing?Legal...

  20. 6450-01-P, DOE 10 CFR Parts 430 and 431, Docket No. EERE-2010...

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

    6450-01-P, DOE 10 CFR Parts 430 and 431, Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-CE-0014 RIN 1904-AC23, Draft Submission to Federal Register, Notice of Revisions to Energy Efficiency Enforcement...

  1. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Containers (40 CFR parts 264/265, subpart I; section 261.7) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module reviews two sets of regulatory requirements for containers: requirements that pertain to the manage of hazardous waste containers and regulations governing residues of hazardous waste in empty containers. It defines container and empty container and provides examples and citations for each. It provides an overview of the requirements for the design and operation of hazardous waste containers and explains the difference between the container standards set out in Part 264 and Part 265. It states the requirements for rendering a hazardous waste container RCRA empty. It also explains when container rinsate must be managed as a hazardous waste.

  2. RCRA/UST, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Land disposal units (40 CFR parts 264/265, subparts K, L, M, N) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides and overview of the requirements for landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment units. It summarizes the differences between Interim Status (Part 265) and Permitted (Part 264) standards for land disposal units. It defines surface impoundment and distinguishes surface impoundments from tanks. It explains the connection between land disposal standards, post-closure, and groundwater monitoring. It cites the statutory and regulatory minimum technological requirements and describes surface impoundment retrofitting and retrofitting variance procedures.

  3. Recommended values for the distribution coefficient (Kd) to be used in dose assessments for decommissioning the Zion Nuclear Power Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sullivan T.

    2014-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

    ZionSolutions is in the process of decommissioning the Zion Nuclear Power Plant. The site contains two reactor Containment Buildings, a Fuel Building, an Auxiliary Building, and a Turbine Building that may be contaminated. The current decommissioning plan involves removing all above grade structures to a depth of 3 feet below grade. The remaining underground structures will be backfilled. The remaining underground structures will contain low amounts of residual licensed radioactive material. An important component of the decommissioning process is the demonstration that any remaining activity will not cause a hypothetical individual to receive a dose in excess of 25 mrem/y as specified in 10CFR20 SubpartE.

  4. Recommended values for the distribution coefficient (Kd) to be used in dose assessments for decommissioning the Zion Nuclear Power Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sullivan, T. [Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY (United States)

    2014-09-24T23:59:59.000Z

    ZionSolutions is in the process of decommissioning the Zion Nuclear Power Plant. The site contains two reactor Containment Buildings, a Fuel Building, an Auxiliary Building, and a Turbine Building that may be contaminated. The current decommissioning plan involves removing all above grade structures to a depth of 3 feet below grade. The remaining underground structures will be backfilled. The remaining underground structures will contain low amounts of residual licensed radioactive material. An important component of the decommissioning process is the demonstration that any remaining activity will not cause a hypothetical individual to receive a dose in excess of 25 mrem/y as specified in 10CFR20 SubpartE.

  5. Radiological worker training

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Handbook describes an implementation process for core training as recommended in Implementation Guide G441.12, Radiation Safety Training, and as outlined in the DOE Radiological Control Standard (RCS). The Handbook is meant to assist those individuals within the Department of Energy, Managing and Operating contractors, and Managing and Integrating contractors identified as having responsibility for implementing core training recommended by the RCS. This training is intended for radiological workers to assist in meeting their job-specific training requirements of 10 CFR 835. While this Handbook addresses many requirements of 10 CFR 835 Subpart J, it must be supplemented with facility-specific information to achieve full compliance.

  6. CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PROGRAM (29 CFR 1910.146)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Huang, Jianyu

    or restricted means for entry or exit; and, 3. Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. 2.2 A PermitCONFINED SPACE ENTRY PROGRAM Per (29 CFR §1910.146) Prepared for: BOSTON COLLEGE 140 Commonwealth, 2003 Revised: September, 2004 PM/EH&S #12;Page 1 of 2 Boston College CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PROGRAM TABLE

  7. Environmental assessment for amendments to 10 CFR Part 835

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This proposed amendment will modify the scope of 10 CFR 835 to explicitly exclude the transportation of radioactive material conducted in conformance with the Department of Transportation regulations, certain activities conducted on foreign soil, add standards for area posting and sealed radioactive source control, and add a removable surface radioactivity value for tritium.

  8. General Term and Condition Grantees are hereby given notice that the 48 CFR section 3.908, implementing

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Baker, Chris I.

    General Term and Condition Grantees are hereby given notice that the 48 CFR section 3," "grantee," "subgrant," or "subgrantee"): 3.908 Pilot program for enhancement of contractor employee

  9. EA-1778: Proposed Rule, 10 CFR 433 and 435, Energy Conservation and Fossil Fuel-Generated Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of DOE's Proposed Rule, 10 CFR Part 433, “Energy Conservation and Fossil Fuel-Generated Energy Consumption Reduction Standards for the Design and Construction of New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High-Rise Residential Buildings” and 10 CFR Part 435, “Energy Conservation and Fossil Fuel-Generated Energy Consumption Reduction Standards for the Design and Construction of New Federal Low-Rise Residential Buildings”.

  10. CONFIRMATORY SURVEY RESULTS FOR PORTIONS OF THE ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SITE IN WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT DURING THE FALL OF 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wade C. Adams

    2011-12-09T23:59:59.000Z

    From the mid-1950s until mid-2000, the Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE) site in Windsor, Connecticut (Figure A-1) was involved in the research, development, engineering, production, and servicing of nuclear fuels, systems, and services. The site is currently undergoing decommissioning that will lead to license termination and unrestricted release in accordance with the requirements of the License Termination Rule in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. Asea Brown Boveri Incorporated (ABB) has been decommissioning the CE site since 2001.

  11. Certification for DOE G 414.1-1B

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

    2010-11-18T23:59:59.000Z

    This certification was reviewed by the Executive Steering Committee for the Quality Assurance (QA) Directives reform and the Guide was found to be relevant, appropriate and necessary. The Guide provides the Department with non-mandatory approaches for implementing Criteria 9, Management Assessment, and Criteria 10, Independent Assessment, for DOE O 414.1C, as well as found in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L.J.

    2003-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. 222-S Laboratory interim safety basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WEAVER, L.L.

    2001-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

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

  14. Subpart C-Standards for Internal

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilAElectronic Input Options Gary L. Hirsch SNLMay 20102 | NationalThis1 Department of

  15. SUBPART B - Exception Regulations | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM615_CostNSARDevelopmental AssignmentAprilAND POWER FACILITIE |

  16. 10 CFR 850 Implementation of Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, S

    2012-01-05T23:59:59.000Z

    10 CFR 850 defines a contractor as any entity, including affiliated entities, such as a parent corporation, under contract with DOE, including a subcontractor at any tier, with responsibility for performing work at a DOE site in furtherance of a DOE mission. The Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) applies to beryllium-related activities that are performed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The CBDPP or Beryllium Safety Program is integrated into the LLNL Worker Safety and Health Program and, thus, implementation documents and responsibilities are integrated in various documents and organizational structures. Program development and management of the CBDPP is delegated to the Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) Directorate, Worker Safety and Health Functional Area. As per 10 CFR 850, Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) periodically submits a CBDPP to the National Nuclear Security Administration/Livermore Site Office (NNSA/LSO). The requirements of this plan are communicated to LLNS workers through ES&H Manual Document 14.4, 'Working Safely with Beryllium.' 10 CFR 850 is implemented by the LLNL CBDPP, which integrates the safety and health standards required by the regulation, components of the LLNL Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS), and incorporates other components of the LLNL ES&H Program. As described in the regulation, and to fully comply with the regulation, specific portions of existing programs and additional requirements are identified in the CBDPP. The CBDPP is implemented by documents that interface with the workers, principally through ES&H Manual Document 14.4. This document contains information on how the management practices prescribed by the LLNL ISMS are implemented, how beryllium hazards that are associated with LLNL work activities are controlled, and who is responsible for implementing the controls. Adherence to the requirements and processes described in the ES&H Manual ensures that ES&H practices across LLNL are developed in a consistent manner. Other implementing documents, such as the ES&H Manual, are integral in effectively implementing 10 CFR 850.

  17. 10 CFR § 1021 | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directedAnnualProperty Edit withTianlinPapersWindey Wind Hometcdb Home#MarketResearchReportsReference: 10 CFR

  18. 15 CFR § 930 | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to:Ezfeedflag JumpID-fTriWildcat 1 Wind Projectsource HistorykV remotea Responsible00260 Jump CFR

  19. 10 CFR Part 429 | 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 DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: The Future of BadTHE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY' SChapterUpdated October 19,10 CFR

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2003-05-13T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gregg L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  2. 40 CFR Ch. I (7101 Edition) 61.71 61.71 Recordkeeping.

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    - national Commission on Radiological Protection's Publication No. 26. (b) Facility means all buildings Department of Energy Facilities SOURCE: 54 FR 51695, Dec. 15, 1989, unless otherwise noted. § 61.90 Designation of facilities. The provisions of this subpart apply to operations at any facility owned

  3. Occupational ALARA Program Guide for Use with Title 10, CFR, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection

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

    1999-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides an acceptable methodology for establishing and operating an occupational "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) program that will comply with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (DOE 1998a), hereinafter referred to as 10 CFR 835. For completeness, this Guide also references detailed guidance provided in the DOE-STD-1098-99, RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL (DOE 1999a), hereinafter referred to as the RCS.

  4. Review of the technical bases of 40 CFR Part 190.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kelly, John E.; McMahon, Kevin A.; Siegel, Malcolm Dean; Weiner, Ruth F.; Bixler, Nathan E.; Klein, Keith A. (Longenecker and Associates)

    2010-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The dose limits for emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle were established by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Part 190 in 1977. These limits were based on assumptions regarding the growth of nuclear power and the technical capabilities of decontamination systems as well as the then-current knowledge of atmospheric dispersion and the biological effects of ionizing radiation. In the more than thirty years since the adoption of the limits, much has changed with respect to the scale of nuclear energy deployment in the United States and the scientific knowledge associated with modeling health effects from radioactivity release. Sandia National Laboratories conducted a study to examine and understand the methodologies and technical bases of 40 CFR 190 and also to determine if the conclusions of the earlier work would be different today given the current projected growth of nuclear power and the advances in scientific understanding. This report documents the results of that work.

  5. Format and Content Guide for Title 40 CFR 191 and Title 40 CFR 268.6 Compliance Reports

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Format and Content Guide was followed in preparing the WIPP Compliance Status Report submitted in March 1994 and will be used for the compliance documents scheduled for submittal in the Spring of 1995. The Compliance Status Report was issued to stakeholders in March 1994 and describes the status of associated activities on compliance with the requirements in Title 40 CFR 268.6 and Title 40 CFR 191. The Compliance Status Report focuses on (1) the information required for a demonstration of compliance, (2) preliminary results, (3) the areas of the WIPP program that are either not currently mature enough, or do not provide adequate margin for a demonstration of compliance, and (4) the areas of the WIPP program that will be focused upon to provide the remaining necessary information for use in the 1995 compliance demonstration reports. The Compliance Status Report is not intended to constitute a statement of compliance or a demonstration of compliance. It is intended to report the status of progress made to date in project efforts to achieve the required level of data/information necessary for the required compliance demonstrations. Comments on the Compliance Status Report from stakeholders will likely result in a modified Format and Content Guide, as will the promulgation of the EPA`s Compliance Criteria for WIPP (40 CFR 194).

  6. Chemical Hygiene Plan In Accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1450 and R325.70106

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Finley Jr., Russell L.

    covered by the standard must carry out the provisions of a Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP). A CHP is a written of a CHP must include: 1. Designation of personnel responsible for implementation of the CHP including includes: · Contents of Standard 29 CFR 1910.1450 · Location of laboratory's CHP · Inventory of laboratory

  7. Lockout/Tagout According to OSHA (29 CFR 1910.147), approximately 3 million workers service

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lockout/Tagout According to OSHA (29 CFR 1910.147), approximately 3 million workers service equipment and if lockout/tagout (LOTO) is not properly implemented they face the risk of injury. LOTO refers. The lockout standard applies when: 1. Employee must remove or bypass a guard or other safety device during

  8. 40 CFR Ch. I (7105 Edition) 190.10 period in which he is engaged in car-

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    operation which is part of a nuclear fuel cycle. (l) Regulatory agency means the gov- ernment agency these dates. PART 191--ENVIRONMENTAL RADI- ATION PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT AND DIS- POSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC RADIOACTIVE WASTES Subpart A--Environmental Standards

  9. DOE Order Self Study Modules - 29 CFR 1910.147, The Control Of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: Theof"WaveInteractions and Policy (2009) | Department ofDepartment29 CFR9 CFR

  10. Title 43 CFR 3000 General | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to:Ezfeedflag JumpID-f <MaintainedInformationThePty LtdOpen EnergyAct | Open EnergySubpart

  11. Clean Slate Environmental Remediation DSA for 10 CFR 830 Compliance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    James L. Traynor, Stephen L. Nicolosi, Michael L. Space, Louis F. Restrepo

    2006-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Clean Slate Sites II and III are scheduled for environmental remediation (ER) to remove elevated levels of radionuclides in soil. These sites are contaminated with legacy remains of non-nuclear yield nuclear weapons experiments at the Nevada Test Site, that involved high explosive, fissile, and related materials. The sites may also hold unexploded ordnance (UXO) from military training activities in the area over the intervening years. Regulation 10 CFR 830 (Ref. 1) identifies DOE-STD-1120-98 (Ref. 2) and 29 CFR 1910.120 (Ref. 3) as the safe harbor methodologies for performing these remediation operations. Of these methodologies, DOE-STD-1120-98 has been superseded by DOE-STD-1120-2005 (Ref. 4). The project adopted DOE-STD-1120-2005, which includes an approach for ER projects, in combination with 29 CFR 1910.120, as the basis documents for preparing the documented safety analysis (DSA). To securely implement the safe harbor methodologies, we applied DOE-STD-1027-92 (Ref. 5) and DOE-STD-3009-94 (Ref. 6), as needed, to develop a robust hazard classification and hazards analysis that addresses non-standard hazards such as radionuclides and UXO. The hazard analyses provided the basis for identifying Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) level controls. The DOE-STD-1186-2004 (Ref. 7) methodology showed that some controls warranted elevation to Specific Administrative Control (SAC) status. In addition to the Evaluation Guideline (EG) of DOE-STD-3009-94, we also applied the DOE G 420.1 (Ref. 8) annual, radiological dose, siting criterion to define a controlled area around the operation to protect the maximally exposed offsite individual (MOI).

  12. EA-1871: Environmental Assessment for Final Rule, 10 CFR 433, “EE Standards for New Federal Commercial and High-Rise Multi-Family Residential Buildings” and 10 CFR 435, “EE Standards for New Federal Residential Low-Rise Residential Buildings"

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for DOE‘s Final Rule, 10 CFR 433, ?Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Commercial and High-Rise Multi-Family Residential Buildings? and 10 CFR 435, ?Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Residential Low-Rise Residential Buildings? Baseline Standards Update. The final rule updates the baseline standards in 10 CFR 433 and 10 CFR 435 to the latest private sector standards based on the cost-effectiveness of the latest private sector standards and DOE‘s determination that energy efficiency has been improved in these codes as required by 42 U.S.C 6831 et seq. DOE is issuing its final determinations on American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-2007 (ASHRAE 2007) and the International Code Council‘s 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in the same edition of the Federal Register as this final rule.

  13. July 2012, 10 CFR 851 Work Group Status Overview

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't YourTransport(FactDepartment ofLetter Report: I11IG002RTC3 |Julian Wong About10 CFR 851 Work

  14. File:40 CFR 142.pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are8COaBulkTransmissionSitingProcess.pdf Jump to: navigation,Size of this preview: 463 × 599 pixels. Other40 CFR

  15. 36 CFR PART 800 - Protection of Historic Preservation | Department of

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015ofDepartment ofCBFO-13-3322(EE)DepartmentVery5Dryers;under 3000Energy 36 CFR

  16. 10 CFR 851 Implementation Work Group Charter | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you sureReportsofDepartmentSeriesDepartmentSmall to Medium22(Energy-1 110 CFR

  17. September 2012, 10 CFR 851 Work Group Status Overview

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOriginEducationVideo »UsageSecretary of Energy Advisory10MEASUREMENTSensors,8, 200810 CFR 851

  18. Title 18 CFR 131 Forms | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open Energy InformationProcedure |CFR

  19. Title 18 CFR 381 Fees | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open Energy InformationProcedure18 CFR

  20. Title 18 CFR 5 Integrated License Application Process | Open Energy

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18 CFR 4.38

  1. Title 23 CFR 645 Utilities | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18CFR 645 Utilities Jump

  2. Title 25 CFR 162: Leases and Permits | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18CFR 645 UtilitiesLeases

  3. Title 25 CFR 2 Appeals from Administrative Actions | Open Energy

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18CFR 645

  4. Title 40 CFR 1501.7 Scoping | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen EnergyR. 297water0 CFR 1501Scoping

  5. Title 40 CFR 1502 - Environmental Impact Statement | Open Energy

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen EnergyR. 297water0 CFR

  6. Title 40 CFR 1502 Environmental Impact Statement | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen EnergyR. 297water0 CFR

  7. Title 43 CFR 1601 Planning | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen| Open EnergyPrograms:13 CFR 1601

  8. 36 CFR PART 800 - Protection of Historic Preservation | Department of

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: The Future of BadTHEEnergyReliability2015 Peer Review. dEnergy 36 CFR PART

  9. 40 CFR Ch. I (7105 Edition)Pt. 194 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4-

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    36 40 CFR Ch. I (7­1­05 Edition)Pt. 194 Toxaphene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4- trichloro (Benzene, 1,3,5-trinitro-) Tris(1-aziridinyl)phosphine sulfide (Aziridine, 1,1,1phosphinothioylidyne

  10. Regulatory issues for WIPP long-term compliance with EPA 40 CFR 191B and 268

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anderson, D.R.; Marietta, M.G. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Higgins, P.J. Jr. [USDOE Albuquerque Operations Office, NM (United States). Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Project Office

    1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Before disposing of transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with long-term regulations of the United States Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA), specifically the Environmental Standards for the Management and disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191), and the Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is conducting iterative performance assessments (PAs) of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for final compliance evaluations. This paper provides background information on the regulations, describes the SNL WIPP PA Department`s approach to developing a defensible technical basis for consistent compliance evaluations, and summarizes the major observations and conclusions drawn from the 1991 and 1992 PAs.

  11. Radioanalytical technology for 10 CFR Part 61 and other selected radionuclides: Literature review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thomas, C.W.; Thomas, V.W.; Robertson, D.E. [Pacific Northwest National Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A comprehensive literature review and assessment was conducted to identify and evaluate radioanalytical technology and procedures used for measuring 10CFR61 radionuclides and other long-lived isotopes. This review evaluated radiochemical procedures currently in use at a number of laboratories in the US, as well as identifying new advanced methods and techniques which could be adapted for routine radiochemical analyses of low-level radioactive waste. The 10CFR61 radionuclides include {sup 14}C, {sup 60}Cl, {sup 59,63}Ni, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 94}Nb, {sup 99}Tc, {sup 129}I, {sup 137}Cs, and TRU isotopes with half lives greater than 5 years. Other low-level radionuclides of interest include {sup 7,10}Be, {sup 26}Al, {sup 36}Cl, {sup 93}Mo, {sup 109,113m}Cd, and {sup 121m,126}Sn, which may be present in various types of waste streams from nuclear power stations.

  12. U.S. Department of Energy Report, 2005 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keith W. Jacobson, David P. Fuehne

    2006-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Amendments to the Clean Air Act, which added radionuclides to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), went into effect in 1990. Specifically, a subpart (H) of 40 CFR 61 established an annual limit on the impact to the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides from U.S. Department of Energy facilities, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). As part of the new NESHAP regulations, LANL must submit an annual report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters and the regional office in Dallas by June 30. This report includes results of monitoring at LANL and the dose calculations for the calendar year 2006.

  13. 2010 LANL radionuclide air emissions report /

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fuehne, David P.

    2011-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The emissions of radionuclides from Department of Energy Facilities such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are regulated by the Amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1990, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61 Subpart H). These regulations established an annual dose limit of 10 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides. This document describes the emissions of radionuclides from LANL and the dose calculations resulting from these emissions for calendar year 2010. This report meets the reporting requirements established in the regulations.

  14. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Guidance for Calculating Emission Credits Resulting from Implementation of Energy Conservation Measures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cox, Daryl [ORNL; Papar, Riyaz [Hudson Technologies; Wright, Dr. Anthony [ALW Consulting

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for developing a consistent approach to documenting efficiency credits generated from energy conservation measures in the Implementation Plan for boilers covered by the Boiler MACT rule (i.e., subpart DDDDD of CFR part 63). This document divides Boiler System conservation opportunities into four functional areas: 1) the boiler itself, 2) the condensate recovery system, 3) the distribution system, and 4) the end uses of the steam. This document provides technical information for documenting emissions credits proposed in the Implementation Plan for functional areas 2) though 4). This document does not include efficiency improvements related to the Boiler tune-ups.

  15. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Guidance for Calculating Efficiency Credits Resulting from Implementation of Energy Conservation Measures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cox, Daryl [ORNL; Papar, Riyaz [Hudson Technologies; Wright, Dr. Anthony [ALW Consulting

    2013-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for developing a consistent approach to documenting efficiency credits generated from energy conservation measures in the Implementation Plan for boilers covered by the Boiler MACT rule (i.e., subpart DDDDD of CFR part 63). This document divides Boiler System conservation opportunities into four functional areas: 1) the boiler itself, 2) the condensate recovery system, 3) the distribution system, and 4) the end uses of the steam. This document provides technical information for documenting emissions credits proposed in the Implementation Plan for functional areas 2) though 4). This document does not include efficiency improvements related to the Boiler tune-ups.

  16. A Monte Carlo procedure for the construction of complementary cumulative distribution functions for comparison with the EPA release limits for radioactive waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Helton, J.C.; Shiver, A.W.

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A Monte Carlo procedure for the construction of complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) for comparison with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) release limits for radioactive waste disposal (40 CFR 191, Subpart B) is described and illustrated with results from a recent performance assessment (PA) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The Monte Carlo procedure produces CCDF estimates similar to those obtained with stratified sampling in several recent PAs for the WIPP. The advantages of the Monte Carlo procedure over stratified sampling include increased resolution in the calculation of probabilities for complex scenarios involving drilling intrusions and better use of the necessarily limited number of mechanistic calculations that underlie CCDF construction.

  17. Benzene waste NESHAP update and requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bennett, C.D. (Ashland Petroleum Co., Russell, KY (United States))

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On January 7, 1993, USEPA promulgated the clarified National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR 61 Subpart FF. This rule limits benzene emissions from petroleum refinery wastewater systems and other waste management units. Since the time of initial promulgation, March 7, 1990, EPA admits that there has been widespread confusion among refiners concerning the key provisions of the rule. This paper provides clarifications of the new final rule and an overview of both the new alternative compliance options and the compliance waiver provisions.

  18. Remedial action and site design for stabilization of the inactive uranium mill tailings sites at Slick Rock, Colorado. Attachment 4, Water resources protection strategy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    To achieve compliance with the proposed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) groundwater protection standards (Subpart A of 40 CFR 192), the US Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to apply supplemental standards for Class III (limited use) groundwater because of low yield [less than 150 gallons per day (gpd) (7 {times} 10{sup {minus}3} liters per second (L/s))] in the uppermost aquifer (upper sandstone unit of the Burro Canyon Formation). Groundwater in the uppermost aquifer is not a current or potential source of drinking water because of the aquifer`s low yield. As a result, the proposed remedial action will ensure protection of human health and the environment.

  19. RCRA designation of discarded americium/beryllium sealed sources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirner, N.P. [Ebasco Environmental, Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Many sealed sources containing americium and beryllium are used throughout construction, industry, and research, and will eventually require disposal. For planning purposes it is necessary to determine whether these sources, when disposed, constitute a mixed waste, i.e., a waste containing hazardous constituents regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and radioactive constituents regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. Waste designation criteria contained in 40 CFR 261 are evaluated in detail in this report. It is determined that discarded americium/beryllium sealed sources do not contain any wastes listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261, nor do the discarded sources exhibit any hazardous characteristics. Therefore, it is concluded that discarded americium/beryllium sealed sources are not a mixed waste under regulations established by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste regulatory programs delegated to States, however, may have regulations that differ from those of the Federal government.

  20. EA-1872: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Design Standards for New Federal Buildings

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluated the environmental impacts of a proposal to amend the current rule for commercial and high-rise multi-family residential buildings, 10 CFR 433 “Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Commercial and High-Rise Multi-Family Residential Buildings,” to replace ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 with the more stringent ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, incorporated by reference. This EA also evaluated the environmental impacts with regard to low-rise residential buildings; this rulemaking updated 10 CFR 435 Subpart A, “Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Residential Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” to replace the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2004 with the more stringent IECC 2009, incorporated by reference. This EA was completed as DOE/EA-1871.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seylar, Roland F.

    2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  2. Management and Independent Assessments Guide for Use with 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance; DOE M 450.4 -1, Integrated Safety Management System Manual; and DOE O 226.1A, Implementation of DOE Oversight Policy

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

    2007-09-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides information on establishing processes for performing effective assessments. The revision to Guide reflects updated assessment practices, international standards, and changes in DOE expectations. Cancels DOE G 414.1-1A. Certified 11-18-10. Canceled by DOE G 414.1-1C.

  3. SECTION 12-HAZARD COMMUNICATION PROGRAM (HCP) 29 CFR Section 1920-"Hazardous Communications" states that, "the purpose of this section is to ensure

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Selmic, Sandra

    144 SECTION 12- HAZARD COMMUNICATION PROGRAM (HCP) 29 CFR Section 1920- "Hazardous Communications" states that, "the purpose of this section is to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated, and that information concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers

  4. 679.26 Prohibited Species Donation Program 50 CFR 679b26.doc 679.26 Prohibited Species Donation Program Page 1 of 3

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    manager of the processor. (xii) A signed statement from the applicant and from all persons who are listed for personal injury, death, sickness, damage to property directly or indirectly due to activities conducted§ 679.26 Prohibited Species Donation Program 50 CFR 679b26.doc § 679.26 Prohibited Species Donation

  5. Microsoft Word - AppendixBToSubpartDOfPart1021.doc

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    operation of microwaveradio communication towers B1.20 Protectrestoreimprove fish and wildlife habitat B1.21 Noise abatement B1.22 Relocation of buildings B1.23...

  6. Subpart W Stakeholders Conference Call July 11, 2013

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    , Angelique Diaz Environmental Groups: Sharyn Cunningham, CCAT; Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch; Jennifer Thurston, INFORM Uranium Industry/Other: Oscar Paulson, Kennecott; Mike Griffin, Strata; Dawn Coleman, Uranerz on "Regulations under EO 12866 Review," it's listed as being under review since 6/10/2013. Sarah Fields: Has put

  7. ATTENDANCE/MINUTES QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL ON SUBPART W

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Egidi ­ CDPHE Sarah Fields ­ Uranium Watch Zach Rogers ­ Energy Fuels Resources Corp. Scott Bakken

  8. ATTENDANCE/DRAFT MINUTES QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL ON SUBPART W

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Holtz ­ CCAT Kay Hawklee CCAT Travis Stills ­ Energy Minerals Law Center Phil Egidi ­ CDPHE Nick on "on the ground". Phil Egidi ­ Surface impoundment is in the closure process, not operational. Cotter

  9. Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Subpart 903...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    under the Disputes clause of the contract regarding the disallowance of cost or the termination of the contract. 903.971 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the...

  10. Subpart W Stakeholder Conference Call July 5, 2012

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Energy), Frank Filas (Energy Fuels) OTHER: Katie Sweeney (National Mining Association), Janet Johnson of Management and Budget (OMB). EPA has a lot of regulations, and the Office of Policy prioritizes which rules

  11. Appendix B to Subpart D to Part 1021

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

    window washing, lawn mowing, trash collection, painting, and snow removal. Routine maintenance activities, corrective (that is, repair), preventive, and predictive, are...

  12. DOE Subpart H Report. Annual NESHAPS Meeting on Radiological Emissions |

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: Theof"WaveInteractions andDefinition oftheLighting Inventory

  13. Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Subpart 903.9:

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

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

  14. MENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLE- MENTING PROCEDURES Subpart A-General

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy ChinaofSchaeferApril 1,(EAC) Richard Cowart, Chair DATE: JuneON24 March 2014 Re: Ex3,

  15. Appendix B to Subpart D to Part 1021

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: The Future of1Albuquerque, NMPerformanceofEnergy 51Department

  16. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Generators (40 cfr part 262) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of regulations applicable to generators of hazardous waste. It defines the terms `generator` and `co-generator,` and lists the three classes of generators, outlines the different generation and accumulation limits, and provides specific regulatory and CFR citations. It defines episodic generation and explains the use of EPA identification numbers and manifests. It outlines the accumulation standards, defines `empty tank` and `start time` for waste accumulation purposes, and identifies regulations pertaining to accumulation in tanks, containers, containment buildings, and on drip pads. It defines `satellite accumulation` and provides applicable federal register citations. It cites the CFR section covering recordkeeping and reporting requirements for generators. It explains how to obtain copies of notification forms and manifests.

  17. 1996 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) -- Radionuclides. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Under Section 61.94 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, ``National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,`` each Department of Energy (DOE) facility must submit an annual report documenting compliance. This report addresses the Section 61.94 reporting requirements for operations at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for calendar year (CY) 1996. The Idaho Operations Office of the DOE is the primary contact concerning compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) at the INEEL. For calendar year 1996, airborne radionuclide emissions from the INEEL operations were calculated to result in a maximum individual dose to a member of the public of 3.14E-02 mrem (3.14E-07 Sievert). This effective dose equivalent (EDE) is well below the 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, regulatory standard of 10 mrem per year (1.0E-04 Sievert per year).

  18. A Regulatory Analysis and Reassessment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Listed Hazardous Waste Numbers for Applicability to the INTEC Liquid Waste System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gilbert, K.L.; Venneman, T.E.

    1998-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report concludes that there are four listed hazardous waste numbers (F001, F002, F005, and U134) applicable to the waste in the Process Equipment Waste Evaporator (PEWE) liquid waste system at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The chemical constituents associated with these listed hazardous waste numbers, including those listed only for ignitability are identified. The RCRA Part A permit application hazardous waste numbers identify chemical constituents that may be treated or stored by the PEWE liquid waste system either as a result of a particular characteristic (40 CFR, Subpart C) or as a result of a specific process (40 CFR 261, Subpart D). The RCRA Part A permit application for the PEWE liquid waste system identifies the universe of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous waste numbers [23 characteristic (hazardous waste codes) numbers and 105 listed numbers (four F-listed hazardous waste numbers, 20 P-listed hazardous waste numbers, and 81 U-listed hazardous waste numbers)] deemed acceptable for storage and treatment. This evaluation, however, identifies only listed wastes (and their chemical constituents) that have actually entered the PEWE liquid waste system and would, therefore, be assigned to the PEWE liquids and treatment residuals.

  19. 1998 INEEL National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclides

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. W. Tkachyk

    1999-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Under Section 61.94 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emission of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,'' each Department of Energy (DOE) facility must submit an annual report documenting compliance. This report addresses the Section 61.94 reporting requirements for operations at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for calendar year (CY) 1998. The Idaho Operations Office of the DOE is the primary contract concerning compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) at the INEEL. For CY 1998, airborne radionuclide emissions from the INEEL operations were calculated to result in a maximum individual dose to a member of the public of 7.92E-03 mrem (7.92E-08 Sievert). This effective dose equivalent (EDE) is well below the 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, regulatory standard of 10 mrem per year (1.0E-04 Sievert per year).

  20. 1999 INEEL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclides

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. W. Tkachyk

    2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Under Section 61.94 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emission of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,'' each Department of Energy (DOE) facility must submit an annual report documenting compliance. This report addresses the Section 61.94 reporting requirements for operations at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for calendar year (CY) 1999. The Idaho Operations Office of the DOE is the primary contract concerning compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) at the INEEL. For CY 1999, airborne radionuclide emissions from the INEEL operations were calculated to result in a maximum individual dose to a member of the public of 7.92E-03 mrem (7.92E-08 Sievert). This effective dose equivalent (EDE) is well below the 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, regulatory standard of 10 mrem per year (1.0E-04 Sievert per year).

  1. Design/installation and structural integrity assessment of Bethel Valley low-level waste collection and transfer system upgrade for Building 3092 (Central Off-Gas Scrubber Facility) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes and assesses planned modifications to be made to the Building 3092 Central Off-Gas Scrubber Facility of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The modifications are made in responsible to the requirements of 40CFR264 Subpart J, relating to environmental protection requirements for buried tank systems. The modifications include the provision of a new scrubber recirculation tank in a new, below ground, lines concrete vault, replacing and existing recirculation sump that does not provide double containment. A new buried, double contained pipeline is provided to permit discharge of spent scrubber recirculation fluid to the Central Waste Collection Header. The new vault, tank, and discharge line are provided with leak detection and provisions to remove accumulated liquid. New scrubber recirculation pumps, piping, and accessories are also provided. This assessment concludes that the planned modifications comply with applicable requirements of 40CFR264 Subpart J, as set forth in Appendix F to the Federal Facility Agreement, Docket No. 89-04-FF, covering the Oak Ridge Reservation.

  2. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Transporters (40 cfr part 263) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The report provides an overview of the regulatory requirements of transporters of hazardous waste. It lists the conditions and requirements for a transfer facility. It identifies transporter recordkeeping and manifesting requirements. It identifies transporter requirements when exporting hazardous waste. It states the conditions under which a transporter is subject to the generator regulations and cites the CFR section covering the transporter responsibilities for hazardous waste discharges.

  3. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Permits and interim status (40 cfr part 270) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Owners/operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste must obtain an operating permit, as required by Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The module presents an overview of the RCRA permitting process and the requirements that apply to TSDFs operating under interim status until a permit is issued. The regulations governing the permit process are found in 40 CFR Parts 124 through 270.

  4. Radionuclide air emissions report for the Hanford Site -- calendar year 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gleckler, B.P.; Rhoads, K.

    1998-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emission from the Hanford Site in 1997, and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed member of the public, referred to as the MEI. The report has been prepared in accordance with reporting requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. This report has also been prepared in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection-Air Emissions. The effective dose equivalent to the MEI from the Hanford Site`s 1997 point source emissions was 1.2 E-03 mrem (1.2 E-05 mSv), which is well below the 40 CFR 61 Subpart H regulatory limit of 10 mrem/yr. Radon and thoron emissions, exempted from 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, resulted in an effective dose equivalent to the MEI of 2.5 E-03 mrem (2.5 E-05 mSv). The effective dose equivalent to the MEI attributable to diffuse and fugitive emissions was 2.2 E-02 mrem (2.2 E-04 mSv). The total effective dose equivalent from all of the Hanford Site`s air emissions was 2.6 E-02 mrem (2.6 E-04 mSv). The effective dose equivalent from all of the Hanford Site`s air emissions is well below the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 246-247, regulatory limit of 10 mrem/yr.

  5. Summary of radionuclide air emissions from Department of Energy facilities for CY 1993

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Facilities owned or operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) handle and process radioactive materials in conjunction with their research, nuclear materials production, remediation, and waste disposal activities. During normal operations, some of these facilities have the potential to release small quantities of radionuclides to the environment. Radionuclide emissions to the atmosphere from DOE facilities are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 61 of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) sets standards for public exposure to airborne radioactive materials (other than radon) released by DOE facilities, DOE radon emissions are regulated by NESHAPs in Subparts Q and T. Subparts Q and T apply specifically to DOE storage and disposal facilities for radium-containing material. Airborne radionuclide emissions are also regulated by the Department of Energy under the authority provided by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, as amended. This report summarizes air emissions subject to the EPA requirements and demonstrates that DOE facilities are in compliance with the required dose limits.

  6. July 17, 2008; HSS/Union Working Group Meeting, Safety Standards, 10 CFR 851 - Information Package

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't YourTransport(FactDepartment ofLetter Report: I11IG002RTC3 |Julian Wong About UsHSSJuly10 CFR

  7. 18 CFR Conservation of Power and Water Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to:Ezfeedflag JumpID-fTriWildcat 1 Wind Projectsource HistorykVOpenOpen Energy CFR Conservation

  8. DOE Order Self Study Modules - 29 CFR 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: Theof"WaveInteractions and Policy (2009) | Department ofDepartment29 CFR

  9. Title 18 CFR 4.38 Consultation Requirements | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18 CFR 4.38 Consultation

  10. Title 18 CFR 4.95 Surrender of Exemption | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18 CFR 4.38 Consultation95

  11. Title 18 CFR 6.1 Application for Surrender | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18 CFR 4.38Application for

  12. Title 18 CFR 6.2 Surrender of License | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18 CFR 4.38Application

  13. Title 25 C.F.R. 224 - Tribal Energy Resource Agreements Under the Indian

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18CFR 645 Utilities

  14. Title 25 CFR 211 Leasing of Tribal Lands for Mineral Development | Open

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,Open EnergyTitle 18CFR 645Energy

  15. Title 40 CFR 1501 NEPA and Agency Planning | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen EnergyR. 297water0 CFR 1501 NEPA

  16. Title 40 CFR 1501.4 Whether to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement |

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen EnergyR. 297water0 CFR 1501

  17. Title 43 CFR 1601.0-6 Environmental Impact Statement Policy | Open Energy

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen| Open EnergyPrograms:13 CFR

  18. Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for the Hanford Site Calendar Year 1999

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    ROKKAN, D.J.

    2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the US. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in 1999 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public. The report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities'', and with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247. Radiation Protection-Air Emissions. The federal regulations in Subpart H of 40 CFR 61 require the measurement and reporting of radionuclides emitted from US. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities and the resulting offsite dose from those emissions. A standard of 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE) is imposed on them. The EDE to the MEI due to routine emissions in 1999 from Hanford Site point sources was 0.029 mrem (2.9 E-04 mSv), which is less than 0.3 percent of the federal standard. WAC 246-247 requires the reporting of radionuclide emissions from all Hanford Site sources, during routine as well as nonroutine operations. The state has adopted the 40 CFR 61 standard of 10 mrem/yr EDE into their regulations. The state further requires that the EDE to the MEI be calculated not only from point source emissions but also from diffuse and fugitive sources of emissions. The EDE from diffuse and fugitive emissions at the Hanford Site in 1999 was 0.039 mrem (3.9 E-04 mSv) EDE. The total dose from point sources and from diffuse and fugitive sources of radionuclide emissions during all operating conditions in 1999 was 0.068 mrem (6.8 E-04 mSv) EDE, which is less than 0.7 percent of the state standard.

  19. Summary of Decisions- August 5, 2013- August 9, 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710) - Whistleblower Appeal (10 CFR Part 708)

  20. Final safety evaluation report related to the certification of the advanced boiling water reactor design. Volume 1: Main report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This safety evaluation report (SER) documents the technical review of the US Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) standard design by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. The application for the ABWR design was initially submitted by the General Electric Company, now GE Nuclear Energy (GE), in accordance with the procedures of Appendix O of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50). Later GE requested that its application be considered as an application for design approval and subsequent design certification pursuant to 10 CFR {section} 52.45. The ABWR is a single-cycle, forced-circulation, boiling water reactor (BWR) with a rated power of 3,926 megawatts thermal (MWt) and a design power of 4,005 MWt. To the extent feasible and appropriate, the staff relied on earlier reviews for those ABWR design features that are substantially the same as those previously considered. Unique features of the ABWR design include internal recirculation pumps, fine-motion control rod drives, microprocessor-based digital logic and control systems, and digital safety systems. On the basis of its evaluation and independent analyses, the NRC staff concludes that, subject to satisfactory resolution of the confirmatory items identified in Section 1.8 of this SER, GE`s application for design certification meets the requirements of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 that are applicable and technically relevant to the US ABWR standard design.

  1. Final safety evaluation report related to the certification of the advanced boiling water reactor design. Volume 2: Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This safety evaluation report (SER) documents the technical review of the US Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) standard design by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. The application for the ABWR design was initially submitted by the General Electric Company, now GE Nuclear Energy (GE), in accordance with the procedures of Appendix O of Part 50 of Title 10 of the code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50). Later GE requested that its application be considered as an application for design approval and subsequent design certification pursuant to 10 CFR {section} 52.45. The ABWR is a single-cycle, forced-circulation, boiling water reactor (BWR) with a rated power of 3,926 megawatts thermal (MWt) and a design power of 4,005 MWt. To the extent feasible and appropriate, the staff relied on earlier reviews for those ABWR design features that are substantially the same as those previously considered. Unique features of the ABWR design include internal recirculation pumps, fine-motion control rod drives, microprocessor-based digital logic and control systems, and digital safety systems. On the basis of its evaluation and independent analyses, the NRC staff concludes that, subject to satisfactory resolution of the confirmatory items identified in Section 1.8 of this SER, GE`s application for design certification meets the requirements of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 that are applicable and technically relevant to the US ABWR standard design.

  2. Regulatory issues for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant long-term compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR 191B and 268

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anderson, D.R.; Marietta, M.G. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Higgins, P.J. Jr. [USDOE Albuquerque Field Office, NM (United States). Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Project Integration Office

    1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Before disposing of transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with long-term regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), specifically the Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191), and the Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is conducting iterative performance assessments (PAs) of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for final compliance evaluations. This paper provides background information on the regulations, describes the SNL WIPP PA Departments approach to developing a defensible technical basis for consistent compliance evaluations, and summarizes the major observations and conclusions drawn from the 1991 and 1992 PAs.

  3. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Generators (40 CFR part 262) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of regulations applicable to generators of hazardous waste. It defines the terms generator and co-generator. Lists the three classes of generators, outlines the different generation and accumulation limits, and provides specific regulatory and CFR citations. It also defines episodic generation. It explains the use of EPA identification numbers and manifests. It outlines the accumulation standards, defines empty tank and start time for waste accumulation purposes, and identifies regulations pertaining to accumulation in tanks, containers, containment buildings, and on drip pads. It defines satellite accumulation and provides applicable federal register citations. It cites the CFR section covering recordkeeping and reporting requirements for generators. It explains how to obtain copies of notification forms and manifests.

  4. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Permits and interim status (40 CFR part 270) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of the RCRA permitting process and the requirements that apply to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) operating under interim status until a permit is issued. It lists the types of activities that do and do not require a permit. It provides CFR cites for definitions of existing hazardous waste facility and new hazardous waste facility and identifies CFR sections relevant to Part A and Part B permit information requirements and describes the difference between them. It outlines steps in the process from interim status to receipt of permit. It identifies the differences among permit modification classes, and lists the special forms of permits. It lists the permit-by-rule applications, status and eligibility requirements for interim status and the conditions for termination of interim status and lists the conditions for changes during interim status.

  5. Implementation of 10 CFR 20.1406 Through Life Cycle Planning for Decommissioning

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Donnell, E.; Ott, W.R. [Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States)

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper summarizes a regulatory guide that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, is currently developing for use in implementing Title 10, Section 20.1406, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20.1406), 'Minimization of Contamination'. The intent of the regulation is to diminish the occurrence and severity of 'legacy sites' by taking measures to reduce and control contamination and facilitate eventual decommissioning. The thrust of the regulatory guide is to encourage applicants to use technically sound engineering judgment and a practical risk-informed approach to achieve the objectives of 10 CFR 20.1406. In particular, such an approach should consider the materials and processes involved (e.g., solids, liquids, gases), and focus on (1) the relative significance of potential contamination, (2) areas that are most susceptible to leaks, and (3) the appropriate level of consideration that should be incorporated in facility design and operational procedures to prevent and control contamination. (authors)

  6. What is the Economic Impact of 40 CFR 197 on Yucca Mountain?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Foutes, C. E.; Czyscinski, K.; Bartlett, J.; Kozak, M.

    2002-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    In this paper, DOE's strategy for development of a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is reviewed to determine the impact of EPA's 40 CFR 197 rule making on the repository. This review is conducted through two major, converging perspectives. The first, an historical perspective, traces the evolution of the repository design from principal reliance for safety on natural barriers to a design having principal reliance on engineered barriers. This perspective demonstrates that this change evolved as a result of site characterization findings and their resulting impact on repository design, together with criticism and recommendations from external reviews of the DOE program. The second perspective, performance assessment, traces the evolution of strategy to achieve current performance, i.e., no expected radionuclide releases and no potential for radiation doses for more than 10,000 years. Together, these perspectives lead to the conclusion that the Yucca Mountain Repository has evolved in such a way that EPA's 40 CFR Part 197 standards have had and will have no impact on the costs of repository program development.

  7. Implementation of the Resource Disincentive in 40 CFR part 191.14 (e) at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1986, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Project Office (WPO) (DOE-WPO) prepared a strategy for complying with the Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA`s) Standards for the management of transuranic (TRU) waste. Section 3.2.2.2 of the DOE`s report addressed compliance with the Assurance Requirements found in 40 CFR {section} 191.14. One of the Assurance Requirements addresses the selection of repository sites that contain recoverable natural resources. This report documents that the site selection process for the WIPP facility did indeed comply with the natural resource disincentive requirement in 40 CFR {section} 191,14(e) at the time selected and therefore complies with the standard at this time. Thus, it shall be shown that it is reasonably certain that the WIPP site provides better overall protection than practical alternatives that were available when the site was selected. It is important to point out here, and it will be discussed later in the report, that the resource disincentive requirement is a preliminary siting criterion that requires further evaluation of sites that have resources (i.e, hydrocarbons, minerals and groundwater) in the vicinity or on the site. This further evaluation requires that for sites that do have resources, a qualitative determination must be made that the site will provide better overall protection than practical alternatives. The purpose of this report is not to provide a quantitative evaluation for selection of the WIPP site. A further discussion on the difference between the qualitative analysis required under 40 CFR {section} 191.14(e) and the quantitative analysis under other sections of 40 CFR 191 is provided in {section}2.1 of this report.

  8. RCRA/UST, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Transporters (40 CFR part 263) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This module provides an overview of the regulatory requirements of transporters of hazardous waste. It lists the conditions and requirements for a transfer facility. Identifies the transporter`s recordkeeping and manifesting requirements. It identifies the transporter requirements when exporting hazardous waste and states the conditions under which a transporter is subject to generator regulations. It cites the CFR section covering the transporter responsibilities for hazardous waste discharges.

  9. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  10. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Initial Report for PCB Disposal Authorization (40 CFR {section} 761.75[c])

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Westinghouse TRU Solutions

    2002-03-19T23:59:59.000Z

    This initial report is being submitted pursuant to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) {section} 761.75(c) to request authorization to allow the disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which are duly regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Approval of this initial report will not affect the disposal of TRU or TRU mixed wastes that do not contain PCBs. This initial report also demonstrates how the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) meets or exceeds the technical standards for a Chemical Waste Landfill. Approval of this request will allow the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of approximately 88,000 cubic feet (ft3) (2,500 cubic meters [m3]) of TRU wastes containing PCBs subject to regulation under the TSCA. This approval will include only those PCB/TRU wastes, which the TSCA regulations allow for disposal of the PCB component in municipal solid waste facilities or chemical waste landfills (e.g., PCB remediation waste, PC B articles, and bulk PCB product waste). Disposal of TRU waste by the DOE is congressionally mandated in Public Law 102-579 (as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub. L. 104-201, referred to as the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act [LWA]). Portions of the TRU waste inventory contain hazardous waste constituents regulated under 40 CFR Parts 260 through 279, and/or PCBs and PCB Items regulated under 40 CFR Part 761. Therefore, the DOE TRU waste program must address the disposal requirements for these hazardous waste constituents and PCBs. To facilitate the disposal of TRU wastes containing hazardous waste constituents, the owner/operators received a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on October 27, 1999. The permit allows the disposal of TRU wastes subject to hazardous waste disposal requirements (TRU mixed waste). Informational copies of this permit and other referenced documents are available from the WIPP website. To facilitate the disposal of TRU wastes containing PCBs, the owner/operators are hereby submitting this initial report containing information required pursuant to the Chemical Waste Landfill Approval requirements in 40 CFR {section} 761.75(c). Although WIPP is defined as a miscellaneous unit and not a landfill by the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act, WIPP meets or exceeds all applicable technical standards for chemical waste landfills by virtue of its design and programs as indicated in the Engineering Report (Attachment B). The layout of this initial report is consistent with requirements (i.e., Sections 2.0 through 12.0 following the sequence of 40 CFR {section} 761.75[c][i] -[ix] with sections added to discuss the Contingency and Training Plans; and Attachment B of this initial report addresses the requirements of 40 CFR {section} 761.75[b][1] through [9] in this order). This initial report includes a description of three proposed changes that will be subject to ''conditional approval.'' The first will allow the disposal of remote-handled (RH) PCB/TRU waste at WIPP. The second will allow the establishment of a central confirmation facility at WIPP. The third will allow for an increase in contact-handled Working Copy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Initial Report for PCB Disposal Authorization DOE/WIPP 02-3196 (CH) waste storage capacities. These proposed changes are discussed further in Section 3.3 of this initial report. ''Conditional approval'' of these requests would allow these activities at WIPP contingent upon: - Approval of the HWFP modification (NMED) and Compliance Certification Application (CCA) change request (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) - Inspection of facility prior to implementing the change (if deemed necessary by the EPA) - Written approval from the EPA This initial report also includes the following three requests for waivers to the technical requirements for Chemical Waste Landfills pursuant to 40 CFR {section} 761.75(c)(4): - Hydrologic Conditions (40 CFR {section} 761.75[b][3]) - Monitoring Systems (40 CFR {sect

  11. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Land disposal restrictions (40 cfr parts 268) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of the land disposal restrictions (LDR) program. It defines the basic terms and describes the structure of the LDR regulations. It identifies the statutory basis for LDR and describes the applicability of LDR. It explains how EPA sets treatment standards and identifies treatment standards for wastes subject to land disposal restrictions and cites the CFR section. It describes and identifies how exemptions and variances from treatment requirements are obtained, including federal register citations. It defines generator and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) requirements under the LDR program. It summarizes the schedule of existing restrictions and the plan for restricting newly identified wastes.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fisk, Patricia; Rutherford, Lavon

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. High-level and transuranic radioactive wastes: Background information document for amendments to 40 CFR part 191

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The report provides the necessary background information technical analyses, and justifications in support of the proposed amendments to 40 CFR Part 191. The scope of the report encompasses the conceptual framework for assessing radiation exposures and associated health risks. In general terms, this assessment examines the radioactive source term characterization, analysis of the movement of radionuclides from the repository through the appropriate environmental exposure pathways and doses received by members of the general public. The report used transuranic waste for individual dose and ground-water protection analysis.

  14. July 17, 2008; HSS/Union Working Group Meeting, Safety Standards, 10 CFR 851 Â… Meeting Summary

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't YourTransport(FactDepartment ofLetter Report: I11IG002RTC3 |Julian Wong About UsHSSJuly1010 CFR

  15. Microsoft Word - RL14788-Section_J-02_373.docx

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

    Regulations, Quality Assurance 40 CFR 261 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 262 Standards Applicable To Generators Of Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 264 Standards...

  16. Microsoft Word - TOC Section J.2_Conformed thru Mod 244.doc

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

    Regulations, Quality Assurance 40 CFR 261 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 262 Standards Applicable To Generators Of Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 264 Standards...

  17. U.S. Department of Energy's Siting Guidelines at 10 CFR 963

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kouts, C. A.; Murray, R. C.; Voegele, M. D.; Boyle, W. L.

    2002-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has amended the policies under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a site for development of a nuclear waste repository. The final rule at Title 10, Part 963 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 963) focuses on the criteria and methodology to be used for evaluating relevant geological and other related aspects of the Yucca Mountain site. Consistent with the long standing policy to conform the DOE suitability guidelines for its nuclear waste repository program to licensing regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the DOE's criteria and methodology are consistent with the NRC's recently final regulations for licensing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

  18. Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

    2003-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The Delaware Basin Drilling Surveillance Program (DBDSP) is designed to monitor drilling activities in the vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This program is based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. The EPA environmental standards for the management and disposal of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste are codified in 40 CFR Part 191 (EPA 1993). Subparts B and C of the standard address the disposal of radioactive waste. The standard requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to demonstrate the expected performance of the disposal system using a probabilistic risk assessment or performance assessment (PA). This PA must show that the expected repository performance will not release radioactive material above limits set by the EPA's standard. This assessment must include the consideration of inadvertent drilling into the repository at some future time.

  19. Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

    2005-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The Delaware Basin Drilling Surveillance Program (DBDSP) is designed to monitor drilling activities in the vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This program is based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. The EPA environmental standards for the management and disposal of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste are codified in 40 CFR Part 191 (EPA 1993). Subparts B and C of the standard address the disposal of radioactive waste. The standard requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to demonstrate the expected performance of the disposal system using a probabilistic risk assessment or performance assessment (PA). This PA must show that the expected repository performance will not release radioactive material above limits set by the EPA's standard. This assessment must include the consideration of inadvertent drilling into the repository at some future time.

  20. Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

    2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The Delaware Basin Drilling Surveillance Program (DBDSP) is designed to monitor drilling activities in the vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This program is based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. The EPA environmental standards for the management and disposal of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste are codified in 40 CFR Part 191 (EPA 1993). Subparts B and C of the standard address the disposal of radioactive waste. The standard requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to demonstrate the expected performance of the disposal system using a probabilistic risk assessment or performance assessment (PA). This PA must show that the expected repository performance will not release radioactive material above limits set by the EPA's standard. This assessment must include the consideration of inadvertent drilling into the repository at some future time.

  1. 1997 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) -- Radionuclides annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Under Section 61.94 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities, each Department of Energy (DOE) facility must submit an annual report documenting compliance. This report addresses the Section 61.94 reporting requirements for operations at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for calendar year (CY) 1997. Section 1 of this report provides an overview of the INEEL facilities and a brief description of the radioactive materials and processes at the facilities. Section 2 identifies radioactive air effluent release points and diffuse sources at the INEEL and actual releases during 1997. Section 2 also describes the effluent control systems for each potential release point. Section 3 provides the methodology and EDE calculations for 1997 INEEL radioactive emissions.

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

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

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  3. Pacific Northwest Laboratory facilities radionuclide inventory assessment CY 1992-1993

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sula, M.J.; Jette, S.J.

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Assessments for evaluating compliance with airborne radionuclide emission monitoring requirements in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs - U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 Part 61, Subparts H and I) were performed for 33 buildings at the U.S. Department of Energy`s (DOE) Pacific Northwest Laboratory on the Hanford Site, and for five buildings owned and operated by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Washington. The assessments were performed using building radionuclide inventory data obtained in 1992 and 1993. Results of the assessments are summarized in Table S.1 for DOE-PNL buildings and in Table S.2 for Battelle-owned buildings. Based on the radionuclide inventory assessments, four DOE-PNL buildings (one with two emission points) require continuous sampling for radionuclides per 40 CFR 61. None of the Battelle-owned buildings require continuous emission sampling.

  4. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emission Points and Sampling Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barfuss, Brad C.; Barnett, J. M.; Ballinger, Marcel Y.

    2009-04-08T23:59:59.000Z

    Battelle—Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development laboratories in Richland, Washington, including those associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) on the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP 40 CFR 61, Subparts H and I) requires an assessment of all effluent release points that have the potential for radionuclide emissions. Potential emissions are assessed annually. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based upon the potential-to-emit dose criteria found in the regulations. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission point system performance, operation, and design information. A description of the buildings, exhaust points, control technologies, and sample extraction details is provided for each registered or deregistered facility emission point. Additionally, applicable stack sampler configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are provided.

  5. New environmental regulation for the aerospace industry: The aerospace NESHAP

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bauer, J.P.; Gampper, B.P. [Brusn and McDonnell Waste Consultants, Inc., Kansas City, MO (United States); Baker, J.M. [Raytheon Aircraft Co., Wichita, KS (United States)

    1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities, commonly referred to as the Aerospace NESHAP, was issued on September 1, 1995 and requires compliance by September 1, 1998. The regulation affects any facility that manufactures or reworks commercial, civil, or military aircraft vehicles or components and is a major source of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). The regulation targets reducing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions to the atmosphere. Processes affected by the new regulation include aircraft painting, paint stripping, chemical milling masking, solvent cleaning, and spray gun cleaning. Regulatory requirements affecting these processes are summarized, and different compliance options compared in terms of cost-effectiveness and industry acceptance. Strategies to reduce compliance costs and minimize recordkeeping burdens are also presented.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2007-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

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

  7. Comment and response document for the ground water protection strategy for the Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Green River, Utah

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) responses to comments from both the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the state of Utah are provided in this document. The Proposed Ground Water Protection Strategy for the Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Green River, Utah, presents the proposed (modified) ground water protection strategy for the disposal cell at the Green River disposal site for compliance with Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 192. Before the disposal cell was constructed, site characterization was conducted at the Green River Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project site to determine an acceptable compliance strategy. Results of the investigation are reported in detail in the final remedial action plan (RAP) (DOE, 1991a). The NRC and the state of Utah have accepted the final RAP. The changes in this document relate only to a modification of the compliance strategy for ground water protection.

  8. US Department of Energy Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action ground water Project. Revision 1, Version 1: Final project plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The scope of the Project is to develop and implement a ground water compliance strategy for all 24 UMTRA processing sites. The compliance strategy for the processing sites must satisfy requirements of the proposed EPA ground water cleanup standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts B and C (1988). This scope of work will entail the following activities, on a site-specific basis: Development of a compliance strategy based upon modification of the UMTRA Surface Project remedial action plans (RAP) or development of Ground Water Project RAPs with NRC and state or tribal concurrence on the RAP; implementation of the RAP to include establishment of institutional controls, where appropriate; institution of long-term verification monitoring for transfer to a separate DOE program on or before the Project end date; and preparation of completion reports and final licensing on those sites that will be completed prior to the Project end date.

  9. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Municipal solid waste disposal facility criteria updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) and provides the statutory authority under RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) directing EPA to develop the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR Part 258. It gives the part 258 effective date and the compliance dates for providing demonstrations to satisfy individual regulatory requirements. It identifies the types of facilities that qualify for the small landfill exemption. It explains the requirements of each subpart of part 258 as they apply to states with EPA-approved MSWLF permit programs and states without approved permit programs. It compares the MSWLF environmental performance standards described in part 258 to the corresponding requirements for hazardous waste TSDFs in part 264, which are generally more stringent.

  10. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Municipal solid waste disposal facility criteria, updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). It provides the statutory authority under RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) directing EPA to develop the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR Part 258. It also provides the Part 258 effective date and the compliance dates for providing demonstrations to satisfy individual regulatory requirements. It identifies the types of facilities that qualify for the small landfill exemption. It explains the requirements of each subpart of Part 258 as they apply to states with EPA-approved MSWLF permit programs and states without approved permit programs. It compares the MSWLF environmental performance standards described in Part 258 to the corresponding requirements for hazardous waste TSDFs in Part 264, which are generally more stringent.

  11. National Environmental Policy Act Hazards Assessment for the TREAT Alternative

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen; Annette L. Schafer

    2014-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides an assessment of hazards as required by the National Environmental Policy Act for the alternative of restarting the reactor at the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility by the Resumption of Transient Testing Program. Potential hazards have been identified and screening level calculations have been conducted to provide estimates of unmitigated dose consequences that could be incurred through this alternative. Consequences considered include those related to use of the TREAT Reactor, experiment assembly handling, and combined events involving both the reactor and experiments. In addition, potential safety structures, systems, and components for processes associated with operating TREAT and onsite handling of nuclear fuels and experiments are listed. If this alternative is selected, a safety basis will be prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 830, “Nuclear Safety Management,” Subpart B, “Safety Basis Requirements.”

  12. Basement Fill Model Evaluation of Maximum Radionuclide Concentrations for Initial Suite of Radionuclides. Zion Station Restoration Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sullivan, Terry [Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY (United States). Biological, Environmental and Climate Sciences Dept.

    2014-12-10T23:59:59.000Z

    ZionSolutions is in the process of decommissioning the Zion Nuclear Power Plant in order to establish a new water treatment plant. There is some residual radioactive particles from the plant which need to be brought down to levels so an individual who receives water from the new treatment plant does not receive a radioactive dose in excess of 25 mrem/y?¹ as specified in 10 CFR 20 Subpart E. The objectives of this report are: (a) To present a simplified conceptual model for release from the buildings with residual subsurface structures that can be used to provide an upper bound on radionuclide concentrations in the fill material and the water in the interstitial spaces of the fill. (b) Provide maximum water concentrations and the corresponding amount of mass sorbed to the solid fill material that could occur in each building for use by ZSRP in selecting ROCs for detailed dose assessment calculations.

  13. National Environmental Policy Act Hazards Assessment for the TREAT Alternative

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen; Annette L. Schafer

    2013-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides an assessment of hazards as required by the National Environmental Policy Act for the alternative of restarting the reactor at the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility by the Resumption of Transient Testing Program. Potential hazards have been identified and screening level calculations have been conducted to provide estimates of unmitigated dose consequences that could be incurred through this alternative. Consequences considered include those related to use of the TREAT Reactor, experiment assembly handling, and combined events involving both the reactor and experiments. In addition, potential safety structures, systems, and components for processes associated with operating TREAT and onsite handling of nuclear fuels and experiments are listed. If this alternative is selected, a safety basis will be prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 830, “Nuclear Safety Management,” Subpart B, “Safety Basis Requirements.”

  14. Clothes Dryer Automatic Termination Evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TeGrotenhuis, Ward E.

    2014-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Volume 2: Improved Sensor and Control Designs Many residential clothes dryers on the market today provide automatic cycles that are intended to stop when the clothes are dry, as determined by the final remaining moisture content (RMC). However, testing of automatic termination cycles has shown that many dryers are susceptible to over-drying of loads, leading to excess energy consumption. In particular, tests performed using the DOE Test Procedure in Appendix D2 of 10 CFR 430 subpart B have shown that as much as 62% of the energy used in a cycle may be from over-drying. Volume 1 of this report shows an average of 20% excess energy from over-drying when running automatic cycles with various load compositions and dryer settings. Consequently, improving automatic termination sensors and algorithms has the potential for substantial energy savings in the U.S.

  15. Interim Status Closure Plan Open Burning Treatment Unit Technical Area 16-399 Burn Tray

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vigil-Holterman, Luciana R. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-05-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This closure plan describes the activities necessary to close one of the interim status hazardous waste open burning treatment units at Technical Area (TA) 16 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Facility), hereinafter referred to as the 'TA-16-399 Burn Tray' or 'the unit'. The information provided in this closure plan addresses the closure requirements specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 265, Subparts G and P for the thermal treatment units operated at the Facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act. Closure of the open burning treatment unit will be completed in accordance with Section 4.1 of this closure plan.

  16. Marine Sciences Laboratory Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Snyder, Sandra F.; Barnett, J. M.; Ballinger, Marcel Y.

    2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) located on Battelle Land – Sequim (Sequim). This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.” The EDE to the Sequim MEI due to routine operations in 2013 was 5E-05 mrem (5E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2013. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

  17. Applicability issues and compliance strategies for the proposed oil and gas industry hazardous air pollutant standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tandon, N.; Winborn, K.A.; Grygar, W.W. II

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has targeted oil and natural gas transmission and storage facilities located across the United States for regulation under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) program (proposed in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 63 [40 CFR 63], Subparts HH and HHH). The proposed NESHAP were published in the February 6, 1998 Federal Register and are expected to be promulgated in May 1999. These rules are intended to reduce Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emitted from oil and gas facilities. It is expected that these rules will require more than 400 major sources and more than 500 non-major sources (also referred to as area sources) to meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards defined in the NESHAP. The rules would regulate HAP emission from glycol dehydration units, storage vessels and various fugitive leak sources. This technical paper addresses the applicability issues and compliance strategies related to the proposed NESHAP. The applicability criteria for both rules differ from those promulgated for other source categories under 40 CFR 63. For example, individual unit throughput and/or HAP emission thresholds may exempt specific units from the MACT standards in the NESHAP. The proposed Subpart HH would apply not only to major sources, but also to triethylene glycol (TEC) dehydration units at area sources located in urban areas. For both proposed NESHAP all 199 HAP must be considered for the major source determinations, but only 15 specific HAP are targeted for control under the proposed standards. An overview of the HAP control requirements, exemption criteria, as well as initial and continued compliance determination strategies are presented. Several industry examples are included to assist industry develop compliance strategies.

  18. LLNL NESHAPs 2002 Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harrach, R J; Gallegos, G M; Peterson, S-R; Tate, P J; Bertoldo, N A; Wilson, K R; Althouse, P E; Larson, J M

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This annual report is prepared pursuant to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs; Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61, Subpart H). Subpart H governs radionuclide emissions to air from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. NESHAPs limits the emission of radionuclides to the ambient air from DOE facilities to levels resulting in an annual effective dose equivalent (EDE) of 10 mrem (100 {micro}Sv) to any member of the public. The EDEs for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) site-wide maximally exposed members of the public from operations in 2002 are summarized here: (1) Livermore site: 0.023 mrem (0.23 {micro}Sv) (43% from point-source emissions, 57% from diffuse-source emissions). The point-source emissions include gaseous tritium modeled as tritiated water vapor as directed by EPA Region IX; the resulting dose is used for compliance purposes; and (2) Site 300: 0.021 mrem (0.21 {micro}Sv) (85% from point-source emissions, 15% from diffuse-source emissions). The EDEs were calculated using the EPA-approved CAP88-PC air dispersion/dose-assessment model, except for doses for three diffuse sources, which were calculated from measured concentrations and dose coefficients. Site specific meteorological data, stack flow data, and emissions estimates based on radionuclide usage inventory data or continuous stack monitoring data were the specific inputs to CAP88-PC for each modeled source.

  19. Final safety evaluation report related to the certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor design. Supplement 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report supplements the final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the US Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) standard design. The FSER was issued by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff as NUREG-1503 in July 1994 to document the NRC staff`s review of the US ABWR design. The US ABWR design was submitted by GE Nuclear Energy (GE) in accordance with the procedures of Subpart B to Part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This supplement documents the NRC staff`s review of the changes to the US ABWR design documentation since the issuance of the FSER. GE made these changes primarily as a result of first-of-a-kind-engineering (FOAKE) and as a result of the design certification rulemaking for the ABWR design. On the basis of its evaluations, the NRC staff concludes that the confirmatory issues in NUREG-1503 are resolved, that the changes to the ABWR design documentation are acceptable, and that GE`s application for design certification meets the requirements of Subpart B to 10 CFR Part 52 that are applicable and technically relevant to the US ABWR design.

  20. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Land disposal restrictions (40 CFR part 268) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This module presents an overview of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Program. It defines the basic terms and describes the structure of the LDR regulation, identifies the statutory basis for LDR, and describes the applicability of LDR. It explains how EPA sets treatment standards and identifies treatment standards for wastes subject to land disposal restrictions and cites the CFR section. It describes and identifies how extensions and variances from treatment requirements are obtained, including, Federal Register citations. It defines generator and treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) requirements under the LDR program. It also summarizes the schedule of existing restrictions and the plan for restricting newly identified wastes.

  1. Programmer`s manual for CAMCON: Compliance Assessment Methodology CONtroller

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rechard, R.P. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Gilkey, A.P.; Rudeen, D.K.; Byle, K.A. [New Mexico Engineering Research Inst., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Iuzzolino, H.J. [Geo-Centers, Inc., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

    1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    CAMCON, the Compliance Assessment Methodology CONtroller, is an analysis system that assists in assessing the compliance of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) with applicable long-term regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency, including Subpart B of the Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, 40 CFR 191 and 40CFR268.6, which is the portion of the Land Disposal Restrictions implementing the Resource, Conservative, and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended that states the conditions for disposal of hazardous chemical wastes. This manual provides an architectural overview of the CAMCON system. Furthermore this manual presents guidelines and presents suggestions for programmers developing the many different types of software necessary to investigate various events and physical processes of the WIPP. These guidelines include user interface requirements, minimum quality assurance requirements, coding style suggestions, and the use of numerous software libraries developed specifically for or adapted for the CAMCON system.

  2. Compliance status report for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the disposition of transuranic (TRU) waste generated through national defense-related activities. Approximately 53,700 m{sup 2} of these wastes have been generated and are currently stored at government defense installations across the country. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located in southeastern New Mexico, has been sited and constructed to meet the criteria established by the scientific and regulatory community for the safe, long-term disposal of TRU and TRU-mixed wastes. This Compliance Status Report (CSR) provides an assessment of the progress of the WIPP Program toward compliance with long-term disposal regulations, set forth in Title 40 CFR 191 (EPA, 1993a), Subparts B and C, and Title 40 CFR {section}268.6 (EPA, 1993b), in order to focus on-going and future experimental and engineering activities. The CSR attempts to identify issues associated with the performance of the WIPP as a long-term repository and to focus on the resolution of these issues. This report will serve as a tool to focus project resources on the areas necessary to ensure complete, accurate, and timely submittal of the compliance application. This document is not intended to constitute a statement of compliance or a demonstration of compliance.

  3. Final safety evaluation report related to the certification of the System 80{sup +} design (Docket No. 52-002). Volume 2, Chapters 15--22 and appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This final safety evaluation report (FSER) documents the technical review of the System 80+ standard design by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. The application for the system 80+ design was submitted by Combustion Engineering, Inc., now Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE) as an application for design approval and subsequent design certification pursuant to 10 CFR {section} 52.45. System 80+ is a pressurized water reactor with a rated power of 3914 megawatts thermal (MWt) and a design power of 3992 MWt at which accidents are analyzed. Many features of the System 80+ are similar to those of ABB-CE`s System 80 design from which it evolved. Unique features of the System 80+ design include: a large spherical, steel containment; an in-containment refueling water storage tank; a reactor cavity flooding system, hydrogen ignitors and a safety depressurization system for severe accident mitigation; a combustion gas turbine for an alternate ac source; and an advanced digitally based control room. On the basis of its evaluation and independent analyses, the NRC staff concludes that ABB-CE`s application for design certification meets the requirements of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 that are applicable and technically relevant to the System 80+ standard design. This document, Volume 2, contains Chapters 15 through 22 and Appendices A through E.

  4. RCRA Assessment Plan for Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Area B-BX-BY at the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Narbutovskih, Susan M.

    2006-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    This document was prepared as a groundwater quality assessment plan revision for the single-shell tank systems in Waste Management Area B-BX-BY at the Hanford Site. Groundwater monitoring is conducted at this facility in accordance with 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F. In FY 1996, the groundwater monitoring program was changed from detection-level indicator evaluation to a groundwater quality assessment program when elevated specific conductance in downgradient monitoring well 299 E33-32 was confirmed by verification sampling. During the course of the ensuing investigation, elevated technetium-99 and nitrate were observed above the drinking water standard at well 299-E33-41, a well located between 241-B and 241-BX Tank Farms. Earlier observations of the groundwater contamination and tank farm leak occurrences combined with a qualitative analysis of possible solutions, led to the conclusion that waste from the waste management area had entered the groundwater and were observed in this well. Based on 40 CFR 265.93 [d] paragraph (7), the owner-operator must continue to make the minimum required determinations of contaminant level and rate/extent of migrations on a quarterly basis until final facility closure. These continued determinations are required because the groundwater quality assessment was implemented prior to final closure of the facility.

  5. Diffuse and fugitive emission dose assessment on the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davis, W.E.; Schmidt, J.W.; Gleckler, B.P. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Rhoads, K. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On February 3, 1993, the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL), received a Compliance Order and Information Request from the Director of the Air and Toxics Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The Compliance Order requires RL to (1) evaluate all radionuclide emission points at the Hanford Site to determine which are subject to continuous emission measurement requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, Subpart H, and (2) continuously measure radionuclide emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 61.93. The Information Request requires RL to provide a written Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the Compliance Order. The RL Compliance Plan included as one of its milestones the requirement to develop a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA). An FFCA was negotiated between RL and the EPA, Region 10, and was entered into on February 7, 1994. One of the milestones was to provide EPA, Region 10, with a copy of the Federal Clean Air Act Title V operating air permit application and Air Emission Inventory (AEI) concurrent with its submission to the Washington State Department of Ecology. The AEI will include an assessment of the diffuse and fugitive emissions from the Hanford Site. This assessment does not identify any diffuse or fugitive emission source that would cause an effective dose equivalent greater than 0.1 mrem/yr.

  6. Preplanning guidance document for groundwater restoration. [Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is intended to present decision makers on the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project with a strategy for evaluating the need for and accomplishing groundwater restoration at those UMTRA Project sites that will require restoration as specified in Subpart B of 40 CFR 192. A synopsis of the Uranium Mill Tailings Restoration Control Act (UMTRCA) and a discussion of the proposed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) groundwater cleanup standards in 40 CFR 192 are provided to define the regulatory basis of groundwater cleanup. Once the EPA groundwater standards are finalized, this document may be revised, depending on the changes in the final standards. A procedure for determining the need for groundwater restoration is outlined and a cost-effective strategy for selecting, designing, implementing, and evaluating appropriate restoration procedures is presented. The determination of the need for groundwater restoration is based on the EPA groundwater cleanup standards and must be compatible with and complementary to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Therefore, this document describes a programmatic approach for compliance with the NEPA process.

  7. Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Ground Water Compliance at the Slick Rock, Colorado, UMTRA Project Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    N /A

    2003-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

    This environmental assessment addresses the environmental effects of a proposed action and the no action alternative to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ground water standards at the Slick Rock, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project sites. The sites consist of two areas designated as the North Continent (NC) site and the Union Carbide (UC) site. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) completed surface cleanup at both sites and encapsulated the tailings in a disposal cell 5 miles east of the original sites. Maximum concentration limits (MCLs) referred to in this environmental assessment are the standards established in Title 40 ''Code of Federal Regulations'' Part 192 (40 CFR 192) unless noted otherwise. Ground water contaminants of potential concern at the NC site are uranium and selenium. Uranium is more prevalent, and concentrations in the majority of alluvial wells at the NC site exceed the MCL of 0.044 milligram per liter (mg/L). Selenium contamination is less prevalent; samples from only one well had concentrations exceeding the MCL of 0.01 mg/L. To achieve compliance with Subpart B of 40 CFR 192 at the NC site, DOE is proposing the strategy of natural flushing in conjunction with institutional controls and continued monitoring. Ground water flow and transport modeling has predicted that concentrations of uranium and selenium in the alluvial aquifer will decrease to levels below their respective MCLs within 50 years.

  8. Ground water protection strategy for the Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Green River, Utah. Final, Revision 2, Version 5: Appendix E to the remedial action plan and site design for stabilization of the inactive uranium mill tailings site at Green River, Utah

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this appendix is to provide a ground water protection strategy for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project disposal site at Green River, Utah. Compliance with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ground water protection standards will be achieved by applying supplemental standards (40 CFR {section} 192.22(a); 60 FR 2854) based on the limited use ground water present in the uppermost aquifer that is associated with widespread natural ambient contamination (40 CFR {section} 192.11(e); 60 FR 2854). The strategy is based on new information, including ground water quality data collected after remedial action was completed, and on a revised assessment of disposal cell design features, surface conditions, and site hydrogeology. The strategy will result in compliance with Subparts A and C of the EPA final ground water protection standards (60 FR 2854). The document contains sufficient information to support the proposed ground water protection strategy, with monitor well information and ground water quality data included as a supplement. Additional information is available in the final remedial action plan (RAP) (DOE, 1991a), the final completion report (DOE, 1991b), and the long-term surveillance plan (LTSP) (DOE, 1994a).

  9. Hanford Site radionuclide national emission standards for hazardous ari pollutants registered and and unregistered stack (powered exhaust) source assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davis, W.E.

    1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On February 3, 1993, US DOE Richland Operations Office received a Compliance Order and Information Request from the Director of the Air and Toxics Div. of US EPA, Region X. The compliance order requires the Richland Operations Office to evaluate all radionuclide emission points at the Hanford site to determine which are subject to the continuous emission measurement requirements in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, and to continuously measure radionuclide emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 61.93. The Information Request required The provision of a written compliance plan to meet the requirements of the compliance order. A compliance plan was submitted to EPA, Region X, on April 30, 1993. It set as one of the milestones, the complete assessment of the Hanford Site 84 stacks registered with the Washington State Department of Health, by December 17, 1993. This milestone was accomplished. The compliance plan also called for reaching a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement; this was reached on February 7, 1994, between DOE Richland Operations and EPA, Region X. The milestone to assess the unregistered stacks (powered exhaust) by August 31, 1994, was met. This update presents assessments for 72 registered and 22 unregistered stacks with potential emissions > 0.1 mrem/yr.

  10. Tank farms criticality safety manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FORT, L.A.

    2003-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

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

  11. Final safety evaluation report related to the certification of the System 80{sup +} design (Docket No. 52-002). Volume 1, Chapters 1--14

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This final safety evaluation report (FSER) documents the technical review of the System 80+ standard design by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. The application for the System 80+ design was submitted by Combustion Engineering, Inc., now Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE) as an application for design approval and subsequent design certification pursuant to 10 CFR {section} 52.45. System 80+ is a pressurized water reactor with a rated power of 3914 megawatts thermal (MWt) and a design power of 3992 MWt at which accidents are analyzed. Many features of the System 80+ are similar to those of Abb-CE`s System 80 design from which it evolved. Unique features of the System 80+ design included: a large spherical, steel containment; an in-containment refueling water storage tank; a reactor cavity flooding system, hydrogen ignitors, and a safety depressurization system for severe accident mitigation; a combustion gas turbine for an alternate ac source; and an advanced digitally based control room. On the basis of its evaluation and independent analyses, the NRC staff concludes that ABB-CE`s application for design certification meets the requirements of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 that are applicable and technically relevant to the System 80+ standard design. This document, Volume 1, contains Chapters 1 through 14 of this report.

  12. A Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 191 Evaluation of Buried Transuranic Waste at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G. J. Shott, V. Yucel, L. Desotell

    2008-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1986, 21 m{sup 3} of transuranic (TRU) waste was inadvertently buried in a shallow land burial trench at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office is considered five options for management of the buried TRU waste. One option is to leave the waste in-place if the disposal can meet the requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, 'Environmental Radiation Protection Standard for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level, and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes'. This paper describes analyses that assess the likelihood that TRU waste in shallow land burial can meet the 40 CFR 191 standards for a geologic repository. The simulated probability of the cumulative release exceeding 1 and 10 times the 40 CFR 191.13 containment requirements is estimated to be 0.009 and less than 0.0001, respectively. The cumulative release is most sensitive to the number of groundwater withdrawal wells drilled through the disposal trench. The mean total effective dose equivalent for a member of the public is estimated to reach a maximum of 0.014 milliSievert (mSv) at 10,000 years, or approximately 10 percent of the 0.15 mSv 40 CFR 191.15 individual protection requirement. The dose is predominantly from inhalation of short-lived Rn-222 progeny in air produced by low-level waste disposed in the same trench. The transuranic radionuclide released in greatest amounts, Pu-239, contributes only 0.4 percent of the dose. The member of public dose is most sensitive to the U-234 inventory and the radon emanation coefficient. Reasonable assurance of compliance with the Subpart C groundwater protection standard is provided by site characterization data and hydrologic processes modeling which support a conclusion of no groundwater pathway within 10,000 years. Limited quantities of transuranic waste in a shallow land burial trench at the NTS can meet the requirements of 40 CFR 191.

  13. A Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 191 Evaluation of Buried Transuranic Waste at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shott, G.J.; Yucel, V.; Desotell, L. [National Security Technologies, LLC, Las Vegas, NV (United States); Pyles, G.; Carilli, J. [U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV (United States)

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1986, 21 m{sup 3} of transuranic (TRU) waste was inadvertently buried in a shallow land burial trench at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office is considered five options for management of the buried TRU waste. One option is to leave the waste in-place if the disposal can meet the requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, 'Environmental Radiation Protection Standard for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level, and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes'. This paper describes analyses that assess the likelihood that TRU waste in shallow land burial can meet the 40 CFR 191 standards for a geologic repository. The simulated probability of the cumulative release exceeding 1 and 10 times the 40 CFR 191.13 containment requirements is estimated to be 0.009 and less than 0.0001, respectively. The cumulative release is most sensitive to the number of groundwater withdrawal wells drilled through the disposal trench. The mean total effective dose equivalent for a member of the public is estimated to reach a maximum of 0.014 milli-Sievert (mSv) at 10,000 years, or approximately 10 percent of the 0.15 mSv 40 CFR 191.15 individual protection requirement. The dose is predominantly from inhalation of short-lived Rn-222 progeny in air produced by low-level waste disposed in the same trench. The transuranic radionuclide released in greatest amounts, Pu-239, contributes only 0.4 percent of the dose. The member of public dose is most sensitive to the U-234 inventory and the radon emanation coefficient. Reasonable assurance of compliance with the Subpart C groundwater protection standard is provided by site characterization data and hydrologic processes modeling which support a conclusion of no groundwater pathway within 10,000 years. Limited quantities of transuranic waste in a shallow land burial trench at the NTS can meet the requirements of 40 CFR 191. (authors)

  14. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Groundwater Protection Management Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services

    2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The DOE established the Groundwater Monitoring Program (GMP) (WP 02-1) to monitor groundwater resources at WIPP. In the past, the GMP was conducted to establish background data of existing conditions of groundwater quality and quantity in the WIPP vicinity, and to develop and maintain a water quality database as required by regulation. Today the GMP is conducted consistent with 204.1.500 NMAC (New MexicoAdministrative Code), "Adoption of 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Part 264,"specifically 40 CFR §264.90 through §264.101. These sections of 20.4.1 NMAC provide guidance for detection monitoring of groundwater that is, or could be, affected by waste management activities at WIPP. Detection monitoring at WIPP is designed to detect contaminants in the groundwater long before the general population is exposed. Early detection will allow cleanup efforts to be accomplished before any exposure to the general population can occur. Title 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F, stipulates minimum requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §6901 et seq.) (RCRA) groundwater monitoring programs including the number and location of monitoring wells; sampling and reporting schedules; analytical methods and accuracy requirements; monitoring parameters; and statistical treatment of monitoring data. This document outlines how WIPP intends to protect and preserve groundwater within the WIPP Land Withdrawal Area (WLWA). Groundwater protection is just one aspect of the WIPP environmental protection effort. An overview of the entire environmental protection effort can be found in DOE/WIPP 99-2194, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Environmental Monitoring Plan. The WIPP GMP is designed to statistically determine if any changes are occurring in groundwater characteristics within and surrounding the WIPP facility. If a change is noted, the cause will then be determined and the appropriate corrective action(s) initiated.

  15. Pressure Safety Program Implementation at ORNL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lower, Mark [ORNL; Etheridge, Tom [ORNL; Oland, C. Barry [XCEL Engineering, Inc.

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a US Department of Energy (DOE) facility that is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC. In February 2006, DOE promulgated worker safety and health regulations to govern contractor activities at DOE sites. These regulations, which are provided in 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, establish requirements for worker safety and health program that reduce or prevent occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidental losses by providing DOE contractors and their workers with safe and healthful workplaces at DOE sites. The regulations state that contractors must achieve compliance no later than May 25, 2007. According to 10 CFR 851, Subpart C, Specific Program Requirements, contractors must have a structured approach to their worker safety and health programs that at a minimum includes provisions for pressure safety. In implementing the structured approach for pressure safety, contractors must establish safety policies and procedures to ensure that pressure systems are designed, fabricated, tested, inspected, maintained, repaired, and operated by trained, qualified personnel in accordance with applicable sound engineering principles. In addition, contractors must ensure that all pressure vessels, boilers, air receivers, and supporting piping systems conform to (1) applicable American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (2004) Sections I through XII, including applicable code cases; (2) applicable ASME B31 piping codes; and (3) the strictest applicable state and local codes. When national consensus codes are not applicable because of pressure range, vessel geometry, use of special materials, etc., contractors must implement measures to provide equivalent protection and ensure a level of safety greater than or equal to the level of protection afforded by the ASME or applicable state or local codes. This report documents the work performed to address legacy pressure vessel deficiencies and comply with pressure safety requirements in 10 CFR 851. It also describes actions taken to develop and implement ORNL’s Pressure Safety Program.

  16. Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Application Supplemental Information [Sec 1 Thru 5] Vol 1 Thru 3 Appendices A Thru C

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CURN, B.L.

    2000-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1998 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public. The report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61), Subpart H: ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities,'' and with the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246247, Radiation Protection - Air Emissions. The federal regulations in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, require the measurement and reporting of radionuclides emitted from Department of Energy facilities and the resulting offsite dose from those emissions. A standard of 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE) is imposed on them. The EDE to the MEI due to routine emissions in 1998 from Hanford Site point sources was 1.3 E-02 mrem (1.3 E-04 mSv). which is 0.13 percent of the federal standard. Chapter 246-247 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires the reporting of radionuclide emissions from all Department of Energy Hanford Site sources. The state has adopted into these regulations the 40 CFR 61 standard of 10 mrem/yr EDE. The EDE to the MEI attributable to diffuse and fugitive radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1998 was 2.5 E-02 mrem (2.S E-04 mSv). This dose added to the dose from point sources gives a total for all sources of 3.8 E-02 mrem/yr (3.8 E-04 mSv) EDE. which is 0.38 percent of the 10 mrem/yr standard. An unplanned release on August 26, 1998, in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site resulted in a potential dose of 4.1 E-02 mrem to a hypothetical individual at the nearest point of public access to that area. This hypothetical individual was not the MEI since the wind direction on the day of the release was away from the MEI residence. The potential dose from the unplanned event was similar in magnitude to that from routine releases during 1998. Were the release from this unplanned event combined with routine releases, the total dose would be less than 1 percent of the 10 mrem/yr standard.

  17. Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for the Hanford Site Calendar year 1998

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DIEDIKER, L.P.

    1999-06-15T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in I998 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public. The report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR SI), Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities,'' and with the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection--Air Emissions. The federal regulations in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H; require the measurement and reporting of radionuclides emitted from Department of Energy facilities and the resulting offsite dose from those emissions. A standard of 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE) is imposed on them. The EDE to the MEI due to routine emissions in 1998 from Hanford Site point sources was 1.3 E-02 mrem (1.3 E-04 mSv), which is 0.13 percent of the federal standard. Chapter 246-247 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires the reporting of radionuclide emissions from all Department of Energy Hanford Site sources. The state has adopted into these regulations the 40 CFR 61 standard of 10 mrem/yr EDE. The EDE to the MEI attributable to diffuse and fugitive radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1998 was 2.5 E-02 mrem (2.5 E-04 mSv). This dose added to the dose from point sources gives a total for all sources of 3.8 E-02 mrem/yr (3.8 E-04 mSv) EDE, which is 0.38 percent of the 10 mrem/yr standard. An unplanned release on August 26, 1998, in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site resulted in a potential dose of 4.1 E-02 mrem to a hypothetical individual at the nearest point of public access to that area. This hypothetical individual was not the MEI since the wind direction on the day of the release was away from the MEI residence. The potential dose from the unplanned event was similar in magnitude to that from routine releases during 1998. Were the release from this unplanned event combined with routine releases, the total dose would be less than 1 percent ofthe 10 mrem/yr standard.

  18. Subpart W Quarterly Conference Call January 5, 2012, 11:00 am 12:00 pm

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    , Washington, DC [DRAFT] Conference Call Notes Meeting Participants: EPA HQ: Reid Rosnick, Phil Egidi, Dan

  19. Draft Title 40 CFR 191 compliance certification application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a research and development facility for the demonstration of the permanent isolation of transuranic radioactive wastes in a geologic formation. The facility was constructed in southeastern New Mexico in a manner intended to meet criteria established by the scientific and regulatory community for the safe, long-term disposal of transuranic wastes. The US Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing an application to demonstrate compliance with the requirements outlined in Title 40, Part 191 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the permanent disposal of transuranic wastes. As mandated by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act of 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must evaluate this compliance application and provide a determination regarding compliance with the requirements within one year of receiving a complete application. Because the WIPP is a very complex program, the DOE has planned to submit the application as a draft in two parts. This strategy will allow for the DOE and the EPA to begin technical discussions on critical WIPP issues before the one-year compliance determination period begins. This report is the first of these two draft submittals.

  20. Code of Federal Regulations PART 835-OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION...

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

    PART 835-OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION Subpart A - General Provisions Code of Federal Regulations PART 835-OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION Subpart A - General Provisions The...

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  3. DOE 5700.6C, 10CFR830.120, DOE-ER-STD-6001-92, and Covey-based TQM: A historical perspective on current issues in research environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bodnarczuk, M.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Three years ago there were no standards or published guidelines for quality in research environments. Today, one standard has been published, and three guidelines documents are in final draft form and about to be published. In this paper, I describe the events that led to the writing of DOE 5700.6C, 10CFR830.120, and DOE-ER-STD-6001-92, focusing on the cultural barriers that arose (largely in the community of quality assurance professionals) during this process. I go on to describe why I believe that implementing DOE 5700.6C and 10CFR830.120 must be pushed even further toward an approach that embodies the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and why even this is not far enough. The reason is because the most crucial aspect of successfully implementing a quality initiative is to base it on a cohesive, unified foundation of organizational and individual values and beliefs. Stephen Covey`s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and Principle Centered Leadership provide such a foundations.

  4. Technical Letter Report Development of Flaw Size Distribution Tables Including Effects of Flaw Depth Sizing Errors for Draft 10CFR 50.61a (Alternate PTS Rule) JCN-N6398, Task 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Simonen, Fredric A.; Gosselin, Stephen R.; Doctor, Steven R.

    2013-04-22T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes a new method to determine whether the flaws in a particular reactor pressure vessel are consistent with the assumptions regarding the number and sizes of flaws used in the analyses that formed the technical justification basis for the new voluntary alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule (Draft 10 CFR 50.61a). The new methodology addresses concerns regarding prior methodology because ASME Code Section XI examinations do not detect all fabrication flaws, they have higher detection performance for some flaw types, and there are flaw sizing errors always present (e.g., significant oversizing of small flaws and systematic under sizing of larger flaws). The new methodology allows direct comparison of ASME Code Section XI examination results with values in the PTS draft rule Tables 2 and 3 in order to determine if the number and sizes of flaws detected by an ASME Code Section XI examination are consistent with those assumed in the probabilistic fracture mechanics calculations performed in support of the development of 10 CFR 50.61a.

  5. Environmental Protection Department LLNL NESHAPs 2007 Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bertoldo, N A; Larson, J M; Wilson, K R

    2008-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This annual report is prepared pursuant to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs; Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61, Subpart H). Subpart H governs radionuclide emissions to air from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. NESHAPs limits the emission of radionuclides to the ambient air from DOE facilities to levels resulting in an annual effective dose equivalent (EDE) of 10 mrem (100 {micro}Sv) to any member of the public. The EDEs for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) site-wide maximally exposed members of the public from operations in 2007 are summarized here. Livermore site: 0.0031 mrem (0.031 {micro}Sv) (42% from point source emissions, 58% from diffuse source emissions). The point source emissions include gaseous tritium modeled as tritiated water vapor as directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX; the resulting dose is used for compliance purposes. Site 300: 0.0035 mrem (0.035 {micro}Sv) (90% from point source emissions, 10% from diffuse source emissions). The EDEs were calculated using the U.S. EPA-approved CAP88-PC air dispersion/dose-assessment model, except for doses for two diffuse sources that were estimated using measured radionuclide concentrations and dose calculations. Specific inputs to CAP88-PC for the modeled sources included site-specific meteorological data and source emissions data, the latter variously based on continuous stack effluent monitoring data, stack flow or other release-rate information, ambient air monitoring data, and facility knowledge.

  6. Nevada Test Site National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Calendar Year 2008

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ronald Warren and Robert F. Grossman

    2009-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office. From 1951 through 1992, the NTS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NTS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. Limitation to under-ground detonations after 1962 greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NTS. After nuclear testing ended in 1992, NTS radiation monitoring focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by winds) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of tritium were also emitted to air at the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), an NTS support complex in the city of North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) (CFR, 2008a) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy facility (e.g., the NTS) to 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation not related to NTS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements or from other man-made sources such as medical treatments. The NTS demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations. This method was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use on the NTS in 2001 and has been the sole method used since 2005. Six locations on the NTS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are actually pseudo-critical receptor stations, because no member of the public actually resides at these onsite locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration of each detected radionuclide at each of these locations is less than the NESHAP Concentration Levels (CLs) for Environmental Compliance listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2 (CFR, 2008a). At any one location, if multiple radionuclides are detected then compliance with NESHAP is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide's concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. In 2008, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air, from both current and past NTS activities, at onsite compliance monitoring stations was a maximum of 1.9 mrem/yr; well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected at all six pseudo-critical receptor stations had average concentrations of radioactivity that were a fraction of the CL values listed in Table 2 in Appendix E of 40 CFR 61 (CFR, 2008a). Concentrations ranged from less than 1 percent to a maximum of 19 percent of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides approximately 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the NTS boundary, concentrations at this location would be only a small fraction of that measured on the NTS. Potential dose to the public from NLVF was also very low at 0.00006 mrem/yr; more than 160,000 times lower than the 10 mrem/yr limit.

  7. Potential Offsite Radiological Doses Estimated for the Proposed Divine Strake Experiment, Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ron Warren

    2006-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An assessment of the potential radiation dose that residents offsite of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) might receive from the proposed Divine Strake experiment was made to determine compliance with Subpart H of Part 61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. The Divine Strake experiment, proposed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, consists of a detonation of 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil-emulsion above the U16b Tunnel complex in Area 16 of the NTS. Both natural radionuclides suspended, and historic fallout radionuclides resuspended from the detonation, have potential to be transported outside the NTS boundary by wind. They may, therefore, contribute radiological dose to the public. Subpart H states ''Emissions of radionuclides to the ambient air from Department of Energy facilities shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/yr'' (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61.92) where mrem/yr is millirem per year. Furthermore, application for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of construction of a new source or modification of an existing source is required if the effective dose equivalent, caused by all emissions from the new construction or modification, is greater than or equal to 0.1 mrem/yr (40 CFR 61.96). In accordance with Section 61.93, a dose assessment was conducted with the computer model CAP88-PC, Version 3.0. In addition to this model, a dose assessment was also conducted by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This modeling was conducted to obtain dose estimates from a model designed for acute releases and which addresses terrain effects and uses meteorology from multiple locations. Potential radiation dose to a hypothetical maximally exposed individual at the closest NTS boundary to the proposed Divine Strake experiment, as estimated by the CAP88-PC model, was 0.005 mrem with wind blowing directly towards that location. Boundary dose, as modeled by NARAC, ranged from about 0.006 to 0.007 mrem. Potential doses to actual offsite populated locations were generally two to five times lower still, or about 40 to 100 times lower then the 0.1 mrem level at which EPA approval is required pursuant to Section 61.96.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    VINCENT, Andrew

    2005-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. Benchmarking of RESRAD-OFFSITE : transition from RESRAD (onsite) toRESRAD-OFFSITE and comparison of the RESRAD-OFFSITE predictions with peercodes.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yu, C.; Gnanapragasam, E.; Cheng, J.-J.; Biwer, B.

    2006-05-22T23:59:59.000Z

    The main purpose of this report is to document the benchmarking results and verification of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code as part of the quality assurance requirements of the RESRAD development program. This documentation will enable the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its licensees and other stakeholders to use the quality-assured version of the code to perform dose analysis in a risk-informed and technically defensible manner to demonstrate compliance with the NRC's License Termination Rule, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E); DOE's 10 CFR Part 834, Order 5400.5, ''Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment''; and other Federal and State regulatory requirements as appropriate. The other purpose of this report is to document the differences and similarities between the RESRAD (onsite) and RESRAD-OFFSITE codes so that users (dose analysts and risk assessors) can make a smooth transition from use of the RESRAD (onsite) code to use of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code for performing both onsite and offsite dose analyses. The evolution of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code from the RESRAD (onsite) code is described in Chapter 1 to help the dose analyst and risk assessor make a smooth conceptual transition from the use of one code to that of the other. Chapter 2 provides a comparison of the predictions of RESRAD (onsite) and RESRAD-OFFSITE for an onsite exposure scenario. Chapter 3 documents the results of benchmarking RESRAD-OFFSITE's atmospheric transport and dispersion submodel against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) CAP88-PC (Clean Air Act Assessment Package-1988) and ISCLT3 (Industrial Source Complex-Long Term) models. Chapter 4 documents the comparison results of the predictions of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code and its submodels with the predictions of peer models. This report was prepared by Argonne National Laboratory's (Argonne's) Environmental Science Division. This work is jointly sponsored by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health and Office of Environmental Management. The approaches and or methods described in this report are provided for information only. Use of product or trade names is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement either by DOE, the NRC, or Argonne.

  10. RCRA Assessment Plan for Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Area S-SX at the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chou, C.J.; Johnson, V.G.

    1999-10-06T23:59:59.000Z

    A groundwater quality assessment plan was prepared for waste management area S-SX at the Hanford Site. Groundwater monitoring is conducted at this facility in accordance with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 265, Subpart F [and by reference of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-400(3)]. The facility was placed in assessment groundwater monitoring program status after elevated waste constituents and indicator parameter measurements (i.e., chromium, technetium-99 and specific conductance) in downgradient monitoring wells were observed and confirmed. A first determination, as allowed under 40 CFR 265.93(d), provides the owner/operator of a facility an opportunity to demonstrate that the regulated unit is not the source of groundwater contamination. Based on results of the first determination it was concluded that multiple source locations in the waste management area could account for observed spatial and temporal groundwater contamination patterns. Consequently, a continued investigation is required. This plan, developed using the data quality objectives process, is intended to comply with the continued investigation requirement. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the present plan is to determine the rate and extent of dangerous waste (hexavalent chromium and nitrate) and radioactive constituents (e.g., technetium-99) in groundwater and to determine their concentrations in groundwater beneath waste management area S-SX. Comments and concerns expressed by the Washington State Department of Ecology on the initial waste management area S-SX assessment report were addressed in the descriptive narrative of this plan as well as in the planned activities. Comment disposition is documented in a separate addendum to this plan.

  11. Dose assessment from potential radionuclide emissions from stacks on the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davis, W.E.; Barnett, J.M.

    1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On February 3, 1993, the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL), received a Compliance Order and Information Request from the Director of the Air and Toxics Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The Compliance Order required RL to (1) evaluate all radionuclide emission points at the Hanford Site to determine which points are subject to the continuous emission sampling requirements of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61 (40 CFR 61), Subpart H, and (2) continuously sample radionuclide emissions in accordance with requirements in 40 CFR 61.93. The Information Request required RL to provide a written Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the Compliance Order. A Compliance Plan was submitted to EPA, Region 10, on April 30, 1993. The Compliance Plan specified that a dose assessment would be performed for 84 Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) stacks registered with the Washington State Department of Health on the Hanford Site. Any stack identified in the assessment as having potential emissions to cause an effective dose equivalent (EDE) to a maximum exposed individual (MEI) greater than 0.1 mrem y{sup {minus}1} must have a compliant sampling system. In addition, a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) was signed on. February 7, 1994. The FFCA required that all unregistered stacks on the Hanford Site be assessed. This requirement increased the number of stacks to be assessed to 123 stacks. Six methods for performing the assessments are described. An initial assessment using only the HEPA filtration factor for back calculations identified 32 stacks that would have emissions which would cause an EDE to the MEI greater than 0.1 mrem y{sup {minus}1}. When the other methods were applied the number was reduced to 20 stacks. The paper discusses reasons for these overestimates.

  12. B PLANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2003-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Vol 1, Integrated Safety Management System Guide,

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

    1997-11-26T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides guidance for addressing the requirements of DOE P 450.4 and DEAR integrated SMS clauses promulgated in 48 CFR 970.5204-2, 48 CFR 970.5204-78, and 48 CFR 970.1001.

  14. Vol 2, Integrated Safety Management System Guide

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

    1997-12-26T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides guidance for addressing the requirements of DOE P 450.4 and DEAR integrated SMS clauses promulgated in 48 CFR 970.5204-2, 48 CFR 970.5204-78, and 48 CFR 970.1001.

  15. Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-02, DOE Enforcement Activities...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    by the Department of Energy's nuclear safety requirements in 10 CFR 835 (Occupational Radiation Protection Programs) and 10 CFR 830.120 (Quality Assurance Requirements). To...

  16. Hanford site near-facility environmental monitoring annual report, calendar year 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Perkins, C.J.

    1997-08-05T23:59:59.000Z

    This document summarizes the results of the near-facility environmental monitoring results for 1996 in the 100, 200/600, and 300/400 areas of the Hanford Site in south-central Washington State. Surveillance activities included sampling and analyses of ambient air, surface water, groundwater, soil, sediments, and biota. Also, external radiation measurements and radiological surveys were taken at waste disposal sites, radiologically controlled areas, and roads. These activities were conducted to assess and control the effects of nuclear facilities and waste sites on the local environment. The monitoring implements applicable portions of DOE Orders 5400.1 (DOE 1988a), 5400.5 (DOE 1990), and 5820.2A (DOE 1988b); Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247; and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart H (EPA 1989). In addition, diffuse sources were monitored to determine compliance with federal, state, and/or local regulations. In general, although effects from nuclear facilities can still be observed on the Hanford Site and radiation levels were slightly elevated when compared to offsite locations, the differences are less than in previous years.

  17. Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D

    2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Biennial Environmental Compliance Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services

    2006-10-12T23:59:59.000Z

    This Biennial Environmental Compliance Report (BECR) documents compliance with environmental regulations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a facility designed and authorized for the safe disposal of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste. This BECR covers the reporting period from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2006. As required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) (Public Law [Pub. L.] 102-579, as amended by Pub. L. 104-201), the BECR documents United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) compliance with regulations and permits issued pursuant to the following: (1) Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, Subpart A, "Environmental Standards for Management and Storage"; (2) Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §7401, et seq.); (3) Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (42 U.S.C. §§6901-6992, et seq.); (4) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. §§300f, et seq.); (5) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. §§2601, et seq.); (6) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §§9601, et seq.); and all other federal and state of New Mexico laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment.

  19. Final closure plan for the high-explosives open burn treatment facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Experimental Test Site 300

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mathews, S.

    1997-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document addresses the interim status closure of the HE Open Bum Treatment Facility, as detailed by Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 15, Article 7 of the Califonia Code of Regulations (CCR) and by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 265, Subpart G, ``Closure and Post Closure.`` The Closure Plan (Chapter 1) and the Post- Closure Plan (Chapter 2) address the concept of long-term hazard elimination. The Closure Plan provides for capping and grading the HE Open Bum Treatment Facility and revegetating the immediate area in accordance with applicable requirements. The Closure Plan also reflects careful consideration of site location and topography, geologic and hydrologic factors, climate, cover characteristics, type and amount of wastes, and the potential for contaminant migration. The Post-Closure Plan is designed to allow LLNL to monitor the movement, if any, of pollutants from the treatment area. In addition, quarterly inspections will ensure that all surfaces of the closed facility, including the cover and diversion ditches, remain in good repair, thus precluding the potential for contaminant migration.

  20. STATUS OF THE NRC'S DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Orlando, D. A.; Camper, L. W.; Buckley, J.

    2002-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

    On July 21, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the final rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination (the License Termination Rule) as Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations require that materials licensees submit Decommissioning Plans to support the decommissioning of its facility if it is required by license condition, or if the procedures and activities necessary to carry out the decommissioning have not been approved by NRC and these procedures could increase the potential health and safety impacts to the workers or the public. NRC regulations also require that reactor licensees submit Post-shutdown Decommissioning Activities Reports and License Termination Plans to support the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities. This paper provides an update on the status of the NRC's decommissioning program. It discusses the status of permanently shut-down commercial power reactors, complex decommissioning sites, and sites listed in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan. The paper provides the status of various tools and guidance the NRC is developing to assist licensees during decommissioning, including a Standard Review Plan for evaluating plans and information submitted by licensees to support the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the D and D Screen software for determining the potential doses from residual radioactivity. Finally, it discusses the status of the staff's current efforts to streamline the decommissioning process.

  1. User's guide for ENVSTD24 program, Version 2. 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hanlon, R.L.; Connell, L.M.

    1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On January 30, 1989, the US Department of Energy (DOE) promulgated an interim rule entitled [open quotes]Energy Conservation Voluntary Performance Standards for New Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings; Mandatory for New Federal Buildings[close quotes] (10 CFR Part 435, Subpart A). These standards require federal agencies to design all future federal commercial and multifamily high-rise residential buildings in accordance with the standards, or demonstrate that their current requirements already meet or exceed the energy-efficiency requirements of the standards. Although these newly enacted standards do not regulate the design of nonfederal buildings, the DOE recommends that all design professionals use the standards as guidelines for designing energy-conserving buildings. To encourage private sector use, the DOE published the standards in the January 30, 1989, Federal Register in the format typical of commercial standards. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory developed several computer programs for the DOE to make it easier for designers to comply with the standards. One of the programs, ENVSTD24 (Version 2.4), is detailed in this user's guide and is provided on the accompanying diskettes. The program will facilitate the designer's use of the standards dealing specifically with building envelope design. Using this program will greatly simplify the designer's task of performing the calculations needed to determine if a design complies with the standards.

  2. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emissions Units and Sampling Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barnett, J. M.; Brown, Jason H.; Walker, Brian A.

    2012-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Battelle-Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development (R and D) laboratories in Richland, WA, including those associated with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Hanford Site and PNNL Site that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP 40 CFR 61, Subparts H and I) requires an assessment of all emission units that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. Potential emissions are assessed annually by PNNL staff members. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based upon the potential-to-emit dose criteria found in the regulations. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission unit system performance, operation, and design information. For sampled systems, a description of the buildings, exhaust units, control technologies, and sample extraction details is provided for each registered emission unit. Additionally, applicable stack sampler configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are provided. Deregistered emission unit details are provided as necessary for up to 5 years post closure.

  3. LLNL NESHAPs 2008 Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bertoldo, N; Gallegos, G; MacQueen, D; Wegrecki, A; Wilson, K

    2009-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

    Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC operates facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) where radionuclides are handled and stored. These facilities are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H, which regulates radionuclide emissions to air from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Specifically, NESHAPs limits the emission of radionuclides to the ambient air to levels resulting in an annual effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem (100 {mu}Sv) to any member of the public. Using measured and calculated emissions, and building-specific and common parameters, LLNL personnel applied the EPA-approved computer code, CAP88-PC, Version 1.0, to calculate the dose to the maximally exposed individual for the Livermore site and Site 300. The dose for the LLNL site-wide maximally exposed members of the public from operations in 2008 are summarized here: {sm_bullet} Livermore site: 0.0013 mrem (0.013 {mu}Sv) (26% from point source emissions, 74% from diffuse source emissions). The point source emissions include gaseous tritium modeled as tritiated water vapor as directed by EPA Region IX; the resulting dose is used for compliance purposes. {sm_bullet} Site 300: 0.000000044 mrem (0.00000044 {mu}Sv) (100% from point source emissions).

  4. Conceptual structure of performance assessments conducted for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Helton, J.C. [Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ (United States); Marietta, M.G.; Rechard, R.P. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

    1993-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southeastern New Mexico is being developed by the US Department of Energy as a disposal facility for transuranic waste. In support of this project, Sandia National Laboratories is conducting an ongoing performance assessment (PA) for the WIPP. The ordered triple representation for risk proposed by Kaplan and Garrick is used to provide a clear conceptual structure for this PA. This presentation describes how the preceding representation provides a basis in the WIPP PA for (1) the definition of scenarios and the calculation of scenario probabilities and consequences, (2) the separation of subjective and stochastic uncertainties, (3) the construction of the complementary cumulative distribution functions required in comparisons with the US Environmental Protection Agency`s standard for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste (i.e., 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B), and (4) the performance of uncertainty and sensitivity studies. Results obtained in a preliminary PA for the WIPP completed in December of 1991 are used for illustration.

  5. TS LOOP NON-POTABLE PUMP EVALUATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S. Goodin

    1999-05-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This analysis evaluates the existing subsurface non-potable water system from the portal pump to the end of the water line in the South Ramp and determines if the pump size and spacing meets the system pressure and flow requirements for construction operations and incipient fire fighting capability as established in the Subsurface Fire Hazards Analysis (CRWMS M&O 1998b). This analysis does not address the non potable water system in the Cross Drift which is covered under a previous design analysis (CRWMS-M&O 1998a). The Subsurface Fire Hazards Analysis references sections of OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L for requirements applicable to the incipient fire fighting hose stations used underground. This analysis does not address mechanical system valves, fittings, risers and other components of the system piping. This system is not designed or intended to meet all National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes for a fire fighting system but is only considered a backup system to fire extinguishers that are installed throughout the Topopah Springs (TS) Loop and may be used to fight small incipient stage fires.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

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

  7. Site observational work plan for the UMTRA Project site at Spook, Wyoming

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Spook, Wyoming, site observational work plan proposes site-specific activities to achieve compliance with Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 192 (1994) of the final US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ground water protection standards 60 FR 2854 (1995) at this Uranium Mill Tailing Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project site. This draft SOWP presents a comprehensive summary of existing site characterization data, a conceptual site model of the nature and extent of ground water contamination, exposure pathways, and potential impact to human health and the environment. Section 2.0 describes the requirements for meeting ground water standards at UMTRA Project sites. Section 3.0 defines past and current conditions, describes potential environmental and human health risks, and provides site-specific data that supports the selection of a proposed ground water compliance strategy. Section 4.0 provides the justification for selecting the proposed ground water compliance strategy based on the framework defined in the ground water programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS).

  8. DOE`s approach to groundwater compliance on the UMTRA project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Metzler, D. [Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC (United States); Gibb, J.P. [Geraghty and Miller, Inc. (United States); Glover, W.A. [Roy F. Weston, Inc. (United States)

    1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Compliance with the mandate of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) at Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project sites requires implementation of a groundwater remedial action plan that meets the requirements of Subpart B of the US Environmental Protection Agency`s proposed groundwater protection standards (40 CFR 192). The UMTRA Groundwater Project will ensure that unacceptable current risk or potential risk to the public health, safety and the environment resulting from the groundwater contamination attributable to the UMTRA sites, is mitigated in a timely and cost-efficient manner. For each UMTRA processing site and vicinity property where contamination exists, a groundwater remedial action plan must be developed that identifies hazardous constituents and establishes acceptable concentration limits for the hazardous constituents as either (a) alternate concentration limits (ACL), (b) maximum concentration limits (MCLs), (c) supplemental standards, or (d) background groundwater quality levels. Project optimization is a strategy that will aggressively work within the current regulatory framework using all available options to meet regulatory requirements. This strategy is outlined within.

  9. U.S. Department of Energy Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project: Project plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The scope of the Project is to develop and implement a ground water compliance strategy for all 24 UMTRA Project processing sites. The compliance strategy for the processing sites must satisfy the proposed EPA ground water cleanup standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts B and C (1987). This scope of work will entail the following activities on a site-specific basis: Develop a compliance strategy based on modification of the UMTRA Surface Project RAPs or develop Ground Water Project RAPs with NRC concurrence on the RAP and full participation of the affected states and tribes. Implement the RAP to include institutional controls, where appropriate, as an interim measure until compliance with the standards is achieved. Institute long-term verification monitoring for transfer to a separate long-term surveillance program on or before the Project end date. Prepare certification or confirmation reports and modify the long-term surveillance plan (LTSP), where needed, on those sites completed prior to the Project end date.

  10. 1993 Annual PCB Document for Los Alamos National Laboratory EPA Region VI, January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wechsler, R.J.; Sandoval, T.M.; Bryant, D.E.; Hupke, L.; Esquibel, L.

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This document, the {open_quotes}1993 Annual PCB Document for Los Alamos National Laboratory{close_quotes} was prepared to fulffill the requirements of the federal PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) regulation: 40 CFR 761 Subpart J General Records and Reports. The PCB Management Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Environmental Protection Group, compiled this 1993 Annual PCB Document. The overall format generally follows the sequence of the applicable regulations. Subsection 1.2 cross references those regulatory requirements with the applicable Document Section. The scope of this document also includes status summaries of various aspects of LANL`s PCB Management Program. The intent of this approach to the Annual Document is to provide an overview of LANL`s PCB Management Program and to increase the usefulness of this document as a management tool. Section 2.0, {open_quotes}Status of the PCB Management Program{close_quotes}, discusses the use, generation of waste, and storage of PCBs at LANL. Section 3.0 is the 1993 Annual Document Log required by 761.180(a). This Section also discusses the PCB Management Program`s policies for reporting under those regulatory requirements. Sections 4.0 and 5.0 contain the 1993 Annual Records for off-site and on-site disposal as required by 761.180(b). There is a tab for each manifest and its associated continuation sheets, receipt letters, and certificates of disposal.

  11. Users guide for ENVSTD program Version 2. 0 and LTGSTD program Version 2. 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crawley, D.B.; Riesen, P.K.; Briggs, R.S.

    1989-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On January 30, 1989, the US Department of Energy (DOE) promulgated 10 CFR Part 435, Subpart A, an Interim Rule entitled ''Energy Conservation Voluntary Performance Standards for New Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings; Mandatory for New Federal Buildings.'' As a consequence, federal agencies must design all future federal commercial and multifamily high rise residential buildings in accordance with the Standards, or show that their current standards already meet or exceed the energy-efficiency requirements of the Standards. Although these newly enacted Standards do not regulate the design of nonfederal buildings, DOE recommends that all design professionals use the Standards as guidelines for designing energy-conserving buildings. To encourage private sector use, the Standards were presented in the January 30, 1989, Federal Register in the format typical of commercial standards rather than a federal regulation. As a further help, DOE supported the development of various microcomputer programs to ease the use of the Standards. Two of these programs/emdash/ENVSTD (Version 2.0) and LTGSTD (Version 2.0)/emdash/are detailed in this users guide and provided on the accompanying diskette. This package, developed by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), is intended to facilitate the designer's use of the Standards dealing specifically with a building's envelope and lighting system designs. Using these programs will greatly simplify the designer's task of performing the sometimes complex calculations needed to determine a design's compliance with the Standards. 3 refs., 6 figs.

  12. Probability, conditional probability and complementary cumulative distribution functions in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Helton, J.C. [Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ (United States)

    1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A formal description of the structure of several recent performance assessments (PAs) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is given in terms of the following three components: a probability space (S{sub st}, S{sub st}, p{sub st}) for stochastic uncertainty, a probability space (S{sub su}, S{sub su}, p{sub su}) for subjective uncertainty and a function (i.e., a random variable) defined on the product space associated with (S{sub st}, S{sub st}, p{sub st}) and (S{sub su}, S{sub su}, p{sub su}). The explicit recognition of the existence of these three components allows a careful description of the use of probability, conditional probability and complementary cumulative distribution functions within the WIPP PA. This usage is illustrated in the context of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency`s standard for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste (40 CFR 191, Subpart B). The paradigm described in this presentation can also be used to impose a logically consistent structure on PAs for other complex systems.

  13. Status of the NRC Decommissioning Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Orlando, D. A.; Camper, L.; Buckley, J.; Pogue, E.; Banovac, K.

    2003-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

    On July 21, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published the final rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination (the License Termination Rule or LTR) as Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations require that materials licensees submit Decommissioning Plans to support the decommissioning of its facility if it is required by license condition, or if the procedures and activities necessary to carry out the decommissioning have not been approved by NRC and these procedures could increase the potential health and safety impacts to the workers or the public. NRC regulations also require that reactor licensees submit Post-shutdown Decommissioning Activities Reports and License Termination Plans to support the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities. This paper provides an update on the status of the NRC's decommissioning program that was presented during WM'02. It discusses the staff's current efforts to streamline the decommissioning process, current issues being faced in the decommissioning program, such as partial site release and restricted release of sites, as well as the status of the decommissioning of complex sites and those listed in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan. The paper discusses the status of permanently shut-down commercial power reactors and the transfer of complex decommissioning sites and sites listed on the SDMP to Agreement States. Finally the paper provides an update of the status of various tools and guidance the NRC is developing to assist licensees during decommissioning, including an effort to consolidate and risk-inform decommissioning guidance.

  14. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Site Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Snyder, Sandra F.; Barnett, J. M.; Bisping, Lynn E.

    2012-06-12T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to a member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection Air Emissions. The EDE to the PNNL Site MEI due to routine emissions in 2011 from PNNL Site sources was 1.7E 05 mrem (1.7E-7 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2011. The total radiological dose for 2011 to the MEI from all PNNL Site radionuclide emissions was more than 10,000 times smaller than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, to which the PNNL Site is in compliance.

  15. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Snyder, Sandra F.; Barnett, J. M.; Bisping, Lynn E.

    2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to a member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection Air Emissions. The dose to the PNNL Site MEI due to routine major and minor point source emissions in 2013 from PNNL Site sources is 2E-05 mrem (2E-07 mSv) EDE. The dose from fugitive emissions (i.e., unmonitored sources) is 2E-6 mrem (2E-8 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 1E-11 mrem (1E-13 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2013. The total radiological dose for 2013 to the MEI from all PNNL Site radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 2E-5 mrem (2E-7 mSv) EDE, or 100,000 times smaller than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, to which the PNNL Site is in compliance

  16. Sequim Site Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Snyder, Sandra F.; Barnett, J. M.; Gervais, Todd L.

    2013-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities and ashington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection Air Emissions. This report meets the calendar year 2012 Sequim Site annual reporting requirement for its operations as a privately-owned facility as well as its federally-contracted status that began in October 2012. Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) with the 10 mrem/yr Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The MSL contains only sources classified as fugitive emissions. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The dose to the Sequim Site MEI due to routine operations in 2012 was 9E-06 mrem (9E-08 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2012. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

  17. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Site Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Snyder, Sandra F.; Barnett, J. M.; Bisping, Lynn E.

    2013-06-06T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to a member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection Air Emissions. The dose to the PNNL Site MEI due to routine major and minor point source emissions in 2012 from PNNL Site sources is 9E-06 mrem (9E-08 mSv) EDE. The dose from fugitive emissions (i.e., unmonitored sources) is 1E-7 mrem (1E-9 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 2E-6 mrem (2E-08 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2012. The total radiological dose for 2012 to the MEI from all PNNL Site radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 1E-5 mrem (1E-7 mSv) EDE, or 100,000 times smaller than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, to which the PNNL Site is in compliance.

  18. Sandia National Laboratories, California Quality Assurance Project Plan for Environmental Monitoring Program.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holland, Robert C.

    2005-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) applies to the Environmental Monitoring Program at the Sandia National Laboratories/California. This QAPP follows DOE Quality Assurance Management System Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance (DOE G 414.1-2A June 17, 2005). The Environmental Monitoring Program is located within the Environmental Operations Department. The Environmental Operations Department is responsible for ensuring that SNL/CA operations have minimal impact on the environment. The Department provides guidance to line organizations to help them comply with applicable environmental regulations and DOE orders. To fulfill its mission, the department has groups responsible for waste management; pollution prevention, air quality; environmental planning; hazardous materials management; and environmental monitoring. The Environmental Monitoring Program is responsible for ensuring that SNL/CA complies with all Federal, State, and local regulations and with DOE orders regarding the quality of wastewater and stormwater discharges. The Program monitors these discharges both visually and through effluent sampling. The Program ensures that activities at the SNL/CA site do not negatively impact the quality of surface waters in the vicinity, or those of the San Francisco Bay. The Program verifies that wastewater and stormwater discharges are in compliance with established standards and requirements. The Program is also responsible for compliance with groundwater monitoring, and underground and above ground storage tanks regulatory compliance. The Program prepares numerous reports, plans, permit applications, and other documents that demonstrate compliance.

  19. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Closure Plan Summary for Interim reasctive Waste Treatment Area (IRWTA)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Collins, E.T.

    1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This closure plan has been prepared for the interim Reactive Waste Treatment Area (IRWT'A) located at the Y-12 Pkmt in oak Ridge, Tennessee (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Identification TN 389-009-0001). The actions required to achieve closure of the IRWTA are outlined in this plan, which is being submitted in accordance with Tennessee Ruie 1200- 1-1 1-.0S(7) and Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 265, Subpart G. The IRWTA was used to treat waste sodium and potassium (NaK) that are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The location of the IRWT'A is shown in Figures 1 and 2, and a diagram is shown in Figure 3. This pkm details all steps that wdi be petiormed to close the IRWTA. Note that this is a fmai ciosure.and a diagram is shown in Figure 3. This pkm details all steps that wdi be petiormed to close the IRWTA. Note that this is a fmai ciosure.

  20. The Environmental Protection Agency`s proposed regulation of low level radioactive waste (40 CFR Part 193): A Department of Energy overview

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frangos, T.G. [Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC (United States)

    1989-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE) manages one of the world`s largest programs for storage, treatment, and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. This system with facilities located at sites across the nation has evolved over some forty years in response to changing needs, technologies, and increasing public awareness and concerns for environmental protection. The DOE has operated in a self regulatory mode in most aspects of its low-level waste (LLW) programs. It has been DOE`s policy and practice to provide at least the same level of safety and protection for the public, DOE and contractor employees, and the general environment, as that required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for commercial operations. DOE`s policies have been implemented through a management system that historically has been highly decentralized so as to be responsive to the needs of DOE sites which generate a wide variety of wastes at some 25 locations. In addition to concerns with the LLW that it manages, DOE has an interest in the US Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA) promulgation of 40 CFR Part 193 because of its responsibilities under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) to manage certain classes of waste and to assist and encourage the development of interstate compact-managed regional low-level waste disposal sites.

  1. FROM PROPERTY LEASE TO PROPERTY TRANSFER - TAKING THE STEPS TO FACILITATE SITE CLOSURE USING THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S 10 CFR 770 PROCESS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cusick, Lesley T.; Hart, Patricia W.

    2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    While implementing a successful leasing program for land and facilities at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations Office in Oak Ridge, TN, the Department is now transitioning from a leasing program to one of title transfer. The program, called ''Reindustrialization'', is the result of a visionary idea to enable the use of excess resources to meet a community's needs in the wake of continued DOE downsizing. An established process included within the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, tailored to meet DOE-ORO's objectives, was used to lease. Title transfer, using DOE's new 10 CFR 770 process, is being undertaken to meet a DOE-HQs directive to close the ORO facility where Reindustrialization is taking place. Title transfer is a key component of the closure effort. However, the process for title transfer is new, it is a DOE process, and it has not yet been completed for any facilities in the DOE complex. Making the transition from a known to an unknown has created opportunities in program design, as well as implementation, coordination and acceptance challenges in a variety of areas, and a host of lessons learned and learning.

  2. EA-1664: Final Environmental Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Standards: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps

  3. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions, Calendar Year 2010

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Ecological and Environmental Monitoring

    2011-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office operates the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site) and North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NNSS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NNSS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. Limitation to underground detonations after 1962 greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NNSS. After nuclear testing ended in 1992, NNSS radiation monitoring focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of tritium are also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NNSS support complex in North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) (CFR, 2010a) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility to that which would cause 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation unrelated to NNSS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements, from sources such as medically or commercially used radionuclides, or from sources outside of the United States, such as those from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. Because this report is intended to discuss radioactive air emissions during calendar year 2010, data on radionuclides in air from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant releases are not presented but will be included in the report for calendar year 2011. The NNSS demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and DOE, 1995). This method was approved by the EPA for use on the NNSS in 2001(EPA, 2001a) and has been the sole method used since 2005. Six locations on the NNSS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are actually pseudo-critical receptor stations, because no member of the public actually resides at these onsite locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration is less than the NESHAP Concentration Levels (CLs) for Environmental Compliance listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2 (CFR, 2010a). For multiple radionuclides, compliance is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide's concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. In 2010, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air, resulting from both current and past NNSS activities, at onsite compliance monitoring stations was well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected at all air monitoring stations had average concentrations of radioactivity that were a fraction of the CL values. Concentrations ranged from less than 1 percent to a maximum of 17 percent of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides about 20 kilometers from potential release points on the NNSS, dose to the public would be only a small fraction of that measured on the NNSS. The potential dose to the public from NLVF emissions was also very low at 0.000032 mrem/yr, more than 300,000 times lower than the 10 mrem/yr limit.

  4. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions Calendar Year 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Warren, R.

    2013-06-10T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) operates the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NNSS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NNSS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. Limitation to underground detonations after 1962 greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NNSS. After nuclear testing ended in 1992, NNSS radiation monitoring focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of legacy-related tritium are also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NNSS support complex in North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) (CFR 2010a) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility to that which would cause 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation unrelated to NNSS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements, from sources such as medically or commercially used radionuclides, or from sources outside of the United States, such as the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011. NNSA/NFO demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations on the NNSS (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and DOE 1995). This method was approved by the EPA for use on the NNSS in 2001 (EPA 2001a) and has been the sole method used since 2005. Six locations on the NNSS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are actually pseudo-critical receptor stations, because no member of the public actually resides at these onsite locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration is less than the NESHAP Concentration Levels (CLs) for Environmental Compliance listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2 (CFR 2010a). For multiple radionuclides, compliance is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide’s concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. In 2012, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air, resulting from both current and past NNSS activities, was well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected at all air monitoring stations had average concentrations of radioactivity that were a fraction of the CL values. Concentrations ranged from less than 0.5% to a maximum of 11.1% of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides about 9 kilometers from potential release points on the NNSS, dose to the public would be only a small fraction of the value measured on the NNSS. The potential dose to the public from NLVF emissions was also very low at 0.000024 mrem/yr, more than 400,000 times lower than the 10 mrem/yr limit.

  5. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions Calendar Year 2013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Warren, R.

    2014-06-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) operates the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NNSS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NNSS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. Limitations to underground detonations after 1962 greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NNSS. After nuclear testing ended in 1992, NNSS radiation monitoring focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of legacy-related tritium are also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NNSS support complex in North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) (CFR 2010a) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility to that which would cause 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation unrelated to NNSS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements, from sources such as medically or commercially used radionuclides, or from sources outside of the United States, such as the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011. NNSA/NFO demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations on the NNSS (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and DOE 1995). This method was approved by the EPA for use on the NNSS in 2001 (EPA 2001a) and has been the sole method used since 2005. Six locations on the NNSS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are actually pseudo-critical receptor stations, because no member of the public actually resides at these onsite locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration is less than the NESHAP Concentration Levels (CLs) for Environmental Compliance listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2 (CFR 2010a). For multiple radionuclides, compliance is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide’s concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. In 2013, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air, resulting from both current and past NNSS activities, was well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected at all air monitoring stations had average concentrations of radioactivity that were a fraction of the CL values. Concentrations ranged from 0.2% to a maximum of 10.1% of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides about 9 kilometers from potential release points on the NNSS, dose to the public would be only a small fraction of the value measured on the NNSS. The potential dose to the public from NLVF emissions was also very low at 0.000011 mrem/yr, more than 900,000 times lower than the 10 mrem/yr limit.

  6. G

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Incrementally Funding Fixed-Price Actions References: FAR Subpart 15.4-Contract Pricing FAR Subpart 32.7-Contract Funding When is this Acquisition Letter (AL) effective? This AL...

  7. Ethical Issues in Research with "Vulnerable" and "HardtoReach"

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Illinois at Chicago, University of

    are interdependentinterdependent · One can be vulnerable w/o being harmed or d ( d i )wronged (and vice versa) #12;2 Ways women (Subpart B) ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS? · handicapped persons · Prisoners (Subpart C) · Children

  8. G

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

    44 - Subcontracting policies and procedures 45 - Government Property Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Parts and Subparts 906 - Competition requirements...

  9. Labor Standards for Construction

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Aspects of Contracting for Construction * 43 - Contract Modifications Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Parts and Subparts * 906 - Competition Requirements *...

  10. 2011 Radioactive Materials Usage Survey for Unmonitored Point Sources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sturgeon, Richard W. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides the results of the 2011 Radioactive Materials Usage Survey for Unmonitored Point Sources (RMUS), which was updated by the Environmental Protection (ENV) Division's Environmental Stewardship (ES) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). ES classifies LANL emission sources into one of four Tiers, based on the potential effective dose equivalent (PEDE) calculated for each point source. Detailed descriptions of these tiers are provided in Section 3. The usage survey is conducted annually; in odd-numbered years the survey addresses all monitored and unmonitored point sources and in even-numbered years it addresses all Tier III and various selected other sources. This graded approach was designed to ensure that the appropriate emphasis is placed on point sources that have higher potential emissions to the environment. For calendar year (CY) 2011, ES has divided the usage survey into two distinct reports, one covering the monitored point sources (to be completed later this year) and this report covering all unmonitored point sources. This usage survey includes the following release points: (1) all unmonitored sources identified in the 2010 usage survey, (2) any new release points identified through the new project review (NPR) process, and (3) other release points as designated by the Rad-NESHAP Team Leader. Data for all unmonitored point sources at LANL is stored in the survey files at ES. LANL uses this survey data to help demonstrate compliance with Clean Air Act radioactive air emissions regulations (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). The remainder of this introduction provides a brief description of the information contained in each section. Section 2 of this report describes the methods that were employed for gathering usage survey data and for calculating usage, emissions, and dose for these point sources. It also references the appropriate ES procedures for further information. Section 3 describes the RMUS and explains how the survey results are organized. The RMUS Interview Form with the attached RMUS Process Form(s) provides the radioactive materials survey data by technical area (TA) and building number. The survey data for each release point includes information such as: exhaust stack identification number, room number, radioactive material source type (i.e., potential source or future potential source of air emissions), radionuclide, usage (in curies) and usage basis, physical state (gas, liquid, particulate, solid, or custom), release fraction (from Appendix D to 40 CFR 61, Subpart H), and process descriptions. In addition, the interview form also calculates emissions (in curies), lists mrem/Ci factors, calculates PEDEs, and states the location of the critical receptor for that release point. [The critical receptor is the maximum exposed off-site member of the public, specific to each individual facility.] Each of these data fields is described in this section. The Tier classification of release points, which was first introduced with the 1999 usage survey, is also described in detail in this section. Section 4 includes a brief discussion of the dose estimate methodology, and includes a discussion of several release points of particular interest in the CY 2011 usage survey report. It also includes a table of the calculated PEDEs for each release point at its critical receptor. Section 5 describes ES's approach to Quality Assurance (QA) for the usage survey. Satisfactory completion of the survey requires that team members responsible for Rad-NESHAP (National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants) compliance accurately collect and process several types of information, including radioactive materials usage data, process information, and supporting information. They must also perform and document the QA reviews outlined in Section 5.2.6 (Process Verification and Peer Review) of ES-RN, 'Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Rad-NESHAP Compliance Project' to verify that all information is complete and correct.

  11. Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2009

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wahl, Linnea

    2010-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Berkeley Lab operates facilities where radionuclides are handled and stored. These facilities are subject to the EPA radioactive air emission regulations in 40CFR61, Subpart H (EPA 1989). Radionuclides may be emitted from stacks or vents on buildings where radionuclide production or use is authorized or they may be emitted as diffuse sources. In 2009, all Berkeley Lab sources were minor sources of radionuclides (sources resulting in a potential dose of less than 0.1 mrem/yr [0.001 mSv/yr]). These minor sources included more than 100 stack sources and one source of diffuse emissions. There were no unplanned emissions from the Berkeley Lab site. Emissions from minor sources (stacks and diffuse emissions) either were measured by sampling or monitoring or were calculated based on quantities used, received for use, or produced during the year. Using measured and calculated emissions, and building-specific and common parameters, Laboratory personnel applied the EPA-approved computer code, CAP88-PC, to calculate the effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The effective dose equivalent from all sources at Berkeley Lab in 2009 is 7.0 x 10{sup -3} mrem/yr (7.0 x 10{sup -5} mSv/yr) to the MEI, well below the 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) dose standard. The location of the MEI is at the University of California (UC) Lawrence Hall of Science, a public science museum about 1500 ft (460 m) east of Berkeley Lab's Building 56. The estimated collective effective dose equivalent to persons living within 50 mi (80 km) of Berkeley Lab is 1.5 x 10{sup -1} person-rem (1.5 x 10{sup -3} person-Sv) attributable to the Lab's airborne emissions in 2009.

  12. Evaluation of the WIPP Project`s compliance with the EPA radiation protection standards for disposal of transuranic waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neill, R.H.; Chaturvedi, L.; Rucker, D.F.; Silva, M.K.; Walker, B.A.; Channell, J.K.; Clemo, T.M. [Environmental Evaluation Group, Albuquerque, NM (United States)] [Environmental Evaluation Group, Albuquerque, NM (United States); [Environmental Evaluation Group, Carlsbad, NM (United States)

    1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA) proposed rule to certify that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) meets compliance with the long-term radiation protection standards for geologic repositories (40CFR191 Subparts B and C), is one of the most significant milestones to date for the WIPP project in particular, and for the nuclear waste issue in general. The Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG) has provided an independent technical oversight for the WIPP project since 1978, and is responsible for many improvements in the location, design, and testing of various aspects of the project, including participation in the development of the EPA standards since the early 1980s. The EEG reviewed the development of documentation for assessing the WIPP`s compliance by the Sandia National Laboratories following the 1985 promulgation by EPA, and provided many written and verbal comments on various aspects of this effort, culminating in the overall review of the 1992 performance assessment. For the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) compliance certification application (CCA), the EEG provided detailed comments on the draft CCA in March, 1996, and additional comments through unpublished letters in 1997 (included as Appendices 8.1 and 8.2 in this report). Since the October 30, 1997, publication of the EPA`s proposed rule to certify WIPP, the EEG gave presentations on important issues to the EPA on December 10, 1997, and sent a December 31, 1997 letter with attachments to clarify those issues (Appendix 8.3). The EEG has raised a number of questions that may have an impact on compliance. In spite of the best efforts by the EEG, the EPA reaction to reviews and suggestions has been slow and apparently driven by legal considerations. This report discusses in detail the questions that have been raised about containment requirements. Also discussed are assurance requirements, groundwater protection, individual protection, and an evaluation of EPA`s responses to EEG`s comments.

  13. The future of gas turbine compliance monitoring: The integration of PEMS and CEMS for regulatory compliance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Macak, J.J. III

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    When the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Stationary Gas Turbines were first promulgated in 1979 (40 CFR 60, Subpart GG), continuous compliance monitoring for gas turbines was simply a parametric monitoring approach where a unit was tested at four load conditions. For those units where water or steam injection was used for NO{sub x} control, testing consisted of establishing a water (or steam injection) versus fuel flow curve to achieve permitted NO{sub x} emission levels across the load range. Since 1979, the growth in gas turbine popularity has encouraged the development of Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems (PEMS) where gas turbine operating parameters and ambient conditions are fed into a prediction algorithm to predict, rather than monitor, emissions. However, permitting requirements and technological advances now have gas turbines emitting NO{sub x} in the single digits while the overall combined-cycle thermal efficiency has improved dramatically. The combination of supplemental duct-firing in heat recovery steam generators, pollution prevention technology, post-combustion emission controls, and EPA Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) regulations for the power industry, resulted in a shift towards CEMS due to the complexity of the overall process. Yet, CEMS are often considered to be a maintenance nightmare with significant amounts of downtime. CEMS and PEMS have their own advantages and disadvantages. Thus evolved the need to find the optimum balance between CEMS and PEMS for gas turbine projects. To justify the cost of both PEMS and CEMS in the same installation, there must be an economic incentive to do so. This paper presents the application of a PEMS/CEMS monitoring system that integrates both PEMS and CEMS in order to meet, and exceed, all emissions monitoring requirements.

  14. Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2007

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wahl, Linnea; Wahl, Linnea

    2008-06-13T23:59:59.000Z

    Berkeley Lab operates facilities where radionuclides are handled and stored. These facilities are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radioactive air emission regulations in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H (EPA 1989). The EPA regulates radionuclide emissions that may be released from stacks or vents on buildings where radionuclide production or use is authorized or that may be emitted as diffuse sources. In 2007, all Berkeley Lab sources were minor stack or building emissions sources of radionuclides (sources resulting in a potential dose of less than 0.1 mrem/yr [0.001 mSv/yr]), there were no diffuse emissions, and there were no unplanned emissions. Emissions from minor sources either were measured by sampling or monitoring or were calculated based on quantities received for use or produced during the year. Using measured and calculated emissions, and building-specific and common parameters, Laboratory personnel applied the EPA-approved computer code, CAP88-PC, Version 3.0, to calculate the effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The effective dose equivalent from all sources at Berkeley Lab in 2007 is 1.2 x 10{sup -2} mrem/yr (1.2 x 10{sup -4} mSv/yr) to the MEI, well below the 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) EPA dose standard. The location of the MEI is at the University of California (UC) Lawrence Hall of Science, a public science museum about 1500 ft (460 m) east of Berkeley Lab's Building 56. The estimated collective effective dose equivalent to persons living within 50 mi (80 km) of Berkeley Lab is 3.1 x 10{sup -1} person-rem (3.1 x 10{sup -3} person-Sv) attributable to the Lab's airborne emissions in 2007.

  15. Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2008

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wahl, Linnea

    2009-05-21T23:59:59.000Z

    Berkeley Lab operates facilities where radionuclides are handled and stored. These facilities are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radioactive air emission regulations in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H (EPA 1989). Radionuclides may be emitted from stacks or vents on buildings where radionuclide production or use is authorized or they may be emitted as diffuse sources. In 2008, all Berkeley Lab sources were minor sources of radionuclides (sources resulting in a potential dose of less than 0.1 mrem/yr [0.001 mSv/yr]). These minor sources include more than 100 stack sources and one source of diffuse emissions. There were no unplanned emissions from the Berkeley Lab site. Emissions from minor sources (stacks and diffuse emissions) either were measured by sampling or monitoring or were calculated based on quantities used, received for use, or produced during the year. Using measured and calculated emissions, and building-specific and common parameters, Laboratory personnel applied the EPA-approved computer code, CAP88-PC, to calculate the effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The effective dose equivalent from all sources at Berkeley Lab in 2008 is 5.2 x 10{sup -3} mrem/yr (5.2 x 10{sup -5} mSv/yr) to the MEI, well below the 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) dose standard. The location of the MEI is at the University of California (UC) Lawrence Hall of Science, a public science museum about 1500 ft (460 m) east of Berkeley Lab's Building 56. The estimated collective effective dose equivalent to persons living within 50 mi (80 km) of Berkeley Lab is 1.1 x 10{sup -1} person-rem (1.1 x 10{sup -3} person-Sv) attributable to the Lab's airborne emissions in 2008.

  16. Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) Interim Status Closure Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SIMMONS, F.M.

    2000-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the planned activities and performance standards for closing the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF). WESF is located within the 225B Facility in the 200 East Area on the Hanford Facility. Although this document is prepared based on Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 265, Subpart G requirements, closure of the storage unit will comply with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-610 regulations pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Action Plan (Ecology et al. 1996). Because the intention is to clean close WESF, postclosure activities are not applicable to this interim status closure plan. To clean close the storage unit, it will be demonstrated that dangerous waste has not been left onsite at levels above the closure performance standard for removal and decontamination. If it is determined that clean closure is not possible or environmentally is impracticable, the interim status closure plan will be modified to address required postclosure activities. WESF stores cesium and strontium encapsulated salts. The encapsulated salts are stored in the pool cells or process cells located within 225B Facility. The dangerous waste is contained within a double containment system to preclude spills to the environment. In the unlikely event that a waste spill does occur outside the capsules, operating methods and administrative controls require that waste spills be cleaned up promptly and completely, and a notation made in the operating record. Because dangerous waste does not include source, special nuclear, and by-product material components of mixed waste, radionuclides are not within the scope of this documentation. The information on radionuclides is provided only for general knowledge.

  17. Site observational work plan for the UMTRA Project site at Tuba City, Arizona

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The requirements for ground water compliance for Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project sites, including the Tuba City, Arizona, site, are found in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act; Subparts B and C of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency`s Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192 (1994)), and the associated proposed 1987 standards (52 FR 36000). During the surface remedial action, an estimated 1,400,000 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) (1,100,000 cubic meters [m{sup 3}]) of uranium mill tailings and other contaminated materials were consolidated and stabilized in place in an unlined disposal cell covering 50 acres (20 hectares). The surface remedial action was completed in April 1990. Ground water beneath the Tuba City site was contaminated by subsurface migration of water from uranium ore processing activities. The main source of contaminants was water from the tailings piles that began in 1956 when the mill opened and ended in 1966 when the mill closed. 800,000 tons (725,000 tonnes) of uranium ore were processed onsite over a 10-year period. The wet tailings remaining after processing were placed as a slurry in three piles at the site. Water from these tailings then seeped into the ground and migrated downward to the ground water. The Tuba City site is currently in a post-stabilization, prelicensing status. The site is expected to remain in this status until licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for long-term surveillance and maintenance. The preliminary ground water compliance strategy at the Tuba City site is active remediation-specific technology to be evaluated is in situ bioremediation. This selection was made because of the potential ability of bioremediation to reduce concentrations to lower levels than a conventional extraction system and to minimize disturbance of the water resource.

  18. Site observational work plan for the UMTRA Project Site at Tuba City, Arizona

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The requirements for ground water compliance for Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project sites, including the Tuba City, Arizona, site, are found in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act; Subparts B and C of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency`s Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192 (1994)), and the associated proposed 1987 standards (52 FR 36000). During the surface remedial action, an estimated 1,400,000 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) (1,100,000 cubic meters [m{sup 3}]) of uranium mill tailings and other contaminated materials were consolidated and stabilized in place in an unlined disposal cell covering 50 acres (20 hectares). The surface remedial action was completed in April 1990. Ground water beneath the Tuba City site was contaminated by subsurface migration of water from uranium ore processing activities. The main source of contaminants was water from the tailings piles that began in 1956 when the mill opened and ended in 1966 when the mill closed. A total of 800,000 tons (725,000 tonnes) of uranium ore were processed onsite over a 10-year period. Two processes were used to refine the ore: an acid leach process and a sodium carbonate alkaline process. Water from these tailings then seeped into the ground and migrated downward to the ground water. The Tuba City site is currently in a post-stabilization, prelicensing status. The preliminary ground water compliance strategy at the Tuba City site is active remediation. The specific technology to be evaluated is in situ bioremediation. This selection was made because of the potential ability of bioremediation to reduce concentrations to lower levels than a conventional extraction system and to minimize disturbance of the water resource.

  19. Remedial Action Plan and Site design for stabilization of the inactive Uranium Mill Tailings sites at Slick Rock, Colorado: Revision 1. Remedial action selection report, Attachment 2, geology report, Attachment 3, ground water hydrology report, Attachment 4, water resources protection strategy. Final

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Slick Rock uranium mill tailings sites are located near the small community of Slick Rock, in San Miguel County, Colorado. There are two designated Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project sites at Slick Rock: the Union Carbide site and the North Continent site. Both sites are adjacent to the Dolores River. The sites contain former mill building concrete foundations, tailings piles, demolition debris, and areas contaminated by windblown and waterborne radioactive materials. The total estimated volume of contaminated materials is approximately 621,000 cubic yards (475,000 cubic meters). In addition to the contamination at the two processing site areas, 13 vicinity properties were contaminated. Contamination associated with the UC and NC sites has leached into ground water. Pursuant to the requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) (42 USC {section}7901 et seq.), the proposed remedial action plan (RAP) will satisfy the final US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards in 40 CFR Part 192 (60 FR 2854) for cleanup, stabilization, and control of the residual radioactive material (RRM) (tailings and other contaminated materials) at the disposal site at Burro Canyon. The requirements for control of the RRM (Subpart A) will be satisfied by the construction of an engineered disposal cell. The proposed remedial action will consist of relocating the uranium mill tailings, contaminated vicinity property materials, demolition debris, and windblown/weaterborne materials to a permanent repository at the Burro Canyon disposal site. The site is approximately 5 road mi (8 km) northeast of the mill sites on land recently transferred to the DOE by the Bureau of Land Management.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    EVANS, C B

    2004-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  1. Technical approach document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, Public Law 95-604 (PL95-604), grants the Secretary of Energy the authority and responsibility to perform such actions as are necessary to minimize radiation health hazards and other environmental hazards caused by inactive uranium mill sites. This Technical Approach Document (TAD) describes the general technical approaches and design criteria adopted by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in order to implement remedial action plans (RAPS) and final designs that comply with EPA standards. It does not address the technical approaches necessary for aquifer restoration at processing sites; a guidance document, currently in preparation, will describe aquifer restoration concerns and technical protocols. This document is a second revision to the original document issued in May 1986; the revision has been made in response to changes to the groundwater standards of 40 CFR 192, Subparts A--C, proposed by EPA as draft standards. New sections were added to define the design approaches and designs necessary to comply with the groundwater standards. These new sections are in addition to changes made throughout the document to reflect current procedures, especially in cover design, water resources protection, and alternate site selection; only minor revisions were made to some of the sections. Sections 3.0 is a new section defining the approach taken in the design of disposal cells; Section 4.0 has been revised to include design of vegetated covers; Section 8.0 discusses design approaches necessary for compliance with the groundwater standards; and Section 9.0 is a new section dealing with nonradiological hazardous constituents. 203 refs., 18 figs., 26 tabs.

  2. Case study: The development of a rule action to implement the federal emission guidelines for existing municipal solid waste landfills by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Moralez, D.A. [Ventura Country Air Pollution Control District, CA (United States)

    1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper will highlight the key revisions to existing District Rule 74.17, Solid Waste Disposal Sites and the key requirements of new District Rule 74.17.1, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills to meet new federal requirements. The rule action is necessary to incorporate and implement the requirements of a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) in Title 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart Cc -- Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (District) is one of only three other districts in California that had previously adopted a landfill gas control rule before the federal EG requirements were adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in March of 1996. Also, because existing District Rule 74.17 requirements were adopted into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the EPA in 1994, several key requirements are carried forward into new District Rule 74.17.1 to prevent a relaxation of the requirements that existing MSW landfills already fulfill. The goal of the rule action was to develop revisions to existing District Rule 74.17 and develop requirements for new District Rule 74.17.1 that at a minimum would incorporate and implement the requirements specified by the EG without causing a relaxation of the existing rule requirements. Because existing District Rule 74.17 and the EG have different non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission limits, staff gave considerable evaluation to this difference and concluded that, in general, the emission limits are equivalent. Also, based on all of the information reviewed, it is District staff`s opinion that the amount of NMOC emissions controlled from the requirements in new District Rule 74.17.1 are, in general, equivalent to the amount of NMOC emissions control from the requirements in existing Rule 74.17.

  3. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2014-09-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The guide was developed in support of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management. It provides guidance for the requirements defined in 10 CFR §830.205, Technical Safety Requirements.

  4. Sitewide Categorical Exclusion for

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

    (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1)) or with cumulatively significant impacts (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)) 2 B1.22 SWCX for Relocation of Buildings- Revision 0 4. Is absent extraordinary...

  5. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Baker, Chris I.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Commerce Department of State Agency AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Part 1260 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 15 CFR Part 14 DEPARTMENT, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, Department

  6. TTR- KTF ASER Cover 2007.indd

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    to EPA regulations 40 CFR 112, Oil Pollution Prevention and 40 CFR 110, Discharge of Oil. The last fi ve USTs were removed in August 1995. This included the removal of two...

  7. CY11 ASER TTR_cover final.indd

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

    to EPA regulations 40 CFR 112, Oil Pollution Prevention and 40 CFR 110, Discharge of Oil. Th e last ffi ve USTs were removed in August 1995. Th is included the removal of two...

  8. CY08 TTR_ASER.indb

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

    to EPA regulations 40 CFR 112, Oil Pollution Prevention and 40 CFR 110, Discharge of Oil. Th e last fi ve USTs were removed in August 1995. Th is included the removal of two...

  9. CY09 ASER TTR Cover.indd

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

    to EPA regulations 40 CFR 112, Oil Pollution Prevention and 40 CFR 110, Discharge of Oil. e last ve USTs were removed in August 1995. is included the removal of two diesel...

  10. Radiation Safety (Revised March 2010)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Kay, Mark A.

    to Workers; Inspections 27 10 CFR Part 20Standards for Protection Against Radiation 28 10 CFR Part 35Radiation Safety Manual (Revised March 2010) Updated December 2012 Stanford University, Stanford California #12; #12; Radiation Safety Manual (Revised March 2010) Updated

  11. DOE/CBFO-11-3479 Panel Closure System Design

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; Final Rule (EPA, 1993). 40 CFR Part of Terms 40 CFR Part 191 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal

  12. Statistical Analysis of Transient Cycle Test Results in a 40...

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

    Analysis of Transient Cycle Test Results in a 40 CFR Part 1065 Engine Dynamometer Test Cell Statistical Analysis of Transient Cycle Test Results in a 40 CFR Part 1065 Engine...

  13. Microsoft PowerPoint - Preparing for IAEA Data Reporting (10...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    URENCO Limited Preparing for IAEA Data Reporting (10 CFR 75) 1 Carol Wormington - URENCO USA Preparing for IAEA Data Reporting (10 CFR 75) * We were YKO, an NRC Licensee 2 * YKO...

  14. Nevada Test Site National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Calendar Year 2007

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Grossman; Ronald Warren

    2008-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office. From 1951 through 1992, the NTS was operated as the nation's site for nuclear weapons testing. The release of man-made radionuclides from the NTS as a result of testing activities has been monitored since the first decade of atmospheric testing. After 1962, when nuclear tests were conducted only underground, the radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NTS was greatly reduced. After the 1992 moratorium on nuclear testing, radiation monitoring on the NTS focused on detecting airborne radionuclides which come from historically contaminated soils resuspended into the air (e.g., by winds) and tritium-contaminated soil moisture emitted to the air from soils through evapotranspiration. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy facility (e.g., the NTS) to 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This is the dose limit established for someone living off of the NTS from radionuclides emitted to air from the NTS. This limit does not include the radiation doses that members of the public may receive through the intake of radioactive particles unrelated to NTS activities, such as those that come from naturally occurring elements in the environment (e.g., naturally occurring radionuclides in soil or radon gas from the earth or natural building materials), or from other man-made sources (e.g., medical treatments). The NTS demonstrates compliance using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations. This method was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use on the NTS in 2001 and has been the sole method used since 2005. There are six critical receptor locations on the NTS that are actually pseudocritical receptor locations because they are hypothetical receptor locations; no person actually resides at these onsite locations. Annual average concentrations of detected radionuclides are compared with Concentration Levels (CL) for Environmental Compliance values listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2. Compliance is demonstrated if the sum of fractions (CL/measured concentrations) of all detected radionuclides at each pseudo-critical receptor location is less than one. In 2007, as in all previous years for which this report has been produced, the NTS has demonstrated that the potential dose to the public from radiological emissions to air from current and past NTS activities is well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected onsite at each of the six pseudo-critical receptor stations on the NTS had average concentrations of nuclear test-related radioactivity that were a fraction of the limits listed in Table 2 in Appendix E of 40 CFR 61. They ranged from less than 1 percent to a maximum of 20 percent of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides approximately 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the NTS boundary, concentrations at this location would be only a small fraction of that measured on the NTS.

  15. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions Calendar Year 2009

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Ecological and Environmental Monitoring

    2010-06-11T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office operates the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NTS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NTS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. Limitation to underground detonations after 1962 greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NTS. After nuclear testing ended in 1992, NTS radiation monitoring focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of tritium were also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NTS support complex in North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy facility to 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation not related to NTS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements or from sources such as medically or commercially used radionuclides. The NTS demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations. This method was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use on the NTS in 2001 and has been the sole method used since 2005. Six locations on the NTS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are actually pseudo-critical receptor stations, because no member of the public actually resides at these onsite locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration of each detected radionuclide at each of these locations is less than the NESHAP Concentration Levels (CLs) for Environmental Compliance listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2. At any one location, if multiple radionuclides are detected, then compliance with NESHAP is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide’s concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. In 2009, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air, resulting from both current and past NTS activities, at onsite compliance monitoring stations was a maximum of 1.69 mrem/yr, well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected at all six critical receptor stations had average concentrations of radioactivity that were a fraction of the CL values listed in Table 2 in Appendix E of 40 CFR 61. Concentrations ranged from less than 1 percent to a maximum of 17 percent of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides approximately 20 kilometers from potential release points on the NTS, concentrations at this location would be only a small fraction of that measured on the NTS. The potential dose to the public from NLVF emissions was also very low at 0.000044 mrem/yr, 230,000 times lower than the 10 mrem/yr limit.

  16. EA-1774: Final Environmental Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    10 CFR Part 431 Energy Conservation Standards: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters

  17. Model-based Security Engineering for Compliance with Regulatory and Business

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jurjens, Jan

    , laws and regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley, Basel II, Solvency II, HIPAA, REACH, RoHS/WEEE and 21 CFR

  18. REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RADIATION SURVEYS AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    in 40 CFR Part 190. In conjunction with the AEA, EPA presently supports the following: S Environmental

  19. Market versus Non-Market Assignment of Initial Ownership

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Che, Yeon-Koo; Gale, Ian

    2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    ample concerns the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)in?ation. See Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part

  20. EA-1674: Final Environmental Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    10 CFR 431 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines

  1. GSA Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Potlcy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AGENCY ACQUISITION COUNCIL (CAAC) Class Deviation from the FederalAcquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.5, Test Program for Certain Commercial ltems FROM: This memorandum...

  2. Alternative Fuels Data Center

    Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)]

    batteries in hybrid electric vehicles; and for emergency service vehicles. (Reference New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations Chapter III, Subpart 217-3...

  3. UESC Workshop Materials

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

    Policy Act (NEPA) Detailed disposal requirements statement for hazardous materials related to the project are essential It is in the FAR Subpart 23.3. Acquisition...

  4. CX-008883.pdf

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

    Lee Watts Project Manager - KEWM-4 Proposed Action: Indian Creek Property Funding. Fish and Wildlife Project No.: 1992-061-00 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10...

  5. ambiental environmental scanning: Topics by E-print Network

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

    Environmental Sciences and Ecology Websites Summary: into the ambient air from uranium mill tailings disposal sites. Subpart T continues to apply to unlicensed uranium, Criteria...

  6. assessment part iii: Topics by E-print Network

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

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Office of Radiation) for radon emissions from operating uranium mill tailings impoundments (Subpart W) on December 15, 1989 48 FORMAT FOR THE COMPILATION OF...

  7. Development of Risk Insights for Regulatory Review of a Near-Surface Disposal Facility for Radioactive Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Esh, D.W.; Ridge, A.C.; Thaggard, M. [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7J8, Washington, DC 20555 (United States)

    2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA) requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about non-High Level Waste (HLW) determinations. In its consultative role, NRC performs technical reviews of DOE's waste determinations but does not have regulatory authority over DOE's waste disposal activities. The safety of disposal is evaluated by comparing predicted disposal facility performance to the performance objectives specified in NRC regulations for the disposal of low-level waste (10 CFR Part 61 Subpart C). The performance objectives contain criteria for protection of the public, protection of inadvertent intruders, protection of workers, and stability of the disposal site after closure. The potential radiological dose to receptors typically is evaluated with a performance assessment (PA) model that simulates the release of radionuclides from the disposal site, transport of radionuclides through the environment, and exposure of potential receptors to residual contamination for thousands of years. This paper describes NRC's development and use of independent performance assessment modeling to facilitate review of DOE's non-HLW determination for the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site. NRC's review of the safety of near-surface disposal of radioactive waste at the SDF was facilitated and focused by risk insights developed with an independent PA model. The main components of NRC's performance assessment model are presented. The development of risk insights that allow the staff to focus review efforts on those areas that are most important to satisfying the performance objectives is discussed. Uncertainty analysis was performed of the full stochastic model using genetic variable selection algorithms. The results of the uncertainty analysis were then used to guide the development of simulations of other scenarios to understand the key risk drivers and risk limiters of the SDF. Review emphasis was placed on those aspects of the disposal system that were expected to drive performance: the physical and chemical performance of the cementitious wasteform and concrete vaults. Refinement of the modeling of the degradation and release from the cementitious wasteform had a significant effect on the predicted dose to a member of the public. (authors)

  8. Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Results Obtained in the 1996 Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bean, J.E.; Berglund, J.W.; Davis, F.J.; Economy, K.; Garner, J.W.; Helton, J.C.; Johnson, J.D.; MacKinnon, R.J.; Miller, J.; O'Brien, D.G.; Ramsey, J.L.; Schreiber, J.D.; Shinta, A.; Smith, L.N.; Stockman, C.; Stoelzel, D.M.; Vaughn, P.

    1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WPP) is located in southeastern New Mexico and is being developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the geologic (deep underground) disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste. A detailed performance assessment (PA) for the WIPP was carried out in 1996 and supports an application by the DOE to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the certification of the WIPP for the disposal of TRU waste. The 1996 WIPP PA uses a computational structure that maintains a separation between stochastic (i.e., aleatory) and subjective (i.e., epistemic) uncertainty, with stochastic uncertainty arising from the many possible disruptions that could occur over the 10,000 yr regulatory period that applies to the WIPP and subjective uncertainty arising from the imprecision with which many of the quantities required in the PA are known. Important parts of this structure are (1) the use of Latin hypercube sampling to incorporate the effects of subjective uncertainty, (2) the use of Monte Carlo (i.e., random) sampling to incorporate the effects of stochastic uncertainty, and (3) the efficient use of the necessarily limited number of mechanistic calculations that can be performed to support the analysis. The use of Latin hypercube sampling generates a mapping from imprecisely known analysis inputs to analysis outcomes of interest that provides both a display of the uncertainty in analysis outcomes (i.e., uncertainty analysis) and a basis for investigating the effects of individual inputs on these outcomes (i.e., sensitivity analysis). The sensitivity analysis procedures used in the PA include examination of scatterplots, stepwise regression analysis, and partial correlation analysis. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained as part of the 1996 WIPP PA are presented and discussed. Specific topics considered include two phase flow in the vicinity of the repository, radionuclide release from the repository, fluid flow and radionuclide transport in formations overlying the repository, and complementary cumulative distribution functions used in comparisons with regulatory standards (i.e., 40 CFR 191, Subpart B).

  9. Distribution Integrity Management Plant (DIMP)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gonzales, Jerome F. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-05-07T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is the distribution integrity management plan (Plan) for the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Natural Gas Distribution System. This Plan meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart P Distribution Integrity Management Programs (DIMP) for the LANL Natural Gas Distribution System. This Plan was developed by reviewing records and interviewing LANL personnel. The records consist of the design, construction, operation and maintenance for the LANL Natural Gas Distribution System. The records system for the LANL Natural Gas Distribution System is limited, so the majority of information is based on the judgment of LANL employees; the maintenance crew, the Corrosion Specialist and the Utilities and Infrastructure (UI) Civil Team Leader. The records used in this report are: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 7100.1-1, Report of Main and Service Line Inspection, Natural Gas Leak Survey, Gas Leak Response Report, Gas Leak and Repair Report, and Pipe-to-Soil Recordings. The specific elements of knowledge of the infrastructure used to evaluate each threat and prioritize risks are listed in Sections 6 and 7, Threat Evaluation and Risk Prioritization respectively. This Plan addresses additional information needed and a method for gaining that data over time through normal activities. The processes used for the initial assessment of Threat Evaluation and Risk Prioritization are the methods found in the Simple, Handy Risk-based Integrity Management Plan (SHRIMP{trademark}) software package developed by the American Pipeline and Gas Agency (APGA) Security and Integrity Foundation (SIF). SHRIMP{trademark} uses an index model developed by the consultants and advisors of the SIF. Threat assessment is performed using questions developed by the Gas Piping Technology Company (GPTC) as modified and added to by the SHRIMP{trademark} advisors. This Plan is required to be reviewed every 5 years to be continually refined and improved. Records for all piping system installed after the effective date of this Plan will be captured and retained in the UI records documentation system. Primary Utility Asbuilts are maintained by Utilities Mapping (UMAP) and additional records are maintained on the N drive. Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) are stored on the N drive under configuration management and kept up by Utilities and Infrastructure Division Office (UI-DO). Records include, at a minimum, the location where new piping and appurtenances are installed and the material of which they are constructed.

  10. Plutonium Finishing Plan (PFP) Treatment and Storage Unit Interim Status Closure Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PRIGNANO, A.L.

    2000-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the planned activities and performance standards for closing the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Treatment and Storage Unit. The PFP Treatment and Storage Unit is located within the 234-52 Building in the 200 West Area of the Hanford Facility. Although this document is prepared based upon Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 265, Subpart G requirements, closure of the unit will comply with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-610 regulations pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Action Plan (Ecology et al. 1996). Because the PFP Treatment and Storage Unit manages transuranic mixed (TRUM) waste, there are many controls placed on management of the waste. Based on the many controls placed on management of TRUM waste, releases of TRUM waste are not anticipated to occur in the PFP Treatment and Storage Unit. Because the intention is to clean close the PFP Treatment and Storage Unit, postclosure activities are not applicable to this closure plan. To clean close the unit, it will be demonstrated that dangerous waste has not been left onsite at levels above the closure performance standard for removal and decontamination. If it is determined that clean closure is not possible or is environmentally impractical, the closure plan will be modified to address required postclosure activities. The PFP Treatment and Storage Unit will be operated to immobilize and/or repackage plutonium-bearing waste in a glovebox process. The waste to be processed is in a solid physical state (chunks and coarse powder) and will be sealed into and out of the glovebox in closed containers. The containers of immobilized waste will be stored in the glovebox and in additional permitted storage locations at PFP. The waste will be managed to minimize the potential for spills outside the glovebox, and to preclude spills from reaching soil. Containment surfaces will be maintained to ensure integrity. In the unlikely event that a waste spill does occur outside the glovebox, operating methods and administrative controls will require that waste spills be cleaned up promptly and completely, and a notation will be made in the operating record. Because dangerous waste does not include source, special nuclear, and by-product material components of mixed waste, radionuclides are not within the scope of this documentation. The information on radionuclides is provided only for general knowledge.

  11. Regulatory Framework for Salt Waste Disposal and Tank Closure at the Savannah River Site - 13663

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thomas, Steve; Dickert, Ginger [Savannah River Remediation LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)] [Savannah River Remediation LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The end of the Cold War has left a legacy of approximately 37 million gallons of radioactive waste in the aging waste tanks at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS). A robust program is in place to remove waste from these tanks, treat the waste to separate into a relatively small volume of high-level waste and a large volume of low-level waste, and to actively dispose of the low-level waste on-site and close the waste tanks and associated ancillary structures. To support performance-based, risk-informed decision making and to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its current and past contractors have worked closely with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to develop and implement a framework for on-site low-level waste disposal and closure of the SRS waste tanks. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides DOE the authority to manage defense-related radioactive waste. DOE Order 435.1 and its associated manual and guidance documents detail this radioactive waste management process. The DOE also has a requirement to consult with the NRC in determining that waste that formerly was classified as high-level waste can be safely managed as either low-level waste or transuranic waste. Once DOE makes a determination, NRC then has a responsibility to monitor DOE's actions in coordination with SCDHEC to ensure compliance with the Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 (10CFR61), Subpart C performance objectives. The management of hazardous waste substances or components at SRS is regulated by SCDHEC and the EPA. The foundation for the interactions between DOE, SCDHEC and EPA is the SRS Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). Managing this array of requirements and successfully interacting with regulators, consultants and stakeholders is a challenging task but ensures thorough and thoughtful processes for disposing of the SRS low-level waste and the closure of the tank farm facilities. (authors)

  12. An Illustration of the Corrective Action Process, The Corrective Action Management Unit at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Irwin, M.; Kwiecinski, D.

    2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

    Corrective Action Management Units (CAMUs) were established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to streamline the remediation of hazardous waste sites. Streamlining involved providing cost saving measures for the treatment, storage, and safe containment of the wastes. To expedite cleanup and remove disincentives, EPA designed 40 CFR 264 Subpart S to be flexible. At the heart of this flexibility are the provisions for CAMUs and Temporary Units (TUs). CAMUs and TUs were created to remove cleanup disincentives resulting from other Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste provisions--specifically, RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDRs) and minimum technology requirements (MTRs). Although LDR and MTR provisions were not intended for remediation activities, LDRs and MTRs apply to corrective actions because hazardous wastes are generated. However, management of RCRA hazardous remediation wastes in a CAMU or TU is not subject to these stringent requirements. The CAMU at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (SNL/NM) was proposed through an interactive process involving the regulators (EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department), DOE, SNL/NM, and stakeholders. The CAMU at SNL/NM has been accepting waste from the nearby Chemical Waste Landfill remediation since January of 1999. During this time, a number of unique techniques have been implemented to save costs, improve health and safety, and provide the best value and management practices. This presentation will take the audience through the corrective action process implemented at the CAMU facility, from the selection of the CAMU site to permitting and construction, waste management, waste treatment, and final waste placement. The presentation will highlight the key advantages that CAMUs and TUs offer in the corrective action process. These advantages include yielding a practical approach to regulatory compliance, expediting efficient remediation and site closure, and realizing potentially significant cost savings compared to off-site disposal. Specific examples of CA MU advantages realized by SNL/NM will be presented along with the above highlighted process improvements, Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) performance, and associated lessons learned.

  13. Final Characterization Report for Corrective Action Unit 109: Area 2 U-2BU Crater, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    ITLV

    1998-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Corrective Action Unit 109, Area 2 U-2bu Crater, is an inactive Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part A Permit disposal unit located in Area 2 at the Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The Corrective Action Unit has been characterized under the requirements of the Nevada Test Site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Part A Permit (NDEP, 1995) and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 265 (CFR, 1996). The site characterization was performed under the RCRA Part A Permit Characterization Plan for the U-2bu Subsidence Crater (DOE/NV, 1998c), as approved by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (Liebendorfer, 1998). The primary objective of the site characterization activities was to evaluate the presence, concentration, and extent of any Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contaminants in the crater. Surface soil samples were collected on April 22, 1998, and subsurface soil samples and geotechnical samples were collected from April 27-29, 1998. Soil samples were collected using a hand auger or a piston-type drive hammer to advance a 5-centimeter (2-inch) diameter steel sampling tool into the ground. The permit for the Nevada Test Site requires that Corrective Action Unit 109 be closed under 40 Code of Federal Regulations 265 Subpart G and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 265.310 (CFR, 1996). Analysis of the data collected during the characterization effort indicates that lead was detected in Study Area 1 at 5.7 milligrams per liter, above the regulatory level in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 261.24 of 5.0 milligrams per liter. Except for the lead detection at a single location within the crater, the original Resource Conservation Recovery Act constituents of potential concern determined between the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection during the Data Quality Objectives process (DOE/NV, 1998b) were not found to be present at Corrective Action Unit 109 above regulatory levels of concern. The single lead detection that exceeded regulatory limits was discovered at a depth of 1.2 meters (4 feet) in Study Area 1. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in Study Area 4 at two locations at concentrations of 130 and 190 milligrams per kilogram. These concentrations exceed the 100 milligram per kilogram action level established in Nevada Administrative Code 445A.2272 (NAC, 1996). The primary conceptual model identified during the Data Quality Objectives process appears to have been substantiated by the analytical results from site characterization; migration of contaminants of potential concern does not appear to be occurring, as none were detected in a significant percentage of the characterization samples. Based on the results of the characterization, clean closure by removal and disposal of impacted soil will be evaluated in the closure plan to address Study Area 1. An (a) through (k) analysis, as specified in Nevada Administrative Code 445A.227, should be used to evaluate total petroleum hydrocarbon contamination within Study Area 4. Study Areas 2, 3, and 5 should be clean closed without further assessment or remediation (see Figures 2-1 and 5-1 in the Characterization Report).

  14. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions, Calendar Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Ecological and Environmental Monitoring

    2012-06-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office operates the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NNSS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NNSS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. Limitation to underground detonations after 1962 greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public surrounding the NNSS. After nuclear testing ended in 1992, NNSS radiation monitoring focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of legacy-related tritium are also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NNSS support complex in North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of man-made radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61 Subpart H) limits the release of radioactivity from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility to that which would cause 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation unrelated to NNSS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements, from sources such as medically or commercially used radionuclides, or from sources outside of the United States, such as the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. Radionuclides from the Fukushima nuclear power plant were detected at the NNSS in March 2011 and are discussed further in Section III. The NNSS demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by using environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations. This method was approved by the EPA for use on the NNSS in 2001 and has been the sole method used since 2005. Six locations on the NNSS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are actually pseudo-critical receptor stations, because no member of the public actually resides at these onsite locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration is less than the NESHAP Concentration Levels (CLs) for Environmental Compliance listed in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2. For multiple radionuclides, compliance is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide's concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. In 2011, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air, resulting from both current and past NNSS activities, at onsite compliance monitoring stations was well below the 10 mrem/yr dose limit. Air sampling data collected at all air monitoring stations had average concentrations of radioactivity that were a fraction of the CL values. Concentrations ranged from less than 1% to a maximum of 12.2% of the allowed NESHAP limit. Because the nearest member of the public resides about 20 kilometers from potential release points on the NNSS, dose to the public would be only a small fraction of the value measured on the NNSS. The potential dose to the public from NLVF emissions was also very low at 0.000024 mrem/yr, more than 400,000 times lower than the 10 mrem/yr limit.

  15. GUIDELINES FOR SAFE LABORATORY PRACTICES

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Haller, Gary L.

    University's Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP). The CHP was written to comply with the Occupational Safety in Laboratories (29 CFR 1910.1450)). The CHP is the most detailed

  16. ASRAC Regional Standards Enforcement Notice of Open Meeting

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

    10 CFR Part 460 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) - Central Air Conditioner Regional Enforcement Standards Working Group AGENCY: Department of...

  17. LANL Sustainable Design Guide - Appendices

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

    government, thereby saving taxpayer dollars and reducing emissions that contribute to air pollution and global climate change. 10CFR434 - Energy Conservation Voluntary...

  18. Microsoft Word - Requirements_list.docx

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

    SELECTED LIST OF REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT APPLICABILITY 1. Federal Motor Carrier Registration 49 CFR 390.19; 390.21 Motor carriers that conduct commercial motor vehicle...

  19. L:\\Projects - Active\\2004\\2004

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

    shutdown reactors from the site. They also have reduced andor eliminated chemical inventories that exceeded Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)-published threshold planning...

  20. EA-1673: Final Environmental Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    10 CFR 431 Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment

  1. General Counsel Legal Interpretation Regarding Medical Removal...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Regarding Medical Removal Protection Benefits Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 850, Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program General Counsel Legal Interpretation Regarding Medical...

  2. Review Reports | Department of Energy

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

    and Health Evaluations. March 22, 2006 Status Report, Department of Energy's Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program - February 2006 Report on Implementation of 10 CFR Part...

  3. act proposed site: Topics by E-print Network

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

    this chapter are listed unknown authors 12 PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE ST. LOUIS NORTH COUNTY SITE Engineering Websites Summary: , Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal...

  4. Notice of Intent to Investigate, Los Alamos National Security...

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

    (LANS) implementation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) 10 C.F.R. Part 851 hazardous energy assessment and control requirements and recent hazardous electrical energy...

  5. 1

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

    damage or disruption that threatens or compromises site health and safety, security, integrity, or compliance with 40 CFR 192. No emergency measures were identified. 1.7...

  6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    same nominal voltage, poles, circuit breakers, transformers, capacitors, crossarms, insulators, and downed powerlines, in accordance, where appropriate, with 40 CFR part 761...

  7. Department of Energy Analysis of Economic Impact

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Department of Energy Analysis of Economic Impact Final Rule, 10 CFR 810 February 3, 2015 1 Executive Summary The Department of Energy (DOE) published a Notice of Proposed...

  8. UNCLASSIFIED

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 Department of Energy Analysis of Economic Impact Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 CFR 810 January 13, 2013 UNCLASSIFIED 2 Executive Summary The Department of...

  9. Proposed rule for Interconnection for Wind Energy and Other Alternativ...

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

    ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 CFR Part 35 (Docket No. RM05-4-000) Interconnection for Wind Energy and Other Alternative Technologies (January 24, 2005) AGENCY: Federal Energy...

  10. EA-1662: Final Environmental Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program: EnergyConservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens)

  11. WEA-2010-04

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    during the enforcement conference, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has concluded that violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program,...

  12. RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms." C. Regulatorv Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): 1. The proposed...

  13. Maricopa County, Arizona. RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATIO...

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

    changing insulators. & replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms.". C. Regulatory Reguirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): 1. The...

  14. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    poles, circuit insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossanns. C. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): (See full text...

  15. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms. C. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): (See full text...

  16. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, citcuit breakets, conductors, transformers, and crossarms. C. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): (See full text...

  17. County, Arizona RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms." C. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): i . The...

  18. Transformer Addition Project near Page, Coconino County, Arizona

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms." c. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): 1. The proposed...

  19. Maricopa County, Arizona RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    changing insulators, & replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms.". C. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): I. The...

  20. Categorical Exclusion for Cross Arm

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

    but not limited to ... changing insulators, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and cross arms." C. Regulatorv Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): a. The...

  1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    and improvements would create a smooth surface, safe for Western's vehicle travel. B. Number and Title of the Categorical Exclusion Being Applied: (See text in 10 CFR Part...

  2. In Yuma County, Arizona and Imperial County, California RECORD...

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms." B. Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): 1. The...

  3. and Imperial County, California RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION...

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

    changing insulators, and replacement of poles, circuit breakers, conductors, transformers, and crossarms." C, Regulatory Requirements in 10 CFR 1021.410 (b): 1. The...

  4. RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION Hygiene Substation...

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

    will occur within the existing, disturbed substation access roaddriveway. B. Number and Title of tile Categorical Exclusion Being Applied: (See text in 10 CFR 1021,...

  5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION

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

    rigid 4-inch aluminum conductor and associated connections would also be replaced. B. Number and Title of the Categorical Exclusion Being Applied: (See text in 10 CFR Part...

  6. Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    It implements the requirements of: Title 32, CFR, Part 2001, Classified National Security Information Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information...

  7. EIS-0468: EPA Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental...

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

    recirculation of the document is necessary under 40 CFR Part 1506.3(b). Notice of Availability for the Environmental Impact Statement for American Centrifuge Plant, Gas...

  8. Performance Assessment for Transuranic Waste

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High- Level, and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, can be met. The 40 CFR 191 analyses...

  9. EA-1637: Final Environmental Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    10 CFR 431 Energy Conservation Program for Commerical and Industrial Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat Pump Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule

  10. L:\\Projects - Active\\2002\\2002

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

    Gamma Hot Cell Facility ANL Argonne National Laboratory CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH Chicago Operations Office CMT Chemical...

  11. Coverage of Independent Audits of For-Profit Firms

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    COVERAGE OF INDEPENDENT AUDITS FOR OTHER TRANSACTIONS (10 CFR 603) TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1. General Information What is the purpose of this document? Why does the Federal...

  12. Environment, Safety, and Health Special Review, Department of...

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

    approach outlined in DOE's Nanoscale Science Research Centers Approach to Nanoscale Environment, Safety, and Health, and other applicable requirements including 10 C.F.R. Part 851...

  13. accept site investigations: Topics by E-print Network

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

    at licensed commercial uranium and thorium processing sites for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR Part 192) This regulation, along with "Criteria Relating,...

  14. accident investigation sites: Topics by E-print Network

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

    at licensed commercial uranium and thorium processing sites for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR Part 192) This regulation, along with "Criteria Relating,...

  15. Preliminary Notice of Violation, Pacific Data Electric, Inc....

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    (10 C.F.R. 851) relating to a 277-volt electrical shock received by a PDE apprentice electrician at DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Preliminary Notice of...

  16. Briefing, Restricted Data Classifiers- June 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This briefing provides the training required by 10 CFR part 1045 for persons who classify documents containing Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data.

  17. Independent Oversight Inspection of Environment, Safety and Health...

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

    15 Abbreviations Used in This Report AAAHC Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care AMPL Advanced Manufacturing and Processes Laboratory CFR Code of Federal...

  18. Office of Administration

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

    2002-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Designated to be responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining an Occupant Emergency Plan, as required by 41 CFR 101-20.103-4, for all Department's Headquarters Buildings.

  19. Development of a Transportable, 1065-Compliant Emissions Measurement...

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

    a Transportable, 1065-Compliant Emissions Measurement System Development of a Transportable, 1065-Compliant Emissions Measurement System CFR 1065 test procedures for heavy-heavy...

  20. Modelli scolastici nel Boccaccio napoletano

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Di Franza, Concetta

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Romania 31 Ricci, Lucia Battaglia. Boccaccio. Roma: Salerno,Napoli: ESI, 1975); Lucia Battaglia Ricci, Boccaccio (Roma:Laterza, 1974). Cfr. Battaglia Ricci, Boccaccio, cit. , 78-

  1. FEMP Designated Product Assessment for Commercial Gas Water Heaters

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lutz, Jim

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    resistance and heat pump water heaters are not covered.other than commercial heat pump water heaters). 10CFR431.110

  2. adopting revised frequencies: Topics by E-print Network

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

    Selmic, Sandra 6 Request for Technical Specifications Change Braidwood Station, Unit 1, Steam Generator Inspection Frequency Revision CiteSeer Summary: In accordance with 10 CFR...

  3. EA-1880: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Assessment with Scoping (EA) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 7 CFR part 1794 in connection with potential impacts...

  4. Part II, General Compliance Supplement

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    agency regulations in 2 CFR implementing the OMB guidance; program legislation; Department of Energy regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Most of the...

  5. Proposed Rule To Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Revision on Subpart 1 Area Reclassification and Anti-Backsliding Provisions Under Former 1-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Deletion of Obsolete 1-Hour Ozone Standard Provision

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilAElectronic Input Options Gary L. Hirsch SNL 2001a,Summary; i-C C1 1 1 14ElyVerDate

  6. Reader-Friendly Environmental Documents

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Minnesota, University of

    the portions of the EIS that are useful to decision makers and the public 40 CFR 1502.8: Environmental impact and the public can readily understand them. 40 CFR 1502.2: Environmental impact statements shall be analyticReader-Friendly Environmental Documents Reader-Friendly Environmental Documents Improving the way

  7. 3000 and 3000RM Uninterruptible Power Supplies

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Berns, Hans-Gerd

    . Recycling is the best method. Never burn batteries to dispose of them. They may explode. Do not open START OUTPUT LOAD OVERLOAD 100% 75% 50% 25% LINE PRESENT LINE FAILURE SERVICE LOW BATTERY WARNING LOW BATTERY SHUTDOWN TEST #12;CFR 3000 and 3000RM NOTICE: The CFR 3000 and 3000RM generates, uses and can

  8. National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program

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

    2000-10-26T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Order is to establish DOE internal requirements and responsibilities for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). Change 1 has been added to this Order 9/28/2001.

  9. Department of Environmental

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rubloff, Gary W.

    Appendix C ­ Non-Assessed Tasks 41 Appendix D ­ Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Tasks 42 #12;Lead in Construction (29 CFR 1926.62), Lead Exposure in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1025), and Procedures for Abating and state occupational health and safety standards. Administrators, project managers, faculty, staff

  10. 64182 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 223 / Thursday, November 19, 1998 / Rules and Regulations date specified above. After the close of

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71--DESIGNATION by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9F, Airspace Designations of a Federalism Assessment. The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result

  11. Radiation Protection Programs Guide for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection

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

    2008-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

    Provides guidance for implementing the provisions of the functional areas contained in 10 CFR 835. The revision to the guide reflects changes in the June 2007 amendment to 10 CFR 835, Worker Safety and Health Program. Cancels DOE G 441.1-1B. Admin Chg 1 dated 7-8-11.

  12. Radiation Protection Programs Guide for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection

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

    2008-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

    Provides guidance for implementing the provisions of the functional areas contained in 10 CFR 835. The revision to the guide reflects changes in the June 2007 amendment to 10 CFR 835, Worker Safety and Health Program. Cancels DOE G 441.1-1B. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-8-11, cancels DOE G 441.1-1C.

  13. Institutional Statement of Commitment To the Protection of Human Participants in Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Kroll, Kristen L.

    and the FDA in 21 CFR 50; 21 CFR 56; the Belmont Report; the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code is charged by the Chancellor to serve as the Institutional Official on Washington University's Federalwide to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those

  14. Evaluation and Control of Radiation Dose to the Embryo/Fetus Guide for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection

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

    1999-04-29T23:59:59.000Z

    This Guide provides an acceptable methodology for establishing and operating a program to control fetal exposure to ionizing radiation and evaluate the resultant dose that will comply with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (DOE 1998), hereinafter referred to as 10 CFR 835.

  15. Designation Order No. 00-09.00 to the Under Secretary

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

    2006-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

    Designated as the authorized representative to perform on the Secretary of Energy's behalf as the "authorized representative", as that term is used in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations 10 CFR 72.16(b), and as named holder of the NRC license under 10 CFR Part 72 for Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

  16. Redesignation Order No. 00-09.01-01 to the Manager of Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office

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

    2006-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

    Redesignation of the Manager of the Idaho Operations Office as the representative to perform as the "authorized representative," as that term is used in the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 72.16(b), and as name holder of the NRC license under 10 CFR 72 for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

  17. Redesignation Order No. 00-09.01 to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

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

    2006-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

    Redesignation of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management of DOE as the authorized representative to perform as the "Authorized Representative," as that term is used in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at 10 CFR 72.16(b) and as name holder of the NRC license under 10 CFR Part 72 of for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

  18. Aerosol measurements with laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lithgow, Gregg Arthur

    2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    LIBS Using Dual- and Ultra-Short Laser Pulses. FreseniusFigure 3.1. A Big Sky Ultra CFR-GRM Nd:YAG laser was used toA Big Sky Ultra CFR-GRM Nd:YAG laser (YAG) was used to

  19. TO: Procurement Directors FROM: Director Contract and Financial...

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

    the order used in the Subparts of FAR Part 16- TYPES OF CONTRACTS, which is: Fixed-Price, Cost-Reimbursement, Incentive, Indefinite-Delivery, Time-and-Materials, and...

  20. Reid Rosnick/DC/USEPA/US 01/03/2012 08:07 AM

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    , Philip Egidi, Susan Stahle, Tom Peake bcc Subject Subpart W Stakeholders Conference Call Meeting Date 01 Schultheisz; Philip Egidi; Susan Stahle; Tom Peake FYI Location Call-in number - 866-299-3188 Conference Code