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

EIS-0350-S1: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico  

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

This Supplemental EIS evaluates the completion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR) Project, which consists of constructing the nuclear facility portion (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The CMRR Project provides the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities currently or previously performed in the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building. Because of recent detailed site geotechnical investigations, certain aspects of the CMRR-NR project have changed resulting in change to the environmental impacts.

2

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion  

SciTech Connect

The `Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application` is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (this document, DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit- Specific Portion. The scope of the General Information Portion includes information that could be used to discuss operating units, units undergoing closure, or units being dispositioned through other options. Documentation included in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units. A checklist indicating where information is contained in the General Information Portion, in relation to the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance documentation, is located in the Contents Section. The intent of the General Information Portion is: (1) to provide an overview of the Hanford Facility; and (2) to assist in streamlining efforts associated with treatment, storage, and/or disposal unit-specific Part B permit application, preclosure work plan, closure work plan, closure plan, closure/postclosure plan, or postclosure permit application documentation development, and the `Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit` modification process. Revision 2 of the General Information Portion of the `Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application` contains information current as of May 1, 1996. This document is a complete submittal and supersedes Revision 1.

Price, S.M., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

3

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needed by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in this report).

Hays, C.B.

1998-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

4

Nuclear Facilities | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers (EERE)

Nuclear Facilities Nuclear Facilities Nuclear Facilities Locator Map Numerical map data points indicate two or more nuclear facilities in the same geographic location. Nuclear...

5

Nuclear Power Facilities (2008) | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Power Facilities (2008) Nuclear Power Facilities (2008) Nuclear Power Facilities (2008) More Documents & Publications Financial Institution Partnership Program - Commercial...

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

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

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

10

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion. Revision 3  

SciTech Connect

For purposes of the Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, the US Department of Energy`s contractors are identified as ``co-operators`` and sign in that capacity (refer to Condition I.A.2. of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit). Any identification of these contractors as an ``operator`` elsewhere in the application is not meant to conflict with the contractors` designation as co-operators but rather is based on the contractors` contractual status with the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. The Dangerous Waste Portion of the initial Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, which incorporated five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, was based on information submitted in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application and in closure plan and closure/postclosure plan documentation. During 1995, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified twice to incorporate another eight treatment, storage, and/or disposal units; during 1996, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified once to incorporate another five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units. The permit modification process will be used at least annually to incorporate additional treatment, storage, and/or disposal units as permitting documentation for these units is finalized. The units to be included in annual modifications are specified in a schedule contained in the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit. Treatment, storage, and/or disposal units will remain in interim status until incorporated into the Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (this document, DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to individual operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units for which Part B permit application documentation has been, or is anticipated to be, submitted. Documentation for treatment, storage, and/or disposal units undergoing closure, or for units that are, or are anticipated to be, dispositioned through other options, will continue to be submitted by the Permittees in accordance with the provisions of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. However, the scope of the General Information Portion includes information that could be used to discuss operating units, units undergoing closure, or units being dispositioned through other options. Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the contents of the Part B permit application guidance documentation prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with additional information needs defined by revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303 and by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (i.e., either operating units, units undergoing closure, or units being dispositioned through other options).

Sonnichsen, J.C.

1997-08-21T23:59:59.000Z

11

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Mechanical Equipment -...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

12

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs  

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

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

13

Preservation and Dissemination of the Hardcopy Documentation Portion of the NCSP Nuclear Criticality Bibliographic Database  

SciTech Connect

The U.S. Department of Energy supports a nuclear criticality safety bibliographic internet database that contains approximately 15,000 records. We are working to ensure that a substantial portion of the corresponding hardcopy documents are preserved, digitized, and made available to criticality safety practitioners via the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program web site.

Koponen, B L; Heinrichs, D

2009-05-18T23:59:59.000Z

14

Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

15

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety...  

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

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public Meeting - October 2012 October...

16

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, Facility Subcommittee visit...  

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

Committee, Facility Subcommittee visit to Idaho National Laboratory Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, Facility Subcommittee visit to Idaho National Laboratory The Nuclear Energy...

17

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

18

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

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

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

19

Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1995-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

20

Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1998-12-28T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Removes Nuclear Materials from Two Facilities to Reduce Site's Nuclear Footprint (Alpha 5 and 9720-38 No Longer Designated as Nuclear Facilities) | National Nuclear Security...

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1995-10-26T23:59:59.000Z

26

Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2000-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

27

Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2003-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

28

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 >

29

Estimating Fire Risks at Industrial Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect

The Savannah River Site (SRS) has a wide variety of nuclear production facilities that include chemical processing facilities, machine shops, production reactors, and laboratories. Current safety documentation must be maintained for the nuclear facilities at SRS. Fire Risk Analyses (FRAs) are used to support the safety documentation basis. These FRAs present the frequency that specified radiological and chemical consequences will be exceeded. The consequence values are based on mechanistic models assuming specific fire protection features fail to function as designed.

Coutts, D.A.

1999-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

30

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

31

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

32

Office of Nuclear Safety Basis and Facility Design  

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

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

33

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

34

About the Neutron and Nuclear Science Research (WNR) facility...  

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

About the Neutron and Nuclear Science (WNR) Facility The Neutron and Nuclear Science (WNR) Facility provides neutron and proton beams and detector arrays for basic, applied,...

35

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection - March 29, 2012 CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection - March 29, 2012...

36

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...

37

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

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

New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements - December 2, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0) CRAD, New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis...

38

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,

39

Facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

40

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2001-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1995-11-22T23:59:59.000Z

42

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

43

Sandia completes major overhaul of key nuclear weapons test facilities...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

completes major overhaul of key nuclear weapons test facilities | National Nuclear Security Administration People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering...

44

Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules DOE provides safety requirements and guidance in a number of forms. One form in which we publish...

45

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

Energy Savers (EERE)

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

46

Iraq nuclear facility dismantlement and disposal project  

SciTech Connect

The Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex near Baghdad contains a significant number of nuclear facilities from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Because of past military operations, lack of upkeep and looting there is now an enormous radioactive waste problem at Al Tuwaitha. Al Tuwaitha contains uncharacterised radioactive wastes, yellow cake, sealed radioactive sources, and contaminated metals. The current security situation in Iraq hampers all aspects of radioactive waste management. Further, Iraq has never had a radioactive waste disposal facility, which means that ever increasing quantities of radioactive waste and material must be held in guarded storage. The Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program (the NDs Program) has been initiated by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to assist the Government of Iraq (GOI) in eliminating the threats from poorly controlled radioactive materials, while building human capacities so that the GOI can manage other environmental cleanups in their country. The DOS has funded the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to provide technical assistance to the GOI via a Technical Cooperation Project. Program coordination will be provided by the DOS, consistent with U.S. and GOI policies, and Sandia National Laboratories will be responsible for coordination of participants and for providing waste management support. Texas Tech University will continue to provide in-country assistance, including radioactive waste characterization and the stand-up of the Iraq Nuclear Services Company. The GOI owns the problems in Iraq and will be responsible for the vast majority of the implementation of the NDs Program. (authors)

Cochran, J.R.; Danneels, J. [Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (United States); Kenagy, W.D. [U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security, Washington, DC (United States); Phillips, C.J.; Chesser, R.K. [Center for Environmental Radiation Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (United States)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

47

RAON experimental facilities for nuclear science  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The Rare Isotope Science Project (RISP) was established in December 2011 and has put quite an effort to carry out the design and construction of the accelerator complex facility named RAON. RAON is a rare isotope (RI) beam facility that aims to provide various RI beams of proton-and neutron-rich nuclei as well as variety of stable ion beams of wide ranges of energies up to a few hundreds MeV/nucleon for the researches in basic science and application. Proposed research programs for nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics at RAON include studies of the properties of exotic nuclei the equation of state of nuclear matter the origin of the universe process of nucleosynthesis super heavy elements etc. Various high performance magnetic spectrometers for nuclear science have been designed which are KOBRA (KOrea Broad acceptance Recoil spectrometer and Apparatus) LAMPS (Large Acceptance Multi-Purpose Spectrometer) and ZDS (Zero Degree Spectrometer). The status of those spectrometers for nuclear science will be presented with a brief report on the RAON.

Y. K. Kwon; Y. K. Kim; T. Komatsubara; J. Y. Moon; T. S. Shin; Y. J. Kim

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

48

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2007-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

49

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

50

Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

51

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

52

Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect

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

53

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

54

Nuclear fuel cycle facility accident analysis handbook  

SciTech Connect

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

55

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

56

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.

57

Listing of Defense Nuclear Facilities | Department of Energy  

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

1 - Listing of Defense Nuclear Facilities More Documents & Publications Draft Policy and Planning Guidance for Community Transition Activities Workforce Restructuring Policy The...

58

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

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

Lessons Learned from the 2012 Targeted Reviews of Emergency Preparedness for Severe Natural Phenomena Events at Select DOE/NNSA Nuclear Facilities

59

TRAINING THE STAFF OF THE REGULATORY BODY FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES:  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Training the staff of the regulatory body for nuclear facilities: A competency framework November 2001The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was:

Wagramer Strasse; A Competency Framework

60

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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

62

Cleanup of Nuclear Licensed Facility 57  

SciTech Connect

This summary describes the operations to clean up the equipment of the Nuclear Licensed Facility 57 (NLF 57). Due to the diversity of the research and development work carried out on the reprocessing of spent fuel in it, this installation is emblematic of many of the technical and organizational issues liable to be encountered in the final closure of nuclear facilities. The French atomic energy commission's center at Fontenay aux Roses (CEA-FAR) was created in 1946 to house pile ZOE. Laboratories for fuel cycle research were installed in existing buildings at the site. Work was later concentrated on spent fuel reprocessing, in a pilot workshop referred to as the 'Usine Pu'. In the early sixties, after the dismantling of these first generation facilities, a radiochemistry laboratory dedicated to research and development work on reprocessing was constructed, designated Building 18. During the same decade, more buildings were added: Building 54, storehouses and offices, Building 91, a hall and laboratories for chemical engineering research on natural and depleted uranium. Together, these three building constitute NLF 57. Building 18 architecture featured four similar modules. Each module had three levels: a sub-level consisting of technical galleries and rooms for the liquid effluent tanks, a ground floor and roof space in which the ventilation was installed. Offices, change rooms, four laboratories and a hall were situated on the ground floor. The shielded lines were installed in the laboratories and the halls. Construction of the building took place between 1959 and 1962, and its commissioning began in 1961. The research and development programs performed in NLF 57 related to studies of the reprocessing of spent fuel, including dry methods and the Purex process, techniques for the treatment of waste (vitrification, alpha waste decontamination, etc.) as well as studies and production of transuranic elements for industry and research. In addition to this work, the necessary methods of analysis for monitoring it were also developed. The research and development program finally ended on 30 June 1995. The NLF 57 cleanup program was intended to reduce the nuclear and conventional hazards and minimize the quantities of HLW and MLW during the subsequent dismantling work. To facilitate the organization of the cleanup work, it was divided into categories by type: - treatment and removal of nuclear material, - removal of radioactive sources, - treatment and removal of aqueous liquid waste, - treatment and removal of organic effluents, - treatment and removal of solid waste, - pumping out of the PETRUS tank, - flushing and decontamination of the tanks, - cleanup of Buildings 18 and 91/54. To estimate the cost of the operations and to monitor the progress of the work, an indicator system was put in place based on work units representative of the operation. The values of the work units were periodically updated on the basis of experience feedback. The cleanup progress is now 92% complete (06/12/31): - treatment and removal of nuclear material: 100%, - removal of radioactive sources: 100%, - treatment and removal of aqueous liquid waste: 64%, - treatment and removal of organic effluents: 87%, - treatment and removal of solid waste: 99%, - pumping out of the PETRUS tank: 69%, - flushing and decontamination of tank: 75%, - section cleaning of Buildings 18 and 91/: 90%. The DRSN/SAFAR is the delegated Project Owner for cleanup and dismantling operations. It is also the prime contractor for the cleanup and dismantling operations. SAFAR itself is responsible for operations relating to the CEA activity and those with technical risks (Removal of nuclear materials, Removal of radioactive sources, Pumping out plutonium and transuranic contaminated solvent and Flushing and decontamination of tanks and pipes). All other operations are sub-contracted to specialist companies. The NLF57 cleanup program as executed is capable of attaining activity levels compatible with a future dismantling operation using known and mastered techniques and producing a

Jeanjacques, Michel; Bremond, Marie Pierre; Marchand, Carole; Poyau, Cecile; Viallefont, Cecile; Gautier, Laurent; Masure, Frederic [Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, Direction de l'Energie Nucleaire, Direction deleguee des Activites Nucleaires de Saclay, Departement des Reacteurs et des Services Nucleaires, Service d'Assainissement de Fontenay Aux Roses: 18, route du Panorama, BP6, 92265 Fontenay aux Roses Cedex (France)

2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

63

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

64

MANAGING BERYLLIUM IN NUCLEAR FACILITY APPLICATIONS  

SciTech Connect

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

R. Rohe; T. N. Tranter

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

65

Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2010-04-16T23:59:59.000Z

66

Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Ignition Facility May 29, 1997 Groundbreaking at National Ignition Facility Livermore, CA Secretary Pena participates in the ground breaking ceremony for the National Ignition...

67

Facilities & Projects | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Nuclear Security Administration People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure...

68

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

69

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

70

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;

71

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

72

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

73

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

74

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

75

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

76

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

77

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,

78

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

79

Reassignment of boundaries requiring personal dosimetry at a nuclear facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

for monitoring in 10CFR20. In fact, one insurer of nuclear facilities recommends that "occupational exposures, no matter how small, should be monitored and documented for claims evaluation purposes" (ANI 1986). This results from the theory that the nuclear... of Advisory Committee: Dr. John W. Poston Although the federal regulations do not require personnel monitoring for external exposure of all radiation workers, many nuclear facilities provide dosimetry to individuals who do not meet the minimum requirements...

Fulmer, Philip Clark

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

80

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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

82

Establishing and maintaining a facility representative program at DOE nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this DOE standard, (Establishing and Maintaining a Facility Representative Program at DOE Nuclear Facilities), is to help ensure that DOE Facility Representatives are selected based on consistently high standards and from the best qualified candidates available, that they receive the training required for them to function effectively, and that their expected duties, responsibilities, and authorities are well understood and accurately documented. To this end, this guidance provides the following practical information: (1) An approach for use in determining the required facility coverage; (2) The duties, responsibilities and authorities expected of a Facility Representative; and (3) The training and qualification expected of a Facility Representative.

Not Available

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

83

Radiological hazard classification of DOE facilities by DOE STD-1027-92: LANL nuclear facility list  

SciTech Connect

Los Alamos facilities containing significant radiological hazards have been reclassified according to DOE-SID 1027-92, a recently issued guide for hazard classification. DOE-STD 1027-92 was provided in support of DOE Order 5480.23 to identify which facilities would be governed under DOE 5480.23 requirements; these would presumably be called nuclear facilities. This new classification has affected the original list of 18 LANL nuclear facilities by increasing it to 39. It has also lowered the classification of TA-55-4, the plutonium processing facility containing highest intrinsic hazard at LANL, from the highest classification to an intermediate classification. This presentation addresses the impact of these changes in the nuclear facility list in the areas of radiological health, safety analysis documentation, and risk management.

Elder, J.C.

1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

Radiological hazard classification of DOE facilities by DOE STD-1027-92: LANL nuclear facility list  

SciTech Connect

Los Alamos facilities containing significant radiological hazards have been reclassified according to DOE-SID 1027-92, a recently issued guide for hazard classification. DOE-STD 1027-92 was provided in support of DOE Order 5480.23 to identify which facilities would be governed under DOE 5480.23 requirements; these would presumably be called nuclear facilities. This new classification has affected the original list of 18 LANL nuclear facilities by increasing it to 39. It has also lowered the classification of TA-55-4, the plutonium processing facility containing highest intrinsic hazard at LANL, from the highest classification to an intermediate classification. This presentation addresses the impact of these changes in the nuclear facility list in the areas of radiological health, safety analysis documentation, and risk management.

Elder, J.C.

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

85

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??With the advancement of the next generation of nuclear fuel cycle facilities, concerns of the effectiveness of nuclear facility safeguards have been increasing due to (more)

Iamsumang, Chonlagarn

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

86

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

87

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

88

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.

89

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)

90

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

91

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

92

Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2014-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

93

Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2013-04-04T23:59:59.000Z

94

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 DOE M 140.1-1A.

2001-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

95

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1996-12-30T23:59:59.000Z

96

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 DOE M 140.1-1.

1999-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

97

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's first decade  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Concern over the safety of the United States' defense nuclear reactors in the late 1980s led to congressional creation of an independent oversight board. The Defense Nuclear Facility Safeties Board (DNFSB) is responsible for overseeing safety issues at the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear facilities and issuing recommendations on operations and safety at these facilities, which include South Carolina's Savannah River Site, Texas' Pantex facility, Colorado's Rocky Flats Depot, and others. This article provides an historical overview of the DNFSB's first decade and discusses its relationship and interaction with the Department of Energy and congressional oversight committees as well as the recommendations it has issued on nuclear safety. An assessment of DNFSB's future prospects concludes the article.

Bert Chapman

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

98

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.

99

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

100

High Explosives Application Facility | National Nuclear Security...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

at the micron scale in its microdetonics laboratory, and utilizing multiple firing tanks for larger scale explosives experiments. No other facility in the world supports such...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

National Ignition Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration  

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

other ICF high energy density facilities leading to demonstrate fusion ignition and thermonuclear burn in the laboratory. The NIF is also being used to support basic science and...

102

Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2010-04-16T23:59:59.000Z

103

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

104

HYDROGEN IGNITION MECHANISM FOR EXPLOSIONS IN NUCLEAR FACILITY PIPE SYSTEMS  

SciTech Connect

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

105

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2001-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

106

Nuclear Facility Operations | Department of Energy  

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

applied engineering national laboratory dedicated to meeting the nation's environmental, energy, nuclear technology, and national security needs. INL is a science-based, applied...

107

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

108

Nuclear Astrophysics in Rare Isotope Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Nuclear reactions in stars are difficult to measure directly in the laboratory at the small astrophysical energies. In recent years indirect methods with rare isotopes have been developed and applied to extract low-energy astrophysical cross sections.

C. A. Bertulani

2009-11-02T23:59:59.000Z

109

Innovative cement helps DOE safeguard nuclear facilities | Argonne National  

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

Innovative cement helps DOE safeguard nuclear facilities Innovative cement helps DOE safeguard nuclear facilities By Jared Sagoff * April 25, 2008 Tweet EmailPrint ARGONNE, Ill. - When Argonne materials scientists Arun Wagh and Dileep Singh initially developed Ceramicrete®, a novel phosphate cement that stabilizes radioactive waste streams, they did not immediately recognize that with one or two extra ingredients, the cement could solve another problem in the nuclear complex. In the course of the development of the Ceramicrete technology, Wagh and Singh formed a multilayered collaboration among Argonne, the Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF) in Sarov, Russia, and Ceradyne Boron Products LLC. This international scientific partnership created an unusually efficient nuclear shield that blocks the neutrons and gamma rays

110

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection -  

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

Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection - March 29, 2012 CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection - March 29, 2012 March 29, 2012 Nuclear Facility Construction - Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection Criteria, Approach and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 45-52, Rev. 0) For the purpose of this criteria review and approach, this Criteria Review and Approach Document (CRAD) includes piping and pipe supports and attachments of the pipe supports to structures (concrete, structural steel, or embed plates). Pipe supports include rigid restraints, welded attachments to piping, struts, snubbers, spring cans, and constant supports. Inspection of pipe whip restraints are also included in this CRAD. Selection of nuclear facility piping systems for inspection should be

111

Criteria for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs  

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

STD-1070-94 STD-1070-94 Reaffirmed June 2013 DOE STANDARD CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITY TRAINING PROGRAMS (Formerly Titled: Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs) U.S. Department of Energy FSC Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. TS DOE HDBK-1070-94 Errata June 2013 Table of Changes Page/Section Change Cover Criteria for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs Page ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web page at http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/ Page iii Table of Contents Page iv This DOE Technical Standard is invoked as a requirement by DOE Order 426.2, Personnel Selection, Training, Qualifications and

112

LANSCE nuclear science facilities and activities  

SciTech Connect

Nuclear science activities at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) encompass measurements spanning the neutron energy range from thermal to 600 MeV. The neutron sources use spallation of the LANSCE 800 MeV pulsed proton beam with the time-of-flight technique to measure properties of neutron-induced reactions as a function of energy over this large energy range. Current experiments are conducted at the Lujan Center moderated neutron source, the unmoderated WNR target, and with a lead-slowing-down spectrometer. Instruments in use include the DANCE array of BaF{sub 2} scintillators for neutron capture studies, the FIGARO array of liquid scintillator neutron detectors, the GEANIE array of high-resolution HPGe x-ray and gamma-ray detectors, and a number of fission chambers, and other detectors. The LANL capabilities for production and handling of radioactive materials coupled with the neutron sources and detectors at LANSCE are enabling new and challenging measurements for a variety of applications including nuclear energy and nuclear astrophysics. An overview of recent research and examples of results is presented.

Nelson, Ronald O [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

113

Radioactive Waste Management and Nuclear Facility Decommissioning Progress in Iraq - 13216  

SciTech Connect

Management of Iraq's radioactive wastes and decommissioning of Iraq's former nuclear facilities are the responsibility of Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST). The majority of Iraq's former nuclear facilities are in the Al-Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center located a few kilometers from the edge of Baghdad. These facilities include bombed and partially destroyed research reactors, a fuel fabrication facility and radioisotope production facilities. Within these facilities are large numbers of silos, approximately 30 process or waste storage tanks and thousands of drums of uncharacterised radioactive waste. There are also former nuclear facilities/sites that are outside of Al-Tuwaitha and these include the former uranium processing and waste storage facility at Jesira, the dump site near Adaya, the former centrifuge facility at Rashdiya and the former enrichment plant at Tarmiya. In 2005, Iraq lacked the infrastructure needed to decommission its nuclear facilities and manage its radioactive wastes. The lack of infrastructure included: (1) the lack of an organization responsible for decommissioning and radioactive waste management, (2) the lack of a storage facility for radioactive wastes, (3) the lack of professionals with experience in decommissioning and modern waste management practices, (4) the lack of laws and regulations governing decommissioning or radioactive waste management, (5) ongoing security concerns, and (6) limited availability of electricity and internet. Since its creation eight years ago, the MoST has worked with the international community and developed an organizational structure, trained staff, and made great progress in managing radioactive wastes and decommissioning Iraq's former nuclear facilities. This progress has been made, despite the very difficult implementing conditions in Iraq. Within MoST, the Radioactive Waste Treatment and Management Directorate (RWTMD) is responsible for waste management and the Iraqi Decommissioning Directorate (IDD) is responsible for decommissioning activities. The IDD and the RWTMD work together on decommissioning projects. The IDD has developed plans and has completed decommissioning of the GeoPilot Facility in Baghdad and the Active Metallurgical Testing Laboratory (LAMA) in Al-Tuwaitha. Given this experience, the IDD has initiated work on more dangerous facilities. Plans are being developed to characterize, decontaminate and decommission the Tamuz II Research Reactor. The Tammuz Reactor was destroyed by an Israeli air-strike in 1981 and the Tammuz II Reactor was destroyed during the First Gulf War in 1991. In addition to being responsible for managing the decommissioning wastes, the RWTMD is responsible for more than 950 disused sealed radioactive sources, contaminated debris from the first Gulf War and (approximately 900 tons) of naturally-occurring radioactive materials wastes from oil production in Iraq. The RWTMD has trained staff, rehabilitated the Building 39 Radioactive Waste Storage building, rehabilitated portions of the French-built Radioactive Waste Treatment Station, organized and secured thousands of drums of radioactive waste organized and secured the stores of disused sealed radioactive sources. Currently, the IDD and the RWTMD are finalizing plans for the decommissioning of the Tammuz II Research Reactor. (authors)

Al-Musawi, Fouad; Shamsaldin, Emad S.; Jasim, Hadi [Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), Al-Jadraya, P.O. Box 0765, Baghdad (Iraq)] [Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), Al-Jadraya, P.O. Box 0765, Baghdad (Iraq); Cochran, John R. [Sandia National Laboratories1, New Mexico, Albuquerque New Mexico 87185 (United States)] [Sandia National Laboratories1, New Mexico, Albuquerque New Mexico 87185 (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

114

Iraq nuclear facility dismantlement and disposal project (NDs Project).  

SciTech Connect

The Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex near Baghdad contains a number of facilities from Saddam Hussan's nuclear weapons program. Past military operations, lack of upkeep and looting have created an enormous radioactive waste problem at the Al Tuwaitha complex, which contains various, uncharacterized radioactive wastes, yellow cake, sealed radioactive sources, and contaminated metals that must be constantly guarded. Iraq has never had a radioactive waste disposal facility and the lack of a disposal facility means that ever increasing quantities of radioactive material must be held in guarded storage. The Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program (the NDs Program) has been initiated by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to assist the Government of Iraq (GOI) in eliminating the threats from poorly controlled radioactive materials, while building human capacities so that the GOI can manage other environmental cleanups in their country. The DOS is funding the IAEA to provide technical assistance via Technical Cooperation projects. Program coordination will be provided by the DOS, consistent with GOI policies, and Sandia National Laboratories will be responsible for coordination of participants and waste management support. Texas Tech University will continue to provide in-country assistance, including radioactive waste characterization and the stand-up of the Iraq Nuclear Services Company. The GOI owns the problems in Iraq and will be responsible for implementation of the NDs Program.

Cochran, John Russell

2010-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

115

Support of the Iraq nuclear facility dismantlement and disposal program  

SciTech Connect

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

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

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

116

Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities  

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

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

117

EARTHQUAKE CAUSED RELEASES FROM A NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FACILITY  

SciTech Connect

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

Charles W. Solbrig; Chad Pope; Jason Andrus

2014-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

118

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Iamsumang, Chonlagarn

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

119

Radiological planning and implementation for nuclear-facility decommissioning  

SciTech Connect

The need and scope of radiological planning required to support nuclear facility decommissioning are issues addressed in this paper. The role of radiation protection engineering and monitoring professionals during project implementation and closeout is also addressed. Most of the discussion focuses on worker protection considerations; however, project support, environmental protection and site release certification considerations are also covered. One objective is to identify radiological safety issues that must be addressed. The importance of the issues will vary depending on the type of facility being decommissioned; however, by giving appropriate attention to these issues difficult decommissioning projects can be accomplished in a safer manner with workers and the public receiving minimal radiation exposures.

Valentine, A.M.

1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

120

SUMMARY OF REVISED TORNADO, HURRICANE AND EXTREME STRAIGHT WIND CHARACTERISTICS AT NUCLEAR FACILITY SITES  

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

Summary of Revised Tornado, Hurricane and Extreme Straight Wind Characteristics at Nuclear Facility Sites BY: John D. Stevenson Consulting Engineer

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Airborne release fractions/rates and respirable fractions for nonreactor nuclear facilities. Volume 2, Appendices  

SciTech Connect

This document contains compiled data from the DOE Handbook on Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear facilities. Source data and example facilities utilized, such as the Plutonium Recovery Facility, are included.

Not Available

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

122

Review of epidemiology studies of childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities: commentary on Laurier et al.  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......of childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities: commentary on...in which the cases lived and nuclear facilities. The key point...We trust that Government policy-makers will take note. CONCLUSION...of childhood leukaemias near nuclear facilities worldwide. The......

Ian Fairlie; Alfred Krblein

2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

123

Training program requirements for remote equipment operators in nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

One of the most neglected areas in the engineering development of remotely operated equipment applications in nuclear environments is the planning of adequate training programs for the equipment operators. Remote equipment accidents cannot be prevented solely by engineered safety features on the equipment. As a result of the experiences in using remote equipment in the recovery effort at Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2), guidelines for the development of remote equipment operator training programs have been generated. The result is that a successful education and training program can create an environment favorable to the safe and effective implementation of a remote equipment program in a nuclear facility.

Palau, G.L.; Auclair, K.D.

1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

124

Pyroprocessing of fast flux test facility nuclear fuel  

SciTech Connect

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

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

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

125

Benchmarking of MCNP for calculating dose rates at an interim storage facility for nuclear waste  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......an interim storage facility for nuclear waste Burkhard Heuel-Fabianek Ralf...Research Centre Julich, Germany, nuclear waste is stored in drums and other vessels...Research Centre Julich (FZJ) nuclear waste is generated, which has to be......

Burkhard Heuel-Fabianek; Ralf Hille

2005-12-20T23:59:59.000Z

126

Hazard classification criteria for non-nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

127

Leak-Path Factor Analysis for the Nuclear Materials Storage Facility  

SciTech Connect

Leak-path factors (LPFs) were calculated for the Nuclear Materials Storage Facility (NMSF) located in the Plutonium Facility, Building 41 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 55. In the unlikely event of an accidental fire powerful enough to fail a container holding actinides, the subsequent release of oxides, modeled as PuO{sub 2} aerosols, from the facility and into the surrounding environment was predicted. A 1-h nondestructive assay (NDA) laboratory fire accident was simulated with the MELCOR severe accident analysis code. Fire-driven air movement along with wind-driven air infiltration transported a portion of these actinides from the building. This fraction is referred to as the leak-path factor. The potential effect of smoke aerosol on the transport of the actinides was investigated to verify the validity of neglecting the smoke as conservative. The input model for the NMSF consisted of a system of control volumes, flow pathways, and surfaces sufficient to model the thermal-hydraulic conditions within the facility and the aerosol transport data necessary to simulate the transport of PuO{sub 2} particles. The thermal-hydraulic, heat-transfer, and aerosol-transport models are solved simultaneously with data being exchanged between models. A MELCOR input model was designed such that it would reproduce the salient features of the fire per the corresponding CFAST calculation. Air infiltration into and out of the facility would be affected strongly by wind-driven differential pressures across the building. Therefore, differential pressures were applied to each side of the building according to guidance found in the ASHRAE handbook using a standard-velocity head equation with a leading multiplier to account for the orientation of the wind with the building. The model for the transport of aerosols considered all applicable transport processes, but the deposition within the building clearly was dominated by gravitational settling.

Shaffer, C.; Leonard, M.

1999-06-13T23:59:59.000Z

128

Financing Strategies For A Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility  

SciTech Connect

To help meet the nations energy needs, recycling of partially used nuclear fuel is required to close the nuclear fuel cycle, but implementing this step will require considerable investment. This report evaluates financing scenarios for integrating recycling facilities into the nuclear fuel cycle. A range of options from fully government owned to fully private owned were evaluated using DPL (Decision Programming Language 6.0), which can systematically optimize outcomes based on user-defined criteria (e.g., lowest lifecycle cost, lowest unit cost). This evaluation concludes that the lowest unit costs and lifetime costs are found for a fully government-owned financing strategy, due to government forgiveness of debt as sunk costs. However, this does not mean that the facilities should necessarily be constructed and operated by the government. The costs for hybrid combinations of public and private (commercial) financed options can compete under some circumstances with the costs of the government option. This analysis shows that commercial operations have potential to be economical, but there is presently no incentive for private industry involvement. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) currently establishes government ownership of partially used commercial nuclear fuel. In addition, the recently announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) suggests fuels from several countries will be recycled in the United States as part of an international governmental agreement; this also assumes government ownership. Overwhelmingly, uncertainty in annual facility capacity led to the greatest variations 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; and the annual operating costs, forgiveness of debt, and overnight costs dominate the costs computed for the government case. The uncertainty in operations, leading to lower than optimal processing rates (or annual plant throughput), is the most detrimental issue to achieving low unit costs. Conversely, lowering debt interest rates and the required return on investments can reduce costs for private industry.

David Shropshire; Sharon Chandler

2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

129

A nuclear facility Security Analyzer written in PROLOG  

SciTech Connect

The Security Analyzer project was undertaken to use the Prolog ''artificial intelligence'' programming language and Entity-Relationship database construction techniques to produce an intelligent database computer program capable of analyzing the effectiveness of a nuclear facility's security systems. The Security Analyzer program can search through a facility to find all possible surreptitious entry paths that meet various user-selected time and detection probability criteria. The program can also respond to user-formulated queries concerning the database information. The intelligent database approach allows the program to perform a more comprehensive path search than other programs that only find a single ''optimal'' path. The program also is more flexible in that the database, once constructed, can be interrogated and used for purposes independent of the searching function.

Zimmerman, B.D.

1987-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

130

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

131

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

132

Nuclear Physics User Facilities | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)  

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

NP User Facilities NP User Facilities User Facilities ASCR User Facilities BES User Facilities BER User Facilities FES User Facilities HEP User Facilities NP User Facilities User Facilities Frequently Asked Questions User Facility Science Highlights Contact Information Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 P: (202) 586-5430 NP User Facilities Print Text Size: A A A RSS Feeds FeedbackShare Page The Nuclear Physics program supports the operation of the following national scientific user facilities: Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC): External link RHIC at Brookhaven National Laboratory External link is a world-class scientific research facility that began operation in 2000, following 10 years of development and construction. Hundreds of physicists from around

133

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-

134

The Association between Cancers and Low Level Radiation: an evaluation of the epidemiological evidence at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

and Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Rad Res 1989;120:19-at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility MASTER DISTRIBUTIONAT T H E HANFORD NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITY JULIE BRITTON

Britton, Julie

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

135

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Construction- Piping and Pipe Supports Inspection- March 29, 2012  

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

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

136

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

137

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

138

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

139

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

140

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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

142

Advanced Modeling and Evaluation of the Response of Base-Isolated Nuclear Facility Structures to Vertical Earthquake Excitation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Structures . iii 3 Nuclear Power Plants 3.1 Nuclear FacilityKashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant 3.3.1 2004 Ch uetsuKashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in response to the

Keldrauk, Eric Scott

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

143

Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology ProgramFusion Nuclear Science and Technology Program Issues and Strategy for Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Need for Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology ProgramFusion Nuclear Science and Technology Program ­Issues and Strategy for Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) ­Key R&D Areas to begin NOW (modeling 12, 2010 #12;Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) FNST is the science engineering technology

Abdou, Mohamed

144

DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in  

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

DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in Idaho DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in Idaho May 20, 2010 - 12:00am Addthis Washington, DC - As part of a broad effort to expand the use of nuclear power in the United States and reduce carbon pollution, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced today the Department's first conditional commitment for a front-end nuclear facility. The $2 billion loan guarantee will support AREVA's Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility near Idaho Falls, Idaho, which will supply uranium enrichment services for the U.S. nuclear power industry. "Increasing uranium enrichment in the United States is critical to the nation's energy and national security," said Secretary Chu. "Existing

145

DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in  

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

DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in Idaho DOE Offers Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in Idaho May 20, 2010 - 12:00am Addthis Washington, DC - As part of a broad effort to expand the use of nuclear power in the United States and reduce carbon pollution, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced today the Department's first conditional commitment for a front-end nuclear facility. The $2 billion loan guarantee will support AREVA's Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility near Idaho Falls, Idaho, which will supply uranium enrichment services for the U.S. nuclear power industry. "Increasing uranium enrichment in the United States is critical to the nation's energy and national security," said Secretary Chu. "Existing

146

DOE-STD-1064-94; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Seasonal Facility Preservation at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

64-94 64-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR SEASONAL FACILITY PRESERVATION AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 AREA MNTY 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE94014954 DOE-STD-1064-94 FOREWORD The Guideline to Good Practices for Seasonal Facility Preservation at DOE Nuclear Facilities provides contractor maintenance organizations with information

147

Author's personal copy Cost analysis of the US spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

of this, a 1987 amendment to the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandates the Secretary of Energy to report on a site for a second repository by 2010 (Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, 1987). HoweverAuthor's personal copy Cost analysis of the US spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility E

Deinert, Mark

148

SWAMI: An Autonomous Mobile Robot for Inspection of Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

SWAMI: An Autonomous Mobile Robot for Inspection of Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities Ron Fulbright Inspector (SWAMI) is a prototype mobile robot designed to perform autonomous inspection of nuclear waste user interface building tool called UIM/X. Introduction Safe disposal of nuclear waste is a difficult

Stephens, Larry M.

149

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory RPI LINAC Facility and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory Capabilities of the RPI LINAC · Pulsed Electron Beam ­ 7ns;4Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering nacThe Gaerttner Laboratory Capabilities of the RPI LINAC

Danon, Yaron

150

EM Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility | Department  

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

Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility EM Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility April 1, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis H-Canyon at Savannah River Site. The building is called a canyon because of its long rectangular shape and two continuous trenches that contains process vessels. H-Canyon at Savannah River Site. The building is called a canyon because of its long rectangular shape and two continuous trenches that contains process vessels. AIKEN, S.C. - EM issued an amended Record of Decision (ROD) to the Savannah River Site (SRS) Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental Impact Statement to expand the operations of the H-Canyon Facility at SRS to support a major nuclear non-proliferation goal and save taxpayer dollars. DOE recently signed a contract allowing Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

151

EM Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility | Department  

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

EM Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility EM Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility EM Issues Amended Decision to Expand Use of Nuclear Facility April 1, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis H-Canyon at Savannah River Site. The building is called a canyon because of its long rectangular shape and two continuous trenches that contains process vessels. H-Canyon at Savannah River Site. The building is called a canyon because of its long rectangular shape and two continuous trenches that contains process vessels. AIKEN, S.C. - EM issued an amended Record of Decision (ROD) to the Savannah River Site (SRS) Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental Impact Statement to expand the operations of the H-Canyon Facility at SRS to support a major nuclear non-proliferation goal and save taxpayer dollars. DOE recently signed a contract allowing Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

152

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

153

DOE Issues Landmark Rule for Risk Insurance for Advanced Nuclear Facilities  

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

Landmark Rule for Risk Insurance for Advanced Nuclear Landmark Rule for Risk Insurance for Advanced Nuclear Facilities DOE Issues Landmark Rule for Risk Insurance for Advanced Nuclear Facilities May 8, 2006 - 10:36am Addthis WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued on Saturday, the interim final rule required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) for risk insurance to facilitate construction of new advanced nuclear power facilities. The rule establishes the requirements for risk insurance to cover costs associated with certain regulatory or litigation-related delays in the start-up of new nuclear power plants. The resurgence of nuclear power is a key component of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative. The Standby Support provisions of EPACT (section 638), also referred to as federal risk insurance, authorize the Secretary of Energy to enter into

154

Adjusting External Doses from the ORNL and Y-12 Facilities for the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facilities Mortality Study  

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

Adjusting External Doses from the ORNL and Y-12 Adjusting External Doses from the ORNL and Y-12 Facilities for the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facilities Mortality Study A Supplemental Report to Data Collection, Validation, and Description for the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facilities Mortality Study J. P. Watkins (1), D. L. Cragle (1), E. L. Frome (2), C. M. West (1), D. J. Crawford- Brown (3), and W. G. Tankersley (1) (1) Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Environmental and Health Sciences Division, Center for Epidemiologic Research, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117. (2) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830. (3) School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7400. This report concerns work undertaken as part of the Health and Mortality Study of Department of

155

Omega Laser Facility Completes Record 25,000 Experiments | National Nuclear  

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

Omega Laser Facility Completes Record 25,000 Experiments | National Nuclear Omega Laser Facility Completes Record 25,000 Experiments | 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 > Media Room > Press Releases > Omega Laser Facility Completes Record 25,000 Experiments Press Release Omega Laser Facility Completes Record 25,000 Experiments Nov 5, 2013

156

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Superconducting Magnet Safety Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) facilities present unique hazards or steel reinforced concrete, these ferromagnetic materials may have an effect on the magnetic field environmental temperature control is required (2) Structural support for heavy equipment and vibration control

Maroncelli, Mark

157

Preoperational Environmental Survey for the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project Facilities  

SciTech Connect

This document represents the report for environmental sampling of soil, vegetation, litter, cryptograms, and small mammals at the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project facilities located in 100 K and 200 East Areas in support of the preoperational environmental survey.

MITCHELL, R.M.

2000-09-28T23:59:59.000Z

158

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 420.1C. Cancels DOE G 420.1-1.

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

159

Tsunami Assessment for Risk Management at Nuclear Power Facilities in Japan  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The present study focuses on evaluation of the maximum and minimum water levels caused by tsunamis as risk factors for operation and management at nuclear power facilities along the coastal area of Japan. Tsunami...

Ken Yanagisawa; Fumihiko Imamura

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

160

Tsunami Assessment for Risk Management at Nuclear Power Facilities in Japan  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The present study focuses on evaluation of the maximum and minimum water levels caused by tsunamis as risk factors for operation and management at nuclear power facilities along the coastal area of Japan. Tsunami...

Ken Yanagisawa; Fumihiko Imamura; Tsutomu Sakakiyama

2007-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 13: Part 2, Indexes  

SciTech Connect

This is part 2 of a bibliography on nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial action. This report contains indexes on the following: authors, corporate affiliation, title words, publication description, geographic location, subject category, and key word.

Goins, L.F.; Webb, J.R.; Cravens, C.D.; Mallory, P.K.

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

162

Order Module--DOE O 433.1B, MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES  

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

"The familiar level of this module is designed to summarize the basic information in DOE O 433.1B, Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities. This Order canceled DOE O 433.1A. This...

163

Surface water transport and distribution of uranium in contaminated sediments near a nuclear weapons processing facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The extent of remobilization of uranium from contaminated soils adjacent to a nuclear weapons processing facility during episodic rain events was investigated. In addition, information on the solid phase associations of U in floodplain and suspended...

Batson, Vicky Lynn

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

164

CRAD, Nuclear Facility Safety System - September 25, 2009 | Department...  

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

Facility Safety System Functionality Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities, and Lines of Inquiry (HSS CRAD 64-17, Rev 0 ) This document establishes the protocols used by...

165

Energy Department Issues Draft Request For Proposal for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensed Facilities Procurement  

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

Cincinnati The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Licensed Facilities procurement. The NRC Licensed Facilities procurement is one of the four procurements that resulted from the Idaho Site Office of Environmental Management Post FY 2015 Acquisition Planning.

166

Safeguards Guidance Document for Designers of Commercial Nuclear Facilities: International Nuclear Safeguards Requirements and Practices For Uranium Enrichment Plants  

SciTech Connect

This report is the second in a series of guidelines on international safeguards requirements and practices, prepared expressly for the designers of nuclear facilities. The first document in this series is the description of generic international nuclear safeguards requirements pertaining to all types of facilities. These requirements should be understood and considered at the earliest stages of facility design as part of a new process called Safeguards-by-Design. This will help eliminate the costly retrofit of facilities that has occurred in the past to accommodate nuclear safeguards verification activities. The following summarizes the requirements for international nuclear safeguards implementation at enrichment plants, prepared under the Safeguards by Design project, and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Office of NA-243. The purpose of this is to provide designers of nuclear facilities around the world with a simplified set of design requirements and the most common practices for meeting them. The foundation for these requirements is the international safeguards agreement between the country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), pursuant to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Relevant safeguards requirements are also cited from the Safeguards Criteria for inspecting enrichment plants, found in the IAEA Safeguards Manual, Part SMC-8. IAEA definitions and terms are based on the IAEA Safeguards Glossary, published in 2002. The most current specification for safeguards measurement accuracy is found in the IAEA document STR-327, International Target Values 2000 for Measurement Uncertainties in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, published in 2001. For this guide to be easier for the designer to use, the requirements have been restated in plainer language per expert interpretation using the source documents noted. The safeguards agreement is fundamentally a legal document. As such, it is written in a legalese that is understood by specialists in international law and treaties, but not by most outside of this field, including designers of nuclear facilities. For this reason, many of the requirements have been simplified and restated. However, in all cases, the relevant source document and passage is noted so that readers may trace the requirement to the source. This is a helpful living guide, since some of these requirements are subject to revision over time. More importantly, the practices by which the requirements are met are continuously modernized by the IAEA and nuclear facility operators to improve not only the effectiveness of international nuclear safeguards, but also the efficiency. As these improvements are made, the following guidelines should be updated and revised accordingly.

Robert Bean; Casey Durst

2009-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

167

DOE Standard 3009-2014, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, Roll Out Training  

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

The Office of Nuclear Safety is performing a series of site visits to provide roll-out training and assistance to Program and Site Offices and their contractors on effective implementation of the new revision to DOE Standard 3009-2014, Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis.

168

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

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Types of Maintenance at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information that may be used for the development and implementation of a properly balanced corrective, preventive and predictive maintenance program 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 4. 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

169

Hot particle laundry monitoring at a nuclear power facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

by adjusting a knob on the control console. The control console contains the control unit, the upper detector control system and the nuclear electronics. The ACM-120 uses a microprocessor to analyze the data and monitor for various system malfunctions..., monitoring method, detector type, alarm levels and the storage and disposal limits. In the second part, a detailed evaluation was conducted on three automated laundry monitors; National Nuclear LCM-15A, I. R. T. ACM-120, Interstate Nuclear Services ALM...

Farver, Douglas Floyd

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

170

REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ON NUCLEAR FACILITY DESIGN INFORMATION EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION FOR SAFEGUARDS  

SciTech Connect

Executive Summary The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) implements nuclear safeguards and verifies countries are compliant with their international nuclear safeguards agreements. One of the key provisions in the safeguards agreement is the requirement that the country provide nuclear facility design and operating information to the IAEA relevant to safeguarding the facility, and at a very early stage. , This provides the opportunity for the IAEA to verify the safeguards-relevant features of the facility and to periodically ensure that those features have not changed. The national authorities (State System of Accounting for and Control of Nuclear Material - SSAC) provide the design information for all facilities within a country to the IAEA. The design information is conveyed using the IAEAs Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) and specifies: (1) Identification of the facilitys general character, purpose, capacity, and location; (2) Description of the facilitys layout and nuclear material form, location, and flow; (3) Description of the features relating to nuclear material accounting, containment, and surveillance; and (4) Description of existing and proposed procedures for nuclear material accounting and control, with identification of nuclear material balance areas. The DIQ is updated as required by written addendum. IAEA safeguards inspectors examine and verify this information in design information examination (DIE) and design information verification (DIV) activities to confirm that the facility has been constructed or is being operated as declared by the facility operator and national authorities, and to develop a suitable safeguards approach. Under the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI), the National Nuclear Security Administrations (NNSA) Office of Non-Proliferation and International Security identified the need for more effective and efficient verification of design information by the IAEA for improving international safeguards in the future. Consequently, the NNSA Office of International Regimes and Agreements (NA-243) sponsored a team of U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory nuclear safeguards experts and technologists to conduct a workshop on methods and technologies for improving this activity, under the ASA-100 Advanced Safeguards Approaches Project. The workshop focused on reviewing and discussing the fundamental safeguards needs, and presented technology and/or methods that could potentially address those needs more effectively and efficiently. Conclusions and Recommendations for technology to enhance the performance of DIV inspections are presented by the workshop team.

Richard Metcalf; Robert Bean

2009-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

171

A Safeguards Design Strategy for Domestic Nuclear Materials Processing Facilities.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

?? The outdated and oversized nuclear manufacturing complex within the United States requires its transformation into a smaller, safe, and secure enterprise. Health and safety (more)

Long, Jonathan

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

172

DOE's Approach to Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis and Management  

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

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

173

Neutron Radiography Facilities Using Neutron Beams from Nuclear Reactors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The paper represents diagrams, descriptions and main technical characteristics of a number of Soviet neutron radiography facilities. The said facilieties for the ... inspection of the objects to be studied utiliz...

E. R. Kartashev

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

174

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, Facility Subcommittee visit to Idaho National Laboratory May 19-20, 2010  

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

Committee, Facility Subcommittee visit to Idaho National Committee, Facility Subcommittee visit to Idaho National Laboratory May 19-20, 2010 The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, Facility Subcommittee visited the Idaho National Laboratory on 19-20 May 2010 to tour the nuclear infrastructure and to discuss the INL plans for facility modernization as a dimension of the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy's (NE) mission. Team Members: Dr. John Ahearne, Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC Dr. Dana Christensen, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Dr. Thomas Cochran, Natural Resource Defense Council, Washington DC Dr. Andrew Klein, Oregon State University (second day only) Mr. Paul Murray, AREVA Federal Services Dr. John I. Sackett, Idaho National Laboratory, Retired, Support: Andrew Griffith, DOE/NE

175

Nuclear physics at the SCRIT electron scattering facility  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......each of which were in a vacuum except for the electron...consists of an electron accelerator with the SCRIT system...in coincidence with nuclear reaction products such...new research field in nuclear physics: structure...construction of the electron accelerators equipped with the SCRIT......

Toshimi Suda; Tatsuya Adachi; Tatsuya Amagai; Akitomo Enokizono; Masahiro Hara; Toshitada Hori; Shin'ichi Ichikawa; Kazuyoshi Kurita; Takaya Miyamoto; Ryo Ogawara; Tetsuya Ohnishi; Yuuto Shimakura; Tadaaki Tamae; Mamoru Togasaki; Masanori Wakasugi; Shuo Wang; Kayoko Yanagi

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

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:

177

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:

178

DOE-STD-1072-94; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices for Facility Condition Inspections at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

2-94 2-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR FACILITY CONDITION INSPECTIONS AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 AREA MNTY 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE94014948 DOE-STD-1072-94 iii FOREWORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Facility Condition Inspections

179

DOE-STD-1067; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance Facilities, Equipment, and Tools at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

7-94 7-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND TOOLS AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703)487-4650. Order No. DE94014952 DOE-STD-1067-94 FOREW ORD The Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance Facilities, Equipment, and Tools at

180

Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities Standard Review Plan (SRP)  

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

This Standard Review Plan (SRP), Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities, was developed by the Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS)1, Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, to help strengthen the technical rigor of line management oversight and federal monitoring of DOE nuclear facilities. This SRP (hereafter refers to as the Engineering SRP) provides consistent review guidance to assure that engineering and technical requirements are appropriately applied for the design, operations and disposition2 of DOE nuclear facilities. It is one of a series of three SRPs developed by the CNS. The other two SRPs address: 1) nuclear safety basis program review; and 2) application of requirements of DOE O 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and DOE-STD-1189, Integration of Safety into the Design Process, for DOE Critical Decision (CD) review and approval. These SRPs may be revised in the future to reflect changes in the DOE requirements, lessons learned, and experience/insights from nuclear facility design, operations, and disposition.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Guide to radiological accident considerations for siting and design of DOE nonreactor nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

This guide was prepared to provide the experienced safety analyst with accident analysis guidance in greater detail than is possible in Department of Energy (DOE) Orders. The guide addresses analysis of postulated serious accidents considered in the siting and selection of major design features of DOE nuclear facilities. Its scope has been limited to radiological accidents at nonreactor nuclear facilities. The analysis steps addressed in the guide lead to evaluation of radiological dose to exposed persons for comparison with siting guideline doses. Other possible consequences considered are environmental contamination, population dose, and public health effects. Choices of models and parameters leading to estimation of source terms, release fractions, reduction and removal factors, dispersion and dose factors are discussed. Although requirements for risk analysis have not been established, risk estimates are finding increased use in siting of major nuclear facilities, and are discussed in the guide. 3 figs., 9 tabs.

Elder, J.C.; Graf, J.M.; Dewart, J.M.; Buhl, T.E.; Wenzel, W.J.; Walker, L.J.; Stoker, A.K.

1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

Determination of dilution factors in a nuclear facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

location was found to be 909. From the results of this study it was determined that the described method can be used to determine dilu- tion factors in any facility effectively. ACKNOWLEDGENENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. R. D... and diverse studies. Atmospheric dispersion of particles and gases from the atomic energy field is constantly being studied. Emperical dispersion calculations for aerosol releases into the atmosphere are well known ' . In addition, (1, 2) studies...

Sandel, Philip Sidney

1972-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

183

Nuclear Astrophysics in Rare Isotope Facilities C.A. Bertulania  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, beam energies should be in the range of a few 10-100 MeV per nucleon [5]. Low energy reactions projectile velocity va, the low energy reaction A + x = B + c is induced at very low (even vanishing and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX 75429, USA Nuclear reactions in stars are difficult to measure

Bertulani, Carlos A. - Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University

184

Implementation of DOE NPH Requirements at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF), a Non-Nuclear DOE Lab  

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

Implementation of DOE NPH Requirements at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF), a Non-Nuclear DOE Lab David Luke, DOE, Thomas Jefferson Site Office Stephen McDuffie, DOE, Office of the Chief of Nuclear Safety

185

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2000-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

186

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

187

Clean-up of Nuclear Licensed Facility 57  

SciTech Connect

Available in abstract form only. Full text of publication follows: In the early sixties a radiochemistry laboratory dedicated to Research and Development was built at the French Atomic Energy Commission's centre at Fontenay aux Roses (CEA-FAR); it was named Building 18. More buildings were added during the decade: Building 54, storehouses and offices and Building 91, a hall and laboratories for chemical engineering research into natural and depleted uranium. These three buildings together constitute NLF57. Construction work took place between 1959 and 1962 and the buildings entered operation in 1961. The research and development programs performed in NLF57 involved spent fuel reprocessing studies, waste treatment processes and studies and production of transuranic elements with the related analytical methods development. The research and development program ended on 30 June 1995. The NLF57 clean-up program was launched to reduce the nuclear and conventional hazards and minimise HLW and MLW production during the dismantling work. The clean-up work was divided into categories by type to facilitate its organisation: treatment and removal of nuclear material, removal of radioactive sources, treatment and removal of organic and aqueous effluents, treatment and removal of solid waste, pumping out of the PETRUS tank, flushing and decontamination of the tanks and clean-up of buildings. (authors)

Jeanjacques, Michel; Bremond, Marie Pierre; Marchand, Carole; Poyau, Cecile; Viallefont, Cecile; Gautier, Laurent; Masure, Frederic [CEA, DANS-DRSN-SAFAR (France)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

188

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

189

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

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2010-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

190

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

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

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

191

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.

Not Available

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

192

Can Government Regulate Portion Sizes?  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...it struck down the law on the basis of the separation-of-powers issue. According to the dissenting opinion, however, "the Rule easily passes this test." Neither lower court had found that regulating portion sizes of sugar-sweetened beverages was irrational (although both courts similarly struck down... A New York City Board of Health regulation limiting portion sizes of sugar-sweetened beverages was struck down this year, but the case may help address fundamental questions about whether restricting portion sizes is defensible on public health and legal grounds.

Pomeranz J.L.; Brownell K.D.

2014-11-20T23:59:59.000Z

193

Extensive remote handling and conservative plasma conditions to enable fusion nuclear science R&D using a component testing facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

nuclear science R&D using a component testing facility Y.K.M. Peng 1), T.W. Burgess 1), A.J. Carroll 1), C. This use aims to test components in an integrated fusion nuclear environment, for the first time@ornl.gov Abstract. The use of a fusion component testing facility to study and establish, during the ITER era

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

194

Nuclear Rocket Test Facility Decommissioning Including Controlled Explosive Demolition of a Neutron-Activated Shield Wall  

SciTech Connect

Located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site, the Test Cell A Facility was used in the 1960s for the testing of nuclear rocket engines, as part of the Nuclear Rocket Development Program. The facility was decontaminated and decommissioned (D&D) in 2005 using the Streamlined Approach For Environmental Restoration (SAFER) process, under the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). Utilities and process piping were verified void of contents, hazardous materials were removed, concrete with removable contamination decontaminated, large sections mechanically demolished, and the remaining five-foot, five-inch thick radiologically-activated reinforced concrete shield wall demolished using open-air controlled explosive demolition (CED). CED of the shield wall was closely monitored and resulted in no radiological exposure or atmospheric release.

Michael Kruzic

2007-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

195

Guideline to good practices for planning, scheduling, and coordination of maintenance at DOE nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Planning, Scheduling, and Coordination of Maintenance 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 planning, scheduling, and coordinating work packages for maintenance tasks 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 6. 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

196

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

SciTech Connect

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

197

DECOMMISSIONING OF THE NUCLEAR FACILITIES OF VKTA AT THE ROSSENDORF RESEARCH SITE  

SciTech Connect

VKTA decommissioned the old nuclear facilities of former GDR's (German Democratic Republic) Central Institute of Nuclear Research which was closed end of 1991. VKTA is responsible for fissile material and waste management, environmental and radiation protection and runs an accredited laboratory for environmental and radionuclide analytics. The Rossendorf research site is located east of the city of Dresden. The period from 1982 to about 1997 was mainly characterized by obtaining the necessary licenses for decommissioning and developing a new infrastructure (i.e. waste treatment facility, interim storages for fissile material and waste, clearance monitoring facility). The decommissioning work has been in progress since that time. The decommissioning projects are concentrated on three complexes: (1) the reactors and a fuel development and testing facility, (2) the radioisotope production facilities, and (3) the former liquid and solid waste storage facilities. The status of decommissioning progress and treatment of the residues will be demonstrated. Finally an outlook will be given on the future tasks of VKTA based on the ''Conception VKTA 2000 plus'', which was confirmed by the Saxonian government last year.

U. Helwig, W. Boessert

2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

198

Disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear research facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Swiss radioactive wastes originate from nuclear power plants (NPP) and from medicine (e.g. radiation sources), industry (e.g. fire detectors) and research (e.g. CERN, PSI). Their conditioning, characterisation and documentation has to meet the demands given by the Swiss regulatory authorities including all information needed for a safe disposal in future repositories. For NPP wastes, arisings as well as the processes responsible for the buildup of short and long lived radionuclides are well known, and the conditioning procedures are established. The radiological inventories are determined on a routinely basis using a combined system of measurements and calculational programs. For waste from research, the situation is more complicated. The wide spectrum of different installations combined with a poorly known history of primary and secondary radiation results in heterogeneous waste sorts with radiological inventories quite different from NPP waste and difficult to measure long lived radionuclides. In order to c...

Maxeiner, H; Kolbe, E

2003-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

199

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.

200

MORTALITY AMONG WORKERS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR FUELS PRODUCTION FACILITY  

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

MORTALITY AMONG WORKERS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR FUELS MORTALITY AMONG WORKERS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR FUELS PRODUCTION FACILITY Donna L. Cragle and Janice P. Watkins, Center for Epidemiologic Research; Kathryn Robertson-DeMers, Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Donna Cragle, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, P.O. Box 117, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117 Key Words: mortality study, radiation exposure, leukemia, occupational cohort, trend test INTRODUCTION Since 1952 the Savannah River Site (SRS), located in Aiken, South Carolina, has operated as a Department of Energy (DOE) production facility for nuclear fuels and other materials. A previous study 1 through 1980 of 9,860 white males employed at least 90 consecutive days at the SRS between 1952 and 1974 found an increased number of leukemia deaths among

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Self-imposed self-assessment program at a DOE Nuclear Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Nuclear Materials and Technology (NMT) Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has implemented a performance-based self-assessment program at the TA-55 plutonium facility. The program was conceptualized and developed by LANL`s internal assessment group, AA-2. The management walkaround program fosters continuous improvement in NMT products and performance of its activities. The program, based on experience from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, is endorsed at the site by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) personnel and by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. The self-assessment program focuses on how work is actually performed rather than on paperwork or process compliance. Managers critically and continually assess ES&H, conduct of operations, and other functional area requirements.

Geoffrion, R.R.; Loud, J.J.; Walter, E.C. [Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM (United States)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

202

Determination of DCGL for Site Closure of Nuclear Facility  

SciTech Connect

To measure the degree of radioactive contamination of industrial facilities using depleted uranium as catalysts, and to release the site on this basis, RESRAD 6.21 was used to radiological impact assessment. Samples were taken from 20 points. Among the 20 sampling points, the highest point artificially contaminated (upper and lower part of point 16) was selected, and radiological impact was assessed and assessment and DCGL (Derived concentration guideline level) was computed. As a result, individual doses by nuclide were U-234: 4.162E-03 mSv/yr, U-235: 8.762E-04 mSv/yr, U-238: 2.204E-02 mSv/yr. In addition, the domestic dose standard relating to self-disposal and IAEA TECDOC-855 Clearance levels define the individual dose as 10 {mu}Sv. On this basis DCGL (Derived concentration guideline level) was computed, and it was 6.35E-02 Bq/g for U-238. (authors)

Kim, J.; Shin, S.; Whang, J. [Kyung Hee Univ., Dept. of Nuclear Engineering (Korea, Republic of)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

203

INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEM CYBER SECURITY: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELEVANT TO NUCLEAR FACILITIES, SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY  

SciTech Connect

Typical questions surrounding industrial control system (ICS) cyber security always lead back to: What could a cyber attack do to my system(s) and; how much should I worry about it? These two leading questions represent only a fraction of questions asked when discussing cyber security as it applies to any program, company, business, or organization. The intent of this paper is to open a dialog of important pertinent questions and answers that managers of nuclear facilities engaged in nuclear facility security and safeguards should examine, i.e., what questions should be asked; and how do the answers affect an organization's ability to effectively safeguard and secure nuclear material. When a cyber intrusion is reported, what does that mean? Can an intrusion be detected or go un-noticed? Are nuclear security or safeguards systems potentially vulnerable? What about the digital systems employed in process monitoring, and international safeguards? Organizations expend considerable efforts to ensure that their facilities can maintain continuity of operations against physical threats. However, cyber threats particularly on ICSs may not be well known or understood, and often do not receive adequate attention. With the disclosure of the Stuxnet virus that has recently attacked nuclear infrastructure, many organizations have recognized the need for an urgent interest in cyber attacks and defenses against them. Several questions arise including discussions about the insider threat, adequate cyber protections, program readiness, encryption, and many more. These questions, among others, are discussed so as to raise the awareness and shed light on ways to protect nuclear facilities and materials against such attacks.

Robert S. Anderson; Mark Schanfein; Trond Bjornard; Paul Moskowitz

2011-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

204

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee Facility Subcommittee visit to Oak Ridge National  

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

Facility Subcommittee visit to Oak Ridge National Facility Subcommittee visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory 26 August 2010 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. The visit was well-coordinated by Sherrell Greene, who insured that briefings were on time and that Cochran, Corridini, and Ahearne could get to the airport on time to catch departing flights.

205

Guideline to good practices for maintenance organization and administration at DOE nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance Organization and Administration at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information that may be used to verify adequacy of and/or modify existing maintenance organization programs, or to develop new programs. This document is intended to be an example guideline for the implementation of DOE Order 4330.4A, Maintenance Management Program, Chapter 2, Element 1. 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 programs that are applicable to their facility.

Not Available

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

206

Guideline to good practices for maintenance management involvement at DOE nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance Management Involvement at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information that may be used to verify adequacy of and/or modify existing maintenance management programs, or to develop new programs. This document is intended to be an example guideline for the implementation of DOE Order 4330.4A, Maintenance Management Program, Chapter 2, Elements 14 and 16. 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 management programs that are applicable to their facility.

Not Available

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

207

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

208

In Situ Decommissioning (ISD) Concepts and Approaches for Excess Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning End State - 13367  

SciTech Connect

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) currently has numerous radiologically contaminated excess nuclear facilities waiting decommissioning throughout the Complex. The traditional decommissioning end state is complete removal. This commonly involves demolishing the facility, often segregating various components and building materials and disposing of the highly contaminated, massive structures containing tons of highly contaminated equipment and piping in a (controlled and approved) landfill, at times hundreds of miles from the facility location. Traditional demolition is costly, and results in significant risks to workers, as well as risks and costs associated with transporting the materials to a disposal site. In situ decommissioning (ISD or entombment) is a viable alternative to demolition, offering comparable and potentially more protective protection of human health and the environment, but at a significantly reduced cost and worker risk. The Savannah River Site (SRS) has completed the initial ISD deployment for radiologically contaminated facilities. Two reactor (P and R Reactors) facilities were decommissioned in 2011 using the ISD approach through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The SRS ISD approach resolved programmatic, regulatory and technical/engineering issues associated with avoiding the potential hazards and cost associated with generating and disposing of an estimated 124,300 metric tons (153,000 m{sup 3}) of contaminated debris per reactor. The DOE Environmental Management Office of Deactivation and Decommissioning and Facility Engineering, through the Savannah River National Laboratory, is currently investigating potential monitoring techniques and strategies to assess ISD effectiveness. As part of SRS's strategic planning, the site is seeking to leverage in situ decommissioning concepts, approaches and facilities to conduct research, design end states, and assist in regulatory interactions in broad national and international government and private industry decommissioning applications. SRS offers critical services based upon the SRS experience in decommissioning and reactor entombment technology (e.g., grout formulations for varying conditions, structural and material sciences). The SRS ISD approach follows a systems engineering framework to achieve a regulatory acceptable end state based on established protocols, attains the final end state with minimal long stewardship requirements, protects industrial workers, and protects groundwater and the environment. The ISD systems engineering framework addresses key areas of the remedial process planning, technology development and deployment, and assessment to attain the ultimate goal of natural resource stewardship and protecting the public. The development and deployment of the SRS ISD approach has established a path for ISD of other large nuclear facilities in the United States and around the globe as an acceptable remedial alternative for decommissioning nuclear facilities. (authors)

Serrato, Michael G. [Savannah River National Laboratory, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)] [Savannah River National Laboratory, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States); Musall, John C.; Bergren, Christopher L. [Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)] [Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

209

Measurement of Atmospheric Sea Salt Concentration in the Dry Storage Facility of the Spent Nuclear Fuel  

SciTech Connect

Spent nuclear fuel coming from a Japanese nuclear power plant is stored in the interim storage facility before reprocessing. There are two types of the storage methods which are wet and dry type. In Japan, it is anticipated that the dry storage facility will increase compared with the wet type facility. The dry interim storage facility using the metal cask has been operated in Japan. In another dry storage technology, there is a concrete overpack. Especially in USA, a lot of concrete overpacks are used for the dry interim storage. In Japan, for the concrete cask, the codes of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers and the governmental technical guidelines are prepared for the realization of the interim storage as well as the code for the metal cask. But the interim storage using the concrete overpack has not been in progress because the evaluation on the stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of the canister is not sufficient. Japanese interim storage facilities would be constructed near the seashore. The metal casks and concrete overpacks are stored in the storage building in Japan. On the other hand, in USA they are stored outside. It is necessary to remove the decay heat of the spent nuclear fuel in the cask from the storage building. Generally, the heat is removed by natural cooling in the dry storage facility. Air including the sea salt particles goes into the dry storage facility. Concerning the concrete overpack, air goes into the cask body and cools the canister. Air goes along the canister surface and is in contact with the surface directly. In this case, the sea salt in the air attaches to the surface and then there is the concern about the occurrence of the SCC. For the concrete overpack, the canister including the spent fuel is sealed by the welding. The loss of sealability caused by the SCC has to be avoided. To evaluate the SCC for the canister, it is necessary to make clear the amount of the sea salt particles coming into the storage building and the concentration on the canister. In present, the evaluation on that point is not sufficient. In this study, the concentration of the sea salt particles in the air and on the surface of the storage facility are measured inside and outside of the building. For the measurement, two sites of the dry storage facility using the metal cask are chosen. This data is applicable for the evaluation on the SCC of the canister to realize the interim storage using the concrete overpack. (authors)

Masumi Wataru; Hisashi Kato; Satoshi Kudo; Naoko Oshima; Koji Wada [Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry - CRIEPI (Japan); Hirofumi Narutaki [Electric Power Engineering Systems Co. Ltd. (Japan)

2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

210

2005 Supplement Analysis of the INL Site Portion of the April 1995 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fule Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement  

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

03-F-SA-02 03-F-SA-02 2005 SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS of the INL Site Portion of the April 1995 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement June 2005 United States Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office 1.0. 2.0. 3.0. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 4.0. 5.0. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.3.3. 5.3.4. 5.3.5. 5.4. 6.0. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.3.1. 6.3.2. 6.3.3. 6.3.4. 6.3.5. 6.3.6. 6.3.7. 6.3.8. 6.3.9. 6.3.10. 6.3.11. 6.3.12. 6.3.13. 6.3.14. 6.3.15. 6.3.16. 6.3.17. 6.3.18. DOE/EIS-0203-F-SA-02 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................

211

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

212

DOE-HDBK-1099-96; Establishing Nuclear Facility Drill Programs  

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

DOE-HDBK-1099-96 March 1996 DOE HANDBOOK ESTABLISHING NUCLEAR FACILITY DRILL PROGRAMS U.S. Department of Energy FSC 6910 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) 487-4650. Order No. DE96008247 DOE-HDBK-1099-96 iii FOREWORD This Department of Energy (DOE) Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1099-95, Establishing Nuclear Facility Drill Programs, is approved

213

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:

214

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 -

215

DOE-STD-1070-94; DOE Standard Guidelines for Evalation of Nuclear Facility Training Programs  

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

DOE-STD-1070-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITY TRAINING PROGRAMS U.S. Department of Energy FSC-6910 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; (615)576-8401. Available to the public from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 22161; (703)487-4650. Order No. DE94015536 DOE-STD-1070-94 iii FOREWORD The Department of Energy (DOE) Guidelines for Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Training

216

Conceptual design report: Nuclear materials storage facility renovation. Part 7, Estimate data  

SciTech Connect

The Nuclear Materials Storage Facility (NMSF) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was a Fiscal Year (FY) 1984 line-item project completed in 1987 that has never been operated because of major design and construction deficiencies. This renovation project, which will correct those deficiencies and allow operation of the facility, is proposed as an FY 97 line item. The mission of the project is to provide centralized intermediate and long-term storage of special nuclear materials (SNM) associated with defined LANL programmatic missions and to establish a centralized SNM shipping and receiving location for Technical Area (TA)-55 at LANL. Based on current projections, existing storage space for SNM at other locations at LANL will be loaded to capacity by approximately 2002. This will adversely affect LANUs ability to meet its mission requirements in the future. The affected missions include LANL`s weapons research, development, and testing (WRD&T) program; special materials recovery; stockpile survelliance/evaluation; advanced fuels and heat sources development and production; and safe, secure storage of existing nuclear materials inventories. The problem is further exacerbated by LANL`s inability to ship any materials offsite because of the lack of receiver sites for mate rial and regulatory issues. Correction of the current deficiencies and enhancement of the facility will provide centralized storage close to a nuclear materials processing facility. The project will enable long-term, cost-effective storage in a secure environment with reduced radiation exposure to workers, and eliminate potential exposures to the public. This report is organized according to the sections and subsections outlined by Attachment III-2 of DOE Document AL 4700.1, Project Management System. It is organized into seven parts. This document, Part VII - Estimate Data, contains the project cost estimate information.

NONE

1995-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

217

Descriptions of selected accidents that have occurred at nuclear reactor facilities  

SciTech Connect

This report was prepared at the request of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island to provide the members of the Commission with some insight into the nature and significance of accidents that have occurred at nuclear reactor facilities in the past. Toward that end, this report presents a brief description of 44 accidents which have occurred throughout the world and which meet at least one of the severity criteria that were established.

Bertini, H.W.

1980-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

218

The universe in the laboratory - Nuclear astrophysics opportunity at the facility for antiproton and ion research  

SciTech Connect

In the next years the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research FAIR will be constructed at the GSI Helmholtzze-ntrum fr Schwerionenforschung in Darmstadt, Germany. This new accelerator complex will allow for unprecedented and pathbreaking research in hadronic, nuclear, and atomic physics as well as in applied sciences. This manuscript will discuss some of these research opportunities, with a focus on supernova dynamics and nucleosynthesis.

Langanke, K. [GSI Helmholtzzentrum fr Schwerionenforschung, Technische Universitt Darmstadt, Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies, D-64291 Darmstadt (Germany)

2014-05-09T23:59:59.000Z

219

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

SciTech Connect

This Department of Energy (DOE) is approved for use by all components of DOE. It 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 with these guidelines will provide consistency and uniformity in Criticality Safety Evaluations (CSEs) across the complex and will document compliance with DOE Order 5480.24 requirements as they pertain to CSEs.

NONE

1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

220

Conceptual design report: Nuclear materials storage facility renovation. Part 1, Design concept. Part 2, Project management  

SciTech Connect

The Nuclear Materials Storage Facility (NMSF) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was a Fiscal Year (FY) 1984 line-item project completed in 1987 that has never been operated because of major design and construction deficiencies. This renovation project, which will correct those deficiencies and allow operation of the facility, is proposed as an FY 97 line item. The mission of the project is to provide centralized intermediate and long-term storage of special nuclear materials (SNM) associated with defined LANL programmatic missions and to establish a centralized SNM shipping and receiving location for Technical Area (TA)-55 at LANL. Based on current projections, existing storage space for SNM at other locations at LANL will be loaded to capacity by approximately 2002. This will adversely affect LANUs ability to meet its mission requirements in the future. The affected missions include LANL`s weapons research, development, and testing (WRD&T) program; special materials recovery; stockpile survelliance/evaluation; advanced fuels and heat sources development and production; and safe, secure storage of existing nuclear materials inventories. The problem is further exacerbated by LANL`s inability to ship any materials offsite because of the lack of receiver sites for mate rial and regulatory issues. Correction of the current deficiencies and enhancement of the facility will provide centralized storage close to a nuclear materials processing facility. The project will enable long-term, cost-effective storage in a secure environment with reduced radiation exposure to workers, and eliminate potential exposures to the public. This document provides Part I - Design Concept which describes the selected solution, and Part II - Project Management which describes the management system organization, the elements that make up the system, and the control and reporting system.

NONE

1995-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

1985-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

222

Applicability of base-isolation R D in non-reactor facilities to a nuclear reactor plant  

SciTech Connect

Seismic isolation is gaining increased attention worldwide for use in a wide spectrum of critical facilities, ranging from hospitals and computing centers to nuclear power plants. While the fundamental principles and technology are applicable to all of these facilities, the degree of assurance that the actual behavior of the isolation systems is as specified varies with the nature of the facility involved. Obviously, the level of effort to provide such assurance for a nuclear power plant will be much greater than that required for, say, a critical computer facility. The question, therefore, is to what extent can research and development (R D) for non-nuclear use be used to provide technological data needed for seismic isolation of a nuclear power plant. This question, of course is not unique to seismic isolation. Virtually every structural component, system, or piece of equipment used in nuclear power plants is also used in non- nuclear facilities. Experience shows that considerable effort is needed to adapt conventional technology into a nuclear power plant. Usually, more thorough analysis is required, material and fabrication quality-control requirements are more stringent as are controls on field installation. In addition, increased emphasis on maintainability and inservice inspection throughout the life of the plant is generally required to gain acceptance in nuclear power plant application. This paper reviews the R D programs ongoing for seismic isolation in non-nuclear facilities and related experience and makes a preliminary assessment of the extent to which such R D and experience can be used for nuclear power plant application. Ways are suggested to improve the usefulness of such non-nuclear R D in providing the high level of confidence required for the use of seismic isolation in a nuclear reactor plant. 2 refs.

Seidensticker, R.W.; Chang, Y.W.

1990-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

223

Handbook for the implementation of IAEA inspection activities at Department of Energy nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The Nonproliferation Support Program (NSP) in the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Safeguards and Security (OSS) has responsibility for supporting and aiding implementation of international and multilateral programs, agreements, and treaties at domestic facilities. In late 1995, the {open_quotes}Readiness Planning Guide for Nonproliferation Visits{close_quotes} (DOE 470.1-1) was issued to assist DOE sites prepare for the host foreign delegations visiting DOE facilities. Since then, field and head-quarters programs have expressed a need for a document that addresses domestic safeguards and security activities, specifically planning for and hosting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) technical visits and inspections. As a result, OSS/NSP conducted a workshop to prepare a handbook that would contain guidance on domestic safeguards and security preparation and follow-on activities to ensure that this handbook could be utilized by all facilities to improve operational efficiencies and reduce implementation problems. The handbook has been structured to provide detailed background and guidance concerning the obligation, negotiation, inspection, and reporting processes for IAEH safeguards activities in DOE nuclear facilities as well as the lessons-learned by currently inspected facilities and how-we-do-it implementation examples. This paper will present an overview of the preparation and content of this new Handbook.

Zack, N.R.; Thomas, K.E. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Coady, K.J.; Desmond, W.J. [Department of Energy, Washington, DC (United States)

1997-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

224

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 13: Part 2, Indexes. Environmental Restoration Program  

SciTech Connect

This is part 2 of a bibliography on nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial action. This report contains indexes on the following: authors, corporate affiliation, title words, publication description, geographic location, subject category, and key word.

Goins, L.F.; Webb, J.R.; Cravens, C.D.; Mallory, P.K.

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

225

State of Practice Approaches in Geomorphology, Geochronology and Probabilistic Analyses for Addressing Fault Capability at Nuclear Facilities  

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

State of Practice Approaches in Geomorphology, Geochronology and Probabilistic Analyses for Addressing Fault Capability at Nuclear Facilities Rizzo Associates Presentation to Department of Energy Natural Phenomena Hazards Meeting October 21-22, 2014

226

A nuclear physics program at the Rare Isotope Beams Accelerator Facility in Korea  

SciTech Connect

This paper outlines the new physics possibilities that fall within the field of nuclear structure and astrophysics based on experiments with radioactive ion beams at the future Rare Isotope Beams Accelerator facility in Korea. This ambitious multi-beam facility has both an Isotope Separation On Line (ISOL) and fragmentation capability to produce rare isotopes beams (RIBs) and will be capable of producing and accelerating beams of wide range mass of nuclides with energies of a few to hundreds MeV per nucleon. The large dynamic range of reaccelerated RIBs will allow the optimization in each nuclear reaction case with respect to cross section and channel opening. The low energy RIBs around Coulomb barrier offer nuclear reactions such as elastic resonance scatterings, one or two particle transfers, Coulomb multiple-excitations, fusion-evaporations, and direct capture reactions for the study of the very neutron-rich and proton-rich nuclides. In contrast, the high energy RIBs produced by in-flight fragmentation with reaccelerated ions from the ISOL enable to explore the study of neutron drip lines in intermediate mass regions. The proposed studies aim at investigating the exotic nuclei near and beyond the nucleon drip lines, and to explore how nuclear many-body systems change in such extreme regions by addressing the following topics: the evolution of shell structure in areas of extreme proton to neutron imbalance; the study of the weak interaction in exotic decay schemes such as beta-delayed two-neutron or two-proton emission; the change of isospin symmetry in isobaric mirror nuclei at the drip lines; two protons or two neutrons radioactivity beyond the drip lines; the role of the continuum states including resonant states above the particle-decay threshold in exotic nuclei; and the effects of nuclear reaction rates triggered by the unbound proton-rich nuclei on nuclear astrophysical processes.

Moon, Chang-Bum, E-mail: cbmoon@hoseo.edu [Hoseo University, Asan, Chung-Nam 336-795 (Korea, Republic of)] [Hoseo University, Asan, Chung-Nam 336-795 (Korea, Republic of)

2014-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

227

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

228

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

229

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

230

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

231

Nuclear Facilities Production Facilities  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

mid-1990s. Among other activities, the IPDP was responsible for ensuring that the U.S. health-care community had access to a reliable supply of molybdenum-99. That project was...

232

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 12  

SciTech Connect

The 664 abstracted references on environmental restoration, nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions constitute the twelfth in a series of reports prepared annually for the US Department of Energy 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 Remedial Action Programs. Major sections are (1) Decontamination and Decommissioning 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) 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 key word. This report is a product of the Remedial Action Program Information Center (RAPIC), which selects, analyzes, and disseminates information on environmental restoration and remedial actions. RAPIC staff and resources are available to meet a variety of information needs. Contact the center at FTS 624-7764 or (615) 574-7764.

Not Available

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

233

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 12. Environmental Restoration Program  

SciTech Connect

The 664 abstracted references on environmental restoration, nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions constitute the twelfth in a series of reports prepared annually for the US Department of Energy 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 Remedial Action Programs. Major sections are (1) Decontamination and Decommissioning 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) 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 key word. This report is a product of the Remedial Action Program Information Center (RAPIC), which selects, analyzes, and disseminates information on environmental restoration and remedial actions. RAPIC staff and resources are available to meet a variety of information needs. Contact the center at FTS 624-7764 or (615) 574-7764.

Not Available

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

234

Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: a selected bibliography. Volume 5  

SciTech Connect

This bibliography of 756 references with abstracts on the subject of nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions is the fifth in a series of annual reports prepared for the US Department of Energy, Division of Remedial Action Projects. Foreign as well as domestic literature of all types - technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, conference papers, symposium proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions - has been included in this publication. The bibliography contains scientific (basic research as well as applied technology), economic, regulatory, and legal literature pertinent to the US Department of Energy's Remedial Action Program. Major chapters are: (1) Surplus Facilities Management Program; (2) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning; (3) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; (4) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program; (5) Grand Junction Remedial Action Program; (6) Uranium Mill Tailings Management; and (7) Technical Measurements Center. Chapter sections for chapters 1, 2, 4, and 6 include Design, Planning, and Regulations; Environmental Studies and Site Surveys; Decontamination Studies; Dismantlement and Demolition; Site Stabilization and Reclamation; Waste Disposal; Remedial Action Experience; and General Studies. The references within each chapter or section are arranged alphabetically by leading author. References having no individual author are arranged by corporate author or by title. Indexes are provided for the categories of author, corporate affiliation, title, publication description, geographic location, and keywords. The Appendix contains a list of frequently used acronyms.

Owen, P.T.; Knox, N.P.; Chilton, B.D.; Baldauf, M.F.

1984-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

235

The International Remote Monitoring Project: Results of the Swedish Nuclear Power Facility field trial  

SciTech Connect

The Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) and the US Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored work on a Remote Monitoring System (RMS) that was installed in August 1994 at the Barseback Works north of Malmo, Sweden. The RMS was designed to test the front end detection concept that would be used for unattended remote monitoring activities. Front end detection reduces the number of video images recorded and provides additional sensor verification of facility operations. The function of any safeguards Containment and Surveillance (C/S) system is to collect information which primarily is images that verify the operations at a nuclear facility. Barseback is ideal to test the concept of front end detection since most activities of safeguards interest is movement of spent fuel which occurs once a year. The RMS at Barseback uses a network of nodes to collect data from microwave motion detectors placed to detect the entrance and exit of spent fuel casks through a hatch. A video system using digital compression collects digital images and stores them on a hard drive and a digital optical disk. Data and images from the storage area are remotely monitored via telephone from Stockholm, Sweden and Albuquerque, NM, USA. These remote monitoring stations operated by SKI and SNL respectively, can retrieve data and images from the RMS computer at the Barseback Facility. The data and images are encrypted before transmission. This paper presents details of the RMS and test results of this approach to front end detection of safeguard activities.

Johnson, C.S. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); af Ekenstam, G.; Sallstrom, M. [Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm (Sweden)

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

236

Report to the Secretary of Energy on Beyond Design Basis Event Pilot Evaluations, Results and Recommendations for Improvements to Enhance Nuclear Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

In the six months after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took several actions to review the safety of its nuclear facilities and identify situations where near-term improvements could be made.

237

US Senate Committee on Armed Services DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Panel  

SciTech Connect

Sandia is a government-owned, contractor-operated national laboratory that AT T has operated on a no-profit, no-fee basis since 1949. We have been an integral part of the nuclear weapons program, providing total concept-to-retirement engineering for every warhead and bomb in the nuclear weapon stockpile. We are proud of our contributions to national security. Our scientific and engineering skills, our facilities, and our experience have benefited not only the nuclear weapons program but have also contributed significantly to their areas of national security, including conventional defense, energy, and industrial competitiveness. Likewise, these capabilities position us well to continue a tradition of exceptional service in the national service in the national interest. Sandia is a multiprogram national laboratory with mission responsibilities in nuclear weapons, arms control and verification, energy and environment, and technology transfer. Our work for the DOE Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs constitutes 50% of the laboratory's effort. Sandia's arms control, verification, and related intelligence and security programs, funded by DOE and by other agencies constitute the largest aggregation of such work at any facility in the world. We also support DOE with technology development -- in particular, specialized robotics and waste characterization and treatment processes to assist in the cleanup of contaminated sites. Research and development to support the National Energy Strategy is another substantial laboratory activity. Sandia's successful developments in renewable, nuclear, and fossil energy technologies have saved the country billions of dollars in energy supply and utilization. Technology transfer is conducted across all Sandia programs.

Narath, A.

1992-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

238

US Senate Committee on Armed Services DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Panel  

SciTech Connect

Sandia is a government-owned, contractor-operated national laboratory that AT&T has operated on a no-profit, no-fee basis since 1949. We have been an integral part of the nuclear weapons program, providing total concept-to-retirement engineering for every warhead and bomb in the nuclear weapon stockpile. We are proud of our contributions to national security. Our scientific and engineering skills, our facilities, and our experience have benefited not only the nuclear weapons program but have also contributed significantly to their areas of national security, including conventional defense, energy, and industrial competitiveness. Likewise, these capabilities position us well to continue a tradition of exceptional service in the national service in the national interest. Sandia is a multiprogram national laboratory with mission responsibilities in nuclear weapons, arms control and verification, energy and environment, and technology transfer. Our work for the DOE Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs constitutes 50% of the laboratory`s effort. Sandia`s arms control, verification, and related intelligence and security programs, funded by DOE and by other agencies constitute the largest aggregation of such work at any facility in the world. We also support DOE with technology development -- in particular, specialized robotics and waste characterization and treatment processes to assist in the cleanup of contaminated sites. Research and development to support the National Energy Strategy is another substantial laboratory activity. Sandia`s successful developments in renewable, nuclear, and fossil energy technologies have saved the country billions of dollars in energy supply and utilization. Technology transfer is conducted across all Sandia programs.

Narath, A.

1992-03-27T23:59:59.000Z

239

Remote-Controlled Inspection Robot for Nuclear Facilities in Underwater Environment  

SciTech Connect

A remote-controlled inspection robot for nuclear facilities was developed. This is a underwater robot technology combined with inspection and flaw removal technologies. This report will describe the structure and performance of this robot. The inspection robot consists of two parts. The one is driving equipment, and the other is inspection and grinding units. It can swim in the tank, move around the tank wall, and stay on the inspection area. After that it starts inspection and flaw removal with a special grinding wheel. This technology had been developed to inspect some Radioactive Waste (RW) tanks in operating nuclear power plants. There are many RW tanks in these plants, which human workers can be hard to access because of a high level dose. This technology is too useful for inspection works of human-inaccessible areas. And also, in conventional inspection process, some worker go into the tank and set up scaffolding after full drainage and decontamination. It spends too much time for these preparations. If tank inspection and flaw removal can be performed in underwater, the outage period will be reduced. Remote-controlled process can be performed in underwater. This is the great advantage for plant owners. Since 1999 we have been applying this inspection robot to operating nuclear 11 facilities in Japan. (authors)

Yasuhiro Miwa; Syuichi Satoh; Naoya Hirose [Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Company Ltd., 1 Shin-Nakaharacho, Isogoku, Yokohama 235-8501 (Japan)

2002-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

240

Maximum Reasonable Radioxenon Releases from Medical Isotope Production Facilities and Their Effect on Monitoring Nuclear Explosions  

SciTech Connect

Fission gases such as 133Xe are used extensively for monitoring the world for signs of nuclear testing in systems such as the International Monitoring System (IMS). These gases are also produced by nuclear reactors and by fission production of 99Mo for medical use. Recently, medical isotope production facilities have been identified as the major contributor to the background of radioactive xenon isotopes (radioxenon) in the atmosphere (Saey, et al., 2009). These releases pose a potential future problem for monitoring nuclear explosions if not addressed. As a starting point, a maximum acceptable daily xenon emission rate was calculated, that is both scientifically defendable as not adversely affecting the IMS, but also consistent with what is possible to achieve in an operational environment. This study concludes that an emission of 5109 Bq/day from a medical isotope production facility would be both an acceptable upper limit from the perspective of minimal impact to monitoring stations, but also appears to be an achievable limit for large isotope producers.

Bowyer, Ted W. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); Kephart, Rosara F.; Eslinger, Paul W. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); Friese, Judah I. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); Miley, Harry S. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); Saey, Paul R. [Vienna University of Technology, Atomic Institute of the Austrian Universities, Vienna (Austria)

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Multi-Camera Handoff Management for Asset Monitoring in Nuclear Facilities C.-H Chen, A. Koschan, and M. Abidi  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

and the University Research Program in Robotics #12;METHODOLOGY Assume that the arrival of objects with a priorityMulti-Camera Handoff Management for Asset Monitoring in Nuclear Facilities C.-H Chen, A. Koschan Middle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996 {cchen10, akoschan, and abidi}@utk.edu INTRODUCTION In a nuclear

Abidi, Mongi A.

242

Low Prevalence of Chronic Beryllium Disease among Workers at a Nuclear Weapons Research and Development Facility  

SciTech Connect

To study the prevalence of beryllium sensitization (BeS) and chronic beryllium disease (CBD) in a cohort of workers from a nuclear weapons research and development facility. We evaluated 50 workers with BeS with medical and occupational histories, physical examination, chest imaging with HRCT (N=49), and pulmonary function testing. Forty of these workers also underwent bronchoscopy for bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and transbronchial biopsies. The mean duration of employment at the facility was 18 yrs and the mean latency (from first possible exposure) to time of evaluation was 32 yrs. Five of the workers had CBD at the time of evaluation (based on histology or HRCT); three others had evidence of probable CBD. These workers with BeS, characterized by a long duration of potential Be exposure and a long latency, had a low prevalence of CBD.

Arjomandi, M; Seward, J P; Gotway, M B; Nishimura, S; Fulton, G P; Thundiyil, J; King, T E; Harber, P; Balmes, J R

2010-01-11T23:59:59.000Z

243

Standard Guide for Environmental Monitoring Plans for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1.1 This guide covers the development or assessment of environmental monitoring plans for decommissioning nuclear facilities. This guide addresses: (1) development of an environmental baseline prior to commencement of decommissioning activities; (2) determination of release paths from site activities and their associated exposure pathways in the environment; and (3) selection of appropriate sampling locations and media to ensure that all exposure pathways in the environment are monitored appropriately. This guide also addresses the interfaces between the environmental monitoring plan and other planning documents for site decommissioning, such as radiation protection, site characterization, and waste management plans, and federal, state, and local environmental protection laws and guidance. This guide is applicable up to the point of completing D&D activities and the reuse of the facility or area for other purposes.

American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

244

The Use of Staff Augmentation Subcontracts at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, IG-0887  

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

The Use of Staff Augmentation The Use of Staff Augmentation Subcontracts at National Nuclear Security Administration's Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility DOE/IG-0887 May 2013 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Office of Audits and Inspections Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 May 15, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY FROM: Gregory H. Friedman Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "The Use of Staff Augmentation Subcontracts at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility" BACKGROUND Shaw AREVA MOX Services, LLC (MOX Services) is responsible for the design and construction of the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) nearly $5 billion Mixed

245

General Technical Base Qualification Standard (DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel)  

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

DOE-STD-1146-2007 December 2007 DOE STANDARD GENERAL TECHNICAL BASE 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-1146-2007 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-1146-2007 iv INTENTIONALLY BLANK DOE-STD-1146-2007 v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................ vii PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................9

246

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 ..........................................................................................................................

247

Experience With Damaged Spent Nuclear Fuel at U.S. DOE Facilities  

SciTech Connect

This report summarizes some of the challenges encountered and solutions implemented to ensure safe storage and handling of damaged spent nuclear fuels (SNF). It includes a brief summary of some SNF storage environments and resulting SNF degradation, experience with handling and repackaging significantly degraded SNFs, and the associated lessons learned. This work provides useful insight and resolutions to many engineering challenges facing SNF handling and storage facilities. The context of this report is taken from a report produced at Idaho National Laboratory and further detailed information, such as equipment design and usage, can be found in the appendices to that report. (authors)

Carlsen, Brett; Fillmore, Denzel; Woolstenhulme, Eric [Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 (United States); McCormack, Roger L. [Fluor Hanford Site, Richland, Wash. (United States); Sindelar, Robert; Spieker, Timothy [Savannah River National Laboratory, Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)

2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

248

Utilization of the Philippine Research Reactor as a training facility for nuclear power plant operators  

SciTech Connect

The Philippines has a 1-MW swimming-pool reactor facility operated by the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). The reactor is light-water moderated and cooled, graphite reflected, and fueled with 90% enriched uranium. Since it became critical in 1963 it has been utilized for research, radioisotope production, and training. It was used initially in the training of PAEC personnel and other research institutions and universities. During the last few years, however, it has played a key role in training personnel for the Philippine Nuclear Power Project (PNPP).

Palabrica, R.J.

1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

249

Advanced Test Reactor National Scientific User Facility: Addressing advanced nuclear materials research  

SciTech Connect

The Advanced Test Reactor National Scientific User Facility (ATR NSUF), based at the Idaho National Laboratory in the United States, is supporting Department of Energy and industry research efforts to ensure the properties of materials in light water reactors are well understood. The ATR NSUF is providing this support through three main efforts: establishing unique infrastructure necessary to conduct research on highly radioactive materials, conducting research in conjunction with industry partners on life extension relevant topics, and providing training courses to encourage more U.S. researchers to understand and address LWR materials issues. In 2010 and 2011, several advanced instruments with capability focused on resolving nuclear material performance issues through analysis on the micro (10-6 m) to atomic (10-10 m) scales were installed primarily at the Center for Advanced Energy Studies (CAES) in Idaho Falls, Idaho. These instruments included a local electrode atom probe (LEAP), a field-emission gun scanning transmission electron microscope (FEG-STEM), a focused ion beam (FIB) system, a Raman spectrometer, and an nanoindentor/atomic force microscope. Ongoing capability enhancements intended to support industry efforts include completion of two shielded, irradiation assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC) test loops, the first of which will come online in early calendar year 2013, a pressurized and controlled chemistry water loop for the ATR center flux trap, and a dedicated facility intended to house post irradiation examination equipment. In addition to capability enhancements at the main site in Idaho, the ATR NSUF also welcomed two new partner facilities in 2011 and two new partner facilities in 2012; the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and associated hot cells and the University California Berkeley capabilities in irradiated materials analysis were added in 2011. In 2012, Purdue Universitys Interaction of Materials with Particles and Components Testing (IMPACT) facility and the Pacific Northwest Nuclear Laboratory (PNNL) Radiochemistry Processing Laboratory (RPL) and PIE facilities were added. The ATR NSUF annually hosts a weeklong event called Users Week in which students and faculty from universities as well as other interested parties from regulatory agencies or industry convene in Idaho Falls, Idaho to see presentations from ATR NSUF staff as well as select researchers from the materials research field. Users week provides an overview of current materials research topics of interest and an opportunity for young researchers to understand the process of performing work through ATR NSUF. Additionally, to increase the number of researchers engaged in LWR materials issues, a series of workshops are in progress to introduce research staff to stress corrosion cracking, zirconium alloy degradation, and uranium dioxide degradation during in-reactor use.

John Jackson; Todd Allen; Frances Marshall; Jim Cole

2013-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

250

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

251

Relative age-specific radiation dose commitment factors for major radionuclides released from nuclear fuel facilities  

SciTech Connect

During the licensing process for nuclear fuel facilities, committed dose equivalents must be calculated for potential exposures to people in the area around these facilities. These committed dose equivalents are usually calculated from tabulated dose-conversion factors that convert the quantity of radioactive material potentially taken in by individuals through ingestion or inhalation. For calculating committed dose equivalents to children, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has in the past appealed to age-specific dose-conversion factors listed in NUREG-0172 (1977), which is based on a computational methodology found in ICRP Publication 2 (1959). Since the publication of NUREG-0172 new models and new concepts of risk have been provided in ICRP Publications 26 and 30 (1977, 1979). These documents provide a detailed methodology for calculating dose-conversion factors for the various radionuclides for an adult reference man. In this report are tabulated age-specific dose-conversion factors, given as multiples of the adult values, for inhalation or ingestion of each of the following isotopes: U-234, U-235, U-238, Th-228, Th-230, Th-232, Ra-226, Ra-228, Pb-210, or Po-210. Our methodology is consistent as far as practical with that of ICRP Publications 26 and 30, but we have modified and extended the ICRP methodology as necessary to include age dependence and to include metabolic and dosimetric information that has been developed since the issuance of these ICRP documents.

Cristy, M.; Leggett, R.W.; Dunning, D.E. Jr.; Eckerman, K.F.

1986-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

252

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.

253

CRAD, Management- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

254

CRAD, Maintenance- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

255

CRAD, Engineering- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

256

CRAD, Safety Basis- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

257

CRAD, Emergency Management- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

258

CRAD, Environmental Protection- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

259

CRAD, Fire Protection- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

260

CRAD, Training- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

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


261

CRAD, DOE Oversight- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

262

CRAD, Conduct of Operations- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

263

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

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

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

264

CRAD, Radiological Controls- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

265

CRAD, Quality Assurance- Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility  

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

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

266

Development of an ASTM standard guide on performing vulnerability assessments for nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

This paper describes an effort undertaken by subcommittee C26.12 (Safeguards) of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to develop a standard guide for performing vulnerability assessments (VAs). VAs are performed to determine the effectiveness of safeguards and security systems for both domestic and international nuclear facilities. These assessments address a range of threats, including theft of nuclear material and sabotage, and use an array of methods. The approach to performing and documenting VAs is varied and is largely dependent upon the tools used to perform them. This diversity can lead to tools being misused, making validation of VAs more difficult. The development of a standard guide for performing VAs would, if generally accepted, alleviate these concerns. ASTM provides a forum for developing guides that includes a high level of peer review to assure that the result is acceptable to all potential users. Additionally, the ASTM is widely recognized for setting standards, and endorsement by the Society may increase the likelihood of acceptance by the nuclear community. The goal of this work is to develop a guide that is independent of the tools being used to perform the VA and applicable to the spectrum of threats described above.

Wilkey, D.D.

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

267

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 433.1B, Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

3.1B 3.1B MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES DOE O 433.1B Familiar Level August 2011 1 DOE O 433.1B MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FAMILIAR LEVEL OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the resources, you will be able to answer the following questions: 1. What is the objective of DOE O 433.1B, Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities? 2. What is the purpose for quantitative indicators in maintenance management? 3. What are three types of environmental controls included in a maintenance shop? 4. What is the relationship between DOE G 433.1-1 and DOE O 433.1A? 5. What is the purpose for post-maintenance testing? 6. What is the objective of a good equipment maintenance history program?

268

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Startup or Restart Nuclear Facilities  

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

5.1D 5.1D VERIFICATION OF READINESS TO START UP OR RESTART NUCLEAR FACILITIES DOE O 425.1D Familiar Level June 2011 1 DOE O 425.1D VERIFICATION OF READINESS TO START UP OR RESTART NUCLEAR FACILITIES FAMILIAR LEVEL _________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the resources, you will be able to perform the following: 1. What is the purpose of DOE O 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Startup or Restart Nuclear Facilities? 2. What are the requirements for determining the level of readiness review [operational readiness reviews (ORRs) and readiness assessments (RAs)]? 3. What are the requirements for determining the startup authorization authority? 4. What are the requirements for startup notification reports?

269

CRAD, New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements- December 2, 2014 (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0)  

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

New Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Criteria Review and Approach Document (EA CRAD 31-07, Rev. 0)

270

Maple Ridge Wind Farm (2005 portion) | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

(2005 portion) (2005 portion) Jump to: navigation, search Name Maple Ridge Wind Farm (2005 portion) Facility Maple Ridge Wind Farm (2005 portion) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner 'PPM Energy/Horizon Wind Energy Developer 'PPM Energy/Horizon Wind Energy Energy Purchaser NYSERDA/Market Location Lewis County NY Coordinates 43.775565°, -75.584614° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":43.775565,"lon":-75.584614,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

271

Windy Flats(3Q09 portion) | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Windy Flats(3Q09 portion) Windy Flats(3Q09 portion) Jump to: navigation, search Name Windy Flats(3Q09 portion) Facility Windy Flats(3Q09 portion) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Cannon Power Group Developer Cannon Power Group Location North shore of Columbia River Coordinates 45.699622°, -120.774622° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":45.699622,"lon":-120.774622,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

272

Maple Ridge Wind Farm (2006 portion) | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

portion) portion) Jump to: navigation, search Name Maple Ridge Wind Farm (2006 portion) Facility Maple Ridge Wind Farm (2006 portion) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner 'PPM Energy/Horizon Wind Energy Developer PPM Energy/Horizon Wind Energy Energy Purchaser NYSERDA/Market Location Lewis County NY Coordinates 43.775565°, -75.584614° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":43.775565,"lon":-75.584614,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

273

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

SciTech Connect

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

JACKSON, M.W.

2002-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

274

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

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

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

275

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

276

Report to the Secretary of Energy on Beyond Design Basis Event Pilot Evaluations, Results and Recommendations for Improvements to Enhance Nuclear Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities, January 2013  

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

In the six months after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took several actions to review the safety of its nuclear facilities and identify situations where near-term improvements could be made. These actions and recommendations were addressed in an August 2011 report to the Secretary of Energy, Review of Requirements and Capabilities for Analyzing and Responding to Beyond Design Basis Events.

277

Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, Volume II  

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

TS NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-3010-94 December 1994 Reaffirmed 2013 DOE HANDBOOK AIRBORNE RELEASE FRACTIONS/RATES AND RESPIRABLE FRACTIONS FOR NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Volume II - Appendices 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE95004711 DOE-HDBK-3010-94

278

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;

279

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.

280

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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;

282

Approaches used for Clearance of Lands from Nuclear Facilities among Several Countries: Evaluation for Regulatory Input  

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

:14 :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 Evaluation for Regulatory Input Robert A. Meck Author: SSM perspektiv SSM har nyligen beslutat om föreskrifter om friklassning av material, loka- ler, byggnader och mark vid verksamhet med joniserande strålning (SSMFS 201 1:2). Föreskrifterna innehåller bland annat krav på att tillståndshavare, vid avveckling av verksamhet med joniserande strålning, ska vidta åtgärder som möjliggör friklassning av lokaler, byggnader och mark. Föreskrifterna innehåller nuklidspecifika friklassningsnivåer i becquerel per m2 för lokaler och byggnader men ger ingen upplysning om vilka friklassningsnivåer som

283

Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2008  

SciTech Connect

This report summarizes the occupational exposure data that are maintained in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS). The bulk of the information contained in the report was compiled from the 2008 annual reports submitted by five of the seven categories1 of NRC licensees subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206. The annual reports submitted by these licensees consist of radiation exposure records for each monitored individual. These records are analyzed for trends and presented in this report in terms of collective dose and the distribution of dose among the monitored individuals. Because there are no geologic repositories for high-level waste currently licensed and no low-level waste disposal facilities in operation, only five categories will be considered in this report.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

2009-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

284

Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, Volume 1  

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

TS NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-3010-94 December 1994 Reaffirmed 2013 DOE HANDBOOK AIRBORNE RELEASE FRACTIONS/RATES AND RESPIRABLE FRACTIONS FOR NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Volume I - Analysis of Experimental Data 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650.

285

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

286

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

287

Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility A leading international facility with unique capabilities for research in nuclear structure  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

questions that drive the field of low-energy nuclear physics: · How do protons and neutrons make stable Directions Nuclear structure and reaction research at HRIBF provides insight into the nature of the force species are available as low-energy (~50 keV) beams. More than 60 post-accelerated beams, including 132 Sn

288

A Proposed Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach for Evaluating DOE Nuclear Facility Design Options  

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

Presenter: Dr. Kamiar Jamali, Senior Technical Advisor to the Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nuclear Safety NA-SH

289

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

290

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

SciTech Connect

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

291

Dose reconstruction for an occupational cohort at the Savannah River nuclear facility: evaluation of a hybrid method  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......tritium dose estimation methods, including International...workers at a nuclear fuels production facility. Am. J...evaluation of a hybrid method. | The Savannah River...radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The purpose of the...matrix. The proposed method is unique in that along......

Ghassan Hamra; Leena A. Nylander-French; David Richardson

2008-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

292

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

293

Guideline to good practices for control and calibration of measuring and test equipment (M TE) at DOE nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Control and Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment (M TE) 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 controlling and calibrating M TE used for maintenance tasks 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 11. 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 an M TE program applicable to their facility.

Not Available

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

294

Guideline to good practices for control and calibration of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) at DOE nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Control and Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) 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 controlling and calibrating M&TE used for maintenance tasks 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 11. 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 an M&TE program applicable to their facility.

Not Available

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

295

Use of curium spontaneous fission neutrons for safeguardability of remotely-handled nuclear facilities: Fuel fabrication in pyroprocessing  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Advanced nuclear reactor systems (NESs) will utilize remotely-handled facilities in which batch-type processing will occur in hot cells. There are no current formalized criteria for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards for these systems. This creates new challenges to develop methodologies for demonstrating the safeguardability of these facilities. A High Reliability Safeguards (HRS) approach therefore has been proposed to enhance intrinsic proliferation resistance by establishing an envelope of adaptable functional components as part of a facility design strategy. Additionally, system assessment can be modeled concurrently with safety and physical security by a risk-informed approach. The HRS approach is currently applied to a commercial pyroprocessing facility as an example system. A scoping study is presented as the first in a series of quantitative modeling efforts to extend the HRS approach. These efforts currently focus on investigating the magnitude of neutron fluxes due to spontaneous fission of curium for commercial batch sizes and held up materials for important processes in the system. Here, the fuel fabrication process is studied. The intent of these initial studies is to learn how the intrinsic properties of materials in the pyroprocessing system will affect facility design and safeguards. The model presented in this paper is intended to be adaptable to more practical and complex scenarios in order to evaluate the safeguardability of remotely-handled nuclear facilities.

R.A. Borrelli

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

296

February 28, 2006, Department letter reporting completion of NNSA portion  

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

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION February 28, 2006 The Honorable A. J. Eggenberger Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004-2901 Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 10, 2005, Secretary Bodman submitted the Department’s Implementation Plan to Improve Oversight of Nuclear Operations in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. Section 5.3 of the Implementation Plan (IP) addresses Revitalizing Integrated Safety Management Implementation, and Subsection 5.3.2 addresses Work Planning and Work Control at the Activity Level. Commitment 23 of the IP requires development of site office action plans to improve the consistency and

297

Basis for Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory  

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

NE-ID-11226 NE-ID-11226 Revision 0 Basis for Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility November 2006 DOE/NE-ID-11226 Revision 0 Basis for Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility November 2006 ii CONTENTS ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................................. vii 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.................................................................................................. 1 2. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Tank Farm Facility Description.............................................................................................

298

Potential use of the Large Coil Test Facility (LCTF) for testing of ion thrusters for nuclear electric propulsion  

SciTech Connect

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is one of several supporting technologies identified as necessary for exploration of the planets. At a workshop held in June 1990, experts from national laboratories and industry identified approximately a dozen reactor concepts to produce electric power to drive ion thrusters which convert the electricity into propulsion. Subsequent to the workshop, a DOE-sponsored facilities panel toured U.S. facilities where the technologies might be developed and tested. The Large Coil Test Facility (LCTF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is an attractive option for testing of ion thrusters. This paper reviews the thruster concepts proposed, discusses key features of the LCTF, and outlines how thruster testing could be performed in this facility.

Homan, F.J.; Lubell, M.S.; Schwenterly, S.W.; Whealton, J.H. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 (United States))

1993-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

299

GASFLOW: A computational model to analyze accidents in nuclear containment and facility buildings  

SciTech Connect

GASFLOW is a finite-volume computer code that solves the time-dependent, compressible Navier-Stokes equations for multiple gas species. The fluid-dynamics algorithm is coupled to the chemical kinetics of combusting liquids or gases to simulate diffusion or propagating flames in complex geometries of nuclear containment or confinement and facilities` buildings. Fluid turbulence is calculated to enhance the transport and mixing of gases in rooms and volumes that may be connected by a ventilation system. The ventilation system may consist of extensive ductwork, filters, dampers or valves, and fans. Condensation and heat transfer to walls, floors, ceilings, and internal structures are calculated to model the appropriate energy sinks. Solid and liquid aerosol behavior is simulated to give the time and space inventory of radionuclides. The solution procedure of the governing equations is a modified Los Alamos ICE`d-ALE methodology. Complex facilities can be represented by separate computational domains (multiblocks) that communicate through overlapping boundary conditions. The ventilation system is superimposed throughout the multiblock mesh. Gas mixtures and aerosols are transported through the free three-dimensional volumes and the restricted one-dimensional ventilation components as the accident and fluid flow fields evolve. Combustion may occur if sufficient fuel and reactant or oxidizer are present and have an ignition source. Pressure and thermal loads on the building, structural components, and safety-related equipment can be determined for specific accident scenarios. GASFLOW calculations have been compared with large oil-pool fire tests in the 1986 HDR containment test T52.14, which is a 3000-kW fire experiment. The computed results are in good agreement with the observed data.

Travis, J.R. [Science Applications International Corp., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Nichols, B.D.; Wilson, T.L.; Lam, K.L.; Spore, J.W.; Niederauer, G.F. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States)

1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

300

GASFLOW: A computational model to analyze accidents in nuclear containment and facility buildings  

SciTech Connect

GASFLOW is a finite-volume computer code that solves the time-dependent, compressible Navier-Stokes equations for multiple gas species. The fluid-dynamics algorithm is coupled to the chemical kinetics of combusting liquids or gases to simulate diffusion or propagating flames in complex geometries of nuclear containment or confinement and facilities' buildings. Fluid turbulence is calculated to enhance the transport and mixing of gases in rooms and volumes that may be connected by a ventilation system. The ventilation system may consist of extensive ductwork, filters, dampers or valves, and fans. Condensation and heat transfer to walls, floors, ceilings, and internal structures are calculated to model the appropriate energy sinks. Solid and liquid aerosol behavior is simulated to give the time and space inventory of radionuclides. The solution procedure of the governing equations is a modified Los Alamos ICE'd-ALE methodology. Complex facilities can be represented by separate computational domains (multiblocks) that communicate through overlapping boundary conditions. The ventilation system is superimposed throughout the multiblock mesh. Gas mixtures and aerosols are transported through the free three-dimensional volumes and the restricted one-dimensional ventilation components as the accident and fluid flow fields evolve. Combustion may occur if sufficient fuel and reactant or oxidizer are present and have an ignition source. Pressure and thermal loads on the building, structural components, and safety-related equipment can be determined for specific accident scenarios. GASFLOW calculations have been compared with large oil-pool fire tests in the 1986 HDR containment test T52.14, which is a 3000-kW fire experiment. The computed results are in good agreement with the observed data.

Travis, J.R. (Science Applications International Corp., Albuquerque, NM (United States)); Nichols, B.D.; Wilson, T.L.; Lam, K.L.; Spore, J.W.; Niederauer, G.F. (Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States))

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

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

302

DOE/EIS-0203-SA-01; Supplement Analysis of the INEEL Portion of the April 1995 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact  

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

Operations Office 850 Energy Drive Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-1563 November 2002 SUBJECT: Conclusions of the Supplement Analysis of the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS (1995 EIS) ~ Dear Citizen: The Record of Decision (ROD) for the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS (1995 EIS) left several decisions concerning INEEL proposed actions outstanding. That is, decisions were deferred .pending further project definition, funding priorities, or appropriate review under NEPA" In May 2000 a team of DOE-ID program representatives and subject area technical specialists (interdisciplinary

303

SUMMARY OF REVISED TORNADO, HURRICANE AND EXTREME STRAIGHT WIND CHARACTERISTICS AT NUCLEAR FACILITY SITES  

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

Y Y : J O H N D . S T E V E N S O N C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R 6 6 1 1 R O C K S I D E R D . I N D E P E N D E N C E , O H I O 4 4 1 3 1 T E L . 2 1 6 - 4 4 7 - 9 4 4 0 E M A I L : J S T E V E N S O N 4 @ E A R T H L I N K . N E T SUMMARY OF REVISED TORNADO, HURRICANE AND EXTREME STRAIGHT WIND CHARACTERISTICS AT NUCLEAR FACILITY SITES Categorization of Natural Hazard Phenomenon and Operational Load Combinations Prior to the 1988 Uniform Building Code, UBC (1) natural hazard phenomenon (earthquake, wind, flooding and precipitation) and operational load combinations were divided into two categories: NORMAL- Loads such as dead, live and design basis pressure. Expected frequency: 1.0 per yr with a limiting acceptance criteria Allowable stress design criteria: equal to one-half to two-thirds of specified minimum yield stress. SEVERE - Natural hazard and operational transient loads.

304

Exploratory shaft facility: It`s role in the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site for a potential nuclear repository  

SciTech Connect

The US Department of Energy is characterizing Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to assess its suitability as a potential site for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and defense related activities. The assessment activities include surface investigations, drill holes from the surface, and an underground facility for in situ characterization tests. This underground exploratory shaft facility is being designed to meet the criteria for characterizing the mountain as described in the Site Characterization Plan. 9 refs., 9 figs., 1 tab.

Kalia, H.N.; Merson, T.J.

1990-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

305

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

306

DOE-STD-1069-94; Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance Tools and Equipment Control at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

9-94 9-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT CONTROL AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 AREA MNTY 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE94014951 DOE-STD-1069-94 FOREWORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance Tools and Equipment Control at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance

307

DOE-STD-1065-94; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Postmaintenance Testing at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

65-94 65-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR POSTMAINTENANCE TESTING AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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) 487-4650. Order No. DE94014953 DOE-STD-1065-94 FOREWORD The purpose of the Guide to Good Practices for Postm aintenance T esting at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance

308

DOE-STD-1068-94; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Maintenance History at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

8-94 8-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE HISTORY AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE94014950 DOE-STD-1068-94 FOREW ORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Maintenance History at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information

309

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 426.2 Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification, and Certification Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

6.2 6.2 PERSONNEL SELECTION, TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES DOE O 426.2 Familiar Level June 2011 1 DOE O 426.2 PERSONNEL SELECTION, TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FAMILIAR LEVEL ___________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the resources, you will be able answer the following questions: 1. What is the purpose of DOE O 426.2, Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification, and Certification Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities? 2. What are the DOE field elements requirements associated with DOE O 426.2? 3. What are the general contractor requirements specified in the contractor requirements

310

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

311

Nuclear-fuel-cycle risk assessment: descriptions of representative non-reactor facilities. Sections 1-14  

SciTech Connect

The Fuel Cycle Risk Assessment Program was initiated to provide risk assessment methods for assistance in the regulatory process for nuclear fuel cycle facilities other than reactors. This report, the first from the program, defines and describes fuel cycle elements that are being considered in the program. One type of facility (and in some cases two) is described that is representative of each element of the fuel cycle. The descriptions are based on real industrial-scale facilities that are current state-of-the-art, or on conceptual facilities where none now exist. Each representative fuel cycle facility is assumed to be located on the appropriate one of four hypothetical but representative sites described. The fuel cycles considered are for Light Water Reactors with once-through flow of spent fuel, and with plutonium and uranium recycle. Representative facilities for the following fuel cycle elements are described for uranium (or uranium plus plutonium where appropriate): mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, mixed-oxide fuel refabrication, fuel reprocessing, spent fuel storage, high-level waste storage, transuranic waste storage, spent fuel and high-level and transuranic waste disposal, low-level and intermediate-level waste disposal, and transportation. For each representative facility the description includes: mainline process, effluent processing and waste management, facility and hardware description, safety-related information and potential alternative concepts for that fuel cycle element. The emphasis of the descriptive material is on safety-related information. This includes: operating and maintenance requirements, input/output of major materials, identification and inventories of hazardous materials (particularly radioactive materials), unit operations involved, potential accident driving forces, containment and shielding, and degree of hands-on operation.

Schneider, K.J.

1982-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

312

Hazard Evaluation for Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Sludge at the Solid Waste Treatment Facility  

SciTech Connect

As part of the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) storage basin clean-up project, sludge that has accumulated in the K Basins due to corrosion of damaged irradiated N Reactor will be loaded into containers and placed in interim storage. The Hanford Site Treatment Complex (T Plant) has been identified as the location where the sludge will be stored until final disposition of the material occurs. Long term storage of sludge from the K Basin fuel storage facilities requires identification and analysis of potential accidents involving sludge storage in T Plant. This report is prepared as the initial step in the safety assurance process described in DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports and HNF-PRO-704, Hazards and Accident Analysis Process. This report documents the evaluation of potential hazards and off-normal events associated with sludge storage activities. This information will be used in subsequent safety analyses, design, and operations procedure development to ensure safe storage. The hazards evaluation for the storage of SNF sludge in T-Plant used the Hazards and Operability Analysis (HazOp) method. The hazard evaluation identified 42 potential hazardous conditions. No hazardous conditions involving hazardous/toxic chemical concerns were identified. Of the 42 items identified in the HazOp study, eight were determined to have potential for onsite worker consequences. No items with potential offsite consequences were identified in the HazOp study. Hazardous conditions with potential onsite worker or offsite consequences are candidates for quantitative consequence analysis. The hazardous conditions with potential onsite worker consequences were grouped into two event categories, Container failure due to overpressure - internal to T Plant, and Spill of multiple containers. The two event categories will be developed into accident scenarios that will be quantitatively analyzed to determine release consequences. A third category, Container failure due to overpressure--external to T Plant, was included for completeness but is not within the scope of the hazards evaluation. Container failures external to T Plant will be addressed as part of the transportation analysis. This document describes the HazOp analysis performed for the activities associated with the storage of SNF sludge in the T Plant.

SCHULTZ, M.V.

2000-08-22T23:59:59.000Z

313

Fusion Nuclear Schience Facility-AT: A Material And Component Testing Device  

SciTech Connect

A Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) is a necessary complement to ITER, especially in the area of materials and components testing, needed for DEMO design development. FNSF-AT, which takes advantage of advanced tokamak (AT) physics should have neutron wall loading of 1-2 MW/m2, continuous operation for periods of up to two weeks, a duty factor goal of 0.3 per year and an accumulated fluence of 3-6 MW-yr/m2 (~30-60 dpa) in ten years to enable the qualification of structural, blanket and functional materials, components and corresponding ancillary equipment necessary for the design and licensing of a DEMO. Base blankets with a ferritic steel structure and selected tritium blanket materials will be tested and used for the demonstration of tritium sufficiency. Additional test ports at the outboard mid-plane will be reserved for test blankets with advanced designs or exotic materials, and electricity production for integrated high fluence testing in a DT fusion spectrum. FNSF-AT will be designed using conservative implementations of all elements of AT physics to produce 150-300 MW fusion power with modest energy gain (Q<7) in a modest sized normal conducting coil device. It will demonstrate and help to select the DEMO plasma facing, structural, tritium breeding, functional materials and ancillary equipment including diagnostics. It will also demonstrate the necessary tritium fuel cycle, design and cooling of the first wall chamber and divertor components. It will contribute to the knowledge on material qualification, licensing, operational safety and remote maintenance necessary for DEMO design

Wong, C. P.; Chan, V. S.; Garofalo, A. M.; Stambaugh, Ron; Sawan, M.; Kurtz, Richard J.; Merrill, Brad

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

314

Conceptual Drawing CMRR Facility Past  

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

Volume 1 Volume 1 Chapters 1 through 10 Appendices A through D To submit questions regarding this CMRR-NF SEIS, or to request a copy, please contact: AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (CMRR-NF SEIS) Printed with soy ink on recycled paper John Tegtmeier, EIS Document Manager Los Alamos Site Office National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy 3747 West Jemez Road Los Alamos, NM 87544 Telephone: 505-665-0113 Conceptual Drawing CMRR Facility Past Present Future Past Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the

315

February 28, 2006, Department letter reporting completion of NNSA portion of Commitment 23 in the 2004-1 implementation plan, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations, which requires the development of site office action plans to improve the consistency and reliability of work planning and work control at the activity level, including the incorporation of Integrated Safety Management core functions  

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

Washington, DC 20585 Washington, DC 20585 February 28, 2006 OFFICE O F THE ADMINISTRATOR The Honorable A. J. Eggenberger Ch a i rm an Defensc Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004-2901 Dear Mr. Chairman: On Julie 10, 2005, Secretary Bodnian submitted the Department's Iiizplenzentution Plun to Itizpt-ove Oversight qf'Nucleur Operutions in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2004- I , Oversight qf Complex, High-Hrrzurd Nucleur Openrtiotzs. Section 5.3 of the Implementation Plan (IP) addresses Revitalizing Integruted SU/i-'ty Munagernent Implementution, and Subsection 5.3.2 addresses Work Plunning mil Work Control ut the Activity Level. Commitment 23 of the 1P requires development of site office action plans to improve the consistency and reliability of work

316

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

317

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

SciTech Connect

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

318

NSTP 2002-2 Methodology for Final Hazard Categorization for Nuclear Facilities from Category 3 to Radiological (11/13/02).  

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

0 CFR 830 Subpart B requires that all DOE nuclear facilities categorized as HC-3 or above have a DOEapproved safety basis compliant with the requirements of Subpart B. The rule requires the use of...

319

Notice of Intent to Revise DOE G 226.1-2, Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

This revision will incorporate new content devoted to Federal oversight and evaluation of effectiveness of activity-level work planning and control (WP&C) at Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.

2013-04-04T23:59:59.000Z

320

Future directions in particle and nuclear physics at multi-GeV hadron beam facilities  

SciTech Connect

This report contains papers on the following topics in particle and nuclear physics: hadron dynamics; lepton physics; spin physics; hadron and nuclear spectroscopy; hadronic weak interactions; and Eta physics. These papers have been indexed separately elsewhere.

Geesaman, D.F. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)] [ed.

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Property exempt from taxation: nuclear generation facility property: K.S.A. 79-230 (Kansas)  

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

This legislation would exempt from state property taxes any property purchased, constructed or installed to expand capacity at an existing nuclear plant or to build a new nuclear plant. A...

322

Leukemia, Lymphomas, and Myeloma Mortality in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Fuel Facilities in Spain  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...study among workers at two nuclear...mortality near Oak Ridge, Tennessee...leukaemia in Europe after Chernobyl...Mortality, 1950-1978: Part...Mortality of workers at the Sellafield...Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory...

Gonzalo Lpez-Abente; Nuria Aragons; Marina Polln; Mara Ruiz; and Ana Gandarillas

1999-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

323

Leukemia, Lymphomas, and Myeloma Mortality in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Fuel Facilities in Spain  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...patterns in the Denver metropolitan area in relation to the Rocky Flats plant. Am. J. Epidemiol., 126: 127-135, 1987...the Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Radiat. Res., 120: 19-35...

Gonzalo Lpez-Abente; Nuria Aragons; Marina Polln; Mara Ruiz; and Ana Gandarillas

1999-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

324

Overview on backfill materials and permeable reactive barriers for nuclear waste disposal facilities.  

SciTech Connect

A great deal of money and effort has been spent on environmental restoration during the past several decades. Significant progress has been made on improving air quality, cleaning up and preventing leaching from dumps and landfills, and improving surface water quality. However, significant challenges still exist in all of these areas. Among the more difficult and expensive environmental problems, and often the primary factor limiting closure of contaminated sites following surface restoration, is contamination of ground water. The most common technology used for remediating ground water is surface treatment where the water is pumped to the surface, treated and pumped back into the ground or released at a nearby river or lake. Although still useful for certain remediation scenarios, the limitations of pump-and-treat technologies have recently been recognized, along with the need for innovative solutions to ground-water contamination. Even with the current challenges we face there is a strong need to create geological repository systems for dispose of radioactive wastes containing long-lived radionuclides. The potential contamination of groundwater is a major factor in selection of a radioactive waste disposal site, design of the facility, future scenarios such as human intrusion into the repository and possible need for retrieving the radioactive material, and the use of backfills designed to keep the radionuclides immobile. One of the most promising technologies for remediation of contaminated sites and design of radioactive waste repositories is the use of permeable reactive barriers (PRBs). PRBs are constructed of reactive material(s) to intercept and remove the radionuclides from the water and decontaminate the plumes in situ. The concept of PRBs is relatively simple. The reactive material(s) is placed in the subsurface between the waste or contaminated area and the groundwater. Reactive materials used thus far in practice and research include zero valent iron, hydroxyapatite, magnesium oxide, and others. As the contaminant moves through the reactive material, the contaminant is either sorbed by the reactive material or chemically reacts with the material to form a less harmful substance. Because of the high risk associated with failure of a geological repository for nuclear waste, most nations favor a near-field multibarrier engineered system using backfill materials to prevent release of radionuclides into the surrounding groundwater.

Moore, Robert Charles; Hasan, Ahmed Ali Mohamed; Holt, Kathleen Caroline; Hasan, Mahmoud A. (Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt)

2003-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

325

The distribution of 129I around West Valley, an inactive nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Western New York  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A study of 129I levels in surface waters around an inactive nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at West Valley, Cattaraugus County, New York shows a strong presence of this long-lived radoiisotope (T12 = 15.7 Ma) of iodine around the facility. The signal is strong in creeks which drain the facility as well as those in the general vicinity over two decades after reprocessing activities at the site ceased in 1972. Highest 129I levels (1.36 1011 atoms/L) are observed at the site boundary in Buttermilk Creek which drains the site, and the resulting plume can be tracked into Lake Erie via Cattaraugus Creek. Other creeks in the West Valley area which do not receive drainage from the site have 129I concentrations on the order of 1091010 atoms/L, indicating that atmospheric transport of the radionuclide is significant. 129I levels in surface waters around West Valley are 101000 times higher than background lelels in western New York, including 129I levels around active nuclear power plants (reported in Rao and Fehn, in preparation), and 10010000 times higher than levels of 129I in areas outside western New York. However, 36ClCl and 3H measurements in Buttermilk Creek at the site boundary are consistent with present day rainwater values for the region.

Usha Rao; Udo Fehn

1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

326

Chemical exposures and central nervous system cancers: a case-control study among workers at two nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

In a nested case-control study of workers employed between 1943 and 1977 at two nuclear facilities, we evaluated the possible association of primary CNS cancers with occupational exposure to chemicals. Seventy-two white male and 17 white female workers who, according to the information on death certificates, died of primary CNS cancers were identified as cases. For each case, four controls were matched on race, sex, facility at which initially employed (cohort), year of birth, and year of hire. Each job title/department combination was subjectively evaluated for potential exposure to each of 26 chemicals or chemical groups. Statistically significant associations were not found between CNS cancer deaths and any of the 26 chemicals. An increased risk of CNS cancer occurrence was observed among subjects employed for more than 20 yr (OR = 7.0, 95% CI = 1.2,41.1, cases = 9).

Carpenter, A.V.; Flanders, W.D.; Frome, E.L.; Tankersley, W.G.; Fry, S.A.

1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

327

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

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

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,...

328

DOE FTCP Supplemental Competencies - Human Factors Engineering Functional Area Qualification Competency Examples for DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel  

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

FTCP FTCP SUPPLEMENTAL COMPETENCIES HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION COMPETENCY EXAMPLES For DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel 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 responsible for reviewing and approving qualification standards and competencies for Department-wide application. Approval of this set of competency statements by the Federal Technical Capability Panel is indicated by signature below. ?fuv-~ Karen L. Boardman, Chairperson ~·/Cf I Federal Technical Capability Panel * '2._ 3/19/12 I luman Factors Engineering compc1cncics U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

329

Airborne release fractions/rates and respirable fractions for nonreactor nuclear facilities. Volume 1, Analysis of experimental data  

SciTech Connect

This handbook contains (1) a systematic compilation of airborne release and respirable fraction experimental data for nonreactor nuclear facilities, (2) assessments of the data, and (3) values derived from assessing the data that may be used in safety analyses when the data are applicable. To assist in consistent and effective use of this information, the handbook provides: identification of a consequence determination methodology in which the information can be used; discussion of the applicability of the information and its general technical limits; identification of specific accident phenomena of interest for which the information is applicable; and examples of use of the consequence determination methodology and airborne release and respirable fraction information.

Not Available

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

330

REVIEW OF INDUSTRIES AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR TECHNOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITIES  

SciTech Connect

The Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area's (DDFA's) mission is to develop, demonstrate, and deploy improved deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) technologies. This mission requires that emphasis be continually placed on identifying technologies currently employed or under development in other nuclear as well as nonnuclear industries and government agencies. In support of DDFA efforts to clean up the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) radiologically contaminated surplus facilities using technologies that improve worker safety, reduce costs, and accelerate cleanup schedules, a study was conducted to identify innovative technologies developed for use in nonnuclear arenas that are appropriate for D&D applications.

Reilkoff, T. E.; Hetland, M. D.; O'Leary, E. M.

2002-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

331

Artificial Neural Network Portion of Coil Study  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Artificial Neural Network Portion of Coil Study LTC William M. Crocoll School of Systems TO ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS A neural network is a massively parallel system comprised of many highly of the brain (Dayhoff, 1990). A major task for a neural network is to learn and maintain a model of the world

Putten, Peter van der

332

A computer code to estimate accidental fire and radioactive airborne releases in nuclear fuel cycle facilities: User's manual for FIRIN  

SciTech Connect

This manual describes the technical bases and use of the computer code FIRIN. This code was developed to estimate the source term release of smoke and radioactive particles from potential fires in nuclear fuel cycle facilities. FIRIN is a product of a broader study, Fuel Cycle Accident Analysis, which Pacific Northwest Laboratory conducted for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The technical bases of FIRIN consist of a nonradioactive fire source term model, compartment effects modeling, and radioactive source term models. These three elements interact with each other in the code affecting the course of the fire. This report also serves as a complete FIRIN user's manual. Included are the FIRIN code description with methods/algorithms of calculation and subroutines, code operating instructions with input requirements, and output descriptions. 40 refs., 5 figs., 31 tabs.

Chan, M.K.; Ballinger, M.Y.; Owczarski, P.C.

1989-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

333

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2002-05-20T23:59:59.000Z

334

General Heat Transfer Characterization and Empirical Models of Material Storage Temperatures for the Los Alamos Nuclear Materials Storage Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Los Alamos National Laboratory's Nuclear Materials Storage Facility (NMSF) is being renovated for long-term storage of canisters designed to hold heat-generating nuclear materials. A fully passive cooling scheme, relying on the transfer of heat by conduction, free convection, and radiation has been proposed as a reliable means of maintaining material at acceptable storage temperatures. The storage concept involves placing radioactive materials, with a net heat-generation rate of 10 W to 20 W, inside a set of nested steel canisters. The canisters are, in placed in holding fixtures and positioned vertically within a steel storage pipe. Several hundred drywells are arranged in a linear array within a large bay and dissipate the waste heat to the surrounding air, thus creating a buoyancy driven airflow pattern that draws cool air into the storage facility and exhausts heated air through an outlet stack. In this study, an experimental apparatus was designed to investigate the thermal characteristics of simulated nuclear materials placed inside two nested steel canisters positioned vertically on an aluminum fixture plate and placed inside a section of steel pipe. The heat-generating nuclear materials were simulated with a solid aluminum cylinder containing .an embedded electrical resistance heater. Calibrated type T thermocouples (accurate to ~ O.1 C) were used to monitor temperatures at 20 different locations within the apparatus. The purposes of this study were to observe the heat dissipation characteristics of the proposed `canister/fixture plate storage configuration, to investigate how the storage system responds to changes in various parameters, and to develop and validate empirical correlations to predict material temperatures under various operating conditions

J. D. Bernardin; W. S. Gregory

1998-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

335

DOE/DHS INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEM CYBER SECURITY PROGRAMS: A MODEL FOR USE IN NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY  

SciTech Connect

Many critical infrastructure sectors have been investigating cyber security issues for several years especially with the help of two primary government programs. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National SCADA Test Bed and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Control Systems Security Program have both implemented activities aimed at securing the industrial control systems that operate the North American electric grid along with several other critical infrastructure sectors (ICS). These programs have spent the last seven years working with industry including asset owners, educational institutions, standards and regulating bodies, and control system vendors. The programs common mission is to provide outreach, identification of cyber vulnerabilities to ICS and mitigation strategies to enhance security postures. The success of these programs indicates that a similar approach can be successfully translated into other sectors including nuclear operations, safeguards, and security. The industry regulating bodies have included cyber security requirements and in some cases, have incorporated sets of standards with penalties for non-compliance such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection standards. These DOE and DHS programs that address security improvements by both suppliers and end users provide an excellent model for nuclear facility personnel concerned with safeguards and security cyber vulnerabilities and countermeasures. It is not a stretch to imagine complete surreptitious collapse of protection against the removal of nuclear material or even initiation of a criticality event as witnessed at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl in a nuclear ICS inadequately protected against the cyber threat.

Robert S. Anderson; Mark Schanfein; Trond Bjornard; Paul Moskowitz

2011-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

336

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2000-11-20T23:59:59.000Z

337

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

338

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

339

Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project  

SciTech Connect

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US. Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document was prepared using the specific guidelines identified in Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC)-EP-0438-1, ''A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans'', and assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan is the third revision to the original annual report. This document is reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it is updated as necessary.

HUNACEK, G.S.

2000-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

340

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility vacuum and purge system design description  

SciTech Connect

This document provides the System Design Description (SDD) for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) Vacuum and Purge System (VPS) . The SDD was developed in conjunction with HNF-SD-SNF-SAR-O02, Safety Analysis Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Phase 2, Supporting Installation of Processing Systems (Garvin 1998), The HNF-SD-SNF-DRD-002, 1998, Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Design Requirements, and the CVDF Design Summary Report. The SDD contains general descriptions of the VPS equipment, the system functions, requirements and interfaces. The SDD provides references for design and fabrication details, operation sequences and maintenance. This SDD 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.

1998-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Nuclear-waste facility on high alert over risk of new explosions  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is mined out of a ... of a salt bed 655 metres underground, and stores low- and medium-level military nuclear ...

Declan Butler

2014-05-27T23:59:59.000Z

342

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

SciTech Connect

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

ERPENBECK, E.G.

2002-11-12T23:59:59.000Z

343

Epidemiological studies of leukaemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: a critical review  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......increased level of exposure in the vicinity of the Kruemmel and Geesthacht installations(49-53). No consistent indication of an...Richardson D. B. Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of the Geesthacht nuclear establishments near Hamburg, Germany. Environ......

D. Laurier; S. Jacob; M. O. Bernier; K. Leuraud; C. Metz; E. Samson; P. Laloi

2008-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

344

Nuclear Facility Maintenance Management Program Guide for Use with DOE O 433.1B  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

The guide provides acceptable approaches for implementing requirements for Nuclear Maintenance Management Programs (NMMPs) set forth in DOE O 433.1B. Cancels DOE G 433.1-1.

2011-09-12T23:59:59.000Z

345

Data collection, validation, and description for the Oak Ridge nuclear facilities mortality study  

SciTech Connect

To investigate the long-term health effects of protracted occupational exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, a mortality study was initiated by pooling data for 118,588 workers hired between 1943 and 1982, at three Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, with follow-up through 1984. Topics for this discussion will include issues involving the collection and validation of data for individuals in the study cohort, and characteristics of their demographic and radiation exposure data. Since the data were compiled between the late 1960s and the present under the direction of several principal investigators, it was essential to verify data precision and to understand how exposure data were generated prior to beginning any analysis. A stratified random sample of workers in the cohort was chosen for verification of their computerized data as it appeared in the database. Original source documents were reviewed to verify demographic data, as well as internal and external radiation exposure data. Extensive effort was expended to document the personal radiation monitoring policies and types of dosimeters used at each facility over the 42 years included in the study. Characteristics of internal and external exposure data by facility and year were examined by graphical methods with the intent of combining these monitoring data over time and across facilities.

Watkins, J.P.; Reagan, J.L.; Cragle, D.L.; West, C.M.; Tankersley, W.G. [Oak Ridge Inst. for Science and Education, TN (United States). Center for Epidemiologic Research] Oak Ridge Inst. for Science and Education, TN (United States). Center for Epidemiologic Research; Frome, E.L. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States)] Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Crawford-Brown, D.J. [Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (United States). School of Public Health] Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (United States). School of Public Health

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

346

Fresh and Spent Nuclear Fuel Repatriation from the IRT-2000 Research Reactor Facility, Sofia, Bulgaria  

SciTech Connect

The IRT 2000 research reactor, operated by the Bulgarian Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy (INRNE), safely shipped all of their Russian-origin nuclear fuel from the Republic of Bulgaria to the Russian Federation beginning in 2003 and completing in 2008. These fresh and spent fuel shipments removed all highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Bulgaria. The fresh fuel was shipped by air in December 2003 using trucks and a commercial cargo aircraft. One combined spent fuel shipment of HEU and low enriched uranium (LEU) was completed in July 2008 using high capacity VPVR/M casks transported by truck, barge, and rail. The HEU shipments were assisted by the Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return Program (RRRFR) and the LEU spent fuel shipment was funded by Bulgaria. This report describes the work, approvals, organizations, equipment, and agreements required to complete these shipments and concludes with several major lessons learned.

K. J. Allen; T. G. Apostolov; I. S. Dimitrov

2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

347

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

348

Nuclear Facility Maintenance Management Program Guide for Use with DOE O 433.1B  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

The guide provides acceptable approaches for implementing requirements for Nuclear Maintenance Management Programs (NMMPs) set forth in DOE O 433.1B. Cancels DOE G 433.1-1. Admin Chg 1, dated 6-14-13, cancels DOE G 433.1-1A.

2011-09-09T23:59:59.000Z

349

DOE-STD-1146-2001; General Technical Base Qualification Standard DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel  

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

46-2001 46-2001 October 2001 DOE STANDARD GENERAL TECHNICAL BASE 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. 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-1146-2001 iii APPROVAL The Federal Technical Capability Panel consists of senior Department of Energy managers responsible for overseeing the Federal Technical Capability Program. This Panel is responsible

350

DOE-HDBK-3010-94; Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, Volume II  

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

3010-94 3010-94 December 1994 DOE HANDBOOK AIRBORNE RELEASE FRACTIONS/RATES AND RESPIRABLE FRACTIONS FOR NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Volume II - Appendices 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE95004711 DOE-HDBK-3010-94 Page i VOLUME II: APPENDICES APPENDIX A

351

DOE-STD-1055-93; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Maintenance Management Involvement at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

NOT MEASUREMENT NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1055-93 March 1993 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Order No. DE93013953 DOE-STD-1055-93 FOREWORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for M

352

Evaluation of nuclear facility decommissioning projects: Summary status report: Three Mile Island Unit 2. Radioactive waste and laundry shipments  

SciTech Connect

This document summarizes information concerning radioactive waste and laundry shipments from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to radioactive waste disposal sites and to protective clothing decontamination facilities (laundries) since the loss of coolant accident experienced on March 28, 1979. Data were collected from radioactive shipment records, summarized, and placed in a computerized data information retrieval/manipulation system which permits extraction of specific information. This report covers the period of April 9, 1979 through April 19, 1987. Included in this report are: waste disposal site locations, dose rates, curie content, waste description, container type and number, volumes and weights. This information is presented in two major categories: protective clothing (laundry) and radioactive waste. Each of the waste shipment reports is in chronological order.

Doerge, D. H.; Haffner, D. R.

1988-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

353

Nuclear Energy  

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

Nuclear Energy Idaho National Laboratory is the Department of Energy's lead nuclear energy research and development facility. Building upon its legacy responsibilities,...

354

Nuclear Physics  

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

Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, which will search for neutrinoless double-beta decay. Strong Los Alamos programs in nuclear data and nuclear theory supports...

355

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility safety equipment list  

SciTech Connect

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

IRWIN, J.J.

1999-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

356

Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility | National...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear...

357

RH-TRU Waste Shipments from Battelle Columbus Laboratories to the Hanford Nuclear Facility for Interim Storage  

SciTech Connect

Battelle Columbus Laboratories (BCL), located in Columbus, Ohio, must complete decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities for nuclear research buildings and grounds by 2006, as directed by Congress. Most of the resulting waste (approximately 27 cubic meters [m3]) is remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste destined for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The BCL, under a contract to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Ohio Field Office, has initiated a plan to ship the TRU waste to the DOE Hanford Nuclear Facility (Hanford) for interim storage pending the authorization of WIPP for the permanent disposal of RH-TRU waste. The first of the BCL RH-TRU waste shipments was successfully completed on December 18, 2002. This BCL shipment of one fully loaded 10-160B Cask was the first shipment of RH-TRU waste in several years. Its successful completion required a complex effort entailing coordination between different contractors and federal agencies to establish necessary supporting agreements. This paper discusses the agreements and funding mechanisms used in support of the BCL shipments of TRU waste to Hanford for interim storage. In addition, this paper presents a summary of the efforts completed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the 10-160B Cask system. Lessons learned during this process are discussed and may be applicable to other TRU waste site shipment plans.

Eide, J.; Baillieul, T. A.; Biedscheid, J.; Forrester, T,; McMillan, B.; Shrader, T.; Richterich, L.

2003-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

358

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE-STD-1195-2011, Design of Safety Significant Safety Instrumented Systems Used at DOE Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities  

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

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE-STD-1195-2011 which provides requirements and guidance for the design, procurement, installation, testing, maintenance, operation, and quality assurance of safety instrumented systems (SIS) that may be used at Department of Energy (DOE) nonreactor nuclear facilities for safety significant (SS) functions.

359

AN APPLICATION OF THE SSHAC LEVEL 3 PROCESS TO THE PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES AT THE HANFORD SITE, EASTERN WASHINGTON, USA  

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

An Application of the SSHAC Level 3 Process to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Nuclear Facilities at the Hanford Site, Eastern Washington, USA Kevin J. Coppersmith Coppersmith Consulting, Inc. Julian J. Bommer Consultant Robert W. Bryce Pacific Northwest National Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy Natural Phenomena Hazards Meeting October 21-22, 2014 Germantown, MD

360

Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Nuclear Materials Contained in High-Activity Waste Arising from the Operations at the 'SHELTER' Facility  

SciTech Connect

As a result of the nuclear accident at the Chernobyl NPP in 1986, the explosion dispeesed nuclear materials contained in the nuclear fuel of the reactor core over the destroyed facilities at Unit No. 4 and over the territory immediately adjacent to the destroyed unit. The debris was buried under the Cascade Wall. Nuclear materials at the SHELTER can be characterized as spent nuclear fuel, fresh fuel assemblies (including fuel assemblies with damaged geometry and integrity, and individual fuel elements), core fragments of the Chernobyl NPP Unit No. 4, finely-dispersed fuel (powder/dust), uranium and plutonium compounds in water solutions, and lava-like nuclear fuel-containing masses. The new safe confinement (NSC) is a facility designed to enclose the Chernobyl NPP Unit No. 4 destroyed by the accident. Construction of the NSC involves excavating operations, which are continuously monitored including for the level of radiation. The findings of such monitoring at the SHELTER site will allow us to characterize the recovered radioactive waste. When a process material categorized as high activity waste (HAW) is detected the following HLW management operations should be involved: HLW collection; HLW fragmentation (if appropriate); loading HAW into the primary package KT-0.2; loading the primary package filled with HAW into the transportation cask KTZV-0.2; and storing the cask in temporary storage facilities for high-level solid waste. The CDAS system is a system of 3He tubes for neutron coincidence counting, and is designed to measure the percentage ratio of specific nuclear materials in a 200-liter drum containing nuclear material intermixed with a matrix. The CDAS consists of panels with helium counter tubes and a polyethylene moderator. The panels are configured to allow one to position a waste-containing drum and a drum manipulator. The system operates on the add a source basis using a small Cf-252 source to identify irregularities in the matrix during an assay. The platform with the source is placed under the measurement chamber. The platform with the source material is moved under the measurement chamber. The design allows one to move the platform with the source in and out, thus moving the drum. The CDAS system and radioactive waste containers have been built. For each drum filled with waste two individual measurements (passive/active) will be made. This paper briefly describes the work carried out to assess qualitatively and quantitatively the nuclear materials contained in high-level waste at the SHELTER facility. These efforts substantially increased nuclear safety and security at the facility.

Cherkas, Dmytro

2011-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Video-Based Multi-Camera Automated Surveillance of High Value Assets in Nuclear Facilities C.-H. Chen, Y. Yao, D. Page, B. Abidi, A. Koschan, and M. Abidi  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

(2005). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the DOE University Research Program in RoboticsVideo-Based Multi-Camera Automated Surveillance of High Value Assets in Nuclear Facilities C,besma,akoschan,abidi}@utk.edu INTRODUCTION In a nuclear facility, asset monitoring and chain-of- custody protocols are essential to maintain

Abidi, Mongi A.

362

The meteorological monitoring audit, preventative maintenance and quality assurance programs at a former nuclear weapons facility  

SciTech Connect

The purposes of the meteorological monitoring audit, preventative maintenance, and quality assurance programs at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (Site), are to (1) support Emergency Preparedness (EP) programs at the Site in assessing the transport, dispersion, and deposition of effluents actually or potentially released into the atmosphere by Site operations; and (2) provide information for onsite and offsite projects concerned with the design of environmental monitoring networks for impact assessments, environmental surveillance activities, and remediation activities. The risk from the Site includes chemical and radioactive emissions historically related to nuclear weapons component production activities that are currently associated with storage of large quantities of radionuclides (plutonium) and radioactive waste forms. The meteorological monitoring program provides information for site-specific weather forecasting, which supports Site operations, employee safety, and Emergency Preparedness operations.

Maxwell, D.R. [DynCorp of Colorado, Inc., Golden, CO (United States). Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

363

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 approval formally document the basis for DOE, concluding that a facility can be operated safely in a manner that adequately protects workers, the public, and the environment. Therefore, it is appropriate to formally require implementation of the review methodology and criteria contained in DOE-STD-1104.

2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

364

Environmental Assessment for the Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the Kansas City Plant  

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

Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment for the Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the Kansas City Plant DOE/EA - 1592 April 21, 2008 - - This Page Intentionally Blank - - ii COVER SHEET RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: United States General Services Administration (GSA) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) TITLE: Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the Kansas City Plant (DOE/EA-1592) CONTACT: For further information on this EA, write or call: Carlos Salazar GSA Public Buildings Service Heartland Region 1500 E. Bannister Road, Room 2191 (6PTA) Kansas City, MO 64131-3088 (816) 823-2305 Abstract: The United States General Services Administration (GSA) and the United States

365

Recommendations to the NRC on acceptable standard format and content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan required for low-enriched uranium enrichment facilities  

SciTech Connect

A new section, 10 CFR 74.33, has been added to the material control and accounting (MC A) requirements of 10 CFR Part 74. This new section pertains to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed uranium enrichment facilities that are authorized to produce and to possess more than one effective kilogram of special nuclear material (SNM) of low strategic significance. The new section is patterned after 10 CFR 74.31, which pertains to NRC licensees (other than production or utilization facilities licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 and 70 and waste disposal facilities) that are authorized to possess and use more than one effective kilogram of unencapsulated SNM of low strategic significance. Because enrichment facilities have the potential capability of producing SNM of moderate strategic significance and also strategic SNM, certain performance objectives and MC A system capabilities are required in 10 CFR 74.33 that are not contained in 10 CFR 74.31. This document recommends to the NRC information that the licensee or applicant should provide in the fundamental nuclear material control (FNMC) plan. This document also describes methods that should be acceptable for compliance with the general performance objectives. While this document is intended to cover various uranium enrichment technologies, the primary focus at this time is gas centrifuge and gaseous diffusion.

Moran, B.W.; Belew, W.L. (Oak Ridge K-25 Site, TN (United States)); Hammond, G.A.; Brenner, L.M. (21st Century Industries, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD (United States))

1991-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

366

Radiation exposure and central nervous system cancers: A case-control study among workers at two nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

A nested case-control study was conducted among workers employed between 1943 and 1977 at two nuclear facilities to investigate the possible association of primary malignant neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) with occupational exposure to ionizing radiation from external and internal sources. Eighty-nine white male and female workers, who according to the information on death certificates dies of primary CNS cancers, were identified as cases. Four matched controls were selected for each case. External radiation exposure data were available from film badge readings for individual workers, whereas radiation dose to lung from internally deposited radionuclides, mainly uranium, was estimated from area and personnel monitoring data and was used in analyses in lieu of the dose to the brain. Matched sets were included in the analyses only if information was available for the case and at least one of the corresponding controls. Thus, the analyses of external radiation included 27 cases and 90 matched controls, and 47 cases and 120 matched controls were analyzed for the effects of radiation from internally deposited uranium. No association was observed between deaths fron CNS cancers and occupational exposure to ionizing radiation from external or internal sources. However, due to the small number of monitored subjects and low doses, a weak association could not be ruled out. 43 refs., 1 fig., 15 tabs.

Carpenter, A.V.; Flanders, W.D.; Frome, E.L.; Crawford-Brown, D.J.; Fry, S.A.

1987-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

367

ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The affordable, robust, compact (ARC) reactor conceptual design study aims to reduce the size, cost, and complexity of a combined fusion nuclear science facility (FNSF) and demonstration fusion Pilot power plant. ARC is a 270 MWe tokamak reactor with a major radius of 3.3 m, a minor radius of 1.1 m, and an on-axis magnetic field of 9.2 T. ARC has rare earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) superconducting toroidal field coils, which have joints to enable disassembly. This allows the vacuum vessel to be replaced quickly, mitigating first wall survivability concerns, and permits a single device to test many vacuum vessel designs and divertor materials. The design point has a plasma fusion gain of Q_p~13.6, yet is fully non-inductive, with a modest bootstrap fraction of only ~63%. Thus ARC offers a high power gain with relatively large external control of the current profile. This highly attractive combination is enabled by the ~23 T peak field on coil with newly available REBCO superconductor technology. External cu...

Sorbom, B N; Palmer, T R; Mangiarotti, F J; Sierchio, J M; Bonoli, P; Kasten, C; Sutherland, D A; Barnard, H S; Haakonsen, C B; Goh, J; Sung, C; Whyte, D G

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

368

Role of alkyl alcohol on viscosity of silica-based chemical gels for decontamination of highly radioactive nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

Silica-based chemical gel for the decontamination of nuclear facilities was prepared by using fumed silica as a viscosifier, a 0.5 M Ce (IV) solution dissolved in concentrated nitric acid as a chemical decontamination agent, and tripropylene glycol butyl ether (TPGBE) as a co-viscosifier. A new effective strategy for the preparation of the chemical gel was investigated by introducing the alkyl alcohols as organic solvents to effectively dissolve the co-viscosifier. The mixture solution of the co-viscosifier and alkyl alcohols was more effective in the control of viscosity than that of the co-viscosifier only in gel. Here, the alkyl alcohols played a key role as an effective dissolution solvent for the co-viscosifier in the preparation of the chemical gel, resulting in a reducing of the amount of the co-viscosifier and gel time compared with that of the chemical gel prepared without the alkyl alcohols. It was considered that the alkyl alcohols contributed to the effective dissolution of the co-viscosifier as well as the homogeneous mixing in the formation of the gel, while the co-viscosifier in an aqueous media of the chemical decontamination agent solution showed a lower solubility. The decontamination efficiency of the chemical gels prepared in this work using a multi-channel analyzer (MCA) showed a high decontamination efficiency of over ca. 94% and ca. 92% for Co-60 and Cs-137 contaminated on surface of the stainless steel 304, respectively. (authors)

Choi, B. S.; Yoon, S. B.; Jung, C. H.; Lee, K. W.; Moon, J. K. [Div. of Decontamination and Decommissioning Technology Development, Korea Atomic Energy Research Inst., Daedeok-daero 989-111, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-353 (Korea, Republic of)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

369

Thermal and flow analysis of the Fluor Daniel, Inc., Nuclear Material Storage Facility renovation design (initial 30% effort of Title 1)  

SciTech Connect

The computational fluid dynamics code CFX4.2 was used to evaluate steady-state thermal-hydraulic conditions in the Fluor Daniel, Inc., Nuclear Material Storage Facility renovation design (initial 30% of Title 1). Thirteen facility cases were evaluated with varying temperature dependence, drywell-array heat-source magnitude and distribution, location of the inlet tower, and no-flow curtains in the drywell-array vault. Four cases of a detailed model of the inlet-tower top fixture were evaluated to show the effect of the canopy-cruciform fixture design on the air pressure and flow distributions.

Steinke, R.G.; Mueller, C.; Knight, T.D.

1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

370

Facility Safety  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

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

1995-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

371

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, natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and System Engineer Program. Cancels DOE O 420.1B, DOE G 420.1-2 and DOE G 420.1-3.

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

372

The Process, Methods and Tool Used To Integrate Safety During Design of a Category 2 Nuclear Facility  

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

Presenter: Lynn J. Harkey, SDIT Project Engineer, Uranium Processing Facility Project, B&W Y-12 Track 5-2

373

DOE-STD-1053-93; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Control of Maintenance Activities at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

3-93 3-93 March 1993 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR CONTROL OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Order No. DE93014268 DOE-STD-1053-93 FOREWORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Control of M aintenance A ctivities at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information

374

DOE-STD-1051-93; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Maintenance Organization and Administration at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

1-93 1-93 March 1993 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., VA 22161 Order No. DE93013951 DOE-STD-1051-93 FOREWORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for M aintenance Organization and A dm inistration at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance

375

Project Plan: Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) for the Piqua Nuclear Power Facility, Piqua, Ohio, April 1998 (minor revisions November 1999).  

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

Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program Long-Term Surveillance Plan for the Piqua Nuclear Power Facility Piqua, Ohio April 1998 (minor revisions November 1999) Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Grand Junction Office Prepared by MACTEC Environmental Restoration Services, LLC Grand Junction, Colorado Project Number LTS-111-0027-00-000 Document Number S0007600 Work Performed Under DOE Contract Number DE-AC13-96GJ87335 Task Order Number MAC98-06 This page intentionally blank Document Number S0007600 Contents DOE/Grand Junction Office LTSP for Piqua Nuclear Power Facility April 1998 Page iii Contents Page 1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1B1

376

DOE-STD-1050-93; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices For Planning, Scheduling, and Coordination of Maintenance at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

0-93 0-93 March 1993 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR PLANNING, SCHEDULING, AND COORDINATION OF MAINTENANCE AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Order No. DE93014266 DOE-STD-1050-93 FOREWORD The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Planning, Scheduling, and Coordination of M aintenance at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance

377

Review of the Pantex Site Office's Compliance with DOE Order 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities, June 2012  

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

Pantex Site Office's Compliance with Pantex Site Office's Compliance with DOE Order 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities 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 Table of Contents 1 1.0 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Assessment Methodologies and Approach ........................................................................................... 1

378

Review of the Pantex Site Office's Compliance with DOE Order 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities, June 2012  

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

Pantex Site Office's Compliance with Pantex Site Office's Compliance with DOE Order 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities 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 Table of Contents 1 1.0 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Assessment Methodologies and Approach ........................................................................................... 1

379

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

380

Conceptual design report: Nuclear materials storage facility renovation. Part 5, Structural/seismic investigation. Section A report, existing conditions calculations/supporting information  

SciTech Connect

The Nuclear Materials Storage Facility (NMSF) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was a Fiscal Year (FY) 1984 line-item project completed in 1987 that has never been operated because of major design and construction deficiencies. This renovation project, which will correct those deficiencies and allow operation of the facility, is proposed as an FY 97 line item. The mission of the project is to provide centralized intermediate and long-term storage of special nuclear materials (SNM) associated with defined LANL programmatic missions and to establish a centralized SNM shipping and receiving location for Technical Area (TA)-55 at LANL. Based on current projections, existing storage space for SNM at other locations at LANL will be loaded to capacity by approximately 2002. This will adversely affect LANUs ability to meet its mission requirements in the future. The affected missions include LANL`s weapons research, development, and testing (WRD&T) program; special materials recovery; stockpile survelliance/evaluation; advanced fuels and heat sources development and production; and safe, secure storage of existing nuclear materials inventories. The problem is further exacerbated by LANL`s inability to ship any materials offsite because of the lack of receiver sites for mate rial and regulatory issues. Correction of the current deficiencies and enhancement of the facility will provide centralized storage close to a nuclear materials processing facility. The project will enable long-term, cost-effective storage in a secure environment with reduced radiation exposure to workers, and eliminate potential exposures to the public. Based upon US Department of Energy (DOE) Albuquerque Operations (DOE/Al) Office and LANL projections, storage space limitations/restrictions will begin to affect LANL`s ability to meet its missions between 1998 and 2002.

NONE

1995-07-14T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

A comparative study of 239,240Pu in soil near the former Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Facility, Golden, CO  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant near Golden, CO released plutonium into the environment during almost 40 years of operation. Continuing concern over possible health impacts of these releases has been heightened by lack of public disclosure of the US Department of Energy (DOE) activities. A dose reconstruction study for the Rocky Flats facilities, begun in 1990, provided a unique opportunity for concerned citizens to design and implement field studies without participation of the DOE, its contractors, or other government agencies. The Citizens Environmental Sampling Committee was formed in late 1992 and conducted a field sampling program in 1994. Over 60 soil samples, including both surface and core samples, were collected from 28 locations where past human activities would have minimal influence on contaminant distributions in soil. Cesium-137 activity was used as a means to assess whether samples were collected in undisturbed locations. The distribution of plutonium (as 239,240Pu) in soil was consistent with past sampling conducted by DOE, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and others. Elevated levels of 239,240Pu were found immediately east of the Rocky Flats Plant, with concentrations falling rapidly with distance from the plant to levels consistent with background from fallout. Samples collected in areas south, west, and north of the plant were generally consistent with background from fallout. No biases in past sampling due to choice of sampling locations or sampling methodology were evident. The study shows that local citizens, when provided sufficient resources, can design and implement technical studies that directly address community concerns where trust in the regulated community and/or regulators is low.

Todd D. Margulies; Niels D. Schonbeck; Normie C. Morin-Voillequ; Katherine A. James; James M. LaVelle

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

382

PUREX facility preclosure work plan  

SciTech Connect

This preclosure work plan presents a description of the PUREX Facility, the history of the waste managed, and addresses transition phase activities that position the PUREX Facility into a safe and environmentally secure configuration. For purposes of this documentation, the PUREX Facility does not include the PUREX Storage Tunnels (DOE/RL-90/24). Information concerning solid waste management units is discussed in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, General Information Portion (DOE/RL-91-28, Appendix 2D).

Engelmann, R.H.

1997-04-24T23:59:59.000Z

383

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)  

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

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

384

The Association between Cancers and Low Level Radiation: an evaluation of the epidemiological evidence at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

indiv. indiv. Gilbertetal. (Hanford & Combined) Gilbertetal.on both radiation and the Hanford facility. The data used toG. Radiation exposures of Hanford workers dying from cancer

Britton, Julie

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

Method of non-destructively inspecting a curved wall portion  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A method of non-destructively inspecting a curved wall portion of a large and thick walled vessel for a defect by computed tomography is provided. A collimated source of radiation is placed adjacent one side of the wall portion and an array of detectors for the radiation is placed on the other side adjacent the source. The radiation from the source passing through the wall portion is then detected with the detectors over a limited angle, dependent upon the curvature of the wall of the vessel, to obtain a dataset. The source and array are then coordinately moved relative to the wall portion in steps and a further dataset is obtained at each step. The plurality of datasets obtained over the limited angle is then processed to produce a tomogram of the wall portion to determine the presence of a defect therein. In a preferred embodiment, the curved wall portion has a center of curvature so that the source and the array are positioned at each step along a respective arc curved about the center. If desired, the detector array and source can be reoriented relative to a new wall portion and an inspection of the new wall portion can be easily obtained. Further, the source and detector array can be indexed in a direction perpendicular to a plane including the limited angle in a plurality of steps so that by repeating the detecting and moving steps at each index step, a three dimensional image can be created of the wall portion.

Fong, James T. (Bethel Park, PA)

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

386

Nuclear Returns  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Nuclear Returns ... For the first time since 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the green light for a new U.S. nuclear power plant. ... NRC granted a license to Southern Co. to build and operate twin 1,100-MW reactors adjacent to two operating nuclear power plants at its Vogtle nuclear facility, near Waynesboro, Ga. ...

JEFF JOHNSON

2012-02-19T23:59:59.000Z

387

Advanced Modeling and Evaluation of the Response of Base-Isolated Nuclear Facility Structures to Vertical Earthquake Excitation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

isolated nuclear power plant designs in Japan and the UnitedJapan were also affected by these events, including the Onagawa nuclear powerNuclear Power Plant In 1980, construction began on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP in Niigata Prefecture, on the west coast of Honshu, Japan.

Keldrauk, Eric Scott

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

388

Analysis of a Nuclear Accident: Fission and Activation Product Releases from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Facility as Remote Indicators of Source Identification, Extent of Release, and State of Damaged Spent Nuclear Fuel  

SciTech Connect

Measurements of several radionuclides within environmental samples taken from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility and reported on the Tokyo Electric Power Company website following the recent tsunami-initiated catastrophe were evaluated for the purpose of identifying the source term, reconstructing the release mechanisms, and estimating the extent of the release. 136Cs/137Cs and 134Cs/137Cs ratios identified Units 1-3 as the major source of radioactive contamination to the surface soil close to the facility. A trend was observed between the fraction of the total core inventory released for a number of fission product isotopes and their corresponding Gibbs Free Energy of formation for the primary oxide form of the isotope, suggesting that release was dictated primarily by chemical volatility driven by temperature and reduction potential within the primary containment vessels of the vented reactors. The absence of any major fractionation beyond volatilization suggested all coolant had evaporated by the time of venting. High estimates for the fraction of the total inventory released of more volatile species (Te, Cs, I) indicated the damage to fuel bundles was likely extensive, minimizing any potential containment due to physical migration of these species through the fuel matrix and across the cladding wall. 238Pu/239,240Pu ratios close-in and at 30 km from the facility indicated that the damaged reactors were the major contributor of Pu to surface soil at the source but that this contribution likely decreased rapidly with distance from the facility. The fraction of the total Pu inventory released to the environment from venting units 1 and 3 was estimated to be ~0.003% based upon Pu/Cs isotope ratios relative to the within-reactor modeled inventory prior to venting and was consistent with an independent model evaluation that considered chemical volatility based upon measured fission product release trends. Significant volatile radionuclides within the spent fuel at the time of venting but not as yet observed and reported within environmental samples are suggested as potential analytes of concern for future environmental surveys around the site.

Schwantes, Jon M.; Orton, Christopher R.; Clark, Richard A.

2012-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

389

Facility Representative Program: 2010 Facility Representative Workshop  

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

10 Facility Representative Workshop 10 Facility Representative Workshop May 12 - 13, 2010 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees | Summary Report Workshop Agenda and Presentations Day 1: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:00 a.m. Opening Remarks James Heffner, Facility Representative Program Manager Earl Hughes, Safety System Oversight Program Manager Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Assistance Office of Health, Safety and Security 8:15 a.m. Welcome from the Nevada Site Office John Mallin, Deputy Assistant Manager for Site Operations Nevada Site Office 8:30 a.m. Workshop Keynote Address Todd Lapointe Chief of Nuclear Safety Central Technical Authority Staff 9:15 a.m. Facility Representative and Safety System Oversight Award Ceremony James Heffner, Facility Representative Program Manager

390

Facility Representative Program: 2001 Facility Representative Workshop  

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

1 Facility Representative Workshop 1 Facility Representative Workshop May 15 - 17, 2001 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Day 1: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Theme: Program Successes and Challenges 8:00 a.m. - Logistics Announcements & Opening Remarks - Joe Arango, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. - Welcome - Debbie Monette, Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Operations Office 8:30 a.m. - Keynote Address - Ralph Erickson, National Nuclear Security Administration 9:00 a.m.- DOE Facility Representative of the Year Presentation - Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 9:30 a.m. - Break 9:50 a.m. - Program Summary - Joe Arango 10:10 a.m. - Management Panel/Questions and Answers

391

Independent Oversight Assessment, Salt Waste Processing Facility...  

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

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

392

The potential utilization of nuclear hydrogen for synthetic fuels production at a coaltoliquid facility / Steven Chiuta.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??The production of synthetic fuels (synfuels) in coaltoliquids (CTL) facilities has contributed to global warming due to the huge CO2 emissions of the process. This (more)

Chiuta, Steven

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

393

Neutron Radiography Facility in a Storage Pond of a Nuclear Power Station Equipped with Antimony-Beryllium Neutron Source  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A neutron radiography facility is described, which has been ... . Some of the control elements contain the neutron absorbing material boron carbide, filled in tubes. Neutron radiography can be applied to detect a...

L. Greim; F. Borchers; M. Greim; G. W. Schumacher; H.-W. Schmitz

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

394

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

395

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

396

Process Flow Chart for Immobilizing of Radioactive High Concentration Sodium Hydroxide Product from the Sodium Processing Facility at the BN-350 Nuclear power plant in Aktau, Kazakhstan  

SciTech Connect

This paper describes the results of a joint research investigations carried out by the group of Kazakhstan, British and American specialists in development of a new material for immobilization of radioactive 35% sodium hydroxide solutions from the sodium coolant processing facility of the BN-350 nuclear power plant. The resulting solid matrix product, termed geo-cement stone, is capable of isolating long lived radionuclides from the environment. The physico-mechanical properties of geo-cement stone have been investigated and the flow chart for its production verified in a full scale experiments. (author)

Burkitbayev, M.; Omarova, K.; Tolebayev, T. [Ai-Farabi Kazakh National University, Chemical Faculty, Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan); Galkin, A. [KATEP Ltd., Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan); Bachilova, N. [NIISTROMPROEKT Ltd., Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan); Blynskiy, A. [Nuclear Technology Safety Centre, Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan); Maev, V. [MAEK-Kazatomprom Ltd., Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan); Wells, D. [NUKEM Limited- a member of the Freyssinet Group, Winfrith Technology Centre, Dorchester, Dorset (United Kingdom); Herrick, A. [NUKEM Limited- a member of the Freyssinet Group, Caithness (United Kingdom); Michelbacher, J. [Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls (United States)

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

397

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

398

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

399

Facility Representative Program: 2003 Facility Representative Workshop  

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

3 Facility Representative Workshop 3 Facility Representative Workshop May 13 - 15, 2003 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Day 1: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Theme: Program Successes and Challenges 8:00 a.m. John Evans, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. Welcome Kathleen Carlson Manager, Nevada Site Office 8:30 a.m. Keynote Address Savannah River Site and Facility Reps - A Shared History and Common Future Jeffrey M. Allison Manager, Savannah River Operations Office 9:00 a.m. Videotaped Remarks from the Deputy Secretary Kyle E. McSlarrow, Deputy Secretary of Energy 9:10 a.m. Facility Representative of the Year Presentation Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

400

REGULATORY STRATEGIES TO MINIMIZE GENERATION OF REGULATED WASTES FROM CLEANUP, CONTINUED USE OR DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES CONTAMINATED WITH POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) - 11198  

SciTech Connect

Disposal costs for liquid PCB radioactive waste are among the highest of any category of regulated waste. The high cost is driven by the fact that disposal options are extremely limited. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations require most liquids with PCBs at concentration of {ge} 50 parts-per-million to be disposed by incineration or equivalent destructive treatment. Disposal fees can be as high as $200 per gallon. This figure does not include packaging and the cost to transport the waste to the disposal facility, or the waste generator's labor costs for managing the waste prior to shipment. Minimizing the generation of liquid radioactive PCB waste is therefore a significant waste management challenge. PCB spill cleanups often generate large volumes of waste. That is because the removal of PCBs typically requires the liberal use of industrial solvents followed by a thorough rinsing process. In a nuclear facility, the cleanup process may be complicated by the presence of radiation and other occupational hazards. Building design and construction features, e.g., the presence of open grating or trenches, may also complicate cleanup. In addition to the technical challenges associated with spill cleanup, selection of the appropriate regulatory requirements and approach may be challenging. The TSCA regulations include three different sections relating to the cleanup of PCB contamination or spills. EPA has also promulgated a separate guidance policy for fresh PCB spills that is published as Subpart G of 40 CFR 761 although it is not an actual regulation. Applicability is based on the circumstances of each contamination event or situation. Other laws or regulations may also apply. Identification of the allowable regulatory options is important. Effective communication with stakeholders, particularly regulators, is just as important. Depending on the regulatory path that is taken, cleanup may necessitate the generation of large quantities of regulated waste. Allowable options must be evaluated carefully in order to reduce compliance risks, protect personnel, limit potential negative impacts on facility operations, and minimize the generation of wastes subject to TSCA. This paper will identify critical factors in selecting the appropriate TSCA regulatory path in order to minimize the generation of radioactive PCB waste and reduce negative impacts to facilities. The importance of communicating pertinent technical issues with facility staff, regulatory personnel, and subsequently, the public, will be discussed. Key points will be illustrated by examples from five former production reactors at the DOE Savannah River Site. In these reactors a polyurethane sealant was used to seal piping penetrations in the biological shield walls. During the intense neutron bombardment that occurred during reactor operation, the sealant broke down into a thick, viscous material that seeped out of the piping penetrations over adjacent equipment and walls. Some of the walls were painted with a PCB product. PCBs from the paint migrated into the degraded sealant, creating PCB 'spill areas' in some of these facilities. The regulatory cleanup approach selected for each facility was based on its operational status, e.g., active, inactive or undergoing decommissioning. The selected strategies served to greatly minimize the generation of radioactive liquid PCB waste. It is expected that this information would be useful to other DOE sites, DOD facilities, and commercial nuclear facilities constructed prior to the 1979 TSCA ban on most manufacturing and uses of PCBs.

Lowry, N.

2010-11-05T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Diversion scenarios in an aqueous reprocessing facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The International Atomic Energy Agency requires nuclear facilities around the world to abide by heavily enforced safeguards to prevent proliferation. Nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities are designed to be proliferation-resistant ...

Caldern, Lindsay Lorraine

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

402

Potential application of curium neutron detection in the high reliability safeguards approach for remotely handled nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

The study presented in this paper is part of a series of quantitative modeling efforts to characterize the neutron flux for the major subsystems in a pyroprocessing facility. An MCNPX model has established the electroreduction process, in which uranium oxide is converted into a metal product by electrochemical methods. This process is important because the electroreduction stage is the earliest point in the system where a diversion attempt could occur. This paper will present neutron flux for a commercial batch size. The intent of this study is to determine if the magnitude of the flux is sufficiently high as to affect facility design. (author)

Borrelli, R.A.

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

403

Recent results of the laser ion source facility at INFN-LNS and applications to nuclear and applied research  

SciTech Connect

A pulsed neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser ion source has been used as proton beams generator. The laser wavelength is 1064 nm, the pulse duration is 9 ns and the intensity reaches 10{sup 10} W/cm{sup 2}. Laser irradiates hydrogenated polymers targets located in a chamber at 10{sup -7} mbar. The ions are post-accelerated in a suitable chamber by 30 kV of voltage between the target, positively biased, and the following ground electrode. The extracted beams is characterized through a time-of-flight technique. Possible applications to the field of nuclear physics, such as nuclear excitation and de-excitations, nuclear reactions and nuclear fusion, will be presented and discussed.

Gammino, S.; Celona, L. [Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN, via S. Sofia 62, 95123 Catania (Italy); Torrisi, L.; Giuffrida, L. [Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN, via S. Sofia 62, 95123 Catania (Italy); Universita di Messina, Dipartimento di Fisica, Ctr. da Papardo-Sperone 31, 98166 Messina (Italy); Cavallaro, S.; Miracoli, R. [Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN, via S. Sofia 62, 95123 Catania (Italy); Universita di Catania, Dipartimento to Fisica e Astronomia, via S. Sofia 64, 95123 Catania (Italy); Margarone, D. [Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN, via S. Sofia 62, 95123 Catania (Italy); Institute of Physics, AS CR, v.v.i., Na Slovance 2, 182 21 Prague 8 (Czech Republic); Mascali, D. [Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN, via S. Sofia 62, 95123 Catania (Italy); Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e Struttura della Materia, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania (Italy)

2010-02-15T23:59:59.000Z

404

Aspects of operational radiation protection during dismantling of nuclear facilities relevant for the estimation of internal doses  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......its decommissioning plan. In that period...including clearance from regulatory control, and to...analysis includes a review of the documentation...decommissioning standard review plan. NUREG 1727. 6...Journal Article Review | Humans Nuclear......

T. Labarta

2007-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

405

Recent results of the laser ion source facility at INFN-LNS and applications to nuclear and applied researcha)  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A pulsed neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser ion source has been used as proton beams generator. The laser wavelength is 1064 nm the pulse duration is 9 ns and the intensity reaches 10 10 ? W / cm 2 . Laser irradiates hydrogenated polymers targets located in a chamber at 10 ? 7 ? mbar . The ions are post-accelerated in a suitable chamber by 30 kV of voltage between the target positively biased and the following ground electrode. The extracted beams is characterized through a time-of-flight technique. Possible applications to the field of nuclear physics such as nuclear excitation and de-excitations nuclear reactions and nuclear fusion will be presented and discussed.

S. Gammino; L. Torrisi; S. Cavallaro; L. Celona; L. Giuffrida; D. Margarone; D. Mascali; R. Miracoli

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

406

Mission analysis report - deactivation facilities at Hanford  

SciTech Connect

This document examines the portion of the Hanford Site Cleanup Mission that deals with facility deactivation. How facilities get identified for deactivation, how they enter EM-60 for deactivation, programmatic alternatives to perform facility deactivation, the deactivation process itself, key requirements and objectives associated with the deactivation process, and deactivation planning are discussed.

Lund, D.P.

1996-09-27T23:59:59.000Z

407

National Ignition Facility & Photon Science  

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

NIF is the only facility that can perform controlled, experimental studies of thermonuclear burn, the phenomenon that gives rise to the immense energy of modern nuclear...

408

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

409

Energy, environmental, health and cost benefits of cogeneration from fossil fuels and nuclear energy using the electrical utility facilities of a province  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A method is investigated for increasing the utilization efficiency of energy resources and reducing environmental emissions, focusing on utility-scale cogeneration and the contributions of nuclear energy. A case study is presented for Ontario using the nuclear and fossil facilities of the main provincial electrical utility. Implementation of utility-based cogeneration in Ontario or a region with a similar energy system and attributes is seen to be able to reduce significantly annual and cumulative uranium and fossil fuel use and related emissions, provide economic benefits for the province and its electrical utility, and substitute nuclear energy for fossil fuels. The reduced emissions of greenhouse gases are significant, and indicate that utility-based cogeneration can contribute notably to efforts to combat climate change. Ontario and other regions with similar energy systems and characteristics would benefit from working with the regional electrical utilities and other relevant parties to implementing cogeneration in a careful and optimal manner. Implementation decisions need to balance the interests of the stakeholders when determining which cogeneration options to adopt and barriers to regional utility-based cogeneration need to be overcome.

Marc A. Rosen

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

410

Facility Representative Program: 2007 Facility Representative Workshop  

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

7 Facility Representative Workshop 7 Facility Representative Workshop May 15 - 17, 2007 Las Vegas, NV Facility Rep of the Year Award | Attendees list | Summary Report [PDF] WORKSHOP AGENDA Final Day 1: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:00 a.m. Opening Remarks Joanne Lorence, Facility Representative Program Manager 8:15 a.m. Welcome from the Nevada Site Office Gerald Talbot, Manager, Nevada Site Office 8:30 a.m. Videotaped Remarks from the Deputy Secretary The Honorable Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy 8:45 a.m. Keynote Address - Safety Oversight Perspective and Expectations Glenn Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, Office of Health, Safety and Security 9:10 a.m. Facility Representative of the Year Presentation Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

411

Grout Isolation and Stabilization of Structures and Materials within Nuclear Facilities at the U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site, Summary - 12309  

SciTech Connect

Per regulatory agreement and facility closure design, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site nuclear fuel cycle structures and materials require in situ isolation in perpetuity and/or interim physicochemical stabilization as a part of final disposal or interim waste removal, respectively. To this end, grout materials are being used to encase facilities structures or are being incorporated within structures containing hazardous and radioactive contaminants. Facilities where grout materials have been recently used for isolation and stabilization include: (1) spent fuel separations, (2) uranium trioxide calcining, (3) reactor fuel storage basin, (4) reactor fuel cooling basin transport rail tanker cars and casks, (5) cold vacuum drying and reactor fuel load-out, and (6) plutonium fuel metal finishing. Grout components primarily include: (1) portland cement, (2) fly ash, (3) aggregate, and (4) chemical admixtures. Mix designs for these typically include aggregate and non aggregate slurries and bulk powders. Placement equipment includes: (1) concrete piston line pump or boom pump truck for grout slurry, (2) progressive cavity and shearing vortex pump systems, and (3) extendable boom fork lift for bulk powder dry grout mix. Grout slurries placed within the interior of facilities were typically conveyed utilizing large diameter slick line and the equivalent diameter flexible high pressure concrete conveyance hose. Other facilities requirements dictated use of much smaller diameter flexible grout conveyance hose. Placement required direct operator location within facilities structures in most cases, whereas due to radiological dose concerns, placement has also been completed remotely with significant standoff distances. Grout performance during placement and subsequent to placement often required unique design. For example, grout placed in fuel basin structures to serve as interim stabilization materials required sufficient bearing i.e., unconfined compressive strength, to sustain heavy equipment yet, low breakout force to permit efficient removal by track hoe bucket or equivalent construction equipment. Further, flow of slurries through small orifice geometries of moderate head pressures was another typical design requirement. Phase separation of less than 1 percent was a typical design requirement for slurries. On the order of 30,000 cubic meters of cementitious grout have recently been placed in the above noted U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site facilities or structures. Each has presented a unique challenge in mix design, equipment, grout injection or placement, and ultimate facility or structure performance. Unconfined compressive and shear strength, flow, density, mass attenuation coefficient, phase separation, air content, wash-out, parameters and others, unique to each facility or structure, dictate the grout mix design for each. Each mix design was tested under laboratory and scaled field conditions as a precursor to field deployment. Further, after injection or placement of each grout formulation, the material was field inspected either by standard laboratory testing protocols, direct physical evaluation, or both. (authors)

Phillips, S.J.; Phillips, M.; Etheridge, D. [Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Construction, Incorporated, Richland, Washington (United States); Chojnacki, D.W.; Herzog, C.B.; Matosich, B.J.; Steffen, J.M.; Sterling, R.T. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington (United States); Flaucher, R.H.; Lloyd, E.R. [Fluor Federal Services, Incorporated, Richland, Washington (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

412

Dose reconstruction for an occupational cohort at the Savannah River nuclear facility: evaluation of a hybrid method  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......reprocessing of reactor fuels(19). However...type and number of reactors operating at SRS...dose. Statistical analysis The proportion of...her coworker. The reliability of this estimation...Statistical Nuclear Reactors statistics & numerical...methods Tritium analysis United States...

Ghassan Hamra; Leena A. Nylander-French; David Richardson

2008-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

413

Workshop materials from the 2nd international training course on physical protection of nuclear facilities and materials, Module 13  

SciTech Connect

This course is intended for representatives of countries where nuclear power is being developed and whose responsibilities include the preparation of regulation and the design and evaluation of physical protection systems. This is the second of two volumes; the first volume is SAND-79-1090. (DLC)

Martin, F. P. [ed.

1980-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

414

DOE-STD-1071-94; DOE Standard Guideline to Good Practices for Material Receipt, Inspection, Handling, Storage, Retrieval, and Issuance at DOE Nuclear Facilities  

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

71-94 71-94 June 1994 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINE TO GOOD PRACTICES FOR MATERIAL RECEIPT, INSPECTION, HANDLING, STORAGE, RETRIEVAL, AND ISSUANCE AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MNTY 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; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE94014949 DOE-STD-1071-94 FOREWORD The Guideline to Good Practices for Material Receipt, Inspection, Handling, Storage,

415

DOE-HDBK-3010-94; DOE Handbook Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, Volume 1  

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

10-94 10-94 December 1994 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1 March 2000 DOE HANDBOOK AIRBORNE RELEASE FRACTIONS/RATES AND RESPIRABLE FRACTIONS FOR NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Volume I - Analysis of Experimental Data 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. Change Notice No. 1 DOE-HDBK-3010-94 March 2000 Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions

416

Evaluation of nuclear facility decommissioning projects. Three Mile Island Unit 2. Radioactive waste and laundry shipments. Volume 9. Summary status report  

SciTech Connect

This document summarizes information concerning radioactive waste and laundry shipments from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to radioactive waste disposal sites and to protective clothing decontamination facilities (laundries) since the loss of coolant accident experienced on March 28, 1979. Data were collected from radioactive shipment records, summarized, and placed in a computerized data information retrieval/manipulation system which permits extraction of specific information. This report covers the period of April 9, 1979 to May 5, 1985. Included in this report are: waste disposal site locations, dose rates, curie content, waste description, container type and number, volumes and weights. This information is presented in two major categories: protective clothing (laundry) and radioactive waste. Each of the waste shipment reports is in chronological order.

Doerge, D. H.; Miller, R. L.; Scotti, K. S.

1986-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

417

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

418

Hanford Facility dangerous waste permit application, liquid effluent retention facility and 200 area effluent treatment facility  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to 10 be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document 11 number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the 12 Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation 13 submitted for individual, `operating` treatment, storage, and/or disposal 14 units, such as the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area Effluent 15 Treatment Facility (this document, DOE/RL-97-03). 16 17 Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford 18 Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B 19 permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of 20 Ecology (Ecology 1987 and 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 21 (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needs 22 defined by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of 23 Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington 24 State Department of Ecology alpha-numeric section identifiers from the permit 25 application guidance documentation (Ecology 1996) follow, in brackets, the 26 chapter headings and subheadings. A checklist indicating where information is 27 contained in the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area Effluent 28 Treatment Facility permit application documentation, in relation to the 29 Washington State Department of Ecology guidance, is located in the Contents 30 Section. 31 32 Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in 33 nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units 34 (e.g., the glossary provided in the General Information Portion). Wherever 35 appropriate, the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area Effluent 36 Treatment Facility permit application documentation makes cross-reference to 37 the General Information Portion, rather than duplicating text. 38 39 Information provided in this Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 40 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility permit application documentation is 41 current as of June 1, 1997.

Coenenberg, J.G.

1997-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

419

UO{sub 3} plant turnover - facility description document  

SciTech Connect

This document was developed to provide a facility description for those portions of the UO{sub 3} Facility being transferred to Bechtel Hanford Company, Inc. (BHI) following completion of facility deactivation. The facility and deactivated state condition description is intended only to serve as an overview of the plant as it is being transferred to BHI.

Clapp, D.A.

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

420

Experimental investigations on decay heat removal in advanced nuclear reactors using single heater rod test facility: Air alone in the annular gap  

SciTech Connect

During a loss of coolant accident in nuclear reactors, radiation heat transfer accounts for a significant amount of the total heat transfer in the fuel bundle. In case of heavy water moderator nuclear reactors, the decay heat of a fuel bundle enclosed in the pressure tube and outer concentric calandria tube can be transferred to the moderator. Radiation heat transfer plays a significant role in removal of decay heat from the fuel rods to the moderator, which is available outside the calandria tube. A single heater rod test facility is designed and fabricated as a part of preliminary investigations. The objective is to anticipate the capability of moderator to remove decay heat, from the reactor core, generated after shut down. The present paper focuses mainly on the role of moderator in removal of decay heat, for situation with air alone in the annular gap of pressure tube and calandria tube. It is seen that the naturally aspirated air is capable of removing the heat generated in the system compared to the standstill air or stagnant water situations. It is also seen that the flowing moderator is capable of removing a greater fraction of heat generated by the heater rod compared to a stagnant pool of boiling moderator. (author)

Bopche, Santosh B.; Sridharan, Arunkumar [Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 (India)

2010-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear facility portion" 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

Design, installation and implementation of a Neutron Depth Profiling facility at the Texas A&M Nuclear Science Center  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

to the charge state of the measured particle. The target and detector must be kept under a low vacuum (10 g tozz) for low- energy studies. Higher vacuum pressures (around 10 5 torz) are sufficient for high-energy and medium-energy studies. (Roughly, the low... profile was performed by using a FORTRAN program, called NDP . FOR (see Appendix for source code listing) . This program is currently specialized for the case of Boron-10 alpha particles traversing a silicon matrix. A Nuclear-Data Genie computer system...

Khalil, Nazir Sabbar

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

422

Facility Representative Program: Facility Representative Program Sponsors  

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

Facility Representative Program Sponsors Facility Representative Program Sponsors There are 29 Facility Representative Program Sponsors Office Name Title E-Mail Phone ASO Larry Pendexter ES&H Div Dir (Argonne) larry.pendexter@ch.doe.gov 630-252-1485 BHSO Bob Desmarais Operations Management Division Director desmarai@bnl.gov 631-344-5434 CBFO Glenn Gamlin Facility Representative Supervisor glenn.gamlin@wipp.ws 575-234-8136 CBFO Casey Gadbury Operations Manager casey.gadbury@wipp.ws 575-234-7372 FSO Mark Bollinger Deputy Manager Mark.Bollinger@ch.doe.gov 630-840-8130 FSO John Scott FR Team Lead john.scott@ch.doe.gov 630-840-2250 HS-30 James O'Brien Director, Office of Nuclear Safety James.O'Brien@hq.doe.gov 301-903-1408 HS-32 Earl Hughes Facility Representative Program Manager Earl.Hughes@hq.doe.gov 202-586-0065

423

RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND RELATED STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. VOLUME 2 OF HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

On other hand, accidents at nuclear facilities could nott ed expos ur e from a nuclear accident which would warrantresulting from accidents at nuclear facilities. Average

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

424

Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Finding of No Significant Impact for the Proposed Disposition of the Omega West Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico  

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

Finding of No Significant Impact for the Proposed Disposition of the Omega West Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico U. S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Los Alamos Site Operations 528 35th Street Los Alamos, NM 87544 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECUIRTY ADMINISTRATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Proposed Disposition of the Omega West Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Disposition of the Omega West Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory [DOE/EA- 74 IO) (attached) provides sufficient evidence and analysis to determine that a Finding Of No Significant Impact is appropriate for the Proposed Action (Complete

425

Nuclear-fuel-cycle risk assessment: descriptions of representative non-reactor facilities, Sections 15-19  

SciTech Connect

Information is presented under the following section headings: fuel reprocessing; spent fuel and high-level and transuranic waste storage; spent fuel and high-level and transuranic waste disposal; low-level and intermediate-level waste disposal; and, transportation of radioactive materials in the nuclear fuel cycle. In each of the first three sections a description is given on the mainline process, effluent processing and waste management systems, plant layout, and alternative process schemes. Safety information and a summary are also included in each. The section on transport of radioactive materials includes information on the transportation of uranium ore, uranium ore concentrate, UF/sub 6/, PuO/sub 2/ powder, unirradiated uranium and mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, spent fuel, solidified high-level waste, contact-handled transuranic waste, remote-handled transuranic waste, and low and intermediate level nontransuranic waste. A glossary is included. (JGB)

Schneider, K.J.

1982-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

426

Occupational radiation exposure at commercial nuclear power reactors and other facilities 1996: Twenty-ninth annual report. Volume 18  

SciTech Connect

This report summarizes the occupational exposure data that are maintained in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s (NRC) Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS). The bulk of the information contained in the report was compiled from the 1996 annual reports submitted by six of the seven categories of NRC licensees subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206. Since there are no geologic repositories for high level waste currently licensed, only six categories will be considered in this report. Annual reports for 1996 were received from a total of 300 NRC licensees, of which 109 were operators of nuclear power reactors in commercial operation. Compilations of the reports submitted by the 300 licensees indicated that 138,310 individuals were monitored, 75,139 of whom received a measurable dose. The collective dose incurred by these individuals was 21,755 person-cSv (person-rem){sup 2} which represents a 13% decrease from the 1995 value. The number of workers receiving a measurable dose also decreased, resulting in the average measurable dose of 0.29 cSv (rem) for 1996. The average measurable dose is defined to be the total collective dose (TEDE) divided by the number of workers receiving a measurable dose. These figures have been adjusted to account for transient reactor workers. Analyses of transient worker data indicate that 22,348 individuals completed work assignments at two or more licensees during the monitoring year. The dose distributions are adjusted each year to account for the duplicate reporting of transient workers by multiple licensees. In 1996, the average measurable dose calculated from reported was 0.24 cSv (rem). The corrected dose distribution resulted in an average measurable dose of 0.29 cSv (rem).

Thomas, M.L. [Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States). Div. of Regulatory Applications; Hagemeyer, D. [Science Applications International Corp., Oak Ridge, TN (United States)

1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

427

Evaluation of nuclear facility decommissioning projects. Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor defueling and disassembly. Summary status report. Volume 3  

SciTech Connect

This document summarizes information relating to the preparations for defueling the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor and disassembly activities being performed concurrently with decontamination of the facility. Data have been collected from activity reports, reactor containment entry records, and other sources and entered in a computerized data sysem which permits extraction/manipulation of specific data which can be used in planning for recovery from a loss of coolant event similar to that experienced at TMI-2 on March 28, 1979. This report contains summaries of man-hours, manpower, and radiation exposures incurred during the period of April 23, 1979 to April 16, 1985, in the completion of activities related to preparation for reactor defueling. Support activities conducted outside of radiation areas are not included within the scope of this report. Computerized reports included in this document are: A chronological summary listing work performed for the period; and summary reports for each major task undertaken in connection with the specific scope of this report. Presented in chronological order for the referenced time period. Manually-assembled table summaries are included for: Labor and exposures by department; and labor and exposures by major activity.

Doerge, D.H.; Miller, R.L.; Scotti, K.S.

1986-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

428

The Radiochemical Analysis of Gaseous Samples (RAGS) apparatus for nuclear diagnostics at the National Ignition Facility (invited)  

SciTech Connect

The Radiochemical Analysis of Gaseous Samples (RAGS) diagnostic apparatus was recently installed at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Following a NIF shot, RAGS is used to pump the gas load from the NIF chamber for purification and isolation of the noble gases. After collection, the activated gaseous species are counted via gamma spectroscopy for measurement of the capsule areal density and fuel-ablator mix. Collection efficiency was determined by injecting a known amount of {sup 135}Xe into the NIF chamber, which was then collected with RAGS. Commissioning was performed with an exploding pusher capsule filled with isotopically enriched {sup 124}Xe and {sup 126}Xe added to the DT gas fill. Activated xenon species were recovered post-shot and counted via gamma spectroscopy. Results from the collection and commissioning tests are presented. The performance of RAGS allows us to establish a noble gas collection method for measurement of noble gas species produced via neutron and charged particle reactions in a NIF capsule.

Shaughnessy, D. A.; Velsko, C. A.; Jedlovec, D. R.; Yeamans, C. B.; Moody, K. J.; Tereshatov, E.; Stoeffl, W.; Riddle, A. [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, PO Box 808, L-236, Livermore, California 94551 (United States)

2012-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

429

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced...  

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

Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards GNEP will help prevent misuse of civilian nuclear facilities for...

430

IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY Chad Pope Department of Nuclear Engineering...  

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

of nuclear safety, nuclear criticality safety, nuclear facility operations and pyroprocessing. He teaches courses in reactor physics, nuclear criticality safety, Monte Carlo...

431

Facility Representatives  

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

063-2011 063-2011 February 2011 Superseding DOE-STD-1063-2006 April 2006 DOE STANDARD FACILITY REPRESENTATIVES U.S. Department of Energy AREA MGMT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1063-2011 ii Available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web site at http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/ DOE-STD-1063-2011 iii FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) standard is approved for use by all DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Components. 2. The revision to this DOE standard was developed by a working group consisting of headquarters and field participants. Beneficial comments (recommendations,

432

President Reagan Calls for a National Spent Fuel Storage Facility...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Spent Fuel Storage Facility Washington, DC The Reagan Administration announces a nuclear energy policy that anticipates the establishment of a facility for the storage of...

433

MAX Fluid Dynamics facility  

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

MAX Fluid Dynamics facility MAX Fluid Dynamics facility Capabilities Engineering Experimentation Reactor Safety Testing and Analysis Overview Nuclear Reactor Severe Accident Experiments MAX NSTF SNAKE Aerosol Experiments System Components Laser Applications Robots Applications Other Facilities Other Capabilities Work with Argonne Contact us For Employees Site Map Help Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter NE on Flickr MAX Fluid Dynamics facility Providing high resolution data for development of computational tools that model fluid flow and heat transfer within complex systems such as the core of a nuclear reactor. 1 2 3 4 5 Hot and cold air jets are mixed within a glass tank while laser-based anemometers and a high-speed infrared camera characterize fluid flow and heat transfer behavior. Click on image to view larger size image.

434

Nuclear Forensics | ornl.gov  

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

nuclear facilities, and inorganic mass spectrometry as applied to traditional nuclear forensic science applications. The application of classical forensic science tools (mass...

435

Atmospheric deposition, resuspension and root uptake of plutonium in corn and other grain-producing agroecosystems near a nuclear fuel facility  

SciTech Connect

Plutonium released to the environment may contribute to dose to humans through inhalation or ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. Plutonium contamination of agricultural plants may result from interception and retention of atmospheric deposition, resuspension of Pu-bearing soil particles to plant surfaces, and root uptake and translocation to grain. Plutonium on vegetation surfaces may be transferred to grain surfaces during mechanical harvesting. Data obtained from corn grown near the US Department of Energy`s H-Area nuclear fuel chemical separations facility on the Savannah River Site was used to estimated parameters of a simple model of Pu transport in agroecosystems. The parameter estimates for corn were compared to those previously obtained for wheat and soybeans. Despite some differences in parameter estimates among crops, the relative importances of atmospheric deposition, resuspension and root uptake were similar among crops. For even small deposition rates, the relative importances of processes for Pu contamination of corn grain should be: transfer of atmospheric deposition from vegetation surfaces to grain surfaces during combining > resuspension of soil to grain surfaces > root uptake. Approximately 3.9 {times} 10{sup {minus}5} of a year`s atmospheric deposition is transferred to grain. Approximately 6.2 {times} 10{sup {minus}9} of the Pu inventory in the soil is resuspended to corn grain, and a further 7.3 {times} 10{sup {minus}10} of the soil inventory is absorbed by roots and translocated to grains.

Pinder, J.E. III; McLeod, K.W.; Adriano, D.C. [Savannah River Ecology Lab., Aiken, SC (United States); Corey, J.C.; Boni, A.L. [Savannah River Lab., Aiken, SC (United States)

1989-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

436

Atmospheric deposition, resuspension, and root uptake of Pu in corn and other grain-producing agroecosystems near a nuclear fuel facility  

SciTech Connect

Plutonium released to the environment may contribute to dose to humans through inhalation or ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. Plutonium contamination of agricultural plants may result from interception and retention of atmospheric deposition, resuspension of Pu-bearing soil particles to plant surfaces, and root uptake. Plutonium on vegetation surfaces may be transferred to grain surfaces during mechanical harvesting. Data obtained from corn grown near the U.S. Department of Energy's H-Area nuclear fuel chemical separations facility on the Savannah River Site were used to estimate parameters of a simple model of Pu transport in agroecosystems. The parameter estimates for corn were compared to those previously obtained for wheat and soybeans. Despite some differences in parameter estimates among crops, the relative importances of atmospheric deposition, resuspension, and root uptake were similar among crops. For even small deposition rates, the relative importances of processes for Pu contamination of corn grain should be: transfer of atmospheric deposition from vegetation surfaces to grain surfaces during combining greater than resuspension of soil to grain surfaces greater than root uptake. Approximately 3.9 X 10(-5) of a year's atmospheric deposition is transferred to grain. Approximately 6.2 X 10(-9) of the Pu inventory in the soil is resuspended to corn grain, and a further 7.3 X 10(-10) of the soil Pu inventory is absorbed and translocated to grains.

Pinder, J.E. III; McLeod, K.W.; Adriano, D.C.; Corey, J.C.; Boni, A.L. (Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC (USA))

1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

437

Atmospheric deposition, resuspension and root uptake of plutonium in corn and other grain-producing agroecosystems near a nuclear fuel facility  

SciTech Connect

Plutonium released to the environment may contribute to dose to humans through inhalation or ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. Plutonium contamination of agricultural plants may result from interception and retention of atmospheric deposition, resuspension of Pu-bearing soil particles to plant surfaces, and root uptake and translocation to grain. Plutonium on vegetation surfaces may be transferred to grain surfaces during mechanical harvesting. Data obtained from corn grown near the US Department of Energy's H-Area nuclear fuel chemical separations facility on the Savannah River Site was used to estimated parameters of a simple model of Pu transport in agroecosystems. The parameter estimates for corn were compared to those previously obtained for wheat and soybeans. Despite some differences in parameter estimates among crops, the relative importances of atmospheric deposition, resuspension and root uptake were similar among crops. For even small deposition rates, the relative importances of processes for Pu contamination of corn grain should be: transfer of atmospheric deposition from vegetation surfaces to grain surfaces during combining > resuspension of soil to grain surfaces > root uptake. Approximately 3.9 {times} 10{sup {minus}5} of a year's atmospheric deposition is transferred to grain. Approximately 6.2 {times} 10{sup {minus}9} of the Pu inventory in the soil is resuspended to corn grain, and a further 7.3 {times} 10{sup {minus}10} of the soil inventory is absorbed by roots and translocated to grains.

Pinder, J.E. III; McLeod, K.W.; Adriano, D.C. (Savannah River Ecology Lab., Aiken, SC (United States)); Corey, J.C.; Boni, A.L. (Savannah River Lab., Aiken, SC (United States))

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

438

Experiments to investigate direct containment heating phenomena with scaled models of the Zion Nuclear Power Plant in the Surtsey Test Facility  

SciTech Connect

The Surtsey Facility at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is used to perform scaled experiments that simulate hypothetical high-pressure melt ejection (HPME) accidents in a nuclear power plant (NPP). These experiments are designed to investigate the effect of specific phenomena associated with direct containment heating (DCH) on the containment load, such as the effect of physical scale, prototypic subcompartment structures, water in the cavity, and hydrogen generation and combustion. In the Integral Effects Test (IET) series, 1:10 linear scale models of the Zion NPP structures were constructed in the Surtsey vessel. The RPV was modeled with a steel pressure vessel that had a hemispherical bottom head, which had a 4-cm hole in the bottom head that simulated the final ablated hole that would be formed by ejection of an instrument guide tube in a severe NPP accident. Iron/alumina/chromium thermite was used to simulate molten corium that would accumulate on the bottom head of an actual RPV. The chemically reactive melt simulant was ejected by high-pressure steam from the RPV model into the scaled reactor cavity. Debris was then entrained through the instrument tunnel into the subcompartment structures and the upper dome of the simulated reactor containment building. The results of the IET experiments are given in this report.

Allen, M.D.; Pilch, M.M.; Blanchat, T.K.; Griffith, R.O. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Nichols, R.T. [Ktech Corp., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

439

Environmental consequences of postulate plutonium releases from Atomics International's Nuclear Materials Development Facility (NMDF), Santa Susana, California, as a result of severe natural phenomena  

SciTech Connect

Potential environmental consequences in terms of radiation dose to people are presented for postulated plutonium releases caused by severe natural phenomena at the Atomics International's Nuclear Materials Development Facility (NMDF), in the Santa Susana site, California. The severe natural phenomena considered are earthquakes, tornadoes, and high straight-line winds. Plutonium deposition values are given for significant locations around the site. All important potential exposure pathways are examined. The most likely 50-year committed dose equivalents are given for the maximum-exposed individual and the population within a 50-mile radius of the plant. The maximum plutonium deposition values likely to occur offsite are also given. The most likely calculated 50-year collective committed dose equivalents are all much lower than the collective dose equivalent expected from 50 years of exposure to natural background radiation and medical x-rays. The most likely maximum residual plutonium contamination estimated to be deposited offsite following the earthquake, and the 150-mph and 170-mph tornadoes are above the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed guideline for plutonium in the general environment of 0.2 ..mu..Ci/m/sup 2/. The deposition values following the 110-mph and the 130-mph tornadoes are below the EPA proposed guideline.

Jamison, J.D.; Watson, E.C.

1982-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

440

Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Nuclear Security Administration  

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

222 Federal Register 222 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2011 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Nuclear Security Administration Extension of the Public Review and Comment Period and Announcement of an Additional Public Hearing for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Extension of Public Review and Comment Period and Announcement of an additional Public Hearing. SUMMARY: On April 29, 2011, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi- autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), published

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


441

High Field Magnetic Resonance Facility  

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

HFMRF Overview HFMRF Overview Section 2-3-1 High Field Magnetic Resonance Facility The High Field Magnetic Resonance Facility (HFMRF) focuses a significant portion of its research on developing a fundamental, molecular-level understanding of biochemical and biological systems and their response to environmental effects. A secondary focus is materials science, including catalysis and chemical mechanisms and processes. Staff and science consultants within this facility offer expertise in the areas of structural biology, solid-state materials characterization, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. Research activities in the HFMRF include: * structure determination of large molecular assemblies such as protein-DNA (normal and damaged DNA) and protein-RNA complexes

442

LANSCE | Facilities  

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

Isotope Production Facility (IPF) Lujan Neutron Scattering Center Materials Test Station (MTS) Proton Radiography (pRad) Ultracold Neutrons (UCN) Weapons Neutron Research Facility...

443

The assess facility descriptor module  

SciTech Connect

The Facility Descriptor (Facility) module is part of the Analytic System and Software for Evaluating Safeguards and Security (ASSESS). Facility is the foundational software application in the ASSESS system for modelling a nuclear facility's safeguards and security system to determine the effectiveness against theft of special nuclear material. The Facility module provides the tools for an analyst to define a complete description of a facility's physical protection system which can then be used by other ASSESS software modules to determine vulnerability to a spectrum of insider and outsider threats. The analyst can enter a comprehensive description of the protection system layout including all secured areas, target locations, and detailed safeguards specifications. An extensive safeguard component catalog provides the reference data for calculating delay and detection performance. Multiple target locations within the same physical area may be specified, and the facility may be defined for two different operational states such as dayshift and nightshift. 6 refs., 5 figs.

Jordan, S.E.; Winblad, A.; Key, B.; Walker, S.; Renis, T.; Saleh, R.

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

444

Explosive Waste Treatment Facility  

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

106 106 Environment a 1 Assessment for th.e Explosive Waste Treatment Facility at Site 300 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory MASTER November 1995 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Washington, DOC. 20585 Portions of this document maly be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. Table of Contents 1 . 0 2.0 3 . 0 4.0 5 . 0 6.0 7 . 0 8 . 0 Document Summary .............................................................. 1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action ............................................. 3 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................ 4 3.1.1 Location ............................................................. 4

445

Civilian Nuclear Programs  

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

Civilian Nuclear Programs Civilian Nuclear Programs Civilian Nuclear Programs Los Alamos is committed to using its advanced nuclear expertise and unique facilities to meet the civilian nuclear national security demands of the future. CONTACT US Program Director Bruce Robinson (505) 667-1910 Email Los Alamos partners extensively with other laboratories, universities, industry, and the international nuclear community to address real-world technical challenges The Civilian Nuclear Programs Office is the focal point for nuclear energy research and development and next-generation repository science at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Civilian Nuclear Programs Office manages projects funded by the Department of Energy's offices of Nuclear Energy Environmental Management Nuclear Regulatory Commission

446

Testing and Performance Validation of a Sensitive Gamma Ray Camera Designed for Radiation Detection and Decommissioning Measurements in Nuclear Facilities-13044  

SciTech Connect

This paper describes the measurements, testing and performance validation of a sensitive gamma ray camera designed for radiation detection and quantification in the environment and decommissioning and hold-up measurements in nuclear facilities. The instrument, which is known as RadSearch, combines a sensitive and highly collimated LaBr{sub 3} scintillation detector with an optical (video) camera with controllable zoom and focus and a laser range finder in one detector head. The LaBr{sub 3} detector has a typical energy resolution of between 2.5% and 3% at the 662 keV energy of Cs-137 compared to that of NaI detectors with a resolution of typically 7% to 8% at the same energy. At this energy the tungsten shielding of the detector provides a shielding ratio of greater than 900:1 in the forward direction and 100:1 on the sides and from the rear. The detector head is mounted on a pan/tile mechanism with a range of motion of 180 degrees (pan) and 90 degrees (tilt) equivalent to 4 ? steradians. The detector head with pan/tilt is normally mounted on a tripod or wheeled cart. It can also be mounted on vehicles or a mobile robot for access to high dose-rate areas and areas with high levels of contamination. Ethernet connects RadSearch to a ruggedized notebook computer from which it is operated and controlled. Power can be supplied either as 24-volts DC from a battery or as 50 volts DC supplied by a small mains (110 or 230 VAC) power supply unit that is co-located with the controlling notebook computer. In this latter case both power and Ethernet are supplied through a single cable that can be up to 80 metres in length. If a local battery supplies power, the unit can be controlled through wireless Ethernet. Both manual operation and automatic scanning of surfaces and objects is available through the software interface on the notebook computer. For each scan element making up a part of an overall scanned area, the unit measures a gamma ray spectrum. Multiple radionuclides may be selected by the operator and will be identified if present. In scanning operation the unit scans a designated region and superimposes over a video image the distribution of measured radioactivity. For the total scanned area or object RadSearch determines the total activity of operator selected radionuclides present and the gamma dose-rate measured at the detector head. Results of hold-up measurements made in a nuclear facility are presented, as are test measurements of point sources distributed arbitrarily on surfaces. These latter results are compared with the results of benchmarked MCNP Monte Carlo calculations. The use of the device for hold-up and decommissioning measurements is validated. (authors)

Mason, John A.; Looman, Marc R.; Poundall, Adam J.; Towner, Antony C.N. [ANTECH, A. N. Technology Ltd., Unit 6, Thames Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 9TA (United Kingdom)] [ANTECH, A. N. Technology Ltd., Unit 6, Thames Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 9TA (United Kingdom); Creed, Richard; Pancake, Daniel [Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439 (United States)] [Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439 (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

447

Hanford facility contingency plan  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Facility Contingency Plan, together with each TSD unit- specific contingency plan, meets the WAC 173-303 requirements for a contingency plan. Applicability of this plan to Hanford Facility activities is described in the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion, General Condition II.A. General Condition II.A applies to Part III TSD units, Part V TSD units, and to releases of hazardous substances which threaten human health or the environment. Additional information about the applicability of this document may also be found in the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit Handbook (DOE/RL-96-10). This plan includes descriptions of responses to a nonradiological hazardous substance spill or release at Hanford Facility locations not covered by TSD unit-specific contingency plans or building emergency plans. The term hazardous substances is defined in WAC 173-303-040 as: ``any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the physical, chemical or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-100.`` Whenever the term hazardous substances is used in this document, it will be used in the context of this definition. This plan includes descriptions of responses for spills or releases of hazardous substances occurring at areas between TSD units that may, or may not, threaten human health or the environment.

Sutton, L.N.

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

448

Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives  

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

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 ...

449

TA-55: LANL Plutonium-Processing Facilities  

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

TA-55: LANL Plutonium-Processing Facilities TA-55: LANL Plutonium-Processing Facilities TA-55: LANL Plutonium-Processing Facilities TA-55 supports a wide range of national security programs that involve stockpile stewardship, plutonium processing, nuclear materials stabilization, materials disposition, nuclear forensics, nuclear counter-terrorism, and nuclear energy. ...the only fully operational, full capability plutonium facility in the nation. National Security At the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), virtually all plutonium operations occur within the Plutonium Facility at Technical Area 55 (TA-55). TA-55 is the nation's most modern plutonium science and manufacturing facility, and it is the only fully operational, full capability plutonium facility in the nation. Thus, TA-55 supports a wide

450

Nuclear reactor  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A nuclear reactor comprising a cylindrical pressure vessel, an elongated annular core centrally disposed within and spaced from the pressure vessel, and a plurality of ducts disposed longitudinally of the pressure vessel about the periphery thereof, said core comprising an annular active portion, an annular reflector just inside the active portion, and an annular reflector just outside the active a portion, said annular active portion comprising rectangular slab, porous fuel elements radially disposed around the inner reflector and extending the length of the active portion, wedge-shaped, porous moderator elements disposed adjacent one face of each fuel element and extending the length of the fuel element, the fuel and moderator elements being oriented so that the fuel elements face each other and the moderator elements do likewise, adjacent moderator elements being spaced to provide air inlet channels, and adjacent fuel elements being spaced to provide air outlet channels which communicate with the interior of the peripheral ducts, and means for introducing air into the air inlet channels which passes through the porous moderator elements and porous fuel elements to the outlet channel.

Thomson, Wallace B. (Severna Park, MD)

2004-03-16T23:59:59.000Z

451

Certified Facilities  

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

Industrial Leaders: The industrial facilities shown below are among the first to earn certification for Superior Energy Performance (SEP).

452

Nuclear Engineer (Criticality Safety)  

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

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

453

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced Nuclear  

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

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards GNEP will help prevent misuse of civilian nuclear facilities for nonpeaceful purposes by developing enhanced safeguards programs and technologies. International nuclear safeguards are integral to implementing the GNEP vision of a peaceful expansion of nuclear energy and demonstration of more proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technologies. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards More Documents & Publications GNEP Element:Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Fact Sheet - Demonstrate Small-Scale

454

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

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

D, Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program by cdornburg Functional areas: Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Defense Programs, Nuclear Weapons Programs,...

455

SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR POWER  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR POWER ... TOUGHER RULES are needed to improve the safety of U.S. nuclear power facilities and to better protect the public from the type of disaster that occurred this spring at Japans Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy plant, says a preliminary report released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on July 12. ...

GLENN HESS

2011-07-18T23:59:59.000Z

456

NNSA Completes Successful Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Completes Successful Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Completes Successful Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization 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 Home > Media Room > Press Releases > NNSA Completes Successful Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program Press Release NNSA Completes Successful Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization

457

Facilities | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)  

Office of Science (SC) Website

Facilities Facilities Nuclear Physics (NP) NP Home About Research Facilities Research Facilities Project Development Science Highlights Benefits of NP Funding Opportunities Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) News & Resources Contact Information Nuclear Physics U.S. Department of Energy SC-26/Germantown Building 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 P: (301) 903-3613 F: (301) 903-3833 E: sc.np@science.doe.gov More Information » Facilities Print Text Size: A A A RSS Feeds FeedbackShare Page Facilities and Project Management Division FRIB Tunnel The Facilities and Project Management Division is responsible for planning, constructing, upgrading and operating the Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) program's user facilities. These facilities include the ATLAS facility at

458

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

459

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

460

Science Facilities  

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

Electron Microscopy Lab Ion Beam Materials Lab Matter-Radiation Interactions in Extremes (MaRIE) Proton Radiography Trident Laser Facility LOOK INTO LANL - highlights...