Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Executive Summary #12;Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a deep geologic repository for the disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes generated

2

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

3

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

4

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Inspections (40 CFR § 194.21) #12;Title 40 CFR Part

5

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)]

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

2001-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

6

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Engineered Barriers (40 CFR § 194

7

NESHAP Subpart W Activities Reid J. Rosnick  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

facilities, but not conventional mines (open pit or underground) #12;5 Review of 40 CFR 192 Regulations for operating uranium mill tailings (Subpart W) EPA's rulemaking process Status update on Subpart W activities;4 Review of 40 CFR 192 Regulations Implementing UMTRCA EPA reviewing regulations implementing the Uranium

8

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Future States Assumptions (40 CFR § 194

9

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Models and Computer Codes (40 CFR § 194

10

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Removal of Waste (40 CFR § 194.46) #12;Title

11

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Structure of the CRA-2009 #12;Title 40 CFR Part 191

12

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Expert Judgment (40 CFR § 194.26) #12;Title

13

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)]

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.

2011-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

14

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

at the WIPP (40 CFR § 194.8) United States Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Approval Process for Waste Shipment From Waste Generator Sites

15

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Quality Assurance (40 CFR § 194.22) #12;Title Application Review Document CBFO Carlsbad Field Office CCA Compliance Certification Application CCP Central

16

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

at the WIPP (40 CFR § 194.8) United States Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Compliance Recertification Application 2014 Approval Process for Waste

17

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

18

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

19

Implementing 10 CFR Part 830 Subpart B at WIPP  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

20

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)

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.

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

22

NESHAP Subpart W Activities An Internet Webinar  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

facilities, but not conventional mines (open pit or underground) #12;10 Review of 40 CFR 192 Regulations? EPA regulatory requirements for operating uranium mill tailings (Subpart W) General requirements sources regulated under Rad-NESHAP, including radon emissions from operation uranium mill tailings (NESHAP

23

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

24

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

25

Preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1992. Volume 1, Third comparison with 40 CFR 191, Subpart B  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Before disposing of transuranic radioactive wastes in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with applicable long-term regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sandia National Laboratories is conducting iterative performance assessments of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for final compliance evaluations. This volume contains an overview of WIPP performance assessment and a preliminary comparison with the long-term requirements of the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191, Subpart B).

Not Available

1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

26

Subpart 52  

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

The solicitation, or amended solicitation, provides a different definition; (2) The contracting parties agree to a different definition; (3) The part, subpart, or section of the...

27

Preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1992. Volume 4: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for 40 CFR 191, Subpart B  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Before disposing of transuranic radioactive waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with applicable long-term regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sandia National Laboratories is conducting iterative performance assessments (PAs) of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for a final compliance evaluation. This volume of the 1992 PA contains results of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses with respect to the EPA`s Environmental Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191, Subpart B). Additional information about the 1992 PA is provided in other volumes. Results of the 1992 uncertainty and sensitivity analyses indicate that, conditional on the modeling assumptions, the choice of parameters selected for sampling, and the assigned parameter-value distributions, the most important parameters for which uncertainty has the potential to affect compliance with 40 CFR 191B are: drilling intensity, intrusion borehole permeability, halite and anhydrite permeabilities, radionuclide solubilities and distribution coefficients, fracture spacing in the Culebra Dolomite Member of the Rustler Formation, porosity of the Culebra, and spatial variability of Culebra transmissivity. Performance with respect to 40 CFR 191B is insensitive to uncertainty in other parameters; however, additional data are needed to confirm that reality lies within the assigned distributions.

Not Available

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

28

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)]

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.

2013-04-18T23:59:59.000Z

29

Tank exhaust comparison with 40 CFR 61.93, Subpart H, and other referenced guidelines for Tank Farms National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) designated stacks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated National Emission Standards other than Radon from US Department of Energy (DOE) Facilities (40 CFR 61, Subpart H) on December 15, 1989. The regulations specify procedures, equipment, and test methods that.are to be used to measure radionuclide emissions from exhaust stacks that are designated as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) stacks. Designated NESHAP stacks are those that have the potential to cause any member of the public to receive an effective dose equivalent (EDE) greater than or equal to 0.1 mrem/year, assuming all emission controls were removed. Tank Farms currently has 33 exhaust stacks, 15 of which are designated NESHAP stacks. This document assesses the compliance status of the monitoring and sampling systems for the designated NESHAP stacks.

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

1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

30

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

31

RCRA corrective action definitions under Subpart F and proposed Subpart S. RCRA Information Brief  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

If EPA or the authorized State determines there has been a release of a hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituent at an interim status facility, RCRA Section 3008(h)(1) authorizes EPA or the authorized State to issue an administrative order requiring corrective action or other measures. There are no regulations specifically addressing corrective action orders under Subpart F. However, while an interim status facility is seeking a RCRA permit, the facility is required by 40 CFR 265 Subpart F to monitor ground water and report the results of this monitoring program to the regulatory agency. If a release of a hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituent occurs, the facility may be issued a RCRA Section 3008(h) Order to conduct corrective action. While the proposed Subpart S regulations apply specifically to SWMUs at permitted TSDFs, EPA intends to use similar corrective action requirements at interim status facilities where there has been a release of a hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituent. The specific requirements for corrective action at an interim status facility will be specified in a RCRA Section 3008(h) Order. Alternatively, EPA may compel corrective action under proposed Subpart S through a permit Schedule of Compliance, especially if the permit is expected to be issued in the near term. This information Brief discusses the terminology used in the two corrective action programs and discusses both the proposed Subpart S rule and the final CAMU and TU rule.

Not Available

1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

32

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...

33

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

34

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

35

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

36

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)]

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.

2005-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

37

Management of corrective action wastes pursuant to proposed Subpart S  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Under Section 3004(u) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), owners/operators of permitted or interim status treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are required to perform corrective action to address releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from solid waste management units (SWMUs). On July 27, 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed specific corrective action requirements under Part 264, Subpart S of Title 40 of the code of Federal Regulations (CFR). One portion of this proposed rule, addressing requirements applicable to corrective action management units (CAMUs) and temporary units (TUs), was finalized on February 16, 1993 (58 FR 8658 et seq.). (CAMUs and TUs are RCRA waste management units that are specifically designated for the management of corrective action wastes). Portions of the proposed Subpart S rule that address processes for the investigation and cleanup of releases to environmental media have not yet been finalized. EPA and authorized State agencies, however, are currently using the investigation and cleanup procedures of the proposed rule as a framework for implementation of RCRA`s corrective action requirements. The performance of corrective action cleanup activities generates wastes that have to be characterized and managed in accordance with applicable RCRA requirements. This Information Brief describes these requirements. It is one of a series of information Briefs on RCRA Corrective Action.

Not Available

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

38

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

Deborah L. Layton; Kimberly Frerichs

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

39

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

Deborah L. Layton; Kimberly Frerichs

2010-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

40

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)]

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.

2004-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

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)

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`.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

42

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

43

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

44

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

45

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).

46

SUBPART H INSPECTION MANUAL Radionuclide NESHAPS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

(CFR) Effective Dose Equivalent (EDE) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA, and dispose of radioactive wastes. These facilities contain significant amounts of radioactive material

47

Introduction Sitewide Categorical Exclusion for  

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

Emission Standard for Asbestos); 40 CFR part 763 (Asbestos), subpart G (Asbestos Abatement Projects); 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I (Personal Protective Equipment), Sec....

48

DATA MONITORING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM MANUAL  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

in accordance with 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, U.S.Baseline Documents 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, Quality

Gravois, Melanie

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

49

Draft Minutes -Subpart W Stakeholder Conference Call October 4, 2012  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, ORIA, Susan Stahle, OGC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS: Sharyn Cunningham, CCAT, Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch mining process. Will the EPA include this process in the proposed Subpart W rule? Oscar Paulson: The Subpart W rule addresses radon emissions from byproduct material generated after the ore has been mined

50

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 03-01 Supplemental Guidance Concerning the Factual Bases for Issuing Consent Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR 820.23  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

In October 2000, the Office of Price-Anderson Enforcement (OE) issued Enforcement Guidance Supplement (EGS) 00-04, Factual Bases for Issuing Consent Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR 820.23 and Compliance Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR subpart C. That EGS, in part, delineated a set of criteria that OE would use to determine whether to apply its enforcement discretion, in this case through the use of Consent Orders. Those criteria provided both guidance to DOE contractors regarding situations for which the use of Consent Orders are appropriate, and a tool to assure consistency in the OE evaluation of requests for resolution of potential violations by Consent Order.

51

RECIPIENT: NREL U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT M ANAGEM  

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

buildings in accordance with 40 CFR part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). subpart M (National Emission Standard for Asbestos): 40 CFR part 763...

52

--No Title--  

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

in accordance with 40 CFR part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), subpart M (National Emission Standard for Asbestos); 40 CFR part 763 (Asbestos),...

53

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Compounds Am americium Cs cesium Pu plutonium Sr strontium Y yttrium 137m Ba metastable barium-137 DOE

54

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Compliance Recertification Application 2009 Elements and Chemical Compounds Am americium CO2 carbon dioxide

55

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Isolation Pilot Plant WUF waste unit factor Elements and Chemical Compounds Am americium Cs cesium Pu

56

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Elements and Chemical Compounds Am americium Pu plutonium Ra radium Rn

57

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Abbreviations BCLDP Battelle Columbus Laboratory Decommissioning Project CAO Carlsbad Area Office CARD National Laboratory MP Management Procedure NAS National Academy of Sciences NEA/OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

58

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Compliance Recertification

59

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Compliance Recertification Application 2014

60

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Compliance Recertification Application

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

.52) United States Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico

62

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

States Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12

63

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

64

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

65

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Compliance Recertification Application 2014 Executive Pilot Plant (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a deep geologic3 repository for the disposal

66

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;Content

67

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Active Institutional Controls

68

Title 40 CFR Part 191 Subparts B and C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico #12;Results of Performance

69

Microsoft Word - AppendixBToSubpartDOfPart1021.doc  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmospheric Optical Depth7-1D: VegetationEquipment Surfaces andMappingENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTbelow).A3PM-10978,B to Subpart D of

70

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 Data Center Home Page on Delicious Rank EERE:YearRound-Up fromDepartment ofEnergy NaturalEnergy 7 ReportEnergy1999ofA:DE Pto Subpart

71

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL INTERPRETATION...  

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

RELIEF, AND NON-COMPLIANT "DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES" SUBJECT TO 10 C.F.R. PART 830, NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT, SUBPART B, SAFETY BASIS REQUIREMENTS Subpart D to 10 C.F.R...

72

Model Project Streamlines Compliance, Reduces Emissions and Energy Use  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

refinery components. A typical refinery may have units or operations subject to the LDAR requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subparts W, GGG; 40 CFR 61 Subparts FF, J, and V:. 40 CFR 63 Subparts F, H, and CC; 40 CFR 264 Subpart BB and 40 CFR 265 Subpart BB... Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 22-23, 1998 monitored component if a leak is detected above a certain threshold, commonly 10,000 parts per million (ppm). However, under Phase III of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP's (HON), limits...

Vining, S. K.

73

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

74

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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

75

Microsoft Word - PGE Carty CX memo.docx  

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

Alaric Hsu Project Manager - TPC-CSB-2 Proposed Action: Slatt Substation Meter and Communication Equipment Installation Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R....

76

U.S. Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act Categorica...  

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

Policy Act regulations regarding categorical exclusions, see Subpart D of 10 CFR10 21 This action would not: threaten a violation of applicable statutory, regulatory,...

77

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...

78

CX-009665: Categorical Exclusion Determination | Department of...  

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

Exclusion Determination Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Air Conditioning Systems for Existing Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart o, Appendix B...

79

CX-011607: Categorical Exclusion Determination | Department of...  

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

Exclusion Determination Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Air Conditioning Systems for Existing Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B,...

80

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Lott, D.T., Fluor Daniel Hanford

1997-03-10T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

--No Title--  

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

10 CFR Part 1021, Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act Implementation Procedures, Subpart D, Typical Classes of Actions PROJECT SCOPE DISCUSSION The proposed...

82

MANAGEMENT (MNG)  

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

and recommendations is adequately implemented. (DOE Order 414.1A, Criterion 3; 10 CFR 830, Subpart A) Approach Record Review * Review the SWS issues management systems and...

83

CRAD, Feedback and Continuous Improvement - DOE Headquarters...  

Energy Savers [EERE]

2, quality assurance requirements (as stated in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A, DOE Order 414.1 C, Quality Assurance, or other applicable...

84

Microsoft Word - PRD-374.docx  

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

Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants", 10 CFR 830, Subpart A, "Quality Assurance Requirements". The source documents include: ...

85

HFIR In-Vessel Irradiation Facilities | ORNL Neutron Sciences  

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

quality assurance (QA) program for the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) is based on 10 CFR 830, Subpart A requirements and implementation practices from ASMENQA-1. All...

86

D-1 2004 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1022 Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A in Environmental Management 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 CFR 834 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment 16 USC

87

D-2006 Site environmental report Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1022 Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A in Environmental Management 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 CFR 834 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment 16 USC

88

D-1 2010 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 CFR 834 Radiation EO 13514 Federal leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR 1022 Compliance with Floodplain

89

D-2007 Site environmental report Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1022 Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A in Environmental Management 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 CFR 834 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment 16 USC

90

D-2005 Site environmental report Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1022 Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A in Environmental Management 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 CFR 834 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment 16 USC

91

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.

92

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

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

(DAC) values listed in appendix A or appendix C of this part. ALARA means "As Low As is Reasonably Achievable", which is the approach to radiation protection to manage...

93

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

94

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power.pdf11-161-LNG | Department ofHTS Cable ProjectsHistoryia/802871INSPECTION REPORT:7/2013E,

95

Order Module--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:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProvedDecemberInitiativesNationalNuclear Safety Officethe ChiefServices14.1D,NNSA)

96

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious Rank EERE:YearRound-Up from theDepartment( Sample of Shipment Notice)

97

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 on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home5b9fcbce19 NoPublic Utilities Address: 160 East 300 SouthWater Rights, Substantive Jump to:Species |2008 |44Biosolids -Mammals

98

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

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

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

99

DOE-STD-5506-2007 DOE STANDARD  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

waste operations in a consistent manner that is compliant with 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B, requirements harbor methods" in Table 2, Appendix A, of 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B. In the case of an apparent, etc. (Event 10) 14 3.3.3.3. Collapse of Stacked Containers (Event 11) 15 3.3.3.4. Waste Container Over

100

Subpart 52  

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

Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment Dec 2010 52.209-10 Prohibition on Contracting With Inverted Domestic Corporations May 2011 52.210-1 Market Research Apr 2011...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Walsh, G.

1989-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

102

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Walsh, G.; Mans, K.

1990-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

103

EERE-E Award No. DE-EE000_______ to ____________ Attachment 2 EERE IP Provisions: RD&D Cooperative Agreement with Special Data Protection to Large  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, then provisions approved by the DOE patent counsel, in accordance with 10 CFR 784, will be substituted regulations means the Department of Energy patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR Part 784. Patent Counsel means OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OR FOREIGN ENTITY NO PATENT WAIVER 1. 10 CFR 600, Subpart D, Appendix A - Patent

104

EERE-E Award No. DE-EE000_______ to ____________ Attachment 2 EERE IP Provisions: RD&D Cooperative Agreement to Large Business, State or Local Government,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

784); [including U.S. Competitiveness provisions in Section (t)] 2. 10 CFR Part 600, Subpart D ­ Large Business Firms [Class Waiver W(C) XXXX-XXX, issued in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 784; including U of Energy patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR Part 784. Patent Counsel means the Department of Energy Patent

105

D-1 2012 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 and Transportation Management EO 13514 Federal leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR 1022 Compliance

106

D-1 2011 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 and Transportation Management EO 13514 Federal leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR 1022 Compliance

107

D-1 2013 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Federal, State, and Local Laws and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 10 CFR 830 Subpart A: Quality Assurance Requirements 10 and Transportation Management EO 13514 Federal leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance 10 CFR 1021 National Environmental Protection Act, Implementing and Procedures 10 CFR 1022 Compliance

108

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Tomberlin, Terry Alan

2002-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

109

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Tomberlin, T.A.

2002-06-19T23:59:59.000Z

110

Applicability of 10 CFR 851 to Savannah River Archaeological Research Program  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Letter: Requesting a 10 CFR 851 Interpretative Ruling for the Archaeologial Research Program at Savannah River

111

DOE-HDBK-1108-2002 | Department of Energy  

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

(10 CFR 835) Subpart J and as recommended in chapter 7 of Implementation Guide G 441.1-1C, Radiation Protection Programs for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal...

112

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...

113

Microsoft Word - CX_Memo_Whitefish.docx  

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

Anna Cosola Project Manager - TPC-TPP-4 Proposed Action: Whitefish In-line Hydroelectric Project Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B4.1...

114

B&W Y-12 RCN No. NNSA-46  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

SAFETY ANALYSES TO MEET SUBPART B OF 10 CFR 830 FS DOE O 422.1 06292010 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS OP, CM, TQ, EG, CP DOE O 425.1D 04162010 VERIFICATION OF READINESS TO...

115

B O N N E V I L L E ...  

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

More specifically, the Amendment falls within Categorical Exclusion B4.1, found at 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, which provides for the categorical exclusion from further...

116

Microsoft Word - Alcoa Extension EBT Determination - 2010-10...  

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

More specifically, the Block Contract falls within Categorical Exclusion B4.1, found at 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, which provides for the categorical exclusion from NEPA...

117

Office\tof\tExecutive\tResources Office\tof\tthe\tChief\tHuman\tCapital...  

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

functions. In accordance with 5 CFR 317, subpart E, the ERB Rating Panels rate, rank and review the ECQs and MTQs of candidates for career appointments. ERB Rating Panels...

118

Microsoft Word - DOE-ID-INL-13-013.docx  

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

NEPA CX DETERMINATION Idaho National Laboratory Page 2 of 2 CX Posting No.: DOE-ID-INL-13-013 References: 10 CFR 1021, Appendix B to Subpart D item B2.2 "Building and...

119

RL-721 REV7 I. Project Title: NEPA REVIEW SCREENING FORM Document...  

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

2, Rev 1 MSA Annual Categorical Exclusion for Air Conditioning Systems for Existing Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.4 for Calendar Year 2014 II. Project...

120

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):...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

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):...

122

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...

123

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,...

124

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...

125

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,...

126

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...

127

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,...

128

Microsoft Word - G0418 Mariah Wind CX  

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

Kevlyn Mathews Project Manager - TPCV-TPP-4 Proposed Action: Mariah Wind, LLC Small Generator Integration Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.7...

129

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

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

7, Rev 1 MSA Annual Categorical Exclusion for Disconnection of Utilities under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.27 for Calendar Year 2014 II. Project Description and Location...

130

CX-011602: Categorical Exclusion Determination | Department of...  

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

Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Disconnection of Utilities under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.27 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s)...

131

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,...

132

9-1 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 2000 CHAPTER 9: QUALITY ASSURANCE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

monitoring data are consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, "Quality Assurance Requirements" and DOE Order 414.1 (1998), Quality Assurance. Responsibility for quality at BNL starts

Homes, Christopher C.

133

Process Guide for the Identification and Disposition of S/CI...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Department of Energy - August 2003 Order Module--SAFETY SOFTWARE GUIDE FOR USE WITH 10 CFR 830, SUBPART A, QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND DOE O 414.1C, QUALITY ASSURANCE...

134

Independent Oversight Special Review, Bechtel Jacobs Company...  

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

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

135

Quality Assurance Exchange June 2006, Volume 2 Issue 2 | Department...  

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

2 More Documents & Publications DOE G 414.1-4, Safety Software Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance...

136

Hazard Evaluation for Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at the Solid Waste Treatment Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report is prepared as the initial step in the safety assurance process described in 10 CFR 830 Subpart B, Nuclear Safety Management, and HNF-PRO-700, Safety Basis Development.

ERPENBECK, E.G.

2002-11-12T23:59:59.000Z

137

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...

138

Microsoft Word - Anaconda-Sub-3G-CX.doc  

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

Anaconda Substation 3G Radio Upgrades Budget Information: Work Order 00197234, Task 03 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.19 "Siting,...

139

Microsoft Word - Swan%20Valley%20-%20Palisades%20Communication...  

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

Swan Valley - Palisades Communication Upgrade Budget Information: Work Order 00253530 Task 03 Categorical Exclusions Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021: B1.7...

140

Microsoft Word - Badger Canyon CXWEB.doc  

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

Substation Radio Communication Tower Project Budget Information: Work Order 00253262 Task 03 Categorical Exclusions Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021: B1.7...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

Quality Assurance Exchange, Winter 2010  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

task of the ten quality criteria listed within 10 CFR 830 Subpart A 1 and DOE Order 414.1C 2 because of the many complexities and abstractions associated with design, and...

142

Microsoft Word - Noxon Radio Station Upgrade CX.doc  

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

Action: Noxon Radio Station Upgrade Project Budget Information: Work Order 00254987 Task 03 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021: B1.7...

143

Microsoft Word - PGE Pearl Fiber CX.doc  

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

Proposed Action: Pearl Substation Fiber Project Budget Information: Work Order 279257 Task 01 Categorical Exclusions Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021: B1.7...

144

Microsoft Word - Granite-Mt-3G-Radio-Station-CX.doc  

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

Granite Mountain 3G Radio Station Project Budget Information: Work Order 00197218, Task 03 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B1.19 Siting,...

145

Microsoft Word - AlbionButteRSCommunicationUpgrade-CX.doc  

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

Butte Radio Station Communication Upgrade Budget Information: Work Order 00253466 Task 03 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021: B1.7...

146

Microsoft Word - Central Ferry Fiber Project CX.doc  

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

Proposed Action: Central Ferry Fiber Project Budget Information: Work Order 00223131, Task 03 Categorical Exclusions Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021: B1.7...

147

Microsoft Word - Ross-Lexington No1 Meter project-CX .doc  

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

Action: Ross-Lexington No. 1 Meter Project Budget Information: Work Order 00220904 Task 1 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021): B3.1 Onsite and...

148

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:...

149

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...

150

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

151

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

§ 191.12) acid rain. Any form of precipitation having a pH of 5.6 or less. Major components contributing to the acid rain are sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. actinide intrinsic colloids. Macromolecules

152

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergyENERGYWomenthe HouseStudents2.2at Multipleorder supplies or Department2013 |Projects

153

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 on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home5b9fcbce19 NoPublicIDAPowerPlantSitingConstruction.pdf JumpApschem.pdf Jump to: navigation,

154

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BNL Battelle Brookhaven National Laboratory37 38 Application for Permission to Drill API American Petroleum Institute ARCO ARCO Medical Products Company ASER DBDSP Delaware Basin Drilling Surveillance Program DBE Design Basis Earthquake DBT Design Basis Tornado

155

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

156

Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement Nevada Appendix...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

40 CFR Part 141 2.25 MB 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart H 67.49 KB ACGIH 2002 97.22 KB American Cancer Society 2010 1.51 MB BLS 2010a 346.65 KB BLS 2010a 85.88 KB BLS 2010b 48.47 KB CIRRPC...

157

Price-Anderson Amendments Act UT-B Contracts Div Page 1 of 1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

in accordance with either: (A) The Company's Quality Assurance Program (QAP), current edition as revised from applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and which has been.F.R. Part 820, Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, 10 C.F.R. Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management

Pennycook, Steve

158

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)]

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.

1999-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

159

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-03: Limitation of 10 CFR Part...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

: Limitation of 10 CFR Part 830 to Equipment Referenced in the Safety Analysis Report Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-03: Limitation of 10 CFR Part 830 to Equipment Referenced...

160

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-03 Limitation of 10 CFR Part...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Limitation of 10 CFR Part 830 to Equipment Referenced in theSafety Analysis Report Enforcement Guidance Supplement 99-03 Limitation of 10 CFR Part 830 to Equipment Referenced in...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 00-04: Factual Bases for Issuing Consent Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR 820.23 and Compliance Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR Subpart C  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

DOEs Operational Procedures for Enforcement (June 1998), which supercede the DOE Enforcement Handbook (1087-95), provides the Office of Enforcement and Investigation with the opportunity to issue...

162

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 00-04: Factual Bases for Issuing Consent Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR 820.23 and Compliance Orders Pursuant to 10 CFR Subpart C  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

DOEs Operational Procedures for Enforcement (June 1998), which supercede the DOE Enforcement Handbook (1087-95), provides the Office of Enforcement and Investigation with the opportunity to issue interim enforcement guidance from time to time with respect to processes to be used in this Office (see Section 1.3. Interim Enforcemen Guidance). In particular, it is important to provide contractors and others with explanations on how certain procedural mechanisms provided in Part 820 are utilized to fulfill the mandate of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA).

163

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC RADIOACTIVE WASTES Subpart A--Environmental Standards standards. 191.05 Effective date. Subpart B--Environmental Standards for Disposal 191.11 Applicability. 191 requirements. 191.16 Alternative provisions for disposal. 191.17 Effective date. Subpart C--Environmental

164

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

165

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...

166

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...

167

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...

168

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:...

169

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

170

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

171

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

172

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

173

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

174

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

175

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

178

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

179

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

180

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)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

183

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)]

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.

2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

184

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)]

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.

2005-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

185

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:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergy Cooperation |South Valley ResponsibleSubmission |4MembershipQUARTERLY PROGRAM28812under793

186

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

NONE

1996-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

187

82370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules (2) Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

under the federal Clean Air Act for the first time after January 2, 2011. [FR Doc. 2010­32785 Filed 12­29­10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560­50­P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA­R04­OAR­2010 tons per day of municipal solid waste (MSW). See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. In the Final Rules section

188

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

189

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

190

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...

191

50 CFR 18.27 - Regulations Governing Small Takes of Marine Mammals...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Activities (2014). Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?title50CFR18.27-RegulationsGoverningSmallTakesofMarineMammalsIncidentalToSpecifiedActivities&old...

192

Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability and Control Guide  

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

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.

1999-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

193

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)]

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.

1999-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

194

Performance of a High Volume PM2.5 Sampler  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

.5) concentrations can be measured by a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) sampler. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates PM_(2.5) samplers which meet the requirements specified in 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 53, Subpart F as FEM samplers...

Li, Huan

2013-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

195

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

196

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

197

CX-011608: Categorical Exclusion Determination  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Routine Maintenance and Custodial Services under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.3 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.3 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

198

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

199

2009 Compliance Recertification Application (2009 CRA) Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) No. 53  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

dissolved solids." The groundwater protection requirements limit releases to the maximum contamination level a bounding analysis of the concentrations of the contaminants to assess compliance (Subpart C of 40 CFR part is much less than the observed concentration of brine derived from the Salado anhydrite marker beds. Also

200

CX-009658: Categorical Exclusion Determination  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Small-Scale Research and Development, Laboratory Operations, and Pilot Projects under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B CX(s) Applied: B3.6 Date: 12/05/2012 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

CX-011595: Categorical Exclusion Determination  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Small-Scale Research and Development, Laboratory Operations, and Pilot Projects under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B3.6 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B3.6 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

202

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

203

CX-011601: Categorical Exclusion Determination  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Installation or Relocation of Machinery and Equipment under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B1.31 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B1.31 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

204

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

205

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

206

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

207

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

208

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

209

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

210

CX-011596: Categorical Exclusion Determination  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Mission Support Alliance Annual Categorical Exclusion for Site Characterization and Environmental Monitoring under 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B, B3.1 for Calendar Year 2014 CX(s) Applied: B3.1 Date: 12/02/2013 Location(s): Washington Offices(s): River Protection-Richland Operations Office

211

ORNL Environmental Monitoring Programs 5-1 5. ORNL Environmental Monitoring Programs  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

) regulations in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, and by the rules of the TDEC Division of Air Pollution Control, 1200- 3 Department of Environment and Conser- vation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Con- trol. Radioactive emissions are regulated by EPA under National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP

Pennycook, Steve

212

ORNL Environmental Monitoring Programs 5-1 5. ORNL Environmental Monitoring Programs  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of Environment and Conser- vation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control. Radioactive emissions are regulated, Subpart H, and by the rules of the TDEC Division of Air Pollution Control, 1200- 3-11.08. (See Appendix G by EPA under National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations in 40 CFR 61

Pennycook, Steve

213

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Sweeney, M.D.

1995-02-09T23:59:59.000Z

214

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

215

LBNL-470E-2010 Radionuclide Air Emission Report for  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Safety Division Environmental Services Group May 25, 2011 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Report for 2010 (in compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H) Site Name: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Operation Office Information Office: U.S. Department of Energy Berkeley Site Office

Eisen, Michael

216

LBNL-470E-2008 Radionuclide Air Emission Report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H) Site Name: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Safety Division Environmental Services Group May 21, 2009 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720 This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE

217

E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Environment, Health, and Safety Division  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

DESCRIPTION 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1.1.1 Laboratory Operations The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Report (Subpart H of 40 CFR 61) Calendar Year 2001 Site Name: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Address: One Cyclotron Road Berkeley, CA 94720 Contractor

218

LBNL-470E-2009 Radionuclide Air Emission Report for  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Safety Division Environmental Services Group June 2010 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Report for 2009 (in compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H) Site Name: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Operation Office Information Office: U.S. Department of Energy Berkeley Site Office

219

Radionuclide Air Emission Report May 21, 2007  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Environment, Safety, and Health Division Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Prepared Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Operation Office Information Office: U.S. Department of Energy Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2006 (in compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H) Site Name: Ernest Orlando

220

LBNL-470E-2011 Radionuclide Air Emission Report for  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Safety Division Environmental Services Group June 4, 2012 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Report for 2011 (in compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H) Site Name: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Operation Office Information Office: U.S. Department of Energy Berkeley Site Office

Eisen, Michael

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Rubloff, Gary W.

222

4-2009 Site environmental report Air Quality  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of airborne radioactive material include 40 CFR 6 Subpart H: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air-1 indicates the locations of these monitored facilities, and Table 4- pres- ents the airborne release data- erated and cooled by "light" (ordinary) water, and was operated intermittently at power levels up to 3 MW

223

4-1 2010 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Air Quality  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

include 40 CFR 61 Subpart H: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollut- ants (NESHAPs inactive facility, the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR). Figure 4-1 indicates the locations of these monitored operating in late December 2000, the BMRR was fueled with enriched uranium, mod- erated and cooled by "light

224

4-1 2002 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

- tive material include 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Figure 4-1 indicates the locations of the monitored facilities, and Table 4-1 presents the airborne December 2000, the BMRR was fueled with enriched uranium, moderated and cooled by light water

Homes, Christopher C.

225

Air Quality 4 4-2008 Site environmental report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

radioactive material include 40 CFR 6 Subpart H: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollut- ants (TPL), and one inactive facility, the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR). Figure 4- indicates the locations in late December 2000, the BMRR was fueled with enriched uranium, mod- erated and cooled by "light

226

Air Quality 4 4-2007 Site environmental report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of airborne radioactive material include 40 CFR 6 Subpart H: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air (HFBR). Figure 4- indicates the locations of these monitored facilities, and Table 4- presents was fueled with enriched uranium, mod- erated and cooled by "light" (ordinary) water, and was operated

227

RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ASSESSMENT 1997 BNL Site Environmental Report 9 -1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of Title 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs to the location of interest. The program supplies both the calculated EDE to the maximally exposed individual of the Long Island Lighting Company. For modeling the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI), all

228

Air Quality 4 4-2006 Site environmental report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

radioactive material include 40 CFR 6 Subpart H: Na- tional Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (TPL), and one inactive facility, the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR). Figure 4- indicates the locations in late December 2000, the BMRR was fueled with enriched uranium, mod- erated and cooled by "light

229

4-1 1999 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

locations are also discussed. In 1999, the Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor, the High Flux Beam Reactor) The BMRR is fueled with enriched ura- nium, moderated and cooled by light water, and is operated include 40 CFR 61 Subpart H (the National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants or NESHAPs

230

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

EPA Review of Standards for Uranium and Thorium Milling Facilities @ 40 CFR Parts 61 of EPA standards for Uranium and Thorium Milling Facilities @ 40 CFR Parts 61 and 192. I have been scientific perspectives related to the adequacy of existing public exposure standards for uranium mills

231

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

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

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.

2001-01-04T23:59:59.000Z

232

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

233

10 CFR 851 Worker Safety and Health Program Frequently Asked...  

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

2010. The responses to the FAQs are not Official interpretations, only the Office of General Counsel may issue an interpretive ruling. Please see 10 CFR 851.7 and 851.8 for more...

234

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.

235

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

236

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 194  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of radioactive waste. If the Administrator of EPA determines that the WIPP will comply with the standards radioactive waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The EPA previously promulgated 40 CFR Part 191-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," to provide standards that will apply to all sites (except Yucca Mountain

237

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...

238

Applicability of 10 CFR 851 to Parsons non-DOE Office Areas at SRS  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Letter from Bruce Diamond, Assistant General Counsel for Environment, DOE, dated June 27, 2007, to Bob French, Program Manager, Parsons SB-1 Office regarding Parsons' Request for Interpretative Ruling Under 10 CFR Section 851.7

239

Applicability of 10 CFR 851 to Parsons ATC and Barnwell Activities  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Letter from Bruce Diamond, Assistant General Counsel for Environment, Department of Energy, dated June 27, 2007 to Bob French, Program Manager, Parsons SB-1 Office regarding Parsons' Request for Interpretive Ruling Under 10 CFR Section 851.7

240

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

33 CFR 322: Permits for Structures or Work in or Affecting Navigable...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: 33 CFR 322: Permits for Structures or Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United StatesLegal Abstract These regulations...

242

Questions and answers based on revised 10 CFR Part 20  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

243

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Sullivan T.

2014-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

244

Radiological worker training  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1998-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

245

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

246

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

247

A summary of the models used for the mechanical response of disposal rooms in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant with regard to compliance with 40 CFR 191, Subpart B  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A summary is presented of the results of a number of studies conducted prior to March 1992 that have led to a conceptual model describing how the porosity (and therefore the permeability) of waste and backfill in a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant disposal room changes with time and also describes how results from calculations involving mathematical models of these processes are used to provide input into performance assessment of the repository. Included in the report are descriptions of essential material response or constitutive models that include the influence of gas generation and the response of simple gas-pressurized cracks and fractures in salt, marker beds, and clay seams. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional disposal room configurations and descriptions of the differences between numerical codes are also discussed. Calculational results using the mathematical models for disposal room response are described, beginning with closure of empty rooms and becoming progressively more complex. More recent results address some of the effects of gas generation in a room containing waste and backfill and intersected by a gas permeable marker bed. Developments currently in progress to improve the evaluation of the disposal room performance are addressing the coupling between brine flow and closure and the two-dimensional capability for analyzing a complete panel of rooms. Next, a method is described for including disposal room closure results into performance assessment analyses that determine if the repository is in compliance with regulatory standards. The coupling is accomplished using closure surfaces that describe the relationship among porosity, total amount of gas in the repository, and time. A number of conclusions about room response and recommendations for further work are included throughout the report.

Butcher, B.M.; Mendenhall, F.T.

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

248

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1150 of the Code of Federal Regulations  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

-Exempt Transactions Sec. 1150.31 Scope of exemption. 1150.32 Procedures and relevant dates. 1150.33 Information to be contained in notice. 1150.34 Format for caption summary. Subpart D-Exempt Transactions § 1150.31 Scope of in a proposal that would result in a major market extension as defined at 49 CFR 1180.3(c). § 1150.32 Procedures

249

Certification for DOE G 414.1-1B  

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

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.

2010-11-18T23:59:59.000Z

250

Hanford safety analysis and risk assessment handbook (SARAH)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

GARVIN, L.J.

2003-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

251

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Wade C. Adams

2011-12-09T23:59:59.000Z

252

Environmental assessment for amendments to 10 CFR Part 835  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

253

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.

254

Preoperational radiation surveillance of the WIPP Project by EEG for the years 1993 - 1995  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Average {sup 241}Am, {sup 239+240}Pu and {sup 238}Pu concentrations measured in ambient air near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site during 1993, 1994 and 1995 are consistent with similar data reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for Espanola, Pojoaque and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Through the use of replicate analyses of matrix blanks minimum detectable activity (MDA), minimum detectable concentration (MDC) and action levels (ACTL) were established for the Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG) measurement system. Using MDA data from fixed air sampler (FAS) filters and conservative assumptions applied in the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report 123 (NCRP 1996), it is shown that the EEG sampling and measurement methodology is capable of detecting effluent air emissions which would produce a dose that is approximately 1000 times below the 40 CFR 191 Subpart A limit of 2.5E{sup -4} Sv/y (25 mrem/y). A similar calculation using the NCRP worksheet with storm water effluent MDCs found the EEG measurement program capable of detecting actinide emissions which would result in a dose that is approximately 10 times below the dose limits in 40 CFR 191 Subpart A and 40 CFR 61 Subpart H.

Kenney, J.W.; Gray, D.H.; Ballard, S.C. [Environmental Evaluation Group, Carlsbad, NM (United States)

1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

255

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The regulatory requirement to develop an upgraded safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility was realized in January 2001 by issuance of a revision to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 830 (10 CFR 830).1 Subpart B of 10 CFR 830, 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 Plants2 as a safe harbor methodology for preparation of a DOE reactor documented safety analysis (DSA). The regulation also allows for use of a graded approach. This report presents the methodology that was developed for preparing the reactor accident analysis portion of the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility (ATRC) upgraded DSA. The methodology was approved by DOE for developing the ATRC safety basis as an appropriate application of a graded approach to the requirements of 10 CFR 830.

Gregg L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

256

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2003-05-13T23:59:59.000Z

257

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:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarlyEnergyDepartmentNationalRestart of the Reviewwill help prepare local students forStorm2 |Y-121

258

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:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of Energy Power.pdf11-161-LNG |September2-SCORECARD-01-24-13 Page 1 of 1    AND POWERSUBPART

259

10 CFR 850 Implementation of Requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Lee, S

2012-01-05T23:59:59.000Z

260

Implementation Evaluation Criteria for January 2001 Amended 10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Management  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document provides criteria for use in performing gap evaluations of processes and documents relative to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management. The criteria and associated objective evidence statements have been approved by the cognizant interpretative authorities. The criteria have been developed for each section of 10 CFR Part 830. The criteria have been divided into two categories. Criteria and objective evidence have been developed for use in assessing Fluor Hanford (FH) programs and procedures at the company level--programmatic requirements and evidence. Criteria and objective evidence statements have also been developed for FH nuclear facilities and projects.

EVANS, C.B.

2001-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

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)]

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.

1999-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

262

10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Technical Positions | 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 on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious RankCombustion |Energyon ArmedWaste and Materials Disposition#EnergyFaceoff1 1 1 More Documents10 CFR10 CFR

263

Review of the technical bases of 40 CFR Part 190.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

264

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

Not Available

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

265

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

266

Comments on 10 CFR 820, 830, 835 proposed safety rules for DOE nuclear activities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The objective of this paper was a discussion of LANL`s comments to draft 10CFR 820, 830, and 835. In general comments, LANL recognized the authority of the governing organization but contended that: (1) the rules/approach needed major revision, (2) the rules are counterproductive, and (3) teamwork is reg`d in order to meet the goals.

Bergman, G. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States)

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

267

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Finley Jr., Russell L.

268

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 DOEs 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 DOEs 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 Councils 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in the same edition of the Federal Register as this final rule.

269

Clean Slate Environmental Remediation DSA for 10 CFR 830 Compliance  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

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

2006-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

270

Title 50 CFR § 10 | 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 on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home5b9fcbce19 No revisionEnvReviewNonInvasiveExplorationUT-gTaguspark JumpDetective: Terminology andInformation and PlantsCFR

271

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 on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious RankCombustion |Energyon ArmedWaste and Materials Disposition#EnergyFaceoff1 1 1 More Documents10 CFR 851

272

10 CFR Part 1017 - Identification and Protection of Unclassified Controlled  

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious RankCombustion |Energyon ArmedWaste and Materials Disposition#EnergyFaceoff1 1 1 More Documents10 CFR

273

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Potential Impact Categories for Radiological Air Emission Monitoring  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In 2002, the EPA amended 40 CFR 61 Subpart H and 40 CFR 61 Appendix B Method 114 to include requirements from ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stack and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities for major emission points. Additionally, the WDOH amended the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247 Radiation protection-air emissions to include ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 requirements for major and minor emission points when new permitting actions are approved. A result of the amended regulations is the requirement to prepare a written technical basis for the radiological air emission sampling and monitoring program. A key component of the technical basis is the Potential Impact Category (PIC) assigned to an emission point. This paper discusses the PIC assignments for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Integrated Laboratory emission units; this revision includes five PIC categories.

Ballinger, Marcel Y.; Gervais, Todd L.; Barnett, J. M.

2012-06-05T23:59:59.000Z

274

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.

275

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Seylar, Roland F.

2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

276

An overview of the corrective action management unit and temporary unit regulations  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In February 1993, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the corrective action management unit (CAMU) and temporary unit (TU) regulations as 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S. These regulations are intended to foster the selection of protective and cost-effective remedies for the restoration of sites contaminated by hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and hazardous waste constituents by removing certain regulatory impediments to implementing those remedies, most notably those of the land disposal restrictions (LDRs). This paper provides a brief overview of the CAMU and TU regulations.

Green, D.R. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States); Corathers, L. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Coalgate, J. [USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

277

Benzene waste NESHAP update and requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

278

No-migration variance petition. Appendices A--B: Volume 2, Revision 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Volume II contains Appendix A, emergency plan and Appendix B, waste analysis plan. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Emergency plan and Procedures (WP 12-9, Rev. 5, 1989) provides an organized plan of action for dealing with emergencies at the WIPP. A contingency plan is included which is in compliance with 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart D. The waste analysis plan provides a description of the chemical and physical characteristics of the wastes to be emplaced in the WIPP underground facility. A detailed discussion of the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria and the rationale for its established units are also included.

Not Available

1990-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

279

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)

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.

Not Available

1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

280

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Keith W. Jacobson, David P. Fuehne

2006-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

2010 LANL radionuclide air emissions report /  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Fuehne, David P.

2011-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

282

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)

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.

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

1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

283

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)

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.

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

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

284

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)

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.

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

2013-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

285

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

286

Critical comments on the US Environmental Protection Agency Standards 40 CFR 191  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper is about the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ``Environmental Standards for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Wastes,`` 40 CFR 191. These standards regulate the disposal of radioactive wastes in geologic repositories. Currently, two repository sites are under investigation: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site, located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, may become the repository for defense-generated transuranic waste (TRU); and the Yucca Mountain site, located near Las Vegas, Nevada, may become the repository for spent reactor fuel and a small amount of reprocessing waste (hereinafter called high-level radioactive waste or HLW). The paper was written for readers who have an interest in 40 CFR 191 but do not have the time or inclination to ponder the technical details.

Pflum, C.G. [Science Applications International Corp., Las Vegas, NV (United States); Van Konynenburg, R.A. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States); Krishna, P. [TRW, Inc., Washington, DC (United States)

1993-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

287

DOE G 441.1-12 (formerly G-10 CFR 835/J1)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

DOE G 441.1-12 (formerly G-10 CFR 835/J1) 03-17-99 RADIATION SAFETY TRAINING GUIDE for use for Environment, Safety and Health Print #12;(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) #12;DOE G 441.1-12 i 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. ATTACHMENT 1 #12;ii DOE G 441.1-12 03-17-99 ACRONYMS AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission ALARA

Meagher, Mary

288

ORNL Check-List for Contractor Compliance with 10 CFR Part 707 -Workplace Substance Abuse Program at DOE Sites Page 1 of 4  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

/supervisor and employee training programs that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 707.6. Testing Designated Positions 13 707 from working in a TDP. 15 707.5(B)(4)(a) Notify TDPs at least 60 days in advance of testing unless the contractor is currently conducting a testing program for individuals. 16 707.5(B)(4)(b) Assure individuals

Pennycook, Steve

289

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

290

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)]

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.

2007-09-27T23:59:59.000Z

291

1998 INEEL National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclides  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

J. W. Tkachyk

1999-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

292

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)

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.

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

1998-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

293

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

NONE

1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

294

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)

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.

NONE

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

295

1999 INEEL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclides  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

J. W. Tkachyk

2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

296

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

297

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-01:Duration of Investigations Conducted Pursuant to 10 CFR 820.21; Purpose of Transcript Requirements Set Forth in 10 CFR 820.10 (d)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The DOE Enforcement Handbook (1087-95) provides the Office of Enforcement and Investigation with the opportunity to issue interim clarifying guidance occasionally with respect to the processes to be used in this office (see Section 1.3- Interim Enforcement Guidance). In particular, it is important to assist contractors and others on the relationships between the requirements of Part 820 and the Enforcement Policy, 10 CFR 820, Appendix A.

298

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

299

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

300

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

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

302

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; Josh Leftwich, Cameco; Katie Sweeney, National Mining Association; Darryl Liles, SENES UPDATE Reid

303

Subpart W Stakeholders Conference Call January 2, 2014  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Groups: Sharyn Cunningham, CCAT; Anita Minton, CCAT; Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch; Jennifer Thurston, INFORM Uranium Industry/Other: Jim Cain, John Hamrick, Cotter; Travis Stills, Energy Minerals Law Center between members of the National Mining Association and OMB, EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality

304

ATTENDANCE/DRAFT MINUTES QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL ON SUBPART W  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Sweeney ­ National Mining Assoc. Tom Peake ­ EPA Richard Blubaugh ­ National Mining Assoc. Susan Stahle ­ CCAT Mike Thomas - Uranerz Lynn Holtz ­ CCAT Mike Griffin ­ Uranium One Travis Stills ­ Energy Minerals Law Ctr. Sarah Fields ­ Uranium Watch Scott Bakken - Cameco John Hamrick ­ Cotter Corp. Jim Cain

305

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 ­ Cameco Resources Oscar Paulson ­ Kennecott Mining John Hamrick, Jim Cain, Randy Whicker ­ Cotter Corp as it becomes available, for instance a link to a geographic information database on the location of uranium

306

Subpart W Stakeholder Conference Call July 5, 2012  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Fields (Uranium Watch), Jennifer Thurston (Information Network for Responsible Mining) INDUSTRY: Oscar Paulson (Kennecott Uranium), Jim Cain (Cotter), Joann Tischler (Denison), Dawn Volkman (Uranerz), Mike Thomas (?), Wayne Heile (URS), Scott Sherman (Uranium 1), John Schwenk (Cameco), Mike Newman (Neutron

307

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Deliciouscritical_materials_workshop_presentations.pdf MoreProgramofContract at its Hanford

308

Appendix B to Subpart D to Part 1021  

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

systems within existing building, structure B1.6 Installationmodification of retention tanks, small basins to control runoff, spills B1.7 Acquisitioninstallationoperation...

309

Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Subpart 903.9:  

Energy Savers [EERE]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Office of Inspector General Office of Audit Services Audit Report DepartmentRepresentative Of TheSubject:Whistleblower

310

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:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Careerlumens_placard-green.eps More Documents & Publications LumensState24 March 2014 Re: Ex3,

311

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Gleckler, B.P.; Rhoads, K.

1998-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

312

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)

313

Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for the Hanford Site Calendar Year 1999  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

ROKKAN, D.J.

2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

314

CFR: A Peer-to-Peer Collaborative File Repository Meng-Ru Lin, Ssu-Hsuan Lu, Tsung-Hsuan Ho, Peter Lin, and Yeh-Ching Chung1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of these collaboration efforts is a storage system to store and exchange data. This storage system must be highly to deliver good performance for users. In this paper, we propose a storage system, Collaborative File with a small number of duplicates. Keywords: peer-to-peer, storage system, Coupon Collection Problem, CFR. 1

Chung, Yeh-Ching

315

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

316

Regulatory basis for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant performance assessment  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is the first operational repository designed for the safe disposal of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste from the defense programs of the US Department of Energy (DOE). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for certifications and regulation of the WIPP facility for the radioactive components of the waste. The EPA has promulgated general radioactive waste disposal standards at 40 CFR Part 191. and WIPP-specific criteria to implement and interpret the generic disposal standards at 40 CFR Part 194. In October 1996. the DOE submitted its Compliance Certification Application (CCA) to the EPA to demonstrate compliance with the disposal standards at Subparts B and C of 40 CFR Part 191. This paper summarizes the development of the overall legal framework for radioactive waste disposal at the WIPP, the parallel development of the WIPP performance assessment (PA), and how the EPA disposal standards and implementing criteria formed the basis for the CCA WIPP PA. The CCA resulted in a certification in May 1998 by the EPA of the WIPP'S compliance with the EPA's disposal standard, thus enabling the WIPP to begin radioactive waste disposal.

HOWARD,BRYAN A.; CRAWFORD,M.B.; GALSON,D.A.; MARIETTA,MELVIN G.

2000-05-22T23:59:59.000Z

317

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

318

10 CFR 851 Work Group Status Overview - July 2012 | 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 on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Delicious RankCombustion |Energyon ArmedWaste and Materials Disposition#EnergyFaceoff1 1 1 More Documents10 CFR 851July

319

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

320

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

322

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

323

EA-2001: Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 433, Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High- Rise Residential Buildings Baseline Standards Update  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The EA examines the potential incremental environmental impacts of the PreliminaryFinal Rule on building habitability and the outdoor environment. To identify the potential environmental impacts that may result from implementing the PreliminaryFinal Rule, DOE compared the PreliminaryFinal Rule with the no-action alternative of using the minimum requirements of the previous version of the Federal standard 10 CFR Part 433 (referred to as the no-action alternative).

324

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

325

Implementation of 10 CFR 20.1406 Through Life Cycle Planning for Decommissioning  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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)

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

326

10 CFR 830.120 Criterion 10, Independent Assessment: We`re here to help you!  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Each organization performing activities in the DOE Weapons Complex is required to have an pendent assessment function. This is consistent from DOE Order 5700.6C, Quality Assurance to 10 CFR 830-120, sometimes referred to as the Price-Anderson rule. DOE Order 5700.6C, Criterion 10 Independent Assessment requires, `` Planned and periodic independent assessments shall be conducted to measure item quality and process effectiveness and to promote improvement. The organization performing independent assessments shall have sufficient authority and freedom from the line organization to carry out its responsibilities. Persons conducting independent assessments shall be technically qualified and knowledgeable in the areas assessed.`` 10 CFR 830.120, (c) Quality assurance criteria -- (3) Assessment -- (ii) Independent Assessment requires,``Independent assessments shall be planned and conducted to measure item and service quality, to measure the adequacy of work performance, and to promote improvement. The group performing independent assessments shall have sufficient authority and freedom from the line to carry out its responsibilities. Persons conducting independent assessments shall be technically qualified and knowledgeable in the areas assessed.``

Farrell, R.E.

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

327

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Safety Analysis Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

328

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

329

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Fisk, Patricia; Rutherford, Lavon

2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

330

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Westinghouse TRU Solutions

2002-03-19T23:59:59.000Z

331

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "of EnergyEnergyENERGY TAX POLICIES7.pdfFuel2007 | Department7January 2015JimJulie Crenshaw Van10 CFR 851 and

332

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

333

Clothes Dryer Automatic Termination Evaluation  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

TeGrotenhuis, Ward E.

2014-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

334

Marine Sciences Laboratory Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2013  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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 ProtectionAir 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.

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

2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

335

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2012-05-07T23:59:59.000Z

336

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

337

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1993-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

338

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

339

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

340

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

2003-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

342

New environmental regulation for the aerospace industry: The aerospace NESHAP  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

343

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2007-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

344

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2003-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

345

Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

2000-09-28T23:59:59.000Z

346

Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

2002-09-21T23:59:59.000Z

347

Pacific Northwest Laboratory facilities radionuclide inventory assessment CY 1992-1993  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

348

Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

2005-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

349

Delaware Basin Monitoring Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services; Washington TRU Solutions LLC

2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

350

National Environmental Policy Act Hazards Assessment for the TREAT Alternative  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Boyd D. Christensen; Annette L. Schafer

2013-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

351

National Environmental Policy Act Hazards Assessment for the TREAT Alternative  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Boyd D. Christensen; Annette L. Schafer

2014-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

352

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

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

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

1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

353

Preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1992. Volume 5, Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of gas and brine migration for undisturbed performance  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Before disposing of transuranic radioactive waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with applicable long-term regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sandia National Laboratories is conducting iterative performance assessments (PAs) of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for a final compliance evaluation. This volume of the 1992 PA contains results of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses with respect to migration of gas and brine from the undisturbed repository. Additional information about the 1992 PA is provided in other volumes. Volume 1 contains an overview of WIPP PA and results of a preliminary comparison with 40 CFR 191, Subpart B. Volume 2 describes the technical basis for the performance assessment, including descriptions of the linked computational models used in the Monte Carlo analyses. Volume 3 contains the reference data base and values for input parameters used in consequence and probability modeling. Volume 4 contains uncertainty and sensitivity analyses with respect to the EPA`s Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191, Subpart B). Finally, guidance derived from the entire 1992 PA is presented in Volume 6. Results of the 1992 uncertainty and sensitivity analyses indicate that, conditional on the modeling assumptions and the assigned parameter-value distributions, the most important parameters for which uncertainty has the potential to affect gas and brine migration from the undisturbed repository are: initial liquid saturation in the waste, anhydrite permeability, biodegradation-reaction stoichiometry, gas-generation rates for both corrosion and biodegradation under inundated conditions, and the permeability of the long-term shaft seal.

Not Available

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

354

HAZARD CATEGORIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION SITES AT HANFORD WASHINGTON  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Environmental restoration activities, defined here as work to identify and characterize contaminated sites and then contain, treat, remove or dispose of the contamination, now comprises a significant fraction of work in the DOE complex. As with any other DOE activity, a safety analysis must be in place prior to commencing restoration. The rigor and depth of this safety analysis is in part determined by the site's hazard category. This category in turn is determined by the facility's hazardous material inventory and the consequences of its release. Progressively more complicated safety analyses are needed as a facility's hazard category increases from radiological to hazard category three (significant local releases) to hazard category two (significant on-site releases). Thus, a facility's hazard category plays a crucial early role in helping to determine the level of effort devoted to analysis of the facility's individual hazards. Improper determination of the category can result in either an inadequate safety analysis in the case of underestimation of the hazard category, or an unnecessarily cumbersome analysis in the case of overestimation. Contaminated sites have been successfully categorized and safely restored or remediated at the former DOE production site at Hanford, Washington. This paper discusses various means used to categorize former plutonium production or support sites at Hanford. Both preliminary and final hazard categorization is discussed. The importance of the preliminary (initial) hazard categorization in guiding further DOE involvement and approval of the safety analyses is discussed. Compliance to DOE direction provided in ''Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports'', DOE-STD-1027-92, is discussed. DOE recently issued 10 CFR 830, Subpart B which codifies previous DOE safety analysis guidance and orders. The impact of 10 CFR 830, Subpart B on hazard categorization is also discussed.

BISHOP, G.E.

2001-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

355

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2002-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

356

rail regulatory matrix  

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

49 CFR 221 4 4 Carrier 49 CFR 221-Minimum requirements for rear-end marking devices on trains. 49 CFR 223 Carrier 49 CFR 223-Minimum Federal safety standards for impact resistance...

357

Site Observational Work Plan for the UMTRA project site at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Ground water compliance for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project sites, including the Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, site, is governed by the Uranium Mills Tailings Radiation Control Act (42 USC {section}7901 et seq.) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency`s Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR Part 192; 60 FR 2854). The EPA standards describe specific conditions for which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) may apply for supplemental standards for contaminated ground water rather than meeting background levels or numerical standards. To achieve compliance with Subpart A of the EPA standards the residual radioactive materials are currently being consolidated on the site by the DOE in a disposal cell, isolating them from direct human or ecological contact and further dispersion into the environment. Completion of the disposal cell is scheduled for early 1995. An environmental assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were completed in 1987. Concurrence with the UMTRA Surface Project Ambrosia Lake remedial action plan (RAP) was granted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and state of New Mexico in 1990. The DOE deferred compliance with Subpart B of the EPA standards in the Surface Project RAP. This site observational work plan (SOWP) is the first document to address ground water compliance under Subpart B at the Ambrosia Lake site. The Ambrosia Lake UMTRA Project site is within the Grants Mineral Belt and was one of numerous uranium mills supplied by many local mines. Ground water contamination at the site occurred as a result of uranium mill operations. Contamination of ground water resulted from discharge of waste water, infiltration of water through the tailings pile, hydraulic placement of mill tailings in nearby mines, and water pumped from mine shafts.

NONE

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

358

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)

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.

Not Available

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

359

Tank farms criticality safety manual  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

FORT, L.A.

2003-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

360

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1991-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

N /A

2003-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

362

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)

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).

NONE

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

363

Preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1992. Volume 2, Technical basis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Before disposing of transuranic radioactive waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) must evaluate compliance with applicable long-term regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sandia National Laboratories is conducting iterative performance assessments (PAs) of the WIPP for the DOE to provide interim guidance while preparing for a final compliance evaluation. This volume, Volume 2, contains the technical basis for the 1992 PA. Specifically, it describes the conceptual basis for consequence modeling and the PA methodology, including the selection of scenarios for analysis, the determination of scenario probabilities, and the estimation of scenario consequences using a Monte Carlo technique and a linked system of computational models. Additional information about the 1992 PA is provided in other volumes. Volume I contains an overview of WIPP PA and results of a preliminary comparison with the long-term requirements of the EPA`s Environmental Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191, Subpart B). Volume 3 contains the reference data base and values for input parameters used in consequence and probability modeling. Volume 4 contains uncertainty and sensitivity analyses related to the preliminary comparison with 40 CFR 191B. Volume 5 contains uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of gas and brine migration for undisturbed performance. Finally, guidance derived from the entire 1992 PA is presented in Volume 6.

Not Available

1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

364

Compliance status report for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1994-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

365

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Narbutovskih, Susan M.

2006-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

366

RCRA Assessment Plan for Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Area TX-TY  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

WMA TX-TY contains underground, single-shell tanks that were used to store liquid waste that contained chemicals and radionuclides. Most of the liquid has been removed, and the remaining waste is regulated under the RCRA as modified in 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F and Washington States Hazardous Waste Management Act . WMA TX-TY was placed in assessment monitoring in 1993 because of elevated specific conductance. A groundwater quality assessment plan was written in 1993 describing the monitoring activities to be used in deciding whether WMA TX-TY had affected groundwater. That plan was updated in 2001 for continued RCRA groundwater quality assessment as required by 40 CFR 265.93 (d)(7). This document further updates the assessment plan for WMA TX-TY by including (1) information obtained from ten new wells installed at the WMA after 1999 and (2) information from routine quarterly groundwater monitoring during the last five years. Also, this plan describes activities for continuing the groundwater assessment at WMA TX TY.

Horton, Duane G.

2007-03-26T23:59:59.000Z

367

Programmer`s manual for CAMCON: Compliance Assessment Methodology CONtroller  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

368

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)

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.

Not Available

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

369

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2008-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

370

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)

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.

NONE

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

371

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Groundwater Protection Management Program Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services

2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

372

Pressure Safety Program Implementation at ORNL  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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 ORNLs Pressure Safety Program.

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

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

373

Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for the Hanford Site Calendar year 1998  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

DIEDIKER, L.P.

1999-06-15T23:59:59.000Z

374

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

CURN, B.L.

2000-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

375

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

376

Subpart W Quarterly Conference Call October 6, 2011, 11:00 am 12:00 pm  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

(Kennecott), Scott Charmin (Uranium One), Jeff Kelsey (UR Energy ) Other: Travis Stills (Energy Minerals Law Center), Katie Sweeney (National Mining Association) R. Rosnick: This is our regularly scheduled

377

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) SUBPART H RADIONUCLIDES POTENTIAL TO EMIT CALCULATIONS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document provides an update of the status of stacks on the Hanford Site and the potential radionuclide emissions, i.e., emissions that could occur with no control devices in place. This review shows the calculations that determined whether the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) received by the maximum public receptor as a result of potential emissions from any one of these stacks would exceed 0.1 millirem/year. Such stacks require continuous monitoring of the effluent, or other monitoring, to meet the requirements of Washington Administrative code (WAC) 246-247-035(1)(a)(ii) and WAC 246-247-075(1), -(2), and -(6). This revised update reviews the potential-to-emit (PTE) calculations of 31 stacks for Fluor Hanford, Inc. Of those 31 stacks, 11 have the potential to cause a TEDE greater than 0.1 mrem/year.

EARLEY JN

2008-07-23T23:59:59.000Z

378

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1995-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

379

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)

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.

Bodnarczuk, M.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

380

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)

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.

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

2013-04-22T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

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.

382

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.

383

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Ronald Warren and Robert F. Grossman

2009-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

384

Environmental Protection Department LLNL NESHAPs 2007 Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2008-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

385

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

VINCENT, Andrew

2005-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

386

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Ron Warren

2006-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

387

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2006-05-22T23:59:59.000Z

388

Vol 2, Integrated Safety Management System Guide  

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

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.

1997-12-26T23:59:59.000Z

389

Vol 1, Integrated Safety Management System Guide,  

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

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.

1997-11-26T23:59:59.000Z

390

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1999-10-06T23:59:59.000Z

391

B PLANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2003-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

392

No-migration determination. Annual report, September 1, 1993--August 31, 1994  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report fulfills the annual reporting requirement as specified in the Conditional No-Migration Determination (NMD) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), published in the Federal Register on November 14, 1990 (EPA, 1990a). This report covers the project activities, programs, and data obtained during the period September 1, 1993, through August 31, 1994, to support compliance with the NMD`. In the NMD, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that the DOE had demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that hazardous constituents will not migrate from the WIPP disposal unit during the test phase of the project, and that the DOE had otherwise met the requirements of 40 CFR Part 268.6, Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 (EPA, 1986a), for the WIPP facility. By granting the NMD, the EPA has allowed the DOE to temporarily manage defense-generated transuranic (TRU) mixed wastes, some of which are prohibited from land disposal by Title 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions (EPA, 1986a), at the WIPP facility for the purposes of testing and experimentation for a period not to exceed 10 years. In granting the NMD, the EPA imposed several conditions on the management of the experimental waste used during the WIPP test phase. One of these conditions is that the DOE submit annual reports to the EPA to demonstrate the WIPP`s compliance with the requirements of the NMD. In the proposed No-Migration Variance (EPA, 1990b) and the final NMD, the EPA defined the content and parameters that must be reported on an annual basis. These reporting requirements are summarized and are cross-referenced with the sections of the report that satisfy the respective requirement.

Not Available

1994-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

393

RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION Project ID No....  

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

shall perform blasting and painting of the BM heat exchangers and associated piping. Regulatory Requirements: NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021) 10 CFR 1021.410...

394

U  

Energy Savers [EERE]

Proposed Rule, 10 CFR Part 433 and 10 CFR Part 435, "Fossil Fuel- Generated Energy Consumption Reduction for New Federal Buildings and Major Renovations of Federal Buildings" 3...

395

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2012-06-12T23:59:59.000Z

396

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2013-06-06T23:59:59.000Z

397

Sequim Site Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2012  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2013-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

398

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

399

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

NONE

1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

400

DOE`s approach to groundwater compliance on the UMTRA project  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

402

DATA MONITORING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM MANUAL  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This procedure provides guidelines and techniques for analyzing and trending data using statistical methods for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). This procedure outlines the steps used in data analysis and trending. It includes guidelines for performing data analysis and for monitoring (or controlling) processes using performance indicators. This procedure is used when trending and analyzing item characteristics and reliability, process implementation, and other quality-related information to identify items, services, activities, and processes needing improvement, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 414.1C, and University of California (UC) Assurance Plan for LBNL. Trend codes, outlined in Attachment 4, are assigned to issues at the time of initiation and entry into the Corrective Action Tracking System (CATS) database in accordance with LBNL/PUB-5519 (1), Issues Management Program Manual. Throughout this procedure, the term performance is used to encompass all aspects of performance including quality, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability. Data analysis tools are appropriate whenever quantitative information describing the performance of an item, service, or process can be obtained.

Gravois, Melanie

2007-07-06T23:59:59.000Z

403

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Mathews, S.

1997-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

404

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Perkins, C.J.

1997-08-05T23:59:59.000Z

405

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1989-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

406

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

407

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

408

STATUS OF THE NRC'S DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2002-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

409

Potential for long-term isolation by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant disposal system  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) must comply with EPA regulation 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B, which sets environmental standards for radioactive waste disposal. The regulation, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (hereafter referred to as the Standard), was vacated in 1987 by a Federal Court of Appeals and is underground revision. By agreement with the Sate of New Mexico, the WIPP project is evaluating compliance with the Standard as promulgated, in 1985 until a new regulation is available. This report summarizes the early-1990 status of Sandia National Laboratories' (SNL) understanding of the Project's ability to achieve compliance. The report reviews the qualitative and quantitative requirements for compliance, and identifies unknowns complicating performance assessment. It discusses in relatively nontechnical terms the approaches to resolving those unknowns, and concludes that SNL has reasonable confidence that compliance is achievable with the Standard as first promulgated. 46 refs., 7 figs.

Bertram-Howery, S.G. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA)); Swift, P.N. (Tech. Reps., Inc., Albuquerque, NM (USA))

1990-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

410

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Collins, E.T.

1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

411

Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Laycak, D

2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

412

Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities March 2010  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Laycak, D T

2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

413

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emissions Units and Sampling Systems  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2012-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

414

The Columbia River Protection Supplemental Technologies Quality Assurance Project Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted interim groundwater remedial activities on the Hanford Site since the mid-1990s for several groundwater contamination plumes. DOE established the Columbia River Protection Supplemental Technologies Project (Technologies Project) in 2006 to evaluate alternative treatment technologies. The objectives for the technology project are as follows: develop a 300 Area polyphosphate treatability test to immobilize uranium, design and test infiltration of a phosphate/apatite technology for Sr-90 at 100-N, perform carbon tetrachloride and chloroform attenuation parameter studies, perform vadose zone chromium characterization and geochemistry studies, perform in situ biostimulation of chromium studies for a reducing barrier at 100-D, and perform a treatability test for phytoremediation for Sr-90 at 100-N. This document provides the quality assurance guidelines that will be followed by the Technologies Project. This Quality Assurance Project Plan is based on the quality assurance requirements of DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance, and 10 CFR 830, Subpart A--Quality Assurance Requirements as delineated in Pacific Northwest National Laboratorys Standards-Based Management System. In addition, the technology project is subject to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/240/B-01/003, QA/R-5). The Hanford Analytical Services Quality Assurance Requirements Documents (HASQARD, DOE/RL-96-68) apply to portions of this project and to the subcontractors. HASQARD requirements are discussed within applicable sections of this plan.

Fix, N. J.

2007-01-10T23:59:59.000Z

415

The Groundwater Performance Assessment Project Quality Assurance Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has monitored groundwater on the Hanford Site since the 1940s to help determine what chemical and radiological contaminants have made their way into the groundwater. As regulatory requirements for monitoring increased in the 1980s, there began to be some overlap between various programs. DOE established the Groundwater Performance Assessment Project (groundwater project) in 1996 to ensure protection of the public and the environment while improving the efficiency of monitoring activities. The groundwater project is designed to support all groundwater monitoring needs at the site, eliminate redundant sampling and analysis, and establish a cost-effective hierarchy for groundwater monitoring activities. This document provides the quality assurance guidelines that will be followed by the groundwater project. This QA Plan is based on the QA requirements of DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance, and 10 CFR 830, Subpart A--General Provisions/Quality Assurance Requirements as delineated in Pacific Northwest National Laboratorys Standards-Based Management System. In addition, the groundwater project is subject to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/240/B-01/003, QA/R-5). The groundwater project has determined that the Hanford Analytical Services Quality Assurance Requirements Documents (HASQARD, DOE/RL-96-68) apply to portions of this project and to the subcontractors. HASQARD requirements are discussed within applicable sections of this plan.

Luttrell, Stuart P.

2006-05-11T23:59:59.000Z

416

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Biennial Environmental Compliance Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services

2006-10-12T23:59:59.000Z

417

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Holland, Robert C.

2005-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

418

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

419

LLNL NESHAPs 2008 Annual Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

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

2009-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

420

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


421

Land application of sewage sludge: A guide for land appliers on the requirements of the federal standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge, 40 CFR part 503  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a regulation at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 to ensure that sewage sludge is used or disposed of in a way that protects human health and the environment. Part 503 imposes requirements for the land application, surface disposal, and incineration of sewage sludge. The manual focuses on land application, providing guidance to land appliers of sewage sludge. The purpose of the document is to provide the land applier with sufficient guidance to comply fully with all applicable Part 503 requirements. The guidance is structured to first provide a general understanding of the Rule and its underlying principles, including definitions of sewage sludge, land application, and an explanation of who under the Rule is considered a land applier.

NONE

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

422

Preparing sewage sludge for land application or surface disposal: A guide for preparers of sewage sludge on the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements of the federal standards for the use of disposal of sewage sludge, 40 CFR part 503  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The document focuses on the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that apply to persons who prepare sewage sludge or a material derived from sewage sludge. It defines persons who prepare sewage sludge and then summarizes their general responsibilities. USEPA promulgated at 40 CFR Part 503 Phase 1 of the risk-based regulations that govern the final use or disposal of sewage sludge. The intent of the Federal program is to ensure that the use or disposal of sewage sludge occurs in a way that protects both human health and the environment. The Part 503 regulation establishes general requirements, pollutant limits, operational standards, and management practices, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. These requirements apply to sewage sludge that is land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated in a sewage sludge-only incinerator.

Not Available

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

423

Implementation guide for use with suspect/counterfeit items: Requirements of DOE O 440.1, worker protection management; 10 CFR 830.120; and DOE 5700.6C, quality assurance  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Department of Energy (DOE) Order (O) 440.1, Worker Protection Management For DOE Federal and Contractors Employees, [7] sets forth requirements for DOE and its contractors to implement suspect and counterfeit items (S/CI) controls as part of the quality assurance (QA) programs required by 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830.120 [8] or DOE 5700.6C, Quality Assurance [9]. DOE G-830.120, Implementation Guide for Use with 10 CFR Part 830.120, Quality Assurance, [10] provides additional guidance on establishing and implementing effective QA processes to control S/CIs. DOE O 232.1, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations, [11] specifies requirements for reporting S/CIs under the DOE Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS). DOE promulgated the requirements and guidance to control or eliminate the hazards posed by S/CIs, which can lead to unexpected equipment failures and undue risks to the DOE mission, the environment, and personnel. This Guide is a compendium of information contained in the referenced DOE directives and other documents concerning S/CI controls. It incorporates, updates, and supersedes earlier guidance issued in Plan for the Suspect/Counterfeit Products Issue in the Department of Energy, dated October 1993, [4] and in memoranda issued by Defense Programs (DP) [12-16] and other DOE program offices. This guidance was developed to strengthen the procurement process, identify and eliminate S/CIs, and improve the reporting of S/CIs. The information in this Guide, when implemented by DOE and its contractors, will satisfy the S/CI requirements contained in the referenced DOE directives.

NONE

1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

424

DRAFT Subpart W Quarterly Call April 3, 2013 EPA: Reid Rosnick (ORIA), Angelique Diaz (Region 8), Susan Stahle (OGC)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

that there is no quality of participation by stakeholder. Sarah Fields: Mentions an open-pit uranium mine associated with a proposed heap leach facility. Asks if open-pit uranium mines will be revisited to address the need Dunn, (CCAT), Sarah Fields (Uranium Watch) Other Travis Stills (Energy Minerals Law Center), Darrell

425

Acquisition Services Management (ASM) Division Subcontracts, ASM-SUB  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

practices. See 10 CFR 784 regarding the objectives and considerations to obtain a DOE advance waiver

426

Summary of Decisions- July 30 August 3, 2012  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Decisions were issued on: - Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

427

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

428

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)

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.

Cusick, Lesley T.; Hart, Patricia W.

2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

429

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NSTec Ecological and Environmental Monitoring

2011-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

430

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions Calendar Year 2013  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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 radionuclides 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.

Warren, R.

2014-06-04T23:59:59.000Z

431

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions Calendar Year 2012  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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 radionuclides 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.

Warren, R.

2013-06-10T23:59:59.000Z

432

The Road to Re-certification: WIPP TRU Waste Inventory  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a deep geologic repository for the disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes generated by atomic energy defense activities. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) [1] requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to submit documentation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that demonstrates WIPP's continuing compliance with the disposal regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191 Subparts B and C, not later than five years after initial receipt of waste for disposal at the repository, and every five years thereafter until the decommissioning of the facility is completed. On May 18, 1998, after review of the Compliance Certification Application (CCA) (63 FR 27405), the EPA certified that the WIPP did comply with the final disposal regulations and criteria of 40 CFR parts 191 and 194. On March 26, 1999, the first receipt of contact-handled (CH) TRU waste was received at WIPP thus initiating the 5-year countdown to the first re-certification. Five years after the first receipt of waste at WIPP, on March 26, 2004, the DOE submitted a Compliance Re-certification Application (CRA) [2]. The CRA includes TRU waste inventory as a key factor. The TRU waste inventory defines what is expected to be emplaced in the repository; and, therefore, how the performance of the repository will be affected. Performance of the WIPP is determined via the Performance Assessment (PA), a set of complex algorithms used to model the long-term performance of the repository. The TRU waste inventory data that are important to this assessment include: 1) volumes of stored, projected and emplaced waste; 2) radionuclide activity concentrations; 3) waste material parameter densities; 4) estimates of the masses of chelating agents; 5) estimates of the oxyanions; 6) estimates of expected cement masses; and 7) estimates of the types and amounts of materials that will be used to emplace the waste. The data that are collected and maintained as the TRU waste inventory provide the waste source term used in the PA to model long-term repository performance. (authors)

Crawford, B.A.; Lott, S.A.; Sparks, L.D.; Van Soest, G.; Mclnroy, B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory -Carlsbad Operations, 115 N. Main St., Carlsbad, NM 88220 (United States)

2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

433

2011 Radioactive Materials Usage Survey for Unmonitored Point Sources  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Sturgeon, Richard W. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2012-06-27T23:59:59.000Z

434

Evaluation of the WIPP Project`s compliance with the EPA radiation protection standards for disposal of transuranic waste  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

435

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)

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.

NONE

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

436

Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2008  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Wahl, Linnea

2009-05-21T23:59:59.000Z

437

HANFORD SAFETY ANALYSIS & RISK ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK (SARAH)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

EVANS, C B

2004-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

438

Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2007  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Wahl, Linnea; Wahl, Linnea

2008-06-13T23:59:59.000Z

439

Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) Interim Status Closure Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

SIMMONS, F.M.

2000-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

440

Technical approach document  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1989-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


441

Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2009  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Wahl, Linnea

2010-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

442

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

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

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.

2014-09-08T23:59:59.000Z

443

Exhibit 1B Patent Rights-Acquisition by the Government UT-B Contracts Div Page 1 of 5  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of Energy patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR Part 784. "Agency licensing regulations" and "applicable regulations at 10 CFR Part 781. (b) Allocations of principal rights. (1) Assignment to the Government

Pennycook, Steve

444

Surveillance Guide - NSS 18.3 Verification of Authorization Basis...  

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

the effectiveness of these controls for the selected items. 2.0 References 2.1 10 CFR 830.203, Unreviewed Safety Questions 2.2 10 CFR 830.204, Documented Safety Analysis 2.3...

445

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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

446

Worker Safety and Health Program | Department of Energy  

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

to Parsons non-DOE Office Areas at SRS Applicability of 10 CFR 851 to Savannah River Ecology Laboratory Applicability of 10 CFR 851 to Savannah River Archaeological Research...

447

An Experimental Based Investigation of Oxycombustion in an SI Engine  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

2.3 Diagram of the engine operating on ambient or house0.32), O-EGR (? =0.37) . CFR ENGINE PARAMETERS AND OPERATINGefficiency of the CFR engine versus IMEP for a variety of

Van Blarigan, Andrew Charles

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

448

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...

449

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...

450

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...

451

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...

452

CY12 ASER TTR_cover_needs updating.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...

453

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...

454

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

455

Evaluation of offsite dose assessment methodologies used in the nuclear industry  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation" (10 CFR20). Specific design objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors on exposure levels in unrestricted areas outside these facilities are presented in 10 CFR50. Some of the newly... proposed changes to 10 CFR20 will greatly influence the way all nuclear facilities operate (10 CFR20). A significant effect of these regulatory changes will be the need to reevaluate radiation exposure to the population in unrestricted areas surrounding...

Berry, Robert Orwell

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

456

EPA 402-R-96-014 STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION PROCESSES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, Brookhaven National Laboratory Christine Langton, Westinghouse Savannah River Roger Spence, Oak Ridge Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRADA Cooperative

457

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

458

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

459

Nevada Test Site National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Calendar Year 2007  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Robert Grossman; Ronald Warren

2008-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

460

EERE-E Award No. DE-EE000_______ to ____________ Attachment 2 EERE IP Provisions: RD&D Cooperative Agreement to Large Business, State or Local Government,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

rights is granted, then provisions approved by the DOE patent counsel, in accordance with 10 CFR 784 of Energy patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR Part 784. Patent Counsel means the Department of Energy Patent AGREEMENT TO LARGE BUSINESS, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OR FOREIGN ENTITY NO PATENT WAIVER 1. 10 CFR 600

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


461

EERE-E Award No. DE-EE000_______ to ____________ Attachment 2 EERE IP Provisions: RD&D Cooperative Agreement with Special Data Protection to Large  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Patent Waiver issued in accordance with 10 CFR 784); [including U.S. Competitiveness provisions in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 784; including U.S. Competitiveness provisions in Section (t)] (a) Definitions the Department of Energy patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR Part 784. Patent Counsel means the Department

462

Exhibit 2B-Petition for Advance Waiver of Patent Rights UT-B Contracts Div Page 1 of 4  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

's patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR part 784. You must request waivers by using the attached DOE form PETITION FOR ADVANCE WAIVER OF PATENT RIGHTS UNDER 10 C.F.R. PART 784 DOE WAIVER NO. __________ (To.S.C. 202, 203 and 204, as well as other provisions that may be required in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 784

Pennycook, Steve

463

Partial List of Laws, Regulations and Guidelines Bearing on the Operation of Biological Research Labs  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Partial List of Laws, Regulations and Guidelines Bearing on the Operation of Biological Research Chemicals in the Laboratory 40 CFR 260 - 262; RCRA ­ Hazardous Waste Management, Lists and Generator Rule Select Agent Regulations, 49 CFR 171-180-Transportation Additional CFR's not indicated above 21

Oliver, Douglas L.

464

Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of shielded containers under its 10 CFR Part 830 safety basis requirements (see section below). Candidate of Transportation (DOT) Specification 7A in 49 CFR §178.350 is a "self-certification" requiring certificate holders to formulate a test report documenting the tests and analyses performed to satisfy 49 CFR §179.465. Washington

465

38277Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Authority: 16 U.S.C. 15311543; subpart B,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Resources Division, Alaska Region,709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK. The final rule, maps, and other materials cases (Hamilton et al., 1998; Kenney, 2002). Right whales are generally migratory, with at least

466

F R O M A L P H A T E C H N O L O G I E S Operator's Manual  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, and CFR 3000 U N I N T E R R U P T I B L E P O W E R S U P P L I E S #12;Alpha CFR 1500, CFR 2000, CFR 2500, and CFR 3000 Operator's Manual U N I N T E R R U P T I B L E P O W E R S U P P L I E S #12 A dangerous voltage exists in this area. Use extreme caution. Attention Important operating instructions

Berns, Hans-Gerd

467

Microsoft Word - FossilLakeSolar_CX.docx  

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

Clearance Memorandum Deborah Ruckwardt Project Manager, TEP-CSB-1 Proposed Action: Meter Installation at Fossil Lake Solar Project Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart...

468

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...

469

Dry Pipe Sprinkler Piping Replacement Project (4588), 4/30/2012  

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

l 021, Subpart D, Appendix B; (5) involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed...

470

U.S. Department of Energy Southwestern Power Administration  

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

1021, Subpart D, Appendix B; (5) involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed...

471

Sprinkler Head Replacement (4586), 4/24/2012  

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

1021, Subpart D, Appendix B; (5) involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed...

472

Duct Chase Sprinkler Replacement Project (4594), 5/31/2012  

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

1021, Subpart D, Appendix B; (5) involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed...

473

U.S. Department of Energy Southwestern Power Administration  

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

1021 , Subpart D, Appendix B; (5) involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed...

474

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...

475

Microsoft Word - Obsidian Finance Group Integration.doc  

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

Work Order 231305, Task 01 Outback Renewables Work Order 231307, Task 01 Lost Forest Solar Work Order 231312, Task 01 Categorical Exclusion Applied (from Subpart D, 10...

476

E-Print Network 3.0 - aircraft halon bottles Sample Search Results  

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

on Concepts and Cognition Collection: Multidisciplinary Databases and Resources 17 Refrigerant Compliance Updated: August 6, 2008 Summary: of refrigerants. 3. Subpart H -...

477

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Radionuclide Emissions, Calendar Year 2011  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

NSTec Ecological and Environmental Monitoring

2012-06-19T23:59:59.000Z

478

Final Characterization Report for Corrective Action Unit 109: Area 2 U-2BU Crater, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

ITLV

1998-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

479

An Illustration of the Corrective Action Process, The Corrective Action Management Unit at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Irwin, M.; Kwiecinski, D.

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

480

Plutonium Finishing Plan (PFP) Treatment and Storage Unit Interim Status Closure Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

PRIGNANO, A.L.

2000-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "helium-48 cfr subpart" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


481

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Results Obtained in the 1996 Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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).

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

482

Distribution Integrity Management Plant (DIMP)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Gonzales, Jerome F. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2012-05-07T23:59:59.000Z

483

Advanced Test Reactor Safety Basis Upgrade Lessons Learned Relative to Design Basis Verification and Safety Basis Management  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is a pressurized light-water reactor with a design thermal power of 250 MW. The principal function of the ATR is to provide a high neutron flux for testing reactor fuels and other materials. The reactor also provides other irradiation services such as radioisotope production. The ATR and its support facilities are located at the Test Reactor Area of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). An audit conducted by the Department of Energy's Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance (DOE OA) raised concerns that design conditions at the ATR were not adequately analyzed in the safety analysis and that legacy design basis management practices had the potential to further impact safe operation of the facility.1 The concerns identified by the audit team, and issues raised during additional reviews performed by ATR safety analysts, were evaluated through the unreviewed safety question process resulting in shutdown of the ATR for more than three months while these concerns were resolved. Past management of the ATR safety basis, relative to facility design basis management and change control, led to concerns that discrepancies in the safety basis may have developed. Although not required by DOE orders or regulations, not performing design basis verification in conjunction with development of the 10 CFR 830 Subpart B upgraded safety basis allowed these potential weaknesses to be carried forward. Configuration management and a clear definition of the existing facility design basis have a direct relation to developing and maintaining a high quality safety basis which properly identifies and mitigates all hazards and postulated accident conditions. These relations and the impact of past safety basis management practices have been reviewed in order to identify lessons learned from the safety basis upgrade process and appropriate actions to resolve possible concerns with respect to the current ATR safety basis. The need for a design basis reconstitution program for the ATR has been identified along with the use of sound configuration management principles in order to support safe and efficient facility operation.

G. L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

2004-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

484

Quality Assurance Plan for Field Activities at the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) Field Research Center (FRC), Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has established a Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program Field Research Center (FRC) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The FRC is located in Bear Creek Valley within the Y-12 Plant area of responsibility on DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee. The NABIR program is a long-term effort designed to increase the understanding of fundamental biogeochemical processes that would allow the use of bioremediation approaches for cleaning up DOE's contaminated legacy waste sites. The FRC provides a site for investigators in the NABIR program to conduct research and obtain samples related to in situ bioremediation. The FRC is integrated with existing and future laboratory and field research and provides a means of examining the biogeochemical processes that influence bioremediation under controlled small-scale field conditions. This Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) documents the quality assurance protocols for field and laboratory activities performed by the FRC staff. It supplements the requirements in the ORNL Nuclear Quality Assurance Program and the ESD Quality Assurance Program. The QAP addresses the requirements in Title 10 CFR, Part 830 Subpart A, ''Quality Assurance Requirements'', using a graded approach appropriate for Research and Development projects based on guidance from ''Implementation Guide for Quality Assurance Programs for Basic and Applied Research'' (DOE-ER-STD-6001-92). It also supports the NABIR FRC Management Plan (Watson and Quarles 2000a) which outlines the overall procedures, roles and responsibilities for conducting research at the FRC. The QAP summarizes the organization, work activities, and qualify assurance and quality control protocols that will be used to generate scientifically defensible data at the FRC. The QAP pertains to field measurements and sample collection conducted by the FRC to characterize the site and in support of NABIR-funded investigations at the FRC. NABIR investigators who collect their own samples or measurements at the FRC will be responsible for developing their own data quality assurance protocol. Notably, this QAP will be of direct benefit to NABIR investigators who will be provided with and use the documented quality data about the FRC to support their investigations.

Brandt, C.C.

2002-02-28T23:59:59.000Z

485

Development of Risk Insights for Regulatory Review of a Near-Surface Disposal Facility for Radioactive Waste  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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)

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

486

Regulatory Framework for Salt Waste Disposal and Tank Closure at the Savannah River Site - 13663  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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)

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

487

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)

488

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...

489

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...

490

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...

491

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...

492

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...

493

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...

494

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...

495

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,...

496

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...

497

E-Print Network 3.0 - alara Sample Search Results  

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

University of California at Berkeley Collection: Environmental Sciences and Ecology 77 DOE G 441.1-12 (formerly G-10 CFR 835J1) Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

498

EA-1637: Final Environmental Assessment | Department of Energy  

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

standards rulemaking on packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps. Envrionmental Assessment for 10 CFR 431 Energy Conservation Program for...

499

E-Print Network 3.0 - approved site treatment Sample Search Results  

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

TRU waste characterization... program. The revisions to 40 CFR 194.8 also ... Source: Yucca Mountain Project, US EPA Collection: Environmental Sciences and Ecology 2 Woodland...

500

E-Print Network 3.0 - agency listed hazardous Sample Search Results  

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

Listing of Hazardous Waste 40 CFR... Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 6 NYCRR 371 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste 6 NYCRR 372... Substance Bulk Storage...