Sample records for nuclear facilities safety

  1. CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Safety Basis

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  2. Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

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

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

  4. Facility Safety

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

    1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Facility Safety

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

    1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

  6. Office of Nuclear Safety Basis and Facility Design

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  7. Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

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

  10. Facility Safety

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

    2000-11-20T23:59:59.000Z

    The objective of this Order is to establish facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation. The Order has Change 1 dated 11-16-95, Change 2 dated 10-24-96, and the latest Change 3 dated 11-22-00 incorporated. The latest change satisfies a commitment made to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in response to DNFSB recommendation 97-2, Criticality Safety.

  11. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and the System Engineer Program.Chg 1 incorporates the use of DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process, mandatory for Hazard Category 1, 2 and 3 nuclear facilities. Cancels DOE O 420.1A.

  12. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

    This Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for Department of Energy facilities, which includes nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards mitigation, and the System Engineer Program. Cancels DOE O 420.1A. DOE O 420.1B Chg 1 issued 4-19-10.

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

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

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

  14. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis

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

    2014-11-12T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    1996-12-30T23:59:59.000Z

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

  16. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    1999-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

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

  17. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    2001-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Facility Safety

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

    1995-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

    Establishes facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation. Cancels DOE 5480.7A, DOE 5480.24, DOE 5480.28 and Division 13 of DOE 6430.1A. Canceled by DOE O 420.1A.

  19. Facility Safety

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

    2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. Facility Safety

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

    2002-05-20T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

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

  3. Facility Safety

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

    2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  4. Nuclear space power safety and facility guidelines study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mehlman, W.F.

    1995-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  6. Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives | Department of Energy

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

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

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

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

    2007-02-07T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework

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

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

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maroncelli, Mark

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    VINCENT, Andrew

    2005-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    2014-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1993-08-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    2004-02-28T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1999-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JACKSON, M.W.

    2002-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. CRAD, Facility Safety- Technical Safety Requirements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    2001-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    2010-09-23T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria

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

    1993-01-19T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Criticality Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Kemner, Ken

    development, Nuclear Operations Division (NOD) waste management and storage activities and other laboratoryNuclear Engineering Nuclear Criticality Safety The Nuclear Engineering Division (NE) of Argonne National Laboratory is experienced in performing criticality safety and shielding evaluations for nuclear

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

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

  11. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2004-07-23T23:59:59.000Z

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

  12. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2001-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Calderoni; P. Sharpe; M. Shimada

    2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  14. Hot Cell Facility (HCF) Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2000-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elder, H.K.

    1986-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  17. Office of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes nuclear safety requirements and expectations for the Department to ensure protection of workers and the public from the hazards associated with nuclear operations with all Department operations.

  18. Nuclear Safety Research and Development...

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

    Nuclear Safety Research and Development Proposal Review and Prioritization Process and Criteria Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Office of Nuclear Safety Office of...

  19. Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual

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

    2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Manual provides supplemental details to support the requirements of DOE O 452.2D, Nuclear Explosive Safety.

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  2. Occupational Safety Review of High Technology Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee Cadwallader

    2005-01-31T23:59:59.000Z

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

  3. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2015-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

    This Department of Energy (DOE) Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear explosive safety (NES) elements of DOE O 452.1E, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program, or successor directive, for routine and planned nuclear explosive operations (NEOs).

  4. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2014-07-10T23:59:59.000Z

    The Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear explosive safety (NES) elements of DOE O 452.1E, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program, for routine and planned nuclear explosive operations (NEOs).

  5. Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Nuclear Safety Division conducts a comprehensive nuclear power plant oversight review program of the nine reactors at the five nuclear power sites in Pennsylvania. It also monitors the...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. Safety of Nuclear Explosive Operations

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

    2001-08-07T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    2003-08-27T23:59:59.000Z

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

  10. Nuclear Power Generating Facilities (Maine)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The first subchapter of the statute concerning Nuclear Power Generating Facilities provides for direct citizen participation in the decision to construct any nuclear power generating facility in...

  11. Promulgating Nuclear Safety Requirements

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

    1996-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Applies to all Nuclear Safety Requirements Adopted by the Department to Govern the Conduct of its Nuclear Activities. Cancels DOE P 410.1. Canceled by DOE N 251.85.

  12. Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs

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

    1995-11-22T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2011-07-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  14. Mechanistic facility safety and source term analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PLYS, M.G.

    1999-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear explosive safety elements of DOE O 452.1D, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program, for routine and planned nuclear explosive operations. Cancels DOE O 452.2C. Admin Chg 1, 7-10-13

  16. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Department of Energy (DOE) Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear explosive safety (NES) elements of DOE O 452.1D, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program, for routine and planned nuclear explosive operations (NEOs). Cancels DOE O 452.2C. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-10-13, cancels DOE O 452.2D.

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1991-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  19. CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C.E. Sanders

    2005-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2006-06-12T23:59:59.000Z

    The directive provides supplemental details to support the requirements of DOE O 452.2C, Nuclear Explosive Safety, dated 6-12-06. Canceled by DOE M 452.2-1A.

  1. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2006-06-12T23:59:59.000Z

    The directive establishes specific nuclear explosive safety (NES) program requirements to implement the DOE NES standards and other NES criteria for routine and planned nuclear explosive operations. Cancels DOE O 452.2B. Canceled by DOE O 452.2D.

  2. CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May...

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

    CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May 29, 2009 CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May 29, 2009 May 29, 2009 Nuclear Facility...

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  7. Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    IAEA-TECDOC-1329 Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations, Guidance for use in the Enhancement of Safety Culture, International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, December 2002.

  8. Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard The Nuclear Safety Information (NSI) Dashboard provides a new user interface to the Occurrence Reporting...

  9. Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual

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

    2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Department of Energy (DOE) Manual provides supplemental details on selected topics to support the requirements of DOE O 452.2D, Nuclear Explosive Safety, dated 4/14/09. Cancels DOE M 452.2-1. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-10-13, cancels DOE M 452.2-1A.

  10. Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes

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

    2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Manual provides supplemental details to support the nuclear explosive safety evaluation requirement of DOE O 452.2D, Nuclear Explosive Safety. Does not cancel other directives. Admin Chg 1, 7-10-13.

  11. Management of National Nuclear Power Programs for assured safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Connolly, T.J. (ed.)

    1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Topics discussed in this report include: nuclear utility organization; before the Florida Public Service Commission in re: St. Lucie Unit No. 2 cost recovery; nuclear reliability improvement and safety operations; nuclear utility management; training of nuclear facility personnel; US experience in key areas of nuclear safety; the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - function and process; regulatory considerations of the risk of nuclear power plants; overview of the processes of reliability and risk management; management significance of risk analysis; international and domestic institutional issues for peaceful nuclear uses; the role of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO); and nuclear safety activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

  12. Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  14. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  16. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2007-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

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

  17. CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis...

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

    Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval - January 8, 2015 (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) CRAD, Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval -...

  18. Nuclear explosive safety study process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Nuclear explosives by their design and intended use require collocation of high explosives and fissile material. The design agencies are responsible for designing safety into the nuclear explosive and processes involving the nuclear explosive. The methodology for ensuring safety consists of independent review processes that include the national laboratories, Operations Offices, Headquarters, and responsible Area Offices and operating contractors with expertise in nuclear explosive safety. A NES Study is an evaluation of the adequacy of positive measures to minimize the possibility of an inadvertent or deliberate unauthorized nuclear detonation, high explosive detonation or deflagration, fire, or fissile material dispersal from the pit. The Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Group (NESSG) evaluates nuclear explosive operations against the Nuclear Explosive Safety Standards specified in DOE O 452.2 using systematic evaluation techniques. These Safety Standards must be satisfied for nuclear explosive operations.

  19. Facility Safety Plan CMS Complexes CMS410

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooper, G

    2007-06-14T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  1. Nano Research Facility Lab Safety Manual Nano Research Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Subramanian, Venkat

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

  2. 1Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Danon, Yaron

    Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Conference April 27, 2011 #12;2Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility Nuclear Criticality Safety1Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility

  3. Ris-R-1318(EN) Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    . Risø Decommissioning has the task of preparing for the decommissioning of Risø's nuclear facilitiesRisø-R-1318(EN) Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Report 2001 Edited by B. Majborn, A This report presents a summary of the work of the Nuclear Safety Research Department in 2001. The department

  4. SHSD Manager Safety Engineering Group Manager

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

  5. Nuclear Reactions and Reactor Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Onuchic, José

    Nuclear Reactions and Reactor Safety DO NOT LICK We haven't entirely nailed down what element nuclear chain reaction, 1938 #12;Nuclear Chain Reactions Do nuclear chain reactions lead to runaway explosions? or ? -Controlled nuclear chain reactions possible: control energy release/sec -> More

  6. Nuclear reactor safety device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hutter, Ernest (Wilmette, IL)

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A safety device is disclosed for use in a nuclear reactor for axially repositioning a control rod with respect to the reactor core in the event of an upward thermal excursion. Such safety device comprises a laminated helical ribbon configured as a tube-like helical coil having contiguous helical turns with slidably abutting edges. The helical coil is disclosed as a portion of a drive member connected axially to the control rod. The laminated ribbon is formed of outer and inner laminae. The material of the outer lamina has a greater thermal coefficient of expansion than the material of the inner lamina. In the event of an upward thermal excursion, the laminated helical coil curls inwardly to a smaller diameter. Such inward curling causes the total length of the helical coil to increase by a substantial increment, so that the control rod is axially repositioned by a corresponding amount to reduce the power output of the reactor.

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

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

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seylar, Roland F.

    2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of Energy NorthBDepartment of Energy Nuclear Safety

  10. Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) ­ Motivation, Role, Required Capabilities YK Martin Peng;1 Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Example: fusion nuclear-nonnuclear coupling effects-composites; Nano-structure alloy; PFC designs, etc. · Nuclear-nonnuclear coupling in PFC: - Plasma ion flux induces

  11. Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility Documented Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD, E.N.

    2003-10-08T23:59:59.000Z

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

  12. Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes

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

    2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Manual provides supplemental details to support the nuclear explosive safety (NES) evaluation requirement of Department of Energy (DOE) Order (O) 452.2D, Nuclear Explosive Safety, dated 4/14/09. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-10-13, cancels DOE M 452.2-2.

  13. Nuclear reactor safety device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hutter, E.

    1983-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

    A safety device is described for use in a nuclear reactor for axially repositioning a control rod with respect to the reactor core in the event of a thermal excursion. It comprises a laminated strip helically configured to form a tube, said tube being in operative relation to said control rod. The laminated strip is formed of at least two materials having different thermal coefficients of expansion, and is helically configured such that the material forming the outer lamina of the tube has a greater thermal coefficient of expansion than the material forming the inner lamina of said tube. In the event of a thermal excursion the laminated strip will tend to curl inwardly so that said tube will increase in length, whereby as said tube increases in length it exerts a force on said control rod to axially reposition said control rod with respect to said core.

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  16. Establishing nuclear facility drill programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of DOE Handbook, Establishing Nuclear Facility Drill Programs, is to provide DOE contractor organizations with guidance for development or modification of drill programs that both train on and evaluate facility training and procedures dealing with a variety of abnormal and emergency operating situations likely to occur at a facility. The handbook focuses on conducting drills as part of a training and qualification program (typically within a single facility), and is not intended to included responses of personnel beyond the site boundary, e.g. Local or State Emergency Management, Law Enforcement, etc. Each facility is expected to develop its own facility specific scenarios, and should not limit them to equipment failures but should include personnel injuries and other likely events. A well-developed and consistently administered drill program can effectively provide training and evaluation of facility operating personnel in controlling abnormal and emergency operating situations. To ensure the drills are meeting their intended purpose they should have evaluation criteria for evaluating the knowledge and skills of the facility operating personnel. Training and evaluation of staff skills and knowledge such as component and system interrelationship, reasoning and judgment, team interactions, and communications can be accomplished with drills. The appendices to this Handbook contain both models and additional guidance for establishing drill programs at the Department`s nuclear facilities.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KRAHN, D.E.

    2000-08-08T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of OrderSUBCOMMITTEE of the NUCLEAR ENERGY4.1

  19. Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Guidance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. Facility Safety | Department of Energy

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

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

  1. Nuclear Plant/Hydrogen Plant Safety: Issues and Approaches

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Steven R. Sherman

    2007-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, through its agents the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, is working on developing the technologies to enable the large scale production of hydrogen using nuclear power. A very important consideration in the design of a co-located and connected nuclear plant/hydrogen plant facility is safety. This study provides an overview of the safety issues associated with a combined plant and discusses approaches for categorizing, quantifying, and addressing the safety risks.

  2. Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities

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

    1995-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes the requirements for startup of new nuclear facilities and for the restart of existing nuclear facilities that have been shutdown. Cancels DOE 5480.31. Canceled by DOE O 425.1A.

  3. Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities

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

    1998-12-28T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish the requirements for startup of new nuclear facilities and for the restart of existing nuclear facilities that have been shut down. Cancels DOE O 425.1. Canceled by DOE O 425.1B.

  4. Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May 29,...

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

    Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May 29, 2009 (HSS CRAD 64-15, Rev. 0) Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May 29, 2009 (HSS CRAD 64-15, Rev....

  5. Enhancing the safety of tailings management facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  6. Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board

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

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

  7. Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. Nuclear reactor safety heat transfer

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jones, O.C.

    1982-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Reviewed is a book which has 5 parts: Overview, Fundamental Concepts, Design Basis Accident-Light Water Reactors (LWRs), Design Basis Accident-Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBRs), and Special Topics. It combines a historical overview, textbook material, handbook information, and the editor's personal philosophy on safety of nuclear power plants. Topics include thermal-hydraulic considerations; transient response of LWRs and LMFBRs following initiating events; various accident scenarios; single- and two-phase flow; single- and two-phase heat transfer; nuclear systems safety modeling; startup and shutdown; transient response during normal and upset conditions; vapor explosions, natural convection cooling; blockages in LMFBR subassemblies; sodium boiling; and Three Mile Island.

  10. Safety Oversight of Decommissioning Activities at DOE Nuclear Sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

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

  11. Autoclave nuclear criticality safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D`Aquila, D.M. [Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Piketon, OH (United States); Tayloe, R.W. Jr. [Battelle, Columbus, OH (United States)

    1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Steam-heated autoclaves are used in gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants to heat large cylinders of UF{sub 6}. Nuclear criticality safety for these autoclaves is evaluated. To enhance criticality safety, systems are incorporated into the design of autoclaves to limit the amount of water present. These safety systems also increase the likelihood that any UF{sub 6} inadvertently released from a cylinder into an autoclave is not released to the environment. Up to 140 pounds of water can be held up in large autoclaves. This mass of water is sufficient to support a nuclear criticality when optimally combined with 125 pounds of UF{sub 6} enriched to 5 percent U{sup 235}. However, water in autoclaves is widely dispersed as condensed droplets and vapor, and is extremely unlikely to form a critical configuration with released UF{sub 6}.

  12. TRANSPORTATION CASK RECEIPT/RETURN FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C.E. Sanders

    2005-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Nuclear Safety Information Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Information Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment,...

  14. WIRELESS FOR A NUCLEAR FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shull, D; Joe Cordaro, J

    2007-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

    The introduction of wireless technology into a government site where nuclear material is processed and stored brings new meaning to the term ''harsh environment''. At SRNL, we are attempting to address not only the harsh RF and harsh physical environment common to industrial facilities, but also the ''harsh'' regulatory environment necessitated by the nature of the business at our site. We will discuss our concepts, processes, and expected outcomes in our attempts to surmount the roadblocks and reap the benefits of wireless in our ''factory''.

  15. Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities

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

    1995-10-26T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish the requirements for the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for start up of new nuclear facilities and for the restart of existing nuclear facilities that have been shut down. Cancels DOE 5480.31. Canceled by DOE O 425.1A.

  16. Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities

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

    2003-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish the requirements for the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for start up of new nuclear facilities and for the restart of existing nuclear facilities that have been shut down. Cancels DOE O 425.1B. Canceled by DOE O 425.1D

  17. Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities

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

    2000-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish the requirements for the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for start up of new nuclear facilities and for the restart of existing nuclear facilities that have been shut down. Cancels DOE O 425.1A. Canceled by DOE O 425.1C.

  18. Nuclear Facilities and Applied Technologies at Sandia

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wheeler, Dave; Kaiser, Krista; Martin, Lonnie; Hanson, Don; Harms, Gary; Quirk, Tom

    2014-11-28T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nuclear Facilities and Applied Technologies organization at Sandia National Laboratories’ Technical Area Five (TA-V) is the leader in advancing nuclear technologies through applied radiation science and unique nuclear environments. This video describes the organization’s capabilities, facilities, and culture.

  19. Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Larson, H L

    2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. High Explosives Application Facility | National Nuclear Security...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    and counterterrorism. Examples include the following: Stockpile Stewardship, assuring the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons; Conventional weapon development, including...

  1. KRS Chapter 278: Nuclear Power Facilities (Kentucky)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    No construction shall commence on a nuclear power facility in the Commonwealth until the Public Service Commission finds that the United States government, through its authorized agency, has...

  2. Nuclear fuel cycle facility accident analysis handbook

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Handbook is to provide guidance on how to calculate the characteristics of releases of radioactive materials and/or hazardous chemicals from nonreactor nuclear facilities. In addition, the Handbook provides guidance on how to calculate the consequences of those releases. There are four major chapters: Hazard Evaluation and Scenario Development; Source Term Determination; Transport Within Containment/Confinement; and Atmospheric Dispersion and Consequences Modeling. These chapters are supported by Appendices, including: a summary of chemical and nuclear information that contains descriptions of various fuel cycle facilities; details on how to calculate the characteristics of source terms for releases of hazardous chemicals; a comparison of NRC, EPA, and OSHA programs that address chemical safety; a summary of the performance of HEPA and other filters; and a discussion of uncertainties. Several sample problems are presented: a free-fall spill of powder, an explosion with radioactive release; a fire with radioactive release; filter failure; hydrogen fluoride release from a tankcar; a uranium hexafluoride cylinder rupture; a liquid spill in a vitrification plant; and a criticality incident. Finally, this Handbook includes a computer model, LPF No.1B, that is intended for use in calculating Leak Path Factors. A list of contributors to the Handbook is presented in Chapter 6. 39 figs., 35 tabs.

  3. Elements of a nuclear criticality safety program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hopper, C.M.

    1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Nuclear criticality safety programs throughout the United States are quite successful, as compared with other safety disciplines, at protecting life and property, especially when regarded as a developing safety function with no historical perspective for the cause and effect of process nuclear criticality accidents before 1943. The programs evolved through self-imposed and regulatory-imposed incentives. They are the products of conscientious individuals, supportive corporations, obliged regulators, and intervenors (political, public, and private). The maturing of nuclear criticality safety programs throughout the United States has been spasmodic, with stability provided by the volunteer standards efforts within the American Nuclear Society. This presentation provides the status, relative to current needs, for nuclear criticality safety program elements that address organization of and assignments for nuclear criticality safety program responsibilities; personnel qualifications; and analytical capabilities for the technical definition of critical, subcritical, safety and operating limits, and program quality assurance.

  4. A philosophy for space nuclear systems safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marshall, A.C.

    1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The unique requirements and contraints of space nuclear systems require careful consideration in the development of a safety policy. The Nuclear Safety Policy Working Group (NSPWG) for the Space Exploration Initiative has proposed a hierarchical approach with safety policy at the top of the hierarchy. This policy allows safety requirements to be tailored to specific applications while still providing reassurance to regulators and the general public that the necessary measures have been taken to assure safe application of space nuclear systems. The safety policy used by the NSPWG is recommended for all space nuclear programs and missions.

  5. Standard Guide for Preparing Characterization Plans for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia

    2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    1.1 This standard guide applies to developing nuclear facility characterization plans to define the type, magnitude, location, and extent of radiological and chemical contamination within the facility to allow decommissioning planning. This guide amplifies guidance regarding facility characterization indicated in ASTM Standard E 1281 on Nuclear Facility Decommissioning Plans. This guide does not address the methodology necessary to release a facility or site for unconditional use. This guide specifically addresses: 1.1.1 the data quality objective for characterization as an initial step in decommissioning planning. 1.1.2 sampling methods, 1.1.3 the logic involved (statistical design) to ensure adequate characterization for decommissioning purposes; and 1.1.4 essential documentation of the characterization information. 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate saf...

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1997-04-09T23:59:59.000Z

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

  12. Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee C. Cadwallader

    2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Compressed Gas Safety for Experimental Fusion Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2005-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

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

  14. Systems Issues in Nuclear Reactor Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    de Weck, Olivier L.

    Systems Issues in Nuclear Reactor Safety Commissioner George ApostolakisCommissioner George Apostolakis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CmrApostolakis@nrc.gov MIT SDM Conference on Systems Thinking, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, 3

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD, E.

    2003-04-23T23:59:59.000Z

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

  16. Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

  17. Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Proceedings of the Nuclear Criticality Technology and Safety Project Workshop

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sanchez, R.G. [comp.

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is the proceedings of the annual Nuclear Criticality Technology and Safety Project (NCTSP) Workshop held in Monterey, California, on April 16--28, 1993. The NCTSP was sponsored by the Department of Energy and organized by the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility. The report is divided into six sections reflecting the sessions outlined on the workshop agenda.

  19. 3S (Safeguards, Security, Safety) based pyroprocessing facility safety evaluation plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2003-05-13T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gregg L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rule, Keith [PPPL

    2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs...

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

    0-94, Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs by Diane Johnson The Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs establish objectives and...

  6. Nuclear criticality safety evaluation of Spray Booth Operations in X-705, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1993-09-20T23:59:59.000Z

    This report evaluates nuclear criticality safety for Spray Booth Operations in the Decontamination and Recovery Facility, X-705, at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. A general description of current procedures and related hardware/equipment is presented. Control parameters relevant to nuclear criticality safety are explained, and a consolidated listing of administrative controls and safety systems is developed. Based on compliance with DOE Orders and MMES practices, the overall operation is evaluated, and recommendations for enhanced safety are suggested.

  7. Waste sampling and characterization facility complex safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meloy, R.T., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-06-04T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. EARTHQUAKE CAUSED RELEASES FROM A NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Charles W. Solbrig; Chad Pope; Jason Andrus

    2014-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The fuel cycle facility (FCF) at the Idaho National Laboratory is a nuclear facility which must be licensed in order to operate. A safety analysis is required for a license. This paper describes the analysis of the Design Basis Accident for this facility. This analysis involves a model of the transient behavior of the FCF inert atmosphere hot cell following an earthquake initiated breach of pipes passing through the cell boundary. The hot cell is used to process spent metallic nuclear fuel. Such breaches allow the introduction of air and subsequent burning of pyrophoric metals. The model predicts the pressure, temperature, volumetric releases, cell heat transfer, metal fuel combustion, heat generation rates, radiological releases and other quantities. The results show that releases from the cell are minimal and satisfactory for safety. This analysis method should be useful in other facilities that have potential for damage from an earthquake and could eliminate the need to back fit facilities with earthquake proof boundaries or lessen the cost of new facilities.

  9. WIPP-016, Rev. 0 Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation for

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    WIPP-016, Rev. 0 Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation for Contact-Handled Transuranic Waste/2008 Guidance (if applicable): _______________________ #12;NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATION FOR CONTACT, directors, employees, agents, consultants or personal services contractors. #12;NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY

  10. FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE PROGRAM & SUPPORTING FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE FACILITY (FNSF)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE PROGRAM & SUPPORTING FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE FACILITY (FNSF): UPDATE · It was well recognized there were also critical materials and technology issues that needed to be addressed in order to apply the knowledge we gained about burning plasma state #12;FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE PROGRAM

  11. Listing of Defense Nuclear Facilities

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

    Plant Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, including the Oxnard Facility Savannah River Site Los Alamos National Laboratory Sandia National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore...

  12. Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Research and Development manages and oversees the operation of an exceptional suite of science, technology and engineering facilities that support and further the national...

  13. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Proposal Submittal...

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

    Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Proposal Submittal Instructions for Fiscal Year 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program...

  14. Nuclear Explosive Safety - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requiremen...

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

    2D Admin Chg 1, Nuclear Explosive Safety by Carl Sykes This Department of Energy (DOE) Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear explosive safety (NES) elements of...

  15. Nuclear Explosive Safety - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requiremen...

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

    52.2E, Nuclear Explosive Safety by Angela Chambers Functional areas: Safety, Security This Department of Energy (DOE) Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bengston, S.J.

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KRAHN, D.E.

    1999-12-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Ground test facility for SEI nuclear rocket engines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harmon, C.D.; Ottinger, C.A.; Sanchez, L.C.; Shipers, L.R.

    1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) has been identified as a critical technology in support of the NASA Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). In order to safely develop a reliable, reusable, long-lived flight engine, facilities are required that will support ground tests to qualify the nuclear rocket engine design. Initial nuclear fuel element testing will need to be performed in a facility that supports a realistic thermal and neutronic environment in which the fuel elements will operate at a fraction of the power of a flight weight reactor/engine. Ground testing of nuclear rocket engines is not new. New restrictions mandated by the National Environmental Protection Act of 1970, however, now require major changes to be made in the manner in which reactor engines are now tested. These new restrictions now preclude the types of nuclear rocket engine tests that were performed in the past from being done today. A major attribute of a safely operating ground test facility is its ability to prevent fission products from being released in appreciable amounts to the environment. Details of the intricacies and complications involved with the design of a fuel element ground test facility are presented in this report with a strong emphasis on safety and economy.

  19. Western University Nuclear Radiation Safety Inspection Checklist

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sinnamon, Gordon J.

    May 2012 Western University Nuclear Radiation Safety Inspection Checklist Permit Holder to nuclear substances or radiation devices is restricted to authorized radiation users listed on the permit radiation labs whenever unsealed nuclear substances are used in these designated locations. 1.7(d

  20. Nuclear facilities: criteria for the design and operation of ventilation systems for nuclear installations other than nuclear reactors

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    International Organization for Standardization. Geneva

    2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Nuclear facilities: criteria for the design and operation of ventilation systems for nuclear installations other than nuclear reactors

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shedrow, C.B.

    1999-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

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

  2. Accurate fission data for nuclear safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    A. Solders; D. Gorelov; A. Jokinen; V. S. Kolhinen; M. Lantz; A. Mattera; H. Penttila; S. Pomp; V. Rakopoulos; S. Rinta-Antila

    2013-04-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The Accurate fission data for nuclear safety (AlFONS) project aims at high precision measurements of fission yields, using the renewed IGISOL mass separator facility in combination with a new high current light ion cyclotron at the University of Jyvaskyla. The 30 MeV proton beam will be used to create fast and thermal neutron spectra for the study of neutron induced fission yields. Thanks to a series of mass separating elements, culminating with the JYFLTRAP Penning trap, it is possible to achieve a mass resolving power in the order of a few hundred thousands. In this paper we present the experimental setup and the design of a neutron converter target for IGISOL. The goal is to have a flexible design. For studies of exotic nuclei far from stability a high neutron flux (10^12 neutrons/s) at energies 1 - 30 MeV is desired while for reactor applications neutron spectra that resembles those of thermal and fast nuclear reactors are preferred. It is also desirable to be able to produce (semi-)monoenergetic neutrons for benchmarking and to study the energy dependence of fission yields. The scientific program is extensive and is planed to start in 2013 with a measurement of isomeric yield ratios of proton induced fission in uranium. This will be followed by studies of independent yields of thermal and fast neutron induced fission of various actinides.

  3. Accurate fission data for nuclear safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Solders, A; Jokinen, A; Kolhinen, V S; Lantz, M; Mattera, A; Penttila, H; Pomp, S; Rakopoulos, V; Rinta-Antila, S

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Accurate fission data for nuclear safety (AlFONS) project aims at high precision measurements of fission yields, using the renewed IGISOL mass separator facility in combination with a new high current light ion cyclotron at the University of Jyvaskyla. The 30 MeV proton beam will be used to create fast and thermal neutron spectra for the study of neutron induced fission yields. Thanks to a series of mass separating elements, culminating with the JYFLTRAP Penning trap, it is possible to achieve a mass resolving power in the order of a few hundred thousands. In this paper we present the experimental setup and the design of a neutron converter target for IGISOL. The goal is to have a flexible design. For studies of exotic nuclei far from stability a high neutron flux (10^12 neutrons/s) at energies 1 - 30 MeV is desired while for reactor applications neutron spectra that resembles those of thermal and fast nuclear reactors are preferred. It is also desirable to be able to produce (semi-)monoenergetic neutrons...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fisk, Patricia; Rutherford, Lavon

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Nuclear criticality safety department training implementation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carroll, K.J.; Taylor, R.G.; Worley, C.A.

    1996-09-06T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nuclear Criticality Safety Department (NCSD) is committed to developing and maintaining a staff of qualified personnel to meet the current and anticipated needs in Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. The NCSD Qualification Program is described in Y/DD-694, Qualification Program, Nuclear Criticality Safety Department This document provides a listing of the roles and responsibilities of NCSD personnel with respect to training and details of the Training Management System (TMS) programs, Mentoring Checklists and Checksheets, as well as other documentation utilized to implement the program. This document supersedes Y/DD-696, Revision 2, dated 3/27/96, Training Implementation, Nuclear Criticality Safety Department. There are no backfit requirements associated with revisions to this document.

  6. Application of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation Equivalency to Construction of New Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BISHOP, G.E.

    1999-06-02T23:59:59.000Z

    The Spent Nuclear Fuels Project (SNFP) Office of the Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office, is charged with moving 2.100 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel elements left over from plutonium production into semi-permanent storage at DOE'S Hanford site in Washington state. In anticipation of eventual NRC regulation, the DOE decided to impose NRC requirements on new SNFP facility design and construction, specifically for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) and the Canister Storage Building (CSB). The SNFP implemented this policy of ''NRC equivalency'' with the goal of achieving a level of nuclear safety equivalent to that of NRC-licensed fuel processing facilities. Appropriate features of the NRC licensing process were adopted. However, the SNFP maintained applicable DOE requirements in tandem with the NRC regulations. Project work is continuing, with the first fuel movement scheduled for November, 2000.

  7. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy

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

    2011-02-08T23:59:59.000Z

    It is the policy of the Department of Energy to design, construct, operate, and decommission its nuclear facilities in a manner that ensures adequate protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Cancels SEN-35-91.

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

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

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

  9. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2001-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    To define the program for the management of cost-effective maintenance of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. Guidance for compliance with this Order is contained in DOE G 433.1-1, Nuclear Facility Maintenance Management Program Guide for use with DOE O 433.1, which references Federal regulations, DOE directives, and industry best practices using a graded approach to clarify requirements and guidance for maintaining DOE-owned Government property. (Cancels DOE 4330.4B, Chapter II, Maintenance Management Program, dated 2-10-94.) Cancels DOE 4330.4B (in part). Canceled by DOE O 433.1A.

  10. Nuclear Facilities | Department of Energy

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

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

  11. Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard

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

    2010-05-27T23:59:59.000Z

    A Nuclear Explosive Safety Study (NESS) is performed on all DOE Nuclear Explosive Operations (NEOs) in accordance with DOE O 452.1D, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program; DOE O 452.2D, Nuclear Explosive Safety; and DOE M 452.2-2, Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes.

  12. Item No. 3 process facilities cost estimates and schedules for facilities capability assurance program nuclear facilities modernization - FY 1989 line item, authorization No. D79

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1989-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Data is presented concerning cost estimates and schedules for process facilities and nuclear facilities modernization.

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rosen, Jay

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration

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

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

  16. NNSA and Defense Nuclear Facilities

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Saleshttp://www.fnal.gov/directorate/nalcal/nalcal02_07_05_files/nalcal.gif Directorate1, IssueThailand | National Nuclear Securityand

  17. Hazard classification criteria for non-nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahn, J.A.; Walker, S.A.

    1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Sandia National Laboratories` Integrated Risk Management Department has developed a process for establishing the appropriate hazard classification of a new facility or operation, and thus the level of rigor required for the associated authorization basis safety documentation. This process is referred to as the Preliminary Hazard Screen. DOE Order 5481.1B contains the following hazard classification for non-nuclear facilities: high--having the potential for onsite or offsite impacts to large numbers of persons or for major impacts to the environment; moderate--having the potential for considerable onsite impacts but only minor offsite impacts to people or the environment; low--having the potential for only minor onsite and negligible offsite impacts to people or the environment. It is apparent that the application of such generic criteria is more than likely to be fraught with subjective judgment. One way to remove the subjectivity is to define health and safety classification thresholds for specific hazards that are based on the magnitude of the hazard, rather than on a qualitative assessment of possible accident consequences. This paper presents the results of such an approach to establishing a readily usable set of non-nuclear facility hazard classifications.

  18. Treatment of gaseous effluents at nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goossen, W.R.A. [Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Mol (Belgium). Dept. of Chemical Engineering] [ed.; Eichholz, G.G.; Tedder, D.W. [eds.] [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)

    1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Airborne effluents from nuclear facilities represent the major environmental impact from such plants both under routine conditions or after plant accidents. Effective control of such emissions, therefore, constitutes a major aspect of plant design for nuclear power plants and other facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle. This volume brings together a number of review articles by experts in the various areas of concern and describes some of the removal systems that have been designed for power plants and, particularly, for reprocessing plants. Besides controlling the release of radionuclides, other potentially hazardous effluents, such as nitrous oxides, must be minimized, and these are included in some of the systems described. The various chapters deal with historic developments and current technology in reducing emission of fission products, noble gases, iodine, and tritium, and consider design requirements for practical installations.

  19. Y-12 Removes Nuclear Materials from Two Facilities to Reduce...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Home Field Offices Welcome to the NNSA Production Office NPO News Releases Y-12 Removes Nuclear Materials from Two Facilities ... Y-12 Removes Nuclear Materials from...

  20. CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Steel, May 29...

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

    Steel, May 29, 2009 CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Steel, May 29, 2009 May 29, 2009 Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Steel (HSS CRAD 64-16, Rev. 0) This...

  1. Remote machine engineering applications for nuclear facilities decommissioning

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Toto, G.; Wyle, H.R.

    1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Decontamination and decommissioning of a nuclear facility require the application of techniques that protect the worker and the enviroment from radiological contamination and radiation. Remotely operated portable robotic arms, machines, and devices can be applied. The use of advanced systems should enhance the productivity, safety, and cost facets of the efforts; remote automatic tooling and systems may be used on any job where job hazard and other factors justify application. Many problems based on costs, enviromental impact, health, waste generation, and political issues may be mitigated by use of remotely operated machines. The work that man can not do or should not do will have to be done by machines.

  2. Facilities Services and Environmental Health and Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy Solack; Carol Mason

    2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  4. Index to Nuclear Safety: a technical progress review by chronology, permuted title, and author, Volume 18 (1) through Volume 22 (6)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cottrell, W.B.; Passiakos, M.

    1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This index to Nuclear Safety covers articles published in Nuclear Safety, Volume 18, Number 1 (January-February 1977) through Volume 22, Number 6 (November-December 1981). The index is divided into three section: a chronological list of articles (including abstracts), a permuted-title (KWIC) index, and an author index. Nuclear Safety, a bimonthly technical progress review prepared by the Nuclear Safety Information Center, covers all safety aspects of nuclear power reactors and associated facilities. Over 300 technical articles published in Nuclear Safety in the last 5 years are listed in this index.

  5. CRAD, Nuclear Safety- Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a February 2007 assessment of the Nuclear Safety Program in preparation for restart of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor.

  6. Assessment of the facilities on Jackass Flats and other Nevada Test Site facilities for the new nuclear rocket program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, G.; Collins, D.; Dye, K.; Eberhart, C.; Hynes, M.; Kovach, R.; Ortiz, R.; Perea, J.; Sherman, D.

    1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Recent NASA/DOE studies for the Space Exploration Initiative have demonstrated a critical need for the ground-based testing of nuclear rocket engines. Experience in the ROVER/NERVA Program, experience in the Nuclear Weapons Testing Program, and involvement in the new nuclear rocket program has motivated our detailed assessment of the facilities used for the ROVER/NERVA Program and other facilities located at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The ROVER/NERVA facilities are located in the Nevada Research L, Development Area (NRDA) on Jackass Flats at NTS, approximately 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. To guide our assessment of facilities for an engine testing program we have defined a program goal, scope, and process. To execute this program scope and process will require ten facilities. We considered the use of all relevant facilities at NTS including existing and new tunnels as well as the facilities at NRDA. Aside from the facilities located at remote sites and the inter-site transportation system, all of the required facilities are available at NRDA. In particular we have studied the refurbishment of E-MAD, ETS-1, R-MAD, and the interconnecting railroad. The total cost for such a refurbishment we estimate to be about $253M which includes additional contractor fees related to indirect, construction management, profit, contingency, and management reserves. This figure also includes the cost of the required NEPA, safety, and security documentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Owen, P.T.; Knox, N.P.; Ferguson, S.D.; Fielden, J.M.; Schumann, P.L.

    1989-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 576 abstracted references on nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions constitute the tenth in a series of reports prepared annually for the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Programs. Citations to foreign and domestic literature of all types--technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, symposia proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions--have been included. The bibliography contains scientific, technical, economic, regulatory, and legal information pertinent to the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Programs. Major sections are (1) Surplus Facilities Management Program, (2) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning, (3) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, (4) Facilities Contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radionuclides, (5) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, (6) Uranium Mill Tailings Management, (7) Technical Measurements Center, and (8) General Remedial Action Program Studies. Within these categories, references are arranged alphabetically by first author. Those references having no individual author are listed by corporate affiliation or by publication description. Indexes are provided for author, corporate affiliation, title work, publication description, geographic location, subject category, and keywords.

  10. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Knox, N.P.; Webb, J.R.; Ferguson, S.D.; Goins, L.F.; Owen, P.T.

    1990-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 394 abstracted references on environmental restoration, nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions constitute the eleventh in a series of reports prepared annually for the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Programs. Citations to foreign and domestic literature of all types -- technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, symposia proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions -- have been included. The bibliography contains scientific, technical, economic, regulatory, and legal information pertinent to the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Programs. Major sections are (1) Surplus Facilities Management Program, (2) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning, (3) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Programs, (4) Facilities Contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radionuclides, (5) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, (6) Grand Junction Remedial Action Program, (7) Uranium Mill Tailings Management, (8) Technical Measurements Center, (9) Remedial Action Program, and (10) Environmental Restoration Program. Within these categories, references are arranged alphabetically by first author. Those references having no individual author are listed by corporate affiliation or by publication title. Indexes are provided for author, corporate affiliation, title word, publication description, geographic location, subject category, and keywords. This report is a product of the Remedial Action Program Information Center (RAPIC), which selects and analyzes information on remedial actions and relevant radioactive waste management technologies.

  11. Pantex receives two safety awards | National Nuclear Security...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    two safety awards | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear...

  12. Sandia Energy - Sandia Nuclear Power Safety Expert Elected to...

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

    Nuclear Power Safety Expert Elected to National Academy of Engineering Home Infrastructure Security Energy Nuclear Energy Capabilities News News & Events Research & Capabilities...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Linderoth, C.E.

    1984-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

    2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December...

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

    December 8, 2014 This document is the first annual report of DOE's Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program, managed by the Office of Nuclear Safety in the Office of...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety Requirements

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

    2007-08-28T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes Central Technical Authority and Chief of Nuclear Safety/Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety responsibilities and requirements directed by the Secretary of Energy in the development and issuance of Department of Energy regulations and directives that affect nuclear safety. No cancellations.

  19. Nuclear Safety Software & Quality Assurance | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  20. Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Process

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of Energy NorthB O|WorkNationalNuclear Energyi

  1. Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

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

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

  2. Office of Emergency Management UCF Facilities and Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Wu, Shin-Tson

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

  3. PRELIMINARY NUCLEAR CRITICALITY NUCLEAR SAFETY EVLAUATION FOR THE CONTAINER SURVEILLANCE AND STORAGE CAPABILITY PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Low, M; Matthew02 Miller, M; Thomas Reilly, T

    2007-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Washington Safety Management Solutions (WSMS) provides criticality safety services to Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC) at the Savannah River Site. One activity at SRS is the Container Surveillance and Storage Capability (CSSC) Project, which will perform surveillances on 3013 containers (hereafter referred to as 3013s) to verify that they meet the Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD) 3013 for plutonium storage. The project will handle quantities of material that are greater than ANS/ANSI-8.1 single parameter mass limits, and thus required a Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation (NCSE). The WSMS methodology for conducting an NCSE is outlined in the WSMS methods manual. The WSMS methods manual currently follows the requirements of DOE-O-420.1B, DOE-STD-3007-2007, and the Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC) SCD-3 manual. DOE-STD-3007-2007 describes how a NCSE should be performed, while DOE-O-420.1B outlines the requirements for a Criticality Safety Program (CSP). The WSRC SCD-3 manual implements DOE requirements and ANS standards. NCSEs do not address the Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) of non-reactor nuclear facilities that may be affected by overt or covert activities of sabotage, espionage, terrorism or other security malevolence. Events which are beyond the Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) are outside the scope of a double contingency analysis.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Human factors methods in DOE nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bennett, C.T.; Banks, W.W. (Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States)); Waters, R.J. (Department of Energy, Washington, DC (United States))

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of developing a series of guidelines for the use of human factors standards, procedures, and methods to be used in nuclear facilities. This paper discusses the philosophy and process being used to develop a DOE human factors methods handbook to be used during the design cycle. The following sections will discuss: (1) basic justification for the project; (2) human factors design objectives and goals; and (3) role of human factors engineering (HFE) in the design cycle.

  6. Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D

    2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laycak, D T

    2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. Office of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,39732onMake YourDepartment ofC TEnergy Nuclear Safety andNuclear

  9. NEW - DOE O 452.2E, Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    This Department of Energy (DOE) Order establishes requirements to implement the nuclear explosive safety (NES) elements of DOE O 452.1D, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program, or successor directive, for routine and planned nuclear explosive operations (NEOs).

  10. Double-clad nuclear fuel safety rod

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    McCarthy, William H. (Los Altos, CA); Atcheson, Donald B. (Cupertino, CA); Vaidyanathan, Swaminathan (San Jose, CA)

    1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A device for shutting down a nuclear reactor during an undercooling or overpower event, whether or not the reactor's scram system operates properly. This is accomplished by double-clad fuel safety rods positioned at various locations throughout the reactor core, wherein melting of a secondary internal cladding of the rod allows the fuel column therein to shift from the reactor core to place the reactor in a subcritical condition.

  11. Seismic requirements for design of nuclear power plants and nuclear test facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1985-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This standard establishes engineering requirements for the design of nuclear power plants and nuclear test facilities to accommodate vibratory effects of earthquakes.

  12. Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification, and Certification Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes selection, training, qualification, and certification requirements for contractor personnel who can impact the safety basis through their involvement in the operation, maintenance, and technical support of Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. Cancels DOE O 5480.20A. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-29-13, cancels DOE O 426.2.

  13. Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification, and Certification Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes selection, training, qualification, and certification requirements for contractor personnel who can impact the safety basis through their involvement in the operation, maintenance, and technical support of Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. Cancels DOE O 5480.20A. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-29-13.

  14. Nuclear Facility Construction- Structural Concrete, May 29, 2009 (HSS CRAD 64-15, Rev. 0)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Criteria Review and Approach Document (HSS CRAD 64-15) establishes review criteria and lines of inquiry used by the Office of Independent Oversight's Office of Environment, Safety and Health Evaluations to assess the quality of the manufacturing and placement of concrete used in nuclear facility construction at the Department of Energy

  15. CRAD, Nuclear Reactor Facility Operations - December 4, 2014...

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

    Reactor Facility Operations - December 4, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-08, Rev. 0) CRAD, Nuclear Reactor Facility Operations - December 4, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-08, Rev. 0) December 4, 2014 CRAD,...

  16. The necessity for permanence : making a nuclear waste storage facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Stupay, Robert Irving

    1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The United States Department of Energy is proposing to build a nuclear waste storage facility in southern Nevada. This facility will be designed to last 10,000 years. It must prevent the waste from contaminating the ...

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

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

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

  18. Underwater nuclear power plants: improved safety, environmental compatibility and efficiency

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galustov, K.Z.; Abadjyan, K.A.; Pavlov, A.B.

    1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The further development of nuclear power engineering depends on the creation of a new generation of nuclear power plant (NPP) projects that have a high degree of safety. Decisions ensuring secure NPP exploitation must be based on the possibility of eliminating or localizing accidents. Using environmental properties to achieve secure NPP exploitation and accident elimination leads to suggest the construction of NPPs in water. An efficient way to provide energy to remote coastal areas is through use of floatable construction of prefabricated units. Floatable construction raises the quality of works, reduces expenditures on industrial facilities, and facilities building conditions in districts with extreme climatic conditions. A type of NPP that is situated on a shelf with the reactor compartment placed at the sea bottom is proposed. The underwater location of the reactor compartment on the fixed depth allows the natural water environment conditions of natural hydrostatic pressure, heat transfer and circulation to provide NPP safety. An example of new concept for power units with under-water localization of the reactor compartment is provided by the double-block NPP in a VVER reactor.

  19. Safety Reports Series No. 11, Developing Safety Culture in Nuclear Activities: Practical Suggestions to Assist Progress, International Atomic Energy Agency

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Safety Reports Series No. 11, Developing Safety Culture in Nuclear Activities: Practical Suggestions to Assist Progress, International Atomic Energy Agency

  20. The LLNL Heavy Element Facility -- Facility Management, Authorization Basis, and Readiness Assessment Lessons Learned in the Heavy Element Facility (B251) Transition from Category II Nuclear Facility to Radiological Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mitchell, M; Anderson, B; Brown, E; Gray, L

    2006-04-10T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper presents Facility Management, Readiness Assessment, and Authorization Basis experience gained and lessons learned during the Heavy Element Facility Risk Reduction Program (RRP). The RRP was tasked with removing contaminated glove boxes, radioactive inventory, and contaminated ventilation systems from the Heavy Element Facility (B251) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The RRP was successful in its goal in April 2005 with the successful downgrade of B251 from a Category II Nuclear Facility to a Radiological Facility. The expertise gained and the lessons learned during the planning and conduct of the RRP included development of unique approaches in work planning/work control (''Expect the unexpected and confirm the expected'') and facility management. These approaches minimized worker dose and resulted in significant safety improvements and operational efficiencies. These lessons learned can help similar operational and management activities at other sites, including facilities restarting operations or new facility startup. B251 was constructed at LLNL to provide research areas for conducting experiments in radiochemistry using transuranic elements. Activities at B251 once included the preparation of tracer sets associated with the underground testing of nuclear devices and basic research devoted to a better understanding of the chemical and nuclear behavior of the transuranic elements. Due to the age of the facility, even with preventative maintenance, facility safety and experimental systems were deteriorating. A variety of seismic standards were used in the facility design and construction, which encompassed eight building increments constructed over a period of 26 years. The cost to bring the facility into compliance with the current seismic and other requirements was prohibitive, and simply maintaining B251 as a Category II nuclear facility posed serious cost considerations under a changing regulatory environment. Considering the high cost of maintenance and seismic upgrades, the RRP was created to mitigate the risk of dispersal of radioactive material during an earthquake by removing the radioactive materials inventory and glove box contamination. LLNL adopted the goal of reducing the hazard categorization of the Facility from a Category II Nuclear Facility to a Radiological Facility. To support the RRP, B251 transitioned from a standby to a fully operational Category II Nuclear Facility, compliant with current regulations. A work control process was developed, procedures were developed, Authorization Basis Documents were created, work plans were written, off-normal drills practiced, a large number of USQ reviews were conducted, and a ''Type II'' Readiness Assessment (RA) was conducted to restart operations. Subsequent RA's focused on specific operations. Finally, a four-step process was followed to reach Radiological Status: (1) Inventory Reduction and D&D activities reduced the inventory and radiological contamination of the facility below the Category III threshold (DOE-STD-1027), (2) Radiological Safety Basis Document (SBD aka HAR) was approved by NNSA, (3) the inventory control system for a Radiological Facility was implemented, and (4) verification by NNSA of radiological status was completed.

  1. CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports...

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

    March 29, 2012 Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection Criteria, Approach and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 45-52, Rev. 0) This Criteria Review and...

  2. Innovative cement helps DOE safeguard nuclear facilities | Argonne...

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

    Innovative cement helps DOE safeguard nuclear facilities By Jared Sagoff * April 25, 2008 Tweet EmailPrint ARGONNE, Ill. - When Argonne materials scientists Arun Wagh and Dileep...

  3. WIPP-025, Rev. 0 Summary of Nuclear Criticality Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant #12;SUMMARY OF NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATION FOR SHIELDED CONTAINERS PLANT WIPP-025, REV. 0 AUGUST 2009 Summary of Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation for Shielded ISOLATION PILOT PLANT WIPP-025, REV. 0 AUGUST 2009 ES-1 Executive Summary This report summarizes the nuclear

  4. Ris-M-2944(EN) Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    for Maintaining Nuclear Knowledge 23 3.3. DR 1 24 4. THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTION 26 4.1. Waste Management 26 4Risř-M-2944(EN) 3> Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Progress Report 1990 Edited by F. Heikel Vinther Risř National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark July 1991 #12;Nuclear Safety Research

  5. Safety program considerations for space nuclear reactor systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cropp, L.O.

    1984-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report discusses the necessity for in-depth safety program planning for space nuclear reactor systems. The objectives of the safety program and a proposed task structure is presented for meeting those objectives. A proposed working relationship between the design and independent safety groups is suggested. Examples of safety-related design philosophies are given.

  6. Nuclear Safety Policy - DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

    ARCHIVED SEN-35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy by jnichols Functional areas: Environment, Safety, and Health, Canceled by DOE P 420.1 n3591.pdf -- PDF Document, 20 KB Writer: jnichols...

  7. MANAGING BERYLLIUM IN NUCLEAR FACILITY APPLICATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. Rohe; T. N. Tranter

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Beryllium plays important roles in nuclear facilities. Its neutron multiplication capability and low atomic weight make it very useful as a reflector in fission reactors. Its low atomic number and high chemical affinity for oxygen have led to its consideration as a plasma-facing material in fusion reactors. In both applications, the beryllium and the impurities in it become activated by neutrons, transmuting them to radionuclides, some of which are long-lived and difficult to dispose of. Also, gas production, notably helium and tritium, results in swelling, embrittlement, and cracking, which means that the beryllium must be replaced periodically, especially in fission reactors where dimensional tolerances must be maintained. It has long been known that neutron activation of inherent iron and cobalt in the beryllium results in significant {sup 60}Co activity. In 2001, it was discovered that activation of naturally occurring contaminants in the beryllium creates sufficient {sup 14}C and {sup 94}Nb to render the irradiated beryllium 'Greater-Than-Class-C' for disposal in U.S. radioactive waste facilities. It was further found that there was sufficient uranium impurity in beryllium that had been used in fission reactors up to that time that the irradiated beryllium had become transuranic in character, making it even more difficult to dispose of. In this paper we review the extent of the disposal issue, processes that have been investigated or considered for improving the disposability of irradiated beryllium, and approaches for recycling.

  8. Sandia Energy - Sandia Teaches Nuclear Safety Course

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of ScienceandMesa del Sol Home Distribution GridDocuments HomeDatabase on EngineATeaches Nuclear Safety

  9. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently Asked QuestionsDepartment ofDepartment640 FederalDepartment ofNRC'sNuclear Safety

  10. Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-16T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes requirements for verifying readiness for startup of new Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations, and for restart of existing Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations that have been shut down. Cancels DOE O 425.1C. Adm Chg 1, dated 4-2-13.

  11. Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-4, Safety Culture: A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, International Atomic Energy Agency

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-4, Safety Culture: A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, 1991

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Part of the National Nuclear User Facility Culham Materials

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Part of the National Nuclear User Facility Culham Materials Research Facility #12;Introduction from Professor Steve Cowley Culham's Materials Research Facility (MRF) is a valuable addition to the UK's suite and fusion ­ with equipment for the processing and micro-characterisation of radioactive materials, for on

  14. Modern tornado design of nuclear and other potentially hazardous facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stevenson, J.D. [J.D. Stevenson Consulting Engineer, Cleveland, OH (United States); Zhao, Y. [Battele Energy Systems Group, Columbus, OH (United States)

    1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Tornado wind loads and other tornado phenomena, including tornado missiles and differential pressure effects, have not usually been considered in the design of conventional industrial, commercial, or residential facilities in the United States; however, tornado resistance has often become a design requirement for certain hazardous facilities, such as large nuclear power plants and nuclear materials and waste storage facilities, as well as large liquefied natural gas storage facilities. This article provides a review of current procedures for the design of hazardous industrial facilities to resist tornado effects. 23 refs., 19 figs., 13 tabs.

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

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

    This SRP, Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review, consists of five volumes. It provides information to help strengthen the technical rigor of line management oversight and federal...

  16. Nuclear Safety Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation...

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

    Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation Nuclear Safety Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation 9222014 Enforcement Letter, Sandia Corporation, September 22, 2014...

  17. Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Safety Research document "MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY - Evidence from maintenance reorganizations," NKS 119, March 2006. xiv | RECOMMENDATIONS Enforcement and...

  18. Spent Nuclear Fuel project integrated safety management plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Daschke, K.D.

    1996-09-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is being revised in its entirety and the document title is being revised to ``Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Integrated Safety Management Plan.

  19. ICF Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Defense Programs Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Inertial Confinement Fusion ICF Facilities ICF Facilities Nike mirror array and lens array ICF operates a set...

  20. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Operations Manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    2000-02-03T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the Operations Manual for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The Manual was developed in conjunction with HNF-SD-SNF-SAR-002, Safety Analysis Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Phase 2, Supporting Installation of the Processing Systems (Garvin 1998) and, the HNF-SD-SNF-DRD-002, 1997, Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Design Requirements, Rev. 3a. The Operations Manual contains general descriptions of all the process, safety and facility systems in the CVDF, a general CVD operations sequence, and has been developed for the spent nuclear fuel project (SNFP) Operations Organization and shall be updated, expanded, and revised in accordance with future design, construction and startup phases of the CVDF until the CVDF final ORR is approved.

  1. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Operations Manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-07-02T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the Operations Manual for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The Manual was developed in conjunction with HNF-553, Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Final Safety Analysis Report Annex B--Cold Vacuum Drying Facility. The HNF-SD-SNF-DRD-002, 1999, Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Design Requirements, Rev. 4, and the CVDF Final Design Report. The Operations Manual contains general descriptions of all the process, safety and facility systems in the CVDF, a general CVD operations sequence and references to the CVDF System Design Descriptions (SDDs). This manual has been developed for the SNFP Operations Organization and shall be updated, expanded, and revised in accordance with future design, construction and startup phases of the CVDF until the CVDF final ORR is approved.

  2. Technical Basis for U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, DOE Policy 420.1

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This document provides the technical basis for the Department of Energy (DOE) Policy (P) 420.1, Nuclear Safety Policy, dated 2-8-2011. It includes an analysis of the revised Policy to determine whether it provides the necessary and sufficient high-level expectations that will lead DOE to establish and implement appropriate requirements to assure protection of the public, workers, and the environment from the hazards of DOE’s operation of nuclear facilities.

  3. Nuclear Engineer

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  4. Nuclear Engineer

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  5. Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Self-Assessment- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Report was prepared to summarize the results of the July 2013 CNS self-assessment of the Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program.

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

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

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

  7. Nuclear criticality safety in D and D operations: a Los Alamos experience

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schlesser, J.A.

    1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Decommissioning operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory require the interaction of several disciplines so that the effort to D&D radiological facilities can proceed unencumbered, on schedule, and within budget. Although playing a minor role, the Laboratory`s Nuclear Criticality Safety Group has provided criticality safety guidance to one such D&D team efficiently and cost-effectively. During the first major D&D effort at Los Alamos, a total of about 6 kilograms of uranium [U(93)] was recovered from a facility thought to contain only tens of grams.

  8. PRTR/309 building nuclear facility preliminary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cornwell, B.C.

    1994-12-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The hazard classification of the Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor (PRTR)/309 building as a ``Radiological Facility`` and the office portions as ``Other Industrial Facility`` are documented by this report. This report provides: a synopsis of the history and facility it`s uses; describes major area of the facility; and assesses the radiological conditions for the facility segments. The assessment is conducted using the hazard category threshold values, segmentation methodology, and graded approach guidance of DOE-STD-1027-92.

  9. Status and Value of International Standards for Nuclear Criticality Safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hopper, Calvin Mitchell [ORNL] [ORNL

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This presentation provides an update to the author's standards report provided at the ICNC-2007 meeting. It includes a discussion about the difference between, and the value of participating in, the development of international 'consensus' standards as opposed to nonconsensus standards. Standards are developed for a myriad of reasons. Generally, standards represent an agreed upon, repeatable way of doing something as defined by an individual or group of people. They come in various types. Examples include personal, family, business, industrial, commercial, and regulatory such as military, community, state, federal, and international standards. Typically, national and international 'consensus' standards are developed by individuals and organizations of diverse backgrounds representing the subject matter users and developers of a service or product and other interested parties or organizations. Within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 (TC85) on nuclear energy, Subcommittee 5 (SC5) on nuclear fuel technology, there is a Working Group 8 (WG8) on standardization of calculations, procedures, and practices related to criticality safety. WG8 has developed, and is developing, ISO standards within the category of nuclear criticality safety of fissionable materials outside of reactors (i.e., nonreactor fissionable material nuclear fuel cycle facilities). Since the presentation of the ICNC-2007 report, WG8 has issued three new finalized international standards and is developing two more new standards. Nearly all elements of the published WG8 ISO standards have been incorporated into IAEA nonconsensus guides and standards. The progression of consensus standards development among international partners in a collegial environment establishes a synergy of different concepts that broadens the perspectives of the members. This breadth of perspectives benefits the working group members in their considerations of consensus standards developments in their own countries. A testament to the value of the international standards efforts is that nearly all elements of the published WG8 ISO standards have been incorporated into IAEA nonconsensus guides and standards and are mainly consistent with international ISO member domestic standards.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gantt, D.A.

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Nuclear nonproliferation and safety: Challenges facing the International Atomic Energy Agency

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Govermental Affairs asked the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the safeguards and nuclear power plant safety programs of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This report examines (1) the effectiveness of IAEA`s safeguards program and the adequacy of program funding, (2) the management of U.S. technical assistance to the IAEA`s safeguards program, and (3) the effectiveness of IAEA`s program for advising United Nations (UN) member states about nuclear power plant safety and the adequacy of program funding. Under its statute and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, IAEA is mandated to administer safeguards to detect diversions of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful uses. Because of limits on budget growth and unpaid contributions, IAEA has had difficulty funding the safeguards program. IAEA also conducts inspections of facilities or locations containing declared nuclear material, and manages a program for reviewing the operational safety of designated nuclear power plants. The U.S. technical assistance program for IAEA safeguards, overseen by an interagency coordinating committee, has enhanced the agency`s inspection capabilities, however, some weaknesses still exist. Despite financial limitations, IAEA is meeting its basic safety advisory responsibilities for advising UN member states on nuclear safety and providing requested safety services. However, IAEA`s program for reviewing the operational safety of nuclear power plants has not been fully effective because the program is voluntary and UN member states have not requested IAEA`s review of all nuclear reactors with serious problems. GAO believes that IAEA should have more discretion in selecting reactors for review.

  14. Ris-R-739(p*tf Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    D. i3 Risř-R-739(p*tf Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Progress Report 1993 Edited by B 1994 #12;Nuclear Safety Research ****-mp. The activities cover health physics, reactor physics, operation of the small reactor DR.1, and radioactive waste

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  16. Providing Nuclear Criticality Safety Analysis Education through Benchmark Experiment Evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John D. Bess; J. Blair Briggs; David W. Nigg

    2009-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    One of the challenges that today's new workforce of nuclear criticality safety engineers face is the opportunity to provide assessment of nuclear systems and establish safety guidelines without having received significant experience or hands-on training prior to graduation. Participation in the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) and/or the International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP) provides students and young professionals the opportunity to gain experience and enhance critical engineering skills.

  17. Just in Time DSA-The Hanford Nuclear Safety Basis Strategy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Olinger, S. J.; Buhl, A. R.

    2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) is responsible for 30 hazard category 2 and 3 nuclear facilities that are operated by its prime contractors, Fluor Hanford Incorporated (FHI), Bechtel Hanford, Incorporated (BHI) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The publication of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 830, Subpart B, Safety Basis Requirements (the Rule) in January 2001 imposed the requirement that the Documented Safety Analyses (DSA) for these facilities be reviewed against the requirements of the Rule. Those DSA that do not meet the requirements must either be upgraded to satisfy the Rule, or an exemption must be obtained. RL and its prime contractors have developed a Nuclear Safety Strategy that provides a comprehensive approach for supporting RL's efforts to meet its long term objectives for hazard category 2 and 3 facilities while also meeting the requirements of the Rule. This approach will result in a reduction of the total number of safety basis documents that must be developed and maintained to support the remaining mission and closure of the Hanford Site and ensure that the documentation that must be developed will support: compliance with the Rule; a ''Just-In-Time'' approach to development of Rule-compliant safety bases supported by temporary exemptions; and consolidation of safety basis documents that support multiple facilities with a common mission (e.g. decontamination, decommissioning and demolition [DD&D], waste management, surveillance and maintenance). This strategy provides a clear path to transition the safety bases for the various Hanford facilities from support of operation and stabilization missions through DD&D to accelerate closure. This ''Just-In-Time'' Strategy can also be tailored for other DOE Sites, creating the potential for large cost savings and schedule reductions throughout the DOE complex.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  19. INTEGRATION OF FACILITY MODELING CAPABILITIES FOR NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ANALYSIS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gorensek, M.; Hamm, L.; Garcia, H.; Burr, T.; Coles, G.; Edmunds, T.; Garrett, A.; Krebs, J.; Kress, R.; Lamberti, V.; Schoenwald, D.; Tzanos, C.; Ward, R.

    2011-07-18T23:59:59.000Z

    Developing automated methods for data collection and analysis that can facilitate nuclear nonproliferation assessment is an important research area with significant consequences for the effective global deployment of nuclear energy. Facility modeling that can integrate and interpret observations collected from monitored facilities in order to ascertain their functional details will be a critical element of these methods. Although improvements are continually sought, existing facility modeling tools can characterize all aspects of reactor operations and the majority of nuclear fuel cycle processing steps, and include algorithms for data processing and interpretation. Assessing nonproliferation status is challenging because observations can come from many sources, including local and remote sensors that monitor facility operations, as well as open sources that provide specific business information about the monitored facilities, and can be of many different types. Although many current facility models are capable of analyzing large amounts of information, they have not been integrated in an analyst-friendly manner. This paper addresses some of these facility modeling capabilities and illustrates how they could be integrated and utilized for nonproliferation analysis. The inverse problem of inferring facility conditions based on collected observations is described, along with a proposed architecture and computer framework for utilizing facility modeling tools. After considering a representative sampling of key facility modeling capabilities, the proposed integration framework is illustrated with several examples.

  20. Nuclear criticality safety engineer qualification program utilizing SAT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Baltimore, C.J.; Dean, J.C.; Henson, T.L. [Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc., Paducah, KY (United States)

    1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the privatization process of the U.S. uranium enrichment plants, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) have been in transition from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regulatory oversight to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversight since July 1993. One of the focus areas of this transition has been training and qualification of plant personnel who perform tasks important to nuclear safety, such as nuclear criticality safety (NCS) engineers.

  1. MISSION AND NEED FOR A FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE FACILITY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    MISSION AND NEED FOR A FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE FACILITY Mission Gerald Navratil Need Mohamed Abdou (Deputy Chair, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) Ron Stambaugh (Deputy Chair, General Atomics) Mohamed Abdou

  2. Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities

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

    2014-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

    The Guide was developed in support of DOE O 226.1B to provide guidance that may be useful to DOE line management organizations in meeting the provisions of that order when applied to nuclear facilities.

  3. Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities

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

    2013-04-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Guide was developed in support of DOE O 226.1B to provide guidance that may be useful to DOE line management organizations in meeting the provisions of that order when applied to nuclear facilities.

  4. Aging of Class 1E batteries in safety systems of nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Edson, J.L.; Hardin, J.E.

    1987-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report presents the results of a study of aging effects on safety-related batteries in nuclear power plants. The purpose is to evaluate the aging effects caused by operation within a nuclear facility and to evaluate maintenance, testing, and monitoring practices with respect to their effectiveness in detecting and mitigating the effects of aging. The study follows the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Nuclear Plant-Aging Research approach and investigates the materials used in battery construction, identifies stressors and aging mechanisms, presents operating and testing experience with aging effects, analyzes battery-failure events reported in various data bases, and evaluates recommended maintenance practices. Data bases that were analyzed included the NRC's Licensee Event Report system, the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations' Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's In-Plant Reliability Data System, and The S.M. Stoller Corporation's Nuclear Power Experience data base.

  5. Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project, October 2010 Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste...

  6. Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-16T23:59:59.000Z

    The order establishes requirements for verifying readiness for startup of new Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations, and for restart of existing Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, activities, and operations that have been shut down. Cancels DOE O 425.1C. Adm Chg 1, dated 4-2-13, cancels DOE O 425.1D.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1999-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  8. Design and Transient Analysis of Passive Safety Cooling Systems for Advanced Nuclear Reactors

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Galvez, Cristhian

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    passive safety cooling systems. To develop an understandingthe passive safety cooling system and recommend an approachof Passive Safety Cooling Systems for Advanced Nuclear

  9. Facility Approvals, Security Surveys, and Nuclear Materials Surveys

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

    1988-02-03T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish the Department of Energy (DOE) requirements for granting facility approvals prior to permitting safeguards and security interests on the premises and the conduct of on-site security and/or nuclear material surveys of facilities with safeguards and security interests. Cancels DOE O 5630.7 and DOE O 5634.1. Canceled by DOE 5634.1B.

  10. Facility Approvals, Security Surveys, and Nuclear Materials Surveys

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

    1992-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish Department of Energy (DOE) requirements for granting facility approvals prior to permitting safeguards and security interests on the premises and the conduct of insite security and/or nuclear material surveys of facilities with safeguards and security interests. Cancels DOE 5634.1A. Canceled by DOE O 470.1 dated 9-28-95.

  11. Contained Firing Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    information visit the CFF webpage. CFF The containment chamber at LLNL's Contained Firing Facility Related Topics Maintaining the Stockpile stockpile stewardship R&D llnl Related...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure...

  14. Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2001-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

    To establish selection, qualification, and training requirements for management and operating (M&O) contractor personnel involved in the operation, maintenance, and technical support of Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration Category A and B reactors and non-reactor nuclear facilities. Canceled by DOE O 426.2

  15. Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) Challenges and Facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) Challenges and Facilities on the Pathway to DEMO Princeton,NJ 7-10 September 2011 1 #12;Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) must be the Central and Technology Center (UCLA) President, Council of Energy Research and Education Leaders, CEREL (USA) With input

  16. A systematic method for identifying vital areas at complex nuclear facilities.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beck, David Franklin; Hockert, John

    2005-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Identifying the areas to be protected is an important part of the development of measures for physical protection against sabotage at complex nuclear facilities. In June 1999, the International Atomic Energy Agency published INFCIRC/225/Rev.4, 'The Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities.' This guidance recommends that 'Safety specialists, in close cooperation with physical protection specialists, should evaluate the consequences of malevolent acts, considered in the context of the State's design basis threat, to identify nuclear material, or the minimum complement of equipment, systems or devices to be protected against sabotage.' This report presents a structured, transparent approach for identifying the areas that contain this minimum complement of equipment, systems, and devices to be protected against sabotage that is applicable to complex nuclear facilities. The method builds upon safety analyses to develop sabotage fault trees that reflect sabotage scenarios that could cause unacceptable radiological consequences. The sabotage actions represented in the fault trees are linked to the areas from which they can be accomplished. The fault tree is then transformed (by negation) into its dual, the protection location tree, which reflects the sabotage actions that must be prevented in order to prevent unacceptable radiological consequences. The minimum path sets of this fault tree dual yield, through the area linkage, sets of areas, each of which contains nuclear material, or a minimum complement of equipment, systems or devices that, if protected, will prevent sabotage. This method also provides guidance for the selection of the minimum path set that permits optimization of the trade-offs among physical protection effectiveness, safety impact, cost and operational impact.

  17. Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility operations manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the Operations Manual for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The Manual was developed in conjunction with HNF-SD-SNF-SAR-002, Safety Analysis Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Phase 2, Supporting Installation of Processing Systems (Garvin 1998) and, the HNF-SD-SNF-DRD-002, 1997, Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Design Requirements, Rev. 3a. The Operations Manual contains general descriptions of all the process, safety and facility systems in the CVDF, a general CVD operations sequence, and has been developed for the SNFP Operations Organization and shall be updated, expanded, and revised in accordance with future design, construction and startup phases of the CVDF until the CVDF final ORR is approved.

  18. Construction Cost Growth for New Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kubic, Jr., William L. [Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)

    2014-05-25T23:59:59.000Z

    Cost growth and construction delays are problems that plague many large construction projects including the construction of new Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. A study was conducted to evaluate cost growth of large DOE construction projects. The purpose of the study was to compile relevant data, consider the possible causes of cost growth, and recommend measures that could be used to avoid extreme cost growth in the future. Both large DOE and non-DOE construction projects were considered in this study. With the exception of Chemical and Metallurgical Research Building Replacement Project (CMRR) and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), cost growth for DOE Nuclear facilities is comparable to the growth experienced in other mega construction projects. The largest increase in estimated cost was found to occur between early cost estimates and establishing the project baseline during detailed design. Once the project baseline was established, cost growth for DOE nuclear facilities was modest compared to non-DOE mega projects.

  19. Test facilities for evaluating nuclear thermal propulsion systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beck, D.F.; Allen, G.C.; Shipers, L.R.; Dobranich, D.; Ottinger, C.A.; Harmon, C.D.; Fan, W.C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)); Todosow, M. (Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States))

    1992-09-22T23:59:59.000Z

    Interagency panels evaluating nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) development options have consistently recognized the need for constructing a major new ground test facility to support fuel element and engine testing. This paper summarizes the requirements, configuration, and baseline performance of some of the major subsystems designed to support a proposed ground test complex for evaluating nuclear thermal propulsion fuel elements and engines being developed for the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) program. Some preliminary results of evaluating this facility for use in testing other NTP concepts are also summarized.

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Nero, A.V.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  1. Nuclear Safety Workshop Agenda - Post Fukushima Initiatives and...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Initiatives and Results In response to the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Secretary Chu initiated a series of actions to review the safety of...

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Nero, A.V.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA Energy and Environment

  3. Nuclear Safety Design Principles & the Concept of Independence: Insights from Nuclear Weapon Safety for Other High-Consequence Applications.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brewer, Jeffrey D.

    2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Insights developed within the U.S. nuclear weapon system safety community may benefit system safety design, assessment, and management activities in other high consequence domains. The approach of assured nuclear weapon safety has been developed that uses the Nuclear Safety Design Principles (NSDPs) of incompatibility, isolation, and inoperability to design safety features, organized into subsystems such that each subsystem contributes to safe system responses in independent and predictable ways given a wide range of environmental contexts. The central aim of the approach is to provide a robust technical basis for asserting that a system can meet quantitative safety requirements in the widest context of possible adverse or accident environments, while using the most concise arrangement of safety design features and the fewest number of specific adverse or accident environment assumptions. Rigor in understanding and applying the concept of independence is crucial for the success of the approach. This paper provides a basic description of the assured nuclear weapon safety approach, in a manner that illustrates potential application to other domains. There is also a strong emphasis on describing the process for developing a defensible technical basis for the independence assertions between integrated safety subsystems.

  4. Dismantlement and Radioactive Waste Management of DPRK Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jooho, W.; Baldwin, G. T.

    2005-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    One critical aspect of any denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) involves dismantlement of its nuclear facilities and management of their associated radioactive wastes. The decommissioning problem for its two principal operational plutonium facilities at Yongbyun, the 5MWe nuclear reactor and the Radiochemical Laboratory reprocessing facility, alone present a formidable challenge. Dismantling those facilities will create radioactive waste in addition to existing inventories of spent fuel and reprocessing wastes. Negotiations with the DPRK, such as the Six Party Talks, need to appreciate the enormous scale of the radioactive waste management problem resulting from dismantlement. The two operating plutonium facilities, along with their legacy wastes, will result in anywhere from 50 to 100 metric tons of uranium spent fuel, as much as 500,000 liters of liquid high-level waste, as well as miscellaneous high-level waste sources from the Radiochemical Laboratory. A substantial quantity of intermediate-level waste will result from disposing 600 metric tons of graphite from the reactor, an undetermined quantity of chemical decladding liquid waste from reprocessing, and hundreds of tons of contaminated concrete and metal from facility dismantlement. Various facilities for dismantlement, decontamination, waste treatment and packaging, and storage will be needed. The shipment of spent fuel and liquid high level waste out of the DPRK is also likely to be required. Nuclear facility dismantlement and radioactive waste management in the DPRK are all the more difficult because of nuclear nonproliferation constraints, including the call by the United States for “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement,” or “CVID.” It is desirable to accomplish dismantlement quickly, but many aspects of the radioactive waste management cannot be achieved without careful assessment, planning and preparation, sustained commitment, and long completion times. The radioactive waste management problem in fact offers a prospect for international participation to engage the DPRK constructively. DPRK nuclear dismantlement, when accompanied with a concerted effort for effective radioactive waste management, can be a mutually beneficial goal.

  5. aerospace nuclear safety: Topics by E-print Network

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

    aerospace nuclear safety First Page Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next Page Last Page Topic Index 1 AEROSPACE SAFETY ADVISORY...

  6. Nuclear Rocket Facility Decommissioning Project: Controlled Explosive Demolition of Neutron Activated Shield Wall

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael R. Kruzic

    2007-09-16T23:59:59.000Z

    Located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), the Test Cell A (TCA) Facility was used in the early to mid-1960s for the testing of nuclear rocket engines, as part of the Nuclear Rocket Development Program, to further space travel. Nuclear rocket testing resulted in the activation of materials around the reactors and the release of fission products and fuel particles in the immediate area. Identified as Corrective Action Unit 115, the TCA facility was decontaminated and decommissioned (D&D) from December 2004 to July 2005 using the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) process, under the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order''. The SAFER process allows environmental remediation and facility closure activities (i.e., decommissioning) to occur simultaneously provided technical decisions are made by an experienced decision maker within the site conceptual site model, identified in the Data Quality Objective process. Facility closure involved a seven-step decommissioning strategy. Key lessons learned from the project included: (1) Targeted preliminary investigation activities provided a more solid technical approach, reduced surprises and scope creep, and made the working environment safer for the D&D worker. (2) Early identification of risks and uncertainties provided opportunities for risk management and mitigation planning to address challenges and unanticipated conditions. (3) Team reviews provided an excellent mechanism to consider all aspects of the task, integrated safety into activity performance, increase team unity and ''buy-in'' and promoted innovative and time saving ideas. (4) Development of CED protocols ensured safety and control. (5) The same proven D&D strategy is now being employed on the larger ''sister'' facility, Test Cell C.

  7. Privatization of the gaseous diffusion plants and impacts on nuclear criticality safety administration

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D`Aquila, D.M.; Holliday, R.T. [Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc., Piketon, OH (United States); Dean, J.C. [Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc., Paducah, KY (United States)

    1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Energy Policy Act of 1992 created the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) on July 1, 1993. The USEC is a government-owned business that leases those Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, sites from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that are required for enriching uranium. Lockheed Martin Utility Services is the operating contractor for the USEC-leased facilities. The DOE has retained use of, and regulation over, some facilities and areas at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites for managing legacy wastes and environmental restoration activities. The USEC is regulated by the DOE, but is currently changing to regulation under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The USEC is also preparing for privatization of the uranium enrichment enterprise. These changes have significantly affected the nuclear criticality safety (NCS) programs at the sites.

  8. A Safer Nuclear Enterprise - Application to Nuclear Explosive Safety (NES)(U)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Morris, Tommy J. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-07-05T23:59:59.000Z

    Activities and infrastructure that support nuclear weapons are facing significant challenges. Despite an admirable record and firm commitment to make safety a primary criterion in weapons design, production, handling, and deployment - there is growing apprehension about terrorist acquiring weapons or nuclear material. At the NES Workshop in May 2012, Scott Sagan, who is a proponent of the normal accident cycle, presented. Whether a proponent of the normal accident cycle or High Reliability Organizations - we have to be diligent about our safety record. Constant vigilance is necessary to maintain our admirable safety record and commitment to Nuclear Explosive Safety.

  9. Assessment of Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Facility and Capability Needs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    James Werner

    2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The development of a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) system rests heavily upon being able to fabricate and demonstrate the performance of a high temperature nuclear fuel as well as demonstrating an integrated system prior to launch. A number of studies have been performed in the past which identified the facilities needed and the capabilities available to meet the needs and requirements identified at that time. Since that time, many facilities and capabilities within the Department of Energy have been removed or decommissioned. This paper provides a brief overview of the anticipated facility needs and identifies some promising concepts to be considered which could support the development of a nuclear thermal propulsion system. Detailed trade studies will need to be performed to support the decision making process.

  10. Summary engineering description of underwater fuel storage facility for foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahlke, H.J.; Johnson, D.A.; Rawlins, J.K.; Searle, D.K.; Wachs, G.W.

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is a summary description for an Underwater Fuel Storage Facility (UFSF) for foreign research reactor (FRR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF). A FRR SNF environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared and will include both wet and dry storage facilities as storage alternatives. For the UFSF presented in this document, a specific site is not chosen. This facility can be sited at any one of the five locations under consideration in the EIS. These locations are the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Savannah River Site, Hanford, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Nevada Test Site. Generic facility environmental impacts and emissions are provided in this report. A baseline fuel element is defined in Section 2.2, and the results of a fission product analysis are presented. Requirements for a storage facility have been researched and are summarized in Section 3. Section 4 describes three facility options: (1) the Centralized-UFSF, which would store the entire fuel element quantity in a single facility at a single location, (2) the Regionalized Large-UFSF, which would store 75% of the fuel element quantity in some region of the country, and (3) the Regionalized Small-UFSF, which would store 25% of the fuel element quantity, with the possibility of a number of these facilities in various regions throughout the country. The operational philosophy is presented in Section 5, and Section 6 contains a description of the equipment. Section 7 defines the utilities required for the facility. Cost estimates are discussed in Section 8, and detailed cost estimates are included. Impacts to worker safety, public safety, and the environment are discussed in Section 9. Accidental releases are presented in Section 10. Standard Environmental Impact Forms are included in Section 11.

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Spyropoulos, B

    1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  12. Guide for the Mitigation of Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and NonNuclear Facilities

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

    2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides guidance in implementing the Natural Phenomena Hazard (NPH) mitigation requirements of DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety, Section 4.4, "Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation." This Guide does not establish or invoke any new requirements. Any apparent conflicts arising from the NPH guidance would defer to the requirements in DOE O 420.1. No cancellation.

  13. Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program - DOE Directives...

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

    1E, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program by Angela Chambers Functional areas: Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Defense Programs, Nuclear Weapons...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. FACILITY SAFETY PLAN Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

  16. FAQS Qualification Card – Nuclear Explosive Safety Study

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A key element for the Department’s Technical Qualification Programs is a set of common Functional Area Qualification Standards (FAQS) and associated Job Task Analyses (JTA). These standards are developed for various functional areas of responsibility in the Department, including oversight of safety management programs identified as hazard controls in Documented Safety Analyses (DSA).

  17. Lessons Learned from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and the Safe Termination of Nuclear Activities. Outcomes of the International Conference, 11-15 December 2006, Athens, Greece

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Batandjieva, B.; Laraia, M. [International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (Austria)

    2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Full text of publication follows: decommissioning activities are increasing worldwide covering wide range of facilities - from nuclear power plant, through fuel cycle facilities to small laboratories. The importance of these activities is growing with the recognition of the need for ensuring safe termination of practices and reuse of sites for various purposes, including the development of new nuclear facilities. Decommissioning has been undertaken for more than forty years and significant knowledge has been accumulated and lessons have been learned. However the number of countries encountering decommissioning for the first time is increasing with the end of the lifetime of the facilities around the world, in particular in countries with small nuclear programmes (e.g. one research reactor) and limited human and financial resources. In order to facilitate the exchange of lessons learned and good practices between all Member States and to facilitate and improve safety of the planned, ongoing and future decommissioning projects, the IAEA in cooperation with the Nuclear Energy Agency to OECD, European Commission and World Nuclear Association organised the international conference on Lessons Learned from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and the Safe Termination of Nuclear Activities, held in Athens, Greece. The conference also highlighted areas where future cooperation at national and international level is required in order to improve decommissioning planning and safety during decommissioning and to facilitate decommissioning by selecting appropriate strategies and technologies for decontamination, dismantling and management of waste. These and other aspects discussed at the conference are presented in this paper, together with the planned IAEA measures for amendment and implementation of the International Action Plan on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and its future programme on decommissioning.

  18. Adapting Dismantling and Decommissioning Strategies to a Variety of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities - 12237

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chambon, Frederic [AREVA Federal Services LLC (United States); Clement, Gilles [AREVA NC (France)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    AREVA has accumulated over 20 years of experience in managing and operating fuel cycle facilities Decontamination and Decommissioning (D and D) projects of many different types and a variety of scales, both as facility owner (at La Hague for example) and as prime contractor to external customers such as the French Atomic Energy Commission (at Marcoule). A specific Business Unit was created in 2008 to capitalize on this experience and to concentrate - in one division - the specific skills required to be successful and cost effective in decommissioning projects. Indeed one of the key lessons learned in the past decades is that decommissioning is a significantly different business as compared to normal operations of a nuclear facility. Almost all the functions of a project need to be viewed from a different angle, challenged and adapted consequently in order to optimize costs and schedule. Three examples follow to illustrate the point: Safety management needs to take into account the ever changing configuration of a plant under D and D (a quite new situation for the authorities). Production of waste is significantly different in term of volume, activities, conditioning and disposal path. Technology is important but technical issues are often less critical than good management and planning. Further examples and lessons learned are developed through reviewing the projects experience basis. AREVA has a long and vast experience in the cleanup and dismantling of a number of very large and complex nuclear facilities. This effort focused initially on AREVA's own plants and is expanding now to other customers. The setup of a specific Business Unit in 2008 to takeover this business allowed concentration of the skills and the lessons learned in a dedicated division so as to provide the best means to optimize safety, performance, costs and schedules. Indeed transitioning from operations to D and D of a nuclear facility is a quantum leap. The assistance from specialized teams can bring significant cost savings. (authors)

  19. COMPLETION OF THE FIRST INTEGRATED SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSSHIPMENT/INTERIM STORAGE FACILITY IN NW RUSSIA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dyer, R.S.; Barnes, E.; Snipes, R.L.; Hoeibraaten, S.; Gran, H.C.; Foshaug, E.; Godunov, V.

    2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    Northwest and Far East Russia contain large quantities of unsecured spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from decommissioned submarines that potentially threaten the fragile environments of the surrounding Arctic and North Pacific regions. The majority of the SNF from the Russian Navy, including that from decommissioned nuclear submarines, is currently stored in on-shore and floating storage facilities. Some of the SNF is damaged and stored in an unstable condition. Existing Russian transport infrastructure and reprocessing facilities cannot meet the requirements for moving and reprocessing this amount of fuel. Additional interim storage capacity is required. Most of the existing storage facilities being used in Northwest Russia do not meet health and safety, and physical security requirements. The United States and Norway are currently providing assistance to the Russian Federation (RF) in developing systems for managing these wastes. If these wastes are not properly managed, they could release significant concentrations of radioactivity to these sensitive environments and could become serious global environmental and physical security issues. There are currently three closely-linked trilateral cooperative projects: development of a prototype dual-purpose transport and storage cask for SNF, a cask transshipment interim storage facility, and a fuel drying and cask de-watering system. The prototype cask has been fabricated, successfully tested, and certified. Serial production is now underway in Russia. In addition, the U.S. and Russia are working together to improve the management strategy for nuclear submarine reactor compartments after SNF removal.

  20. Nuclear Facility Risk Ranking | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  1. Facilities & Capabilities | Nuclear Science | ORNL

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

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

  2. Facilities & Projects | National Nuclear Security Administration

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

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

  3. Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) Strategic Issues, challenges, and Facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Abdou, Mohamed

    Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) Strategic Issues, challenges, and Facilities Nuclear Science & Technology (FNST) The nuclear environment also affects Tritium Fuel Cycle separation PFC & Blanket T processing design dependent optics 3 #12;Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology

  4. A REVIEW OF LIGHT-WATER REACTOR SAFETY STUDIES. VOLUME 3 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Nero, A.V.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Charges Relating to Nuclear Reactor Safety," 1976, availableissues impor tant to nuclear reactor safety. This report wasstudies of overall nuclear reactor safety have been

  5. A REVIEW OF LIGHT-WATER REACTOR SAFETY STUDIES. VOLUME 3 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Nero, A.V.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Charges Relating to Nuclear Reactor Safety," 1976, availablestudies of light-water nuclear reactor safety, emphasizingstudies of overall nuclear reactor safety have been

  6. Support of the Iraq nuclear facility dismantlement and disposal program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coates, Roger [International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100 - 1400 Vienna (Austria); Cochran, John; Danneels, Jeff [Sandia National Laboratories (United States); Chesser, Ronald; Phillips, Carlton; Rogers, Brenda [Center for Environmental Radiation Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409 (United States)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Available in abstract form only. Full text of publication follows: Iraq's former nuclear facilities contain large quantities of radioactive materials and radioactive waste. The Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program (the Iraq NDs Program) is a new program to decontaminate and permanently dispose of radioactive wastes in Iraq. The NDs Program is led by the Government of Iraq, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices, with guidance and assistance from a number of countries. The U.S. participants include Texas Tech University and Sandia National Laboratories. A number of activities are ongoing under the broad umbrella of the Iraq NDs Program: drafting a new nuclear law that will provide the legal basis for the cleanup and disposal activities; assembly and analysis of existing data; characterization of soil contamination; bringing Iraqi scientists to the world's largest symposium on radioactive waste management; touring U.S. government and private sector operating radwaste disposal facilities in the U.S., and hosting a planning workshop on the characterization and cleanup of the Al-Tuwaitha Nuclear Facility. (authors)

  7. Aging of safety class 1E transformers in safety systems of nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roberts, E.W.; Edson, J.L.; Udy, A.C. [Lockheed Idaho Technologies Co., Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

    1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report discusses aging effects on safety-related power transformers in nuclear power plants. It also evaluates maintenance, testing, and monitoring practices with respect to their effectiveness in detecting and mitigating the effects of aging. The study follows the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s (NRC`s) Nuclear Plant-Aging Research approach. It investigates the materials used in transformer construction, identifies stressors and aging mechanisms, presents operating and testing experience with aging effects, analyzes transformer failure events reported in various databases, and evaluates maintenance practices. Databases maintained by the nuclear industry were analyzed to evaluate the effects of aging on the operation of nuclear power plants.

  8. A Domain-Specific Safety Analysis for Digital Nuclear Plant Protection Systems

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    A Domain-Specific Safety Analysis for Digital Nuclear Plant Protection Systems Sanghyun Yoon through safety analy- sis is strongly mandated for safety-critical systems. Nuclear plant protection. INTRODUCTION Safety-critical systems (e.g. nuclear power plants and air- planes) require rigorous quality

  9. Inventory extension at the Nuclear Materials Storage Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stanbro, W.D.; Longmire, V.; Olinger, C.T.; Argo, P.E.

    1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The planned renovation of the Nuclear Material Storage Facility (NMSF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory will be a significant addition to the plutonium storage capacity of the nuclear weapons complex. However, the utility of the facility may be impaired by an overly conservative approach to performing inventories of material in storage. This report examines options for taking advantage of provisions in Department of Energy orders to extend the time between inventories. These extensions are based on a combination of modern surveillance technology, facility design features, and revised operational procedures. The report also addresses the possibility that NMSF could be the site of some form of international inspection as part of the US arms control and nonproliferation policy.

  10. Heat transfer modeling of dry spent nuclear fuel storage facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, S.Y.

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The present work was undertaken to provide heat transfer model that accurately predicts the thermal performance of dry spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. One of the storage configurations being considered for DOE Aluminum-clad Spent Nuclear Fuel (Al-SNF), such as the Material and Testing Reactor (MTR) fuel, is in a dry storage facility. To support design studies of storage options a computational and experimental program has been conducted at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The main objective is to develop heat transfer models including natural convection effects internal to an interim dry storage canister and to geologic codisposal Waste Package (WP). Calculated temperatures will be used to demonstrate engineering viability of a dry storage option in enclosed interim storage and geologic repository WP and to assess the chemical and physical behaviors of the Al-SNF in the dry storage facilities. The current paper describes the modeling approaches and presents the computational results along with the experimental data.

  11. Heat Transfer Modeling of Dry Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, S.Y.

    1999-01-13T23:59:59.000Z

    The present work was undertaken to provide heat transfer model that accurately predicts the thermal performance of dry spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. One of the storage configurations being considered for DOE Aluminum-clad Spent Nuclear Fuel (Al-SNF), such as the Material and Testing Reactor (MTR) fuel, is in a dry storage facility. To support design studies of storage options a computational and experimental program has been conducted at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The main objective is to develop heat transfer models including natural convection effects internal to an interim dry storage canister and to geological codisposal Waste Package (WP). Calculated temperatures will be used to demonstrate engineering viability of a dry storage option in enclosed interim storage and geological repository WP and to assess the chemical and physical behaviors of the Al-SNF in the dry storage facilities. The current paper describes the modeling approaches and presents the computational results along with the experimental data.

  12. Contained Firing Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA groupTubahq.na.gov Office of theNuclearNanotechnologies |MarchContained Firing

  13. Nuclear Power Facilities (2008) | Department of Energy

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

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

  14. Nuclear Facility Operations | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level:Energy: Grid Integration Redefining What's Possible for Renewable Energy:Nanowire3627 Federal Register /7 This is aLinksNuclearOperations

  15. Facility Siting and Layout Optimization Based on Process Safety 

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jung, Seungho

    2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

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

  16. Operation technology of air treatment system in nuclear facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Chun, Y B; Hwong, Y H; Lee, H K; Min, D K; Park, K J; Uom, S H; Yang, S Y

    2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Effective operation techniques were reviewed on the air treatment system to protect the personnel in nuclear facilities from the contamination of radio-active particles and to keep the environment clear. Nuclear air treatment system consisted of the ventilation and filtering system was characterized by some test. Measurement of air velocity of blowing/exhaust fan in the ventilation system, leak tests of HEPA filters in the filtering, and measurement of pressure difference between the areas defined by radiation level were conducted. The results acquired form the measurements were reflected directly for the operation of air treatment. In the abnormal state of virus parts of devices composted of the system, the repairing method, maintenance and performance test were also employed in operating effectively the air treatment system. These measuring results and techniques can be available to the operation of air treatment system of PIEF as well as the other nuclear facilities in KAERI.

  17. 340 Waste handling Facility Hazard Categorization and Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. J. Rodovsky

    2010-10-25T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  19. Nuclear power safety in central and eastern Europe

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wilson, R. [Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA (United States)

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Chernobyl accident showed the weaknesses in the Soviet approach to safety, particularly of nuclear reactors. Until recently, Western governments, scientists, and engineers did not understand how to help their Russian colleagues make a greater society. This article discusses the two main types of Soviet reactors, their safety problems, and the help Westerners are giving to make them safer. 35 refs., 1 fig., 4 tabs.

  20. A framework for nuclear facility safeguard evaluation using probabilistic methods and expert elicitation

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Iamsumang, Chonlagarn

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    With the advancement of the next generation of nuclear fuel cycle facilities, concerns of the effectiveness of nuclear facility safeguards have been increasing due to the inclusion of highly enriched material and reprocessing ...

  1. Nuclear criticality safety tools in the Chernobyl-4 accident analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Landeyro, P.A.

    1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The collaboration with the Italian Safety Authority (DISP), started in July 1986, has the aim of studying, from a neutronic point of view, the possible initiator event and the accident dynamics in unit four of the Chernobly nuclear power plant. This report was produced within the framework of that collaboration. A main condition of the present work was making use of standard calculational methods employed in nuclear criticality safety analysis. This means that the neutron multiplication factor calculation should be made with the modules and the cross-section libraries of the SCALE system or in any case with some KENO IV version and the burnup calculation with the ORIGEN code.

  2. Nuclear Power - Operation, Safety and Environment 

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Today's nuclear reactors are safe and highly efficient energy systems that offer electricity and a multitude of co-generation energy products ranging from potable water to heat for industrial applications. At the same time, ...

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Watson, Craig A.

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brereton, S.J., LLNL

    1998-05-27T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cerruti, S.J.

    1997-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

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

  6. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions. Volume 6. A selected bibliography

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Owen, P.T.; Michelson, D.C.; Knox, N.P.

    1985-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This bibliography of 683 references with abstracts on the subject of nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions is the sixth in a series of annual reports prepared for the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Programs. Foreign as well as domestic literature of all types - technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, conference papers, symposium proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions - has been included. The bibliography contains scientific (basic research as well as applied technology), economic, regulatory, and legal literature pertinent to the US Department of Energy's remedial action program. Major chapters are: (1) Surplus Facilities Management Program; (2) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning; (3) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; (4) Facilities Contaminated with Natural Radioactivity; (5) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program; (6) Grand Junction Remedial Action Program; (7) Uranium Mill Tailings Management; (8) Technical Measurements Center; and (9) General Remedial Action Program Studies. Chapter sections for chapters 1, 2, 5, and 7 include Design, Planning, and Regulations; Environmental Studies and Site Surveys; Health, Safety, and Biomedical Studies; Decontamination Studies; Dismantlement and Demolition; Site Stabilization and Reclamation; Waste Disposal; Remedial Action Experience; and General Studies. The references within each chapter or section are arranged alphabetically by leading author. References having no individual author are arranged by corporate affiliation or by publication description.

  7. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography: Volume 8

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Owen, P.T.; Michelson, D.C.; Knox, N.P.

    1987-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 553 abstracted references on nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions constitute the eighth in a series of reports. Foreign and domestic literature of all types - technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, symposia proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions - has been included. The bibliography contains scientific, technical, economic, regulatory, and legal information pertinent to the US Department of energy's remedial action program. Major chapters are Surplus Facilities Management Program, Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, Facilities Contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radionuclides, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, Uranium Mill Tailings Management, Technical Measurements Center, and General Remedial Action Program Studies. Chapter sections for chapters 1, 2, 5, and 6 include Design, Planning, and Regulations; Environmental Studies and Site Surveys; Health, Safety, and Biomedical Studies; Decontamination Studies; Dismantlement and Demolition; Site Stabilization and Reclamation; Waste Disposal; Remedial Action Experience; and General Studies. Within these categories, references are arranged alphabetically by first author. Those references having no individual author are listed by corporate affiliation or by publication description. Indexes are provided for author, corporate affiliation, title word, publication description, geographic location, and keywords. The appendix contains a list of frequently used acronyms and abbreviations.

  8. Interim safety basis for fuel supply shutdown facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1995-05-23T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1990-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cerruti, S.J.

    1997-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

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

  11. Nuclear Rocket Facility Decommissioning Project: Controlled Explosive Demolition of Neutron-Activated Shield Wall

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael R. Kruzic

    2008-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), the Test Cell A (TCA) Facility (Figure 1) was used in the early to mid-1960s for testing of nuclear rocket engines, as part of the Nuclear Rocket Development Program, to further space travel. Nuclear rocket testing resulted in the activation of materials around the reactors and the release of fission products and fuel particles. The TCA facility, known as Corrective Action Unit 115, was decontaminated and decommissioned (D&D) from December 2004 to July 2005 using the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) process, under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. The SAFER process allows environmental remediation and facility closure activities (i.e., decommissioning) to occur simultaneously, provided technical decisions are made by an experienced decision maker within the site conceptual site model. Facility closure involved a seven-step decommissioning strategy. First, preliminary investigation activities were performed, including review of process knowledge documentation, targeted facility radiological and hazardous material surveys, concrete core drilling and analysis, shield wall radiological characterization, and discrete sampling, which proved to be very useful and cost-effective in subsequent decommissioning planning and execution and worker safety. Second, site setup and mobilization of equipment and personnel were completed. Third, early removal of hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead, cadmium, and oil, was performed ensuring worker safety during more invasive demolition activities. Process piping was to be verified void of contents. Electrical systems were de-energized and other systems were rendered free of residual energy. Fourth, areas of high radiological contamination were decontaminated using multiple methods. Contamination levels varied across the facility. Fixed beta/gamma contamination levels ranged up to 2 million disintegrations per minute (dpm)/100 centimeters squared (cm2) beta/gamma. Removable beta/gamma contamination levels seldom exceeded 1,000 dpm/100 cm2, but, in railroad trenches on the reactor pad containing soil on the concrete pad in front of the shield wall, the beta dose rates ranged up to 120 milli-roentgens per hour from radioactivity entrained in the soil. General area dose rates were less than 100 micro-roentgens per hour. Prior to demolition of the reactor shield wall, removable and fixed contaminated surfaces were decontaminated to the best extent possible, using traditional decontamination methods. Fifth, large sections of the remaining structures were demolished by mechanical and open-air controlled explosive demolition (CED). Mechanical demolition methods included the use of conventional demolition equipment for removal of three main buildings, an exhaust stack, and a mobile shed. The 5-foot (ft), 5-inch (in.) thick, neutron-activated reinforced concrete shield was demolished by CED, which had never been performed at the NTS.

  12. Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard- September 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A working group with nuclear safety expertise used paired pairing computer software to develop first, a severity-weighted factor for the 17 Groups of ORPS Reporting Criteria and then, a severity-weighted factor for the sixty-five ORPS reporting criteria.

  13. Pyroprocessing of Fast Flux Test Facility Nuclear Fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    B.R. Westphal; G.L. Fredrickson; G.G. Galbreth; D. Vaden; M.D. Elliott; J.C. Price; E.M. Honeyfield; M.N. Patterson; L. A. Wurth

    2013-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Used nuclear fuel from the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was recently transferred to the Idaho National Laboratory and processed by pyroprocessing in the Fuel Conditioning Facility. Approximately 213 kg of uranium from sodium-bonded metallic FFTF fuel was processed over a one year period with the equipment previously used for the processing of EBR-II used fuel. The peak burnup of the FFTF fuel ranged from 10 to 15 atom% for the 900+ chopped elements processed. Fifteen low-enriched uranium ingots were cast following the electrorefining and distillation operations to recover approximately 192 kg of uranium. A material balance on the primary fuel constituents, uranium and zirconium, during the FFTF campaign will be presented along with a brief description of operating parameters. Recoverable uranium during the pyroprocessing of FFTF nuclear fuel was greater than 95% while the purity of the final electrorefined uranium products exceeded 99%.

  14. Pyroprocessing of fast flux test facility nuclear fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Westphal, B.R.; Wurth, L.A.; Fredrickson, G.L.; Galbreth, G.G.; Vaden, D.; Elliott, M.D.; Price, J.C.; Honeyfield, E.M.; Patterson, M.N. [Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID, 83415 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Used nuclear fuel from the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was recently transferred to the Idaho National Laboratory and processed by pyroprocessing in the Fuel Conditioning Facility. Approximately 213 kg of uranium from sodium-bonded metallic FFTF fuel was processed over a one year period with the equipment previously used for the processing of EBR-II used fuel. The peak burnup of the FFTF fuel ranged from 10 to 15 atom% for the 900+ chopped elements processed. Fifteen low-enriched uranium ingots were cast following the electrorefining and distillation operations to recover approximately 192 kg of uranium. A material balance on the primary fuel constituents, uranium and zirconium, during the FFTF campaign will be presented along with a brief description of operating parameters. Recoverable uranium during the pyroprocessing of FFTF nuclear fuel was greater than 95% while the purity of the final electro-refined uranium products exceeded 99%. (authors)

  15. SCALE 6: Comprehensive Nuclear Safety Analysis Code System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bowman, Stephen M [ORNL

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Version 6 of the Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluation (SCALE) computer software system developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, released in February 2009, contains significant new capabilities and data for nuclear safety analysis and marks an important update for this software package, which is used worldwide. This paper highlights the capabilities of the SCALE system, including continuous-energy flux calculations for processing multigroup problem-dependent cross sections, ENDF/B-VII continuous-energy and multigroup nuclear cross-section data, continuous-energy Monte Carlo criticality safety calculations, Monte Carlo radiation shielding analyses with automated three-dimensional variance reduction techniques, one- and three-dimensional sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for criticality safety evaluations, two- and three-dimensional lattice physics depletion analyses, fast and accurate source terms and decay heat calculations, automated burnup credit analyses with loading curve search, and integrated three-dimensional criticality accident alarm system analyses using coupled Monte Carlo criticality and shielding calculations.

  16. Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities

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

    2011-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Guide is to provide U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) line management with guidance that may be useful to them in effectively and efficiently implementing the requirements of DOE O 226.1B, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, date April 25, 2011, as applied to Federal line management of hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.

  17. Reevaluating nuclear safety and security in a post 9/11 era.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Booker, Paul M.; Brown, Lisa M.

    2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report has the following topics: (1) Changing perspectives on nuclear safety and security; (2) Evolving needs in a post-9/11 era; (3) Nuclear Weapons--An attractive terrorist target; (4) The case for increased safety; (5) Evolution of current nuclear weapons safety and security; (6) Integrated surety; (7) The role of safety and security in enabling responsiveness; (8) Advances in surety technologies; and (9) Reevaluating safety.

  18. Assessment of a hot hydrogen nuclear propulsion fuel test facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Watanabe, H.H.; Howe, S.D.; Wantuck, P.J.

    1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Subsequent to the announcement of the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), several studies and review groups have identified nuclear thermal propulsion as a high priority technology for development. To achieve the goals of SEI to place man on Mars, a nuclear rocket will operate at near 2700K and in a hydrogen environment at near 60 atmospheres. Under these conditions, the operational lifetime of the rocket will be limited by the corrosion rate at the hydrogen/fuel interface. Consequently, the Los Alamos National Laboratory has been evaluating requirements and design issues for a test facility. The facility will be able to directly heat fuel samples by electrical resistance, microwave deposition, or radio frequency induction heating to temperatures near 3000K. Hydrogen gas at variable pressure and temperatures will flow through the samples. The thermal gradients, power density, and operating times envisioned for nuclear rockets will be duplicated as close as reasonable. The post-sample flow stream will then be scrubbed and cooled before reprocessing. The baseline design and timetable for the facility will be discussed. 7 refs.

  19. Cold vacuum drying facility design requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  20. Software reliability and safety in nuclear reactor protection systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lawrence, J.D. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States)

    1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Planning the development, use and regulation of computer systems in nuclear reactor protection systems in such a way as to enhance reliability and safety is a complex issue. This report is one of a series of reports from the Computer Safety and Reliability Group, Lawrence Livermore that investigates different aspects of computer software in reactor National Laboratory, that investigates different aspects of computer software in reactor protection systems. There are two central themes in the report, First, software considerations cannot be fully understood in isolation from computer hardware and application considerations. Second, the process of engineering reliability and safety into a computer system requires activities to be carried out throughout the software life cycle. The report discusses the many activities that can be carried out during the software life cycle to improve the safety and reliability of the resulting product. The viewpoint is primarily that of the assessor, or auditor.

  1. Floating nuclear power plant safety assurance principles

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zvonarev, B.M.; Kuchin, N.L.; Sergeev, I.V.

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    In the north regions of the Russian federation and low density population areas, there is a real necessity for ecological clean energy small power sources. For this purpose, floating nuclear power plants, designed on the basis of atomic ship building engineering, are being conceptualized. It is possible to use the ship building plants for the reactor purposes. Issues such as radioactive waste management are described.

  2. PLC-Based Safety Critical Software Development for Nuclear Power Plants

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    PLC-Based Safety Critical Software Development for Nuclear Power Plants Junbeom Yoo1 , Sungdeok Cha development technique for nuclear power plants'I&C soft- ware controllers. To improve software safety, we in developing safety-critical control software for a Korean nuclear power plant, and experience to date has been

  3. Q)Tf(^/7^,\\ Ris-R-625(pff Nuclear Safety Research

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    and nuclear releases. fields of radiation protection, reactor safety and radioactive waste managementQ)Tf(^/7^,\\ Risř-R-625(pff Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Progress Report 1991 Edited Roskilde, Denmark March 1992 #12;Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Progress Report 1991 Riso-R-62S

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Larson, H L

    2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of Energy NorthBDepartment of Energy Nuclear

  6. Sandia Energy - Nuclear Energy Safety Technologies

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

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

  7. Nuclear safety | Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

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

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

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

    2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

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

  10. Estimating inventory thresholds for nuclear facilities using DOE STD-1027-92 Attachment 1 Table A.1 ``Thresholds for Radionuclides``

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Price, D. [Onsite Engineering and Management, Inc. (United States); Hildum, J.S.; Williams, A.C. [Onsite Engineering and Management, Inc. (United States)

    1997-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    It has recently been reports that Table A.1 of Attachment 1 of DOE STD-1027-92 is being improperly used to determine the Category 3 inventory threshold values for non-reactor nuclear facilities. The concern of this paper is that Safety Analysts and Facility Managers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), as well as at other locations in the DOE Complex, are improperly using the entries in Table A.1. It is noted at this point that the common use of this table is to establish the lower thresholds for both Categories 2 and 3 non-reactor nuclear facilities by considering inventory quantities, as opposed to a postulated accident scenario. This paper will provide insight regarding this error and will show that the error is most likely non-conservative in nature.

  11. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

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

  12. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: a selected bibliography

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Owen, P.T.; Knox, N.P.; Fielden, J.M.; Johnson, C.A.

    1982-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This bibliography contains 693 references with abstracts on the subject of nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions. Foreign, as well as domestic, literature of all types - technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, conference papers, symposium proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions - has been included in this publication. The bibliography contains scientific (basic research as well as applied technology), economic, regulatory, and legal literature pertinent to the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Program. Major chapters are Surplus Facilities Management Program, Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, Grand Junction Remedial Action Program, and Uranium Mill Tailings Management. Chapter sections for chapters 1 and 2 include: Design, Planning, and Regulations; Site Surveys; Decontamination Studies; Dismantlement and Demolition; Land Decontamination and Reclamation; Waste Disposal; and General Studies. The references within each chapter are arranged alphabetically by leading author. References having no individual author are arranged by corporate author or by title. Indexes are provided for (1) author; (2) corporate affiliation; (3) title; (4) publication description; (5) geographic location; and (6) keywords. An appendix of 202 bibliographic references without abstracts or indexes has been included in this bibliography. This appendix represents literature identified but not abstracted due to time constraints.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  15. Human factors design guidelines for maintainability of Department of Energy nuclear facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bongarra, J.P. Jr.; VanCott, H.P.; Pain, R.F.; Peterson, L.R.; Wallace, R.I.

    1985-06-18T23:59:59.000Z

    Intent of these guidelines is to provide design and design review teams of DOE nuclear facilities with human factors principles to enhance the design and aid in the inspection of DOE nuclear facilities, systems, and equipment. These guidelines are concerned with design features of DOE nuclear facilities which can potentially affect preventive and corrective maintenance of systems within DOE nuclear facilities. Maintenance includes inspecting, checking, troubleshooting, adjusting, replacing, repairing, and servicing activities. Other factors which influence maintainability such as repair and maintenance suport facilities, maintenance information, and various aspects of the environment are also addressed.

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

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

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

  17. NSPWG-recommended safety requirements and guidelines for SEI nuclear propulsion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marshall, A.C.; Sawyer, J.C. Jr.; Bari, R.A.; Brown, N.W.; Cullingford, H.S.; Hardy, A.C.; Lee, J.H.; Mcculloch, W.H.; Niederauer, G.F.; Remp, K. (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (United States) NASA, Washington (United States) Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY (United States) General Electric Co., San Jose, CA (United States) NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Tn (United States) L

    1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An interagency Nuclear Safety Policy Working Group (NSPWG) was chartered to recommend nuclear safety policy, requirements, and guidelines for the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) nuclear propulsion program to facilitate the implementation of mission planning and conceptual design studies. The NSPWG developed a top-level policy to provide the guiding principles for the development and implementation of the nuclear propulsion safety program and the development of safety functional requirements. In addition, the NSPWG reviewed safety issues for nuclear propulsion and recommended top-level safety requirements and guidelines to address these issues. Safety requirements were developed for reactor start-up, inadvertent criticality, radiological release and exposure, disposal, entry, and safeguards. Guidelines were recommended for risk/reliability, operational safety, flight trajectory and mission abort, space debris and meteoroids, and ground test safety. In this paper the specific requirements and guidelines will be discussed. 9 refs.

  18. NSPWG-recommended safety requirements and guidelines for SEI nuclear propulsion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marshall, A.C.; Lee, J.H.; McCulloch, W.H. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)); Sawyer, J.C. Jr. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC (United States)); Bari, R.A. (Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States)); Brown, N.W. (General Electric Co., San Jose, CA (United States)); Cullingford, H.S.; Hardy, A.C. (National Aeronautics and Space Administ

    1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An Interagency Nuclear Safety Policy Working Group (NSPWG) was chartered to recommend nuclear safety policy, requirements, and guidelines for the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) nuclear propulsion program to facilitate the implementation of mission planning and conceptual design studies. The NSPWG developed a top- level policy to provide the guiding principles for the development and implementation of the nuclear propulsion safety program and the development of Safety Functional Requirements. In addition the NSPWG reviewed safety issues for nuclear propulsion and recommended top-level safety requirements and guidelines to address these issues. Safety requirements were developed for reactor start-up, inadvertent criticality, radiological release and exposure, disposal, entry, and safeguards. Guidelines were recommended for risk/reliability, operational safety, flight trajectory and mission abort, space debris and meteoroids, and ground test safety. In this paper the specific requirements and guidelines will be discussed.

  19. NSPWG-recommended safety requirements and guidelines for SEI nuclear propulsion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marshall, A.C.; Lee, J.H.; McCulloch, W.H. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Sawyer, J.C. Jr. [National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC (United States); Bari, R.A. [Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States); Brown, N.W. [General Electric Co., San Jose, CA (United States); Cullingford, H.S.; Hardy, A.C. [National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, TX (United States). Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center; Niederauer, G.F. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Remp, K. [National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cleveland, OH (United States). Lewis Research Center; Rice, J.W. [Idaho National Engineering Lab., Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Sholtis, J.A. [Department of the Air Force, Kirtland AFB, NM (United States)

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An Interagency Nuclear Safety Policy Working Group (NSPWG) was chartered to recommend nuclear safety policy, requirements, and guidelines for the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) nuclear propulsion program to facilitate the implementation of mission planning and conceptual design studies. The NSPWG developed a top- level policy to provide the guiding principles for the development and implementation of the nuclear propulsion safety program and the development of Safety Functional Requirements. In addition the NSPWG reviewed safety issues for nuclear propulsion and recommended top-level safety requirements and guidelines to address these issues. Safety requirements were developed for reactor start-up, inadvertent criticality, radiological release and exposure, disposal, entry, and safeguards. Guidelines were recommended for risk/reliability, operational safety, flight trajectory and mission abort, space debris and meteoroids, and ground test safety. In this paper the specific requirements and guidelines will be discussed.

  20. Nuclear power plant simulation facility evaluation methodology: handbook. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laughery, K.R. Jr.; Carter, R.J.; Haas, P.M.

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is Volume 1 of a two-part document which describes a project conducted to develop a methodology to evaluate the acceptability of nuclear power plant (NPP) simulation facilities for use in the simulator-based portion of NRC's operator licensing examination. The proposed methodology is to be utilized during two phases of the simulation facility life-cycle, initial simulator acceptance and recurrent analysis. The first phase is aimed at ensuring that the simulator provides an accurate representation of the reference NPP. There are two components of initial simulator evaluation: fidelity assessment and a direct determination of the simulation facility's adequacy for operator testing. The second phase is aimed at ensuring that the simulation facility continues to accurately represent the reference plant throughout the life of the simulator. Recurrent evaluation is comprised of three components: monitoring reference plant changes, monitoring the simulator's hardware, and examining the data from actual plant transients as they occur. Volume 1 is a set of guidelines which details the steps involved in the two life-cycle phases, presents an overview of the methodology and data collection requirements, and addresses the formation of the evaluation team and the preparation of the evaluation plan. 29 figs.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1990-09-19T23:59:59.000Z

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

  2. Facility Siting and Layout Optimization Based on Process Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jung, Seungho

    2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

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

  3. Double-clad nuclear-fuel safety rod

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    McCarthy, W.H.; Atcheson, D.B.

    1981-12-30T23:59:59.000Z

    A device for shutting down a nuclear reactor during an undercooling or overpower event, whether or not the reactor's scram system operates properly. This is accomplished by double-clad fuel safety rods positioned at various locations throughout the reactor core, wherein melting of a secondary internal cladding of the rod allows the fuel column therein to shift from the reactor core to place the reactor in a subcritical condition.

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Iragavarapu, Vichika

    2008-10-10T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Iragavarapu, Vichika

    2009-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Montalvo, M. L. (Maryrose L.)

    2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  7. Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program - DOE Directives...

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

    1D Admin Chg 1, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program by Carl Sykes Functional areas: Administrative Change, Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Defense...

  8. FLUOR HANFORD SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L J; JENSEN, M A

    2004-04-13T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. The Development, Content, Design, and Conduct of the 2011 Piloted US DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Criticality Safety Engineering Training and Education Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hopper, Calvin Mitchell [ORNL] [ORNL

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In May 1973 the University of New Mexico conducted the first nationwide criticality safety training and education week-long short course for nuclear criticality safety engineers. Subsequent to that course, the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF) developed very successful 'hands-on' subcritical and critical training programs for operators, supervisors, and engineering staff. Since the inception of the US Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Criticality Technology and Safety Project (NCT&SP) in 1983, the DOE has stimulated contractor facilities and laboratories to collaborate in the furthering of nuclear criticality as a discipline. That effort included the education and training of nuclear criticality safety engineers (NCSEs). In 1985 a textbook was written that established a path toward formalizing education and training for NCSEs. Though the NCT&SP went through a brief hiatus from 1990 to 1992, other DOE-supported programs were evolving to the benefit of NCSE training and education. In 1993 the DOE established a Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) and undertook a comprehensive development effort to expand the extant LACEF 'hands-on' course specifically for the education and training of NCSEs. That successful education and training was interrupted in 2006 for the closing of the LACEF and the accompanying movement of materials and critical experiment machines to the Nevada Test Site. Prior to that closing, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was commissioned by the US DOE NCSP to establish an independent hands-on NCSE subcritical education and training course. The course provided an interim transition for the establishment of a reinvigorated and expanded two-week NCSE education and training program in 2011. The 2011 piloted two-week course was coordinated by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and jointly conducted by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) classroom education and facility training, the Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) hands-on criticality experiments training, and the US DOE National Criticality Experiment Research Center (NCERC) hands-on criticality experiments training that is jointly supported by LLNL and LANL and located at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) This paper provides the description of the bases, content, and conduct of the piloted, and future US DOE NCSP Criticality Safety Engineer Training and Education Project.

  10. Use of artificial intelligence to enhance the safety of nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Uhrig, R.E.

    1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In the operation of a nuclear power plant, the sheer magnitude of the number of process parameters and systems interactions poses difficulties for the operators, particularly during abnormal or emergency situations. Recovery from an upset situation depends upon the facility with which the available raw data can be converted into and assimilated as meaningful knowledge. Plant personnel are sometimes affected by stress and emotion, which may have varying degrees of influence on their performance. Expert systems can take some of the uncertainty and guesswork out of their decisions by providing expert advice and rapid access to a large information base. Application of artificial intelligence technologies, particularly expert systems, to control room activities in a nuclear power plant has the potential to reduce operator error and improve power plant safety and reliability. 12 refs.

  11. Some aspects of nuclear power plant safety under war conditions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stritar, A.; Mavko, B.; Susnik, J.; Sarler, B. (Jozef Stefan Inst., Ljubljana (Slovenia))

    1993-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In the summer of 1991, the Krsko nuclear power plant in Slovenia found itself in an area of military operations. This was probably the first commercial nuclear power plant to have been threatened by an attack by fighter jets. A number of never-before-asked questions had to be answered by the operating staff and supporting organizations. Some aspects of nuclear power plant safety under war conditions are described, such as the selection of the best plant operating state before the attack and the determination of plant system vulnerability and dose releases from the potentially damaged spent fuel in the spent-fuel pit. The best operating mode to which the plant should be brought before the attack is cold shutdown, and radiological consequences to the environment after the spent fuel is damaged and the water in the pit is lost are not very high. The problem of nuclear power plant safety under war conditions should be addressed in more detail in the future.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1991-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Decommissioning and Dismantling of Liquid Waste Storage and Liquid Waste Treatment Facility from Paldiski Nuclear Site, Estonia

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Varvas, M. [AS ALARA, Leetse tee 21, Paldiski, 76806 (Estonia); Putnik, H. [Delegation of the European Commission to Russia, Kadashevskaja nab. 14/1 119017 Moscow (Russian Federation); Nirvin, B.; Pettersson, S. [SKB, Box 5864, Stockholm, SE-102 40 (Sweden); Johnsson, B. [Studsvik RadWaste, Nykoping, SE-611 82 (Sweden)

    2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Paldiski Nuclear Facility in Estonia, with two nuclear reactors was owned by the Soviet Navy and was used for training the navy personnel to operate submarine nuclear reactors. After collapse of Soviet Union the Facility was shut down and handed over to the Estonian government in 1995. In co-operation with the Paldiski International Expert Reference Group (PIERG) decommission strategy was worked out and started to implement. Conditioning of solid and liquid operational waste and dismantling of contaminated installations and buildings were among the key issues of the Strategy. Most of the liquid waste volume, remained at the Facility, was processed in the frames of an Estonian-Finnish co-operation project using a mobile wastewater purification unit NURES (IVO International OY) and water was discharged prior to the site take-over. In 1999-2002 ca 120 m{sup 3} of semi-liquid tank sediments (a mixture of ion exchange resins, sand filters, evaporator and flocculation slurry), remained after treatment of liquid waste were solidified in steel containers and stored into interim storage. The project was carried out under the Swedish - Estonian co-operation program on radiation protection and nuclear safety. Contaminated installations in buildings, used for treatment and storage of liquid waste (Liquid Waste Treatment Facility and Liquid Waste Storage) were then dismantled and the buildings demolished in 2001-2004. (authors)

  14. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, volume 9

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Owen, P.T.; Knox, N.P.; Michelson, D.C.; Turmer, G.S.

    1988-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 604 abstracted references on nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions constitute the ninth in a series of reports prepared annually for the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Programs. Foreign and domestic literature of all types--technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, symposia proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions--has been included. The bibliography contains scientific, technical, economic, regulatory, and legal information pertinent to the US Department of Energy's remedial action programs. Major sections are (1) Surplus Facilities Management Program, (2) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning, (3) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, (4) Facilities Contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radionuclides, (5) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, (6) Uranium Mill Tailings Management, (7) Technical Measurements Center, and (8) General Remedial Action Program Studies. Subsections for sections 1, 2, 5, and 6 include: Design, Planning, and Regulations; Environmental Studies and Site Surveys; Health, Safety, and Biomedical Studies; Decontamination Studies; Dismantlement and Demolition; Site Stabilization and Reclamation; Waste Disposal; Remedial Action Experience; and General Studies. Within these categories, references are arranged alphabetically by first author. Those references having no individual author are listed by corporate affiliation or by publication description. Indexes are provided for author, corporate affiliation, title word, publication description, geographic location, and keywords. This report is a product of the Remedial Action Program Information Center (RAPIC), which selects and analyzes information on remedial actions and relevant radioactive waste management technologies. RAPIC staff and resources are available to meet a variety of information needs. Contact the center at (615) 576-0568 or FTS 626-0568.

  15. Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among Several Countries: Evaluation for Regulatory Input

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The study entitled, “Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among Several Countries: Evaluation for Regulatory Input,” focuses on the issue of showing compliance with given...

  16. Improvement of Ion-Beam Energy Resolution in a Solenoid-based Radioactive Nuclear Beam Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Becchetti, Fred

    Improvement of Ion-Beam Energy Resolution in a Solenoid-based Radioactive Nuclear Beam Facility of Philosophy (Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences) in The University of Michigan 2010 Doctoral

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin ofEnergy at Waste-to-Energy usingofRetrofitting Doors onNovember 14, DOE-STD-1104-96

  18. ROBERT J. BUDNITZ Occupation: Physicist in Energy/Environmental Research and Nuclear Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Ajo-Franklin, Jonathan

    ROBERT J. BUDNITZ Occupation: Physicist in Energy/Environmental Research and Nuclear Safety Birth December 2004 to September 2007 (in Livermore): Leader, Nuclear & Risk Science Group, Energy & Environment Directorate Associate Program Leader for Nuclear Systems Safety and Security, E&E Directorate October 2002

  19. Formal Verification of Safety I&C System Designs: Two Nuclear Power Plant Related Applications

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Heljanko, Keijo

    C4.2 Formal Verification of Safety I&C System Designs: Two Nuclear Power Plant Related Applications and control (I&C) systems play a crucial role in the operation of nuclear power plants (NPP) and other safety is available. The use of model checking to verify two nuclear power plant related systems is described: an arc

  20. Walking and Climbing Service Robots for Safety Inspection of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Chen, Sheng

    Walking and Climbing Service Robots for Safety Inspection of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels B of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Abstract: Nuclear reactor and the usefulness of these robots for improving safety inspection of nuclear reactors in general are discussed

  1. ME 379M-Nuclear Safety and Security ABET EC2000 syllabus

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Ben-Yakar, Adela

    ME 379M- Nuclear Safety and Security Page 1 ABET EC2000 syllabus ME 379M Nuclear Safety assessment models and nuclear non-proliferation. Failure classifications, failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA), fault and event trees, reliability block diagrams. Specific areas from the code

  2. Assessment of the facilities on Jackass Flats and other Nevada test site facilities for the new nuclear rocket program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, G.; Collins, D.; Dye, K.; Eberhart, C.; Hynes, M.; Kovach, R.; Ortiz, R.; Perea, J.; Sherman, D. (Field Test Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (United States))

    1993-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Recent NASA/DOE studies for the Space Exploration Initiative have demonstrated a critical need for the ground-based testing of nuclear rocket engines. Experience in the ROVER/NERVA Program, experience in the Nuclear Weapons Testing Program, and involvement in the new nuclear rocket program has motivated our detailed assessment of the facilities used for the ROVER/NERVA Program and other facilities located at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The ROVER/NERVA facilities are located in the Nevada Research Development Area (NRDA) on Jackass Flats at NTS, approximately 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. To guide our assessment of facilities for an engine testing program we have defined a program goal, scope, and process. In particular we have assumed that the program goal will be to certify a full engine system design as flight test ready. All nuclear and non-nuclear components will be individually certified as ready for such a test at sites remote from the NRDA facilities, the components transported to NRDA, and the engine assembled. We also assume that engines of 25,000--100,000 lb thrust levels will be tested with burn times of 1 hour or longer. After a test, the engine will be disassembled, time critical inspections will be executed, and a selection of components will be transported to remote inspection sites. The majority of the components will be stored for future inspection at Jackass Flats. To execute this program scope and process will require ten facilities. We considered the use of all relevant facilities at NTS including existing and new tunnels as well as the facilities at NRDA. Aside from the facilities located at remote sites and the inter-site transportation system, all of the required facilities are available at NRDA. In particular we have studied the refurbishment of E-MAD, ETS-1, R-MAD, and the interconnecting railroad.

  3. Progress and Status of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant's New Solid Waste Management and Storage Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rausch, J.; Henderson, R.W. [NUKEM Technologies GmbH, Alzenau (Germany); Penkov, V. [State Enterprise Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, Visaginas (Lithuania)

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A considerable amount of dry radioactive waste from former NPP operation has accumulated up to date and is presently stored at the Ignalina NPP site, Lithuania. Current storage capacities are nearly exhausted and more waste is to come from future decommissioning of the two RMBKtype reactors. Additionally, the existing storage facilities does not comply to the state-of-the-art technology for handling and storage of radioactive waste. In 2005, INPP faced this situation of a need for waste processing and subsequent interim storage of these wastes by contracting NUKEM with the design, construction, installation and commissioning of new waste management and storage facilities. The subject of this paper is to describe the scope and the status of the new solid waste management and storage facilities at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. In summary: The turnkey contract for the design, supply and commission of the SWMSF was awarded in December 2005. The realisation of the project was initially planned within 48 month. The basic design was finished in August 2007 and the Technical Design Documentation and Preliminary Safety Analyses Report was provided to Authorities in October 2007. The construction license is expected in July 2008. The procurement phase was started in August 2007, start of onsite activities is expected in November 2007. The start of operation of the SWMSF is scheduled for end of 2009. (authors)

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  5. Foundational development of an advanced nuclear reactor integrated safety code.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clarno, Kevin (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN); Lorber, Alfred Abraham; Pryor, Richard J.; Spotz, William F.; Schmidt, Rodney Cannon; Belcourt, Kenneth (Ktech Corporation, Albuquerque, NM); Hooper, Russell Warren; Humphries, Larry LaRon

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the activities and results of a Sandia LDRD project whose objective was to develop and demonstrate foundational aspects of a next-generation nuclear reactor safety code that leverages advanced computational technology. The project scope was directed towards the systems-level modeling and simulation of an advanced, sodium cooled fast reactor, but the approach developed has a more general applicability. The major accomplishments of the LDRD are centered around the following two activities. (1) The development and testing of LIME, a Lightweight Integrating Multi-physics Environment for coupling codes that is designed to enable both 'legacy' and 'new' physics codes to be combined and strongly coupled using advanced nonlinear solution methods. (2) The development and initial demonstration of BRISC, a prototype next-generation nuclear reactor integrated safety code. BRISC leverages LIME to tightly couple the physics models in several different codes (written in a variety of languages) into one integrated package for simulating accident scenarios in a liquid sodium cooled 'burner' nuclear reactor. Other activities and accomplishments of the LDRD include (a) further development, application and demonstration of the 'non-linear elimination' strategy to enable physics codes that do not provide residuals to be incorporated into LIME, (b) significant extensions of the RIO CFD code capabilities, (c) complex 3D solid modeling and meshing of major fast reactor components and regions, and (d) an approach for multi-physics coupling across non-conformal mesh interfaces.

  6. Safety culture in the nuclear power industry : attributes for regulatory assessment

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Alexander, Erin L

    2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Safety culture refers to the attitudes, behaviors, and conditions that affect safety performance and often arises in discussions following incidents at nuclear power plants. As it involves both operational and management ...

  7. Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

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

  8. 2015 Nuclear & Facility Safety Programs Workshop | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you sure you wantJoin us for|IdahotheWhat is theBrianEnergy32015

  9. Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of Energy NorthBDepartment

  10. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis -

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level:Energy: Grid Integration Redefining What's Possible forPortsmouth/Paducah ProjectPRE-AWARD ACCOUNTINGQuantitative hiRX Measurements

  11. 2015 Nuclear and Facility Safety Programs Workshop Block Agenda

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015ofDepartment ofCBFO-13-3322(EE)DepartmentVery5 Annual EM/NE/SCNuclear and

  12. 2015 Nuclear & Facility Safety Programs Workshop Agenda | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you0 ARRA Newsletters 2010 ARRA Newsletters201416-17, 2015 |

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  14. Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn April 23, 2014, an OHA AdministrativeofDepartment DOE-STD-3009-94 July 1994A coolingThe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

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

  18. Nuclear-fuel-cycle facility deployment and price generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andress, D.A.

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The enrichment process and how it is to be modeled in the International Nuclear Model (INM) is described. The details of enrichment production, planning, unit price generation, demand estimation and ordering are examined. The enrichment process from both the producer's and the utility's point of view is analyzed. The enrichment separative-work-unit (SWU) contracts are also discussed. The relationship of the enrichment process with other sectors of the nuclear fuel cycle, expecially uranium mining and milling is considered. There are portions of the enrichment process that are not completely understood at the present time. These areas, which require further study, will be pinpointed in the following discussion. In many cases, e.g., the advent of SMU brokerage activities, the answers will emerge only in time. In other cases, e.g., political trends, uncertainties will always remain. It is possible to cast the uncertainties in a probabilistic framework, but this is beyond the scope of this report. INM, a comprehensive model of the international nuclear industry, simulates the market decision process based on current and future price expectations under a broad range of scenario specifications. INM determines the proper reactor mix as well as the planning, operation, and unit price generation of the attendant nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The level of detail of many of the enrichment activities presented in this report, e.g., the enrichment contracts, is too fine to be incorporated into INM. Nevertheless, they are presented in a form that is ammendable to modeling. The reasons for this are two-fold. First, it shows the level of complexity that would be required to model the entire system. Second, it presents the structural framework for a detailed, stand-alone enrichment model.

  19. SURVEYS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND SAFETY CULTURE IN NUCLEAR POWER

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BROWN,B.S.

    2000-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The results of a survey of organizational culture at a nuclear power plant are summarized and compared with those of a similar survey which has been described in the literature on high-reliability organizations. A general-purpose cultural inventory showed a profile of organizational style similar to that reported in the literature; the factor structure for the styles was also similar to that of the plant previously described. A specialized scale designed to measure safety culture did not distinguish among groups within the organization that would be expected to differ.

  20. FTCP Site Specific Information - Chief of Nuclear Safety | Department of

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T,OfficeEnd of YearFLASH2011-17-OPAMDepartment ofEnergy Chief of Nuclear Safety

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  2. 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Photos | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2UraniumEnergy CityDepartmentDepartment ofDepartment2 DOE2012 Nuclear Safety

  3. Radioactive Iodine and Krypton Control for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Soelberg, Nicolas R. [Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Garn, Troy [Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Greenhalgh, Mitchell [Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Law, Jack [Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Jubin, Robert T. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (United States); Strachan, Denis M. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); Thallapally, Praveen K. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Nuclear fission results in the production of fission products and activation products, some of which tend to be volatile during used fuel reprocessing. These can evolve in volatile species in the reprocessing facility off-gas streams, depending on the separations and reprocessing technologies that are used. Radionuclides that have been identified as “volatile radionuclides” are noble gases (most notably isotopes of Kr and Xe); 3H; 14C; and 129I. Radionuclides that tend to form volatile species that evolve into reprocessing facility off-gas systems are more challenging to efficiently control compared to radionuclides that tend to stay in solid or liquid phases. Future used fuel reprocessing facilities in the United States can require efficient capture of some volatile radionuclides in their off-gas streams to meet regulatory emission requirements. In aqueous reprocessing, these radionuclides are most commonly expected to evolve into off-gas streams in tritiated water [3H2O (T2O) and 3HHO (THO)], radioactive CO2, noble gases, and gaseous HI, I2, or volatile organic iodides. The fate and speciation of these radionuclides from a non-aqueous fuel reprocessing facility is less well known at this time, but active investigations are in progress. An Off-Gas Sigma Team was formed in late FY 2009 to integrate and coordinate the Fuel Cycle Research and Development (FCR&D) activities directed towards the capture and sequestration of the these volatile radionuclides (Jubin 2012a). The Sigma Team concept was envisioned to bring together multidisciplinary teams from across the DOE complex that would work collaboratively to solve the technical challenges and to develop the scientific basis for the capture and immobilization technologies such that the sum of the efforts was greater than the individual parts. The Laboratories currently participating in this effort are Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). This article focuses on control of volatile radionuclides that evolve during aqueous reprocessing of UNF. In particular, most of the work by the Off-gas Sigma Team has focused on the capture and sequestration of 129I and 85Kr, mainly because, as discussed below, control of 129I can require high efficiencies to meet regulatory requirements, and control of 85Kr using cryogenic processing, which has been the technology demonstrated and used commercially to date, can add considerable cost to a reprocessing facility.

  4. Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOE's Office

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

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

  5. Nuclear-fuel-cycle risk assessment: descriptions of representative non-reactor facilities. Sections 1-14

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schneider, K.J.

    1982-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Fuel Cycle Risk Assessment Program was initiated to provide risk assessment methods for assistance in the regulatory process for nuclear fuel cycle facilities other than reactors. This report, the first from the program, defines and describes fuel cycle elements that are being considered in the program. One type of facility (and in some cases two) is described that is representative of each element of the fuel cycle. The descriptions are based on real industrial-scale facilities that are current state-of-the-art, or on conceptual facilities where none now exist. Each representative fuel cycle facility is assumed to be located on the appropriate one of four hypothetical but representative sites described. The fuel cycles considered are for Light Water Reactors with once-through flow of spent fuel, and with plutonium and uranium recycle. Representative facilities for the following fuel cycle elements are described for uranium (or uranium plus plutonium where appropriate): mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, mixed-oxide fuel refabrication, fuel reprocessing, spent fuel storage, high-level waste storage, transuranic waste storage, spent fuel and high-level and transuranic waste disposal, low-level and intermediate-level waste disposal, and transportation. For each representative facility the description includes: mainline process, effluent processing and waste management, facility and hardware description, safety-related information and potential alternative concepts for that fuel cycle element. The emphasis of the descriptive material is on safety-related information. This includes: operating and maintenance requirements, input/output of major materials, identification and inventories of hazardous materials (particularly radioactive materials), unit operations involved, potential accident driving forces, containment and shielding, and degree of hands-on operation.

  6. Advanced Modeling and Evaluation of the Response of Base-Isolated Nuclear Facility Structures to Vertical Earthquake Excitation

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Keldrauk, Eric Scott

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Structures . iii 3 Nuclear Power Plants 3.1 Nuclear FacilityKashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant 3.3.1 2004 ChŻ uetsuno seismically-isolated nuclear plant has been constructed

  7. Mission and Readiness Assessment for Fusion Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G.H. Neilson, et. al.

    2012-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

    Magnetic fusion development toward DEMO will most likely require a number of fusion nuclear facilities (FNF), intermediate between ITER and DEMO, to test and validate plasma and nuclear technologies and to advance the level of system integration. The FNF mission space is wide, ranging from basic materials research to net electricity demonstration, so there is correspondingly a choice among machine options, scope, and risk in planning such a step. Readiness requirements to proceed with a DEMO are examined, and two FNF options are assessed in terms of the contributions they would make to closing DEMO readiness gaps, and their readiness to themselves proceed with engineering design about ten years from now. An advanced tokamak (AT) pilot plant with superconducting coils and a mission to demonstrate net electricity generation would go a long way toward DEMO. As a next step, however, a pilot plant would entail greater risk than a copper-coil FNSF-AT with its more focussed mission and technology requirements. The stellarator path to DEMO is briefly discussed. Regardless of the choice of FNF option, an accompanying science and technology development program, also aimed at DEMO readiness, is absolutely essential.

  8. Development of a Societal-Risk Goal for Nuclear Power Safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vicki Bier; Michael Corradini; Robert Youngblood; Caleb Roh; Shuji Liu

    2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The safety-goal policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has never included a true societal-risk goal. The NRC did acknowledge that the original goal for the risk of latent cancer facilities “was an individual risk goal not related to the number of people involved,” and stated that “a true societal risk goal would place a limit on the aggregate number of people affected.” However, this limitation was never satisfactorily addressed. Moreover, the safety goal has historically focused primarily on fatalities and latent health effects, while experience with actual nuclear accidents has shown that societal disruption can be significant even in accidents that yield only small to modest numbers of fatalities. Therefore, we have evaluated the social disruption effects from severe reactor accidents as a basis to develop a societal-risk goal for nuclear power plants, considering both health effects and non-health concerns such as property damage and land interdiction. Our initial analysis considered six different nuclear power plant sites in the U.S. for Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water Reactors. The accident sequences considered for these two reactor types were station blackout sequences (both short-term and long-term SBO) as well as an STSBO with RCIC failure for the BWR and a Steam Generator Tube Rupture for the PWR. The source term release was an input in a RASCAL calculation of the off-site consequences using actual site-based weather data for each of the six plant sites randomly selected over a two-year period. The source term release plumes were then compared to Geographical Information System data for each site to determine the population affected and that would need to be evacuated to meet current emergency preparedness regulations. Our results to date suggest that number of people evacuated to meet current protective action guidelines appears to be a good proxy for disruption -- and, unlike other measures of disruption, has the advantage of being relatively straightforward to calculate for a given accident scenario and a given geographical location and plant site. Revised safety goals taking into account the potential for societal disruption could in principle be applied to the current generation of nuclear plants, but could also be used in evaluating and siting new technologies, such as small modular light water reactors, advanced Gen-IV high-temperature reactors, as well as reactor designs with passive safety features such as filtered vented containments.

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  10. Applications of nuclear data covariances to criticality safety and spent fuel characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Williams, Mark L [ORNL] [ORNL; Ilas, Germina [ORNL] [ORNL; Marshall, William BJ J [ORNL] [ORNL; Rearden, Bradley T [ORNL] [ORNL

    2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Covariance data computational methods and data used for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis within the SCALE nuclear analysis code system are presented. Applications in criticality safety calculations and used nuclear fuel analysis are discussed.

  11. Nuclear Safety Risk Management in Refueling Outage of Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meijing Wu; Guozhang Shen [Qinshan Nuclear power company (China)

    2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The NPP is used to planning maintenance, in-service inspection, surveillance test, fuel handling and design modification in the refueling outage; the operator response capability will be reduced plus some of the plant systems out of service or loss of power at this time. Based on 8 times refueling outage experiences of the Qinshan NPP, this article provide some good practice and lesson learned for the nuclear safety risk management focus at four safety function areas of Residual Heat Removal Capability, Inventory Control, Power availability and Reactivity control. (authors)

  12. Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology ProgramFusion Nuclear Science and Technology Program Issues and Strategy for Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Abdou, Mohamed

    Need for Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology ProgramFusion Nuclear Science and Technology Program ­Issues and Strategy for Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) ­Key R&D Areas to begin NOW (modeling 12, 2010 #12;Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) FNST is the science engineering technology

  13. Ground Test Facility for Propulsion and Power Modes of Nuclear Engine Operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael, WILLIAMS

    2004-11-22T23:59:59.000Z

    Existing DOE Ground Test Facilities have not been used to support nuclear propulsion testing since the Rover/NERVA programs of the 1960's. Unlike the Rover/NERVA programs, DOE Ground Test facilities for space exploration enabling nuclear technologies can no longer be vented to the open atmosphere. The optimal selection of DOE facilities and accompanying modifications for confinement and treatment of exhaust gases will permit the safe testing of NASA Nuclear Propulsion and Power devices involving variable size and source nuclear engines for NASA Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO) and Commercial Space Exploration Missions with minimal cost, schedule and environmental impact. NASA site selection criteria and testing requirements are presented.

  14. Safety aspects of ground testing for large nuclear rockets

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldman, M.I.

    1988-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Present nuclear rocket reactors under test in Nevada are operated at nominal power levels of 1000 Mw. It does not seem unreasonable in the future to anticipate reactors with power levels in the range up to 5,000 Mw for space applications. It has been shown that the normal testing of large nuclear rocket engines at NRDS could impose some restrictions on the fuel performance which would not otherwise be required by space flight operation. The only apparent alternative would require a capability for decontaminating effluent gases prior to release to the atmosphere. In addition to the source restrictions, tests will almost certainly be controlled by wind and atmospheric stability conditions, and the requirements for monitoring and control of off-site exposures will be much more stringent than those presently in force. An analysis of maximum accidents indicates that projections of present credible occurrences cannot be tolerated in larger engine tests. The apparent alternatives to a significant (order of magnitude or better) reduction in credible accident consequences, are the establishment of an underground test facility, a facility in an area equivalent to the Pacific weapons proving ground, or in space.

  15. BFS, a Legacy to the International Reactor Physics, Criticality Safety, and Nuclear Data Communities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. Blair Briggs; Anatoly Tsibulya; Yevgeniy Rozhikhin

    2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Interest in high-quality integral benchmark data is increasing as efforts to quantify and reduce calculational uncertainties accelerate to meet the demands of next generation reactor and advanced fuel cycle concepts. Two Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) activities, the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), initiated in 1992, and the International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP), initiated in 2003, have been identifying existing integral experiment data, evaluating those data, and providing integral benchmark specifications for methods and data validation for nearly two decades. Thus far, 14 countries have contributed to the IRPhEP, and 20 have contributed to the ICSBEP. Data provided by these two projects will be of use to the international reactor physics, criticality safety, and nuclear data communities for future decades The Russian Federation has been a major contributor to both projects with the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE) as the major contributor from the Russian Federation. Included in the benchmark specifications from the BFS facilities are 34 critical configurations from BFS-49, 61, 62, 73, 79, 81, 97, 99, and 101; spectral characteristics measurements from BFS-31, 42, 57, 59, 61, 62, 73, 97, 99, and 101; reactivity effects measurements from BFS-62-3A; reactivity coefficients and kinetics measurements from BFS-73; and reaction rate measurements from BFS-42, 61, 62, 73, 97, 99, and 101.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

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

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

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

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

  18. Seismic Safety Guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eagling, D.G. (ed.)

    1983-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  19. Assessing conformance to safety goals using nonparametric empirical Bayes methods: A nuclear reactor application

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Martz, H.F.; Johnson, J.W. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States)

    1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Nonparametric empirical Bayes methods are used to develop decision criteria for use in deciding whether the risk of a given facility is compatible with a corresponding specified quantitative safety goal. The criteria utilize the uncertain results of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and are derived from an empirical Bayes point of view in which the results from a set of similar facilities are used to estimate the population variability curve (PVC) for the parameter of interest. The PVC is estimated nonparametrically in the sense that the distributional family to which the PVC belongs is completely unknown and unspecified. For the assumed model, the method guarantees that all facilities ultimately accepted as being compatible with the goal have a prespecified exact assurance probability that the goal is not exceeded. The method also accounts for two possible biases in the PRA results. Criteria are developed for use in assessing the compatibility of nuclear power plant PRA-produced severe core damage frequency estimates with a corresponding subsidiary objective.

  20. On the quantification of safety margins

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pagani, Lorenzo P

    2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  1. REVIEW OF INDUSTRIES AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR TECHNOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITIES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reilkoff, T. E.; Hetland, M. D.; O'Leary, E. M.

    2002-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

    The Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area's (DDFA's) mission is to develop, demonstrate, and deploy improved deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) technologies. This mission requires that emphasis be continually placed on identifying technologies currently employed or under development in other nuclear as well as nonnuclear industries and government agencies. In support of DDFA efforts to clean up the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) radiologically contaminated surplus facilities using technologies that improve worker safety, reduce costs, and accelerate cleanup schedules, a study was conducted to identify innovative technologies developed for use in nonnuclear arenas that are appropriate for D&D applications.

  2. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors At Multiple-Reactor Stations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wittenbrock, N. G.

    1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Safety and cost information is developed for the conceptual decommissioning of large (1175-MWe) pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and large (1155-MWe) boiling water reactors {BWRs) at multiple-reactor stations. Three decommissioning alternatives are studied: DECON (immediate decontamination), SAFSTOR (safe storage followed by deferred decontamination), and ENTOMB (entombment). Safety and costs of decommissioning are estimated by determining the impact of probable features of multiple-reactor-station operation that are considered to be unavailable at a single-reactor station, and applying these estimated impacts to the decommissioning costs and radiation doses estimated in previous PWR and BWR decommissioning studies. The multiple-reactor-station features analyzed are: the use of interim onsite nuclear waste storage with later removal to an offsite nuclear waste disposal facility, the use of permanent onsite nuclear waste disposal, the dedication of the site to nuclear power generation, and the provision of centralized services. Five scenarios for decommissioning reactors at a multiple-reactor station are investigated. The number of reactors on a site is assumed to be either four or ten; nuclear waste disposal is varied between immediate offsite disposal, interim onsite storage, and immediate onsite disposal. It is assumed that the decommissioned reactors are not replaced in one scenario but are replaced in the other scenarios. Centralized service facilities are provided in two scenarios but are not provided in the other three. Decommissioning of a PWR or a BWR at a multiple-reactor station probably will be less costly and result in lower radiation doses than decommissioning an identical reactor at a single-reactor station. Regardless of whether the light water reactor being decommissioned is at a single- or multiple-reactor station: • the estimated occupational radiation dose for decommissioning an LWR is lowest for SAFSTOR and highest for DECON • the estimated cost of decommissioning a PWR is lowest for ENTOMB and highest for SAFSTOR • the estimated cost of decommissioning a BWR is lowest for OECON and highest for SAFSTOR. In all cases, SAFSTOR has the lowest occupational radiation dose and the highest cost.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  4. SWAMI: An Autonomous Mobile Robot for Inspection of Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Stephens, Larry M.

    SWAMI: An Autonomous Mobile Robot for Inspection of Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities Ron Fulbright Inspector (SWAMI) is a prototype mobile robot designed to perform autonomous inspection of nuclear waste user interface building tool called UIM/X. Introduction Safe disposal of nuclear waste is a difficult

  5. Ground test facilities for evaluating nuclear thermal propulsion engines and fuel elements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allen, G.C.; Beck, D.F.; Harmon, C.D.; Shipers, L.R.

    1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Interagency panels evaluating nuclear thermal propulsion development options have consistently recognized the need for constructing a major new ground test facility to support fuel element and engine testing. This paper summarizes the requirements, configuration, and design issues of a proposed ground test complex for evaluating nuclear thermal propulsion engines and fuel elements being developed for the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) program. 2 refs.

  6. Heat barrier for use in a nuclear reactor facility

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Keegan, Charles P. (South Huntingdon Twp., Westmoreland County, PA)

    1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A thermal barrier for use in a nuclear reactor facility is disclosed herein. Generally, the thermal barrier comprises a flexible, heat-resistant web mounted over the annular space between the reactor vessel and the guard vessel in order to prevent convection currents generated in the nitrogen atmosphere in this space from entering the relatively cooler atmosphere of the reactor cavity which surrounds these vessels. Preferably, the flexible web includes a blanket of heat-insulating material formed from fibers of a refractory material, such as alumina and silica, sandwiched between a heat-resistant, metallic cloth made from stainless steel wire. In use, the web is mounted between the upper edges of the guard vessel and the flange of a sealing ring which surrounds the reactor vessel with a sufficient enough slack to avoid being pulled taut as a result of thermal differential expansion between the two vessels. The flexible web replaces the rigid and relatively complicated structures employed in the prior art for insulating the reactor cavity from the convection currents generated between the reactor vessel and the guard vessel.

  7. Proceedings of the international meeting on thermal nuclear reactor safety. Vol. 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    1983-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Separate abstracts are included for each of the papers presented concerning current issues in nuclear power plant safety; national programs in nuclear power plant safety; radiological source terms; probabilistic risk assessment methods and techniques; non LOCA and small-break-LOCA transients; safety goals; pressurized thermal shocks; applications of reliability and risk methods to probabilistic risk assessment; human factors and man-machine interface; and data bases and special applications.

  8. Nuclear Safety. Technical Progress Journal, October--December 1991: Volume 32, No. 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated.

  9. Facility Safety

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

    2014-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

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

  10. National Nuclear Secutffy Admlnlsbrrtlon NEVADA SITE OFFICE

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

    CPAF - Cost Plus Award Fee D&D - Decontamination and Decommission DEAR - Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation DNFSB - Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DoD -...

  11. Cold Vacuum Drying Facility hazard analysis report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krahn, D.E.

    1998-02-23T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) hazard analysis to support the CVDF phase 2 safety analysis report (SAR), and documents the results. The hazard analysis was performed in accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for US Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports, and implements the requirements of US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.

  12. FACILITY WORKER TECHNICAL BASIS DOCUMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SHULTZ, M.V.

    2005-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  14. Global nuclear energy partnership fuels transient testing at the Sandia National Laboratories nuclear facilities : planning and facility infrastructure options.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kelly, John E.; Wright, Steven Alan; Tikare, Veena; MacLean, Heather J. (Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID); Parma, Edward J., Jr.; Peters, Curtis D.; Vernon, Milton E.; Pickard, Paul S.

    2007-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership fuels development program is currently developing metallic, oxide, and nitride fuel forms as candidate fuels for an Advanced Burner Reactor. The Advance Burner Reactor is being designed to fission actinides efficiently, thereby reducing the long-term storage requirements for spent fuel repositories. Small fuel samples are being fabricated and evaluated with different transuranic loadings and with extensive burnup using the Advanced Test Reactor. During the next several years, numerous fuel samples will be fabricated, evaluated, and tested, with the eventual goal of developing a transmuter fuel database that supports the down selection to the most suitable fuel type. To provide a comparative database of safety margins for the range of potential transmuter fuels, this report describes a plan to conduct a set of early transient tests in the Annular Core Research Reactor at Sandia National Laboratories. The Annular Core Research Reactor is uniquely qualified to perform these types of tests because of its wide range of operating capabilities and large dry central cavity which extents through the center of the core. The goal of the fuels testing program is to demonstrate that the design and fabrication processes are of sufficient quality that the fuel will not fail at its design limit--up to a specified burnup, power density, and operating temperature. Transient testing is required to determine the fuel pin failure thresholds and to demonstrate that adequate fuel failure margins exist during the postulated design basis accidents.

  15. Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    3116 Public Meeting Summaries - July 2007 Fifth National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management...

  16. Safeguards-by-Design: Early Integration of Physical Protection and Safeguardability into Design of Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. Bjornard; R. Bean; S. DeMuth; P. Durst; M. Ehinger; M. Golay; D. Hebditch; J. Hockert; J. Morgan

    2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The application of a Safeguards-by-Design (SBD) process for new nuclear facilities has the potential to minimize proliferation and security risks as the use of nuclear energy expands worldwide. This paper defines a generic SBD process and its incorporation from early design phases into existing design / construction processes and develops a framework that can guide its institutionalization. SBD could be a basis for a new international norm and standard process for nuclear facility design. This work is part of the U.S. DOE’s Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI), and is jointly sponsored by the Offices of Non-proliferation and Nuclear Energy.

  17. Certification of U.S. instrumentation in Russian nuclear processing facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D.H. Powell; J.N. Sumner

    2000-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

    Agreements between the United States (U.S.) and the Russian Federation (R.F.) require the down-blending of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from dismantled Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The Blend Down Monitoring System (BDMS) was jointly developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to continuously monitor the enrichments and flow rates in the HEU blending operations at the R.F. facilities. A significant requirement of the implementation of the BDMS equipment in R.F. facilities concerned the certification of the BDMS equipment for use in a Russian nuclear facility. This paper discusses the certification of the BDMS for installation in R.F. facilities, and summarizes the lessons learned from the process that can be applied to the installation of other U.S. equipment in Russian nuclear facilities.

  18. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 13: Part 2, Indexes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goins, L.F.; Webb, J.R.; Cravens, C.D.; Mallory, P.K.

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is part 2 of a bibliography on nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial action. This report contains indexes on the following: authors, corporate affiliation, title words, publication description, geographic location, subject category, and key word.

  19. Order Module--DOE O 433.1B, MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    "The familiar level of this module is designed to summarize the basic information in DOE O 433.1B, Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities. This Order canceled DOE O 433.1A. This...

  20. Myths and representations in French nuclear history: The impact on decommissioning safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Paris-Sud XI, Université de

    Myths and representations in French nuclear history: The impact on decommissioning safety C. Martin. The decommissioning of many operational plants (whether because nuclear power is being withdrawn, or because plants accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has shown that in many countries the debate on the withdrawal

  1. ASSESSING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY AND RECOVERY FROM EARTHQUAKES USING A SYSTEM-OF-SYSTEMS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Paris-Sud XI, Université de

    by Monte Carlo simulation the probability that the nuclear power plant enters in an unsafe stateASSESSING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY AND RECOVERY FROM EARTHQUAKES USING A SYSTEM in which the plant is embedded. As a test system, we consider the impacts produced on a nuclear power plant

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    King, J J

    2010-12-02T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NIELSEN, D L

    2004-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L.J.

    2003-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  7. Nuclear criticality safety aspects of gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF{sub 6}) in the diffusion cascade

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Huffer, J.E. [Parallax, Inc., Atlanta, GA (United States)

    1997-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper determines the nuclear safety of gaseous UF{sub 6} in the current Gaseous Diffusion Cascade and auxiliary systems. The actual plant safety system settings for pressure trip points are used to determine the maximum amount of HF moderation in the process gas, as well as the corresponding atomic number densities. These inputs are used in KENO V.a criticality safety models which are sized to the actual plant equipment. The ENO V.a calculation results confirm nuclear safety of gaseous UF{sub 6} in plant operations..

  8. Hanford Generic Interim Safety Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lavender, J.C.

    1994-09-09T23:59:59.000Z

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

  9. Safeguards Guidance Document for Designers of Commercial Nuclear Facilities: International Nuclear Safeguards Requirements and Practices For Uranium Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Bean; Casey Durst

    2009-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is the second in a series of guidelines on international safeguards requirements and practices, prepared expressly for the designers of nuclear facilities. The first document in this series is the description of generic international nuclear safeguards requirements pertaining to all types of facilities. These requirements should be understood and considered at the earliest stages of facility design as part of a new process called “Safeguards-by-Design.” This will help eliminate the costly retrofit of facilities that has occurred in the past to accommodate nuclear safeguards verification activities. The following summarizes the requirements for international nuclear safeguards implementation at enrichment plants, prepared under the Safeguards by Design project, and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Office of NA-243. The purpose of this is to provide designers of nuclear facilities around the world with a simplified set of design requirements and the most common practices for meeting them. The foundation for these requirements is the international safeguards agreement between the country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), pursuant to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Relevant safeguards requirements are also cited from the Safeguards Criteria for inspecting enrichment plants, found in the IAEA Safeguards Manual, Part SMC-8. IAEA definitions and terms are based on the IAEA Safeguards Glossary, published in 2002. The most current specification for safeguards measurement accuracy is found in the IAEA document STR-327, “International Target Values 2000 for Measurement Uncertainties in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials,” published in 2001. For this guide to be easier for the designer to use, the requirements have been restated in plainer language per expert interpretation using the source documents noted. The safeguards agreement is fundamentally a legal document. As such, it is written in a legalese that is understood by specialists in international law and treaties, but not by most outside of this field, including designers of nuclear facilities. For this reason, many of the requirements have been simplified and restated. However, in all cases, the relevant source document and passage is noted so that readers may trace the requirement to the source. This is a helpful living guide, since some of these requirements are subject to revision over time. More importantly, the practices by which the requirements are met are continuously modernized by the IAEA and nuclear facility operators to improve not only the effectiveness of international nuclear safeguards, but also the efficiency. As these improvements are made, the following guidelines should be updated and revised accordingly.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Flynn, N.C. Bechtel Jacobs

    2008-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

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

  11. REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ON NUCLEAR FACILITY DESIGN INFORMATION EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION FOR SAFEGUARDS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard Metcalf; Robert Bean

    2009-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Executive Summary The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) implements nuclear safeguards and verifies countries are compliant with their international nuclear safeguards agreements. One of the key provisions in the safeguards agreement is the requirement that the country provide nuclear facility design and operating information to the IAEA relevant to safeguarding the facility, and at a very early stage. , This provides the opportunity for the IAEA to verify the safeguards-relevant features of the facility and to periodically ensure that those features have not changed. The national authorities (State System of Accounting for and Control of Nuclear Material - SSAC) provide the design information for all facilities within a country to the IAEA. The design information is conveyed using the IAEA’s Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) and specifies: (1) Identification of the facility’s general character, purpose, capacity, and location; (2) Description of the facility’s layout and nuclear material form, location, and flow; (3) Description of the features relating to nuclear material accounting, containment, and surveillance; and (4) Description of existing and proposed procedures for nuclear material accounting and control, with identification of nuclear material balance areas. The DIQ is updated as required by written addendum. IAEA safeguards inspectors examine and verify this information in design information examination (DIE) and design information verification (DIV) activities to confirm that the facility has been constructed or is being operated as declared by the facility operator and national authorities, and to develop a suitable safeguards approach. Under the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI), the National Nuclear Security Administrations (NNSA) Office of Non-Proliferation and International Security identified the need for more effective and efficient verification of design information by the IAEA for improving international safeguards in the future. Consequently, the NNSA Office of International Regimes and Agreements (NA-243) sponsored a team of U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory nuclear safeguards experts and technologists to conduct a workshop on methods and technologies for improving this activity, under the ASA-100 Advanced Safeguards Approaches Project. The workshop focused on reviewing and discussing the fundamental safeguards needs, and presented technology and/or methods that could potentially address those needs more effectively and efficiently. Conclusions and Recommendations for technology to enhance the performance of DIV inspections are presented by the workshop team.

  12. Potential safety-related incidents with possible applicability to a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Durant, W.S.; Perkins, W.C.; Lee, R.; Stoddard, D.H.

    1982-05-20T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety Technology Group is developing methodology that can be used to assess the risk of operating a plant to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. As an early step in the methodology, a preliminary hazards analysis identifies safety-related incidents. In the absence of appropriate safety features, these incidents could lead to significant consequences and risk to onsite personnel or to the public. This report is a compilation of potential safety-related incidents that have been identified in studies at SRL and in safety analyses of various commercially designed reprocessing plants. It is an expanded revision of the version originally published as DP-1558, Published December 1980.

  13. Safety and Nonsafety Communications and Interactions in International Nuclear Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kisner, Roger A [ORNL; Mullens, James Allen [ORNL; Wilson, Thomas L [ORNL; Wood, Richard Thomas [ORNL; Korsah, Kofi [ORNL; Qualls, A L [ORNL; Muhlheim, Michael David [ORNL; Holcomb, David Eugene [ORNL; Loebl, Andy [ORNL

    2007-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Current industry and NRC guidance documents such as IEEE 7-4.3.2, Reg. Guide 1.152, and IEEE 603 do not sufficiently define a level of detail for evaluating interdivisional communications independence. The NRC seeks to establish criteria for safety systems communications that can be uniformly applied in evaluation of a variety of safety system designs. This report focuses strictly on communication issues related to data sent between safety systems and between safety and nonsafety systems. Further, the report does not provide design guidance for communication systems nor present detailed failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) results for existing designs. This letter report describes communications between safety and nonsafety systems in nuclear power plants outside the United States. A limited study of international nuclear power plants was conducted to ascertain important communication implementations that might have bearing on systems proposed for licensing in the United States. This report provides that following information: 1.communications types and structures used in a representative set of international nuclear power reactors, and 2.communications issues derived from standards and other source documents relevant to safety and nonsafety communications. Topics that are discussed include the following: communication among redundant safety divisions, communications between safety divisions and nonsafety systems, control of safety equipment from a nonsafety workstation, and connection of nonsafety programming, maintenance, and test equipment to redundant safety divisions during operation. Information for this report was obtained through publicly available sources such as published papers and presentations. No proprietary information is represented.

  14. Global nuclear material monitoring with NDA and C/S data through integrated facility monitoring

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Howell, J.A.; Menlove, H.O.; Argo, P.; Goulding, C.; Klosterbuer, S.; Halbig, J.

    1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper focuses on a flexible, integrated demonstration of a monitoring approach for nuclear material monitoring. This includes aspects of item signature identification, perimeter portal monitoring, advanced data analysis, and communication as a part of an unattended continuous monitoring system in an operating nuclear facility. Advanced analysis is applied to the integrated nondestructive assay and containment and surveillance data that are synchronized in time. End result will be the foundation for a cost-effective monitoring system that could provide the necessary transparency even in areas that are denied to foreign nationals of both US and Russia should these processes and materials come under full-scope safeguards or bilateral agreements. Monitoring systems of this kind have the potential to provide additional benefits including improved nuclear facility security and safeguards and lower personnel radiation exposures. Demonstration facilities in this paper include VTRAP-prototype, Los Alamos Critical Assemblies Facility, Kazakhstan BM-350 Reactor monitor, DUPIC radiation monitoring, and JOYO and MONJU radiation monitoring.

  15. Manual of functions, assignments, and responsibilities for nuclear safety: Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The FAR Manual is a convenient easy-to-use collection of the functions, assignments, and responsibilities (FARs) of DOE nuclear safety personnel. Current DOE directives, including Orders, Secretary of Energy Notices, and other assorted policy memoranda, are the source of this information and form the basis of the FAR Manual. Today, the majority of FARs for DOE personnel are contained in DOE`s nuclear safety Orders. As these Orders are converted to rules in the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAR Manual will become the sole source for information relating to the functions, assignments, responsibilities of DOE nuclear safety personnel. The FAR Manual identifies DOE directives that relate to nuclear safety and the specific DOE personnel who are responsible for implementing them. The manual includes only FARs that have been extracted from active directives that have been approved in accordance with the procedures contained in DOE Order 1321.1B.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

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

  17. Mock Nuclear Processing Facility-Safeguards Training Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gibbs, Philip [Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY (United States); Hasty, Tim [Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, SC (United States). Savannah River National Lab. (SRNL); Johns, Rissell [Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); Baum, Gregory [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)

    2014-08-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This document outlines specific training requirements in the topical areas of Material Control and Accounting (MC&A) and Physical Protection(PP) which are to be used as technical input for designing a mock Integrated Security Facility (ISF) at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The overall project objective for these requirements is to enhance the ability to deliver training on Material Protection Control and Accounting (MC&A) concepts regarding hazardous material such as irradiated materials with respect to bulk processing facilities.

  18. Project Title: Nuclear Astrophysics Data from Radioactive Beam Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alan A. Chen

    2008-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The scientific aims of this project have been the evaluation and dissemination of key nuclear reactions in nuclear astrophysics, with a focus on ones to be studied at new radioactive beam facilities worldwide. These aims were maintained during the entire funding period from 2003 - 2006. In the following, a summary of the reactions evaluated during this period is provided. Year 1 (2003-04): {sup 21}Na(p,{gamma}){sup 22}Mg and {sup 18}Ne({alpha},p){sup 21}Na - The importance of the {sup 21}Na(p,{gamma}){sup 22}Mg and the {sup 18}Ne({alpha},p){sup 21}Na reactions in models of exploding stars has been well documented: the first is connected to the production of the radioisotope {sup 22}Na in nova nucleosynthesis, while the second is a key bridge between the Hot-CNO cycles and the rp-process in X-ray bursts. By the end of Summer 2004, our group had updated these reaction rates to include all published data up to September 2004, and cast the reaction rates into standard analytical and tabular formats with the assistance of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's computational infrastructure for reaction rates. Since September 2004, ongoing experiments on these two reactions have been completed, with our group's participation in both: {sup 21}Na(p,{gamma}){sup 22}Mg at the TRIUMF-ISAC laboratory (DRAGON collaboration), and 18Ne({alpha},p){sup 21}Na at Argonne National Laboratory (collaboration with Ernst Rehm, Argonne). The data from the former was subsequently published and included in our evaluation. Publication from the latter still awaits independent confirmation of the experimental results. Year 2 (2004-05): The 25Al(p,{gamma}){sup 26}Si and {sup 13}N(p,{gamma})14O reactions - For Year 2, we worked on evaluations of the {sup 25}Al(p,{gamma}){sup 26}Si and {sup 13}N(p,{gamma}){sup 14}O reactions, in accordance with our proposed deliverables and following similar standard procedures to those used in Year 1. The {sup 25}Al(p,{gamma}){sup 26}Si reaction is a key uncertainty in the understanding the origin of galactic {sup 26}Al, a target radioisotope for gamma ray astronomy; the {sup 13}N(p,{gamma}){sup 14}O reaction in turn is the trigger reaction for the transition into the Hot-CNO cycles in novae and X-ray bursts. A graduate student of mine, who has been supported part-time by this grant, completed the evaluation of the {sup 25}Al(p,{gamma}){sup 26}Si reaction as part of his plans to measure this reaction at TRIUMF for his Ph.D. thesis project. I also hired a part-time undergraduate student for the 2004-05 academic year to assist with the evaluations, including that of the {sup 13}N(p,{gamma}){sup 14}O reaction. Year 3 (2005-06): The {sup 40}Ca({alpha},{gamma}){sup 44}Ti and {sup 26}Al(p,{gamma}){sup 27}Si reactions - This year's progress was closely coupled to new results coming from our collaboration on the DRAGON spectrometer team at TRIUMF. The {sup 40}Ca({alpha},{gamma}){sup 44}Ti and {sup 26}Al(p,{gamma}){sup 27}Si reactions were both measured, and significant modifications to their respective reaction rates were required. Both are required input toward predicting the respective amounts of Titanium-44 and Aluminum-26 produced in our galaxy, in supernovae, massive stars, and nova explosions. The {sup 26}Al(p,{gamma}){sup 27}Si reaction rate was successfully completed. The {sup 40}Ca({alpha},{gamma}){sup 44}Ti reaction in particular served as the Ph.D. thesis for Christian Ouellet, and therefore the evaluation of this rate fell naturally within his thesis project. Christian successfully defended his thesis in 2007 and is now working for me on the McMaster DOE-funded Nuclear Data Project. In light of the recent data from his thesis, Christian is now putting the final touches on this evaluation, and will disseminate it through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reaction rate database.

  19. 2013 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  20. 2014 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  1. 2012 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  2. Application of Neutron-Absorbing Structural-Amorphous metal (SAM) Coatings for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Container to Enhance Criticality Safety Controls

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    241 Pu, etc. ). To prevent nuclear criticality in spent fuelto enhance criticality safety for spent nuclear fuel inSpent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Container to Enhance Criticality

  3. SPD SEIS References for Appendix J | National Nuclear Security...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    the Construction and Operation of a Proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, NUREG-1767, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and...

  4. The environmental impact assessment process for nuclear facilities: An examination of the Indian experience

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ramana, M.V., E-mail: mvramana@gmail.co [Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore (India); Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, ISEC Campus, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore 560 070 (India); Rao, Divya Badami, E-mail: di.badamirao@gmail.co [Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore (India); Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, ISEC Campus, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore 560 070 (India)

    2010-07-15T23:59:59.000Z

    India plans to construct numerous nuclear plants and uranium mines across the country, which could have significant environmental, health, and social impacts. The national Environmental Impact Assessment process is supposed to regulate these impacts. This paper examines how effective this process has been, and the extent to which public inputs have been taken into account. In addition to generic problems associated with the EIA process for all kinds of projects in India, there are concerns that are specific to nuclear facilities. One is that some nuclear facilities are exempt from the environmental clearance process. The second is that data regarding radiation baseline levels and future releases, which is the principle environmental concern with respect to nuclear facilities, is controlled entirely by the nuclear establishment. The third is that members of the nuclear establishment take part in almost every level of the environmental clearance procedure. For these reasons and others, the EIA process with regard to nuclear projects in India is of dubious quality. We make a number of recommendations that could address these lacunae, and more generally the imbalance of power between the nuclear establishment on the one hand, and civil society and the regulatory agencies on the other.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Busche, D.M.

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  6. Facility Operations and User Support | National Nuclear Security

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

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

  7. Nuclear Safety Component and Services Procurement, June 29, 2011...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    require component and materials replacement identified and implemented? * Are appropriate preventive maintenance requirements for stored safety-related equipment identified and...

  8. Safety of nuclear power reactors in the former Eastern European countries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chakraborty, S. [Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, Villigen (Switzerland)

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This article discusses the safety of nuclear power plants in the former Eastern European countries (including the former Soviet Union). The current international design fabrication, construction, operation, safely, regulatory standards and practices, and ways to resolve plant problems are addressed in light of experience with the Western nuclear power development programs. 9 refs., 4 figs.

  9. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project Cold Vacuum Drying (CVD) Facility Master Equipment List

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    IRWIN, J.J.

    1999-09-21T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides the master equipment list (MEL) for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The MEL was prepared to comply with DOE Standard 3024-98, Content of System Design Descriptions. The MEL was developed in conjunction with HNF-SD-SNF-SAR-002, Safety Analysis Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Phase 2, Supporting Installation of Processing Systems and the CVDF System Design Descriptions (SDD). The MEL identifies the SSCs and their safety functions, the design criteria, codes and standards, and quality assurance requirements that are required for establishing the safety design basis of the SSCs. The MEL also includes operating parameters, manufacturer information, and references the procurement specifications for the SSCs. This MEL shall be updated, expanded, and revised in accordance with future phases of the CVDF SAR, the SDD's, and CVDF operations.

  10. Oak Ridge Critical Experiment Facility (Building 9213)

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1992-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

  13. Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HUNACEK, G.S.

    2000-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US. Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document was prepared using the specific guidelines identified in Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC)-EP-0438-1, ''A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans'', and assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan is the third revision to the original annual report. This document is reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it is updated as necessary.

  14. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92 (2007) 609618 The nuclear industry's transition to risk-informed regulation and

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    improvement in safety based on Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) performance indicatorsReliability Engineering and System Safety 92 (2007) 609­618 The nuclear industry's transition a Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

  15. WASTE PROCESSING ANNUAL NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED R AND D REPORT FOR CY2008

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fellinger, A.

    2009-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Engineering and Technology Office of Waste Processing identifies and reduces engineering and technical risks associated with key waste processing project decisions. The risks, and actions taken to mitigate those risks, are determined through technology readiness assessments, program reviews, technology information exchanges, external technical reviews, technical assistance, and targeted technology development and deployment (TDD). The Office of Waste Processing TDD program prioritizes and approves research and development scopes of work that address nuclear safety related to processing of highly radioactive nuclear wastes. Thirteen of the thirty-five R&D approved work scopes in FY2009 relate directly to nuclear safety, and are presented in this report.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2006-01-23T23:59:59.000Z

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

  17. Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Waste IPSC).

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schultz, Peter Andrew

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The objective of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Waste IPSC) is to provide an integrated suite of computational modeling and simulation (M&S) capabilities to quantitatively assess the long-term performance of waste forms in the engineered and geologic environments of a radioactive-waste storage facility or disposal repository. Achieving the objective of modeling the performance of a disposal scenario requires describing processes involved in waste form degradation and radionuclide release at the subcontinuum scale, beginning with mechanistic descriptions of chemical reactions and chemical kinetics at the atomic scale, and upscaling into effective, validated constitutive models for input to high-fidelity continuum scale codes for coupled multiphysics simulations of release and transport. Verification and validation (V&V) is required throughout the system to establish evidence-based metrics for the level of confidence in M&S codes and capabilities, including at the subcontiunuum scale and the constitutive models they inform or generate. This Report outlines the nature of the V&V challenge at the subcontinuum scale, an approach to incorporate V&V concepts into subcontinuum scale modeling and simulation (M&S), and a plan to incrementally incorporate effective V&V into subcontinuum scale M&S destined for use in the NEAMS Waste IPSC work flow to meet requirements of quantitative confidence in the constitutive models informed by subcontinuum scale phenomena.

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin ofEnergy at Waste-to-Energy usingofRetrofitting Doors onNovember 14, DOE-STD-1104-96

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin ofEnergy at Waste-to-Energy usingofRetrofitting Doors onNovember 14, DOE-STD-1104-96

  20. Design of Safety Significant Safety Instrumented Systems Used at DOE Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny:Revised Finding of No53197E T A * S H I E L D *DepartmentTSDepartment3,of