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

Promulgating Nuclear Safety Requirements  

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

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

1996-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

2

Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety Requirements  

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

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

2007-08-28T23:59:59.000Z

3

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

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

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.

4

Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual  

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

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

2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

5

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

6

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

7

Enforcement handbook: Enforcement of DOE nuclear safety requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Handbook provides detailed guidance and procedures to implement the General Statement of DOE Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy or Policy). A copy of this Enforcement Policy is included for ready reference in Appendix D. The guidance provided in this Handbook is qualified, however, by the admonishment to exercise discretion in determining the proper disposition of each potential enforcement action. As discussed in subsequent chapters, the Enforcement and Investigation Staff will apply a number of factors in assessing each potential enforcement situation. Enforcement sanctions are imposed in accordance with the Enforcement Policy for the purpose of promoting public and worker health and safety in the performance of activities at DOE facilities by DOE contractors (and their subcontractors and suppliers) who are indemnified under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act. These indemnified contractors, and their suppliers and subcontractors, will be referred to in this Handbook collectively as DOE contractors. It should be remembered that the purpose of the Department`s enforcement policy is to improve nuclear safety for the workers and the public, and this goal should be the prime consideration in exercising enforcement discretion.

NONE

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

8

Technical Safety Requirements  

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

Safety Requirements Safety Requirements FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: Contractor has developed, maintained, and received DOE Field Office Approval for the necessary operating conditions of a facility. The facility has also maintained an inventory of safety class and safety significant systems and components. REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830.205, Nuclear Safety Rule.  DOE-STD-3009-2002, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses.  DOE-STD-1186-2004, Specific Administrative Controls. Guidance:  DOE G 423.1-1, Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements.  NSTP 2003-1, Use of Administrative Controls for Specific Safety Functions. Performance Objective 1: Contractor Program Documentation

9

Nuclear Explosive Safety  

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

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

2014-07-10T23:59:59.000Z

10

Nuclear Explosive Safety  

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

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

2015-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

11

Nuclear Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Nuclear Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports Nuclear Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes and maintains nuclear safety policy, requirements, and...

12

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

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

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

13

Nuclear Explosive Safety  

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

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

2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

14

Nuclear Explosive Safety  

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

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

2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

15

Nuclear Explosive Safety  

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

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

2006-06-12T23:59:59.000Z

16

Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes  

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

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

2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

17

Nuclear Explosive Safety  

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

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

2006-06-12T23:59:59.000Z

18

Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Criticality Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Criticality Safety The Nuclear Engineering Division (NE) of Argonne National Laboratory is experienced in performing criticality safety and shielding evaluations for nuclear, and neutron spectra. The NE nuclear criticality safety (NCS) capabilities are based on a staff with decades

Kemner, Ken

19

Office of Nuclear Safety  

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

20

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework  

Energy Savers [EERE]

Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework DOE's Nuclear Safety Enabling Legislation Regulatory Enforcement & Oversight Regulatory Governance Atomic Energy Act 1946...

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


21

Nuclear Safety Management  

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

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

22

Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual  

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

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

2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

23

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...

24

Nuclear criticality safety guide  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

25

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Requirements for employers  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Requirements for employers · Fallprotectionsandproperuseofrelated-safety equipmentsuchaslifelines,harness · Properuseofdangeroustools,thenecessaryprecautionstotake,andtheuseof theprotectiveandemergencyequipmentrequired. Safety Training and Education Safety Tip #18 Get smart. Use safety from the start. All

Minnesota, University of

26

Nuclear Engineer (Criticality Safety)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

27

General Engineer (Nuclear Safety)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) reports the US/M&P; in serving as the Central Technical Authority (CTA) for M&P; activities, ensuring the Departments nuclear safety policies and...

28

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework  

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

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

29

Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria  

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

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

1993-01-19T23:59:59.000Z

30

Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes  

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

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

2009-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

31

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

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

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

32

Nuclear Engineer (Nuclear Safety Specialist)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

A successful candidate of this position will serve as a Nuclear Engineer (Nuclear Safety Specialist) responsible for day-to-day technical monitoring, and evaluation of aspects of authorization...

33

CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements...  

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

a recommended approach and the types of information to gather to assess elements of a DOE contractor's programs. CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements...

34

DOE-STD-1082-94; DOE Standard Preparation, Review, and Approval of Implementaiton Plans For Nuclear Safety Requirements  

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

82-94 82-94 October 1994 DOE STANDARD PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 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. DE95001461 DOE-STD-1082-94 iii FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) technical standard has been prepared by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health with the assistance of Steve

35

Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary  

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

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

36

Enforcement Letter, September 6, 2007, CH2M Hill Hanford Group Potential Violations of Nuclear Safety Requirements  

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

6, 2007 6, 2007 Mr. John Fulton Chief Executive Officer CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. 2440 Stevens Drive Richland, Washington 99352 Dear Mr. Fulton: The Department of Energy (DOE) held an Enforcement Conference on August 29, 2006, with CH2M Hill Hanford Group (CHG) to discuss potential violations of nuclear safety requirements described in our Investigation Summary Report dated July 26, 2006. At that time, DOE elected to defer a decision on a potential quality improvement violation related to recurring radiological events and deficiencies in the identification and control of radiological hazards at the Tank Farms. This decision was based upon the fact that CHG senior management had initiated radiological work improvements but insufficient data was available to assess their effectiveness. On July 12, 2007, Office of Enforcement

37

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

38

Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules | Department of Energy  

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

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...

39

Safety of Nuclear Explosive Operations  

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

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

2001-08-07T23:59:59.000Z

40

Office of Nuclear Safety Basis and Facility Design  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

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

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

2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

42

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

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

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

2010-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

43

Nuclear Safety News | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Nuclear Safety News Nuclear Safety News October 4, 2012 Department of Energy Cites Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations The U.S....

44

Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements  

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

The guide was developed in support of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management. It provides guidance for the requirements defined in 10 CFR 830.205, Technical Safety Requirements.

2014-09-08T23:59:59.000Z

45

Software Quality Assurance for Nuclear Safety Systems  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US Department of Energy has undertaken an initiative to improve the quality of software used to design and operate their nuclear facilities across the United States. One aspect of this initiative is to revise or create new directives and guides associated with quality practices for the safety software in its nuclear facilities. Safety software includes the safety structures, systems, and components software and firmware, support software and design and analysis software used to ensure the safety of the facility. DOE nuclear facilities are unique when compared to commercial nuclear or other industrial activities in terms of the types and quantities of hazards that must be controlled to protect workers, public and the environment. Because of these differences, DOE must develop an approach to software quality assurance that ensures appropriate risk mitigation by developing a framework of requirements that accomplishes the following goals: {sm_bullet} Ensures the software processes developed to address nuclear safety in design, operation, construction and maintenance of its facilities are safe {sm_bullet} Considers the larger system that uses the software and its impacts {sm_bullet} Ensures that the software failures do not create unsafe conditions Software designers for nuclear systems and processes must reduce risks in software applications by incorporating processes that recognize, detect, and mitigate software failure in safety related systems. It must also ensure that fail safe modes and component testing are incorporated into software design. For nuclear facilities, the consideration of risk is not necessarily sufficient to ensure safety. Systematic evaluation, independent verification and system safety analysis must be considered for software design, implementation, and operation. The software industry primarily uses risk analysis to determine the appropriate level of rigor applied to software practices. This risk-based approach distinguishes safety-critical software and applies the highest level of rigor for those systems. DOE has further defined a risk approach to nuclear safety system software consistent with the analyses required for operation of nuclear facilities. This requires the grading of software in terms of safety class and safety significant structures, systems and components (SSCs). Safety-class SSCs are related to public safety where as safety-significant SSCs are identified for specific aspects of defense-in-depth and worker safety. Industry standards do not directly categorize nuclear safety software and DOE sites are not consistent in their approach to nuclear safety software quality assurance. DOE is establishing a more detailed graded approach for software associated with safety class and safety significant systems. This paper presents the process and results that DOE utilized to develop a detailed classification scheme for nuclear safety software.

Sparkman, D R; Lagdon, R

2004-05-16T23:59:59.000Z

46

NRC - regulator of nuclear safety  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was formed in 1975 to regulate the various commercial and institutional uses of nuclear energy, including nuclear power plants. The agency succeeded the Atomic Energy Commission, which previously had responsibility for both developing and regulating nuclear activities. Federal research and development work for all energy sources, as well as nuclear weapons production, is now conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy. Under its responsibility to protect public health and safety, the NRC has three principal regulatory functions: (1) establish standards and regulations, (2) issue licenses for nuclear facilities and users of nuclear materials, and (3) inspect facilities and users of nuclear materials to ensure compliance with the requirements. These regulatory functions relate to both nuclear power plants and to other uses of nuclear materials - like nuclear medicine programs at hospitals, academic activities at educational institutions, research work, and such industrial applications as gauges and testing equipment. The NRC places a high priority on keeping the public informed of its work. The agency recognizes the interest of citizens in what it does through such activities as maintaining public document rooms across the country and holding public hearings, public meetings in local areas, and discussions with individuals and organizations.

NONE

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

47

Enhancing nuclear power safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Through its ClydeUnion Pumps brand, SPX has a long history of providing pumps to the nuclear power industry and is working to help provide solutions that enhance vital safety systems on these plants. Compared with traditional alternatives, its TWL steam turbine driven pump is designed to increase the reliability of systems that provide heat removal from pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors during extended emergency periods.

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

48

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

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

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

49

CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Safety Basis  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

50

Nuclear Safety and Global Cooperation.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

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

Chang, Yu-shan

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

51

Safety Reports Series No. 11, Developing Safety Culture in Nuclear...  

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

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

52

Office of Nuclear Safety - Directives  

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

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

53

Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement | Department of Energy  

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

Enforcement Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement MISSION The Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement implements the Department's nuclear safety...

54

Nuclear safety | Princeton Plasma Physics Lab  

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

safety Subscribe to RSS - Nuclear safety Actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation accidents or to limit their consequences. A farewell to arms? Scientists developing a novel...

55

Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria | Department of Energy  

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

Reporting Criteria Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria January 1, 2012 Nuclear Safety Noncompliances Associated With Occurrences (DOE Order 232.2) These tables provide the criteria...

56

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...

57

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers [EERE]

Presentation that outlines the rules, policies and orders that comprise the Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework More...

58

10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Technical Positions  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Technical Positions to directives issued by Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy provide clarification for specific applications of the requirements in DOE orders, rules, and other directives.

59

Equivalence of safety requirements between CANDU and US NRC requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) technology has been built on an original pressurized heavy-water reactor (PHWR) concept, which has several characteristics different from those of light water reactors (LWRs). However, the philosophy of defense-in-depth, based on multiple levels of safety and implemented through the provision of several physical and functional barriers against the release of radioactivity to the environment, is applied to both types of reactor. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is conceptual convergence of safety objectives between the CANDU and the LWR designs, which in turn translates into an equivalence of CANDU safety requirements with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements established for LWRS. The demonstration of this safety requirements equivalence has been an important activity for the licensing of CANDU reactors in countries whose regulatory environment has been influenced by the NRC approach and has more recently acquired a special emphasis in the context of a preapplication review of an advanced CANDU design, the CANDU 3, for its design certification in the United States. This paper highlights results of a comparative exercise dealing with the fundamental principles of the CANDU safety philosophy and the corresponding NRC requirements.

Azeez, S.; Bonechi, M. (Sheridan Park Research Community, Mississauga, Ontario (Canada)); Rib, L. (AECL Technologies, Rockville, MD (United States))

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

60

Tutorial on nuclear thermal propulsion safety for Mars  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Buden, D.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Tutorial on nuclear thermal propulsion safety for Mars  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Buden, D.

1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

62

Nano-science Safety Requirements  

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

Nano-science Safety Requirements Effective Date 12/6/2011 Nano-science Safety Requirements Effective Date 12/6/2011 The only official copy of this file is the one on-line. Before using a printed copy, verify that it is the most current version by checking the effective date. Page 1 of 3 Prepared By: L. Stiegler Low Risk - Embedded or Fixed Nanostructures (nanomaterials, incapable as a practical matter, of becoming airborne) Ensure that fixed nanomaterials are not subjected to actions that may generate Unbound NanoParticles (UNP). * For work outside of a HEPA filtered exhaust hood: o No Mechanical stresses e.g., (grinding, scraping, or pressing). o No thermal stresses o Cover samples when practical e.g., (slide cover, Kapton tape, Mylar tape, or cellophane tape). Samples/container must be labeled if not used immediately.

63

Energy requirements for nuclear transformations  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Energy requirements for nuclear transformations ... There are several conservation requirements that must be met in nuclear reactions, including the conservation of energy (E = mc2), charge, angular and linear momentum. ... Nuclear / Radiochemistry ...

Benjamin Carrol; Peter F. E. Marapodi

1951-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

64

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs: Nuclear Facility Training  

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

65

Facility Safety  

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

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

1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

66

Facility Safety  

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

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

1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

67

Surveillance Guide - NSS 18.2 Technical Safety Requirements  

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

TECHNICAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS TECHNICAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 1.0 Objective The objective of this surveillance is to examine the contractor's implementation of technical safety requirements. The surveillance does not address the development of these requirements since this activity is programmatic. The surveillance focuses on ensuring that the contractor has developed and implemented the necessary procedures and administrative controls to ensure that compliance with the Technical Safety Requirements is maintained. 2.0 References 2.1 10 CFR 830.205, Technical Safety Requirements 2.2 DOE 5480.20A Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities 3.0 Requirements Implemented This surveillance is conducted to implement requirements NS-

68

Nuclear Safety: Software Quality Assurance  

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

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

69

Nuclear Safety Information | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Safety Information Nuclear Safety Information Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) | April 8, 2009 Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) |...

70

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety...  

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

Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Analysis Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Attachment, Integrated Safety Analysis This paper addresses why the use of an...

71

Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) | Department of Energy  

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

Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) Nuclear Safety (Pennsylvania) < Back Eligibility Utility Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Program Info State Pennsylvania Program Type Environmental Regulations Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection The Nuclear Safety Division conducts a comprehensive nuclear power plant oversight review program of the nine reactors at the five nuclear power sites in Pennsylvania. It also monitors the activities associated with management and disposal of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Pennsylvania and provides planning and support for Bureau response to incidents involving nuclear power plants and/or radioactive material in

72

Autoclave nuclear criticality safety analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

73

Safety Analysis, Hazard and Risk Evaluations [Nuclear Waste Management  

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

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

74

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop | Department of Energy  

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

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

75

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Seylar, Roland F.

2004-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

76

Microsoft Word - Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria.docx  

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

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

77

Physics of nuclear reactor safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Provides a concise review of the physical aspects of safety of nuclear fission reactors. It covers the developments of roughly the last decade. The introductory chapter contains an analysis of the changes in safety philosophy that are characteristic of the last decade and that have given rise to an increased importance of physical aspects because of the emphasis on passive or natural safety. The second chapter focuses on the basics of reactor safety, identifying the main risk sources and the main principles for a safe design. The third chapter concerns a systematic treatment of the physical processes that are fundamental for the properties of fission chain reacting processes and the control of those processes. Because of the rather specialized nature of the field of reactor physics, each paragraph contains a very concise description of the theory of the phenomenon under consideration, before presenting a review of the developments. Chapter 4 contains a short review of the thermal aspects of reactor safety, restricted to those aspects that are characteristic of the nuclear reactor field, because thermal hydraulics of fission reactors is not principally different from that of other physical systems. In chapter 5 the consequences of the physics treated in the preceding chapters for the dynamics and safety of actual reactors are reviewed. The systematics of the treatment is mainly based on a division of reactors into three categories according to the type of coolant, which to a large extent determines the safety properties of the reactors. The last chapter contains a physical analysis of the Chernobyl accident that occurred in 1986. The reason for an attempt to give a review of this accident, as complete as possible within the space limits set by the editors, is twofold: the Chernobyl accident is the most severe accident in history and physical properties of the reactor played a decisive role, thereby serving as an illustration of the material of the preceding chapters.

H van Dam

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

78

Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard | Department of Energy  

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

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

79

Nuclear Criticality Safety | More Science | ORNL  

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

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

80

Chapter 30 - Nuclear Energy and Safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Safety in nuclear industries is a very serious topic due to its greater accident consequence as seen in Chernobyl, and also due to the pictorial perceptions of nuclear accidents being similar to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions. This chapter points out some important safety aspects of the nuclear industry. Beginning with the current laws and regulations of nuclear safety, this chapter reviews different types of nuclear reactors, nuclear waste treatment systems, reliability of nuclear system, operations of reactors, incident reporting, and a short review of previous accident history. Finally, historical Rasmussen reports are reviewed.

Sam Mannan

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

The Office of Nuclear Energy Announces Central Europe Nuclear Safety  

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

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

82

Nuclear health and safety  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Since 1943 the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries has had a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor to administer a self-insured workers' compensation/pension program for contractor employees at DOE's Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. This paper review stems from concerns that the contract's implementation could have prevented Hanford employees from filing workers' compensation claims for radiation-related injuries or occupational diseases resulting from their employment at the Hanford Site. GAO found that the procedures since the late 1950s for filing claims contain sufficient checks and balances to ensure they cannot be blocked by DOE. However, this assurance is lacking for claims initiated between 1943, when Hanford was founded, and the late 1950s. Claim-filed procedures in effect at that time required claims to the state before the procedural change, nor were DOE, state officials, or employee union representatives aware of any Hanford employee being denied the right to file a workers' compensation claim.

Not Available

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

83

Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and...

84

DOE Cites Bechtel Jacobs Company for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department  

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

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

85

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

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

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

86

Generation III reactors safety requirements and the design solutions  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Nuclear energy's public acceptance, and hence its development, depends on its safety. As a reactor designer, we will first briefly remind the basic safety principles of nuclear reactors' design. We will then show how the industry, and in particular Areva with its EPR, made design evolution in the wake of the Three Miles Island accident in 1979. In particular, for this new generation of reactors, severe accidents are taken into account beyond the standard design basis accidents. Today, Areva's EPR meets all so-called 'generation III' safety requirements and was licensed by several nuclear safety authorities in the world. Many innovative solutions are integrated in the EPR, some of which will be introduced here.

Felten, P. [Areva NP (France)

2009-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

87

Inherent safety concepts in nuclear power reactors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Different inherent safety concepts being considered in fast and thermal reactors are presented after outlining the basic goals of nuclear reactor safety, the defence in depth philosophy to achieve these goal...

O M Pal Singh; R Shankar Singh

1989-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

88

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

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

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

89

DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program - Nuclear Engineering Division  

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

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

90

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Construction employers are required to provide medical  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Safety First Safety Last Safety Always Construction employers are required to provide medical at Construction Job Sites Safety Tip #7 Falling objects can be brutal if you don't protect your noodle. #12;Additional Information for Presenters Review the information provided on the reverse side of this safety tip

Minnesota, University of

91

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This Nuclear Safety Research & Development (NSR&D) Committee Charter provides the membership, roles, and responsibilities of the NSR&D Committee.

92

NUCLEAR SAFETY SPECIALIST QUALIFICATION STANDARD REFERENCE GUIDE  

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

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

93

Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy  

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

Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy Technical Position NSEP-TP-2007- 1, Technical Position on the Requirement in DOE 0 420.1B to Use National Consensus Industry Standards and the Model Building CodesTechnical Position NS Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy Technical Position NSEP-TP-2007- 1, Technical Position on the Requirement in DOE 0 420.1B to Use National Consensus Industry Standards and the Model Building CodesTechnical Position NS All new construction required to follow the provisions of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 420. lB, Facility Safety, must comply with national consensus industry standards and the model building codes applicable for the state or region in which the facility is located. Certain individuals in the fire community requested

94

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Operations (NRC)), Jim O'Brien, Director, Office of Nuclear Safety (EHSS DOE), Robert Johnson (Chief, Fuel Manufacturing Branch (NRC)) Front Row: Matt Moury, Associate Under...

95

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Process  

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

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

96

The history of nuclear weapon safety devices  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

97

CRAD, Nuclear Safety Component - June 29, 2011 | Department of...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

CRAD, Nuclear Safety Component - June 29, 2011 CRAD, Nuclear Safety Component - June 29, 2011 June 29, 2011 Nuclear Safety Component and Services Procurement (HSS CRAD 45-12, Rev....

98

FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Explosive Safety Study  

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

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study FAQS Nuclear Explosive Safety Study FAQS STEP 1: Job Task Analysis for Tasks Task (and Number) Source Importance Frequency (1) Serves as a member or chair of the NESSG. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph A 5 3 (2) Provides guidance on and interpretation of nuclear explosive safety (NES) requirements and policy. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph B 5 4 (3) Drafts policy directives for the DOE/NNSA, Nuclear Explosive Safety Operations Branch (NESB) and reviews DOE/NNSA policies on NES. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph D 5 3 (4) Provides instruction and guidance regarding NES to individuals assigned NES responsibilities. FAQS Duties and Responsibilities Paragraph E 5 3-4 (5) Monitors ongoing NEOs to ensure compliance with NES standards and

99

DOE Cites Washington TRU Solutions for Nuclear Safety Violations |  

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

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

100

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

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

Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor February 2007 A section of...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation...  

Energy Savers [EERE]

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation Nuclear Safety Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation 9222014 Enforcement Letter, Sandia Corporation,...

102

Summary Pamphlet, Nuclear Safety at the Department of Energy...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Summary Pamphlet, Nuclear Safety at the Department of Energy Summary Pamphlet, Nuclear Safety at the Department of Energy September 2010 This pamphlet is developed as part of the...

103

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan...  

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

Program Operating Plan Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan July 5, 2012 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan This operating...

104

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

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

Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 December 8, 2014 - 1:22pm Addthis Nuclear Safety Research...

105

In-Situ Radiological Surveys to Address Nuclear Criticality Safety Requirements During Remediation Activities at the Shallow Land Disposal Area, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania - 12268  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Cabrera Services Inc. (CABRERA) is the remedial contractor for the Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA) Site in Armstrong County Pennsylvania, a United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers - Buffalo District (USACE) contract. The remediation is being completed under the USACE's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) which was established to identify, investigate, and clean up or control sites previously used by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its predecessor, the Manhattan Engineer District (MED). As part of the management of the FUSRAP, the USACE is overseeing investigation and remediation of radiological contamination at the SLDA Site in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 US Code (USC), Section 9601 et. seq, as amended and, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f) (2). The objective of this project is to clean up radioactive waste at SLDA. The radioactive waste contains special nuclear material (SNM), primarily U-235, in 10 burial trenches, Cabrera duties include processing, packaging and transporting the waste to an offsite disposal facility in accordance with the selected remedial alternative as defined in the Final Record of Decision (USACE, 2007). Of particular importance during the remediation is the need to address nuclear criticality safety (NCS) controls for the safe exhumation and management of waste containing fissile materials. The partnership between Cabrera Services, Inc. and Measutronics Corporation led to the development of a valuable survey tool and operating procedure that are essential components of the SLDA Criticality Safety and Material Control and Accountability programs. Using proven existing technologies in the design and manufacture of the Mobile Survey Cart, the continued deployment of the Cart will allow for an efficient and reliable methodology to allow for the safe exhumation of the Special Nuclear Material in existing SLDA trenches. (authors)

Norris, Phillip; Mihalo, Mark; Eberlin, John; Lambert, Mike [Cabrera Services (United States); Matthews, Brian [Nuclear Safety Associates (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

106

Comparison of radiation safety and nuclear explosive safety disciplines  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In August 1945, U.S. Navy Captain William Parsons served as the weaponeer aboard the Enola Gay for the mission to Hiroshima (Shelton 1988). In view of the fact that four B-29s had crashed and burned on takeoff from Tinian the night before, Captain Parsons made the decision to arm the gun-type weapon after takeoff for safety reasons (15 kilotons of TNT equivalent). Although he had no control over the success of the takeoff, he could prevent the possibility of a nuclear detonation on Tinian by controlling what we now call the nuclear explosive. As head of the Ordnance Division at Los Alamos and a former gunnery officer, Captain Parsons clearly understood the role of safety in his work. The advent of the pre-assembled implosion weapon where the high explosive and nuclear materials are always in an intimate configuration meant that nuclear explosive safety became a reality at a certain point in development and production not just at the time of delivery by the military. This is the only industry where nuclear materials are intentionally put in contact with high explosives. The agency of the U.S. Government responsible for development and production of U.S. nuclear weapons is the Department of Energy (DOE) (and its predecessor agencies). This paper will be limited to nuclear explosive safety as it is currently practiced within the DOE nuclear weapons

Winstanley, J. L.

1998-10-10T23:59:59.000Z

107

INTERPRETATION REGARDING EXEMPTION RELIEF UNDER 10 C.F.R. PART 820, SUBPART E, EXEMPTION RELIEF, AND NON-COMPLIANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES SUBJECT TO 10 C.F.R. PART 830, NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT, SUBPART B, SAFETY BASIS REQUIREMENTS  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The following document is the Office of General Counsel (GC) interpretation regarding exemption relief pursuant to10 C.F.R. Part 820, Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, Subpart E,...

108

Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary | Department of Energy  

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

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

109

Code of Federal Regulations NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This part governs the conduct of DOE contractors, DOE personnel, and other persons conducting activities (including providing items and services) that affect, or may affect, the safety of DOE nuclear facilities.

110

FAQS Reference Guide Nuclear Safety Specialist  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

111

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

2001 Issued to CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., related to Nuclear Safety Management at the Hanford Site Tank Farms March 19, 2001 Preliminary Notice of Violation, BNFL, Inc -...

112

Specification of advanced safety modeling requirements (Rev. 0).  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has lead to renewed interest in liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors for the purpose of closing the nuclear fuel cycle and making more efficient use of future repository capacity. However, the U.S. has not designed or constructed a fast reactor in nearly 30 years. Accurate, high-fidelity, whole-plant dynamics safety simulations will play a crucial role by providing confidence that component and system designs will satisfy established design limits and safety margins under a wide variety of operational, design basis, and beyond design basis transient conditions. Current modeling capabilities for fast reactor safety analyses have resulted from several hundred person-years of code development effort supported by experimental validation. The broad spectrum of mechanistic and phenomenological models that have been developed represent an enormous amount of institutional knowledge that needs to be maintained. Complicating this, the existing code architectures for safety modeling evolved from programming practices of the 1970s. This has lead to monolithic applications with interdependent data models which require significant knowledge of the complexities of the entire code in order for each component to be maintained. In order to develop an advanced fast reactor safety modeling capability, the limitations of the existing code architecture must be overcome while preserving the capabilities that already exist. To accomplish this, a set of advanced safety modeling requirements is defined, based on modern programming practices, that focuses on modular development within a flexible coupling framework. An approach for integrating the existing capabilities of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 fast reactor safety analysis code into the SHARP framework is provided in order to preserve existing capabilities while providing a smooth transition to advanced modeling capabilities. In doing this, the advanced fast reactor safety models will target leadership-class computing architectures for massively-parallel high-fidelity computations while providing continued support for rapid prototyping using modest fidelity computations on multiple-core desktop platforms.

Fanning, T. H.; Tautges, T. J.

2008-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

113

FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist | Department of  

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

Nuclear Safety Specialist Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist A key element for the Department's Technical Qualification Programs is a set of common Functional Area Qualification Standards (FAQS) and associated Job Task Analyses (JTA). These standards are developed for various functional areas of responsibility in the Department, including oversight of safety management programs identified as hazard controls in Documented Safety Analyses (DSA). For each functional area, the FAQS identify the minimum technical competencies and supporting knowledge and skills for a typical qualified individual working in the area. FAQC-NuclearSafetySpecialist-2007.docx Description Nuclear Safety Specialist Qualification Card - 2007 FAQC-NuclearSafetySpecialist-2004.docx

114

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program The Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program is managed by...

115

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

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

2010-05-27T23:59:59.000Z

116

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

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

117

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This document is the first annual report of DOEs Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program, managed by the Office of Nuclear Safety in the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security. The report includes a description of the program and summaries of R&D projects related to DOE (including NNSA) nuclear facility and operational safety.

118

Safety system augmentation at Russian nuclear power plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper describes the design and procurement of a Class IE DC power supply system to upgrade plant safety at the Kola Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). Kola NPP is located above the Arctic circle at Polyarnie Zorie, Murmansk, Russia. Kola NPP consists of four units. Units 1 and 2 have VVER-440/230 type reactors: Units 3 and 4 have VVER-440/213 type reactors. The VVER-440 reactor design is similar to the pressurized water reactor design used in the US. This project provided redundant, Class 1E DC station batteries and DC switchboards for Kola NPP, Units 1 and 2. The new DC power supply system was designed and procured in compliance with current nuclear design practices and requirements. Technical issues that needed to be addressed included reconciling the requirements in both US and Russian codes and satisfying the requirements of the Russian nuclear regulatory authority. Close interface with ATOMENERGOPROEKT (AEP), the Russian design organization, KOLA NPP plant personnel, and GOSATOMNADZOR (GAN), the Russian version of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was necessary to develop a design that would assure compliance with current Russian design requirements. Hence, this project was expected to serve as an example for plant upgrades at other similar VVER-440 nuclear plants. In addition to technical issues, the project needed to address language barriers and the logistics of shipping equipment to a remote section of the Former Soviet Union (FSU). This project was executed by Burns and Roe under the sponsorship of the US DOE as part of the International Safety Program (INSP). The INSP is a comprehensive effort, in cooperation with partners in other countries, to improve nuclear safety worldwide. A major element within the INSP is the improvement of the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors.

Scerbo, J.A.; Satpute, S.N.; Donkin, J.Y.; Reister, R.A. [Burns and Roe, Oradell, NJ (United States); [Department of Energy, Germantown, MD (United States)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

119

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Fisk, Patricia; Rutherford, Lavon

2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

120

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Presentations | Department of Energy  

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

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements  

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

This Guide provides information to assist in implementation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 830.203, "Unreviewed Safety Question Process," of the Nuclear Safety Management Rules for Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities owned or operated by the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. Cancels DOE G 424.1-1.

2006-07-24T23:59:59.000Z

122

Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements  

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

This Guide provides information to assist in the implementation and interpretation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830.203, Unreviewed Safety Question Process, of the Nuclear Safety Management Rules for applicable nuclear facilities owned or operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Canceled by DOE N 251.93.

2001-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

123

FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Explosive Safety Study | Department of  

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

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Nuclear Explosive Safety Study FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Explosive Safety Study A key element for the Department's Technical Qualification Programs is a set of common Functional Area Qualification Standards (FAQS) and associated Job Task Analyses (JTA). These standards are developed for various functional areas of responsibility in the Department, including oversight of safety management programs identified as hazard controls in Documented Safety Analyses (DSA). For each functional area, the FAQS identify the minimum technical competencies and supporting knowledge and skills for a typical qualified individual working in the area. FAQC-NuclearExplosiveSafetyStudy.docx Description Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Qualification Card More Documents & Publications

124

DOE's Approach to Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis and Management  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

125

Chapter 6 - Nuclear-Powered Payload Safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract This chapter introduces the concepts of Space Nuclear Power Systems (SNPSs), describes the history and nature of these ingenious energy-generating machines. The basic principles of the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) and the recently developed Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG) are explored and an account of their application in several extra-terrestrial missions is presented. Nuclear fission power as a promising alternative for future outer planet and extra-solar explorations is discussed. The flight safety review and launch approval processes for U.S., as well as the failures and accidents for U.S. and U.S.S.R. (Russian) nuclear powered space missions since 1961 are presented chronologically. A comprehensive probabilistic consequence analysis of all conceivable potential hazards associated with nuclear powered space flights is set out. The chapter concludes with how \\{SNPSs\\} must be designed with the built-in safety features to minimize accidents and to prevent radiation exposure.

Firooz A. Allahdadi; Sayavur I. Bakhtiyarov; Gregory D. Wyss; Gary F. Polansky; Joseph A. Sholtis; Curt D. Botts

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

126

Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments conducts assessments to provide critical feedback and objective information on programs and performance in protecting our workers, the public and environment from radiological hazards with a focus on hazardous nuclear facilities and operations. This information provides assurance to our stakeholders and identifies areas for improvement to our leadership to support the safe performance of the Departments mission.

127

June 2010, Risk Assessment in Support of DOE Nuclear Safety  

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

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

128

Nuclear safety lies in greater transparency  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... Chinas nuclear expansion relies on generation III reactors, such as the Westinghouse AP1000 and the Areva European Pressurized Reactor (EPR). The industry promises that these models ... work and cost-cutting often flourish, will sacrifice safety for speed. To date, the AP1000 reactors in the Zhejiang and Shandong provinces are the only commercial units worldwide. Of ...

Qiang Wang

2013-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

129

SAFETY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract A survey of the various aspects of safety and reliability analysis of nuclear reactors is presented with particular emphasis on the interrelation between structural reliability and systems reliability. In reactor design this interrelation is of overriding importance since it is the task of the control, protective and containment systems to protect the mechanical system and the structure from accidental overloading.

T.A. JAEGER

1972-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

130

Management of National Nuclear Power Programs for assured safety  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Connolly, T.J. (ed.)

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

131

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Status Workshop Summary  

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

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

132

DOE Cites Fluor Fernald Inc. for Nuclear Safety Violations |...  

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

DOE Cites Fluor Fernald Inc. for Nuclear Safety Violations DOE Cites Fluor Fernald Inc. for Nuclear Safety Violations August 25, 2005 - 2:43pm Addthis Washington, D.C. - The...

133

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

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

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

134

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter  

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

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

135

Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2008-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

136

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

137

Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives | Department of Energy  

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

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

138

CY 2012 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan - Chief of Nuclear Safety  

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

2 2 Reporting Office: Chief of Nuclear Safety . Section One: Current Mission(s) of the Organization and Potential Changes Revision 2 of U.S. Department of Energy Implementation Plan for DNFSB Recommendation 2004-1 established the seven core CTA responsibilities. The Office of the Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) performs to following functions in support of the CTA meeting these responsibilities: 1. Nuclear Safety Requirement Concurrence and Exemption * Concur with the determination of the applicability of DOE directives involving nuclear safety included in Energy and Science contracts pursuant to Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), 48 CFR 970.5204-2, Laws, regulations, and DOE directives, item (b). * Concur with nuclear safety requirements included in Energy and Science contracts pursuant to

139

CY 2011 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan - Chief of Nuclear Safety  

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

1 1 Reporting Office: Chief of Nuclear Safety . Section One: Current Mission(s) of the Organization and Potential Changes Revision 2 of U.S. Department of Energy Implementation Plan for DNFSB Recommendation 2004-1 established the seven core CTA responsibilities. The Office of the Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) performs to following functions in support of the CTA meeting these responsibilities: 1. Nuclear Safety Requirement Concurrence and Exemption * Concur with the determination of the applicability of DOE directives involving nuclear safety included in Energy and Science contracts pursuant to Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), 48 CFR 970.5204-2, Laws, regulations, and DOE directives, item (b). * Concur with nuclear safety requirements included in Energy and Science contracts pursuant to

140

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

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

Technical Basis for U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy, DOE Policy 420.1 This document provides the technical basis for the Department of Energy (DOE) Policy (P) 420.1, Nuclear Safety Policy, dated 2-8-2011. It includes an analysis of the revised Policy to determine whether it provides the necessary and sufficient high-level expectations that will lead DOE to establish and implement appropriate requirements to assure protection of the public, workers, and the environment from the hazards of DOE's operation of nuclear facilities. In developing the revised Policy and performing this analysis, DOE reviewed the current Nuclear Safety Policy (Secretary of Energy Notice [SEN] 35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy) and safety policies established by other safety

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


141

Nuclear Renaissance Requires Nuclear Enlightenment W J Nuttall  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Nuclear Renaissance Requires Nuclear Enlightenment W J Nuttall Judge Business School, Cambridge University, Trumpington Street Cambridge, CB2 1AG UK Abstract Nuclear energy was developed by technocratic as a result of global anthropogenic climate change, nuclear power might actually represent a means to preserve

Aickelin, Uwe

142

Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

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

143

Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements  

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

This Guide, including its attachments, provides information to assist in the implementation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 830.203, Unreviewed Safety Question Process, of the Nuclear Safety Management Rules for Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities owned or operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Cancels DOE G 424.1-1A. Admin Chg 1 dated 4-12-13.

2010-04-08T23:59:59.000Z

144

Double-clad nuclear fuel safety rod  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

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

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

145

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

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

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

146

Nuclear power's threat to health, safety, and freedom  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Nuclear power's threat to health, safety, and freedom ... In particular, they may differ on whether the nuclear power plants that are the result of the 1953 Atoms for Peace movement help or hinder the control of nuclear weapons. ...

1980-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

147

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

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

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

148

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

149

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

150

Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOEs Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOEs Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

151

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

152

Enforcement Regulations and Directives - Nuclear Safety | Department of  

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

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

153

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab - Nuclear safety  

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

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

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

154

Ris-R-679(EN) Nuclear Safety Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of the nuclear facilities at Risø. The activities include personnel dosimetry, maintenance and calibra- tionRisø-R-679(EN) mil Nuclear Safety Research Department Annual Progress Report 1992 Edited by B March 1993 #12;Nuclear Safety Research K«*«i Department Annual Progress Report 1992 Edited by B

155

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

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

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

156

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

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

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

157

Independent Activity Report, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Public  

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

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

158

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

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

159

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

160

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

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Development of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Safety...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

OF PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY APPLICATIONS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release;...

162

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

163

Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics  

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

Science at NERSC HPC Requirements Reviews Requirements for Science: Target 2014 Nuclear Physics (NP) Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics:...

164

Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements  

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

This Guide, including its attachments, provides information to assist in the implementation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 830.203, Unreviewed Safety Question Process, of the Nuclear Safety Management Rules for Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities owned or operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Cancels DOE G 424.1-1A. Admin Chg 1 dated 4-12-13. Admin Chg 2, dated 6-12-13, cancels DOE G 424.1-1B Admin Chg 1.

2010-04-08T23:59:59.000Z

165

Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard QuickStart Guide  

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

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

166

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

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

CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor February 2007 A section of Appendix C to DOE G 226.1-2 "Federal Line Management Oversight of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities." Consists of Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) used for a February 2007 assessment of the Nuclear Safety Program in preparation for restart of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor. CRADs provide a recommended approach and the types of information to gather to assess elements of a DOE contractor's programs. CRAD, Nuclear Safety - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor More Documents & Publications CRAD, Engineering - Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor

167

Application of Risk Assessment and Management to Nuclear Safety |  

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

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

168

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

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

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

169

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

170

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

On December 15, Matt Moury, Associate Under Secretary, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS DOE) and EHSS Office of Nuclear Safety staff met with the NRC Executive Director for Operations, the Deputy Executive Director for Operations, and the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards to sign a nuclear safety information exchange agreement between NRC Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

171

Technical Safety Requirements for the B695 Segment  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document contains Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) Division's B695 Segment of the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TSRs constitute requirements regarding the safe operation of the B695 Segment. The TSRs are derived from the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the B695 Segment (LLNL 2007). The analysis presented there determined that the B695 Segment is a low-chemical hazard, Hazard Category 3, nonreactor nuclear facility. The TSRs consist primarily of inventory limits as well as controls to preserve the underlying assumptions in the hazard analyses. Furthermore, appropriate commitments to safety programs are presented in the administrative controls section of the TSRs. The B695 Segment (B695 and the west portion of B696) is a waste treatment and storage facility located in the northeast quadrant of the LLNL main site. The approximate area and boundary of the B695 Segment are shown in the B695 Segment DSA. Activities typically conducted in the B695 Segment include container storage, lab-packing, repacking, overpacking, bulking, sampling, waste transfer, and waste treatment. B695 is used to store and treat radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste, and it also contains equipment used in conjunction with waste processing operations to treat various liquid and solid wastes. The portion of the building called Building 696 Solid Waste Processing Area (SWPA), also referred to as B696S in this report, is used primarily to manage solid radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste. Operations specific to the SWPA include sorting and segregating waste, lab-packing, sampling, and crushing empty drums that previously contained waste. Furthermore, a Waste Packaging Unit will be permitted to treat hazardous and mixed waste. RHWM generally processes LLW with no, or extremely low, concentrations of transuranics (i.e., much less than 100 nCi/g). Wastes processed often contain only depleted uranium and beta- and gamma-emitting nuclides, e.g., {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, {sup 3}H. Chapter 5 of the DSA documents the derivation of TSRs and develops the operational limits that protect the safety envelope defined for this facility. The DSA is applicable to the handling of radioactive waste stored and treated in the B695 Segment. Section 5 of the TSR, Administrative Controls, contains those Administrative Controls necessary to ensure safe operation of the B695 Segment. A basis explanation for each of the requirements described in Section 5.5, Specific Administrative Controls is provided in Appendix B. The basis explanation does not constitute an additional requirement, but is intended as an expansion of the logic and reasoning behind development of the requirement. Programmatic Administrative Controls are addressed in Section 5.6. This introduction to the B695 Segment TSRs is not part of the TSR limits or conditions and contains no requirements related to B695 Segment operations or to the safety analyses in the DSA.

Laycak, D

2008-09-11T23:59:59.000Z

172

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

173

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [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

174

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

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

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

175

Nuclear data requirements for accelerator?driven transmutation systems  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The possibilities of several new technologies based on use of intense medium?energy proton accelerators are being investigated at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The potential new areas include destruction of long?lived components of nuclear waste plutonium burning energy production and production of tritium. The design assessment and safety analysis of potential facilities involves the understanding of complex combinations of nuclear processes which in turn places new requirements on nuclear data that transcend the traditional needs of the fission and fusion reactor communities. In this paper an assessment of the nuclear data needs for systems currently being considered in the Los Alamos Accelerator?Driven Transmutation Technologies program is given. The importance of developing neutron and proton cross section libraries in the incident particle energy range of 20 MeV to approximately 200 MeV for transport applications is discussed and new theoretical methods for developing cross section libraries at higher incident neutron and proton energies are summarized.

P. G. Young; W. B. Wilson; M. B. Chadwick

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

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

177

FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Safety Specialist  

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

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

178

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's enabling legislation  

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

179

NUCLEAR SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA Post Fukushima Initiatives and Results  

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

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

180

TA-55 Final Safety Analysis Report Comparison Document and DOE Safety Evaluation Report Requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document provides an overview of changes to the currently approved TA-55 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that are included in the upgraded FSAR. The DOE Safety Evaluation Report (SER) requirements that are incorporated into the upgraded FSAR are briefly discussed to provide the starting point in the FSAR with respect to the SER requirements.

Alan Bond

2001-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Nuclear Plant/Hydrogen Plant Safety: Issues and Approaches  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Steven R. Sherman

2007-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Photos | Department of Energy  

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

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

183

An Integrated Safety Assessment Methodology for Generation IV Nuclear Systems  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Timothy J. Leahy

2010-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

184

Nuclear Safety Reserch and Development Program Operating Plan  

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

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

185

Hybrid reliability model for nuclear reactor safety system  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The dependability of critical safety systems needs to be quantitatively determined in order to verify their effectiveness, e.g. with regard to regulatory requirements. Since modular redundant safety systems are not required for normal operation, their reliability is strongly dependent on periodic inspection. Several modeling methods for the quantitative assessment of dependability are described in the literature, with a broad variation in complexity and modeling power. Static modeling techniques such as fault tree analysis (FTA) or reliability block diagrams (RBD) are not capable of capturing redundancy and repair or test activities. Dynamic state space based models such as continuous time Markov chains (CTMC) are more powerful but often result in very large, intractable models. Moreover, exponentially distributed state residence times are not a correct representation of actual residence times associated with repair activities or periodic inspection. In this study, a hybrid model combines a system level RBD with a CTMC to describe the dynamics. The effects of periodic testing are modeled by redistributing state probabilities at deterministic test times. Applying the method to the primary safety shutdown system of the BR2(Belgian Reactor 2)nuclear research reactor, resulted in a quantitative as well as a qualitative assessment of its reliability.

Steven Verlinden; Geert Deconinck; Bernard Coup

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

186

6450-01-P], DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety  

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

6450-01-P], DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety 6450-01-P], DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). 6450-01-P], DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). The Department of Energy (DOE) has issued Ruling 1995-1 which interprets certain regulatory provisions relating to DOE's nuclear safety requirements. This Ruling is intended to be a generally applicable clarification that addresses questions concerning the applicability and effect of these provisions. Ruling 1995-1; Ruling concerning 10 CFR Parts 830 and 835 More Documents & Publications Appendix A. Notice of Inquiry: Preparation of Report to Congress on Price-Anderson Act. 62 Federal Register 68,272 (December 31, 1997) Report to Congress on the Price-Anderson Act

187

DOE Cites CH2M Hill Hanford for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules | Department  

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

for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules DOE Cites CH2M Hill Hanford for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules March 10, 2005 - 10:44am Addthis Hanford Tank Farm Contractor Faces Fine of more than $300,000 WASHINGTON, DC - The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified the CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. (CH2M Hill) - that it will fine the company $316,250 for violations of the department's nuclear safety requirements. CH2M Hill is the department's contractor responsible for storage of highly radioactive and hazardous liquid waste at the Hanford Tank Farms near Richland, Wash. The Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) issued today, cites four events that took place in 2003 and 2004. These events include the contamination of several workers while removing equipment from a valve pit

188

Work for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Related Applications  

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

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

189

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

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

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

190

Pantex sets safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

191

Pantex receives two safety awards | National Nuclear Security  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

192

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

193

DOE Cites University of Chicago for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department  

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

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

194

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

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

195

World nuclear fuel cycle requirements 1990  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This analysis report presents the projected requirements for uranium concentrate and uranium enrichment services to fuel the nuclear power plants expected to be operating under three nuclear supply scenarios. Two of these scenarios, the Lower Reference and Upper Reference cases, apply to the United States, Canada, Europe, the Far East, and other countries with free market economies (FME countries). A No New Orders scenario is presented only for the United States. These nuclear supply scenarios are described in Commercial Nuclear Power 1990: Prospects for the United States and the World (DOE/EIA-0438(90)). This report contains an analysis of the sensitivities of the nuclear fuel cycle projections to different levels and types of projected nuclear capacity, different enrichment tails assays, higher and lower capacity factors, changes in nuclear fuel burnup levels, and other exogenous assumptions. The projections for the United States generally extend through the year 2020, and the FME projections, which include the United States, are provided through 2010. The report also presents annual projections of spent nuclear fuel discharges and inventories of spent fuel. Appendix D includes domestic spent fuel projections through the year 2030 for the Lower and Upper Reference cases and through 2040, the last year in which spent fuel is discharged, for the No New Orders case. These disaggregated projections are provided at the request of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Not Available

1990-10-26T23:59:59.000Z

196

Deputy Secretary Poneman Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA | Department  

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

Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA Deputy Secretary Poneman Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA June 20, 2011 - 12:00am Addthis Washington, D.C. - U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman today addressed the plenary session at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety. Deputy Secretary Poneman emphasized the importance of international cooperation and information sharing for developing lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. The IAEA is leading the process to develop these international best practices, which will help strengthen the international nuclear regulatory regime. Remarks as prepared for delivery are below. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your work in organizing this important Conference and to Director General Amano and his staff for convening it.

197

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan | Department  

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

Program Operating Plan Program Operating Plan Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan July 5, 2012 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan This operating plan outlines the mission, goals, and processes for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research & Development (NSR&D) Program. This first version of the operating plan also discusses the startup phase of the program. NSR&D involves a systematic search for knowledge to advance the fundamental understanding of nuclear safety science and technology through scientific study, analysis, modeling, and experiments. Maintaining an effective NSR&D program will support DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in standards development, validation of analytical models and

198

Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter | Department of  

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

Research and Development Committee Charter Research and Development Committee Charter Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter July 5, 2012 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter The intent of the Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Committee is to identify nuclear safety research needs and opportunities within the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and their program offices. The Committee promotes communication and coordination among DOE and NNSA program offices to enhance synergy on NSR&D efforts that can benefit the Department. The Committee will foster and facilitate networking and information exchange on NSR&D needs and activities across DOE/NNSA programs and with external national and international organizations. The Committee should not be construed to have

199

On the Integration of Requirements Analysis and Safety Analysis for Safety-Critical Software  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

this is acceptable within the context of system risk. The advantage of conducting the safety analysis during is acceptable within the overall #12;2 system risk. If the risk is not acceptable the safety specification has analysis is to determine the risk associated with requirements specifications and assess whether

Newcastle upon Tyne, University of

200

Status of safety issues at licensed power plants: TMI Action Plan requirements; unresolved safety issues; generic safety issues; other multiplant action issues. Supplement 3  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

As part of ongoing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) efforts to ensure the quality and accountability of safety issue information, the NRC established a program for publishing an annual report on the status of licensee implementation and NRC verification of safety issues in major NRC requirements areas. This information was initially compiled and reported in three NUREG-series volumes. Volume 1, published in March 1991, addressed the status of Three Mile Island (TMI) Action Plan Requirements. Volume 2, published in May 1991, addressed the status of unresolved safety issues (USIs). Volume 3, published in June 1991, addressed the implementation and verification status of generic safety issues (GSIs). The first annual supplement, which combined these volumes into a single report and presented updated information as of September 30, 1991, was published in December 1991. The second annual supplement, which provided updated information as of September 30, 1992, was published in December 1992. Supplement 2 also provided the status of licensee implementation and NRC verification of other multiplant action (MPA) issues not related to TMI Action Plan requirements, USIs, or GSIs. This third annual NUREG report, Supplement 3, presents updated information as of September 30, 1993. This report gives a comprehensive description of the implementation and verification status of TMI Action Plan requirements, safety issues designated as USIs, GSIs, and other MPAs that have been resolved and involve implementation of an action or actions by licensees. This report makes the information available to other interested parties, including the public. Additionally, this report serves as a follow-on to NUREG-0933, ``A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues,`` which tracks safety issues until requirements are approved for imposition at licensed plants or until the NRC issues a request for action by licensees.

Not Available

1993-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Supplemnental Volume - Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, January 2012  

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

Volume Volume Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant January 2012 Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS i Independent Oversight Assessment of Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Supplemental Volume Table of Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v

202

Y-12's 1958 nuclear criticality accident and increased safety...  

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

signage, responsibility and programs for increased safety. Signs were required to make workers aware of hazards that had not been used before. Emergency response organizations...

203

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [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.

204

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 |  

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

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 September 2012 A working group with nuclear safety expertise used paired pairing computer software to develop first, a severity-weighted factor for the 17 Groups of ORPS Reporting Criteria and then, a severity-weighted factor for the sixty-five ORPS reporting criteria. The sum of the severity-weighted factors for the sixty-five ORPS Reporting Criteria equals 100%. Paired pairing is an analytical tool used to determine weighted factors. A team evaluated pairs of ORPS reporting criteria and concurred on the relative importance of each pair. Each ORPS reporting criterion in a group was compared with one other ORPS reporting

205

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 |  

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

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 September 2012 A working group with nuclear safety expertise used paired pairing computer software to develop first, a severity-weighted factor for the 17 Groups of ORPS Reporting Criteria and then, a severity-weighted factor for the sixty-five ORPS reporting criteria. The sum of the severity-weighted factors for the sixty-five ORPS Reporting Criteria equals 100%. Paired pairing is an analytical tool used to determine weighted factors. A team evaluated pairs of ORPS reporting criteria and concurred on the relative importance of each pair. Each ORPS reporting criterion in a group was compared with one other ORPS reporting

206

Exelon Statement Regarding Nuclear Safety and 10 CFR 810  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Exelon respectfully submits that the existing 810 rule, as currently interpreted, and the proposed revised rule, both work as deterrents to improving safety in nuclear operations around the world.

207

A probabilistic safety analysis of incidents in nuclear research reactors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......System for Research Reactor (IRSRR). Available...System for Research Reactor (IRSRR). Available...76. 7 Manual on reliability data collection for research reactor PSAs. (1992) IAEA...probabilistic safety analysis of incidents in nuclear......

Valdir Maciel Lopes; Gian Maria Agostinho Angelo Sordi; Mauricio Moralles; Tufic Madi Filho

2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

208

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

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

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

209

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

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

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

210

Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  

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

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

211

Technical Safety Requirements for the Waste Storage Facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Laycak, D T

2008-06-16T23:59:59.000Z

212

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  

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

213

The unique signal concept for detonation safety in nuclear weapons  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of a unique signal (UQS) in a nuclear weapon system is to provide an unambiguous communication of intent to detonate from the UQS information input source device to a stronglink safety device in the weapon in a manner that is highly unlikely to be duplicated or simulated in normal environments and in a broad range of ill-defined abnormal environments. This report presents safety considerations for the design and implementation of UQSs in the context of the overall safety system.

Spray, S.D.; Cooper, J.A.

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

214

Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports  

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

he purpose of this DOE Standard is to establish guidance for the preparation and review of hazard categorization and accident analyses techniques as required in DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.

1997-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

215

[6450-01-P], DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing a final rule regarding Nuclear SafetyManagement. This Part establishes requirements for the safe management of DOE contractor andsubcontractor work at the...

216

THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR SAFETY REGIME IN BRAZIL  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A turning point of the world nuclear industry with respect to safety occurred due to the accident at Chernobyl, in 1986. A side from the tragic personal losses and the enormous financial damage, the Chernobyl accident has literally demonstrated that ''a nuclear accident anywhere is an accident everywhere''. The impact was felt immediately by the nuclear industry, with plant cancellations (e.g. Austria), elimination of national programs (e.g. Italy) and general construction delays. However, the reaction of the nuclear industry was equally immediate, which led to the proposal and establishment of a Global Nuclear Safety Regime. This regime is composed of biding international safety conventions, globally accepted safety standard, and a voluntary peer review system. In a previous work, the author has presented in detail the components of this Regime, and briefly discussed its impact in the Brazilian nuclear power organizations, including the Regulatory Body. This work, on the opposite, briefly reviews the Global Nuclear Safety Regime, and concentrates in detail in the discussion of its impact in Brazil, showing how it has produced some changes, and where the peer pressure regime has failed to produce real results.

Almeida, C.

2004-10-06T23:59:59.000Z

217

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Morris, Tommy J. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2012-07-05T23:59:59.000Z

218

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

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

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

219

Nuclear Power and the World's Energy Requirements  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

The global requirements for energy are increasing rapidly as the global population increases and the under-developed nations become more advanced. The traditional fuels used in their traditional ways will become increasingly unable to meet the demand. The need for a review of the energy sources available is paramount, although the subsequent need to develop a realistic strategy to deal with all local and global energy requirements is almost as important. Here attention will be restricted to examining some of the claims and problems of using nuclear power to attempt to solve this major question.

V. Castellano; R. F. Evans; J. Dunning-Davies

2004-06-10T23:59:59.000Z

220

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

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

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Energy Department and Catholic University Improve Safety of Nuclear Waste |  

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

Catholic University Improve Safety of Nuclear Catholic University Improve Safety of Nuclear Waste Energy Department and Catholic University Improve Safety of Nuclear Waste January 30, 2013 - 12:51pm Addthis Secretary of Energy Steven Chu participates in a tour of Catholic University's Vitreous State Laboratory. | Photo courtesy of the Office of Environmental Management. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu participates in a tour of Catholic University's Vitreous State Laboratory. | Photo courtesy of the Office of Environmental Management. David Sheeley David Sheeley Editor/Writer What does this project do? Hanford treats and immobilizes significant quantities of legacy nuclear waste left from the manufacture of plutonium during World War II and the Cold War. Secretary Steven Chu recently visited Catholic University's Vitreous

222

Safety - Vulnerability Assessment Team - Nuclear Engineering Division  

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

Safety Safety VAT Projects Introducing the VAT Adversarial Vulnerability Assessments Safety Tags & Product Counterfeiting Election Security Spoofing GPS Defeating Existing Tamper-Indicating Seals Specialty Field Tools & Sampling Tools Insider Threat Mitigation Drug Testing Security Microprocessor Prototypes The Journal of Physical Security Vulnerability Assessments Vulnerability Assessments Insanely Fast µProcessor Shop Insanely Fast µProcessor Shop Seals About Seals Applications of Seals Common Myths about Tamper Indicating Seals Definitions Findings and Lessons Learned New Seals Types of Seals Seals References Selected VAT Papers Selected VAT Papers Selected Invited Talks Self-Assessment Survey Security Maxims Devil's Dictionary of Security Terms Argonne's VAT (brochure)

223

4th SEAS DTC Technical Conference -Edinburgh 2009 Deriving Safety Requirements for Autonomous Systems  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

objectives can be turned into specific safety requirements for a specific AS. The primary aims of the work) to establish common ground for future discussions on AS safety. As before, the work assumes that Def Stan 00 work. The Need for Safety Requirements Put simply: safety requirements are requirements that, if met

Kelly, Tim

224

Enhancement of NRC station blackout requirements for nuclear power plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) in response to Commission direction to conduct a systematic and methodical review of NRC processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system and to make recommendations to the Commission for its policy direction, in light of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. The NTTF's review resulted in a set of recommendations that took a balanced approach to defense-in-depth as applied to low-likelihood, high-consequence events such as prolonged station blackout (SBO) resulting from severe natural phenomena. Part 50, Section 63, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 'Loss of All Alternating Current Power,' currently requires that each nuclear power plant must be able to cool the reactor core and maintain containment integrity for a specified duration of an SBO. The SBO duration and mitigation strategy for each nuclear power plant is site specific and is based on the robustness of the local transmission system and the transmission system operator's capability to restore offsite power to the nuclear power plant. With regard to SBO, the NTTF recommended that the NRC strengthen SBO mitigation capability at all operating and new reactors for design-basis and beyond-design-basis external events. The NTTF also recommended strengthening emergency preparedness for prolonged SBO and multi-unit events. These recommendations, taken together, are intended to clarify and strengthen US nuclear reactor safety regarding protection against and mitigation of the consequences of natural disasters and emergency preparedness during SBO. The focus of this paper is on the existing SBO requirements and NRC initiatives to strengthen SBO capability at all operating and new reactors to address prolonged SBO stemming from design-basis and beyond-design-basis external events. The NRC initiatives are intended to enhance core and spent fuel pool cooling, reactor coolant system integrity, and containment integrity. (authors)

McConnell, M. W. [United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: 012-H2, Washington, DC 20555 (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

225

Nuclear criticality safety program at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper presents an overview of the nuclear criticality safety (NCS) educational program at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. The program is an academic specialization for nuclear engineering graduate students pursuing either the MS or PhD degree and includes special NCS courses and NCS research projects. Both the courses and the research projects serve as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree being pursued.

Basoglu, B.; Bentley, C.; Brewer, R.; Dunn, M.; Haught, C.; Plaster, M.; Wilkinson, A.; Dodds, H. (Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (United States)); Elliott, E.; Waddell, W. (Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc., Oak Ridge, TN (United States))

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

226

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

227

Nuclear Power - Operation, Safety and Environment  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

as operation, safety, environment and radiation effects. The book is not offering a comprehensive coverage of the material in each area. Instead, selected themes are highlighted by authors of individual chapters representing contemporary interests worldwide...

228

Office of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy  

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

and Security Officer regarding concurrence in the final decision to startup or restart a nuclear facility. Serves as the Standards Executive for the Department of Energy and...

229

Facility Safety  

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

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

230

Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement  

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

Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement - The Operator Viewpoints Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement - The Operator Viewpoints September 19, 2012 Presenter: Akira Kawano, General Manager, Nuclear International Relations and Strategy Group, Nuclear Power and Plant Siting Administrative Department, Tokyo Electric Power Company Topics Covered: How Tsunami Struck Fukushima Sites Tsunami Height Estimation How we responded in the Recovery Process Safety Improvement and Further Enhancement of Nuclear Safety Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement - The Operator Viewpoints More Documents & Publications January2005 NNSANews Meeting Materials: June 15, 2011

231

September 26, 2011, Department letter transmitting the Implementation Plan for Board Recommendation 2010-1, Safety Analysis Requirements for Defining Adequate Protection for the Public and the Workers.  

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

September 26, 2011 September 26, 2011 The Honorable Peter S. Winokur Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2941 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is the Department of Energy's Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2010-1, Safety Analysis Requirements for Defining Adequate Protection for the Public and the Workers. This Plan provides the Department's approach for updating its Documented Safety Analysis Standards and requirements to clarify them in regards to performance of hazard and accident analysis and the identification of safety controls. I have assigned Dr. James B. O'Brien, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Safety in the Office of Health, Safety and Security, as the Department's Responsible

232

Guidance for identifying, reporting and tracking nuclear safety noncompliances  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document provides Department of Energy (DOE) contractors, subcontractors and suppliers with guidance in the effective use of DOE`s Price-Anderson nuclear safety Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS). Prompt contractor identification, reporting to DOE, and correction of nuclear safety noncompliances provides DOE with a basis to exercise enforcement discretion to mitigate civil penalties, and suspend the issuance of Notices of Violation for certain violations. Use of this reporting methodology is elective by contractors; however, this methodology is intended to reflect DOE`s philosophy on effective identification and reporting of nuclear safety noncompliances. To the extent that these expectations are met for particular noncompliances, DOE intends to appropriately exercise its enforcement discretion in considering whether, and to what extent, to undertake enforcement action.

NONE

1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

233

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [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.

234

Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy  

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

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

2011-02-08T23:59:59.000Z

235

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

Letter, NEL-2013-01 - January 7, 2013 Issued to B&W Pantex, LLC related to the Conduct of Nuclear Explosive Operations at the Pantex Plant October 4, 2012 Preliminary Notice of...

236

E-Print Network 3.0 - aerospace nuclear safety Sample Search...  

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

and Nuclear Technologies 2 A Systematic Approach to Safety Case Management Dr Tim Kelly Summary: The concept of the safety case' has already been adopted across many...

237

Processing Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules and Approval of Alternative Methods for Documented Safety Analysis  

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

STD-1083-2009 STD-1083-2009 June 2009 DOE STANDARD PROCESSING EXEMPTIONS TO NUCLEAR SAFETY RULES AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Page at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds DOE-STD-1083-2009 iii FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard has been prepared by the Office of Quality Assurance Policy and Assistance to provide acceptable processes for: a. requesting and granting exemptions to DOE nuclear safety rules and b. requesting and approving alternate methodologies for documented safety analyses

238

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]

Health and Safety Aspects of Pro- posed Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil-FuelHEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHealth and Safety Impacts of Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil- Fuel

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

239

Improved nuclear safety through international standards  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In this shrinking world what happens in an industry in one country can significantly affect the same industry elsewhere around the globe. In April 1986 a nuclear accident destroyed Unit 4 of Ukraines Chernobyl nuclear power plant focusing worldwide attention on the dozens of Soviet-designed reactors still in operation. The Chemobyl accident led to public concerns about all operating nuclear power plants and in some countries (e.g. Italy and Sweden) to proposals for nationwide plant closures or moratoriums on new construction. However for most former Soviet Union countries plant shutdown was and still is not a viable optionthe plants produce a significant percentage of each nations total electricity and those countries do not have sufficient economic resources to develop alternative power sources. In cooperation with similar programs initiated in Canada Japan and western European countries the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting a comprehensive effort to reduce risks at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants until they can be shut down or brought into compliance with international standards. This paper describes DOE-supported initiatives with participating host countries to: improve reliability and accuracy of nondestructive evaluation equipment used for in-service inspection transfer technologies and infrastructure to improve in-service inspections enhance management systems for training and certifying host-country in-service inspection personnel The goal of these initiatives to enhance the use of international standards (ASME ASNT European Standards EN and ISO) in operating and regulatory practices at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants.

S. R. Doctor; R. L. Moffitt; T. T. Taylor; G. Trosman

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

240

Just in Time DSA-The Hanford Nuclear Safety Basis Strategy  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

to Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC related to Recurring Weaknesses in Implementing Quality Assurance Rule Requirements at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site June 4, 1998...

242

Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard- September 2012  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

243

Proceedings of the Nuclear Criticality Technology and Safety Project Workshop  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Sanchez, R.G. [comp.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

244

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

EVANS, C.B.

2001-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

245

SCALE 6: Comprehensive Nuclear Safety Analysis Code System  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Bowman, Stephen M [ORNL

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

246

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

247

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

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

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

248

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

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

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

249

Enforcement Regulations and Directives - Nuclear Safety | Department...  

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

with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance 10 C.F.R. Part 835 and Amendments Complete Text of 10 CFR 835 10 C.F.R. Parts 820...

250

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

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

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

251

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

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

252

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

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

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

253

10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management  

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

10 10 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations issued August 5, 1998, are adopted as a final rule with the following change: PART 1446-PEANUTS 1. The authority citation for part 7 CFR part 1446 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7271; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c. 2. Paragraph (c) of § 1446.102 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 1446.102 Administration. * * * * * (c) Supervisory authority. * * * Further, the Director of TPD, FSA, may authorize the wavier or modification of deadlines and other requirements, except statutory deadlines or requirements, in cases where lateness or the failure to meet such other requirements does not adversely affect operation of the program. 3. Paragraph (3) of the definition of

254

Facility Safety  

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

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

255

Safety of Department of Energy-Owned Nuclear Reactors  

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

To establish reactor safety program requirements assure that the safety of each Department of Energy-owned (DOE-owned) reactor is properly analyzed, evaluated, documented, and approved by DOE; and reactors are sited, designed, constructed, modified, operated, maintained, and decommissioned in a manner that gives adequate protection for health and safety and will be in accordance with uniform standards, guides, and codes which are consistent with those applied to comparable licensed reactors. Cancels Chap. 6 of DOE O 5480.1A. Paragraphs 7b(3), 7e(3) & 8c canceled by DOE O 5480.23 & canceled by DOE N 251.4 of 9-29-95.

1986-09-23T23:59:59.000Z

256

Safety Issues and Approach to Meet the Safety Requirements in Tokamak Cooling Water System of ITER  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The ITER (Latin for 'the way') tokamak cooling water system (TCWS) consists of several separate systems to cool the major ITER components - the divertor/limiter, the first wall blanket, the neutral beam injector and the vacuum vessel. The ex-vessel part of the TCWS systems provides a confinement function for tritium and activated corrosion products in the cooling water. The Vacuum Vessel System also has a functional safety requirement regarding the residual heat removal from in-vessel components. A preliminary hazards assessment (PHA) was performed for a better understanding of the hazards, initiating events, and defense in depth mechanisms associated with the TCWS. The PHA was completed using the following steps. (1) Hazard Identification. Hazards associated with the TCWS were identified including radiological/chemical/electromagnetic hazards and physical hazards (e.g., high voltage, high pressure, high temperature, falling objects). (2) Hazard Categorization. Hazards identified in step (1) were categorized as to their potential for harm to the workers, the public, and/or the environment. (3) Hazard Evaluation. The design was examined to determine initiating events that might occur and that could expose the public, environment, or workers to the hazard. In addition the system was examined to identify barriers that prevent exposure. Finally, consequences to the public or workers were qualitatively assessed, should the initiating event occur and one or more of the barriers fail. Frequency of occurrence of the initiating event and subsequent barrier failure was qualitatively estimated. (4) Accident Analysis. A preliminary hazards analysis was performed on the conceptual design of the TCWS. As the design progresses, a detailed accident analysis will be performed in the form of a failure modes and effects analysis. The results of the PHA indicated that the principal hazards associated with the TCWS were those associated with radiation. These were low compared to hazards associated with nuclear fission reactors and were limited to potential exposure to the on-site workers if appropriate protective actions were not used. However, the risk to the general public off-site was found to be negligible even under worst case accident conditions.

Flanagan, George F [ORNL] [ORNL; Reyes, Susana [ITER Organization, Saint Paul Lez Durance, France] [ITER Organization, Saint Paul Lez Durance, France; Chang, Keun Pack [ITER Organization, Saint Paul Lez Durance, France] [ITER Organization, Saint Paul Lez Durance, France; Berry, Jan [ORNL] [ORNL; Kim, Seokho H [ORNL] [ORNL

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

257

Safety assessment of a robotic system handling nuclear material  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper outlines the use of a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for the safety assessment of a robotic system being developed at Sandia National Laboratories. The robotic system, The Weigh and Leak Check System, is to replace a manual process at the Department of Energy facility at Pantex by which nuclear material is inspected for weight and leakage. Failure Modes and Effects Analyses were completed for the robotics process to ensure that safety goals for the system had been meet. These analyses showed that the risks to people and the internal and external environment were acceptable.

Atcitty, C.B.; Robinson, D.G.

1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

258

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

259

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions  

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

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

260

Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Fundamentals Self-Study Guide Review Questions  

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

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 safety requirements" 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

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

262

Nuclear Explosives Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

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

263

History of US nuclear weapon safety assessment: The early years  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

From the beginnings of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, military and civilian dual- agency judgment has been fundamental to achieving nuclear weapon and weapon system safety. This interaction was initiated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The principle of using dual-agency judgment has been perpetuated in the design and assessment of the weapon and weapon system acceptance process since that time. This fundamental approach is still used today in all phases of the weapon life. In this paper, an overview of the history and philosophy of the approach is described.

Spray, S.D.

1996-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

264

Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy  

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

November 16, 1998 November 16, 1998 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc - EA-98-12 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc., related to Radiological Work Controls and Bioassay Program Deficiencies at the Mound Site, November 16, 1998 (EA-98-12) September 21, 1998 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Los Alamos National Laboratory - EA-98-10 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to the University of California related to Multiple Events involving Radiation Protection and Quality Control Requirements at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, (EA-98-10) September 21, 1998 Preliminary Notice of Violation, MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company - EA-98-08 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company,

265

Double-clad nuclear-fuel safety rod  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

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

1981-12-30T23:59:59.000Z

266

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

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

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

267

Classic Nuclear Localization Signals and a Novel Nuclear Localization Motif Are Required for Nuclear Transport of Porcine Parvovirus Capsid Proteins  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...Reserved. 15 October 2014 research-article Virus-Cell Interactions Classic Nuclear Localization Signals and a Novel Nuclear Localization Motif Are Required for Nuclear Transport of Porcine Parvovirus Capsid Proteins Maude Boisvert Veronique Bouchard-Levesque...

Maude Boisvert; Vronique Bouchard-Lvesque; Sandra Fernandes; Peter Tijssen

2014-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

268

World nuclear capacity and fuel cycle requirements, November 1993  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This analysis report presents the current status and projections of nuclear capacity, generation, and fuel cycle requirements for all countries in the world using nuclear power to generate electricity for commercial use. Long-term projections of US nuclear capacity, generation, fuel cycle requirements, and spent fuel discharges for three different scenarios through 2030 are provided in support of the Department of Energy`s activities pertaining to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (as amended in 1987). The projections of uranium requirements also support the Energy Information Administration`s annual report, Domestic Uranium Mining and Milling Industry: Viability Assessment.

Not Available

1993-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

269

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

270

Facility Safety  

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

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

271

Facility Safety  

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

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

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

272

Facility Safety  

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

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

273

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

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

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

274

Spent nuclear fuel project - criteria document spent nuclear fuel final safety analysis report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The criteria document provides the criteria and planning guidance for developing the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This FSAR will support the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office decision to authorize the procurement, installation, installation acceptance testing, startup, and operation of the SNF Project facilities (K Basins, Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, and Canister Storage Building).

MORGAN, R.G.

1999-02-23T23:59:59.000Z

275

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  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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.

276

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

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

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

277

Price-Anderson Nuclear Safety Enforcement Program. 1997 annual report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report summarizes activities in the Department of Energy's Price-Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA) Enforcement Program in calendar year 1997 and highlights improvements planned for 1998. The DOE Enforcement Program involves the Office of Enforcement and Investigation in the DOE Headquarters Office of Environment, Safety and Health, as well as numerous PAAA Coordinators and technical advisors in DOE Field and Program Offices. The DOE Enforcement Program issued 13 Notices of Violation (NOV`s) in 1997 for cases involving significant or potentially significant nuclear safety violations. Six of these included civil penalties totaling $440,000. Highlights of these actions include: (1) Brookhaven National Laboratory Radiological Control Violations / Associated Universities, Inc.; (2) Bioassay Program Violations at Mound / EG and G, Inc.; (3) Savannah River Crane Operator Uptake / Westinghouse Savannah River Company; (4) Waste Calciner Worker Uptake / Lockheed-Martin Idaho Technologies Company; and (5) Reactor Scram and Records Destruction at Sandia / Sandia Corporation (Lockheed-Martin).

NONE

1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

278

THE RADIATION SAFETY INFORMATION COMPUTATIONAL CENTER: A RESOURCE FOR REACTOR DOSIMETRY SOFTWARE AND NUCLEAR DATA  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) was established in 1963 to collect and disseminate computational nuclear technology in the form of radiation transport, shielding and safety software and corresponding nuclear cross sections. Approximately 1700 nuclear software and data packages are in the RSICC collection, and the majority are applicable to reactor dosimetry.

Kirk, Bernadette Lugue [ORNL] [ORNL

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

279

ROBERT J. BUDNITZ Occupation: Physicist in Energy/Environmental Research and Nuclear Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

ROBERT J. BUDNITZ Occupation: Physicist in Energy/Environmental Research and Nuclear Safety Birth December 2004 to September 2007 (in Livermore): Leader, Nuclear & Risk Science Group, Energy & Environment Directorate Associate Program Leader for Nuclear Systems Safety and Security, E&E Directorate October 2002

Ajo-Franklin, Jonathan

280

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92 (2007) 609618 The nuclear industry's transition to risk-informed regulation and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92 (2007) 609­618 The nuclear industry's transition a Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA b Nuclear Power Engineering, Quality and Safety Management Department, Tokyo Electric Power

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Safety culture in the nuclear power industry : attributes for regulatory assessment  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Safety culture refers to the attitudes, behaviors, and conditions that affect safety performance and often arises in discussions following incidents at nuclear power plants. As it involves both operational and management ...

Alexander, Erin L

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

282

Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

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

283

Data requirements for intermediate energy nuclear applications  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Several applications that include spallation neutron sources, space radiation effects, biomedical isotope production, accelerator shielding and radiation therapy make use of intermediate energy nuclear data extending to several GeV. The overlapping data needs of these applications are discussed in terms of what projectiles, targets and reactions are of interest. Included is a discussion of what is generally known about these data and what is needed to facilitate their use in intermediate energy applications. 40 refs., 2 figs., 2 tabs.

Pearlstein, S.

1990-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

284

Renovated Korean nuclear safety and security system: A review and suggestions to successful settlement  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Questions of whether past nuclear regulatory body of Korea is not a proper system to monitor and check the country's nuclear energy policy and utilization have been raised. Moreover, a feeling of insecurity regarding nuclear safety after the nuclear accident in Japan has spread across the public. This has stimulated a renovation of the nuclear safety regime in Korea. The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) was launched on October 26, 2011 as a regulatory body directly under the President in charge of strengthening independence and nuclear safety. This was a meaningful event as the NSSC it is a much more independent regulatory system for Korea. However, the NSSC itself does not guarantee an enhanced public acceptance of the nuclear policy and stable use nuclear energy. This study introduces the new NSSC system and its details in terms of organization structure, appropriateness of specialty, budget stability, and management system. (authors)

Chung, W. S.; Yun, S. W.; Lee, D. S. [Korea Atomic Energy Research Inst., Dukjin-dong 150, Yusung-gu, Daejon, R.O., 305-353 (Korea, Republic of); Go, D. Y. [Kyung Hee Univ., Kyung Hee daero 26, Dongdaemoon-gu, Seoul, R.O., 130-701 (Korea, Republic of)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

285

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1993-09-20T23:59:59.000Z

286

Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review Overview and Management Oversight Standard Review Plan  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This SRP, Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review, consists of five volumes. It provides information to help strengthen the technical rigor of line management oversight and federal monitoring of DOE nuclear facilities. It provides a primer on the safety basis development and documentation process used by the DOE. It also provides a set of LOIs for the review of safety basis programs and documents of nuclear facilities at various stages of the facility life cycle.

287

Techniques to evaluate the importance of common cause degradation on reliability and safety of nuclear weapons.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

As the nuclear weapon stockpile ages, there is increased concern about common degradation ultimately leading to common cause failure of multiple weapons that could significantly impact reliability or safety. Current acceptable limits for the reliability and safety of a weapon are based on upper limits on the probability of failure of an individual item, assuming that failures among items are independent. We expanded the current acceptable limits to apply to situations with common cause failure. Then, we developed a simple screening process to quickly assess the importance of observed common degradation for both reliability and safety to determine if further action is necessary. The screening process conservatively assumes that common degradation is common cause failure. For a population with between 100 and 5000 items we applied the screening process and conclude the following. In general, for a reliability requirement specified in the Military Characteristics (MCs) for a specific weapon system, common degradation is of concern if more than 100(1-x)% of the weapons are susceptible to common degradation, where x is the required reliability expressed as a fraction. Common degradation is of concern for the safety of a weapon subsystem if more than 0.1% of the population is susceptible to common degradation. Common degradation is of concern for the safety of a weapon component or overall weapon system if two or more components/weapons in the population are susceptible to degradation. Finally, we developed a technique for detailed evaluation of common degradation leading to common cause failure for situations that are determined to be of concern using the screening process. The detailed evaluation requires that best estimates of common cause and independent failure probabilities be produced. Using these techniques, observed common degradation can be evaluated for effects on reliability and safety.

Darby, John L.

2011-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

288

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

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

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

289

Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family Robyn R. Lutz  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family Robyn R. Lutz Iowa State University and Jet, destatez@collins.rockwell.com Abstract A safety analysis was performed on the software re- quirements for a family of ight instrumentation dis- plays of commercial aircraft. First, an existing Safety Checklist

Lutz, Robyn R.

290

Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family Robyn R. Lutz \\Lambda  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family Robyn R. Lutz \\Lambda Iowa State University and Communication srtockey, destatez@collins.rockwell.com Abstract A safety analysis was performed on the software, an existing Safety Checklist was extended to apply to four­variable models and used to analyze

Lutz, Robyn R.

291

Facility Safety  

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

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

292

Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Policy Technical Position NSEP-TP-2007- 1, Technical Position on the Requirement in DOE 0 420.1B to Use National Consensus Industry Standards and the Model Building CodesTechnical Position NS  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

All new construction required to follow the provisions of Department of Energy(DOE) Order 420. lB, Facility Safety, must comply with national consensus industrystandards and the model building...

293

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

PURPOSE: To document the Department of Energys (DOE) nuclear safety policy.SCOPE: The provisions of this policy apply to all Departmental elements with responsibility for a nuclear facility,...

294

Fuzzy Failure Rate for Nuclear Power Plant Probabilistic Safety Assessment by Fault Tree Analysis  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Reliability data is essential for a nuclear power plant probabilistic safety assessment by fault tree analysis ... a failure possibility-based reliability algorithm to assess nuclear event reliability data from f...

Julwan Hendry Purba; Jie Lu; Guangquan Zhang

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

295

Training program requirements for remote equipment operators in nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

296

Investigation on the Benefits of Safety Margin Improvement in CANDU Nuclear Power Plant Using an FPGA-based Shutdown System.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??The relationship between response time and safety margin of CANadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) nuclear power plant (NPP) is investigated in this thesis. Implementation of safety (more)

She, Jingke

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

297

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Health and Safety Impacts of Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil- Fuel3 of HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF FOSSIL-FUEL NUCLEAR,HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

298

Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, January 2012  

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

Safety and Security HSS Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant January 2012 Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Enforcement and Oversight Abbreviations Used in this Report i Executive Summary iii Recommendations xi 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Scope and Methodology 6 2.0 Current Safety Culture 9 2.1 Background 9 2.2 Scope and Methods 10 2.3 ORP (including DOE-WTP) 11 2.4 BNI 11 2.5 WTP Project 12 3.0 ORP Management of Safety Concerns 15 3.1 Corrective Actions for the 2010 HSS Review 15 3.2 Processes for Managing Issues 16

299

Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, January 2012  

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

Safety and Security HSS Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant January 2012 Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Enforcement and Oversight Abbreviations Used in this Report i Executive Summary iii Recommendations xi 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Scope and Methodology 6 2.0 Current Safety Culture 9 2.1 Background 9 2.2 Scope and Methods 10 2.3 ORP (including DOE-WTP) 11 2.4 BNI 11 2.5 WTP Project 12 3.0 ORP Management of Safety Concerns 15 3.1 Corrective Actions for the 2010 HSS Review 15 3.2 Processes for Managing Issues 16

300

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

China's approach to nuclear safety From the perspective of policy and institutional system  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Nuclear energy plays an important role in the energy sector in the world. It has achieved a rapid development during the past six decades and contributes to over 11% of the world's electricity supply. On the other side, nuclear accidents have triggered substantial debates with a growing public concern on nuclear facilities. Followed by the Fukushima nuclear accident, some developed countries decided to shut down the existing nuclear power plants or to abandon plans to build new ones. Given this background, accelerating the development of nuclear power on the basis of safety in China will make it a bellwether for other countries. China assigns the top priority to the nuclear safety in nuclear energy development and has maintained a good record in this field. The policy and institutional system provide the necessary guarantee for the nuclear energy development and safety management. Furthermore, China's approach to nuclear safety provides a benchmark for the safe development and utilization of nuclear power. This research draws an overall picture of the nuclear energy development and nuclear safety in China from the policy and institutional perspective.

Ruimin Mu; Jian Zuo; Xueliang Yuan

2015-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

302

DOE-STD-1135-99 Guidance for Nuclear Criticality Safety Engineer Training and Qualification  

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

5-99 5-99 September 1999 DOE STANDARD GUIDANCE FOR NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY ENGINEER TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. TS 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-1135-99 iii FOREWORD This Department of Energy Standard is required for use by all DOE Contractor criticality safety personnel. It contains guidelines that should be followed for NCS training and qualification

303

The development of regulatory expectations for computer-based safety systems for the UK nuclear programme  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) of the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has completed a review of their Safety Assessment Principles (SAPs) for Nuclear Installations recently. During the period of the SAPs review in 2004-2005 the designers of future UK naval reactor plant were optioneering the control and protection systems that might be implemented. Because there was insufficient regulatory guidance available in the naval sector to support this activity the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR) invited the NII to collaborate with the production of a guidance document that provides clarity of regulatory expectations for the production of safety cases for computer based safety systems. A key part of producing regulatory expectations was identifying the relevant extant standards and sector guidance that reflect good practice. The three principal sources of such good practice were: IAEA Safety Guide NS-G-1.1 (Software for Computer Based Systems Important to Safety in Nuclear Power Plants), European Commission consensus document (Common Position of European Nuclear Regulators for the Licensing of Safety Critical Software for Nuclear Reactors) and IEC nuclear sector standards such as IEC60880. A common understanding has been achieved between the NII and DNSR and regulatory guidance developed which will be used by both NII and DNSR in the assessment of computer-based safety systems and in the further development of more detailed joint technical assessment guidance for both regulatory organisations. (authors)

Hughes, P. J. [HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Marine Engineering Submarines Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator Serco Assurance Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle L20 7HS (United Kingdom); Westwood, R.N; Mark, R. T. [FLEET HQ, Leach Building, Whale Island, Portsmouth, PO2 8BY (United Kingdom); Tapping, K. [Serco Assurance,Thomson House, Risley, Warrington, WA3 6GA (United Kingdom)

2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

304

Alternative off-site power supply improves nuclear power plant safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract A reliable power system is important for safe operation of the nuclear power plants. The station blackout event is of great importance for nuclear power plant safety. This event is caused by the loss of all alternating current power supply to the safety and non-safety buses of the nuclear power plant. In this study an independent electrical connection between a pumped-storage hydro power plant and a nuclear power plant is assumed as a standpoint for safety and reliability analysis. The pumped-storage hydro power plant is considered as an alternative power supply. The connection with conventional accumulation type of hydro power plant is analysed in addition. The objective of this paper is to investigate the improvement of nuclear power plant safety resulting from the consideration of the alternative power supplies. The safety of the nuclear power plant is analysed through the core damage frequency, a risk measure assess by the probabilistic safety assessment. The presented method upgrades the probabilistic safety assessment from its common traditional use in sense that it considers non-plant sited systems. The obtained results show significant decrease of the core damage frequency, indicating improvement of nuclear safety if hydro power plant is introduced as an alternative off-site power source.

Blae Gjorgiev; Andrija Volkanovski; Duko Kan?ev; Marko ?epin

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

305

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1999-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

306

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

307

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Assistance Reviews | Department of Energy  

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

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

308

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [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.

309

Proceedings of the international meeting on thermal nuclear reactor safety. Vol. 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Separate abstracts are included for each of the papers presented concerning current issues in nuclear power plant safety; national programs in nuclear power plant safety; radiological source terms; probabilistic risk assessment methods and techniques; non LOCA and small-break-LOCA transients; safety goals; pressurized thermal shocks; applications of reliability and risk methods to probabilistic risk assessment; human factors and man-machine interface; and data bases and special applications.

none,

1983-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

310

A probabilistic safety analysis of incidents in nuclear research reactors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......errors, computational models (software), management, communication, safety culture, plant ageing, maintenance...Energy Power Plants Probability Radiation Monitoring Radiation Protection Radioactive Hazard Release Safety Management...

Valdir Maciel Lopes; Gian Maria Agostinho Angelo Sordi; Mauricio Moralles; Tufic Madi Filho

2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

311

Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations | Department of Energy  

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

Guidance for Use in the Enhancement of Safety Culture, International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, December 2002. Developed for use in the IAEA's Safety Culture Services....

312

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

313

Nuclear safety procedure upgrade project at USEC/MMUS gaseous diffusion plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Martin Marietta Utility Services has embarked on a program to upgrade procedures at both of its Gaseous Diffusion Plant sites. The transition from a U.S. Department of Energy government-operated facility to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulated has necessitated a complete upgrade of plant operating procedures and practices incorporating human factors as well as a philosophy change in their use. This program is designed to meet the requirements of the newly written 10CFR76, {open_quotes}The Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants,{close_quotes} and aid in progression toward NRC certification. A procedures upgrade will help ensure increased nuclear safety, enhance plant operation, and eliminate personnel procedure errors/occurrences.

Kocsis, F.J. III

1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

314

Condition monitoring requirements for the development of a space nuclear propulsion module  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

To facilitate the development of a space nuclear propulsion module for manned flights to Mars, requirements must be established early in the technology cycle. The long lead times for the acquisition of the engine system and nuclear test facilities demands that the engine system, size, performance, safety goals and condition monitoring philosophy be defined at the earliest possible time. These systems are highly complex and require a large multi-disciplinary systems engineering team to develop and track the requirements and to ensure that the as-built system reflects the intent of the mission. An effective methodology has been devised coupled with sophisticated computer tools to effectivly develop and interpret the functional requirements. These requirements can then be decomposed down to the specification level for implementation. This paper discusses the application of the methodology and the analyses to develop condition monitoring requirements under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Lewis Research Center (LeRC) Nuclear Propulsion Office (NPO).

Wagner, R.C.

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

315

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

316

2015 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

2015 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program.

317

DOE Standard on Development and Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in DOE Nuclear Safety Applications (draft), December 2010  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

There have been significant developments with regard to the risk assessment and risk informed decision making, as it applies to nuclear and other safety areas, since the Department of Energy (DOE) developed its approach to managing nuclear safety. The developments and associated technical insights may be of use to DOE in its efforts to continuously improve safety performance at its nuclear facilities.

318

CONTROL OF POPULATION DENSITIES SURROUNDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. VOLUME 5 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHealth and Safety Impacts of Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil- Fuel

Nero, jA.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

319

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA. VOLUME 4 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHealth and Safety Impacts of Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil- FuelHealth and Safety Aspects of Pro- posed Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil-Fuel

Yen, W.W.S.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

320

International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology (ISFNT-5) SAFETY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH MOBILIZED ACTIVATION  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology (ISFNT-5) SAFETY ISSUES ASSOCIATED;International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology (ISFNT-5) heat from in-vessel systems with high neutron Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology (ISFNT-5) A design must adequately transfer heat from plasma

California at Los Angeles, University of

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

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

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

322

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

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

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 -

323

Safety in Mine Research EstablishmentPresent-day requirements for protection against fire in coal mines  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

measures against fire are put into practice in accordance with the requirement a of the Safety regulations for coal and shale mines" and other regulating documents. However, scientific research carried out in recent years at the All-Union Scientific...

Kushnarev, A.; Koslyuk, A.; Petrov, P.

324

Safety of interim storage solutions of used nuclear fuel during extended term  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In 2013, the total amount of stored used nuclear fuel (UNF) in the world will reach 225,000 T HM. The UNF inventory in wet storage will take up over 80% of the available total spent fuel pool (SFP) capacity. Interim storage solutions are needed. They give flexibility to the nuclear operators and ensure that nuclear reactors continue to operate. However, we need to keep in mind that they are also an easy way to differ final decision and implementation of a UNF management approach (recycling or final disposal). In term of public perception, they can have a negative impact overtime as it may appear that nuclear industry may have significant issues to resolve. In countries lacking an integrated UNF management approach, the UNF are being discharged from the SFPs to interim storage (mostly to dry storage) at the same rate as UNF is being discharged from reactors, as the SFPs at the reactor sites are becoming full. This is now the case in USA, Taiwan, Switzerland, Spain, South Africa and Germany. For interim storage, AREVA has developed different solutions in order to allow the continued operation of reactors while meeting the current requirements of Safety Authorities: -) Dry storage canisters on pads, -) Dual-purpose casks (dry storage and transportation), -) Vault dry storage, and -) Centralized pool storage.

Shelton, C.; Bader, S.; Issard, H.; Arslan, M. [AREVA, 7135 Minstrel Way, Suite 300 Columbia, MD 21045 (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

325

CRITICALITY SAFETY (CS)  

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

OBJECTIVE CS.1 The LANL criticality safety program provides the required technical guidance and oversight capabilities to ensure a comprehensive criticality safety program for the storage of nuclear materials in SSTs. (Core Requirements 3, 4, 8) Criteria * The Criticality Safety Program is an administrative TSR and meets the General and * Specific Requirements of DOE O 420.1A, Section 4.3 Nuclear Criticality Safety. * All processes and operations involving significant quantities of fissile materials are * described in current procedures approved by line management. * Procedures contain approved criticality controls and limits, based on HSR-6 evaluations and recommendations. * Supervisors, operations personnel, and criticality safety officers have received

326

Documented Safety Analysis  

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

Documented Safety Analysis Documented Safety Analysis FUNCTIONAL AREA GOAL: A document that provides an adequate description of the hazards of a facility during its design, construction, operation, and eventual cleanup and the basis to prescribe operating and engineering controls through Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) or Administrative Controls (AC). REQUIREMENTS:  10 CFR 830.204, Nuclear Safety Rule  DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard Categorization, 1992.  DOE-STD-1104-96, Change Notice 1, Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Documents (documented Safety Analyses and Technical Safety Requirements), dated May 2002.  DOE-STD-3009-2002, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, Change Notice No. 2, April 2002.

327

DOE P 420.1 Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy  

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

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

328

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Larson, H L

2007-09-07T23:59:59.000Z

329

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

Energy Savers [EERE]

operation, deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning and environmental restoration. Conduct assessments of changes to operations, safety basis and modifications. Conducts...

330

A probabilistic safety analysis of incidents in nuclear research reactors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......ICRP-64. INTRODUCTION Nuclear research reactors are considered important tools in nuclear science. For more than...as well as prevention policy, have stimulated the development...level 3 in the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) of......

Valdir Maciel Lopes; Gian Maria Agostinho Angelo Sordi; Mauricio Moralles; Tufic Madi Filho

2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

331

Confirmation of 10 CFR Part 830, nuclear safety rule (66 FR 19717), Fed Reg  

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

Confirmation of 10 CFR Part 830, nuclear safety rule (66 FR 19717), Confirmation of 10 CFR Part 830, nuclear safety rule (66 FR 19717), Fed Reg 4/17/01 Confirmation of 10 CFR Part 830, nuclear safety rule (66 FR 19717), Fed Reg 4/17/01 In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ''Regulatory Review Plan,'' published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), DOE temporarily delayed for 60 days (66 FR 8746, February 2, 2001) the effective date of the rule entitled ''Nuclear Safety Management'' published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1810). DOE has now completed its review of that regulation, and does not intend to initiate any further rulemaking action to modify its provisions and confirms the effective date of April 10,

332

Nuclear Safety R&D in the Waste Processing Technology Development & Deployment Program  

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

R&D in the Waste Processing R&D in the Waste Processing Technology Development & Deployment Program Presentation to the DOE High Level Waste Corporate Board July 29, 2009 Al Baione Office of Waste Processing DOE-EM Office of Engineering & Technology 2 Outline Nuclear Safety Research & Development Overview Summary of EM- NSR&D Presentations from February 2009 Evaluating Performance of Nuclear Grade HEPA Filters under Fire/Smoke Challenge Conditions Structural Integrity Initiative for HLW Tanks Pipeline Plugging and Prevention Advanced Mixing Models Basic Science Opportunities in HLW Storage and Processing Safety Cementitious Barriers Partnership 3 Nuclear Safety Research & Development Overview DNFSB 2004-1 identified need for renewed DOE attention to nuclear safety R&D

333

Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date (66 FR  

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

Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date (66 Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date (66 FR 8746), Fed Reg, 2/2/01 Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date (66 FR 8746), Fed Reg, 2/2/01 Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date (66 FR 8746), Fed Reg, 2/2/01 In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ''Regulatory Review Plan,'' published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), this action temporarily delays for 60 days the effective date of the rule entitled ''Alternate Fuel Transportation Program; Biodiesel Fuel Use Credit'' published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2207). DATES: The effective date of the rule amending 10 CFR part 490

334

Manual of functions, assignments, and responsibilities for nuclear safety: Revision 2  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The FAR Manual is a convenient easy-to-use collection of the functions, assignments, and responsibilities (FARs) of DOE nuclear safety personnel. Current DOE directives, including Orders, Secretary of Energy Notices, and other assorted policy memoranda, are the source of this information and form the basis of the FAR Manual. Today, the majority of FARs for DOE personnel are contained in DOE`s nuclear safety Orders. As these Orders are converted to rules in the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAR Manual will become the sole source for information relating to the functions, assignments, responsibilities of DOE nuclear safety personnel. The FAR Manual identifies DOE directives that relate to nuclear safety and the specific DOE personnel who are responsible for implementing them. The manual includes only FARs that have been extracted from active directives that have been approved in accordance with the procedures contained in DOE Order 1321.1B.

Not Available

1994-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

335

Job Opening Research Associate/Post-Doctoral Fellow for Interdisciplinary Study on Nuclear Safety  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

public opinion surveys; experience in organizing and conducting focus group meetings; good journal to work independently. The appointee will assist in designing public opinion surveys, focusing for Interdisciplinary Study on Nuclear Safety Governance, University of Hong Kong

Leung, Ka-Cheong

336

Nuclear Safety Component and Services Procurement, June 29, 2011 (HSS CRAD 45-12, Rev. 1)  

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

Office Office of Enforcement and Oversight Criteria Review and Approach Document Subject: Nuclear Safety Component and Services Procurement Inspection Criteria, Inspection Activities, and Lines of Inquiry HS: HSSCRAD 45-12 Rev.: 1 Eff.Date: 06/29/2011 Page 1 of 15 Acting Director, Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Date: G> |W ^ Criteria Lead, Nuclear Safety Component Procurement Date: G>/z9/z<>// 1.0 PURPOSE Within the Office of Enforcement and Oversight, the Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations' mission is to assess the effectiveness of those environment, safety, and health systems and practices used by line and contractor organizations in implementing Integrated Safety Management; and to provide clear, concise, and independent evaluations of performance in protecting our workers, the public, and the environment from

337

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Pantex Plant, November 2012  

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

Pantex Plant Pantex Plant May 2011 November 2012 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 Pantex Plant Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Results and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Recommendations................................................................................................................................. 5

338

PLC-Based Safety Critical Software Development for Nuclear Power Plants  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

PLC-Based Safety Critical Software Development for Nuclear Power Plants Junbeom Yoo1 , Sungdeok Cha}@kaeri.re.kr Abstract. This paper proposes a PLC(Programmable Logic Controller)-based safety critical software(FBD), a widely used PLC programming language. Finally, we manually refine the FBD programs so that redundant

339

Submersion Criticality Safety Analysis of Tungsten-Based Fuel for Nuclear Power and Propulsion Applications  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Center for Space Nuclear Research (CSNR) is developing tungsten-encapsulated fuels for space nuclear applications. Aims to develop NTP fuels that are; Affordable Low impact on production and testing environment Producible on a large scale over suitable time period Higher-performance compared to previous graphite NTP fuel elements Space nuclear reactors remain subcritical before and during launch, and do not go critical until required by its mission. A properly designed reactor will remain subcritical in any launch abort scenario, where the reactor falls back to Earth and becomes submerged in terrestrial material. Submersion increases neutron reflection and thermalizes the neutrons, which typically increases the reactivity of the core. This effect is usually very significant for fast-spectrum reactors. This research provided a submersion criticality safety analysis for a representative tungsten/uranium oxide fueled reactor. Determine the submersion behavior of a reactor fueled by tungsten-based fuel. Considered fuel compositions with varying: Rhenium content (wt% rhenium in tungsten) Fuel loading fractions (UO2 vol%)

A.E. Craft; R. C. O'Brien; S. D. Howe; J. C. King

2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

340

Y-12 hosts safety workshop | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

and Knoxville Building and Construction Trades Council. NNSA Blog About the photo Advisor Rizwan Shah and CNS Safety Culture Program Manager Paul Wasilko welcome participants...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

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

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

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...

342

Proposed risk evaluation guidelines for use by the DOE-AL Nuclear Explosive Safety Division in evaluating proposed shipments of nuclear components  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The licensing requirements of 10 CFR 71 (US Code of Federal Regulations) are the primary criteria used to license proposed US Department of Energy (DOE) shipments of nuclear components. However, if a shipment cannot meet 10 CFR 71 requirements, a Transportation System Risk Assessment (TSRA) is prepared to document: (1) the degree of compliance of proposed DOE shipments of nuclear components with applicable federal regulations, and (2) the risk associated with the proposed shipments. The Nuclear Explosive Safety Division (NESD) of the Department of Energy, Albuquerque Area Office (DOE-AL) is responsible for evaluating TSRAs and for preparing Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) to authorize the off-site transport. Hazards associated with the transport may include the presence of fissile material, chemically and radiologically toxic uranium, and ionizing radiation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has historically considered only radiological hazards in licensing the transport of radiological material because the US Department of Transportation considers licensing requirements of nonradiological (i.e., chemically toxic) hazards. The requirements of 10 CFR 71 are based primarily on consideration of radiological hazards. For completeness, this report provides information for assessing the effects of chemical toxicity. Evaluating the degree of compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 71 is relatively straightforward. However, there are few precedents associated with developing TSRA risk assessments for packages that do not comply with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 71. The objective of the task is to develop Risk Evaluation Guidelines for DOE-AL to use when evaluating a TSRA. If the TSRA shows that the Risk Evaluation Guidelines are not exceeded, then from a risk perspective the TSRA should be approved if there is evidence that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle has been applied.

Just, R.A.; Love, A.F.

1997-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

343

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

344

Dismantlement and Disposition | National Nuclear Security Administrati...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Maintaining the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing - especially at lower numbers - requires increased investments across the...

345

Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

a strong program of research in theoretical nuclear physics,Research 12.1 Overview The Nuclear Physics programan extensive program of experimental research in nuclear

Gerber, Richard A.

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

346

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Kirk, Bernadette Lugue [ORNL] [ORNL

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

347

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

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

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

348

Independent Oversight Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

has also been effectively implemented in non-nuclear organizations, such as mining, health care, research, engineering, and transportation. The methodology entails collecting...

349

Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Waste IPSC).  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The objective of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Waste IPSC) is to provide an integrated suite of computational modeling and simulation (M&S) capabilities to quantitatively assess the long-term performance of waste forms in the engineered and geologic environments of a radioactive-waste storage facility or disposal repository. Achieving the objective of modeling the performance of a disposal scenario requires describing processes involved in waste form degradation and radionuclide release at the subcontinuum scale, beginning with mechanistic descriptions of chemical reactions and chemical kinetics at the atomic scale, and upscaling into effective, validated constitutive models for input to high-fidelity continuum scale codes for coupled multiphysics simulations of release and transport. Verification and validation (V&V) is required throughout the system to establish evidence-based metrics for the level of confidence in M&S codes and capabilities, including at the subcontiunuum scale and the constitutive models they inform or generate. This Report outlines the nature of the V&V challenge at the subcontinuum scale, an approach to incorporate V&V concepts into subcontinuum scale modeling and simulation (M&S), and a plan to incrementally incorporate effective V&V into subcontinuum scale M&S destined for use in the NEAMS Waste IPSC work flow to meet requirements of quantitative confidence in the constitutive models informed by subcontinuum scale phenomena.

Schultz, Peter Andrew

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

350

Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics Research  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

IThe National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) is the primary computing center for the DOE Office of Science, serving approximately 4,000 users and hosting some 550 projects that involve nearly 700 codes for a wide variety of scientific disciplines. In addition to large-scale computing resources NERSC provides critical staff support and expertise to help scientists make the most efficient use of these resources to advance the scientific mission of the Office of Science. In May 2011, NERSC, DOEs Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) and DOEs Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) held a workshop to characterize HPC requirements for NP research over the next three to five years. The effort is part of NERSCs continuing involvement in anticipating future user needs and deploying necessary resources to meet these demands. The workshop revealed several key requirements, in addition to achieving its goal of characterizing NP computing. The key requirements include: 1. Larger allocations of computational resources at NERSC; 2. Visualization and analytics support; and 3. Support at NERSC for the unique needs of experimental nuclear physicists. This report expands upon these key points and adds others. The results are based upon representative samples, called case studies, of the needs of science teams within NP. The case studies were prepared by NP workshop participants and contain a summary of science goals, methods of solution, current and future computing requirements, and special software and support needs. Participants were also asked to describe their strategy for computing in the highly parallel, multi-core environment that is expected to dominate HPC architectures over the next few years. The report also includes a section with NERSC responses to the workshop findings. NERSC has many initiatives already underway that address key workshop findings and all of the action items are aligned with NERSC strategic plans.

Gerber, Richard A.; Wasserman, Harvey J.

2012-03-02T23:59:59.000Z

351

Transmutation of radioactive nuclear waste present status and requirement for the problem-oriented nuclear data base  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Transmutation of long-lived actinides and fission products becomes an important issue of the overall nuclear fuel cycle assessment, both for existing and future reactor systems. Reliable nuclear data are required...

Yu. A. Korovin; V. V. Artisyuk; A. V. Ignatyuk; G. B. Pilnov; A. Yu. Stankovsky

2007-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

352

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

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

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

353

Regulatory analysis for the resolution of Generic Safety Issue 29: Bolting degradation or failure in nuclear power plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-29 deals with staff concerns about public risk due to degradation or failure of safety-related bolting in nuclear power plants. The issue was initiated in November 1982. Value-impact studies of a mandatory program on safety-related bolting for operating plants were inconclusive: therefore, additional regulatory requirements for operating plants could not be justified in accordance with provisions of 10 CFR 50.109. In addition, based on operating experience with bolting in both nuclear and conventional power plants, the actions already taken through bulletins, generic letters, and information notices, and the industry-proposed actions, the staff concluded that a sufficient technical basis exists for the resolution of GSI-29. The staff further concluded that leakage of bolted pressure joints is possible but catastrophic failure of a reactor coolant pressure boundary joint that will lead to significant accident sequences is highly unlikely. For future plants, it was concluded that a new Standard Review Plant section should be developed to codify existing bolting requirements and industry-developed initiatives. 9 refs., 1 tab.

Chang, T.Y.

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

354

A new DOE standard for transuranic waste nuclear safety analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) observed through onsite assessments and a review of site-specific lessons learned that transuranic (TRU) waste operations could benefit from standardization of assumptions and approaches used to analyze hazards and select controls. EM collected and compared safety analysis information from DOE sites, including a comparison of the type of TRU waste accidents evaluated and controls selected, as well as specific Airborne Release Fractions (ARFs), Respirable Fractions (RFs), and Damage Ratios (DRs) assumed in accident analyses. This paper recounts the efforts by the DOE and its contractors to bring consistency to the safety analysis process supporting TRU waste operations through an integrated re-engineering effort. EM embarked on a process to re-engineer and standardize TRU safety analysis activities complex-wide. The effort involved DOE headquarters, field offices, and contractors. Five teams were formed to analyze and develop the necessary technical basis for a DOE Technical Standard. The teams looked at general issues including Safety Basis (SB), drum integrity and inspection criteria, hazard controls and analysis, safety analysis review and approval process, and implementation of hazard controls. (authors)

Triay, I.; Chung, D. [U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. (United States); Woody, J. [Atlas Consulting, Knoxville, TN (United States); Foppe, T. [Carlsbad Technical Assistance Contractor, Carlsbad, NM (United States); Mewhinney, C. [Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM (United States); Jennings, S. [Los Alamos National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM (United States)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

355

Hanford safety analysis and risk assessment handbook (SARAH)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

GARVIN, L.J.

2003-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

356

Morsleben Nuclear Waste Repository Probabilistic Safety Assessment of the Long-Term Safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The probabilistic safety assessment for a radioactive waste repository in a former salt mine is presented. Even with a simplified model, the number of parameters is high. Uncertainties in the parameter values ...

Georg Resele; Matthias Niemeyer

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

357

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

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

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:

358

Dynamical safety assessment of hydrogen production nuclear power plants using system dynamics method  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Nuclear power plants for hydrogen production are investigated in the aspect of nuclear safety. The non-linear dynamical safety assessment is introduced for the analysis of the high temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR) which is used for hydrogen production as well as electricity generation. The dynamical algorithm is adjusted for the safety assessment with an easier and reliable output. A feedback of power increase affects to the temperature decrease. The top event of the event is power and temperature stable. It is affected by the human factor, poison, and some other physical variables. There are several factors including the economic and safety factors which are considered for the reliability of the modelling simulations. Using the system dynamics (SD) method, the event quantification is performed for the event flows, stocks, and feedback by the single and double arrow lines.

Taeho Woo; Soonho Lee

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

359

Safety Aspects of Wet Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, OAS-L-13-11  

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

Safety Aspects of Wet Storage of Safety Aspects of Wet Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel OAS-L-13-11 July 2013 Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 July 10, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SENIOR ADVISOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FROM: Daniel M. Weeber Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Administration Office of Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "Safety Aspects of Wet Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel" BACKGROUND The Department of Energy (Department) is responsible for managing and storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) generated by weapons and research programs and recovered through nonproliferation programs. The SNF consists of irradiated reactor fuel and cut up assemblies containing uranium, thorium and/or plutonium. The Department stores 34 metric tons of heavy metal SNF primarily

360

Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 FR  

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

Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 FR 1810), Federal Register (Fed Reg), 1/10/2001 Nuclear Safety Management, Final Rule amending 10 CFR Part 830 (66 FR 1810), Federal Register (Fed Reg), 1/10/2001 SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) adopts, with minor changes, the interim final rule published on October 10, 2000, to amend the DOE Nuclear Safety Management regulations. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on February 9, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Black, Director, Office of Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy, 270CC, Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874; telephone: 301-903-3465; email: Richard.Black@eh.doe.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction and Summary On October 10, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE) published an

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

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

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

2001-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

362

Safety of Accelerator Facilities  

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

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

2004-07-23T23:59:59.000Z

363

Technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning reference nuclear research and test reactors. Main report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Safety and Cost Information is developed for the conceptual decommissioning of two representative licensed nuclear research and test reactors. Three decommissioning alternatives are studied to obtain comparisons between costs (in 1981 dollars), occupational radiation doses, potential radiation dose to the public, and other safety impacts. The alternatives considered are: DECON (immediate decontamination), SAFSTOR (safe storage followed by deferred decontamination), and ENTOMB (entombment). The study results are presented in two volumes. Volume 1 (Main Report) contains the results in summary form.

Konzek, G.J.; Ludwick, J.D.; Kennedy, W.E. Jr.; Smith, R.I.

1982-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

364

Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics Research  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Low-Energy Nuclear Physics National Joseph Carlson / HPC Initiative: Building a Universal Joseph Carlson Jonathan Engel Nuclear Energy Density Functional Structure and Reactions

Gerber, Richard A.

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

365

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Cottrell, W.B.; Passiakos, M.

1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

366

Nuclear criticality safety experiments, calculations, and analyses: 1958 to 1982. Volume 1. Lookup tables  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This compilation contains 688 complete summaries of papers on nuclear criticality safety as presented at meetings of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). The selected papers contain criticality parameters for fissile materials derived from experiments and calculations, as well as criticality safety analyses for fissile material processing, transport, and storage. The compilation was developed as a component of the Nuclear Criticality Information System (NCIS) now under development at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The compilation is presented in two volumes: Volume 1 contains a directory to the ANS Transaction volume and page number where each summary was originally published, the author concordance, and the subject concordance derived from the keyphrases in titles. Volume 2 contains - in chronological order - the full-text summaries, reproduced here by permission of the American Nuclear Society from their Transactions, volumes 1-41.

Koponen, B.L.; Hampel, V.E.

1982-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

367

THE RADIATION SAFETY INFORMATION COMPUTATIONAL CENTER (RSICC) - A RESOURCE FOR COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS FOR NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC), which has been in existence since 1963, is the principal source and repository in the United States for computational tools for nuclear applications. RSICC collects, organizes, evaluates and distributes nuclear software and data involving the transport of neutral and charged particle radiation, and shielding and protection from radiation associated with: nuclear weapons and materials, fission and fusion reactors, outer space, accelerators, medical facilities, and nuclear waste. RSICC serves over 12,000 scientists and engineers from 94 countries. RSICC software provides in-depth coverage of radiation related topics: the physics of the interaction of radiation with matter, radiation production and sources, criticality safety, radiation protection and shielding, radiation detectors and measurements, shielding materials properties, radiation waste management, atmospheric dispersion and environmental dose, medical applications, macro- and micro-dosimetry calculations.

Kirk, Bernadette Lugue [ORNL] [ORNL

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

368

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

nuclear tors. for of of These studies can examine safety systems or safety research programsnuclear power plants, and at risk. to reduce population The Light-water Reactor Safety Research Program

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

369

Nuclear criticality safety program development using necessary and sufficient standards  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy`s (DOE`s) Necessary and Sufficient Standards Closure Process has been used to develop a new criticality, safety program manual for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). Standards define and communicate the expectations for performance of work. The purpose of the necessary and sufficient standards closure process is to apply standards determined to be necessary and sufficient for protecting the workers, the public, and the environment. This ensures that the applied standards add value to the performance of the activity; work effectiveness is increased. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the process and the results for the selection of national criticality safety standards for use at the Rocky Flats facilities.

Croucher, D.W.; Stachowiak, R.V. [Kaiser-Hill Co., LLC, Golden, CO (United States); Wilson, R.E. [Safe Sites of Colorado, Golden, CO (United States)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

370

Safety issues in robotic handling of nuclear weapon parts  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Robotic systems are being developed by the Intelligent Systems and Robotics Center at Sandia National Laboratories to perform automated handling tasks with radioactive weapon parts. These systems will reduce the occupational radiation exposure to workers by automating operations that are currently performed manually. The robotic systems at Sandia incorporate several levels of mechanical, electrical, and software safety for handling hazardous materials. For example, tooling used by the robot to handle radioactive parts has been designed with mechanical features that allow the robot to release its payload only at designated locations in the robotic workspace. In addition, software processes check for expected and unexpected situations throughout the operations. Incorporation of features such as these provides multiple levels of safety for handling hazardous or valuable payloads with automated intelligent systems.

Drotning, W.; Wapman, W.; Fahrenholtz, J.

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

371

Cognitive decision errors and organization vulnerabilities in nuclear power plant safety management: Modeling using the TOGA meta-theory framework  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In the field of nuclear power plant (NPP) safety modeling, the perception of the role of socio-cognitive engineering (SCE) is continuously increasing. Today, the focus is especially on the identification of human and organization decisional errors caused by operators and managers under high-risk conditions, as evident by analyzing reports on nuclear incidents occurred in the past. At present, the engineering and social safety requirements need to enlarge their domain of interest in such a way to include all possible losses generating events that could be the consequences of an abnormal state of a NPP. Socio-cognitive modeling of Integrated Nuclear Safety Management (INSM) using the TOGA meta-theory has been discussed during the ICCAP 2011 Conference. In this paper, more detailed aspects of the cognitive decision-making and its possible human errors and organizational vulnerability are presented. The formal TOGA-based network model for cognitive decision-making enables to indicate and analyze nodes and arcs in which plant operators and managers errors may appear. The TOGA's multi-level IPK (Information, Preferences, Knowledge) model of abstract intelligent agents (AIAs) is applied. In the NPP context, super-safety approach is also discussed, by taking under consideration unexpected events and managing them from a systemic perspective. As the nature of human errors depends on the specific properties of the decision-maker and the decisional context of operation, a classification of decision-making using IPK is suggested. Several types of initial situations of decision-making useful for the diagnosis of NPP operators and managers errors are considered. The developed models can be used as a basis for applications to NPP educational or engineering simulators to be used for training the NPP executive staff. (authors)

Cappelli, M. [UTFISST, ENEA Casaccia, via Anguillarese 301, Rome (Italy); Gadomski, A. M. [ECONA, Centro Interuniversitario Elaborazione Cognitiva Sistemi Naturali e Artificiali, via dei Marsi 47, Rome (Italy); Sepiellis, M. [UTFISST, ENEA Casaccia, via Anguillarese 301, Rome (Italy); Wronikowska, M. W. [UTFISST, ENEA Casaccia, via Anguillarese 301, Rome (Italy); Poznan School of Social Sciences (Poland)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

372

Safety-related requirements for photovoltaic modules and arrays. Final report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Underwriters Laboratories has conducted a study to identify and develop safety requirements for photovoltaic module and panel designs and configurations for residential, intermediate, and large scale applications. Concepts for safety systems, where each system is a collection of subsystems which together address the total anticipated hazard situation, are described. Descriptions of hardware, and system usefulness and viability are included. This discussion of safety systems recognizes that there is little history on which to base the expected safety related performance of a photovoltaic system. A comparison of these systems, as against the provisions of the 1984 National Electrical Code covering photovoltaic systems is made. A discussion of the UL investigation of the photovoltaic module evaluated to the provisions of the Proposed UL Standard for Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and Panels is included. Grounding systems, their basis and nature, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are described. The meaning of frame grounding, circuit grounding, and the type of circuit ground are covered. The development of the Standard for Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and Panels has continued, and with both industry comment and a product submittal and listing, the Standard has been refined to a viable document allowing an objective safety review of photovoltaic modules and panels. How this document, and other UL documents would cover investigations of certain other photovoltaic system components is described.

Levins, A.

1984-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

373

Safety Standards  

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

US DOE Workshop US DOE Workshop September 19-20, 2012 International perspective on Fukushima accident Miroslav Lipár Head, Operational Safety Section M.Lipar@iaea.org +43 1 2600 22691 2 Content * The IAEA before Fukushima -Severe accidents management * The IAEA actions after Fukushima * The IAEA Action plan on nuclear safety * Measures to improve operational safety * Conclusions THE IAEA BEFORE FUKUSHIMA 4 IAEA Safety Standards IAEA Safety Standards F undamental S afety Principles Safety Fundamentals f o r p ro te c ti n g p e o p l e a n d t h e e n v i ro n m e n t IAEA Safety Standards Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 2005 E dit ion Safety Requirements No. T S-R-1 f o r p ro te c ti n g p e o p l e a n d t h e e n v i ro n m e n t IAEA Safety Standards Design of the Reactor Core for Nuclear Power Plants

374

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  

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

375

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  

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

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

376

Worldwide advanced nuclear power reactors with passive and inherent safety: What, why, how, and who  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The political controversy over nuclear power, the accidents at Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl, international competition, concerns about the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect and technical breakthroughs have resulted in a segment of the nuclear industry examining power reactor concepts with PRIME safety characteristics. PRIME is an acronym for Passive safety, Resilience, Inherent safety, Malevolence resistance, and Extended time after initiation of an accident for external help. The basic ideal of PRIME is to develop power reactors in which operator error, internal sabotage, or external assault do not cause a significant release of radioactivity to the environment. Several PRIME reactor concepts are being considered. In each case, an existing, proven power reactor technology is combined with radical innovations in selected plant components and in the safety philosophy. The Process Inherent Ultimate Safety (PIUS) reactor is a modified pressurized-water reactor, the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR) is a modified gas-cooled reactor, and the Advanced CANDU Project is a modified heavy-water reactor. In addition to the reactor concepts, there is parallel work on super containments. The objective is the development of a passive box'' that can contain radioactivity in the event of any type of accident. This report briefly examines: why a segment of the nuclear power community is taking this new direction, how it differs from earlier directions, and what technical options are being considered. A more detailed description of which countries and reactor vendors have undertaken activities follows. 41 refs.

Forsberg, C.W.; Reich, W.J.

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

377

Safety Aspects of Nuclear Desalination with Innovative Systems; the EURODESAL Project  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The proposed paper reports the results of a preliminary investigation on safety impact deriving from the coupling of a desalination plant with a 600 MWe Passive Design PWR like the AP600 Nuclear Power Plant. This evaluation was performed in the frame of the EURODESAL Project of the 5. EURATOM Framework Programme. (authors)

Alessandroni, C.; Cinotti, L.; Mini, G. [Ansaldo Nucleare, C.so Perrone, 25 - Genova (Italy); Nisan, S. [CEA-CEN Cadarache, F-13108 Saint Paul-lez-Durance (France)

2002-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

378

Opportunities for improving regulations governing the seismic safety of large nuclear installations  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Opportunities for Improving Regulations Governing the Seismic Safety of Large Nuclear Installations Robert J. Budnitz, Ph.D. LBNL University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Andrew S. Whittaker, Ph.D., S.E. MCEER University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260

379

Price-Anderson Nuclear Safety Enforcement Program. 1996 Annual report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This first annual report on DOE`s Price Anderson Amendments Act enforcement program covers the activities, accomplishments, and planning for calendar year 1996. It also includes the infrastructure development activities of 1995. It encompasses the activities of the headquarters` Office of Enforcement in the Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) and Investigation and the coordinators and technical advisors in DOE`s Field and Program Offices and other EH Offices. This report includes an overview of the enforcement program; noncompliances, investigations, and enforcement actions; summary of significant enforcement actions; examples where enforcement action was deferred; and changes and improvements to the program.

NONE

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

380

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

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

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility safety equipment list  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

382

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY-AVAILABILITY AND STATE REGULATION. VOLUME 7 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHealth and Safety Impacts of Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil- FuelHealth and Safety Aspects of Pro- posed Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil-Fuel

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

383

A REVIEW OF AIR QUALITY MODELING TECHNIQUES. VOLUME 8 OF THE FINAL REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC GENERATION IN CALIFORNIA  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUELHealth and Safety Impacts of Nuclear, Geothermal, and Fossil- Fuel

Rosen, L.C.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

384

High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics Network Requirements  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Dataset Size LAN Transfer Time Needed WAN Transfer Time Needed Near Term (02 years) ? Daya Bay nuclear

Dart, Eli

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

Nuclear Explosives Safety Evaluation Process (DOE-STD-3015-2004)  

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

SENSITIVE DOE-STD-3015-2004 November 2004 Superseding DOE-STD-3015-2001 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE SAFETY EVALUATION PROCESS U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web site at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/techstds/. DOE-STD-3015-2004 iii FOREWORD This Department of Energy (DOE) Technical Standard is approved for use by the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application and Stockpile Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and is available for use with DOE O 452.1, NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE AND WEAPON SURETY PROGRAM, and DOE O 452.2, SAFETY OF

386

Computer code for space-time diagnostics of nuclear safety parameters  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The computer code ECRAN 3D (Experimental and Calculation Reactor Analysis) is designed for continuous monitoring and diagnostics of reactor cores and databases for RBMK-1000 on the basis of analytical methods for the interrelation parameters of nuclear safety. The code algorithms are based on the analysis of deviations between the physically obtained figures and the results of neutron-physical and thermal-hydraulic calculations. Discrepancies between the measured and calculated signals are equivalent to obtaining inadequacy between performance of the physical device and its simulator. The diagnostics system can solve the following problems: identification of facts and time for inconsistent results, localization of failures, identification and quantification of the causes for inconsistencies. These problems can be effectively solved only when the computer code is working in a real-time mode. This leads to increasing requirements for a higher code performance. As false operations can lead to significant economic losses, the diagnostics system must be based on the certified software tools. POLARIS, version 4.2.1 is used for the neutron-physical calculation in the computer code ECRAN 3D. (authors)

Solovyev, D. A.; Semenov, A. A.; Gruzdov, F. V.; Druzhaev, A. A.; Shchukin, N. V.; Dolgenko, S. G.; Solovyeva, I. V.; Ovchinnikova, E. A. [National Research Nuclear Univ. MEPhI, Kashirskoe, 31, 115409, Moscow (Russian Federation)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

387

Chemical Management Volume 3 of 3 - Consolidated Chemical User Safety and Health Requirements  

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

DOE-HDBK-1139/3-2008 July 2008 DOE HANDBOOK CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT (Volume 3 of 3) Consolidated Chemical User Safety and Health Requirements U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-HDBK-1139/3-2008 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Page at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/ DOE-HDBK-1139/3-2008 iii Foreword Numerous requirements have been promulgated to protect workers, equipment, facilities, and the environment. When work is performed, the specific requirements affecting the work must first be identified and incorporated into the work plan. Because such requirements can number in the thousands,

388

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

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

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

389

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

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

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

390

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

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

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

391

Toolbox Safety Talk Safety Data Sheets (SDS)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Toolbox Safety Talk Safety Data Sheets (SDS) Environmental Health & Safety Facilities Safety-in sheet to Environmental Health & Safety for recordkeeping. Chemical manufacturers are required to produce Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for all chemicals produced. "Safety Data Sheets", previously referred

Pawlowski, Wojtek

392

ON THE USE OF SPRAY SYSTEMS: AN EXAMPLE OF R&D WORK IN HYDROGEN SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

occurred since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 through experimental programs1 ON THE USE OF SPRAY SYSTEMS: AN EXAMPLE OF R&D WORK IN HYDROGEN SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS, igniters and spray systems have been designed and installed in modern nuclear power plants. Mitigation

Boyer, Edmond

393

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Assistance Reviews | Department of Energy  

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

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

394

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2003-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

395

General-purpose heat source project and space nuclear safety fuels program. Progress report, February 1980  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This formal monthly report covers the studies related to the use of /sup 238/PuO/sub 2/ in radioisotopic power systems carried out for the Advanced Nuclear Systems and Projects Division of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. The two programs involved are: General-Purpose Heat Source Development and Space Nuclear Safety and Fuels. Most of the studies discussed here are of a continuing nature. Results and conclusions described may change as the work continues. Published reference to the results cited in this report should not be made without the explicit permission of the person in charge of the work.

Maraman, W.J. (comp.)

1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

396

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

397

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

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

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

398

A case study on effectiveness of structural reliability analysis in nuclear reactor safety assessment  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Problems on reliability of structural integrity occupy an important position in various aspects of nuclear reactor safety. In the present paper, an effective method for quantitative evaluation of structural reliability based on stress strength model is developed with the objectives of taking a larger number of factors into the evaluation than before and giving useful results within moderate computing time. The method is applied to the reliability analysis of PWR pressure vessels. The results show the relative importance of inspection as well as the parameter uncertainty for assuring the reliability of the structure, although analysis is limited within the scope of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). This case study also shows that the analysis of structural reliability is effective for safety assessment of nuclear power plants in general and possibly for the improvements of the consistency in the design code.

A. Yamaguchi; S. Kondo; Y. Togo

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

399

High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics Network Requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) is the primary provider of network connectivity for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC), the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States. In support of SC programs, ESnet regularly updates and refreshes its understanding of the networking requirements needed by instruments, facilities, scientists, and science programs that it serves. This focus has helped ESnet to be a highly successful enabler of scientific discovery for over 25 years. In August 2013, ESnet and the DOE SC Offices of High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) organized a review to characterize the networking requirements of the programs funded by the HEP and NP program offices. Several key findings resulted from the review. Among them: 1. The Large Hadron Collider?s ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) and CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) experiments are adopting remote input/output (I/O) as a core component of their data analysis infrastructure. This will significantly increase their demands on the network from both a reliability perspective and a performance perspective. 2. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiments (particularly ATLAS and CMS) are working to integrate network awareness into the workflow systems that manage the large number of daily analysis jobs (1 million analysis jobs per day for ATLAS), which are an integral part of the experiments. Collaboration with networking organizations such as ESnet, and the consumption of performance data (e.g., from perfSONAR [PERformance Service Oriented Network monitoring Architecture]) are critical to the success of these efforts. 3. The international aspects of HEP and NP collaborations continue to expand. This includes the LHC experiments, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experiments, the Belle II Collaboration, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), and others. The international nature of these collaborations makes them heavily reliant on transoceanic connectivity, which is subject to longer term service disruptions than terrestrial connectivity. The network engineering aspects of undersea connectivity will continue to be a significant part of the planning, deployment, and operation of the data analysis infrastructure for HEP and NP experiments for the foreseeable future. Given their critical dependency on networking services, the experiments have expressed the need for tight integration (both technically and operationally) of the domestic and the transoceanic parts of the network infrastructure that supports the experiments. 4. The datasets associated with simulations continue to increase in size, and the need to move these datasets between analysis centers is placing ever-increasing demands on networks and on data management systems at the supercomputing centers. In addition, there is a need to harmonize cybersecurity practice with the data transfer performance requirements of the science. This report expands on these points, and addresses others as well. The report contains a findings section in addition to the text of the case studies discussed during the review.

Dart, Eli; Bauerdick, Lothar; Bell, Greg; Ciuffo, Leandro; Dasu, Sridhara; Dattoria, Vince; De, Kaushik; Ernst, Michael; Finkelson, Dale; Gottleib, Steven; Gutsche, Oliver; Habib, Salman; Hoeche, Stefan; Hughes-Jones, Richard; Ibarra, Julio; Johnston, William; Kisner, Theodore; Kowalski, Andy; Lauret, Jerome; Luitz, Steffen; Mackenzie, Paul; Maguire, Chales; Metzger, Joe; Monga, Inder; Ng, Cho-Kuen; Nielsen, Jason; Price, Larry; Porter, Jeff; Purschke, Martin; Rai, Gulshan; Roser, Rob; Schram, Malachi; Tull, Craig; Watson, Chip; Zurawski, Jason

2014-03-02T23:59:59.000Z

400

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Assistance Reviews | Department of Energy  

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

November 16, 1998 November 16, 1998 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc - EA-98-12 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc., related to Radiological Work Controls and Bioassay Program Deficiencies at the Mound Site, November 16, 1998 (EA-98-12) September 21, 1998 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Los Alamos National Laboratory - EA-98-10 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to the University of California related to Multiple Events involving Radiation Protection and Quality Control Requirements at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, (EA-98-10) September 21, 1998 Preliminary Notice of Violation, MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company - EA-98-08 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company,

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

DOE G 414.1-4, Safety Software Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

"This Department of Energy (DOE or Department) Guide provides information plus acceptable methods for implementing the safety software quality assurance (SQA) requirements of DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance, dated 6-17-05. DOE O 414.1C requirements supplement the quality assurance program (QAP) requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance, for DOE nuclear facilities and activities. The safety SQA requirements for DOE, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and its contractors are necessary to implement effective quality assurance (QA) processes and achieve safe nuclear facility operations. DOE promulgated the safety software requirements and this guidance to control or eliminate the hazards and associated postulated accidents posed by nuclear operations, including radiological operations. Safety software failures or unintended output can lead to unexpected system or equipment failures and undue risks to the DOE/NNSA mission, the environment, the public, and the workers. Thus DOE G 414.1-4 has been developed to provide guidance on establishing and implementing effective QA processes tied specifically to nuclear facility safety software applications. DOE also has guidance1 for the overarching QA program, which includes safety software within its scope. This Guide includes software application practices covered by appropriate national and international consensus standards and various processes currently in use at DOE facilities.2 This guidance is also considered to be of sufficient rigor and depth to ensure acceptable reliability of safety software at DOE nuclear facilities. This guidance should be used by organizations to help determine and support the steps necessary to address possible design or functional implementation deficiencies that might exist and to reduce operational hazards-related risks to an acceptable level. Attributes such as the facility life-cycle stage and the hazardous nature of each facilitys operations should be considered when using this Guide. Alternative methods to those described in this Guide may be used provided they result in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 830 Subpart A and DOE O 414.1C. Another objective of this guidance is to encourage robust software quality methods to enable the development of high quality safety applications."

402

The potential role of new technology for enhanced safety and performance of nuclear power plants through improved service maintenance  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Refinements in the safety and performance of nuclear power plants must be made to maintain public confidence and ensure competitiveness with other power sources. The aircraft industry, US Navy, and other programs have ...

Achorn, Ted Glen

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

403

Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation of the 9965, 9968, 9972, 9973, 9974, and 9975 Shipping Casks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation (NCSE) has been performed for the 9965, 9968, 9972, 9973, 9974, and 9975 SRS-designed shipping casks. This was done in support of the recertification effort for the 9965 and 9968, and the certification of the newly designed 9972-9975 series. The analysis supports the use of these packages as Fissile Class I for shipment of fissionable material from the SRS FB-Line, HB-Line, and from Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory. six different types of material were analyzed with varying Isotopic composition, of both oxide and metallic form. The mass limits required to support the fissile Class I rating for each of the envelopes are given in the Table below. These mass limits apply if DOE approves an exception as described in 10 CFR 71.55(c), such that water leakage into the primary containment vessel does not need to be considered in the criticality analysis. If this exception is not granted, the mass limits are lower than those shown below. this issue is discussed in detail in sections 5 and 6 of the report.One finding from this work is important enough to highlight in the abstract. The fire tests performed for this family of shipping casks indicates only minimal charring of the Celotex thermal insulation. Analysis of the casks with no Celotex insulation (assuming it has all burned away), results in values of k-eff that exceed 1.0. Therefore, the Celotex insulation must remain intact in order to guarantee sub criticality of the 9972-9975 family of shipping casks.

Frost, R.L.

1999-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

404

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Idaho Cleanup Project Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project, November 2012  

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

Idaho Cleanup Project Idaho Cleanup Project Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project May 2011 November 2012 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 Idaho Cleanup Project Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 2

405

Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project, April 2012  

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

Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project May 2011 April 2012 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 Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 2

406

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]

of the health and safety impact of fossil fuel emissions.to public health and safety, of any fossil fuel plant areHEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND FOSSIL-FUEL

Nero, A.V.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

407

DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex: Challenges to Safety, Security, and Taxpayer Stewardship  

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

Oversight and Investigations Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives "DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex: Challenges to Safety, Security, and Taxpayer Stewardship" FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY 10:00 AM September 12, 2012 1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here at your request to testify on matters relating to the Department of Energy's oversight of the nuclear weapons complex. 1 The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was established under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 as a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy. This action was intended to allow NNSA to concentrate on its defense-related mission, free from other Departmental operations. Its creation was, in large measure, a reaction to highly

408

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

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

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.

409

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  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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.

410

Nuclear proliferation and civilian nuclear power. Report of the Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program. Volume VI. Safety and environmental considerations for licensing  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This volume of the Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program report addresses safety and environmental considerations in licensing the principal alternative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles in the United States for large-scale commercial nuclear power plants. In addition, this volume examines the safety and environmental considerations for licensing fuel service centers. These centers, which have been proposed for controlling sensitive fuel-cycle facilities and special nuclear materials, would contain a combination of such facilities as reprocessing plants, fabrication plants, and reactors. For this analysis, two fuel service center concepts were selected - one with power - generating capability and one without.

Not Available

1980-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

411

Overview of Requirements for Using Overweight Vehicles to Ship Spent Nuclear Fuel  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, considered a range of options for transportation. In evaluating the impacts of the mostly-legal weight truck scenario, DOE assumed that some shipments would use overweight trucks. The use of overweight trucks is also considered in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, issued for public comment in Fall 2007. With the exception of permit requirements and operating restrictions, the vehicles for overweight shipments would be similar to legal-weight truck shipments but might weigh as much as 52,200 kilograms (115,000 pounds). The use of overweight trucks was determined to be acceptable for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Program because the payload is not divisible and the packaging alone may make shipments overweight. Overweight truck shipments are common, and states routinely issue overweight permits, some for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight up to 58,500 kilograms (129,000 pounds). This paper will present an overview of state overweight truck permitting policies and national and regional approaches to promote safety and uniformity. In conclusion: Overweight truck shipments are made routinely by carriers throughout the country. State permits are obtained by the carriers or by companies that provide permitting services to the carriers. While varying state permit restrictions may add complexity to OCRWM's planning activities, the well-established experience of commercial carriers and efforts to bring uniformity to the permitting process should allow the overweight shipment of SNF to be a viable option. (authors)

Thrower, A.W. [U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC (United States); Offner, J. [Booz Allen Hamilton, Washington, DC (United States); Bolton, P. [Booz Allen Hamilton, Santa Fe, NM (United States)

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

412

Nuclear Physics Science Network Requirements Workshop, May 2008 - Final Report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Gbps for NERSC. Total transatlantic requirements are on theof network planning, transatlantic bandwidth will need to bethe need for continued transatlantic connections back to

Tierney, Ed., Brian L

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

413

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR MNI LABORATORY PERSONNEL (version February, 2014) Principal Investigators are responsible for ensuring good occupational health and safety practices in their  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR MNI LABORATORY PERSONNEL (version February, 2014) Principal Investigators ensuring all personnel receive the proper training according to McGill Environmental Health and Safety are taken through McGill Environmental Health and Safety[ Safety Training | Environmental Health and Safety

Shoubridge, Eric

414

Validation of Nuclear Criticality Safety Software and 27 energy group ENDF/B-IV cross sections  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The validation documented in this report is based on calculations that were executed during June through August 1992, and was completed in June 1993. The statistical analyses in Appendix C and Appendix D were completed in October 1993. This validation gives Portsmouth NCS personnel a basis for performing computerized KENO V.a calculations using the Martin Marietta Nuclear Criticality Safety Software. The first portion of the document outlines basic information in regard to validation of NCSS using ENDF/B-IV 27-group cross sections on the IBM 3090 at ORNL. A basic discussion of the NCSS system is provided, some discussion on the validation database and validation in general. Then follows a detailed description of the statistical analysis which was applied. The results of this validation indicate that the NCSS software may be used with confidence for criticality calculations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. When the validation results are treated as a single group, there is 95% confidence that 99.9% of future calculations of similar critical systems will have a calculated K{sub eff} > 0.9616. Based on this result the Portsmouth Nuclear Criticality Safety Department has adopted the calculational acceptance criteria that a k{sub eff} + 2{sigma} {le} 0.95 is safety subcritical. The validation of NCSS on the IBM 3090 at ORNL was extended to include NCSS on the IBM 3090 at K-25.

Lee, B.L. Jr.

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

415

Development of a Societal-Risk Goal for Nuclear Power Safety  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The safety-goal policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has never included a true societal-risk goal. The NRC did acknowledge that the original goal for the risk of latent cancer facilities was an individual risk goal not related to the number of people involved, and stated that a true societal risk goal would place a limit on the aggregate number of people affected. However, this limitation was never satisfactorily addressed. Moreover, the safety goal has historically focused primarily on fatalities and latent health effects, while experience with actual nuclear accidents has shown that societal disruption can be significant even in accidents that yield only small to modest numbers of fatalities. Therefore, we have evaluated the social disruption effects from severe reactor accidents as a basis to develop a societal-risk goal for nuclear power plants, considering both health effects and non-health concerns such as property damage and land interdiction. Our initial analysis considered six different nuclear power plant sites in the U.S. for Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water Reactors. The accident sequences considered for these two reactor types were station blackout sequences (both short-term and long-term SBO) as well as an STSBO with RCIC failure for the BWR and a Steam Generator Tube Rupture for the PWR. The source term release was an input in a RASCAL calculation of the off-site consequences using actual site-based weather data for each of the six plant sites randomly selected over a two-year period. The source term release plumes were then compared to Geographical Information System data for each site to determine the population affected and that would need to be evacuated to meet current emergency preparedness regulations. Our results to date suggest that number of people evacuated to meet current protective action guidelines appears to be a good proxy for disruption -- and, unlike other measures of disruption, has the advantage of being relatively straightforward to calculate for a given accident scenario and a given geographical location and plant site. Revised safety goals taking into account the potential for societal disruption could in principle be applied to the current generation of nuclear plants, but could also be used in evaluating and siting new technologies, such as small modular light water reactors, advanced Gen-IV high-temperature reactors, as well as reactor designs with passive safety features such as filtered vented containments.

Vicki Bier; Michael Corradini; Robert Youngblood; Caleb Roh; Shuji Liu

2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

416

International Conference on Nuclear Thermal Hydraulics, Operations and Safety (NUTHOS-6) Nara, Japan, October 4-8, 2004.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

for assuring quality of software. In the area of nuclear power plant control systems, testing on softwareThe 6th International Conference on Nuclear Thermal Hydraulics, Operations and Safety (NUTHOS-6) Nara, Japan, October 4-8, 2004. Paper ID. N6P298 Direct Control Flow Testing on Function Block Diagrams

417

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

None

2001-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

418

DOE-STD-6002-96; DOE Standard Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements  

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

6002-96 6002-96 May 1996 DOE STANDARD SAFETY OF MAGNETIC FUSION FACILITIES: REQUIREMENTS 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) 487-4650. Order No. DE96009495 DOE-STD-6002-96 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD....................................................................................................................... v

419

DOE-STD-1083-95; DOE Standard Requesting and Granting Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules  

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

3-95 3-95 February 1995 DOE STANDARD REQUESTING AND GRANTING EXEMPTIONS TO NUCLEAR SAFETY RULES 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. DE95007451 DOE-STD-1083-95 iii FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) standard has been prepared by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health with the assistance of Hank George of Synergy Consultants and

420

Facility Safety  

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

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

Radioisotope Power System Delivery, Ground Support and Nuclear Safety Implementation: Use of the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator for the NASA's Mars Science Laboratory  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Radioisotope power systems have been used for over 50 years to enable missions in remote or hostile environments. They are a convenient means of supplying a few milliwatts up to a few hundred watts of useable, long-term electrical power. With regard to use of a radioisotope power system, the transportation, ground support and implementation of nuclear safety protocols in the field is a complex process that requires clear identification of needed technical and regulatory requirements. The appropriate care must be taken to provide high quality treatment of the item to be moved so it arrives in a condition to fulfill its missions in space. Similarly it must be transported and managed in a manner compliant with requirements for shipment and handling of special nuclear material. This presentation describes transportation, ground support operations and implementation of nuclear safety and security protocols for a radioisotope power system using recent experience involving the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator for National Aeronautics and Space Administrations Mars Science Laboratory, which launched in November of 2011.

S.G. Johnson; K.L. Lively; C.C. Dwight

2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

422

DOE-STD-1183-2004; Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

DOE-STD-1183-2004 April 2004 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR SAFETY SPECIALIST FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION STANDARD DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1183-2004 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. 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-1183-2004

423

DOE-STD-1185-2004; Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard  

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

STD-1185-2004 STD-1185-2004 August 2004 DOE STANDARD NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE SAFETY STUDY FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION STANDARD DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Technical Personnel U.S. Department of Energy AREA TRNG Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1185-2004 i This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. DOE-STD-1185-2004

424

A platform for effective requirements management and collaboration in nuclear compliance and licensing  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Buoyed by its promise as a cost effective and low-carbon-footprint source of electricity, the nuclear industry is in the midst of a world-wide renaissance. However, significant challenges, including responding to increased safety and regulatory mandates, making a smooth transition to next-generation reactor technology, and dealing with the adoption of digital instrumentation and control (I and C) systems that rely heavily on software must be effectively addressed to ensure the momentum continues. New technology solutions, such as those developed by IBM's Rational business unit, coupled with well codified processes, policies and best practices leveraged across the nuclear ecosystem's participants have been shown to aid in overcoming these obstacles. This paper will highlight some of the compliance and collaboration challenges facing the extended nuclear ecosystem, describe a potential solution that can aid in addressing the challenges, and present several examples of where the solution has been implemented in the nuclear space. (authors)

Fechtelkotter, P. L. [Rational IBM Software Group, IBM Corporation, Medfield, MA 02052 (United States)

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

425

"Order Module--DOE O 426.2, PERSONNEL SELECTION, TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

"To establish selection, training, qualification, and certification requirements for contractor personnel who can impact the safety basis through their involvement in the operation, maintenance,...

426

BFS, a Legacy to the International Reactor Physics, Criticality Safety, and Nuclear Data Communities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Interest in high-quality integral benchmark data is increasing as efforts to quantify and reduce calculational uncertainties accelerate to meet the demands of next generation reactor and advanced fuel cycle concepts. Two Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) activities, the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), initiated in 1992, and the International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP), initiated in 2003, have been identifying existing integral experiment data, evaluating those data, and providing integral benchmark specifications for methods and data validation for nearly two decades. Thus far, 14 countries have contributed to the IRPhEP, and 20 have contributed to the ICSBEP. Data provided by these two projects will be of use to the international reactor physics, criticality safety, and nuclear data communities for future decades The Russian Federation has been a major contributor to both projects with the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE) as the major contributor from the Russian Federation. Included in the benchmark specifications from the BFS facilities are 34 critical configurations from BFS-49, 61, 62, 73, 79, 81, 97, 99, and 101; spectral characteristics measurements from BFS-31, 42, 57, 59, 61, 62, 73, 97, 99, and 101; reactivity effects measurements from BFS-62-3A; reactivity coefficients and kinetics measurements from BFS-73; and reaction rate measurements from BFS-42, 61, 62, 73, 97, 99, and 101.

J. Blair Briggs; Anatoly Tsibulya; Yevgeniy Rozhikhin

2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

427

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

428

The Application of Risk-Based Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Assessment of Acceptable Public Safety for Nuclear Power Plants  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In 1982, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued, for public comment, proposed safety goals for commercial nuclear power plants. In an effort to quantitatively evaluate these proposed goals, a methodolog...

Thomas A. Morgan; Alfred J. Unione; George Sauter

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

429

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

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

-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

430

Nuclear criticality safety experiments, calculations, and analyses - 1958 to 1982. Volume 2. Summaries. Complilation of papers from the Transactions of the American Nuclear Society  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This compilation contains 688 complete summaries of papers on nuclear criticality safety as presented at meetings of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). The selected papers contain criticality parameters for fissile materials derived from experiments and calculations, as well as criticality safety analyses for fissile material processing, transport, and storage. The compilation was developed as a component of the Nuclear Criticality Information System (NCIS) now under development at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The compilation is presented in two volumes: Volume 1 contains a directory to the ANS Transaction volume and page number where each summary was originally published, the author concordance, and the subject concordance derived from the keyphrases in titles. Volume 2 contains-in chronological order-the full-text summaries, reproduced here by permission of the American Nuclear Society from their Transactions, volumes 1-41.

Koponen, B.L.; Hampel, V.E.

1982-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

431

Safety of power transformers, power supplies, reactors and similar products - Part 1: General requirements and tests  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

This International Standard deals with safety aspects of power transformers, power supplies, reactors and similar products such as electrical, thermal and mechanical safety. This standard covers the following types of dry-type transformers, power supplies, including switch mode power supplies, and reactors, the windings of which may be encapsulated or non-encapsulated. It has the status of a group safety publication in accordance with IEC Guide 104.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Geneva

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

432

Safety System Oversight Annual Award  

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

SAFETY SYSTEM OVERSIGHT ANNUAL AWARD PROGRAM SAFETY SYSTEM OVERSIGHT ANNUAL AWARD PROGRAM OBJECTIVE The Safety System Oversight (SSO) Annual Award is a special award designed to recognize superior or exemplary service by an employee who has performed SSO functions. This special award program has been established in accordance with the requirements of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 331.1C, Employee Performance Management and Recognition Program. SAFETY SYSTEM OVERSIGHT ANNUAL AWARD The SSO Annual Award recipient is determined by a panel representing the Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer and managers from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Office of Environmental Management (EM), the Office of Science (SC), and the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE). The SSO Program Manager in the Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and

433

E-Print Network 3.0 - aviation safety requirements Sample Search...  

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

the Canadian business aviation community globally, advocating safety, security, and efficiency CBAA NEWS BRIEF... Operations, Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. Vice Chair ...

434

Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors At Multiple-Reactor Stations  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Safety and cost information is developed for the conceptual decommissioning of large (1175-MWe) pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and large (1155-MWe) boiling water reactors {BWRs) at multiple-reactor stations. Three decommissioning alternatives are studied: DECON (immediate decontamination), SAFSTOR (safe storage followed by deferred decontamination), and ENTOMB (entombment). Safety and costs of decommissioning are estimated by determining the impact of probable features of multiple-reactor-station operation that are considered to be unavailable at a single-reactor station, and applying these estimated impacts to the decommissioning costs and radiation doses estimated in previous PWR and BWR decommissioning studies. The multiple-reactor-station features analyzed are: the use of interim onsite nuclear waste storage with later removal to an offsite nuclear waste disposal facility, the use of permanent onsite nuclear waste disposal, the dedication of the site to nuclear power generation, and the provision of centralized services. Five scenarios for decommissioning reactors at a multiple-reactor station are investigated. The number of reactors on a site is assumed to be either four or ten; nuclear waste disposal is varied between immediate offsite disposal, interim onsite storage, and immediate onsite disposal. It is assumed that the decommissioned reactors are not replaced in one scenario but are replaced in the other scenarios. Centralized service facilities are provided in two scenarios but are not provided in the other three. Decommissioning of a PWR or a BWR at a multiple-reactor station probably will be less costly and result in lower radiation doses than decommissioning an identical reactor at a single-reactor station. Regardless of whether the light water reactor being decommissioned is at a single- or multiple-reactor station: the estimated occupational radiation dose for decommissioning an LWR is lowest for SAFSTOR and highest for DECON the estimated cost of decommissioning a PWR is lowest for ENTOMB and highest for SAFSTOR the estimated cost of decommissioning a BWR is lowest for OECON and highest for SAFSTOR. In all cases, SAFSTOR has the lowest occupational radiation dose and the highest cost.

Wittenbrock, N. G.

1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

435

Researching a New Fuel for the HFIR Advancements at ORNL Require Multiphysics Simulation to Contribute to Safety and Reliability  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Research into the conversion of the High Flux Isotope Reactor to low-enriched uranium fuel to meet requirements established by the Global Threat Reduction Initiative is ongoing at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Researchers have turned to multiphysics simulations to evaluate the safety and performance of the new fuel and reactor core design.

Curtis, Franklin G [ORNL] [ORNL; Freels, James D [ORNL] [ORNL

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

436

Consequence modeling for nuclear weapons probabilistic cost/benefit analyses of safety retrofits  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The consequence models used in former studies of costs and benefits of enhanced safety retrofits are considered for (1) fuel fires; (2) non-nuclear detonations; and, (3) unintended nuclear detonations. Estimates of consequences were made using a representative accident location, i.e., an assumed mixed suburban-rural site. We have explicitly quantified land- use impacts and human-health effects (e.g. , prompt fatalities, prompt injuries, latent cancer fatalities, low- levels of radiation exposure, and clean-up areas). Uncertainty in the wind direction is quantified and used in a Monte Carlo calculation to estimate a range of results for a fuel fire with uncertain respirable amounts of released Pu. We define a nuclear source term and discuss damage levels of concern. Ranges of damages are estimated by quantifying health impacts and property damages. We discuss our dispersal and prompt effects models in some detail. The models used to loft the Pu and fission products and their particle sizes are emphasized.

Harvey, T.F.; Peters, L.; Serduke, F.J.D.; Hall, C.; Stephens, D.R.

1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

437

Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations - Guidance Documents  

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

Guidance Documents Guidance Documents Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office Protocols Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for the Development and Maintenance of Criteria and Review Approach Documents, July 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight, November 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for Required Reading, June 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for Small Team Oversight Activities, June 2012 (Rev. 1) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Qualification Standard for the Site Lead Program, May 2011 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Protocol for Site Leads, May 2011

438

Arrangement between the Office for Nuclear Regulation of Great Britain and the United States Department of Energy for the Exchange of Information and Co-operation in the Area of Nuclear Safety Matters  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Arrangement between the Office for Nuclear Regulation of Great Britain and the United States Department of Energy for the Exchange of Information and Co-operation in the Area of Nuclear Safety Matters.

439

H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS  

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

Department of Energy Pt. 835 H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS 1. The USQ process is an important tool to evaluate whether changes affect the safety basis. A contractor must use the USQ proc- ess to ensure that the safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility is not undermined by changes in the facility, the work performed, the associated hazards, or other factors that support the adequacy of the safety basis. 2. The USQ process permits a contractor to make physical and procedural changes to a nuclear facility and to conduct tests and ex- periments without prior approval, provided these changes do not cause a USQ. The USQ process provides a contractor with the flexi- bility needed to conduct day-to-day oper- ations by requiring only those changes and tests with a potential to impact the safety

440

H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS  

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

3 3 Department of Energy Pt. 835 H. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS 1. The USQ process is an important tool to evaluate whether changes affect the safety basis. A contractor must use the USQ proc- ess to ensure that the safety basis for a DOE nuclear facility is not undermined by changes in the facility, the work performed, the associated hazards, or other factors that support the adequacy of the safety basis. 2. The USQ process permits a contractor to make physical and procedural changes to a nuclear facility and to conduct tests and ex- periments without prior approval, provided these changes do not cause a USQ. The USQ process provides a contractor with the flexi- bility needed to conduct day-to-day oper- ations by requiring only those changes and tests with a potential to impact the safety

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "nuclear safety requirements" 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

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY COURSE WAIVER & INDEMNIFICATION rev.01/13 Participation in this course requires physical stamina, motor coordination, and mental alertness. The undersigned hereby attests that  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY COURSE WAIVER & INDEMNIFICATION rev.01/13 Participation in this course requires of _____________________________________________________, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the training sponsor, the owner of the training motorcycle, and the owner to participate in the Motorcycle Safety Course, I agree as follows: I fully understand and acknowledge that: (a

442

Required Assets for a Nuclear Energy Applied R&D Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report is one of a set of three documents that have collectively identified and recommended research and development capabilities that will be required to advance nuclear energy in the next 20 to 50 years. The first report, Nuclear Energy for the Future: Required Research and Development CapabilitiesAn Industry Perspective, was produced by Battelle Memorial Institute at the request of the Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy. That report, drawn from input by industry, academia, and Department of Energy laboratories, can be found in Appendix 5.1. This Idaho National Laboratory report maps the nuclear-specific capabilities from the Battelle report onto facility requirements, identifying options from the set of national laboratory, university, industry, and international facilities. It also identifies significant gaps in the required facility capabilities. The third document, Executive Recommendations for Nuclear R&D Capabilities, is a letter report containing a set of recommendations made by a team of senior executives representing nuclear vendors, utilities, academia, and the national laboratories (at Battelles request). That third report can be found in Appendix 5.2. The three reports should be considered as set in order to have a more complete picture. The basis of this report was drawn from three sources: previous Department of Energy reports, workshops and committee meetings, and expert opinion. The facilities discussed were winnowed from several hundred facilities that had previously been catalogued and several additional facilities that had been overlooked in past exercises. The scope of this report is limited to commercial nuclear energy and those things the federal government, or more specifically the Office of Nuclear Energy, should do to support its expanded deployment in order to increase energy security and reduce carbon emissions. In the context of this report, capabilities mean innovative, well-structured research and development programs, a viable work force, and well-equipped specialized facilities.

Harold F. McFarlane; Craig L. Jacobson

2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

443

NUCLEAR PLANT AND CONTROL  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

for the digital protection systems of a nuclear power plant. When spec- ifying requirements for software and CRSA processes are described using shutdown system 2 of the Wolsong nuclear power plants as the digital, the missiles, and the digital protection systems embed- ded in nuclear power plants. Obviously, safety

444

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

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

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;

445

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

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

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;

446

DOE-STD-0100T; DOE Standard Licensed Reactor Nuclear Safety Criteria Applicable to DOE Reactors  

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

00T 00T November 1993 Superseding DOE/NE-0100T April 1991 DOE STANDARD LICENSED REACTOR NUCLEAR SAFETY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO DOE REACTORS U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 AREA SAFT DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly frorn 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. DE94005221 CONTENTS

447

Requirements: Date of Event: ___________ You must obtain a signed burn permit from Campus Fire Safety or Public Safety.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

to obtain a permit. Open burning must be 50 feet away from nearest field, brush, or structure. The fire pit: Open burning - bonfires, camp fires, open pits, etc. Only an approved enclosed fire pit structure canRequirements: Date of Event: ___________ You must obtain a signed burn permit from Campus Fire

Royer, Dana

448

Additional Studies of the Criticality Safety of Failed Used Nuclear Fuel  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Commercial used nuclear fuel (UNF) in the United States is expected to remain in storage for periods potentially greater than 40 years. Extended storage (ES) time and irradiation to high-burnup values (>45 GWd/t) may increase the potential for fuel failure during normal and accident conditions involving storage and transportation. Fuel failure, depending on the severity, could result in changes to the geometric configuration of the fuel, which has safety and regulatory implications. The likelihood and extent of fuel reconfiguration and its impact on the safety of the UNF is not well understood. The objective of this work is to assess and quantify the impact of fuel reconfiguration due to fuel failure on criticality safety of UNF in storage and transportation casks. Criticality analyses are conducted considering representative UNF designs covering a range of enrichments and burnups in multiple cask systems. Prior work developed a set of failed fuel configuration categories and specific configurations were evaluated to understand trends and quantify the consequences of worst-case potential reconfiguration progressions. These results will be summarized here and indicate that the potential impacts on subcriticality can be rather significant for certain configurations (e.g., >20% keff). It can be concluded that the consequences of credible fuel failure configurations from ES or transportation following ES are manageable (e.g., <5% keff). The current work expands on these efforts and examines some modified scenarios and modified approaches to investigate the effectiveness of some techniques for reducing the calculated increase in keff. The areas included here are more realistic modeling of some assembly types and the effect of reconfiguration of some assemblies in the storage and transportation canister.

Marshall, William BJ J [ORNL] [ORNL; Wagner, John C [ORNL] [ORNL

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

449

Aging of turbine drives for safety-related pumps in nuclear power plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This study was performed to examine the relationship between time-dependent degradation and current industry practices in the areas of maintenance, surveillance, and operation of steam turbine drives for safety-related pumps. These pumps are located in the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system for pressurized-water reactor plants and in the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling and High-Pressure Coolant Injection systems for boiling-water reactor plants. This research has been conducted by examination of failure data in the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System, review of Licensee Event Reports, discussion of problems with operating plant personnel, and personal observation. The reported failure data were reviewed to determine the cause of the event and the method of discovery. Based on the research results, attempts have been made to determine the predictability of failures and possible preventive measures that may be implemented. Findings in a recent study of AFW systems indicate that the turbine drive is the single largest contributor to AFW system degradation. However, examination of the data shows that the turbine itself is a reliable piece of equipment with a good service record. Most of the problems documented are the result of problems with the turbine controls and the mechanical overspeed trip mechanism; these apparently stem from three major causes which are discussed in the text. Recent improvements in maintenance practices and procedures, combined with a stabilization of the design, have led to improved performance resulting in a reliable safety-related component. However, these improvements have not been universally implemented.

Cox, D.F. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States)

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

450

NIF system-design requirements for nuclear-weapons physics experiments  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

One of the objectives of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is to provide an aboveground experimental capability for conducting weapons-physics experiments, for maintaining nuclear competence. To achieve the high-energy-density regimes needed for a science-based stockpile stewardship program, NIF must produce conditions similar to those in nuclear weapon explosions. This imposes fundamental facility design requirements on NIF. This document summarizes those requirements for opacity, radiation-flow, equation-of-state, non-LTE and x-ray laser, hydrodynamic, and capsule-implosion experiments.

Perry, T.S. [ed.] [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States); Wilde, B.H. [ed.] [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States)

1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

451

Department of Energy Cites Fluor B&W Portsmouth, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Fluor B&W Portsmouth (FBP) for violations of the DOEs nuclear safety and radiation protection regulations, and has proposed a $243,750 civil penalty.

452

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

453

General-purpose heat source project and space nuclear safety and fuels program. Progress report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Studies related to the use of /sup 238/PuO/sub 2/ in radioisotopic power systems carried out for the Advanced Nuclear Systems and Projects Division of LASL are presented. The three programs involved are: general-purpose heat source development; space nuclear safety; and fuels program. Three impact tests were conducted to evaluate the effects of a high temperature reentry pulse and the use of CBCF on impact performance. Additionally, two /sup 238/PuO/sub 2/ pellets were encapsulated in Ir-0.3% W for impact testing. Results of the clad development test and vent testing are noted. Results of the environmental tests are summarized. Progress on the Stirling isotope power systems test and the status of the improved MHW tests are indicated. The examination of the impact failure of the iridium shell of MHFT-65 at a fuel pass-through continued. A test plan was written for vibration testing of the assembled light-weight radioisotopic heater unit. Progress on fuel processing is reported.

Maraman, W.J.

1980-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

454

ISOFIC/ISSNP 2014, Jeju, Korea, August 24~28, 2014 1 Comparison of Hazard Analysis Requirements  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

principles (safety model or safety culture) Nuclear: High energy and radiation release Protection model Car." In this paper, the scope of "harm" is limited to the loss of a safety function in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP in unclear domain, specifically the safety requirements and guidance for the instrumentation and control

455

Rockwell International's Nuclear Criticality Safety Program at the Rocky Flats Plant  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper describes the criticality safety program at the Rocky Flats Plant. The groups responsible for safety are named and their functions outlined. (JDH)

McCarthy, J.D.

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

456

Evaluating Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts from Two Nuclear Fuel Cycles: A Comparative Analysis of Once-Through Uranium Use and Plutonium Recycle in Light Water Reactors.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Prioritizing the finite resources available to advance research, development and demonstration of the nuclear industry requires a comprehensive evaluation of potential advanced nuclear technologies to (more)

Smith, Bethany Lee

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

457

K Basin spent nuclear fuel hot conditioning system functions {ampersand} requirements  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this F{ampersand}R document is to establish the functional requirements baseline for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Hot Conditioning System (HCS) subproject. This F{ampersand}R documents the: -mission of the HCS, -evolution of the technical baseline leading to the HCS, -functions that must be performed to accomplish the HCS mission, -requirements basis allocated to the HCS mission and functions, -identification and definition of interfaces between the HCS and other SNF subprojects.

Miska, C.R., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-07-08T23:59:59.000Z

458

Safety at a glance; Upgrading the displays in a nuclear plant control room  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

As part of an effort to upgrade aging plants, computer-integrated data-acquisition systems are beginning to penetrate the nation's nuclear power control rooms. The impetus is also partly due to the legacy of Three Mile Island, where control room operators, confused about which stream pressure line reading was correct, unfortunately believed the wrong one. This paper reports on the Vermont Yankee nuclear generating facility near Brattleboro, Vt., where the new SPDS requirement provided the opportunity to reassess the existing automated data-acquisition system, an installation that came as original equipment when the plant opened in 1972. The system, a Honeywell industrial computer repackaged by General Electric (which built the reactor), has become obsolete.

Baer, T.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

459

Identification and Analysis of Critical Gaps in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Codes Required by the SINEMA Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The current state of the art in nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) modeling is an eclectic mixture of codes with various levels of applicability, flexibility, and availability. In support of the advanced fuel cycle systems analyses, especially those by the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), Unviery of Cincinnati in collaboration with Idaho State University carried out a detailed review of the existing codes describing various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and identified the research and development needs required for a comprehensive model of the global nuclear energy infrastructure and the associated nuclear fuel cycles. Relevant information obtained on the NFC codes was compiled into a relational database that allows easy access to various codes' properties. Additionally, the research analyzed the gaps in the NFC computer codes with respect to their potential integration into programs that perform comprehensive NFC analysis.

Adrian Miron; Joshua Valentine; John Christenson; Majd Hawwari; Santosh Bhatt; Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar: Michael Lineberry

2009-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

460

Nuclear Systems Technology | Nuclear Science | ORNL  

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

Advanced Fuel Cycle Systems Criticality Safety Irradiation Experiment Development and Execution Robotics & Remote Systems Engineering and Applications Thermal & Hydraulic Experiments & Analysis Used Nuclear Fuel Storage, Transportation, and Disposal Reactor Technology Nuclear Science Home | Science & Discovery | Nuclear Science | Research Areas | Nuclear Systems Technology SHARE Nuclear Systems Technology Nuclear Systems Technology Image 2 ORNL has had historic involvement in a broad set of nuclear research areas: irradiated materials and isotopes R&D, fission and fusion reactors development, neutron scattering, fuel enrichment, used fuel recycling and disposal, etc. The skills and knowledge required to succeed in these research areas often cultivated core areas of expertise in which ORNL is

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


461

Packaging and Transportation Safety  

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

To establish safety requirements for the proper packaging and transportation of Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) offsite shipments and onsite transfers of hazardous materials and for modal transport. Cancels DOE O 460.1A. Canceled by DOE O 460.1C.

2003-04-04T23:59:59.000Z

462

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Tree Analysis), FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis), HAZOP (Hazard and Operability study). · Safety

463

Numerical study of the THM effects on the near-field safety of a hypothetical nuclear waste repository--BMT1 of the DECOVALEX III project. Part 1: Conceptualization  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Numerical study of the THM effects on the near-field safety of a hypothetical nuclear waste on the safety of a hypothetical nuclear waste repository at the near-field and are presented in three on the safety of nuclear waste repositories. To achieve the second objective, hypothetical benchmark test

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

464

Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Self-Assessment -  

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

Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Self-Assessment - Chief of Nuclear Safety Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Self-Assessment - Chief of Nuclear Safety A self-assessment of the CNS Senior Technical Safety Manager (STSM) Qualification Program was conducted during the week of July 8, 2013, when all STSM-qualified staff members were present in Germantown, Maryland. This was the first self-assessment that CNS has conducted. In accordance CNS Standard Operating Procedure SOP-016, Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program, a self-assessment is required once every four years. Chief of Nuclear Safety STSM Self-Assessment, August 2013 More Documents & Publications 2010 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report - Chief of Nuclear

465

Challenge problem and milestones for : Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC).  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report describes the specification of a challenge problem and associated challenge milestones for the Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC) supporting the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Campaign. The NEAMS challenge problems are designed to demonstrate proof of concept and progress towards IPSC goals. The goal of the Waste IPSC is to develop an integrated suite of modeling and simulation capabilities to quantitatively assess the long-term performance of waste forms in the engineered and geologic environments of a radioactive waste storage or disposal system. The Waste IPSC will provide this simulation capability (1) for a range of disposal concepts, waste form types, engineered repository designs, and geologic settings, (2) for a range of time scales and distances, (3) with appropriate consideration of the inherent uncertainties, and (4) in accordance with robust verification, validation, and software quality requirements. To demonstrate proof of concept and progress towards these goals and requirements, a Waste IPSC challenge problem is specified that includes coupled thermal-hydrologic-chemical-mechanical (THCM) processes that describe (1) the degradation of a borosilicate glass waste form and the corresponding mobilization of radionuclides (i.e., the processes that produce the radionuclide source term), (2) the associated near-field physical and chemical environment for waste emplacement within a salt formation, and (3) radionuclide transport in the near field (i.e., through the engineered components - waste form, waste package, and backfill - and the immediately adjacent salt). The initial details of a set of challenge milestones that collectively comprise the full challenge problem are also specified.

Freeze, Geoffrey A.; Wang, Yifeng; Howard, Robert; McNeish, Jerry A.; Schultz, Peter Andrew; Arguello, Jose Guadalupe, Jr.

2010-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

466

Roadmap to an Engineering-Scale Nuclear Fuel Performance & Safety Code  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Developing new fuels and qualifying them for large-scale deployment in power reactors is a lengthy and expensive process, typically spanning a period of two decades from concept to licensing. Nuclear fuel designers serve an indispensable role in the process, at the initial exploratory phase as well as in analysis of the testing results. In recent years fuel performance capabilities based on first principles have been playing more of a role in what has traditionally been an empirically dominated process. Nonetheless, nuclear fuel behavior is based on the interaction of multiple complex phenomena, and recent evolutionary approaches are being applied more on a phenomenon-by-phenomenon basis, targeting localized problems, as opposed to a systematic approach based on a fundamental understanding of all interacting parameters. Advanced nuclear fuels are generally more complex, and less understood, than the traditional fuels used in existing reactors (ceramic UO{sub 2} with burnable poisons and other minor additives). The added challenges are primarily caused by a less complete empirical database and, in the case of recycled fuel, the inherent variability in fuel compositions. It is clear that using the traditional approach to develop and qualify fuels over the entire range of variables pertinent to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy on a timely basis with available funds would be very challenging, if not impossible. As a result the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy has launched the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) approach to revolutionize fuel development. This new approach is predicated upon transferring the recent advances in computational sciences and computer technologies into the fuel development program. The effort will couple computational science with recent advances in the fundamental understanding of physical phenomena through ab initio modeling and targeted phenomenological testing to leapfrog many fuel-development activities. Realizing the full benefits of this approach will likely take some time. However, it is important that the developmental activities for modeling and simulation be tightly coupled with the experimental activities to maximize feedback effects and accelerate both the experimental and analytical elements of the program toward a common objective. The close integration of modeling and simulation and experimental activities is key to developing a useful fuel performance simulation capability, providing a validated design and analysis tool, and understanding the uncertainties within the models and design process. The efforts of this project are integrally connected to the Transmutation Fuels Campaign (TFC), which maintains as a primary objective to formulate, fabricate, and qualify a transuranic-based fuel with added minor actinides for use in future fast reactors. Additional details of the TFC scope can be found in the Transmutation Fuels Campaign Execution Plan. This project is an integral component of the TFC modeling and simulation effort, and this multiyear plan borrowed liberally from the Transmutation Fuels Campaign Modeling and Simulation Roadmap. This document provides the multiyear staged development plan to develop a continuum-level Integrated Performance and Safety Code (IPSC) to predict the behavior of the fuel and cladding during normal reactor operations and anticipated transients up to the point of clad breach.

Turner, John A [ORNL; Clarno, Kevin T [ORNL; Hansen, Glen A [ORNL

2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

467

10 C.F.R. Part 820- Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This part sets forth the procedures to govern the conduct of persons involved in DOE nuclear activities and, in particular, to achieve compliance with the DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements by all persons subject to those requirements.

468

A nuclear criticality safety assessment of the loss of moderation control in 2 1/2 and 10-ton cylinders containing enriched UF{sub 6}  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Moderation control for maintaining nuclear criticality safety in 2 {1/2}-ton, 10-ton, and 14-ton cylinders containing enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF{sub 6}) has been used safely within the nuclear industry for over thirty years, and is dependent on cylinder integrity and containment. This assessment evaluates the loss of moderation control by the breaching of containment and entry of water into the cylinders. The first objective of this study was to estimate the required amounts of water entering these large UF{sub 6} cylinders to react with, and to moderate the uranium compounds sufficiently to cause criticality. Hypothetical accident situations were modeled as a uranyl fluoride (UO{sub 2}F{sub 2}) slab above a UF{sub 6} hemicylinder, and a UO{sub 2}F{sub 2} sphere centered within a UF{sub 6} hemicylinder. These situations were investigated by computational analyses utilizing the KENO V.a Monte Carlo Computer Code. The results were used to estimate both the masses of water required for criticality, and the limiting masses of water that could be considered safe. The second objective of the assessment was to calculate the time available for emergency control actions before a criticality would occur, i.e., a {open_quotes}safetime{close_quotes}, for various sources of water and different size openings in a breached cylinder. In the situations considered, except the case for a fire hose, the safetime appears adequate for emergency control actions. The assessment shows that current practices for handling moderation controlled cylinders of low enriched UF{sub 6}, along with the continuation of established personnel training programs, ensure nuclear criticality safety for routine and emergency operations.

Newvahner, R.L. [Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Piketon, OH (United States); Pryor, W.A. [PAI Corp., Oak Ridge, TN (United States)

1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

469

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

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

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

470

General-purpose heat source project and space nuclear safety and fuels program. Progress reportt, January 1980  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This formal monthly report covers the studies related to the use of /sup 238/PuO/sub 2/ in radioisotopic power systems carried out for the Advanced Nuclear Systems and Projects Division of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. The two programs involved are the general-purpose heat source development and space nuclear safety and fuels. Most of the studies discussed here are of a continuing nature. Results and conclusions described may change as the work continues. Published reference to the results cited in this report should not be made without the explicit permission of the person in charge of the work.

Maraman, W.J. (comp.)

1980-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

471

Structural Aging Program to evaluate continued performance of safety-related concrete structures in nuclear power plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report discusses the Structural Aging (SAG) Program which is being conducted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the United States Nuclear Regulatory commission (USNRC). The SAG Program is addressing the aging management of safety-related concrete structures in nuclear power plants for the purpose of providing improved technical bases for their continued service. The program is organized into three technical tasks: Materials Property Data Base, Structural Component Assessment/Repair Technologies, and Quantitative Methodology for continued Service Determinations. Objectives and a summary of recent accomplishments under each of these tasks are presented.

Naus, D.J.; Oland, C.B. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Ellingwood, B.R. [Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD (United States)

1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

472

Portsmouth DUF6 Conversion Final EIS - Chapter 6: Environmental and Occupational Safety and Health Permits and Compliance Requirements  

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

Portsmouth DUF Portsmouth DUF 6 Conversion Final EIS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 6.1 DUF 6 CYLINDER MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DUF 6 CONVERSION FACILITY DUF 6 cylinder management as well as construction and operation of the proposed DUF 6 conversion facility would be subject to many federal, state, and local requirements. In accordance with such legal requirements, a variety of permits, licenses, and other consents must be obtained. Table 6.1 at the end of this chapter lists those that may be needed. The status of each is indicated on the basis of currently available information. However, because the DUF 6 project is still at an early stage, the information in Table 6.1 should not be considered comprehensive or

473

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

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

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

474

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

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

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

475

Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program  

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

All nuclear explosives and nuclear explosive operations require special safety, security, and use control consideration because of the potentially unacceptable consequences of an accident or unauthorized act; therefore, a Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety (NEWS) Program is established to prevent unintended/unauthorized detonation and deliberate unauthorized use of nuclear explosives.

2015-01-26T23:59:59.000Z

476

B PLANT DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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