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


1

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

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

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

2

Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules  

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

Nuclear Safety (HS-30) Office of Nuclear Safety Home Directives Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules Nuclear Safety Workshops Technical Standards Program Search ...

3

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

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

CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) that can be used for assessment of a contractor's Nuclear Facility Safety Basis. CRADs provide a recommended approach and the types of information to gather to assess elements of a DOE contractor's programs. CRAD, Facility Safety - Nuclear Facility Safety Basis More Documents & Publications CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements Site Visit Report, Livermore Site Office - February 2011 FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Safety Specialist

4

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs: Nuclear Facility Training  

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

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

5

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs  

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

Safety Programs establishes requirements related to safety management programs that are essential to the safety of DOE nuclear facilities. In addition, establishes requirements...

6

Facility Safety Assessment - Nuclear Engineering Division (Argonne...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

7

Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

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

2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

8

Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives | Department of Energy  

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

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

9

Facility Representative Program: Nuclear Safety Basis Fundamentals...  

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

Qualification Information Qualification Standards DOE Order Self-Study Modules DOE Fundamentals Handbooks Nuclear Safety Basis Self-Study Guide Energy Online Courses Available...

10

NNSA and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board certifications...  

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

allocated funding NNSA and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board certifications free up 47 million in previously allocated funding The DNFSB and NNSA required the CMRR...

11

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

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

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October 2012 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility [HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02] The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) observed the public hearing of the DNFSB review of the UPF project status for integrating safety into design. The meeting was broken into three parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12 Technical Services, LLC (B&W Y-12) design project team leadership; and an open public

12

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

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

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October 2012 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility [HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02] The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) observed the public hearing of the DNFSB review of the UPF project status for integrating safety into design. The meeting was broken into three parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12 Technical Services, LLC (B&W Y-12) design project team leadership; and an open public

13

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

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

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October 2012 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the Status of Integration of Safety Into the Design of the Uranium Processing Facility [HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02] The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) observed the public hearing of the DNFSB review of the UPF project status for integrating safety into design. The meeting was broken into three parts: a panel discussion and questioning of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversight and execution; a panel discussion and questioning of the B&W Y-12 Technical Services, LLC (B&W Y-12) design project team leadership; and an open public

14

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's enabling legislation  

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

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

15

Nuclear Safety  

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

Nuclear Safety information site that provides assistance and resources to field elements in implementation of requirements and resolving nuclear safety, facility safety, and quality assurance issues.

16

Siting of nuclear facilities. Selections from Nuclear Safety  

SciTech Connect

The report presented siting policy and practice for nuclear power plants as developed in the U.S. and abroad. Twenty-two articles from Nuclear Safety on this general topic are reprinted since they provide a valuable reference source. The appendices also include reprints of some relevant regulatory rules and guides on siting. Advantages and disadvantages of novel siting concepts such as underground containment, offshore siting, and nuclear energy parks are addressed. Other topics include site criteria, risk criteria, and nuclear ship criteria.

Buchanan, J.R.

1976-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

17

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

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

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

18

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

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

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

19

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

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

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

20

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board - Strategic Plan...  

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

all of its defense nuclear facilities. Message from the Board Peter S. Winokur, Chariman Jessie H. Roberson, Vice Chariman John E. Mansfield Joseph F. Bader DEFENSE NUCLEAR...

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


21

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

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

Oak Ridge Operations Office Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide [Fulfills ORO Safety Basis Competency 1, 2 (Part 1), or 7 (Part 1)] November 2002 Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................... iii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................iv List of Tables......................................................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

22

DOE M 140.1-1B, Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2001-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

23

Assessment of nuclear safety and nuclear criticality potential in the Defense Waste Processing Facility  

SciTech Connect

A panel of experts in the fields of process engineering, process chemistry, and safety analysis met together on January 26, 1993, and February 19, 1993, to discuss nuclear safety and nuclear criticality potential in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) processes. Nuclear safety issues and possibilities of nuclear criticality incidents in the DWPF were examined in depth. The discussion started at the receipt of slurry feeds: The Low Point Pump Pit Precipitate Tank (LPPPPT) and the Low Point Pump Pit Sludge Tank (LPPPST), and went into detail the whole DWPF processes. This report provides discussion of each of the areas and processes of the DWPF in terms of potential nuclear safety issues and nuclear criticality concerns.

Ha, B.C.

1993-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

24

Office of Nuclear Facility Basis & Facility Design  

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

Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design(HS-31) Reports to the Office of Nuclear Safety About Us The Office of Nuclear Safety Basis & Facility Design establishes safety...

25

Office of Nuclear Safety  

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

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

26

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, ACTION: Notice...  

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

upon to accomplish the mission assigned to DOE and NNSA under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, at defense nuclear facilities . We will focus on what impact DOE's and...

27

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

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

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

28

Nuclear Safety Workshops  

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

Directives Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules Nuclear Safety Workshops Technical Standards Program Search Approved Standards Recently Approved RevCom...

29

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

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

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

30

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

Not Available

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

31

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

SciTech Connect

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

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

32

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

NONE

1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

33

Development of a safety assessment approach for decontamination and decommissioning operations at nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for nearly 1000 nuclear facilities which will eventually be decommissioned. In order to ensure that the health and safety of the workers, other personnel on site and the public in general is maintained during decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) operations, a methodology specifically for use in evaluating the nuclear safety of the associated activities is being developed within the Department. This methodology represents not so much a departure from that currently fish in the DOE when conducting safety assessments of operations at nuclear facilities but, rather, a formalization of those methods specifically adapted to the D&D activities. As such, it is intended to provide the safety assessment personnel with a framework on which they can base their technical judgement, to assure a consistent approach to safety assessment of D&D operations and to facilitate the systematic collection of data from facilities in the post-operational part of the life cycle.

Worthington, P.R. [USDOE, Washington, DC (United States); Cowgill, M.G. [Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States)

1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

34

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LABORATORY SAFETY REPORT, MARTIN NUCLEAR FACILITY, QUEHANNA SITE  

SciTech Connect

A description is given of the safety features and the major alterations to be performed prior to occupancy. The evaluation was made in support of fubrication work on the production of safe isotopic power sources from Cm/sup 242/ and Sr/sup 90/. The chemical, nuclear, and radiobiological properties of Cm/sup 242/ and Sr/sup 90/ are outlined. The projected physical fiow of materials for production of the isotopic power souroes is schematically given. An evaluation of the malfunctions, operational hazards, and remedial health physics procedures is presented. The analysis and evaluation of postulated maximum credible incidents are demonstrated. (B.O.G.)

1960-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

35

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

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

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

36

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

SciTech Connect

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

VINCENT, Andrew

2005-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

37

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

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

institutional programs in Integrated Safety Management System documents and site-wide manuals was added. p. 13 Sect. 3 Approval Bases for Technical Safety Requirements New...

38

DOE G 420.1-1A, Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Guide for use with DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

39

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

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

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

40

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Review at the Nevada...  

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

air filters. The Board members and staff toured CEF, DAF, and the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) facility. Additional discussions of subcritical...

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


41

Safety/safeguards interactions during safety-related emergencies at Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report contains an analysis of the safety/safeguards interactions that could occur during safety-related emergencies at licensed nuclear power reactors, and the extent to which these interactions are addressed in existing or proposed NRC guidance. The safety/safeguards interaction during a series of postulated emergencies was systematically examined to identify any potential performance deficiencies or conflicts between the Operations (safety) and Security (safeguards) organizations. This examination included the impacts of coordination with off-site emergency response personnel. Duties, responsibilities, optimal methods, and procedural actions inherent in these interactions were explored.

Moul, D.A.; Pilgrim, M.K.; Schweizer, R.L.; McEwen, J.E. Jr.

1985-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

42

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting on the...  

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

HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 0 Report Number: HIAR-Y-12-2012-10-02 Site: Y-12 UPF Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management...

43

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

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

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

44

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework  

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

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

45

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

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

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

46

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Taylor, Neill

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

47

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

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

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

48

Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program  

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

Nuclear Safety (HS-30) Office of Nuclear Safety Home Directives Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules Nuclear Safety Workshops Technical Standards Program Search ...

49

Nuclear criticality safety evaluation -- DWPF Late Wash Facility, Salt Process Cell and Chemical Process Cell  

SciTech Connect

The Savannah River Site (SRS) High Level Nuclear Waste will be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) for long term storage and disposal. This is a nuclear criticality safety evaluation for the Late Wash Facility (LWF), the Salt Processing Cell (SPC) and the Chemical Processing Cell (CPC). of the DWPF. Waste salt solution is processed in the Tank Farm In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) process and is then further washed in the DWPF Late Wash Facility (LWF) before it is fed to the DWPF Salt Processing Cell. In the Salt Processing Cell the precipitate slurry is processed in the Precipitate Reactor (PR) and the resultant Precipitate Hydrolysis Aqueous (PHA) produce is combined with the sludge feed and frit in the DWPF Chemical Process Cell to produce a melter feed. The waste is finally immobilized in the Melt Cell. Material in the Tank Farm and the ITP and Extended Sludge processes have been shown to be safe against a nuclear criticality by others. The precipitate slurry feed from ITP and the first six batches of sludge feed are safe against a nuclear criticality and this evaluation demonstrates that the processes in the LWF, the SPC and the CPC do not alter the characteristics of the materials to compromise safety.

Williamson, T.G.

1994-10-17T23:59:59.000Z

50

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions  

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

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

51

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions  

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

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

52

SRTC criticality safety technical review: Nuclear criticality safety evaluation 94-02, uranium solidification facility pencil tank module spacing  

SciTech Connect

Review of NMP-NCS-94-0087, ``Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation 94-02: Uranium Solidification Facility Pencil Tank Module Spacing (U), April 18, 1994,`` was requested of the SRTC Applied Physics Group. The NCSE is a criticality assessment to show that the USF process module spacing, as given in Non-Conformance Report SHM-0045, remains safe for operation. The NCSE under review concludes that the module spacing as given in Non-Conformance Report SHM-0045 remains in a critically safe configuration for all normal and single credible abnormal conditions. After a thorough review of the NCSE, this reviewer agrees with that conclusion.

Rathbun, R. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)

1994-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

53

Nuclear criticality safety analysis summary report: The S-area defense waste processing facility  

SciTech Connect

The S-Area Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) can process all of the high level radioactive wastes currently stored at the Savannah River Site with negligible risk of nuclear criticality. The characteristics which make the DWPF critically safe are: (1) abundance of neutron absorbers in the waste feeds; (2) and low concentration of fissionable material. This report documents the criticality safety arguments for the S-Area DWPF process as required by DOE orders to characterize and to justify the low potential for criticality. It documents that the nature of the waste feeds and the nature of the DWPF process chemistry preclude criticality.

Ha, B.C.

1994-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

54

Nuclear Facilities Production Facilities  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Sand 2011-4582P. ENERGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Gamma Irradiation Facility (GIF) The GIF provides test cells for...

55

Nuclear criticality safety  

SciTech Connect

Important facts of the nuclear criticality safety field are covered in this volume. Both theoretical and practical aspects of the subject are included, based on insights provided by criticality experts and published information from many sources. An overview of nuclear criticality safety theory and a variety of practical in-plant operation applications are presented. Underlying principles of nuclear criticality safety are introduced and the state of the art of this technical discipline is reviewed. Criticality safety theoretical concepts, accident experience, standards, experiments computer calculations, integration of safety methods into individual practices, and overall facility operations are all included.

Knief, R.A.

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

56

Assessment of nuclear safety and nuclear criticality potential in the Defense Waste Processing Facility. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect

The S-Area Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) will initially process Batch 1 sludge in the sludge-only processing mode, with simulated non-radioactive Precipitate Hydrolysis, Aqueous (PHA) product, without the risk of nuclear criticality. The dilute concentration of fissile material in the sludge combined with excess of neutron absorbers during normal operations make criticality throughout the whole process incredible. Subsequent batches of the DWPF involving radioactive precipitate slurry and PHA will require additional analysis. Any abnormal or upset process operations, which are not considered in this report and could potentially separate fissile material, must be individually evaluated. Scheduled maintenance operation procedures are not considered to be abnormal.

Ha, B.C.

1993-07-20T23:59:59.000Z

57

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

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

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

58

Style, content and format guide for writing safety analysis documents: Volume 2, Safety assessment reports for DOE non-nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of Volume 2 of this 4-volume style guide is to furnish guidelines on writing and publishing Safety Assessment Reports (SAs) for DOE non-nuclear facilities at Sandia National Laboratories. The scope of Volume 2 encompasses not only the general guidelines for writing and publishing, but also the prescribed topics/appendices contents along with examples from typical SAs for DOE non-nuclear facilities.

Mahn, J.A.; Silver, R.C.; Balas, Y.; Gilmore, W.

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

59

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

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

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

60

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

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

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

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


61

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

NONE

1999-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

62

Nuclear Facility Design  

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

Design Design FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: Headquarters and Field organizations and their contractors ensure that nuclear facilities are designed to assure adequate protection for the public, workers, and the environment from nuclear hazards. REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830.120  10 CFR 830 subpart B  DOE O 413.3  DOE O 420.1B  DOE O 414.1C  DOE O 226.1  DOE M 426.1  DEAR 970-5404-2 Guidance:  DOE G 420.1-1  Project Management Practices, Integrated Quality ( Rev E, June 2003)  DOE Implementation Plan for DNSB Recommendation 2004-2 Performance Objective 1: Contractor Program Documentation Contracts between and the contractors who operate nuclear facilities contain adequate requirements concerning the conduct of nuclear facility safety design for nuclear facility capital projects and major modifications and the

63

DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety  

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

The Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, and criticality safety.

64

DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

The Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, ...

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

65

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

SciTech Connect

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

None

2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

66

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

None

2001-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

67

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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

68

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

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

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

69

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

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

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

70

Criticality safety aspects of decontamination and decommissioning at defense nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

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

Croucher, D.W.

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

71

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

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

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

72

.Dear Secretary Bodman: In its response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

of Energy (DOE) committed to revitalizing Integrated Safety Management (ISM) with "a set of actions the Department will pursue to re-confirm that ISM will be the foundation of the Department's safety management approach and to address identified weaknesses in implementation. " The enclosed technical report, DNFSB/TECH-36, Integrated Safety Management: The Foundation for an Effective Safety Culture, provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current state of ISM implementation at the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) production plants and laboratories. ISM was established 10 years ago as a new approach to integrating work and safety. The concept was adopted by DOE to enhance safety awareness, upgrade formality of operations, and improve safety performance. However, the potential for this practical safety system to achieve operational excellence and instill a sustainable safety culture has not been fully realized. From the broadest perspective, requirements and mechanisms to implement ISM are established, but implementation of safety management systems varies from site to site. This report examines the current status of the effectiveness of ISM systems at the seven NNSA weapons sites, summarizes

Joseph F. Bader; John E Mansfield; The Honorable; Samuel W. Bodman; Oversight Of Complex; High-hazard Organizations; The Department; A J. Eggenberger; Ms Patty Wagner

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

73

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

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

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

74

Office of Nuclear Safety - Directives  

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

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

75

Nuclear Safety Management  

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

[6450-01-P] [6450-01-P] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Management AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing a final rule regarding Nuclear Safety Management. This Part establishes requirements for the safe management of DOE contractor and subcontractor work at the Department's nuclear facilities. Today's rule adopts the sections that will make up the generally applicable provisions for Part 830. It also adopts the specific section on provisions for developing and implementing a formalized quality assurance program. EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective [insert 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Hawkins, U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Safety

76

Nuclear Criticality Safety: Current Activities - Nuclear Engineering...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

77

Nuclear Criticality Safety - Nuclear Engineering Division (Argonne...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

78

Review of Nuclear Criticality Safety Requirements Implementation for Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect

In November 1999, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy directed a series of actions to strengthen the Department's ongoing nuclear criticality safety programs. A Review Plan describing lines of inquiry for assessing contractor programs was included. The Office of River Protection completed their assessment of the Tank Farm Contractor program in May 2000. This document supports that assessment by providing a compliance statement for each line of inquiry.

DEFIGH PRICE, C.

2000-08-09T23:59:59.000Z

79

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM  

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

The Facility Disposition Safety Strategy (FDSS) Review Module is a tool that assists DOE federal project review teams in evaluating the adequacy of the facility documentation, preparations or...

80

Hot Cell Facility (HCF) Safety Analysis Report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

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

2000-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


81

Calculational framework for safety analyses of non-reactor nuclear facilities  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

A calculational framework for the consequences analysis of non-reactor nuclear facilities is presented. The analysis framework starts with accident scenarios which are developed through a traditional hazard analysis and continues with a probabilistic framework for the consequences analysis. The framework encourages the use of response continua derived from engineering judgment and traditional deterministic engineering analyses. The general approach consists of dividing the overall problem into a series of interrelated analysis cells and then devising Markov chain like probability transition matrices for each of the cells. An advantage of this division of the problem is that intermediate output (as probability state vectors) are generated at each calculational interface. The series of analyses when combined yield risk analysis output. The analysis approach is illustrated through application to two non-reactor nuclear analyses: the Ulysses Space Mission, and a hydrogen burn in the Hanford waste storage tanks.

Coleman, J.R.

1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

82

Idaho Site Nuclear Facilities  

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

Site Nuclear Facilities Idaho Idaho National Laboratorys (INL) Idaho Closure Project (ICP) This page was last updated on May 16...

83

Nuclear criticality safety guide  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This technical reference document cites information related to nuclear criticality safety principles, experience, and practice. The document also provides general guidance for criticality safety personnel and regulators.

Pruvost, N.L.; Paxton, H.C. [eds.] [eds.

1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

Nuclear Safety Technical Positions/Interpretations  

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

(OPI) responsible for the development, interpretation, and revision of a number of DOE directives. Technical Positions to directives issued by Nuclear and Facility Safety...

85

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

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

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

86

AGING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The purpose of this design calculation is to revise and update the previous criticality calculation for the Aging Facility (documented in BSC 2004a). This design calculation will also demonstrate and ensure that the storage and aging operations to be performed in the Aging Facility meet the criticality safety design criteria in the ''Project Design Criteria Document'' (Doraswamy 2004, Section 4.9.2.2), and the functional nuclear criticality safety requirement described in the ''SNF Aging System Description Document'' (BSC [Bechtel SAIC Company] 2004f, p. 3-12). The scope of this design calculation covers the systems and processes for aging commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and staging Department of Energy (DOE) SNF/High-Level Waste (HLW) prior to its placement in the final waste package (WP) (BSC 2004f, p. 1-1). Aging commercial SNF is a thermal management strategy, while staging DOE SNF/HLW will make loading of WPs more efficient (note that aging DOE SNF/HLW is not needed since these wastes are not expected to exceed the thermal limits form emplacement) (BSC 2004f, p. 1-2). The description of the changes in this revised document is as follows: (1) Include DOE SNF/HLW in addition to commercial SNF per the current ''SNF Aging System Description Document'' (BSC 2004f). (2) Update the evaluation of Category 1 and 2 event sequences for the Aging Facility as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2004c, Section 7). (3) Further evaluate the design and criticality controls required for a storage/aging cask, referred to as MGR Site-specific Cask (MSC), to accommodate commercial fuel outside the content specification in the Certificate of Compliance for the existing NRC-certified storage casks. In addition, evaluate the design required for the MSC that will accommodate DOE SNF/HLW. This design calculation will achieve the objective of providing the criticality safety results to support the preliminary design of the Aging Facility. As the ongoing design evolution remains fluid, the results from this design calculation should be evaluated for applicability to any new or modified design. Consequently, the results presented in this document are limited to the current design. The information contained in this document was developed by Environmental and Nuclear Engineering and is intended for the use of Design and Engineering in its work regarding the various criticality related activities performed in the Aging Facility. Yucca Mountain Project personnel from Environmental and Nuclear Engineering should be consulted before the use of the information for purposes other than those stated herein or use by individuals other than authorized personnel in Design and Engineering.

C.E. Sanders

2004-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

87

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

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

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

88

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

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

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

89

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

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

90

Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) < Back Eligibility Utility Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Program Info State Pennsylvania Program Type Environmental Regulations Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 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 activities associated with management and disposal of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Pennsylvania and provides planning and support for Bureau response to incidents involving nuclear power plants and/or radioactive material in

91

Occupational Safety Review of High Technology Facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

Lee Cadwallader

2005-01-31T23:59:59.000Z

92

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

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.

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

93

Evaluation of a Radiation Worker Safety Training Program at a nuclear facility  

SciTech Connect

A radiation safety course was evaluated using the Kirkpatrick criteria of training evaluation as a guide. Thirty-nine employees were given the two-day training course and were compared with 15 employees in a control group who did not receive the training. Cognitive results show an immediate gain in knowledge, and substantial retention at 6 months. Implications of the results are discussed in terms of applications to current radiation safety training was well as follow-on training research and development requirements.

Lindsey, J.E.

1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

94

Assessment of criticality safety in DOE facilities  

SciTech Connect

A study was made to assess nuclear criticality safety in DOE Facilities and to assess the effects of various types of possible improvements. The accident statistics in DOE operations show that the fatalities caused by Nuclear Criticality accidents are small compared to other accident categories. The data show the safety performance after 1965, compared to prior years, was considerably improved indicating that overall safety programs have been effective. Data on criticality safety violations were collected from eight major facilities. These data were categorized by severity indexes and causes were assigned. A total of 421 violations were used in the data base for analysis in a fault tree model. Calculations were made using the fault tree methodology to show expected improvement in safety (reduction in probability of a criticality accident) for a fixed reduction in the number of criticality violations. Based on this analysis, about equal emphasis should be placed on reducing mechanical failures and operator errors as efforts in these two areas will likely produce the most significant improvements in safety. A criticality safety infraction form was prepared to facilitate uniformity in recording data on infractions for subsequent analysis. Discussions with Nuclear Safety Specialists working in the field instilled confidence that criticality safety is being handled by concerned, capable, and knowledgable persons.

Lloyd, R.C.; Clayton, E.D.; Converse, W.E.; Kottwitz, D.A.

1981-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

95

Defense Nuclear Facilitiets Safety Board Visit and Site Lead...  

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

Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Visit and Site Lead Planning Activities at the Los Alamos...

96

Criticality Safety  

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

Left Tab EVENTS Office of Nuclear Safety (HS-30) Office of Nuclear Safety Home Directives Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules Nuclear Safety Workshops Technical...

97

Nuclear Criticality Safety | More Science | ORNL  

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

Criticality Safety Criticality Safety SHARE Criticality Safety Nuclear Criticality Safety ORNL is the lead national laboratory responsible for supporting the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in managing the US Nuclear Criticality Safety Program. NCSP is chartered to maintain the technical infrastructure (integral experiments, computational tools, training, data, etc.) needed to support safe, efficient fissionable material operations. ORNL has extensive expertise in the area of nuclear criticality safety (NCS) based upon years of experience in the following areas: Operations Support: providing fissionable material operations support for enrichment, fabrication, production, and research; Critical Experiments: performing experiments at the Y-12 Critical Experiment Facility;

98

Facilities Services and Environmental Health and Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Facilities Services and Environmental Health and Safety Laboratory Ventilation Management Program Guidance Document Facilities Services and Environmental Health and Safety This group is comprised of support staff from Facilities Services and Environmental Health and Safety who make observations

Pawlowski, Wojtek

99

Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard  

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

provides a new user interface to the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) to easily identify, organize, and analyze nuclear safety-related events reported into...

100

FACILITY SAFETY (FS)  

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

- (Core Requirement 1) Line management has established a QA program to ensure safe accomplishment of work. Personnel exhibit an awareness of public and worker safety, health, and...

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


101

Computer Facilities - Nuclear Engineering Division (Argonne)  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

102

Steam Generator Tube Integrity Facilities - Nuclear Engineering...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

103

Code of Federal Regulations NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT | Department...  

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

of DOE nuclear facilities. Code of Federal Regulations NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT More Documents & Publications Code of Federal Regulations TRESPASSING ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY...

104

Office of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Safety Mission The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes nuclear safety requirements and expectations for the Department to ensure protection of...

105

DRY TRANSFER FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS  

SciTech Connect

This design calculation updates the previous criticality evaluation for the fuel handling, transfer, and staging operations to be performed in the Dry Transfer Facility (DTF) including the remediation area. The purpose of the calculation is to demonstrate that operations performed in the DTF and RF 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 ''Dry Transfer Facility Description Document'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 173737], p. 3-8). A description of the changes is as follows: (1) Update the supporting calculations for the various Category 1 and 2 event sequences as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 171429], Section 7). (2) Update the criticality safety calculations for the DTF staging racks and the remediation pool to reflect the current design. This design calculation focuses on commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies, i.e., pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) SNF. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) owned SNF is evaluated in depth in the ''Canister Handling Facility Criticality Safety Calculations'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 173284]) and is also applicable to DTF operations. Further, the design and safety analyses of the naval SNF canisters are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of the Navy (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) and will not be included in this document. Also, note that the results for the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR) Site specific Cask (MSC) calculations are limited to the specific design chosen (see Assumption 3.4). A more current design will be included in the next revision of the criticality calculations for the Aging Facility. In addition, this calculation is valid for the current design as provided in Attachment III of the DTF 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.

C.E. Sanders

2005-05-17T23:59:59.000Z

106

Nuclear Criticality Safety - Nuclear Engineering Division (Argonne...  

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

Criticality Safety Nuclear Criticality Safety Overview Experience Analysis Tools Current NCS Activities Current R&D Activities DOE Criticality Safety Support Group (CSSG) Other...

107

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

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

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

108

Criticality safety and facility design considerations  

SciTech Connect

Operations with fissile material introduce the risk of a criticality accident that may be lethal to nearby personnel. In addition, concerns over criticality safety can result in substantial delays and shutdown of facility operations. For these reasons, it is clear that the prevention of a nuclear criticality accident should play a major role in the design of a nuclear facility. The emphasis of this report will be placed on engineering design considerations in the prevention of criticality. The discussion will not include other important aspects, such as the physics of calculating limits nor criticality alarm systems.

Waltz, W.R.

1991-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

109

International Safety Projects - Nuclear Engineering Division...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

110

Safety - Vulnerability Assessment Team - Nuclear Engineering...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

111

June 2010, Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety  

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

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

112

Mechanistic facility safety and source term analysis  

SciTech Connect

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

PLYS, M.G.

1999-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

113

Nuclear regulation and safety  

SciTech Connect

Nuclear regulation and safety are discussed from the standpoint of a hypothetical country that is in the process of introducing a nuclear power industry and setting up a regulatory system. The national policy is assumed to be in favor of nuclear power. The regulators will have responsibility for economic, reliable electric production as well as for safety. Reactor safety is divided into three parts: shut it down, keep it covered, take out the afterheat. Emergency plans also have to be provided. Ways of keeping the core covered with water are discussed. (DLC)

Hendrie, J.M.

1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

114

Nuclear data for criticality safety  

SciTech Connect

A brief overview is presented on emerging requirements for new criticality safety analyses arising from applications involving nuclear waste management, facility remediation, and the storage of nuclear weapons components. A derivation of criticality analyses from the specifications of national consensus standards is given. These analyses, both static and dynamic, define the needs for nuclear data. Integral data, used primarily for analytical validation, and differential data, used in performing the analyses, are listed, along with desirable margins of uncertainty. Examples are given of needs for additional data to address systems having intermediate neutron energy spectra and/or containing nuclides of intermediate mass number.

Westfall, R.M.

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

115

Criticality safety considerations for low-level-waste facilities  

SciTech Connect

The nuclear criticality safety for handling and burial of certain special nuclear materials (SNM) at low-level-waste (LLW) facilities is licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Recently, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) staff assisted the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Low-Level-Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch, in developing technical specifications for the nuclear criticality safety of {sup 235}U and {sup 235}Pu in LLW facilities. This assistance resulted in a set of nuclear criticality safety criteria that can be uniformly applied to the review of LLW package burial facility license applications. These criteria were developed through the coupling of the historic surface-density criterion with current computational technique to establish safety criteria considering SNM material form and reflector influences. This paper presents a summary of the approach used to establish and to apply the criteria to the licensing review process.

Hopper, C.M.

1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

116

International Cooperation on Safety of Nuclear Plants - Nuclear...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

117

Current R&D Activities in Nuclear Criticality Safety - Nuclear...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

118

Analysis Tools for Nuclear Criticality Safety - Nuclear Engineering...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

119

Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary  

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

Workshop Summary Workshop Summary September 19-20, 2012 1 Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary On September 19-20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) held a second Nuclear Safety Workshop covering the results of the Department's actions to improve its posture for analyzing and responding to severe accidents in light of lessons learned from the March 2011 nuclear accident in Japan. Sponsored by DOE and championed by Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, the two-day workshop discussed the lessons learned in a national and international context. The workshop's theme

120

Review of the Los Alamos National Laoratory Nuclear Facility...  

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

CM Configuration Management CMR Chemistry and Metallurgy Research CSE Cognizant System Engineer DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DOE U.S. Department of Energy...

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


121

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM  

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

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

122

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing...  

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

BARS Behavioral Anchored Rating Scales DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DOE U.S. Department of Energy DPO Differing Professional Opinion ECP Employee Concern...

123

Office of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Safety Organization Office of Health and Safety Office of Environmental Protection, Sustainability Support & Corporate Safety Analysis Office of...

124

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

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

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

125

A Look Back at the Nuclear Safety Workshop | Department of Energy  

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

nuclear facilities. That is why, in response to the March accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, the Department hosted a Nuclear Safety Workshop to bring...

126

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

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

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

127

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Requirements  

SciTech Connect

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.

1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

128

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, SAFETY CULTURE, AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT RESEARCH FACILITIES.  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Organizational culture surveys of research facilities conducted several years ago and archival occupational injury reports were used to determine whether differences in safety performance are related to general organizational factors or to ''safety culture'' as reflected in specific safety-related dimensions. From among the organizations surveyed, a pair of facilities was chosen that were similar in size and scientific mission while differing on indices of work-related injuries. There were reliable differences in organizational style between the facilities, especially among workers in environment, safety, and health functions; differences between the facilities (and among job categories) on the safety scale were more modest and less regular.

BROWN,W.S.

2000-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

129

A Look Back at the Nuclear Safety Workshop  

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

Hear from Glenn Podonsky -- the Energy Departments Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer -- about how we're continuing to improve the safety of our nuclear facilities.

130

Status and Effectiveness of DOE Efforts to Learn from Internal and External Operating Experience in Accordance with Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-1  

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

Safety and Security Safety and Security Report to the Secretary on the Status and Effectiveness of DOE Efforts to Learn from Internal and External Operating Experience in Accordance with Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-1 February 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Department-wide Action Plan for the Columbia Accident and Davis-Besse Event ........... 3 3.0 Comprehensive Operating Experience Program ................................................................. 5

131

Status and Effectiveness of DOE Efforts to Learn from Internal and External Operating Experience in Accordance with Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-1  

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

Safety and Security Safety and Security Report to the Secretary on the Status and Effectiveness of DOE Efforts to Learn from Internal and External Operating Experience in Accordance with Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-1 February 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Department-wide Action Plan for the Columbia Accident and Davis-Besse Event ........... 3 3.0 Comprehensive Operating Experience Program ................................................................. 5

132

Management of National Nuclear Power Programs for assured safety  

SciTech Connect

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).

Connolly, T.J. (ed.)

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

133

Nuclear Criticality Safety Application Guide: Safety Analysis Report Update Program  

SciTech Connect

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.

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

134

Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities Division  

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

role in developing science and technology for nuclear power programs, nuclear propulsion, nuclear medicine, and the nation's nuclear weapon program among others. Many...

135

National Nuclear SecurityAdministration's Nuclear ExplosiveSafety...  

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

National Nuclear SecurityAdministration's Nuclear ExplosiveSafety Study Program, IG-0581 National Nuclear SecurityAdministration's Nuclear ExplosiveSafety Study Program, IG-0581 To...

136

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

The National Nuclear Security Administration Facilities Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Test...

137

Nuclear reactor safety device  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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.

Hutter, Ernest (Wilmette, IL)

1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

138

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

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

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

139

Applicability of trends in nuclear safety analysis to space nuclear power systems  

SciTech Connect

A survey is presented of some current trends in nuclear safety analysis that may be relevant to space nuclear power systems. This includes: lessons learned from operating power reactor safety and licensing; approaches to the safety design of advanced and novel reactors and facilities; the roles of risk assessment, extremely unlikely accidents, safety goals/targets; and risk-benefit analysis and communication.

Bari, R.A.

1992-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

140

JM for Page Change to DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

DOE-STD-1104 contains the Department's method and criteria for reviewing and approving nuclear facility's documented safety analysis (DSA). This review and ...

2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

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


141

Nuclear Safety and Global Cooperation.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??The thesis of is to strengthen the capacity building of nuclear safety and disaster prevention all over the world from a preventive perspective, and to (more)

Chang, Yu-shan

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

142

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

Seylar, Roland F.

2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

143

Nuclear reactor safety device  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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.

Hutter, E.

1983-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

144

Protocol, High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight - November 2012 |  

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

High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight - November High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight - November 2012 Protocol, High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight - November 2012 November 2012 Protocol for High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight The purpose of this protocol is to establish the requirements and responsibilities for managing and conducting Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) independent oversight of high-hazard nuclear facility projects. As part of the Department of Energy's (DOE) self regulatory framework for safety and security, DOE Order 227.1, Independent Oversight Program, assigns HSS the responsibility for implementing an independent oversight program. It also requires the HSS Office of Enforcement and Oversight to conduct independent evaluations of safety and security. This

145

Joint nuclear safety research projects between the US and Russian Federation International Nuclear Safety Centers  

SciTech Connect

The Russian Federation Ministry for Atomic Energy (MINATOM) and the US Department of Energy (USDOE) formed international Nuclear Safety Centers in October 1995 and July 1996, respectively, to collaborate on nuclear safety research. Since January 1997, the two centers have initiated the following nine joint research projects: (1) INSC web servers and databases; (2) Material properties measurement and assessment; (3) Coupled codes: Neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, mechanical and other; (4) Severe accident management for Soviet-designed reactors; (5) Transient management and advanced control; (6) Survey of relevant nuclear safety research facilities in the Russian Federation; (8) Advanced structural analysis; and (9) Development of a nuclear safety research and development plan for MINATOM. The joint projects were selected on the basis of recommendations from two groups of experts convened by NEA and from evaluations of safety impact, cost, and deployment potential. The paper summarizes the projects, including the long-term goals, the implementing strategy and some recent accomplishments for each project.

Bougaenko, S.E.; Kraev, A.E. [International Nuclear Safety Center of the Russian MINATOM, Moscow (Russian Federation); Hill, D.L.; Braun, J.C.; Klickman, A.E. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States). International Nuclear Safety Center

1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

146

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop | Department of Energy  

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

Services Nuclear Safety 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop 1 of 5 Podonsky This is the Title 2 of 5 This is the Title DOE Deputy Secretary Daniel...

147

Safety Culture in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Reactor Oversight  

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

Safety Culture in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Reactor Safety Culture in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Reactor Oversight Process Safety Culture in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Reactor Oversight Process September 19, 2012 Presenter: Undine Shoop, Chief, Health Physics and Human Performance Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Topics covered: Purpose of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) ROP Framework Safety Culture within the ROP Safety Culture Assessments Safety Culture in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Reactor Oversight Process More Documents & Publications A Commissioner's Perspective on USNRC Actions in Response to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Comparison of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for Fuel Cycle Facilities, 2/17/11

148

WIPP Nuclear Facilities Transparency  

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

Transparency Technologies Other Transparency Activities Sandia National Laboratories Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) in conjunction with WIPP is providing this Nuclear...

149

Nuclear Criticality Safety  

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

design and operations of a variety of Argonne facilities and operations: the Alpha- Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF), Chemical Engineering Division (CMT) separa- tion technology...

150

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

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

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

151

Reactor Safety Testing and Analysis - Nuclear Engineering Division...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

152

Risk and Safety Assessments - Nuclear Engineering Division (Argonne...  

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

Nuclear Safety Materials Disposition Decontamination & Decommissioning Nuclear Criticality Safety Nuclear Data Program Nuclear Waste Form Modeling Departments Engineering...

153

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter  

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

Research and Development Committee Charter I. Purpose The intent of the Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Committee is to identify nuclear safety research needs and...

154

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

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

Change Notice No. 1. and Reaffirmation January 2007 DOE HANDBOOK Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585...

155

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

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

MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1145-2013 March 2013 DOE HANDBOOK Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities U.S. Department of Energy TRNG-0061 Washington, D.C. 20585...

156

AIRCRAFT NUCLEAR PROPULSION DEPARTMENT NUCLEAR SAFETY GUIDE  

SciTech Connect

The limitations and operating techniques which were in effect at ANPD for the prevention of criticality accidents are summarized. The standards followed by the atomic industry were followed; however, the safe mass of U/sup 235/ moderated with beryllium oxide and hydrogeneous materials was based upon criticality experiments conducted at ANPD. Although the guide was primarily for the use of the ANPD nuclear safety control organization, it may also be of assistance to designers and operating management in maintaining nuclear safety. (auth)

Pryor, W.A.

1961-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

157

Quarterly report on Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 90-7 for the period ending June 30, 1993  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This is the ninth quarterly report on the progress of activities that address safety issues associated with Hanford Site high-level radioactive waste tanks containing ferrocyanide compounds. Milestones completed this quarter include (1) a report on the credibility of hot spots and a recommendation on infrared scans; (2) a document discussing the strength and limitations of proposed moisture monitoring technologies; (3) limited calibration of the neutron probe in simulant-filled drums; (4) a report interpreting data from auger surface samples of ferrocyanide tank 241-BY-104; (5) a document on the effect of possible catalyst, initiator, and diluents on ferrocyanide reactivity; (6) a report on small scale sensitivity tests of ferrocyanide flowsheet simulants; and (7) preparation and shipment of T Plant simulants for calorimetric and dryout tests.

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

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

158

Application of Risk Assessment and Management to Nuclear Safety |  

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

Application of Risk Assessment and Management to Nuclear Safety Application of Risk Assessment and Management to Nuclear Safety Application of Risk Assessment and Management to Nuclear Safety September 20, 2012 Presenter: Commissioner George Apostolakis US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Topics covered: Management of (unquantified at the time) uncertainty was always a concern. Defense-in-depth and safety margins became embedded in the regulations. "Defense-in-Depth is an element of the NRC's safety philosophy that employs successive compensatory measures to prevent accidents or mitigate damage if a malfunction, accident, or naturally caused event occurs at a nuclear facility." [Commission's White Paper, February 1999] Design Basis Accidents are postulated accidents that a nuclear facility must be designed and built to withstand without loss to the

159

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Analysis |  

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

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Analysis Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Analysis This paper addresses why the use of an Integrated Safety Analysis ("ISA") is appropriate for fuel recycling facilities1 which would be licensed under new regulations currently being considered by NRC. The use of the ISA for fuel facilities under Part 70 is described and compared to the use of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment ("PRA") for reactor facilities. A basis is provided for concluding that future recycling facilities - which will possess characteristics similar to today's fuel cycle facilities and distinct from reactors - can best be assessed using established qualitative or semi-quantitative ISA techniques to achieve and

160

Nuclear Security & Safety  

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

The Energy Department is working to enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts.

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


161

Establishing nuclear facility drill programs  

SciTech Connect

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.

NONE

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

162

Independent Oversight Focus Area Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - April  

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

Independent Oversight Focus Area Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - Independent Oversight Focus Area Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - April 2010 Independent Oversight Focus Area Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - April 2010 April 2010 Review of Specific Administrative Controls at DOE Nuclear Facilities The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Independent Oversight, within the Office of Health Safety and Security occasionally reviews specific focus areas. Focus areas are aspects of safety programs that Independent Oversight determines warrant increased management attention based on reviews of performance data, inspection results, and operating experience across DOE sites. Due, in part, to operating experience and previous inspection results. DOE selected specific administrative controls (SACs) as a focus area. SACs are new or revised technical safety requirements (TSRs)

163

The Department of Energy nuclear criticality safety program.  

SciTech Connect

This paper broadly covers key events and activities from which the Department of Energy Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) evolved. The NCSP maintains fundamental infrastructure that supports operational criticality safety programs. This infrastructure includes continued development and maintenance of key calculational tools, differential and integral data measurements, benchmark compilation, development of training resources, hands-on training, and web-based systems to enhance information preservation and dissemination. The NCSP was initiated in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 97-2, Criticality Safety, and evolved from a predecessor program, the Nuclear Criticality Predictability Program, that was initiated in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 93-2, The Need for Critical Experiment Capability. This paper also discusses the role Dr. Sol Pearlstein played in helping the Department of Energy lay the foundation for a robust and enduring criticality safety infrastructure.

Felty, J. R. (James R.)

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

164

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Guidance  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

NONE

1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

165

FUEL HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this design calculation is to perform a criticality evaluation of the Fuel Handling Facility (FHF) and the operations and processes performed therein. The current intent of the FHF is to receive transportation casks whose contents will be unloaded and transferred to waste packages (WP) or MGR Specific Casks (MSC) in the fuel transfer bays. Further, the WPs will also be prepared in the FHF for transfer to the sub-surface facility (for disposal). The MSCs will be transferred to the Aging Facility for storage. The criticality evaluation of the FHF features the following: (I) Consider the types of waste to be received in the FHF as specified below: (1) Uncanistered commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF); (2) Canistered CSNF (with the exception of horizontal dual-purpose canister (DPC) and/or multi-purpose canisters (MPCs)); (3) Navy canistered SNF (long and short); (4) Department of Energy (DOE) canistered high-level waste (HLW); and (5) DOE canistered SNF (with the exception of MCOs). (II) Evaluate the criticality analyses previously performed for the existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-certified transportation casks (under 10 CFR 71) to be received in the FHF to ensure that these analyses address all FHF conditions including normal operations, and Category 1 and 2 event sequences. (III) Evaluate FHF criticality conditions resulting from various Category 1 and 2 event sequences. Note that there are currently no Category 1 and 2 event sequences identified for FHF. Consequently, potential hazards from a criticality point of view will be considered as identified in the ''Internal Hazards Analysis for License Application'' document (BSC 2004c, Section 6.6.4). (IV) Assess effects of potential moderator intrusion into the fuel transfer bay for defense in depth. The SNF/HLW waste transfer activity (i.e., assembly and canister transfer) that is being carried out in the FHF has been classified as safety category in the ''Q-list'' (BSC 2003, p. A-6). Therefore, this design calculation is subject to the requirements of the ''Quality Assurance Requirements and Description'' (DOE 2004), even though the FHF itself has not yet been classified in the Q-list. Performance of the work scope as described and development of the associated technical product conform to the procedure AP-3.124, ''Design Calculations and Analyses''.

C.E. Sanders

2005-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

166

Safety audit of refrigerated liquefied gas facilities  

SciTech Connect

An Exxon Research and Engineering Co. comprehensive review of engineering practices and application of safety requirements at Exxon's world-wide refrigerated liquefied hydrocarbon gas storage and handling installations, which included a field audit of about 90 tanks at 30 locations, showed that catastrophic tank failure was not a credible event with properly operated and maintained tanks designed, constructed, and tested in accordance with API Standard 620, Design and Construction of Large Welded Low-Pressure Storage Tanks, although supplemental requirements were suggested to further enhance safety. The review also showed that any meaningful safety audit should be comprehensive and must include all facilities with careful attention to detail. The review embraces products of -1 to -167C and included LNG, ethylene, LPG, and LPG olefins. Recent and proposed LNG safety legislation; some field audit results; and recommendations as to design, construction, and operation of LNG and LPG storage facilities, marine terminals, and tankers, are also discussed.

Feely, F.J.; Sommer, E.C.; Marshall, B.T.; Palmer, A.J.

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

167

Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

83-2007 83-2007 November 2007 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR SAFETY SPECIALIST FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION STANDARD DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1183-2007 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Site at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/ DOE-STD-1183-2007 iv INTENTIONALLY BLANK DOE-STD-1183-2007 v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................................ vii PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................9

168

DOE Cites Washington TRU Solutions for Nuclear Safety Violations |  

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

Washington TRU Solutions for Nuclear Safety Violations Washington TRU Solutions for Nuclear Safety Violations DOE Cites Washington TRU Solutions for Nuclear Safety Violations December 22, 2005 - 4:53pm Addthis WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Washington TRU Solutions (WTS) that it will fine the company $192,500 for violations of the department's nuclear safety requirements. The Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) issued today cites a number of deficiencies that led to a series of low-level plutonium uptakes by workers at a WTS mobile facility (MOVER) stationed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, Calif. The violations reflected WTS' limited understanding of the design and operational limitations of the MOVER facility, a portable waste processing facility designed to be

169

Improving the Safeguardability of Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect

The application of a Safeguards-by-Design (SBD) process for new nuclear facilities has the potential to reduce security risks and proliferation hazards while improving the synergy of major design features and raising operational efficiency, in a world where significant expansion of nuclear energy use may occur. Correspondingly, the U.S. DOEs Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) includes objectives to contribute to international efforts to develop SBD, and to apply SBD in the development of new U.S. nuclear infrastructure. Here, SBD is defined as a structured approach to ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective integration of international safeguards and other nonproliferation barriers with national material control and accountability, physical protection, and safety objectives into the overall design process for a nuclear facility, from initial planning through design, construction and operation. The SBD process, in its simplest form, may be applied usefully today within most national regulatory environments. Development of a mature approach to implementing SBD requires work in the areas of requirements definition, design processes, technology and methodology, and institutionalization. The U.S. efforts described in this paper are supportive of SBD work for international safeguards that has recently been initiated by the IAEA with the participation of many stakeholders including member States, the IAEA, nuclear technology suppliers, nuclear utilities, and the broader international nonproliferation community.

T. Bjornard; R. Bari; D. Hebditch; P. Peterson; M. Schanfein

2009-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

170

Nuclear safety research collaborations between the U.S. and Russian Federation International Nuclear Safety Centers  

SciTech Connect

The Russian Federation Ministry for Atomic Energy (MINATOM) and the US Department of Energy (USDOE) have formed International Nuclear Safety Centers to collaborate on nuclear safety research. USDOE established the US Center (ISINSC) at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in October 1995. MINATOM established the Russian Center (RINSC) at the Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering (RDIPE) in Moscow in July 1996. In April 1998 the Russian center became a semi-independent, autonomous organization under MINATOM. The goals of the center are to: Cooperate in the development of technologies associated with nuclear safety in nuclear power engineering; Be international centers for the collection of information important for safety and technical improvements in nuclear power engineering; and Maintain a base for fundamental knowledge needed to design nuclear reactors. The strategic approach is being used to accomplish these goals is for the two centers to work together to use the resources and the talents of the scientists associated with the US Center and the Russian Center to do collaborative research to improve the safety of Russian-designed nuclear reactors. The two centers started conducting joint research and development projects in January 1997. Since that time the following ten joint projects have been initiated: INSC databases--web server and computing center; Coupled codes--Neutronic and thermal-hydraulic; Severe accident management for Soviet-designed reactors; Transient management and advanced control; Survey of relevant nuclear safety research facilities in the Russian Federation; Computer code validation for transient analysis of VVER and RBMK reactors; Advanced structural analysis; Development of a nuclear safety research and development plan for MINATOM; Properties and applications of heavy liquid metal coolants; and Material properties measurement and assessment. Currently, there is activity in eight of these projects. Details on each of these joint projects are given.

Hill, D. J.; Braun, J. C.; Klickman, A. E.; Bougaenko, S. E.; Kabonov, L. P.; Kraev, A. G.

2000-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

171

Nuclear Safety: Software Quality Assurance  

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

Nuclear Safety: Software Quality Assurance Nuclear Safety: Software Quality Assurance cd Welcome to the Department of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) Software Quality Assurance (SQA) homepage. The purpose of this Web site is to promote continuous improvement and the sharing of knowledge of safety software quality assurance among interested parties across the DOE complex. It consolidates information and contains links to subject matter experts, procedures, training material, program descriptions, good practices, lessons learned and the Central Registry Toolbox Codes. The Portal also provides capabilities for member collaboration in product development and threaded discussions. Central Registry: The Central Registry provides a library of DOE "Toolbox" Codes covering site boundary accident dose consequences, fire accident source terms, leakpath factors, chemical release/dispersion and consequence, and radiological dispersion and consequence.

172

Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard QuickStart Guide  

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

Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard QuickStart Guide September 2012 Office of Analysis (HS-24) Office of Environmental Protection, Sustainability Support and Corporate Safety Analysis Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) Purpose of Nuclear Safety Information (NSI) Dashboard * The NSI Dashboard provides a new user interface to the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) to easily identify, organize, and analyze nuclear safety-related events reported into ORPS. * ORPS reporting criteria associated with events at nuclear facilities have pre-assigned weighting factors according to their relative importance and are placed into groups. * This information can be evaluated to identify trends and, using insights from current events and nature of operations, enable

173

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

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

CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor February 2007 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. CRADs provide a recommended approach and the types of information to gather to assess elements of a DOE contractor's programs. CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor More Documents & Publications CRAD, Engineering - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor

174

Experience with performance based training of nuclear criticality safety engineers  

SciTech Connect

For non-reactor nuclear facilities, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) does not require that nuclear criticality safety engineers demonstrate qualification for their job. It is likely, however, that more formalism will be required in the future. Current DOE requirements for those positions which do have to demonstrate qualification indicate that qualification should be achieved by using a systematic approach such as performance based training (PBT). Assuming that PBT would be an acceptable mechanism for nuclear criticality safety engineer training in a more formal environment, a site-specific analysis of the nuclear criticality safety engineer job was performed. Based on this analysis, classes are being developed and delivered to a target audience of newer nuclear criticality safety engineers. Because current interest is in developing training for selected aspects of the nuclear criticality safety engineer job, the analysis is incompletely developed in some areas.

Taylor, R.G.

1993-07-13T23:59:59.000Z

175

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

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

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

176

Nuclear Plant/Hydrogen Plant Safety: Issues and Approaches  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

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.

Steven R. Sherman

2007-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

Environmental safety evaluations for nuclear installations  

SciTech Connect

Environmental safety has been an important consideration in the siting, design, and operation of nuclear installations. As a result there have been very few cases in which the releases of radioactive materials from these installations have posed a dosimetrically significant environmental risk, and almost all of these have been connected with accidents or other unintentional situations. In no situation do the intentional releases from nuclear installations appear to have posed significant environmental risks, and with adequate planning and design a high degree of environmental safety may be assured. Many disciplines are involved in the evaluation of safety for nuclear installations. These include such fundamental ones as physics, chemistry, and biology, and more specialized ones such as meteorology, engineering, ecology, medicine, and electronics. A comprehensive review of environmental surveillance data and estimates of dose commitments from nuclear installations suggests that compared to the doses from background and from fallout, those attributable to the effluents from nuclear facilities have been small and for the most part quite local. it is concluded that, the upper limit of the risk associated with exposure of up to a few millirems per year is indeed small compared to many other commonly accepted risks of living in present day society. (72 refurences) (CH)

Hull, A.P.

1973-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

178

Nondestructive Evaluation: Recommended Practices for Maintaining Radiation Safety of Radiographic Operations at a Nuclear Plant  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Radiation safety programs for radiographic operations at nuclear power plants are more complex than for those operations at other types of industrial and commercial facilities. This level of complexity arises because of the numerous challenges to maintenance of excellence in radiation safety at nuclear power facilities where sources of radiation may be found at various locations in the facility and multiple safety functions must be considered at all times. The facilities themselves are also large with mu...

2010-12-23T23:59:59.000Z

179

Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program | Department of  

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

Nuclear Safety » Nuclear Safety Research and Nuclear Safety » Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program In 2011, the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) created the Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program within the Office of Nuclear Safety to provide corporate-level leadership supporting nuclear safety research and development throughout the Department of Energy (DOE). The NSR&D Program solicits input from the Nuclear Safety Council which includes membership of senior management from each program office. NSR&D Program Objectives: To establish an enduring Departmental commitment and capability to utilize NSR&D in preventing and reducing the hazards and risks posed by DOE/NNSA nuclear facilities;

180

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement - Nuclear Facility...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement - Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF SEIS) | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing...

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


181

Independent Oversight Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - May 2013 |  

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

Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - May 2013 Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - May 2013 Independent Oversight Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - May 2013 May 2013 Lessons Learned from Targeted Reviews of Implementation Verification Review Processes at Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities This report summarizes and analyzes the results of independent reviews of IVR and associated processes at eight DOE sites conducted by Independent Oversight from August 2011 to September 2012. The purpose of the Independent Oversight review was to evaluate the processes and methods used for verifying the implementation of safety basis hazard controls and periodically re-verifying that the controls remain in place. Independent Oversight Review, DOE Nuclear Facilities - May 2013 More Documents & Publications Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Site CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation

182

KRS Chapter 278: Nuclear Power Facilities (Kentucky) | Department of Energy  

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

KRS Chapter 278: Nuclear Power Facilities (Kentucky) KRS Chapter 278: Nuclear Power Facilities (Kentucky) KRS Chapter 278: Nuclear Power Facilities (Kentucky) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Developer Investor-Owned Utility Municipal/Public Utility Utility Program Info State Kentucky Program Type Environmental Regulations Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider Kentucky Public Service Commission 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 identified and approved a demonstrable technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The provisions of this section shall not be construed as applying to or precluding the following nuclear-based technologies,

183

Ground test facility for nuclear testing of space reactor subsystems  

SciTech Connect

Two major reactor facilities at the INEL have been identified as easily adaptable for supporting the nuclear testing of the SP-100 reactor subsystem. They are the Engineering Test Reactor (ETR) and the Loss of Fluid Test Reactor (LOFT). In addition, there are machine shops, analytical laboratories, hot cells, and the supporting services (fire protection, safety, security, medical, waste management, etc.) necessary to conducting a nuclear test program. This paper presents the conceptual approach for modifying these reactor facilities for the ground engineering test facility for the SP-100 nuclear subsystem. 4 figs.

Quapp, W.J.; Watts, K.D.

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

184

PROJECTIZING AN OPERATING NUCLEAR FACILITY  

SciTech Connect

This paper will discuss the evolution of an operations-based organization to a project-based organization to facilitate successful deactivation of a major nuclear facility. It will describe the plan used for scope definition, staff reorganization, method estimation, baseline schedule development, project management training, and results of this transformation. It is a story of leadership and teamwork, pride and success. Workers at the Savannah River Site's (SRS) F Canyon Complex (FCC) started with a challenge--take all the hazardous byproducts from nearly 50 years of operations in a major, first-of-its-kind nuclear complex and safely get rid of them, leaving the facility cold, dark, dry and ready for whatever end state is ultimately determined by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). And do it in four years, with a constantly changing workforce and steadily declining funding. The goal was to reduce the overall operating staff by 93% and budget by 94%. The facilities, F Canyon and its adjoined sister, FB Line, are located at SRS, a 310-square-mile nuclear reservation near Aiken, S.C., owned by DOE and managed by Washington Group International subsidiary Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC). These facilities were supported by more than 50 surrounding buildings, whose purpose was to provide support services during operations. The radiological, chemical and industrial hazards inventory in the old buildings was significant. The historical mission at F Canyon was to extract plutonium-239 and uranium-238 from irradiated spent nuclear fuel through chemical processing. FB Line's mission included conversion of plutonium solutions into metal, characterization, stabilization and packaging, and storage of both metal and oxide forms. The plutonium metal was sent to another DOE site for use in weapons. Deactivation in F Canyon began when chemical separations activities were completed in 2002, and a cross-functional project team concept was implemented to successfully accomplish deactivation. This concept had to allow for continued operations in FB Line until 2005, while providing distinct task-oriented teams for deactivation of the FCC. Facility workers, always the most knowledgeable about any facility, were integral parts of the project team. The team defined the scope, developed a bottoms-up estimate, reorganized personnel to designated project teams, and developed a baseline schedule with about 12,000 activities. Training was implemented to prepare the facility workers to use project management tools and concepts, which were to execute the project, coordinate activities and track progress. The project budget was estimated at $579 million. The team completed F Canyon and FB Line deactivation in August 2006, four months ahead of schedule and under budget.

Adams, N

2007-07-08T23:59:59.000Z

185

RADIATION FACILITY FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A radiation facility is designed for irradiating samples in close proximity to the core of a nuclear reactor. The facility comprises essentially a tubular member extending through the biological shield of the reactor and containing a manipulatable rod having the sample carrier at its inner end, the carrier being longitudinally movable from a position in close proximity to the reactor core to a position between the inner and outer faces of the shield. Shield plugs are provided within the tubular member to prevent direct radiation from the core emanating therethrough. In this device, samples may be inserted or removed during normal operation of the reactor without exposing personnel to direct radiation from the reactor core. A storage chamber is also provided within the radiation facility to contain an irradiated sample during the period of time required to reduce the radioactivity enough to permit removal of the sample for external handling. (AEC)

Currier, E.L. Jr.; Nicklas, J.H.

1961-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

186

Program for documenting the criticality safety basis for operations in a research and development facility consistent with new regulatory requirements  

SciTech Connect

A program was developed and implemented at LLNL to provide more detailed, documented Criticality Safety Evaluations of operations in an R&D facility. The new Criticality Safety evaluations were consistent with regulatory requirements of the then new DOE Order 5480.24, Nuclear Criticality Safety. The evaluations provide a criticality safety basis for each operation in the facility in support of the facility Safety Analysis Report. This implementation program provided a transition from one method of conducting and documenting Criticality Safety Evaluations to a new method consistent with new regulatory requirements. The program also allowed continued safe operation of the facility while the new implementation level Criticality Safety Evaluations were developed.

Pearson, J.S.; Evarts, R.B.; Huang, S.T.; Goebel, G.

1997-04-24T23:59:59.000Z

187

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

188

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Safety » 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Nuclear Safety » 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Glenn Podonsky 1 of 13 Glenn Podonsky Glenn Podonsky (DOE Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer) provides his welcoming remarks. Daniel Poneman 2 of 13 Daniel Poneman DOE Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman discusses maintaining our focus on nuclear safety. Akira Kawano 3 of 13 Akira Kawano Akira Kawano, Tokyo Electric Power Company, provides lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident. Bill Ostendorff 4 of 13 Bill Ostendorff NRC Commissioner Bill Ostendorff gives his perspective on the NRC's response to the Fukushima nuclear accident. Miroslav Lipar 5 of 13 Miroslav Lipar Miroslav Lipar, IAEA, provides an international perspective on the Fukushima nuclear accident. Dr. Sonja Haber 6 of 13

189

Safety Oversight of Decommissioning Activities at DOE Nuclear Sites  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

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

190

Methodology for Final Hazard Categorization for Nuclear Facilities from Category 3 to Radiological  

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

Office of Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Office of Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Nuclear Safety Technical Position NSTP 2002-2 Methodology for Final Hazard Categorization for Nuclear Facilities from Category 3 to Radiological Issue: DOE-STD-1027-92 defines a lower threshold criterion for preliminary hazard categorization as a nuclear Hazard Category 3 (HC-3) facility or activity. But it does not provide a method other than inventory reduction or segmentation on how an HC-3 facility or activity can be demonstrated to be below HC-3 (i.e., radiological) in final hazard categorization. Background: 10 CFR 830 Subpart B requires that all DOE nuclear facilities categorized as HC-3 or above have a DOE approved safety basis compliant with the requirements of Subpart B. The rule requires the use of DOE-

191

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

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

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

192

Radiological Safety Training for Plutonium Facilities  

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

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

193

Tank waste remediation system nuclear criticality safety program management review  

SciTech Connect

This document provides the results of an internal management review of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) criticality safety program, performed in advance of the DOE/RL assessment for closure of the TWRS Nuclear Criticality Safety Issue, March 1994. Resolution of the safety issue was identified as Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-40-12, due September 1999.

BRADY RAAP, M.C.

1999-06-24T23:59:59.000Z

194

Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard | Department of Energy  

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

Reporting » Analytical Dashboards » Nuclear Safety Reporting » Analytical Dashboards » Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard The Nuclear Safety Information (NSI) Dashboard provides a new user interface to the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) to easily identify, organize, and analyze nuclear safety-related events reported into ORPS. The NSI Dashboard displays information developed from occurrence information reported into DOE's ORPS database. Events or conditions associated with nuclear safety are reported into ORPS, assigned unique ORPS reporting criteria and used for trending. ORPS reporting criteria are assigned a weighted value to indicate their relative importance to nuclear safety; associated ORPS reporting criteria are combined in key groups and charted over time to index trends in nuclear

195

Review of the Los Alamos National Laoratory Nuclear Facility Coonfiguration Management Program - March 2012  

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

Nuclear Facility Nuclear Facility Configuration Management Program March 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 2

196

Review of the Los Alamos National Laoratory Nuclear Facility Coonfiguration Management Program - March 2012  

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

Nuclear Facility Nuclear Facility Configuration Management Program March 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 2

197

TRANSPORTATION CASK RECEIPT/RETURN FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS  

SciTech Connect

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

C.E. Sanders

2005-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

198

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

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

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

199

WIRELESS FOR A NUCLEAR FACILITY  

SciTech Connect

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''.

Shull, D; Joe Cordaro, J

2007-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

200

WIRELESS FOR A NUCLEAR FACILITY  

SciTech Connect

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''.

Shull, D; Joe Cordaro, J

2007-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

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


201

Infrastructure and Facilities Management | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Infrastructure and Facilities Management | National Nuclear Security Infrastructure and Facilities Management | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Infrastructure and Facilities Management Home > content > Infrastructure and Facilities Management Infrastructure and Facilities Management NNSA restores, rebuilds, and revitalizes the physical infrastructure of the

202

Contained Firing Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Contained Firing Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Contained Firing Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Contained Firing Facility Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Research and Development > Facilities > Contained Firing Facility

203

The Office of Nuclear Energy Announces Central Europe Nuclear Safety  

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

The Office of Nuclear Energy Announces Central Europe Nuclear The Office of Nuclear Energy Announces Central Europe Nuclear Safety Workshop in Prague The Office of Nuclear Energy Announces Central Europe Nuclear Safety Workshop in Prague October 3, 2011 - 2:04pm Addthis The Office of Nuclear Energy, in partnership with Czech Republic Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Agency for Nuclear Safety of the Czech Republic, and Argonne National Laboratory, is conducting a regional Nuclear Safety Workshop on Trends in Nuclear Power Plant Safety for Robust Civil Nuclear Programs on Oct. 10-13, 2011 in Prague. U.S. Ambassador Norman Eisen and Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Pete Lyons will deliver speeches welcoming participants. Representatives from the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Lithuania,

204

Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy  

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

Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy Technical Position NSEP-TP-2007- 1, Technical Position on the Requirement in DOE 0 420.1B to Use National Consensus Industry Standards and the Model Building CodesTechnical Position NS Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy Technical Position NSEP-TP-2007- 1, Technical Position on the Requirement in DOE 0 420.1B to Use National Consensus Industry Standards and the Model Building CodesTechnical Position NS All new construction required to follow the provisions of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 420. lB, Facility 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 individuals in the fire community requested

205

Nuclear Science Research Facilities Nuclear Science User Guide  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

LANSCE User Guide Nuclear Science Research Facilities #12;#12;Nuclear Science User Guide Table of Contents Introduction 3 Nuclear Science Research Facilities 3 The LANSCE Accelerator 4 Time structure techniques 8 Nuclear Science User Program 11 Proposal Process 13 Information for Prospective Users 14

206

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect

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

Larson, H L

2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

207

Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among  

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

Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among Several Countries: Evaluation for Regulatory Input Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among Several Countries: Evaluation for Regulatory Input 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 clearance levels for site release (also called derived concentration guideline levels, DCGL:s). The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) intends to continue working on establishing such clearance levels in Sweden. As a starting point, SSM foresees that levels applied will depend on the features of the specific site and on the expected future use of the land, for example

208

Criticality Safety Evaluation Report CSER-96-019 for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Processing and Storage Facilities Multi Canister Overpack (MCO)  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This criticality evaluation is for Spent N Reactor fuel unloaded from the existing canisters in both KE and KW Basins, and loaded into multiple canister overpack (MCO) containers with specially built baskets containing a maximum of either 54 Mark IV or 48 Mark IA fuel assemblies. The criticality evaluations include loading baskets into the cask-MCO, operation at the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility,a nd storage in the Canister Storage Building. Many conservatisms have been built into this analysis, the primary one being the selection of the K{sub eff} = 0.95 criticality safety limit. This revision incorporates the analyses for the sampling/weld station in the Canister Storage Building and additional analysis of the MCO during the draining at CVDF. Additional discussion of the scrap basket model was added to show why the addition of copper divider plates was not included in the models.

KESSLER, S.F.

1999-10-20T23:59:59.000Z

209

Nuclear criticality safety: 2-day training course  

SciTech Connect

This compilation of notes is presented as a source reference for the criticality safety course. At the completion of this training course, the attendee will: be able to define terms commonly used in nuclear criticality safety; be able to appreciate the fundamentals of nuclear criticality safety; be able to identify factors which affect nuclear criticality safety; be able to identify examples of criticality controls as used as Los Alamos; be able to identify examples of circumstances present during criticality accidents; have participated in conducting two critical experiments; be asked to complete a critique of the nuclear criticality safety training course.

Schlesser, J.A. [ed.] [comp.

1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

210

Radiological Safety Training for Accelerator Facilities  

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

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

211

Nuclear criticality safety training: guidelines for DOE contractors  

SciTech Connect

The DOE Order 5480.1A, Chapter V, Safety of Nuclear Facilities, establishes safety procedures and requirements for DOE nuclear facilities. This guide has been developed as an aid to implementing the Chapter V requirements pertaining to nuclear criticality safety training. The guide outlines relevant conceptual knowledge and demonstrated good practices in job performance. It addresses training program operations requirements in the areas of employee evaluations, employee training records, training program evaluations, and training program records. It also suggests appropriate feedback mechanisms for criticality safety training program improvement. The emphasis is on academic rather than hands-on training. This allows a decoupling of these guidelines from specific facilities. It would be unrealistic to dictate a universal program of training because of the wide variation of operations, levels of experience, and work environments among DOE contractors and facilities. Hence, these guidelines do not address the actual implementation of a nuclear criticality safety training program, but rather they outline the general characteristics that should be included.

Crowell, M.R.

1983-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

212

High Explosives Application Facility | National Nuclear Security...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog The National Nuclear Security Administration High Explosives Application Facility Home > About Us > Our...

213

Nuclear fuel cycle facility accident analysis handbook  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

NONE

1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

214

Western University Nuclear Radiation Safety Inspection Checklist  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

with unsealed nuclear substances. Print out of wipe test kept in the logbook . For safety work practices, rightMay 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

Sinnamon, Gordon J.

215

High Explosives Application Facility | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Explosives Application Facility | National Nuclear Security Explosives Application Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog The National Nuclear Security Administration High Explosives Application Facility Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Research and Development >

216

DOE: Assessment Criteria and Guidelines for Determining the Adequacy of Software Used in the Safety Analysis and Design of Defense Nuclear Facilities, 10j/24/03  

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

This document contains software quality assurance (SQA) assessment criteria and guidelines for assessing the safety software currently in use in the safety analysis and design of structures,...

217

Nuclear Plant Dynamics and Safety - Nuclear Engineering Division (Argonne)  

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

Nuclear Systems Nuclear Systems Modeling and Design Analysis > Nuclear Plant Dynamics and Safety Capabilities Nuclear Systems Modeling and Design Analysis Reactor Physics and Fuel Cycle Analysis Overview Current Projects Software Nuclear Plant Dynamics and Safety Nuclear Data Program Advanced Reactor Development Nuclear Waste Form and Repository Performance Modeling Nuclear Energy Systems Design and Development Other Capabilities Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE on Flickr Reactor Physics and Fuel Cycle Analysis Nuclear Plant Dynamics and Safety Bookmark and Share Activities in Nuclear Plant Dynamics and Safety research and development fulfill a primary goal of the Nuclear Engineering (NE) Division to promote improvements in safe and reliable operation of present and future

218

DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program - Nuclear Engineering Division  

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

DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Nuclear Criticality Safety Overview Experience Analysis Tools Current NCS Activities Current R&D Activities DOE Criticality Safety Support Group (CSSG) Other Major Programs Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE Division on Flickr The DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Bookmark and Share J. Morman and R. Bucher load J. Morman and R. Bucher load samples into the ZPR-6 critical assembly for material worth measurements. Click on image to view larger image. The DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) is focused on maintaining fundamental infrastructure that enables retention of DOE capabilities and expertise in nuclear criticality safety necessary to support line

219

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect

This document contains Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) for the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES, which include Area 625 (A625) and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) Storage Area at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TSRs constitute requirements regarding the safe operation of the WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. These TSRs are derived from the Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities (DSA) (LLNL 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.

Laycak, D T

2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

220

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect

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

Laycak, D T

2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

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


221

FAQS Reference Guide Nuclear Safety Specialist  

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

This reference guide addresses the competency statements in the November 2007 edition of DOE-STD-1183-2007, Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard.

222

Standard Guide for Preparing Characterization Plans for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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...

American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

223

NUCLEAR SAFETY SPECIALIST QUALIFICATION STANDARD REFERENCE GUIDE  

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

Nuclear Nuclear Safety Specialist Qualification Standard Reference Guide AUGUST 2008 This page is intentionally blank. i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ v ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ vi PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ...........................................................................................................................................

224

Proceedings of the Nuclear Criticality Technology and Safety Project Workshop  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

Sanchez, R.G. [comp.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

225

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

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

DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities The original release of DOE-STD-1120-98 provided integrated safety management guidance for enhancing worker, public, and environmental protection during all facility disposition activities. Volume One of this Standard has been revised to provide a Department of Energy (DOE) approved methodology for preparing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for decommissioning of nuclear facilities, as well as environmental restoration activities that involve work not done within a permanent structure. Methodologies provided in this Standard are intended to be compliant with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part

226

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

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

Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities DOE Standard Integration Of Environment,Safety, and Health Into Facility Disposition Activities The original release of DOE-STD-1120-98 provided integrated safety management guidance for enhancing worker, public, and environmental protection during all facility disposition activities. Volume One of this Standard has been revised to provide a Department of Energy (DOE) approved methodology for preparing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for decommissioning of nuclear facilities, as well as environmental restoration activities that involve work not done within a permanent structure. Methodologies provided in this Standard are intended to be compliant with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part

227

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Inertial Confinement Fusion Inertial Confinement Fusion Facilities Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Inertial Confinement Fusion > Facilities Facilities Office of Inertial Confinement Fusion, Facilities ICF operates a set of world-class experimental facilities to create HEDP conditions and to obtain quantitative data in support of its numerous stockpile stewardship-related activities. To learn about three high energy experimental facilities and two small lasers that provide ICF capabilities, select the links below. National Ignition Facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory OMEGA and OMEGA EP, University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics Z Machine, Sandia National Laboratories

228

Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities  

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

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

229

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear Facility  

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

Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear 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)] 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)] "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 Ridge Reservation. By completing this self-study guide, the reader will fulfill ORO Safety Basis Qualification Standard Competency 1, 2 (Part 1), or 7 (Part 1) and gain a familiarity level of knowledge regarding the following:

230

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear Facility  

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

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office Nuclear 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)] 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)] "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 Ridge Reservation. By completing this self-study guide, the reader will fulfill ORO Safety Basis Qualification Standard Competency 1, 2 (Part 1), or 7 (Part 1) and gain a familiarity level of knowledge regarding the following:

231

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Process  

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

3015-2001 3015-2001 February 2001 Superseding DOE-STD-3015-97 January 1997 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE SAFETY STUDY PROCESS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. DOE-STD-3015-2001 iii CONTENTS FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 1. PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

232

DOE P 420.1 Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, Approved: 2-08-2011  

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

DOE P 420.1 Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, Approved: DOE P 420.1 Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, Approved: 2-08-2011 DOE P 420.1 Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, Approved: 2-08-2011 PURPOSE: To document the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear safety policy. SCOPE: The provisions of this policy apply to all Departmental elements with responsibility for a nuclear facility, except the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, which is separately covered under Executive Order 12344, Title 50 United States Code, sections 2406 and 2511. This Policy cancels Secretary of Energy Notice 35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy, dated 9-9-91. POLICY: 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.

233

Experience in Nuclear Criticality Safety - Nuclear Engineering...  

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

design and operations of a variety of Argonne facilities and operations: the Alpha-Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF), Chemical Engineering Division (CMT) separation technology...

234

The history of nuclear weapon safety devices  

SciTech Connect

The paper presents the history of safety devices used in nuclear weapons from the early days of separables to the latest advancements in MicroElectroMechanical Systems (MEMS). Although the paper focuses on devices, the principles of Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety implementation will also be presented.

Plummer, D.W.; Greenwood, W.H.

1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

235

Facilities & Capabilities | Nuclear Science | ORNL  

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

Irradiated Material Examination and Testing (IMET) Facility was designed and built as a hot cell facility. It is a two-story block and brick structure with a two-story high bay...

236

Public Reading Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Reading Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration Reading Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Public Reading Facilities Home > About Us > Our Operations > NNSA Office of General Counsel > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) > Public Reading Facilities Public Reading Facilities The FOIA and E-FOIA require that specific types of records as well as

237

Nuclear Facility Operations | Department of Energy  

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

Facility Operations Facility Operations Nuclear Facility Operations INL is a science-based, applied engineering national laboratory dedicated to meeting the nation's environmental, energy, nuclear technology, and national security needs. INL is a science-based, applied engineering national laboratory dedicated to meeting the nation's environmental, energy, nuclear technology, and national security needs. The Idaho Operations Office oversees these contract activities in accordance with DOE directives. INL is a multi-program laboratory In addition to enabling the Office of Nuclear Energy to develop space power systems and advanced fuel cycle and reactor technologies, INL facilities are used by the National Nuclear Security Administration and other DOE offices, together with other Federal agencies such as the Department of

238

Project Hanford nuclear facilities list and authorization basis information  

SciTech Connect

Rev. 4 documents and updates the Nuclear Facilities list and associated Authorization Basis (AB) information for applicable Project Hanford facilities.

EVANS, C.B.

1999-03-03T23:59:59.000Z

239

Y-12 PLANT NUCLEAR SAFETY HANDBOOK  

SciTech Connect

Information needed to solve nuclear safety problems is condensed into a reference book for use by persons familiar with the field. Included are a glossary of terms; useful tables; nuclear constants; criticality calculations; basic nuclear safety limits; solution geometries and critical values; metal critical values; criticality values for intermediate, heterogeneous, and interacting systems; miscellaneous and related information; and report number, author, and subject indexes. (C.H.)

Wachter, J.W. ed.; Bailey, M.L.; Cagle, T.J.; Mee, W.T.; Pletz, R.H.; Welfare, F.G.; Youngblood, B.J. comps

1963-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

240

Advanced research workshop: nuclear materials safety  

SciTech Connect

The Advanced Research Workshop (ARW) on Nuclear Materials Safety held June 8-10, 1998, in St. Petersburg, Russia, was attended by 27 Russian experts from 14 different Russian organizations, seven European experts from six different organizations, and 14 U.S. experts from seven different organizations. The ARW was conducted at the State Education Center (SEC), a former Minatom nuclear training center in St. Petersburg. Thirty-three technical presentations were made using simultaneous translations. These presentations are reprinted in this volume as a formal ARW Proceedings in the NATO Science Series. The representative technical papers contained here cover nuclear material safety topics on the storage and disposition of excess plutonium and high enriched uranium (HEU) fissile materials, including vitrification, mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication, plutonium ceramics, reprocessing, geologic disposal, transportation, and Russian regulatory processes. This ARW completed discussions by experts of the nuclear materials safety topics that were not covered in the previous, companion ARW on Nuclear Materials Safety held in Amarillo, Texas, in March 1997. These two workshops, when viewed together as a set, have addressed most nuclear material aspects of the storage and disposition operations required for excess HEU and plutonium. As a result, specific experts in nuclear materials safety have been identified, know each other from their participation in t he two ARW interactions, and have developed a partial consensus and dialogue on the most urgent nuclear materials safety topics to be addressed in a formal bilateral program on t he subject. A strong basis now exists for maintaining and developing a continuing dialogue between Russian, European, and U.S. experts in nuclear materials safety that will improve the safety of future nuclear materials operations in all the countries involved because of t he positive synergistic effects of focusing these diverse backgrounds of nuclear experience on a common objectivethe safe and secure storage and disposition of excess fissile nuclear materials.

Jardine, L J; Moshkov, M M

1999-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

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


241

DOE: Criteria and Guidelines For the Assessment of Safety System Software and Firmware at Defense Nuclear Facilities, 10/24/03, rev. 3  

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

This document contains software qualification assessment criteria and guidelines for assessing the safety system software used for instrumentation and controls (I&C) at Department of Energy ...

242

Clearance Levels For Redundant Material From Decommissioning Of Nuclear Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Currently, a great deal is happening in the regulatory field regarding the release of radiologically contaminated material: . The IAEA is working on the revision of Safety Series 89 (governing the principles of exemption and clearance) and of the TECDOC 855 on clearance levels. . The European Commission Directive on basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation in both nuclear and non-nuclear industries will become effective in May 2000. . The U.S. NRC has issued its draft on clearance of material from nuclear facilities (NUREG 1640), as well as an "issues" paper on the release of solid materials. The U.S. State Department has launched an International Radioactive Source Management Initiative, one of the objectives being to "develop international standards and guidelines and `harmonize' U.S. and IAEA radioactive clearance levels." Of great significance to the implementor of clearance regulations in the nuclear industry is the emergence of the NORM issue durin...

Shankar Menon Program; Shankar Menon

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

243

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Office of Defense Science Office of Defense Science Facilities Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Research and Development > Facilities Facilities Office of Research and Development, Facilities The Office of Research and Development manages and oversees the operation of an exceptional suite of science, technology, and engineering facilities that support and further the national stockpile stewardship agenda. Of varying size, scope and capabilities, the facilities work in a concert to accomplish the following activities: Annual assessment of the stockpile in the face of increasing challenges due to aging or remanufacture, Reduced response times for resolving stockpile issues, Timely and certifiable completion of Life Extension Programs,

244

Appendix B: Rules and Directives Applicable to Nuclear Facilities...  

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

Appendix B: Rules and Directives Applicable to Nuclear Facilities Line Management Oversight Appendix B: Rules and Directives Applicable to Nuclear Facilities Line Management...

245

DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Hallam Nuclear Power Facility...  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Hallam Nuclear Power Facility - NE 01 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Hallam Nuclear Power Facility (NE.01 ) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: Evaluation Year: Site...

246

DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Piqua Nuclear Power Facility...  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Piqua Nuclear Power Facility - OH 08 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Piqua Nuclear Power Facility (OH.08 ) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: Evaluation Year: Site...

247

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Office of Defense Science Facilities Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test Capabilities and Evaluation > Office of Research and...

248

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Office of Defense Science Facilities Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Research and Development...

249

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test Capabilities and Evaluation > Office of Test Capabilities and Evaluation > Facilities...

250

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Inertial Confinement Fusion Facilities Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > Office of Inertial Confinement...

251

OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE | Department  

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

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

252

Safety analysis report for the Waste Storage Facility. Revision 2  

SciTech Connect

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

Bengston, S.J.

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

253

Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture...  

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

and Security HSS Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization...

254

Accurate fission data for nuclear safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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.

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

2013-03-12T23:59:59.000Z

255

Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary | Department of Energy  

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

Workshop Summary Workshop Summary Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary September 19-20, 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary On September 19-20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) held a second Nuclear Safety Workshop covering the results of the Department's actions to improve its posture for analyzing and responding to severe accidents in light of lessons learned from the March 2011 nuclear accident in Japan. Sponsored by DOE and championed by Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, the two-day workshop discussed the lessons learned in a national and international context. The workshop's theme was Post Fukushima Initiatives and Results, and included technical breakout sessions focused on beyond design basis events (BDBEs) analysis and response, safety culture, and risk assessment and management.

256

Nuclear criticality safety department training implementation  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

1996-09-06T23:59:59.000Z

257

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

Shedrow, C.B.

1999-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

258

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect

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

WEISS, E.V.

2000-12-15T23:59:59.000Z

259

Nuclear data needs for application in nuclear criticality safety programs  

SciTech Connect

In nuclear criticality safety applications, a number of important uncertainties have to be addressed to establish the required criticality safety margin of a nuclear system. One source of these uncertainties is the basic nuclear data used to calculate the effective multiplication factor of the system. Before criticality safety calculations are performed, the bias and uncertainties of the codes and cross sections that are used must be determined. Cross-section data are measured, evaluated, and tested prior to their inclusion in nuclear data libraries. Traditionally, nuclear data evaluations are performed to support the analysis and design of thermal and fast reactors. The neutron spectra characteristic of the thermal and fast systems used for data testing are predominantly in the low- and high-energy ranges, with a relatively minor influence from the intermediate-energy range. In the area of nuclear criticality safety, nuclear systems involving spent fuel elements from reactors can lead to situations very different from those most commonly found in reactor analysis and design. These systems are not limited to thermal or fast neutron spectra and may have their most significant influence from the intermediate energy range. This requires extending the range of applicability of the nuclear data evaluation beyond thermal and fast systems. The aim here is to focus on the evaluated nuclear data pertaining to applications in nuclear criticality safety.

Leal, L.C.; Westfall, R.M.; Jordan, W.C.; Wright, R.Q. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States). Computational Physics and Engineering Div.

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

260

Sharing of Nuclear Safety Information through Distributed Database Systems  

SciTech Connect

This presentation discusses the sharing of nuclear safety information through distributed database systems.

Ley, H.

2004-10-03T23:59:59.000Z

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


261

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

SciTech Connect

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

Fisk, Patricia; Rutherford, Lavon

2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

262

FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist | Department of  

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

Nuclear Safety Specialist Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist 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). For each functional area, the FAQS identify the minimum technical competencies and supporting knowledge and skills for a typical qualified individual working in the area. FAQC-NuclearSafetySpecialist-2007.docx Description Nuclear Safety Specialist Qualification Card - 2007 FAQC-NuclearSafetySpecialist-2004.docx

263

Nuclear data for criticality safety - current issues  

SciTech Connect

Traditionally, nuclear data evaluations have been performed in support of the analysis and design of thermal and fast reactors. In general, the neutron spectra characteristic of the thermal and fast systems used for data testing are predominantly in the low- and high-energy range with a relatively small influence from the intermediate-energy range. In the area of nuclear criticality safety, nuclear systems arising from applications involving fissionable materials outside reactors can lead to situations very different from those most commonly found in reactor analysis and design. These systems are not limited to thermal or fast and may have significant influence from the intermediate energy range. The extension of the range of applicability of the nuclear data evaluation beyond thermal and fast systems is therefore needed to cover problems found in nuclear criticality safety. Before criticality safety calculations are performed, the bias and uncertainties of the codes and cross sections that are used must be determined. The most common sources of uncertainties, in general, are the calculational methodologies and the uncertainties related to the nuclear data, such as the microscopic cross sections, entering into the calculational procedure. The aim here is to focus on the evaluated nuclear data pertaining to applications in nuclear criticality safety.

Leal, L.C.; Jordan, W.C.; Wright, R.Q.

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

264

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (Project W-296) Safety Assessment  

SciTech Connect

This Safety Assessment is based on information derived from the Conceptual Design Report for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (DOE/RL 1994) and ancillary documentation developed during the conceptual design phase of Project W-296. The Safety Assessment has been prepared to support the Solid Waste Burial Ground Interim Safety Basis document. The purpose of the Safety Assessment is to provide an evaluation of the design to determine if the process, as proposed, will comply with US Department of Energy (DOE) Limits for radioactive and hazardous material exposures and be acceptable from an overall health and safety standpoint. The evaluation considered affects on the worker, onsite personnel, the public, and the environment.

Armstrong, D.L.

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

265

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

Enforcement » Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents Enforcement » Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents Documents Available for Download July 22, 2013 Enforcement Letter, NEL-2013-03 Issued to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC related to Programmatic Deficiencies in the Software Quality Assurance Program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory February 12, 2013 Enforcement Letter, NEL-2013-02 Issued to Los Alamos National Security, LLC related to a Radiological Contamination Event at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory January 7, 2013 Enforcement Letter, NEL-2013-01 Issued to B&W Pantex, LLC related to the Conduct of Nuclear Explosive Operations at the Pantex Plant October 23, 2012 Enforcement Letter, Controlled Power Company - WEL-2012-02

266

Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement  

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

The Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS Logo Department of Energy Seal Left Tab SEARCH Right Tab TOOLS Right Tab Left Tab HOME Right Tab Left Tab ABOUT US Right Tab Left Tab...

267

Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) for Waste Receiving & Processing (WRAP) facility  

SciTech Connect

These Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) define the Administrative Controls required to ensure safe operation of the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP). As will be shown in the report, Safety Limits, Limiting Control Settings, Limiting Conditions for Operation, and Surveillance Requirements are not required for safe operation of WRAP.

TOMASZEWSKI, T.A.

2001-07-10T23:59:59.000Z

268

Nuclear Power - Operation, Safety and Environment  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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, catastrophic earthquake and tsunami events in Japan resulted in the nuclear accident that forced us to rethink our approach to nuclear safety, design requirements and facilitated growing interests in advanced nuclear energy systems, next generation nuclear reactors, which are inherently capable to withstand natural disasters and avoid catastrophic consequences without any environmental impact. This book is one in a series of books on nuclear power published by InTech. Under the single-volume cover, we put together such topics as operation, safety, environment and radiation effects. The book is not offering a comprehensive coverage of the material in each area. Instead, selected themes are highlighted by authors of individual chapters representing contemporary interests worldwide. With all diversity of topics in 16 chapters, the integrated system analysis approach of nuclear power operation, safety and environment is the common thread. The goal of the book is to bring nuclear power to our readers as one of the promising energy sources that has a unique potential to meet energy demands with minimized environmental impact, near-zero carbon footprint, and competitive economics via robust potential applications. The book targets everyone as its potential readership groups - students, researchers and practitioners - who are interested to learn about nuclear power.

Tsvetkov, Pavel

2011-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

269

Proceedings of the nuclear criticality technology safety project  

SciTech Connect

This document contains summaries of the most of the papers presented at the 1994 Nuclear Criticality Technology Safety Project (NCTSP) meeting, which was held May 10 and 11 at Williamsburg, Va. The meeting was broken up into seven sessions, which covered the following topics: (1) Validation and Application of Calculations; (2) Relevant Experiments for Criticality Safety; (3) Experimental Facilities and Capabilities; (4) Rad-Waste and Weapons Disassembly; (5) Criticality Safety Software and Development; (6) Criticality Safety Studies at Universities; and (7) Training. The minutes and list of participants of the Critical Experiment Needs Identification Workgroup meeting, which was held on May 9 at the same venue, has been included as an appendix. A second appendix contains the names and addresses of all NCTSP meeting participants. Separate abstracts have been indexed to the database for contributions to this proceedings.

Sanchez, R.G. [comp.

1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

270

Web-based nuclear criticality safety bibliographic database  

SciTech Connect

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has prepared a Nuclear Criticality Safety Bibliographic Database that is now available via the Internet. This database is a component of the U.S. DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) Web site. This WWW resource was developed as part of the DOE response to the DNFSB Recommendation 97-2, which reflected the need to make criticality safety information available to a wide audience. To the extent possible, the hyperlinks on the Web pages direct the user to original source of the reference material in order to ensure accuracy and access to the latest versions. A master index is in place for simple navigation through the site. A search capability is available to assist in locating the on-line reference materials. Among the features included are: A user-friendly site map for ease of use; A personnel registry; Links to all major laboratories and organizations involved in the many aspects of criticality safety; General help for new criticality safety practitioners, including basic technical references and training modules; A discussion of computational methods; An interactive question and answer forum for the criticality safety community; and Collections of bibliographic references mdvahdation experiments. This paper will focus on the bibliographic database. This database evolved from earlier work done by the DOE's Nuclear Criticality Information System (NCIS) maintained at LLNL during the 1980s. The bibliographic database at the time of the termination of NCIS were composed principally of three parts: (1) A critical experiment bibliography of 1067 citations (reported in UCRL-52769); (2) A compilation of criticality safety papers from Volumes 1 through 41 of the Transactions of the American Nuclear Society (reported in UCRL-53369); and (3) A general criticality bibliography of several thousand citations (unpublished). When the NCIS project was terminated the database was nearly lost but, fortunately, several years later most of the data were restored from backup tapes that had been archived by LLNL's ICNC conferences and American Nuclear Society publications, Nuclear Science and Engineering and Nuclear Technology. Since the Rocky Flats facility is heading for closure maintenance of the database was again threatened. This has now been avoided since LLNL was selected in 1999 to fulfill part of the ''Information Preservation and Dissemination'' task of the DOE's Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Five-Year Plan. This effort will ''collect, preserve and make readily available criticality safety information'' and make the information available via the Internet.

Koponen, B L; Huang, S T

2000-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

271

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Volume 2, Guidance  

SciTech Connect

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

NONE

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

272

Nuclear Explosives Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

85-2007 85-2007 September 2007 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE SAFETY STUDY FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION STANDARD DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DRAFT DOE-STD-1185-2007 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Site at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/ DRAFT DOE-STD-1185-2007 iv INTENTIONALLY BLANK DRAFT DOE-STD-1185-2007 v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................................ vii PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1

273

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

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

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

274

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

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

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

275

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

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

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

276

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

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

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

277

Updated Costs for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This update of 1978 NRC cost estimates--in 1984 dollars--also estimates the costs of several special manpower and licensing options for decommissioning nuclear power facilities. The fully developed methodology offers utilities a sound basis on which to estimate the costs of decommissioning specific plants.

1985-05-13T23:59:59.000Z

278

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

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

Technical Basis for U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, DOE Policy 420.1 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. In developing the revised Policy and performing this analysis, DOE reviewed the current Nuclear Safety Policy (Secretary of Energy Notice [SEN] 35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy) and safety policies established by other safety

279

Nuclear safety guide TID-7016 Revision 2  

SciTech Connect

The present revision of TID-7016 Nuclear Safety Guide is discussed. This Guide differs significantly from its predecessor in that the latter was intentionally conservative in its recommendations. Firmly based on experimental evidence of criticality, the original Guide and the first revision were considered to be of most value to organizations whose activities with fissionable materials were not extensive and, secondarily, that it would serve as a point of departure for members of established nuclear safety teams, experienced in the field. The reader will find a significant change in the character of information presented in this version. Nuclear Criticality Safety has matured in the past twelve years. The advance of calculational capability has permitted validated calculations to extend and substitute for experimental data. The broadened data base has enabled better interpolation, extension, and understanding of available, information, especially in areas previously addressed by undefined but adequate factors of safety. The content has been thereby enriched in qualitative guidance. The information inherently contains, and the user can recapture, the quantitative guidance characteristic of the former Guides by employing appropriate safety factors. In fact, it becomes incumbent on the Criticality Safety Specialist to necessarily impose safety factors consistent with the possible normal and abnormal credible contingencies of an operation as revealed by his evaluation. In its present form the Guide easily becomes a suitable module in any compendium or handbook tailored for internal use by organizations. It is hoped the Guide will continue to serve immediate needs and will encourage continuing and more comprehensive efforts toward organizing nuclear criticality safety information.

Thomas, J.T.

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

280

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Presentations | Department of Energy  

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

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Presentations 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Presentations 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Presentations Wednesday, September 19 - Plenary Session September 19, 2012 Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement - The Operator Viewpoints Presenter: Akira Kawano, General Manager, Nuclear International Relations and Strategy Group, Nuclear Power and Plant Siting Administrative Department, Tokyo Electric Power Company September 19, 2012 A Commissioner's Perspective on USNRC Actions in Response to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Presenter: Honorable William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner US Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 19, 2012 International Perspective on Fukushima Accident Presenter: Miroslav Lipár, Head, Operational Safety Section, Department of

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


281

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Steel, May 29, 2009 |  

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

Steel, May 29, 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) Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Steel criteria, review, and approach document, observes construction activities and review records and design documentation to assess the quality of structural steel fabrication and erection and to determine if requirements specified by design basis documents, contracts, and applicable codes and standards have been met. CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Steel, May 29, 2009 More Documents & Publications CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Structural Concrete, May 29, 2009 CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment - June 26, 2012

282

License Application Chapter 5 Nuclear Criticality Safety  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

uranium or other fissile material outside of check-sources and various standards for radiological measurement calibration. As such, no criticality safety programs or procedures are maintained or implemented at the facility; however, the IIFP Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA), as documented in the ISA Summary, did evaluate the potential for a criticality accident at the IIFP Site. The only potential method of having a criticality accident at the facility involves the inadvertent receipt and processing of fissile materials, which is addressed in the ISA. Controls are established to verify that no enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) is received and processed at the facility. The cylinders processed at the IIFP Facility are the large, 14-ton or 10-ton UF6 tails cylinders, not the 2 -ton enriched product cylinders. Processing equipment at the plant, namely the autoclaves, is not sized to handle these smaller cylinders, so there is no method to feed enriched material into the processing plants. Additionally, each cylinder will be scanned with a detector to verify that the incoming cylinders do not contain fissile materials. The scan does not determine the shippers assay exactness for the cylinder contents, but does provide a reasonable indication if the cylinder is depleted or enriched. Both the receipt inspection and the scan for the assay at the Facility Site are maintained as Items Relied on for Safety (IROFS) controls. Also, feed suppliers (UF6 enrichment plants) have redundant and

Uranium De-conversion; Revision B

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

283

FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Explosive Safety Study | Department of  

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

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Nuclear Explosive Safety Study FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Explosive Safety Study 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). For each functional area, the FAQS identify the minimum technical competencies and supporting knowledge and skills for a typical qualified individual working in the area. FAQC-NuclearExplosiveSafetyStudy.docx Description Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Qualification Card More Documents & Publications

284

Microsoft Word - Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria.docx  

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

of other TSROSR requirement (3) Violation of DSA hazard control B. Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) Inadequacies (1) Positive unreviewed safety question C. Nuclear Criticality...

285

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Idaho Cleanup Project...  

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

Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Idaho Cleanup Project Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project May 2011 November 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency...

286

Nuclear safety surveillance and control of National Nuclear Safety Administration of PRC during commissioning and operation of nuclear power plants  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This article describes the method of nuclear safety surveillance and control of National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) of PRC during commissioning and operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) and the practice for Qinshan NPP and for Guangdong Daya Bay NPP (GNPS). The results of the practice show that the surveillance models set up for Qinshan NPP and for GNPS commissioning were effective and the surveillance has played an important role for ensuring the quality and safety of the commissioning testing and consequently the nuclear safety of these two plants.

Feng, W.; Zhang, C.

1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

287

Facilities  

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

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

288

Idaho Waste Treatment Facility Improves Worker Safety and Efficiency, Saves  

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

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

289

DOE P 420.1 Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy  

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

POLICY POLICY Washington, D.C. Approved: 2-08-2011 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR SAFETY POLICY PURPOSE: To document the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear safety policy. SCOPE: The provisions of this policy apply to all Departmental elements with responsibility for a nuclear facility, except the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, which is separately covered under Executive Order 12344, Title 50 United States Code, sections 2406 and 2511. This Policy cancels Secretary of Energy Notice 35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy, dated 9-9-91. POLICY: 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

290

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

SciTech Connect

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

Timothy Solack; Carol Mason

2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

291

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter  

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

Research and Development Committee Charter Research and Development Committee Charter I. Purpose The intent of the Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Committee is to identify nuclear safety research needs and opportunities within the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and their program offices. The Committee promotes communication and coordination among DOE and NNSA program offices to enhance synergy on NSR&D efforts that can benefit the Department. The Committee will foster and facilitate networking and information exchange on NSR&D needs and activities across DOE/NNSA programs and with external national and international organizations. The Committee should not be construed to have any authority to direct DOE and/or NNSA program

292

NNSA, Tajikistan Nuclear and Radiation Safety Agency Sign MOU...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Tajikistan Nuclear and Radiation Safety Agency Sign MOU to Combat Illicit Trafficking | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing...

293

FTCP Site Specific Information - Chief of Nuclear Safety | Department...  

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

of Nuclear Safety FTCP Site Specific Information - Chief of Nuclear Safety FTCP Agent Organization Name Phone E-Mail CNS Richard Lagdon 202586-9471 chip.lagdon@hq.doe.gov...

294

Technical Basis for U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety...  

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

Technical Basis for U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, DOE Policy 420.1, 711 Technical Basis for U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, DOE Policy 420.1,...

295

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Status Workshop Summary  

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

NSR&D STATUS WORKSHOP SUMMARIES Caroline Garzon Chief of Nuclear Safety Staff NUCLEAR SAFETY R&D Perform a peer review of Risk Assessment Corporation WTP analysis by a team...

296

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

1990-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

297

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

1989-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

298

Order Module--DOE-STD-1104-2009, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY  

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

DOE-STD-1104-2009, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR DOE-STD-1104-2009, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFETY BASIS AND SAFETY DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS Order Module--DOE-STD-1104-2009, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFETY BASIS AND SAFETY DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS The familiar level of this module is divided into two sections that are intended to provide only an overview of the material contained in DOE-STD-1104-2009, which should be consulted for complete information. The first section covers the introduction, applicability, and chapters 1 and 2. The second section covers chapters 3, 4, and 5. We have provided examples throughout the module to help familiarize you with the material. The examples will also help prepare you for the practice at the end of this module and for the criterion test.

299

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

Cottrell, W.B.; Passiakos, M.

1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

300

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

SciTech Connect

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

Boyd D. Christensen

2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


301

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

Boyd D. Christensen

2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

302

Criticality safety training at the Hot Fuel Examination Facility  

SciTech Connect

HFEF comprises four hot cells and out-of-cell support facilities for the US breeder program. The HFEF criticality safety program includes training in the basic theory of criticality and in specific criticality hazard control rules that apply to HFEF. A professional staff-member oversees the implementation of the criticality prevention program. (DLC)

Garcia, A.S.; Courtney, J.C.; Thelen, V.N.

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

303

Nuclear Power Generating Facilities (Maine) | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Power Generating Facilities (Maine) Nuclear Power Generating Facilities (Maine) Nuclear Power Generating Facilities (Maine) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Residential Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Program Info State Maine Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Radiation Control Program 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 Maine. The Legislature

304

Financing Strategies for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility  

SciTech Connect

To help meet our nations energy needs, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is being considered more and more as a necessary step in a future nuclear fuel cycle, but incorporating this step into the fuel cycle will require considerable investment. This report presents an evaluation of financing scenarios for reprocessing facilities integrated into the nuclear fuel cycle. A range of options, from fully government owned to fully private owned, was evaluated using a DPL (Dynamic Programming Language) 6.0 model, which can systematically optimize outcomes based on user-defined criteria (e.g., lowest life-cycle cost, lowest unit cost). Though all business decisions follow similar logic with regard to financing, reprocessing facilities are an exception due to the range of financing options available. The evaluation concludes that lowest unit costs and lifetime costs follow a fully government-owned financing strategy, due to government forgiveness of debt as sunk costs. Other financing arrangements, however, including regulated utility ownership and a hybrid ownership scheme, led to acceptable costs, below the Nuclear Energy Agency published estimates. Overwhelmingly, uncertainty in annual capacity led to the greatest fluctuations in unit costs necessary for recovery of operating and capital expenditures; the ability to determine annual capacity will be a driving factor in setting unit costs. For private ventures, the costs of capital, especially equity interest rates, dominate the balance sheet; the annual operating costs dominate the government case. It is concluded that to finance the construction and operation of such a facility without government ownership could be feasible with measures taken to mitigate risk, and that factors besides unit costs should be considered (e.g., legal issues, social effects, proliferation concerns) before making a decision on financing strategy.

David Shropshire; Sharon Chandler

2005-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

305

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

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

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

306

Review of the Implementation Verification Rev iew Processes at the Savannah River Site Environmental Management Nuclear Facilities, September 2011  

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

Implementation Verification Review Implementation Verification Review Processes at the Savannah River Site Environmental Management Nuclear Facilities May 2011 September 2011 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Independent Oversight Review of the Implementation Verification Review Processes at the Savannah River Site Environmental Management Nuclear Facilities Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1

307

Review of the Implementation Verification Rev iew Processes at the Savannah River Site Environmental Management Nuclear Facilities, September 2011  

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

Implementation Verification Review Implementation Verification Review Processes at the Savannah River Site Environmental Management Nuclear Facilities May 2011 September 2011 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy i Independent Oversight Review of the Implementation Verification Review Processes at the Savannah River Site Environmental Management Nuclear Facilities Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1

308

Double-clad nuclear fuel safety rod  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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.

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

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

309

Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities March 2010  

SciTech Connect

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

Laycak, D T

2010-03-05T23:59:59.000Z

310

Documented Safety Analysis for the Waste Storage Facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

Laycak, D

2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

311

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

SciTech Connect

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.

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

2007-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

312

Lawrence Livermore National Laborotory Safety Basis Assessment...  

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

of the safety basis for LLNL nuclear facilities. It describes the method for categorizing nuclear facilities and summarizes the resulting requirements for the contents of the DSA....

313

DOE Cites Safety and Ecology Corp. for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules |  

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

Safety and Ecology Corp. for Violating Nuclear Safety Safety and Ecology Corp. for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules DOE Cites Safety and Ecology Corp. for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules June 14, 2005 - 4:53pm Addthis WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Safety and Ecology Corporation, the contractor responsible for radiological safety at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Project in Portsmouth, Ohio, that it will fine the company $55,000 for violating the department's regulations prohibiting retaliation against employees who raise nuclear safety concerns. "We take safety very seriously at the Department of Energy," said Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health John Shaw. "Today's action illustrates the department's commitment to ensuring that any and all valid

314

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

315

Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear Security  

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

Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear Security Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility May 29, 1997 Livermore, CA Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility

316

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

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

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

317

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

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

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

318

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 and Symposium 1-2 December 2010 #12;FUSION NUCLEAR SCIENCE FACILITY: COMMENTS ON MISSION Gerald A. Navratil Component Test Facility Theory & Simulation FESAC/Snowmass Report: ITER-Based Development Path #12;FUSION

319

Development of the DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Web Site for the Nuclear Criticality Safety Professional  

SciTech Connect

Development of the DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) web site is the result of the efforts of marry members of the Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) community and is maintained by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under the direction of the NCSP Management Team. This World Wide Web (WWW) resource was developed as part of the DOE response to the DNFSB Recommendation 97-2, which reflected the need to make criticality safety information available to a wide audience. The NCSP web site provides information of interest to NCS professionals and includes links to other sites actively involved in the collection and dissemination of criticality safety information. To the extent possible, the hyperlinks on this web site direct the user to the original source of the referenced material in order to ensure access to the latest, most accurate version.

Lee, C.K.; Huang, S.; Morman, J.A.; Garcia, A.S.

2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

320

The Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC): A Resource for Nuclear Science Applications  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) has been in existence since 1963. RSICC collects, organizes, evaluates and disseminates technical information (software and nuclear data) involving the transport of neutral and charged particle radiation, and shielding and protection from the radiation associated with: nuclear weapons and materials, fission and fusion reactors, outer space, accelerators, medical facilities, and nuclear waste management. RSICC serves over 12,000 scientists and engineers from about 100 countries.

Kirk, Bernadette Lugue [ORNL

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


321

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

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

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

322

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1185-2007 CHANGE NOTICE No.1 April 2010 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE SAFETY STUDY FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION STANDARD DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1185-2007 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Site at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds DOE-STD-1185-2007 iii APPROVAL The Federal Technical Capability Panel consists of senior U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) managers responsible for overseeing the Federal Technical Capability Program. This Panel is

323

H. R. 1836: A Bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with regard to Department of Energy nuclear facilities, and for other purposes. Introduced in the House of Representatives, One Hundredth First Congress, First Session, April 12, 1989  

SciTech Connect

H.R. 1836: A Bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with regard to Department of Energy nuclear facilities, and for other purposes. The amendments change the title Defense Nuclear facilities to Department of Energy Nuclear facilities used for defense purposes and the related facilities Safety Board.

Not Available

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

324

Enforcement Regulations and Directives - Nuclear Safety | Department of  

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

Nuclear Safety Nuclear Safety Enforcement Regulations and Directives - Nuclear Safety 10 C.F.R. Part 820 and Amendments 10 C.F.R. Part 820 - Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities 10 C.F.R. Part 820 - Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities; General Statement of Enforcement Policy; Final rule; amendment of enforcement policy statement and confirmation of interim rule 10 C.F.R. Part 830 10 C.F.R. Part 830 - Nuclear Safety Management; Final Rule Office of General Counsel Interpretation regarding the Application of DOE Technical Standard 1027-92 under 10 C.F.R. Part 830 Office of General Counsel Interpretation regarding Noncompliant Documented Safety Analyses and Exemption Relief (9/28/2011) Related Guidance DOE-STD-1083-2009, Processing Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules and

325

The necessity for permanence : making a nuclear waste storage facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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 ...

Stupay, Robert Irving

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

326

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

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

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

327

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab - Nuclear safety  

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

safety Actions taken to safety Actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation accidents or to limit their consequences. en Celebrating the 20th anniversary of the tritium shot heard around the world http://www.pppl.gov/news/2013/12/celebrating-20th-anniversary-tritium-shot-heard-around-world-2

Tensions rose in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) as the seconds counted down. At stake was the first crucial test of a high-powered mixture of fuel for producing fusion energy. As the control-room clock reached "zero," a flash of light on a closed-circuit television monitor marked a historic achievement:

328

JM to Revise DOE O 420.1B, Facility Safety (9-23-10)  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

This approval includes revision of the three implementing Guides: DOE G 420.1-1, Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Criteria and Explosive Safety Criteria Guide ...

2010-09-23T23:59:59.000Z

329

HANFORD NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY PROGRAM DATABASE  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Database is a useful information retrieval tool for a criticality safety practitioner. The database contains nuclear criticality literature screened for parameter studies. The entries, characterized with a value index, are segregated into 16 major and six minor categories. A majority of the screened entries have abstracts and a limited number are connected to the Office of Scientific and Technology Information (OSTI) database of full-size documents. Simple and complex searches of the data can be accomplished very rapidly and the end-product of the searches could be a full-size document. The paper contains a description of the database, user instructions, and a number of examples.

TOFFER, H.

2005-05-02T23:59:59.000Z

330

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment - June 26, 2012  

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

Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment - June Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment - June 26, 2012 CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment - June 26, 2012 June 26, 2012 Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment Installation, (HSS CRAD 45-53, Rev. 0) The purpose of this criteria review and approach, this CRAD includes mechanical equipment installation, including connections of the equipment to installed piping systems, and attachments of the equipment to structures (concrete, structural steel, or embed plates). Mechanical equipment includes items such as pumps and motors, valves, tanks, glove boxes, heat exchangers, ion exchangers, service air system, fire pumps and tanks, and heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) equipment such as fans, scrubbers and filters.

331

Moratorium on Construction of Nuclear Power Facilities (Connecticut)  

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

No construction shall commence on a fifth nuclear power facility until the Commissioner of Environmental Protection finds that the United States Government, through its authorized agency, has...

332

Some noise control problems peculiar to nuclear generating facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The ability to confidently predict the noise environment in a nuclear generating facility presently under construction is complicated by the design constraints of physical layout

Robert A. Putnam

1977-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

333

Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities...  

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

:14 Report number: 2013:14 ISSN: 2000-0456 Available at www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among Several Countries...

334

Request for Naval Reactors Comment on Proposed Prometheus Space Flight Nuclear Reactor High Tier Reactor Safety Requirements and for Naval Reactors Approval to Transmit These Requirements to JPL  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this letter is to request Naval Reactors comments on the nuclear reactor high tier requirements for the PROMETHEUS space flight reactor design, pre-launch operations, launch, ascent, operation, and disposal, and to request Naval Reactors approval to transmit these requirements to Jet Propulsion Laboratory to ensure consistency between the reactor safety requirements and the spacecraft safety requirements. The proposed PROMETHEUS nuclear reactor high tier safety requirements are consistent with the long standing safety culture of the Naval Reactors Program and its commitment to protecting the health and safety of the public and the environment. In addition, the philosophy on which these requirements are based is consistent with the Nuclear Safety Policy Working Group recommendations on space nuclear propulsion safety (Reference 1), DOE Nuclear Safety Criteria and Specifications for Space Nuclear Reactors (Reference 2), the Nuclear Space Power Safety and Facility Guidelines Study of the Applied Physics Laboratory.

D. Kokkinos

2005-04-28T23:59:59.000Z

335

Microsoft Word - Nuclear Safety Pamphlet Final September 1 2010...  

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

A Basic Overview of NUCLEAR SAFETY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Outreach & Awareness Series Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) U.S. Department of Energy September 2010...

336

Final safety analysis report for the irradiated fuels storage facility  

SciTech Connect

A fuel storage facility has been constructed at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant to provide safe storage for spent fuel from two commercial HTGR's, Fort St. Vrain and Peach Bottom, and from the Rover nuclear rocket program. The new facility was built as an addition to the existing fuel storage basin building to make maximum use of existing facilities and equipment. The completed facility provides dry storage for one core of Peach Bottom fuel (804 elements), 1$sup 1$/$sub 2$ cores of Fort St. Vrain fuel (2200 elements), and the irradiated fuel from the 20 reactors in the Rover program. The facility is designed to permit future expansion at a minimum cost should additional storage space for graphite-type fuels be required. A thorough study of the potential hazards associated with the Irradiated Fuels Storage Facility has been completed, indicating that the facility is capable of withstanding all credible combinations of internal accidents and pertinent natural forces, including design basis natural phenomena of a 10,000 year flood, a 175-mph tornado, or an earthquake having a bedrock acceleration of 0.33 g and an amplification factor of 1.3, without a loss of integrity or a significant release of radioactive materials. The design basis accident (DBA) postulated for the facility is a complete loss of cooling air, even though the occurrence of this situation is extremely remote, considering the availability of backup and spare fans and emergency power. The occurrence of the DBA presents neither a radiation nor an activity release hazard. A loss of coolant has no effect upon the fuel or the facility other than resulting in a gradual and constant temperature increase of the stored fuel. The temperature increase is gradual enough that ample time (28 hours minimum) is available for corrective action before an arbitrarily imposed maximum fuel centerline temperature of 1100$sup 0$F is reached. (LK)

Bingham, G.E.; Evans, T.K.

1976-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

337

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

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

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

338

Tutorial on nuclear thermal propulsion safety for Mars  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Safety is the prime design requirement for nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP). It must be built in at the initiation of the design process. An understanding of safety concerns is fundamental to the development of nuclear rockets for manned missions to Mars and many other applications that will be enabled or greatly enhanced by the use of nuclear propulsion. To provide an understanding of the basic issues, a tutorial has been prepared. This tutorial covers a range of topics including safety requirements and approaches to meet these requirements, risk and safety analysis methodology, NERVA reliability and safety approach, and life cycle risk assessments.

Buden, D.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

339

Tutorial on nuclear thermal propulsion safety for Mars  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Safety is the prime design requirement for nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP). It must be built in at the initiation of the design process. An understanding of safety concerns is fundamental to the development of nuclear rockets for manned missions to Mars and many other applications that will be enabled or greatly enhanced by the use of nuclear propulsion. To provide an understanding of the basic issues, a tutorial has been prepared. This tutorial covers a range of topics including safety requirements and approaches to meet these requirements, risk and safety analysis methodology, NERVA reliability and safety approach, and life cycle risk assessments.

Buden, D.

1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

340

Implementation of an Enhanced Measurement Control Program for handling nuclear safety samples at WSRC  

SciTech Connect

In the separation and purification of nuclear material, nuclear criticality safety (NCS) is of primary concern. The primary nuclear criticality safety controls utilized by the Savannah River Site (SRS) Separations Facilities involve administrative and process equipment controls. Additional assurance of NCS is obtained by identifying key process hold points where sampling is used to independently verify the effectiveness of production control. Nuclear safety measurements of samples from these key process locations provide a high degree of assurance that processing conditions are within administrative and procedural nuclear safety controls. An enhanced procedure management system aimed at making improvements in the quality, safety, and conduct of operation was implemented for Nuclear Safety Sample (NSS) receipt, analysis, and reporting. All procedures with nuclear safety implications were reviewed for accuracy and adequate detail to perform the analytical measurements safely, efficiently, and with the utmost quality. Laboratory personnel worked in a ``Deliberate Operating`` mode (a systematic process requiring continuous expert oversight during all phases of training, testing, and implementation) to initiate the upgrades. Thus, the effort to revise and review nuclear safety sample procedures involved a team comprised of a supervisor, chemist, and two technicians for each procedure. Each NSS procedure was upgraded to a ``Use Every Time`` (UET) procedure with sign-off steps to ensure compliance with each step for every nuclear safety sample analyzed. The upgrade program met and exceeded both the long and short term customer needs by improving measurement reliability, providing objective evidence of rigid adherence to program principles and requirements, and enhancing the system for independent verification of representative sampling from designated NCS points.

Boler-Melton, C.; Holland, M.K.

1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

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


341

Implementation of an Enhanced Measurement Control Program for handling nuclear safety samples at WSRC  

SciTech Connect

In the separation and purification of nuclear material, nuclear criticality safety (NCS) is of primary concern. The primary nuclear criticality safety controls utilized by the Savannah River Site (SRS) Separations Facilities involve administrative and process equipment controls. Additional assurance of NCS is obtained by identifying key process hold points where sampling is used to independently verify the effectiveness of production control. Nuclear safety measurements of samples from these key process locations provide a high degree of assurance that processing conditions are within administrative and procedural nuclear safety controls. An enhanced procedure management system aimed at making improvements in the quality, safety, and conduct of operation was implemented for Nuclear Safety Sample (NSS) receipt, analysis, and reporting. All procedures with nuclear safety implications were reviewed for accuracy and adequate detail to perform the analytical measurements safely, efficiently, and with the utmost quality. Laboratory personnel worked in a Deliberate Operating'' mode (a systematic process requiring continuous expert oversight during all phases of training, testing, and implementation) to initiate the upgrades. Thus, the effort to revise and review nuclear safety sample procedures involved a team comprised of a supervisor, chemist, and two technicians for each procedure. Each NSS procedure was upgraded to a Use Every Time'' (UET) procedure with sign-off steps to ensure compliance with each step for every nuclear safety sample analyzed. The upgrade program met and exceeded both the long and short term customer needs by improving measurement reliability, providing objective evidence of rigid adherence to program principles and requirements, and enhancing the system for independent verification of representative sampling from designated NCS points.

Boler-Melton, C.; Holland, M.K.

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

342

A comparative study of worker and general public risks from nuclear facility operation using MACCS2  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Over the last five years, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has attempted to establish quantitative risk indices as minimum acceptance criteria for assurance of safe operation of its nuclear facilities. The risk indices serve as aiming points or targets to include consideration of all aspects of operation including normal conditions as well as abnormal, design basis events, and beyond-design basis events. Although initial focus of the application of these safety targets had been on DOE`s reactors, more recent assessments have also considered non-reactor facilities including those encompassing storage and nuclear processing activities. Regardless of the facility`s primary function, accident progression, event tree/fault tree logic models, and probabilistic (dose) consequence assessment model must be implemented to yield a fully integrated analysis of facility operation. The primary tool for probabilistic consequence assessment in the US is the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS). In this study, two version of MACCS are applied to representative source terms developed in the safety analysis associated with a waste processing facility at the Westinghouse Savannah River Company`s (WSRC`s) Savannah River Site (SRS). The MACCS versions are used to estimate population dose and subsequent health effects to workers and the general public from the SRS referenced facility operation. When combined with the frequency of occurrence evaluation, the margin of compliance with the safety targets may be quantified.

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

1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

343

Spent Nuclear Fuel project integrated safety management plan  

SciTech Connect

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

Daschke, K.D.

1996-09-17T23:59:59.000Z

344

Nuclear Safety Component and Services Procurement, June 29, 2011...  

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

Office of Enforcement and Oversight Criteria Review and Approach Document Subject: Nuclear Safety Component and Services Procurement Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities,...

345

DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex: Challenges to Safety, Security...  

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

and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives "DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex: Challenges to Safety, Security, and Taxpayer Stewardship" FOR...

346

Independent Oversight Lessons Learned from Targeted Reviews of Implementation Verification Review Processes at Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities, May 2013  

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

Lessons Learned from Targeted Reviews of Implementation Verification Review Processes at Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities May 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................ii Executive Summaiy .....................................................................................................................................iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

347

Independent Oversight Lessons Learned from Targeted Reviews of Implementation Verification Review Processes at Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities, May 2013  

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

Lessons Learned from Targeted Reviews of Implementation Verification Review Processes at Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities May 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................ii Executive Summaiy .....................................................................................................................................iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

348

Safety Analysis, Hazard and Risk Evaluations [Nuclear Waste Management  

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

Safety Analysis, Hazard Safety Analysis, Hazard and Risk Evaluations Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Technologies Overview Modeling and analysis Unit Process Modeling Mass Tracking System Software Waste Form Performance Modeling Safety Analysis, Hazard and Risk Evaluations Development, Design, Operation Overview Systems and Components Development Expertise System Engineering Design Other Major Programs Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE Division on Flickr Nuclear Waste Management using Electrometallurgical Technology Safety Analysis, Hazard and Risk Evaluations Bookmark and Share NE Division personnel had a key role in the creation of the FCF Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), FCF Technical Safety Requirements (TSR)

349

Recent Progress in U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Safety  

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

Recent Progress in U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Safety Speaker(s): Robert Budnitz Date: April 15, 2010 - 12:00pm Location: 90-3122 The U.S. commercial nuclear-power industry consists...

350

Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) before Upgrade to Component Test Facility (CTF)  

SciTech Connect

The compact (R0~1.2-1.3m) Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) is aimed at providing a fully integrated, continuously driven fusion nuclear environment of copious fusion neutrons. This facility would be used to test, discover, understand, and innovate scientific and technical solutions for the challenges facing DEMO, by addressing the multi-scale synergistic interactions involving fusion plasma material interactions, tritium fuel cycle, power extraction, and the nuclear effects on materials. Such a facility properly designed would provide, initially at the JET-level plasma pressure (~30%T2) and conditions (e.g., Hot-Ion H-Mode), an outboard fusion neutron flux of 0.25 MW/m2 while requiring a fusion power of 19 MW. If and when this research operation is successful, its performance can be extended to 1 MW/m2 and 76 MW by reaching for twice the JET plasma pressure and Q. High-safety factor q and moderate- plasmas would minimize plasma-induced disruptions, helping to deliver reliably a neutron fluence of 1 MW-yr/m2 and a duty factor of 10% presently anticipated for the FNS research. Success of this research will depend on achieving time-efficient installation and replacement of all components using extensive remote handling (RH). This in turn requires modular designs for all internal components, including the single-turn toroidal field coil center-post with RH-compatible bi-directional sliding joints. Such device goals would further dictate placement of support structures and vacuum seal welds behind the internal and shielding components. If these further goals could be achieved, the FNSF would provide a ready upgrade path to the Component Test Facility (CTF), which would aim to test, at higher neutron fluence and duty cycle, the demanding fusion nuclear engineering and technologies for DEMO. This FNSF-CTF strategy would be complementary to the ITER and the Broader Approach programs, and thereby help mitigate the risks of an aggressive world fusion DEMO R&D Program. The key physics and technology research needed in the next decade to manage the potential risks of this FNSF are identified.

Peng, Yueng Kay Martin [ORNL

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

351

NNSA issues Preliminary Notice of Violation to National Security Technologies, LLC, for Nuclear Safety Violations, Fact Sheet  

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

Sheet Sheet NNSA issues Preliminary Notice of Violation to National Security Technologies, LLC, for Nuclear Safety Violations On August 22, 2011, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) for violations of Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear safety regulations. NSTec is the operating contractor of NNSA's Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The PNOV cites four violations of DOE regulations governing nuclear safety management. The violations are associated with quality assurance (QA) related deficiencies in the inspection and installation of penetration fire seals and other components at the Criticality Experiments Facility

352

National Laser User Facilities Program | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

User Facilities Program | National Nuclear Security User Facilities Program | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog National Laser User Facilities Program Home > National Laser User Facilities Program National Laser User Facilities Program National Laser Users' Facility Grant Program Overview The Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) at the University of Rochester

353

National Laser User Facilities Program | National Nuclear Security  

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

Laser User Facilities Program | National Nuclear Security Laser User Facilities Program | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog National Laser User Facilities Program Home > National Laser User Facilities Program National Laser User Facilities Program National Laser Users' Facility Grant Program Overview The Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) at the University of Rochester

354

Guideline to good practices for control of maintenance activities at DOE nuclear facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Control of Maintenance Activities at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information that may be used for the development and implementation of a rigorously controlled maintenance program directed at achieving high quality work performance, personnel safety, radiological protection, operating equipment/system protection, and overall site safety and reliability at DOE nuclear facilities. This document is intended to be an example guideline for the implementation of DOE Order 4330.4A, Maintenance Management Program, Chapter II, Element 7. DOE contractors should not feel obligated to adopt all parts of this guide. Rather, they should use the information contained herein as a guide for developing maintenance programs that are applicable to their facility.

Not Available

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

355

Independent Oversight Review, DOE/NNSA Nuclear Facilities - April 2013 |  

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

DOE/NNSA Nuclear Facilities - April DOE/NNSA Nuclear Facilities - April 2013 Independent Oversight Review, DOE/NNSA Nuclear Facilities - April 2013 April 2013 Lessons Learned from the 2012 Targeted Reviews of Emergency Preparedness for Severe Natural Phenomena Events at Select DOE/NNSA Nuclear Facilities This report provides lessons learned from the 2012 reviews performed by Independent Oversight. The reviews performed during the fall of 2011 and throughout 2012 were at DOE/NNSA sites with hazard category 1 and 2 nuclear facilities, some of which also have significant quantities of hazardous chemicals on site. The purpose of the Independent Oversight review was to determine the state of emergency preparedness of selected sites by examining the sites' processes for evaluating plausible severe NPEs;

356

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee Facility Subcommittee visit to Oak Ridge  

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

Committee Facility Subcommittee visit to Committee Facility Subcommittee visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee Facility Subcommittee visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory The NEAC Facilities Subcommittee made a site visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) on August 26, 2010. Subcommittee members included John Ahearne (Vice Chairman of NEAC and Facilities Subcommittee Chairman), Dana Christensen (ORNL), Thomas B. Cochran (Natural Resources Defense Council), Michael Corradini, (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Andrew Klein (Oregon State University). Tansel Selekler (Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy) accompanied the Subcommittee. NEAC_Facitlity_Subcom Visit_OakRidge.pdf More Documents & Publications Meeting Materials: December 9, 2010

357

Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Senior Technical Safety Manager (STSM) Qualification Program Self-Assessment Report - August 2013  

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

Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Self-Assessment Report Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program CONTENTS Background ................................................................................................................................ 1 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................................... 1 Finding ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Observation ............................................................................................................................... 2

358

Status and Value of International Standards for Nuclear Criticality Safety  

SciTech Connect

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.

Hopper, Calvin Mitchell [ORNL

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

359

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility |  

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

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility The Secretary of Energy signed Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 basis of determination for the disposal of grouted residual waste in the tank systems at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Tank Farm Facility (TFF) on November 19, 2006. Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to reclassify certain waste from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from high-level waste to low-level waste if it meets the criteria set

360

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

14, 2002 14, 2002 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Fluor Hanford, Incorporated - EA-2002-03 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Fluor Hanford, Incorporated, related to Quality Assurance issues at the Hanford Site. June 19, 2002 Enforcement Letter, Kaiser-Hill Company, L.L.C. - June 19, 2002 Enforcement Letter issued to Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC related to Unplanned Radioactive Material Uptakes at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site October 22, 2001 Special Report Order, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - October 22, 2001 Special Report Order issued to CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., related to Multiple Nuclear Safety Issues at the Hanford Site October 9, 2001 Enforcement Letter, LANL - October 9, 2001 Enforcement Letter issued to Los Alamos National Laboratory related to

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


361

FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Safety Specialist  

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

JOB / TASK ANALYSIS for JOB / TASK ANALYSIS for Nuclear Safety Specialist (NSS) Functional Area Qualification Standard (FAQS) DOE-STD-1183-2007 Instructions for Step 1: Step 1 Identify and evaluate tasks - Develop a comprehensive list of tasks that define the job. o A great starting point is the list of Duties and Responsibilities from the FAQS. o Give careful thought to additional tasks that could be considered. o Don't worry about deleting tasks at this point - that is a part of the process further down. - List the tasks (and their sources, e.g., Duties and Responsibilities #1) in the chart below. - Discuss each task as a group and come to a consensus pertaining to Importance and Frequency of the task (i.e., each team member can consent to the assigned value, even

362

Training and qualification program for nuclear criticality safety technical staff  

SciTech Connect

A training and qualification program for nuclear criticality safety technical staff personnel has been developed and implemented. The program is compliant with requirements and provides evidence that a systematic approach has been taken to indoctrinate new technical staff. Development involved task analysis to determine activities where training was necessary and the standard which must be attained to qualify. Structured mentoring is used where experienced personnel interact with candidates using checksheets to guide candidates through various steps and to provide evidence that steps have been accomplished. Credit can be taken for the previous experience of personnel by means of evaluation boards which can credit or modify checksheet steps. Considering just the wealth of business practice and site specific information a new person at a facility needs to assimilate, the program has been effective in indoctrinating new technical staff personnel and integrating them into a productive role. The program includes continuing training.

Taylor, R.G.; Worley, C.A.

1996-10-22T23:59:59.000Z

363

New Research Center to Increase Safety and Power Output of U.S. Nuclear  

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

New Research Center to Increase Safety and Power Output of U.S. New Research Center to Increase Safety and Power Output of U.S. Nuclear Reactors New Research Center to Increase Safety and Power Output of U.S. Nuclear Reactors May 3, 2011 - 3:41pm Addthis Oak Ridge, Tenn. - Today the Department of Energy dedicated the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), an advanced research facility that will accelerate the advancement of nuclear reactor technology. CASL researchers are using supercomputers to study the performance of light water reactors and to develop highly sophisticated modeling that will help accelerate upgrades at existing U.S. nuclear plants. These upgrades could improve the energy output of our existing reactor fleet by as much as seven reactors' worth at a fraction of the cost of building new reactors, while providing continued improvements in

364

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

SciTech Connect

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.

NONE

1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

365

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

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

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

366

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

SciTech Connect

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.

IRWIN, J.J.

1999-07-02T23:59:59.000Z

367

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

IRWIN, J.J.

2000-02-03T23:59:59.000Z

368

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Schlesser, J.A.

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

369

NUCLEAR SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA Post Fukushima Initiatives and Results  

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

NUCLEAR SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA NUCLEAR SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA Post Fukushima Initiatives and Results September 19-20, 2012 - Bethesda North Marriott TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 - Grand Ballroom, Salons F/G/H 1 9/14/12 6:00 - 8:00 pm Registration WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 - Grand Ballroom, Salons F/G/H 7:00 - 8:00 am Registration 8:00 - 8:05 am Logistics Stephen A. Kirchhoff, Office of Health, Safety and Security US Department of Energy 8:05 - 8:15 am Welcoming Remarks and Workshop Objectives Glenn S. Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer US Department of Energy 8:15 - 8:45 am Maintaining Our Focus on Nuclear Safety Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary US Department of Energy 8:45 - 9:30 am Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement - the

370

DOE Cites Bechtel Jacobs Company for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department  

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

Jacobs Company for Nuclear Safety Violations Jacobs Company for Nuclear Safety Violations DOE Cites Bechtel Jacobs Company for Nuclear Safety Violations August 4, 2005 - 2:36pm Addthis WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified the Bechtel Jacobs Company (BJC) that it will fine the company $247,500 for violations of the department's nuclear safety requirements. The company is the department's contractor responsible for environmental cleanup and waste management at its Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee. "One of our top safety priorities is to improve the performance of subcontractors, and to do that we need to hold prime contractors responsible," said John Shaw, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. "Our goal is to have work conducted in a manner that protects

371

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)

prevent serious damage to the nuclear fuel, since it is thetransportation: for nuclear plants, fuel handling is carriedSpecific Fossil Fuel Geothermal Nuclear Solid Waste Disposal

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

372

Providing Nuclear Criticality Safety Analysis Education through Benchmark Experiment Evaluation  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

2009-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

373

Providing Nuclear Criticality Safety Analysis Education through Benchmark Experiment Evaluation  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

2009-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

374

Safety analysis of the 700-horsepower combustion test facility  

SciTech Connect

The objective of the program reported herein was to provide a Safety Analysis of the 700 h.p. Combustion Test Facility located in Building 93 at the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center. Extensive safety related measures have been incorporated into the design, construction, and operation of the Combustion Test Facility. These include: nitrogen addition to the coal storage bin, slurry hopper, roller mill and pulverizer baghouse, use of low oxygen content combustion gas for coal conveying, an oxygen analyzer for the combustion gas, insulation on hot surfaces, proper classification of electrical equipment, process monitoring instrumentation and a planned remote television monitoring system. Analysis of the system considering these factors has resulted in the determination of overall probabilities of occurrence of hazards as shown in Table I. Implementation of the recommendations in this report will reduce these probabilities as indicated. The identified hazards include coal dust ignition by hot ductwork and equipment, loss of inerting within the coal conveying system leading to a coal dust fire, and ignition of hydrocarbon vapors or spilled oil, or slurry. The possibility of self-heating of coal was investigated. Implementation of the recommendations in this report will reduce the ignition probability to no more than 1 x 10/sup -6/ per event. In addition to fire and explosion hazards, there are potential exposures to materials which have been identified as hazardous to personal health, such as carbon monoxide, coal dust, hydrocarbon vapors, and oxygen deficient atmosphere, but past monitoring experience has not revealed any problem areas. The major environmental hazard is an oil spill. The facility has a comprehensive spill control plan.

Berkey, B.D.

1981-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

375

Newest LANL Facility Receives LEED Gold Certification | National Nuclear  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Newest LANL Facility Receives LEED Gold Certification | National Nuclear Newest LANL Facility Receives LEED Gold Certification | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > NNSA Blog > Newest LANL Facility Receives LEED Gold Certification Newest LANL Facility Receives LEED Gold Certification Posted By Office of Public Affairs RULOB LANL's newest facility, the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office

376

NNSA Holds Groundbreaking at MOX Facility | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Groundbreaking at MOX Facility | National Nuclear Security Groundbreaking at MOX Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > NNSA Holds Groundbreaking at MOX Facility NNSA Holds Groundbreaking at MOX Facility October 14, 2005 Aiken, SC NNSA Holds Groundbreaking at MOX Facility

377

Microsoft Word - Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria.docx  

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

Safety Noncompliance Reporting Criteria (as of January 1, 2012) Safety Noncompliance Reporting Criteria (as of January 1, 2012) Nuclear Safety Noncompliances Associated With Occurrences (DOE Order 232.2) Consult the DOE Order for the full text of each occurrence criterion 1 Reporting Criteria Group Subgroup Occurrence Category and Summary Description 2 1. Operational Emergencies 3 N/A (1) Operational Emergency (2) Alert (3) Site Area Emergency (4) General Emergency 2. Personnel Safety and Health C. Fires (1) Fire within primary confinement/containment (2d) Self-extinguishing fires D. Explosions (1) Unplanned explosion within primary confinement/containment 3. Nuclear Safety Basis A. Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) Violations (1) Violation of TSR/Operational Safety Requirement (OSR) Safety Limit (2) Violation of other TSR/OSR requirement

378

An Integrated Safety Assessment Methodology for Generation IV Nuclear Systems  

SciTech Connect

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) Risk and Safety Working Group (RSWG) was created to develop an effective approach for the safety of Generation IV advanced nuclear energy systems. Early work of the RSWG focused on defining a safety philosophy founded on lessons learned from current and prior generations of nuclear technologies, and on identifying technology characteristics that may help achieve Generation IV safety goals. More recent RSWG work has focused on the definition of an integrated safety assessment methodology for evaluating the safety of Generation IV systems. The methodology, tentatively called ISAM, is an integrated toolkit consisting of analytical techniques that are available and matched to appropriate stages of Generation IV system concept development. The integrated methodology is intended to yield safety-related insights that help actively drive the evolving design throughout the technology development cycle, potentially resulting in enhanced safety, reduced costs, and shortened development time.

Timothy J. Leahy

2010-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

379

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

SciTech Connect

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.

Not Available

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

380

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Photos | Department of Energy  

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

You are here You are here Home » 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Photos 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Photos Addthis Glenn Podonsky 1 of 13 Glenn Podonsky Glenn Podonsky (DOE Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer) provides his welcoming remarks. Daniel Poneman 2 of 13 Daniel Poneman DOE Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman discusses maintaining our focus on nuclear safety. Akira Kawano 3 of 13 Akira Kawano Akira Kawano, Tokyo Electric Power Company, provides lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident. Bill Ostendorff 4 of 13 Bill Ostendorff NRC Commissioner Bill Ostendorff gives his perspective on the NRC's response to the Fukushima nuclear accident. Miroslav Lipar 5 of 13 Miroslav Lipar Miroslav Lipar, IAEA, provides an international perspective on the Fukushima nuclear accident.

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


381

Nuclear Safety Reserch and Development Program Operating Plan  

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

Safety Research and Development Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan Office of Nuclear Safety Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy June 2012 INTENTIONALLY BLANK NSR&D Program Operating Plan June 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 NSR&D PROGRAM PROCESSES .................................................................................... 3

382

Nuclear safety as applied to space power reactor systems  

SciTech Connect

Current space nuclear power reactor safety issues are discussed with respect to the unique characteristics of these reactors. An approach to achieving adequate safety and a perception of safety is outlined. This approach calls for a carefully conceived safety program which makes uses of lessons learned from previous terrestrial power reactor development programs. This approach includes use of risk analyses, passive safety design features, and analyses/experiments to understand and control off-design conditions. The point is made that some recent accidents concerning terrestrial power reactors do not imply that space power reactors cannot be operated safety.

Cummings, G.E.

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

383

Atmospheric Dispersion and Consequence Analysis at Sandia's TA-V Nuclear Facilities  

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

Atmospheric Dispersion and Atmospheric Dispersion and Consequence Analysis at Sandia's TA-V Nuclear Facilities Jim Dahl Manager, Nuclear Safety Analysis Sandia National Laboratories Office: 505-284-9067 Email: jjdahl@sandia.gov SAND2012-4478P Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. 2 Dispersion and Consequence Analysis at Sandia's TA-V Topics: * Site Characteristics * Dispersion Analysis Inputs - Meteorological Data - Stability Class - Dispersion Coefficients - Deposition Velocity

384

Securing Operating Data From Passive Safety Tests at the Fast Flux Test Facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) is the most recent Liquid Metal Reactor (LMR) to operate in the United States, from 1982 to 1992. The technologies employed in designing and constructing this reactor, along with information obtained from tests conducted during its operation, are currently being secured and archived by the Department of Energys Office of Nuclear Energy Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program. This report is one in a series documenting the overall project efforts to retrieve and preserve critical information related to advanced reactors. A previous report summarized the initial efforts to review, retrieve and preserve the most salient documents related to Passive Safety Testing (PST) in the FFTF. Efforts continue to locate, secure, and retrieve record copies of original plant data tapes for the series of passive safety tests conducted between 1986 and 1991.

Wootan, David W.; Omberg, Ronald P.; Makenas, Bruce J.; Nielsen, Deborah L.; Nelson, Joseph V.; Polzin, David L.

2011-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

Securing Operating Data From Passive Safety Tests at the Fast Flux Test Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) is the most recent Liquid Metal Reactor (LMR) to operate in the United States, from 1982 to 1992. The technologies employed in designing and constructing this reactor, along with information obtained from tests conducted during its operation, are currently being secured and archived by the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program. This report is one in a series documenting the overall project efforts to retrieve and preserve critical information related to advanced reactors. A previous report summarized the initial efforts to review, retrieve and preserve the most salient documents related to Passive Safety Testing (PST) in the FFTF. Efforts continue to locate, secure, and retrieve record copies of original plant data tapes for the series of passive safety tests conducted between 1986 and 1991.

Wootan, David W.; Omberg, Ronald P.; Makenas, Bruce J.; Nielsen, Deborah L.; Nelson, Joseph V.; Polzin, David L.

2011-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

386

Just in Time DSA-The Hanford Nuclear Safety Basis Strategy  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

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

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

387

Work for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Related Applications  

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

Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission Capabilities Sensors and Instrumentation and Nondestructive Evaluation Overview Energy System Applications Safety-Related Applications Overview DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Homeland Security Applications Biomedical Applications Millimiter Wave Group Papers Other NPNS Capabilities Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE on Flickr Sensors and Instrumentation and Nondestructive Evaluation Safety Related Applications Bookmark and Share Nuclear Regulatory Commission International Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program Key objectives of the International Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program

388

Safety Related Applications (Sensors and Instrumentation and NDE) - Nuclear  

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

DOE Office of DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology Capabilities Sensors and Instrumentation and Nondestructive Evaluation Overview Energy System Applications Safety-Related Applications Overview DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Homeland Security Applications Biomedical Applications Millimiter Wave Group Papers Other NPNS Capabilities Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE on Flickr Sensors and Instrumentation and Nondestructive Evaluation Safety Related Applications Bookmark and Share DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology The objective of this Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Project is to

389

Pantex sets safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

sets safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration sets safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > NNSA Blog > Pantex sets safety record Pantex sets safety record Posted By Office of Public Affairs Pantex has set a new safety record with the lowest recordable case rate in the plant's history. The record total recordable case rate of 0.26 is a fitting end to an

390

Pantex receives two safety awards | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

two safety awards | National Nuclear Security two safety awards | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > NNSA Blog > Pantex receives two safety awards Pantex receives two safety awards Posted By Office of Public Affairs B&W Pantex was honored last week with a pair of awards for its exemplary safety record. The President's Award for Best Performing Business Unit and the Target

391

DOE Cites University of Chicago for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department  

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

University of Chicago for Nuclear Safety Violations University of Chicago for Nuclear Safety Violations DOE Cites University of Chicago for Nuclear Safety Violations March 7, 2006 - 11:42am Addthis WASHINGTON , DC - The Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to the University of Chicago (University), the Management and Operating contractor for DOE's Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), for nuclear safety violations identified through several safety reviews and inspections conducted by DOE. A series of reviews and inspections, the most recent of which occurred in 2005, identified breakdowns in the contractor's quality improvement, radiation protection, work process, and independent and management assessment programs. Prior to 2005, senior contractor management at ANL

392

DOE-HDBK-1113-98; Radiological Safety Training for Uranium Facilities...  

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

FACILITIES" Dennis Kubicki, Technical Standards Manager, EH-24 SUBJECT. HANDBOOK, DOE-HDBK-1113-98, "RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY TRAINING FOR TO: In February 2005, a notice of intent...

393

Resolution of the nuclear criticality safety issue for the Hanford site high-level waste tanks  

SciTech Connect

This paper describes the approach used to resolve the Nuclear Criticality Safety Issue for the Hanford Site high-level waste tanks. Although operational controls have been in place at the Hanford Site throughout its operating life to minimize the amount of fissile material discarded as waste, estimates of the total amount of plutonium that entered the waste tanks range from 500 to 1,000 kg. Nuclear criticality safety concerns were heightened in 1991 based on a review of waste analysis results and a subsequent U.S. Department of Energy 1399 review of the nuclear criticality program. Although the DOE review team concluded that there was no imminent risk of a criticality at the Hanford Site tank farms, the team also stated its concern regarding the lack of definitive knowledge of the fissile material inventory and distribution within the waste tanks and the lack of sufficient management support for the overall criticality safety program. An in-depth technical review of the nuclear criticality safety of the waste tanks was conducted to develop a defensible technical basis to ensure that waste tanks are subcritical. The review covered all relevant aspects of nuclear criticality safety including neutronics and chemical and physical phenomena of the waste form under aging waste conditions as well as during routine waste management operations. This paper provides a review of the technical basis to support the conclusion that given current plutonium inventories and operating conditions, a nuclear criticality is incredible. The DOE has been requested to close the Nuclear Criticality Safety Issue. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is currently reviewing the technicalbasis.

Bratzel, D.R.

1997-01-07T23:59:59.000Z

394

Contained Firing Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test Capabilities and Evaluation > Office of Research and Development > Facilities >...

395

National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test Capabilities and Evaluation > Office of Inertial Confinement Fusion > Facilities >...

396

Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility...

397

Nuclear Science: a survey of funding, facilities, and manpower  

SciTech Connect

In 1973 the Committee on Nuclear Science of the National Research Council initiated a re-examination of aspects (funding, manpower, and facilities) of the organization and operation of nuclear science research in order to evaluate any changes in the preceding four years and implications of such changes. The reports of the three ad hoc panels established for this purpose (funding and level of effort, nuclear facilities, manpower and education) are presented. Although they identify current problems in nuclear science, these reports do not provide simple solutions; rather, they attempt to provide updated information for use as background for continuing decisions. (RWR)

1975-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

398

Environment, safety, and health considerations for a new accelerator facility  

SciTech Connect

A study of siting considerations for possible future accelerators at Fermilab is underway. Each candidate presents important challenges in environment, safety, and health (ES&H) that are reviewed generically in this paper. Some of these considerations are similar to those that have been encountered and solved during the construction and operation of other accelerator facilities. Others have not been encountered previously on the same scale. The novel issues will require particular attention coincident with project design efforts to assure their timely cost-effective resolution. It is concluded that with adequate planning, the issues can be addressed in a manner that merits the support of the Laboratory, the US Department of Energy (DOE), and the public.

J. Donald Cossairt [and others

2001-04-23T23:59:59.000Z

399

DOE O 410.1, Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety Requirements  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

The order establishes Central Technical Authority and Chief of Nuclear Safety/Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety responsibilities and requirements directed by the ...

2007-08-28T23:59:59.000Z

400

Sodium Reaction Experimental Test Facility (SRETF) - Nuclear...  

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

Form Modeling Departments Engineering Analysis Nuclear Systems Analysis Research & Test Reactor Nonproliferation and National Security Detection & Diagnostic Systems...

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


401

Facilities & Projects | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering...

402

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter | Department of  

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

Research and Development Committee Charter Research and Development Committee Charter Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter July 5, 2012 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter The intent of the Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Committee is to identify nuclear safety research needs and opportunities within the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and their program offices. The Committee promotes communication and coordination among DOE and NNSA program offices to enhance synergy on NSR&D efforts that can benefit the Department. The Committee will foster and facilitate networking and information exchange on NSR&D needs and activities across DOE/NNSA programs and with external national and international organizations. The Committee should not be construed to have

403

Deputy Secretary Poneman Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA | Department  

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

Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA Deputy Secretary Poneman Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA June 20, 2011 - 12:00am Addthis Washington, D.C. - U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman today addressed the plenary session at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety. Deputy Secretary Poneman emphasized the importance of international cooperation and information sharing for developing lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. The IAEA is leading the process to develop these international best practices, which will help strengthen the international nuclear regulatory regime. Remarks as prepared for delivery are below. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your work in organizing this important Conference and to Director General Amano and his staff for convening it.

404

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan | Department  

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

Program Operating Plan Program Operating Plan Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan July 5, 2012 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan This operating plan outlines the mission, goals, and processes for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research & Development (NSR&D) Program. This first version of the operating plan also discusses the startup phase of the program. NSR&D involves a systematic search for knowledge to advance the fundamental understanding of nuclear safety science and technology through scientific study, analysis, modeling, and experiments. Maintaining an effective NSR&D program will support DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in standards development, validation of analytical models and

405

Enforcement handbook: Enforcement of DOE nuclear safety requirements  

SciTech Connect

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

NONE

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

406

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

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

1999-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

407

Integration of Facility Modeling Capabilities for Nuclear Nonproliferation Analysis  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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.

Humberto E. Garcia

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

408

INTEGRATION OF FACILITY MODELING CAPABILITIES FOR NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ANALYSIS  

SciTech Connect

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.

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

409

Integration of facility modeling capabilities for nuclear nonproliferation analysis  

SciTech Connect

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.

Garcia, Humberto [Idaho National Laboratory (INL); Burr, Tom [Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL); Coles, Garill A [ORNL; Edmunds, Thomas A. [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL); Garrett, Alfred [Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL); Gorensek, Maximilian [Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL); Hamm, Luther [Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL); Krebs, John [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL); Kress, Reid L [ORNL; Lamberti, Vincent [Y-12 National Security Complex; Schoenwald, David [ORNL; Tzanos, Constantine P [ORNL; Ward, Richard C [ORNL

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

410

Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility | National Nuclear  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility | National Nuclear Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility January 16, 1943 Hanford, WA

411

KCP celebrates production milestone at new facility | National Nuclear  

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

celebrates production milestone at new facility | National Nuclear celebrates production milestone at new facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > NNSA Blog > KCP celebrates production milestone at new facility KCP celebrates production milestone at new facility Posted By Office of Public Affairs The Kansas City Plant celebrated yet another milestone at the National

412

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery  

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

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations June 14, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Andre Armstrong, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (509) 376-6773 Andre_L_Armstrong@rl.gov Geoff Tyree, DOE (509) 376-4171 Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, Wash. - Hanford workers are pouring enough cement-like material to fill six Olympic-size wimming pools in one of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) largest nuclear facilities at the Hanford Site in southeast Washington State to prepare the massive building for demolition.

413

DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility...  

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

DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in Idaho Uranium Enrichment Project to Create Over 1,000 Jobs in Idaho Washington, DC As part of a broad...

414

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery  

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

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations June 14, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Andre Armstrong, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (509) 376-6773 Andre_L_Armstrong@rl.gov Geoff Tyree, DOE (509) 376-4171 Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, Wash. - Hanford workers are pouring enough cement-like material to fill six Olympic-size wimming pools in one of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) largest nuclear facilities at the Hanford Site in southeast Washington State to prepare the massive building for demolition.

415

National Laser Users' Facility Grant Program | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Users' Facility Grant Program | National Nuclear Security Users' Facility Grant Program | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog NLUF National Laser Users' Facility Grant Program Home > About Us > Our Programs > Defense Programs > Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation > University Partnerships / Academic Alliances > National Laser Users' Facility Grant Program

416

Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 FR  

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

Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 FR 1810), Federal Register (Fed Reg), 1/10/2001 Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 FR 1810), Federal Register (Fed Reg), 1/10/2001 SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) adopts, with minor changes, the interim final rule published on October 10, 2000, to amend the DOE Nuclear Safety Management regulations. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on February 9, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Black, Director, Office of Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy, 270CC, Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874; telephone: 301-903-3465; email: Richard.Black@eh.doe.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction and Summary On October 10, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE) published an

417

Licensed reactor nuclear safety criteria applicable to DOE reactors  

SciTech Connect

This document is a compilation and source list of nuclear safety criteria that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) applies to licensed reactors; it can be used by DOE and DOE contractors to identify NRC criteria to be evaluated for application to the DOE reactors under their cognizance. The criteria listed are those that are applied to the areas of nuclear safety addressed in the safety analysis report of a licensed reactor. They are derived from federal regulations, USNRC regulatory guides, Standard Review Plan (SRP) branch technical positions and appendices, and industry codes and standards.

Not Available

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

418

Strengthening Line Management Oversight and Federal Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities  

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

14 14 Strengthening Line Management Oversight and Federal Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities Standard Review Plan Commercial Grade Dedication (CGD) August 2013 2 of 14 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Standard Review Plan (SRP) Commercial Grade Dedication (CGD) Applicability CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4 Operation Post Operation August 2013 3 of 14 Table of Contents Objective ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of Commercial Grade Dedication for Nuclear Facilities .............................................................. 4 Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 5

419

DOE G 420.2-1, Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide for DOE O 420.2B, Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

This document is an aid to understanding and meeting the requirements of DOE O 420.2B, Safety of Accelerator Facilities, dated 7/23/04. It does not impose ...

2005-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

420

HYDROGEN IGNITION MECHANISM FOR EXPLOSIONS IN NUCLEAR FACILITY PIPE SYSTEMS  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Hydrogen and oxygen generation due to the radiolysis of water is a recognized hazard in pipe systems used in the nuclear industry, where the accumulation of hydrogen and oxygen at high points in the pipe system is expected, and explosive conditions exist. Pipe ruptures at nuclear facilities were attributed to hydrogen explosions inside pipelines, in nuclear facilities, i.e., Hamaoka, Nuclear Power Station in Japan, and Brunsbuettel in Germany. Prior to these accidents an ignition source for hydrogen was questionable, but these accidents, demonstrated that a mechanism was, in fact, available to initiate combustion and explosion. Hydrogen explosions may occur simultaneously with water hammer accidents in nuclear facilities, and a theoretical mechanism to relate water hammer to hydrogen deflagrations and explosions is presented herein.

Leishear, R

2010-05-02T23:59:59.000Z

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


421

Licensed reactor nuclear safety criteria applicable to DOE reactors  

SciTech Connect

The Department of Energy (DOE) Order DOE 5480.6, Safety of Department of Energy-Owned Nuclear Reactors, establishes reactor safety requirements to assure that reactors are sited, designed, constructed, modified, operated, maintained, and decommissioned in a manner that adequately protects health and safety and is in accordance with uniform standards, guides, and codes which are consistent with those applied to comparable licensed reactors. This document identifies nuclear safety criteria applied to NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) licensed reactors. The titles of the chapters and sections of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.70, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 3, are used as the format for compiling the NRC criteria applied to the various areas of nuclear safety addressed in a safety analysis report for a nuclear reactor. In each section the criteria are compiled in four groups: (1) Code of Federal Regulations, (2) US NRC Regulatory Guides, SRP Branch Technical Positions and Appendices, (3) Codes and Standards, and (4) Supplemental Information. The degree of application of these criteria to a DOE-owned reactor, consistent with their application to comparable licensed reactors, must be determined by the DOE and DOE contractor.

Not Available

1991-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

422

Radiological risk guidelines for nonreactor nuclear facilities at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Radiological risk evaluation guidelines for the public and workers have been developed at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) based upon the Nuclear Safety Policy of the US Department of Energy (DOE) established in Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-35-91 (DOE 1991). The DOE nuclear safety policy states that the general public be protected-such that no individual bears significant additional risk to health and safety from the operation of a DOE nuclear facility above the risks to which members of the general population are normally exposed. The radiological risk evaluation guidelines developed at PNL are unique in that they are (1) based upon quantitative risk goals and (2) provide a consistent level of risk management. These guidelines are used to evaluate the risk from radiological accidents that may occur during research and development activities at PNL. A safety analyst uses the frequency of the potential accident and the radiological dose to a given receptor to determine if the accident consequences meet the objectives of the Nuclear Safety Policy.

Lucas, D.E.; Ikenberry, T.A.

1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

423

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

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

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

424

Nuclear Facility Operations | Department of Energy  

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

Idaho Operations Office oversees these contract activities in accordance with DOE directives. INL is a multi-program laboratory In addition to enabling the Office of Nuclear...

425

Supplemnental Volume - Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, January 2012  

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

Volume Volume Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant January 2012 Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS i Independent Oversight Assessment of Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Supplemental Volume Table of Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v

426

Nuclear criticality safety staff training and qualifications at Los Alamos National Laboratory  

SciTech Connect

Operations involving significant quantities of fissile material have been conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory continuously since 1943. Until the advent of the Laboratory`s Nuclear Criticality Safety Committee (NCSC) in 1957, line management had sole responsibility for controlling criticality risks. From 1957 until 1961, the NCSC was the Laboratory body which promulgated policy guidance as well as some technical guidance for specific operations. In 1961 the Laboratory created the position of Nuclear Criticality Safety Office (in addition to the NCSC). In 1980, Laboratory management moved the Criticality Safety Officer (and one other LACEF staff member who, by that time, was also working nearly full-time on criticality safety issues) into the Health Division office. Later that same year the Criticality Safety Group, H-6 (at that time) was created within H-Division, and staffed by these two individuals. The training and education of these individuals in the art of criticality safety was almost entirely self-regulated, depending heavily on technical interactions between each other, as well as NCSC, LACEF, operations, other facility, and broader criticality safety community personnel. Although the Los Alamos criticality safety group has grown both in size and formality of operations since 1980, the basic philosophy that a criticality specialist must be developed through mentoring and self motivation remains the same. Formally, this philosophy has been captured in an internal policy, document ``Conduct of Business in the Nuclear Criticality Safety Group.`` There are no short cuts or substitutes in the development of a criticality safety specialist. A person must have a self-motivated personality, excellent communications skills, a thorough understanding of the principals of neutron physics, a safety-conscious and helpful attitude, a good perspective of real risk, as well as a detailed understanding of process operations and credible upsets.

Monahan, S.P.; McLaughlin, T.P.

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

427

THE RADIATION SAFETY INFORMATION COMPUTATIONAL CENTER (RSICC) - A RESOURCE FOR COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS FOR NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS  

SciTech Connect

The Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC), which has been in existence since 1963, is the principal source and repository in the United States for computational tools for nuclear applications. RSICC collects, organizes, evaluates and distributes nuclear software and data involving the transport of neutral and charged particle radiation, and shielding and protection from radiation associated with: nuclear weapons and materials, fission and fusion reactors, outer space, accelerators, medical facilities, and nuclear waste. RSICC serves over 12,000 scientists and engineers from 94 countries. RSICC software provides in-depth coverage of radiation related topics: the physics of the interaction of radiation with matter, radiation production and sources, criticality safety, radiation protection and shielding, radiation detectors and measurements, shielding materials properties, radiation waste management, atmospheric dispersion and environmental dose, medical applications, macro- and micro-dosimetry calculations.

Kirk, Bernadette Lugue [ORNL

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

428

Reliability quantification of nuclear safety-related software  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The objective of this study is to improve quality and reliability of safety-critical software in the nuclear industry. It is accomplished by focusing on the following two areas: Formulation of a standard extensive integrated ...

Zhang, Yi, 1973-

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

429

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 |  

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

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 September 2012 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. The sum of the severity-weighted factors for the sixty-five ORPS Reporting Criteria equals 100%. Paired pairing is an analytical tool used to determine weighted factors. A team evaluated pairs of ORPS reporting criteria and concurred on the relative importance of each pair. Each ORPS reporting criterion in a group was compared with one other ORPS reporting

430

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 |  

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

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 September 2012 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. The sum of the severity-weighted factors for the sixty-five ORPS Reporting Criteria equals 100%. Paired pairing is an analytical tool used to determine weighted factors. A team evaluated pairs of ORPS reporting criteria and concurred on the relative importance of each pair. Each ORPS reporting criterion in a group was compared with one other ORPS reporting

431

FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Explosive Safety Study  

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

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study FAQS Nuclear Explosive Safety Study FAQS STEP 1: Job Task Analysis for Tasks Task (and Number) Source Importance Frequency (1) Serves as a member or chair of the NESSG. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph A 5 3 (2) Provides guidance on and interpretation of nuclear explosive safety (NES) requirements and policy. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph B 5 4 (3) Drafts policy directives for the DOE/NNSA, Nuclear Explosive Safety Operations Branch (NESB) and reviews DOE/NNSA policies on NES. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph D 5 3 (4) Provides instruction and guidance regarding NES to individuals assigned NES responsibilities. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph E 5 3-4 (5) Monitors ongoing NEOs to ensure compliance with NES standards and

432

Exelon Statement Regarding Nuclear Safety and 10 CFR 810  

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

Exelon respectfully submits that the existing 810 rule, as currently interpreted, and the proposed revised rule, both work as deterrents to improving safety in nuclear operations around the world.

433

DOE Cites Fluor Fernald Inc. for Nuclear Safety Violations  

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

Washington, D.C. -The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Fluor Fernald, Inc. (Fluor Fernald) that it will fine the company $33,000 for violations of the department's nuclear safety...

434

Development of nuclear diagnostics for the National Ignition Facility ,,invited...  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

July 2006; published online 5 October 2006 The National Ignition Facility NIF will provide up to 1.8 MJ of laser energy for imploding inertial confinement fusion ICF targets. Ignited NIF targets are expected of nuclear diagnostics in ICF experiments. In 2005, the suite of nuclear-ignition diagnostics for the NIF

435

Method and means of monitoring the effluent from nuclear facilities  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Radioactive iodine is detected in the effluent cooling gas from a nuclear reactor or nuclear facility by passing the effluent gas through a continuously moving adsorbent filter material which is then purged of noble gases and conveyed continuously to a detector of radioactivity. The purging operation has little or no effect upon the concentration of radioactive iodine which is adsorbed on the filter material.

Lattin, Kenneth R. (Richland, WA); Erickson, Gerald L. (Richland, WA)

1976-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

436

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility operations manual  

SciTech Connect

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.

IRWIN, J.J.

1999-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

437

10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management  

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

construction such as environmental restoration activities, decontamination and decommissioning activities, specific nuclear explosives operations, or transition...

438

Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and Testing Facilities - Nuclear  

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

Facilities > Non-Destructive Facilities > Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and Testing Facilities Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and Testing Facilities Overview MTS Table Top Load Frame X-ray Inspection Systems Other Facilities Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE on Flickr Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and Testing Facilities The Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and Testing Facilities contain state-of-the-art NDE laboratories including microwave/millimeter wave, acoustic/ultrasonic, X-ray, thermal imaging, optics, and eddy current for health monitoring of materials and components used in aerospace, defense, and power generation (fossil and nuclear) industries as well as for medical and scientific research. Bookmark and Share

439

Appraisal of the Uranium Processing Facility Safety Basis Preliminary...  

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

Safety Design Report Process at the Y-12 National Security Complex May 2011 May 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and...

440

Status and Value of International Standards for Nuclear Criticality Safety  

SciTech Connect

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.

Hopper, Calvin Mitchell [ORNL

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facilities safety" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.