National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for nuclear safety requirements

  1. Promulgating Nuclear Safety Requirements

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

    1996-05-15

    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.

  2. Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety Requirements

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

    2007-08-28

    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. Does not cancel/supersede other directives.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    DOE-STD-1104-96 November 2005 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 3 Date December 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

  4. Office of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  5. Enforcement handbook: Enforcement of DOE nuclear safety requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-06-01

    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.

  6. Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual

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

    2009-04-14

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

  7. 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)

  8. 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.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. Kokkinos

    2005-04-28

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

  10. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2014-07-10

    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).

  11. Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Nuclear Safety The Nuclear Safety Program mission is to support the design, construction, operation, and deactivation and decommissioning of the Paducah and Portsmouth nuclear facilities in a manner that ensures adequate protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Major Responsibilities: Establish and implement nuclear safety requirements that utilize national consensus (or other government) standards or applicable external agency regulations (Nuclear Regulatory

  12. DOE-STD-1104-96 CN-1; Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis Documents (Documented Safety Analyses and Technical Safety Requirements)

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    DOE-STD-1104-96 February 1996 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1 May 2002 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. TS This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services,

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

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

    0.1C Chg 1, Facility Safety by Pranab Guha Functional areas: DNFSB, Defense Nuclear Facility Safety and Health Requirement, Facility Safety, Requires Crosswalk When Revised,...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements CRAD, Facility Safety - Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements 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 Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) process.. CRADs provide a recommended approach and the types of information to

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

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

    facility and programmatic safety requirements for DOE and NNSA for nuclear safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards (NPH)...

  16. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2009-04-14

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

  17. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2009-04-14

    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

  18. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2015-01-26

    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). Supersedes DOE O 452.2D and DOE M 452.2-1A.

  19. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2006-06-12

    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.

  20. Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes

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

    2009-04-14

    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.

  1. Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Nuclear Safety The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes and maintains nuclear safety policy, requirements, and guidance including policy and requirements relating to hazard and accident analysis, facility design and operation, and QA. The DOE Technical Standards Program promotes the use of voluntary consensus standards at DOE, manages and facilitates DOE's efforts to develop and maintain necessary technical standards, and communicates information on technical standards activities

  2. Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2006-06-12

    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.

  3. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework

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

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

  4. Nuclear Explosive Safety Manual

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

    2009-04-14

    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.

  5. 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 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

  6. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the

  7. Office of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Safety Mission The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes nuclear safety requirements and expectations for the Department to ensure protection of workers, the public, and the environment from the hazards associated with nuclear operations. It also establishes general facility safety requirements in the areas of fire protection, natural phenomena hazards, and quality assurance (QA) to ensure that products and services meet or exceed the Department's objectives in

  8. Nuclear Explosive Safety Evaluation Processes

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

    2009-04-14

    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.

  9. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

  10. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

  11. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

  12. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

  13. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

  14. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

  15. Experiment Safety Requirements

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

    Experiment Safety Requirements Print Safety at the ALS The mission of the ALS is to "Support users in doing outstanding science in a safe environment." How Do I...? Complete an Experiment Safety Sheet? (Do this upon receiving beam time.) Complete Safety Training? Bring and Use Electrical Equipment at the ALS? Determine what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Wear? Get Authorization to Work with Lasers at the ALS? Ship Radioactive Materials to LBNL for Use at the ALS? Ship Samples

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

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

    Nuclear Safety Software & Quality Assurance In support of DOE O 410.1, Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety Requirements, the Chief of Nuclear...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

  18. Nuclear Reactor Safety Design Criteria

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

    1993-01-19

    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. Supersedes DOE 5480.1, dated 1-19-93. Certified 11-18-10.

  19. Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Safety Management Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Garvin, L.J.

    1996-02-01

    The Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Safety Management Plan describes the new nuclear facility regulatory requirements basis for the Spemt Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project and establishes the plan to achieve compliance with this basis at the new SNF Project facilities.

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

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

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

  1. Nuclear Energy Safety Technologies

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

    Safety Technologies - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced

  2. WIPP Documents - Nuclear Safety

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

    Nuclear Safety DOE/WIPP-07-3372, Revision 4 WIPP Documented Safety Analysis Approved November 2013 The Documented Safety Analysis addresses all hazards (both radiological and nonradiological) and the controls necessary to provide adequate protection to the public, workers, and the environment. The WIPP DSA demonstrates the extent to which the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant can be operated safely with respect to workers, the public, and the environment. DOE/WIPP-07-3373, Revision 4 WIPP Technical

  3. Safety of Nuclear Explosive Operations

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

    2001-08-07

    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.

  4. Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  5. Nuclear Safety Information | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Information Nuclear Safety Information Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) | April 8, 2009 Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) | April 8, 2009 Nuclear Facilities List and Map Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework Summary Pamphlet, Nuclear Safety at the Department of Energy External Nuclear Safety Links Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Contact Tom Staker

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Safety Software & Quality Assurance Nuclear Safety Software & Quality Assurance Nuclear Safety Software & Quality Assurance In support of DOE O 410.1, Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety Requirements, the Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) provides operational awareness, oversight, and assistance to Environmental Management (EM) Headquarters, field offices, and their contractors in the areas of nuclear safety Quality Assurance (QA) and Software Quality

  7. 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.

  8. NRC - regulator of nuclear safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-05-01

    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.

  9. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2010-11-03

    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.

  10. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2010-11-03

    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.

  11. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2014-09-08

    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.

  12. Nuclear reactor safety device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hutter, Ernest (Wilmette, IL)

    1986-01-01

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

  13. 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.

  14. Nuclear Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports Nuclear Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes and maintains nuclear safety policy, requirements, and guidance including policy and requirements relating to hazard and accident analysis, facility design and operation, and Quality Assurance. The DOE Technical Standards Program promotes the use of voluntary consensus standards at DOE, manages and facilitates DOE's efforts to develop and maintain necessary

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

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

    2000-03-28

    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.

  16. Nuclear reactor safety device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hutter, E.

    1983-08-15

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

  17. Chief of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Chief of Nuclear Safety Chief of Nuclear Safety Message from Chief of Nuclear Safety Message from Chief of Nuclear Safety The Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) is responsible for ensuring that DOE Nuclear Safety Regulations, Standards, Guides, and national/international technical standards are applied in a correct manner in the conduct of DOE's nuclear mission under the purview of the Under Secretary for Management and Performance. Read more Seismic Lessons-Learned Panel Meetings Seismic

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

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

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

  19. FAQS Reference Guide - Nuclear Safety Specialist | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Reference Guide - Nuclear Safety Specialist 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. PDF icon Nuclear Safety Specialist Qualification Standard Reference Guide, August 2014 More Documents & Publications DOE-STD-3009-94 DOE-STD-3009-94 DOE-STD-3009-2014 Requirements Matrix

  20. 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...

  1. 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. Von Hippel, at PPPL, calls for international ...

  2. 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Photos

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Deputy Secretary Poneman (view announcement memo) convened the second DOE Nuclear Safety Workshop on September 19-20, 2012. The event was held at the Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD.

  3. nuclear safety | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    safety | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home /

  4. NNSA and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board certifications...

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

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

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

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

    2014-12-19

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

  6. safety | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    safety | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home /

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

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

    of Energy 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 Office of Health, Safety and Security's (HSS) outreach and awareness campaign to proactively advance safe execution of the DOE mission. It is intended to provide an abbreviated summary of regulatory requirements and processes for ensuring nuclear safety at DOE, which serve as the Department's overarching

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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 OVERVIEW The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is committed to conducting its nuclear operations in a manner that protects the public, the environment, and its workers. DOE ensures safe operations by (1) designing its nuclear facilities per rigorous safety standards that require detailed documented safety analyses and

  9. Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents Documents Available for Download October 29, 2015 Enforcement Letter, Sandia Corporation Nuclear Safety Enforcement Letter issued to Sandia Corporation September 1, 2015 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Los Alamos National Security, LLC Nuclear Safety Enforcement Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Los Alamos National Security, LLC for programmatic deficiencies in the nuclear criticality safety program at the Los

  10. Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework February 2012 Presentation that outlines the rules, policies and orders that comprise the Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework. PDF icon Nuclear Safety Regulatory Framework More Documents & Publications Summary Pamphlet, Nuclear Safety at the Department of Energy Notice of Violation, UChicago Argonne, LLC - WEA-2009-04 Independent Oversight Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

  11. Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board

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

    8, 2014 Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNSFB) Vice Chairwoman Jesse Roberson visited and toured the WIPP site this week. While on-site, she was briefed on the status of the ventilation system and pending upgrades, as well as various other on-going tasks. Discussions were also held with employees involved in the February 5 truck fire. The purpose of the one-day visit was to get a better understanding of how WIPP is progressing through the recovery

  12. National Nuclear Security Administration Fact Sheet Preliminary Notice of Violation: Nuclear Safety Violations at

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Safety Violations at Los Alamos National Laboratory On August 25, 2015, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS) for violations of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear safety requirements. LANS is the management and operating contractor to DOE's NNSA Los Alamos National Laboratory located in Los Alamos, NM. The PNOV cites failures to comply with DOE nuclear safety requirements established

  13. Autoclave nuclear criticality safety analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D`Aquila, D.M.; Tayloe, R.W. Jr.

    1991-12-31

    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}.

  14. DOE Cites Bechtel Jacobs Company for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy 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.

  15. DOE Cites Washington TRU Solutions for Nuclear Safety Violations |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy 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

  16. Princeton Plasma Physics Lab - Nuclear safety

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

    safety Actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation accidents or to limit their consequences. en COLLOQUIUM: Technical Aspects of the Iran Nuclear Agreement http:www.pppl.gov...

  17. Facility Safety

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

    1996-10-24

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

  18. Facility Safety

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

    1995-11-16

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

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

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

    Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS DOE), Cathy Haney (Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NRC)), Marissa Bailey (Director, Division of Fuel...

  20. The Office of Nuclear Energy Announces Central Europe Nuclear Safety

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Workshop in Prague | Department of Energy 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

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

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

    104-2014, Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis Documents by Website Administrator This Standard describes a framework and the criteria to be...

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

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

    5 Nuclear Safety Delegations for Documented Safety Analysis Approval (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) This Criteria Review and Approach Document (EA CRAD 31-09, Rev. 0) provides objectives,...

  3. 10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Technical Positions | Department of Energy

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

    10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Technical Positions 10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Technical Positions 10 CFR Part 830 Nuclear Safety Technical Positions Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy is the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) responsible for the development, interpretation, and revision of a number of DOE directives. 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

  4. Technical safety requirements control level verification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    STEWART, J.L.

    1999-05-21

    A Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) control level verification process was developed for the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) TSRs at the Hanford Site in Richland, WA, at the direction of the US. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL). The objective of the effort was to develop a process to ensure that the TWRS TSR controls are designated and managed at the appropriate levels as Safety Limits (SLs), Limiting Control Settings (LCSs), Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs), Administrative Controls (ACs), or Design Features. The TSR control level verification process was developed and implemented by a team of contractor personnel with the participation of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. (FDH), the Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC) integrating contractor, and RL representatives. The team was composed of individuals with the following experience base: nuclear safety analysis; licensing; nuclear industry and DOE-complex TSR preparation/review experience; tank farm operations; FDH policy and compliance; and RL-TWRS oversight. Each TSR control level designation was completed utilizing TSR control logic diagrams and TSR criteria checklists based on DOE Orders, Standards, Contractor TSR policy, and other guidance. The control logic diagrams and criteria checklists were reviewed and modified by team members during team meetings. The TSR control level verification process was used to systematically evaluate 12 LCOs, 22 AC programs, and approximately 100 program key elements identified in the TWRS TSR document. The verification of each TSR control required a team consensus. Based on the results of the process, refinements were identified and the TWRS TSRs were modified as appropriate. A final report documenting key assumptions and the control level designation for each TSR control was prepared and is maintained on file for future reference. The results of the process were used as a reference in the RL review of the final TWRS TSRs and control suite. RL concluded that the TSR control level verification process is clear and logically based upon DOE Order 5480.22, Technical Safety Requirements, and other TSR control selection guidelines. The process provides a documented, traceable basis for TSR level decisions and is a valid reference for preparation of new TSRs.

  5. Nuclear criticality safety: 2-day training course

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schlesser, J.A.

    1997-02-01

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

  6. Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Process

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  7. 2016 Nuclear and Facility Safety Program Workshop

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Environmental Health, Safety, and Security will sponsor the 2016 Nuclear and Facility Safety Program Workshop which will be held May 2-6, 2016 at the Alexis Park in Las Vegas, Nevada.

  8. CRAD, NNSA- Nuclear Explosive Safety (NES)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    CRAD for Nuclear Explosive Safety (NES). Criteria Review and Approach Documents (CRADs) that can be used to conduct a well-organized and thorough assessment of elements of safety and health programs.

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

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

    2012-12-04

    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. Supersedes DOE G 420.1-1.

  10. Exploratory Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis and Visualization...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    algorithms and codes for both design and safety analysis. In particular, the new generation of system analysis ... We model a large-scale nuclear simulation dataset as a ...

  11. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety...

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

    9-2014, Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis by Website Administrator This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD), DOE-STD-3009-2014, describes...

  12. Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard

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

    ... exhibitions * Special assignments * On-the-job experience A description of suggested ... B) e.g., preparation, review andor recommendation for approval of nuclear basis safety ...

  13. Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy Rules | Department of Energy

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

    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 requirements is through rulemaking. Federal rules and regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and are noticed for review and comment by members of the public in the Federal Register (FR) consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. Requirements in rules apply to our contractors whether or not they are also

  14. Spent Nuclear Fuel Project path forward: nuclear safety equivalency to comparable NRC-licensed facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Garvin, L.J.

    1995-11-01

    This document includes the Technical requirements which meet the nuclear safety objectives of the NRC regulations for fuel treatment and storage facilities. These include requirements regarding radiation exposure limits, safety analysis, design and construction. This document also includes administrative requirements which meet the objectives of the major elements of the NRC licensing process. These include formally documented design and safety analysis, independent technical review, and oppportunity for public involvement.

  15. Quickstart Guide, Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Quickstart Guide, Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 Quickstart Guide, Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 September 2012 Quickstart guide on how to use the features of Nuclear Safety Information dashboard tool. PDF icon Quickstart Guide, Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 More Documents & Publications Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 Responses to Frequently Asked

  16. 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)

    Norris, Phillip; Mihalo, Mark; Eberlin, John; Lambert, Mike; Matthews, Brian

    2012-07-01

    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)

  17. Sandia Teaches Nuclear Safety Course

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

    ... and policy makers from 36 countries who recently completyed the three-week international training course on the physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities. ...

  18. Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement | Department of Energy

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

    Enforcement » Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement MISSION The Office of Nuclear Safety Enforcement implements the Department's nuclear safety enforcement program in accordance with 10 CFR 820 as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act. FUNCTIONS * Implements a nuclear safety enforcement program that includes processes and incentives for contractors to promptly identify, report, and correct nuclear safety issues and noncompliances. * Investigates potential

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

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

    Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 December 8, 2014 This document is the ...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  1. Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and...

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

    related to safety issues associated with non-reactor nuclear facilities. The NRC-DOE Inter-Agency nuclear safety information sharing agreement provides a formal vehicle ...

  2. Sandia Nuclear Power Safety Expert Elected to National Academy...

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

    Nuclear Power Safety Expert Elected to National Academy of Engineering - Sandia Energy ... Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & ...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Idaho Cleanup Project Sodium Bearing Waste ... Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Idaho Cleanup ...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility ... Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste ...

  5. Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary | Department of Energy

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

    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...

  6. 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop | Department of Energy

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

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

  7. Nuclear Safety at the Department of Energy

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

    2011-12-05

    Nuclear Safety is a core value of the Department of Energy. As our management principle state: "We will pursue our mission in a manner that is safe, secure, legally and ethically sound, and fiscally responsible."

  8. 2016 Strategic Plan Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this strategic plan is to communicate our commitment to the safety of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) nuclear facilities. It provides an integrated framework for the mission, functions, vision, and strategic direction for the Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) and Central Technical Authority (CTA). It was developed, in part, using the outcome of a risk-informed analysis that helps identify the facilities and activities where CNS will focus its attention during the upcoming year.

  9. All Required: Safety Training - Chris Westerfeldt

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

    TUNL Summer 2013 Lectures & Tutorials Thursday May 30 st - 9 AM - 3:30 PM (LSRC Room A247) All Required: Safety Training - Chris Westerfeldt Friday May 31 st - 9 AM REU Required: TUNL, LENA & FEL Tour - (Meet in TUNL Lobby) Monday June 10 th - 10 AM - 11:30 AM (DFELL Conference Room, 117) REU Required: Building Blocks of Nuclei - Mohammad Ahmed Monday June 10 th - 2 PM - 3:30 PM (DFELL Conference Room, 117) REU Required: N-N Interactions and Local Accelerators - Mohammad Ahmed Wednesday

  10. 2012 Nuclear Safety Workshop Presentations

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Lists workshop presentations from: Wednesday, September 19 - Plenary Session Wednesday, September 19 - Beyond Design Basis Events Analysis and Response Breakout Session Wednesday, September 19 - Safety Culture Breakout Session Wednesday, September 19 - Risk Assessment and Management Breakout Session Thursday, September 20 - Beyond Design Basis Events Analysis and Response Breakout Session Thursday, September 20 - Safety Culture Breakout Session Thursday, September 20 - Risk Assessment and Management Breakout Session Thursday, September 20 - Plenary Session

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

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

    2007-02-07

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

  12. Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety analysis for safety assessment of nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Di Maio, Francesco; Zio, Enrico; Smith, Curtis; Rychkov, Valentin

    2015-07-06

    The present special issue contains an overview of the research in the field of Integrated Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Assessment (IDPSA) of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Traditionally, safety regulation for NPPs design and operation has been based on Deterministic Safety Assessment (DSA) methods to verify criteria that assure plant safety in a number of postulated Design Basis Accident (DBA) scenarios. Referring to such criteria, it is also possible to identify those plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) and activities that are most important for safety within those postulated scenarios. Then, the design, operation, and maintenance of these “safety-related” SSCs and activities are controlled through regulatory requirements and supported by Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA).

  13. Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety analysis for safety assessment of nuclear power plants

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Di Maio, Francesco; Zio, Enrico; Smith, Curtis; Rychkov, Valentin

    2015-07-06

    The present special issue contains an overview of the research in the field of Integrated Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Assessment (IDPSA) of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Traditionally, safety regulation for NPPs design and operation has been based on Deterministic Safety Assessment (DSA) methods to verify criteria that assure plant safety in a number of postulated Design Basis Accident (DBA) scenarios. Referring to such criteria, it is also possible to identify those plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) and activities that are most important for safety within those postulated scenarios. Then, the design, operation, and maintenance of these “safety-related” SSCs andmore » activities are controlled through regulatory requirements and supported by Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA).« less

  14. Nuclear safety for the space exploration initiative. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dix, T.E.

    1991-11-01

    The results of a study to identify potential hazards arising from nuclear reactor power systems for use on the lunar and Martian surfaces, related safety issues, and resolutions of such issues by system design changes, operating procedures, and other means are presented. All safety aspects of nuclear reactor power systems from prelaunch ground handling to eventual disposal were examined consistent with the level of detail for SP-100 reactor design at the 1988 System Design Review and for launch vehicle and space transport vehicle designs and mission descriptions as defined in the 90-day Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) study. Information from previous aerospace nuclear safety studies was used where appropriate. Safety requirements for the SP-100 space nuclear reactor system were compiled. Mission profiles were defined with emphasis on activities after low earth orbit insertion. Accident scenarios were then qualitatively defined for each mission phase. Safety issues were identified for all mission phases with the aid of simplified event trees. Safety issue resolution approaches of the SP-100 program were compiled. Resolution approaches for those safety issues not covered by the SP-100 program were identified. Additionally, the resolution approaches of the SP-100 program were examined in light of the moon and Mars missions.

  15. Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard

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

    2010-05-27

    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.

  16. Pilot Project: Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard | Department of Energy

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

    Pilot Project: Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard Pilot Project: 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

  17. Criticality Safety | Department of Energy

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

    Services » Nuclear Safety » Criticality Safety Criticality Safety Nuclear Safety Basis The Nuclear Facility Safety Program establishes and maintains the DOE requirements for nuclear criticality safety. The DOE detailed requirements for criticality safety are contained in Section 4.3 of the DOE Order 420.1,Facility Safety. Criticality safety requirements are based on the documented safety analysis required by 10 CFR 830, Subpart B. Related Links 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management American

  18. Cover letter, 10/29/03, re Nuclear Safety Technical Position, Deliverable 4.2.1

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The enclosed Nuclear Safety Technical Position is Deliverable 4.2.1. under the Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilitises Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2002-3, Requirements for Design...

  19. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 |

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

    Department of Energy 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 and Development Annual Report, December 2014 This document is the first annual report of DOE's Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program, managed by the Office of Nuclear Safety in the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security. The report includes a description of

  20. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Annual Report, December 2014 December 8, 2014 This document is the first annual report of DOE's Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program, managed by the Office of Nuclear Safety in the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security. The report includes a description of the program and summaries of R&D projects related to DOE (including

  1. Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements

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

    2001-10-24

    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.

  2. Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements

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

    2006-07-24

    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.

  3. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Committee Charter | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy 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

  4. Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Staff Assignments & Expertise ...

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

    Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Staff Assignments & Expertise CNS staff maintains adequate technical proficiency, including the timely completion of Senior Technical Safety Manager...

  5. 2015 Nuclear & Facility Safety Programs Workshop Agenda | Department...

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

    2015 Nuclear and Facility Safety Programs Workshop agenda outlining following: Training Plenary Session Award Presentations Guest speakers Fire Safety Workshop Facility...

  6. 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

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1104-2014 December 2014 Superseding DOE-STD-1104-2009 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-1104-2014 i FOREWORD 1. This Standard describes a framework and the criteria to be used for approval of (1) safety basis documents, as required by 10 Code of Federal Regulation

  8. Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOE's Office

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

    of Environment, Health, Safety and Security | Department of Energy 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 DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security December 2014 agreement between NRC and DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security to establish a framework for DOE and NRC to exchange information related to safety issues

  9. DOE Cites Fluor Fernald Inc. for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy 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 Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Fluor Fernald, Inc. (Fluor Fernald) that it will fine the company $33,000 for violations of the department's nuclear safety requirements. Fluor Fernald is the department's contractor responsible for environmental cleanup activities at the Fernald Closure Project. The Preliminary

  10. Management of National Nuclear Power Programs for assured safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Connolly, T.J.

    1985-01-01

    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).

  11. NNSA Cites Los Alamos National Laboratory For Nuclear Safety...

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

    Cites Los Alamos National Laboratory For Nuclear Safety Violations | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the...

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

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

    of Energy's (DOE) nuclear facilities and identify opportunities for improvement. Nuclear Safety Workshop Agenda - Post Fukushima Initiatives and Results More Documents &...

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

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

    Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments conducts assessments to provide critical ... hazards with a focus on hazardous nuclear facilities and operations.This ...

  14. Deputy Secretary Poneman Discusses Nuclear Safety at the IAEA...

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

    at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety. ... best practices, which will help strengthen the international nuclear regulatory regime. ...

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

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

    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 Department...

  16. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Letters and Recommendations

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

    | Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Letters and Recommendations Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Letters and Recommendations Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Letters and Recommendations The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is an independent organization within the executive branch chartered with the responsibility of providing recommendations and advice to the President and the Secretary of Energy regarding

  17. FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard Gap Analysis Qualification Cards outline the differences between the last and latest version of the FAQ Standard. File Nuclear Safety Specialist Gap Analysis Qualification Card More Documents & Publications FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Gap Analysis Qualification Card - Waste Management FAQS Gap Analysis

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT Code of Federal Regulations NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT 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. PDF icon Code of Federal Regulations NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT More Documents & Publications Code of Federal Regulations TRESPASSING ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROPERTY Code of Federal Regulations

  19. Double-clad nuclear fuel safety rod

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    1984-01-01

    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.

  20. Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements

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

    2010-04-08

    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.

  1. Implementation Guide for Use in Addressing Unreviewed Safety Question Requirements

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

    2010-04-08

    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). Admin Chg 2, dated 6-12-13, supersedes DOE G 424.1-1B Admin Chg 1.

  2. World nuclear fuel cycle requirements 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-10-10

    The nuclear fuel cycle consists of mining and milling uranium ore, processing the uranium into a form suitable for generating electricity, burning'' the fuel in nuclear reactors, and managing the resulting spent nuclear fuel. This report presents projections of domestic and foreign requirements for natural uranium and enrichment services as well as projections of discharges of spent nuclear fuel. These fuel cycle requirements are based on the forecasts of future commercial nuclear power capacity and generation published in a recent Energy Information Administration (EIA) report. Also included in this report are projections of the amount of spent fuel discharged at the end of each fuel cycle for each nuclear generating unit in the United States. The International Nuclear Model is used for calculating the projected nuclear fuel cycle requirements. 14 figs., 38 tabs.

  3. DOE Cites University of Chicago for Nuclear Safety Violations | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy 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

  4. Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review Overview and Management Oversight

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Standard Review Plan | Department of Energy Safety Basis Program Review Overview and Management Oversight Standard Review Plan Nuclear Safety Basis Program Review Overview and Management Oversight Standard Review Plan 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

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

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

    Energy Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments MISSION 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

  6. HANFORD NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY PROGRAM DATABASE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TOFFER, H.

    2005-05-02

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

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. NNSA Cites Los Alamos National Laboratory For Nuclear Safety Violations |

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration Cites Los Alamos National Laboratory For Nuclear Safety Violations | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact

  10. DOE Representative to World Institute of Nuclear Safety (WINS) | National

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Nuclear Security Administration Representative to World Institute of Nuclear Safety (WINS) | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters

  11. Office of Environment, Safety and Health Assessments Protocol for Required

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

    Reading, April 2015 (Revision 1) - PROTOCOL - EA-30-02 | Department of Energy Required Reading, April 2015 (Revision 1) - PROTOCOL - EA-30-02 Office of Environment, Safety and Health Assessments Protocol for Required Reading, April 2015 (Revision 1) - PROTOCOL - EA-30-02 April 2015 Protocol for Required Reading The purpose of this protocol is to establish the requirements and responsibilities for conducting and managing the Office of Environment, Safety and Health Assessments required

  12. FAQS Qualification Card - Nuclear Safety Specialist | Department of

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy 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

  13. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale Govan,

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

    Departmental Representative to the DNFSB | Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale Govan, Departmental Representative to the DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Update - Dale Govan, Departmental Representative to the DNFSB DNFSB Mission The Board provides independent analysis, advice and recommendations to the Secretary to ensure adequate protection to public health and safety at defense nuclear facilities. Identify Department

  14. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Operating Plan | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy 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

  15. Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012 |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy 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

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

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

    advice and recommendations to the Secretary to ensure adequate protection to public health and safety at defense nuclear facilities. Identify Department vulnerabilities in...

  17. Spent Nuclear Fuel project integrated safety management plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Daschke, K.D.

    1996-09-17

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

  18. Worker Safety and Health and Nuclear Safety Quarterly Performance Analysis (January - March 2008)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kerr, C E

    2009-10-07

    The DOE Office of Enforcement expects LLNL to 'implement comprehensive management and independent assessments that are effective in identifying deficiencies and broader problems in safety and security programs, as well as opportunities for continuous improvement within the organization' and to 'regularly perform assessments to evaluate implementation of the contractor's processes for screening and internal reporting.' LLNL has a self-assessment program, described in ES&H Manual Document 4.1, that includes line, management and independent assessments. LLNL also has in place a process to identify and report deficiencies of nuclear, worker safety and health and security requirements. In addition, the DOE Office of Enforcement expects LLNL to evaluate 'issues management databases to identify adverse trends, dominant problem areas, and potential repetitive events or conditions' (page 14, DOE Enforcement Process Overview, December 2007). LLNL requires that all worker safety and health and nuclear safety noncompliances be tracked as 'deficiencies' in the LLNL Issues Tracking System (ITS). Data from the ITS are analyzed for worker safety and health (WSH) and nuclear safety noncompliances that may meet the threshold for reporting to the DOE Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS). This report meets the expectations defined by the DOE Office of Enforcement to review the assessments conducted by LLNL, analyze the issues and noncompliances found in these assessments, and evaluate the data in the ITS database to identify adverse trends, dominant problem areas, and potential repetitive events or conditions. The report attempts to answer three questions: (1) Is LLNL evaluating its programs and state of compliance? (2) What is LLNL finding? (3) Is LLNL appropriately managing what it finds? The analysis in this report focuses on data from the first quarter of 2008 (January through March). This quarter is analyzed within the context of information identified in previous quarters to include April 2007 through March 2008. The results from analyzing the deficiencies are presented in accordance with the two primary NTS reporting thresholds for WSH and nuclear safety noncompliances: (1) those related to certain events or conditions and (2) those that are management issues. In addition, WSH noncompliances were also analyzed to determine if any fell under the 'other significant condition' threshold. This report also identifies noncompliance topical areas that may have issues that do not meet the NTS reporting threshold but should remain under observation. These are placed on the 'watch list' for continued analysis.

  19. Program Requirements | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Requirements | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy 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 Enforcement Guidance Supplements 10 C.F.R. Part 830 10 C.F.R. Part 830 - Nuclear Safety Management; Final Rule Office of

  1. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    2015-03-18

    This Guide provides a complete description of what Technical Safety Requirements should contain and how they should be developed and maintained. This revision of the guide provides new guidance on Technical Safety Requirements for Specific Administrative Controls, incorporates and addresses lessons learned, and makes clarifications and organization changes to improve usability. Supersedes DOE G 423.1-1A.

  2. 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

  3. Nuclear Safety Reporting Criteria | Department of Energy

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

    safety noncompliances into the Department of Energy's Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS). ... to Occurrence Report-Based Noncompliance Tracking System Reporting Criteria Safety and ...

  4. 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.

  5. National Nuclear Security Administration Fact Sheet Preliminary Notice of Violation: Worker Safety and Health Violations at

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Security Administration Fact Sheet Preliminary Notice of Violation: Worker Safety and Health Violations at Y-12 National Security Complex On May 27, 2015, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Y-12, LLC (B&W Y-12) for violations of Department of Energy (DOE) worker safety and health program requirements. At the time of the events, B&W Y-12 was the management and operating

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2009-11-01

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

  7. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Status Workshop Summary

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    NSR&D STATUS WORKSHOP SUMMARIES Caroline Garzon Chief of Nuclear Safety Staff NUCLEAR SAFETY R&D ï‚ą Perform a peer review of Risk Assessment Corporation WTP analysis by a team and identify ï‚ą Using other benchmarked dispersion codes, determine appropriate input parameters (including deposition velocity) for 95 th percentile analysis using MACCS2 code by considering representative DOE Sites. EFCOG SAFETY ANALYSIS WORKSHOP Large interest in dispersion modeling topics ï‚ą Presentations in

  8. Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    (DNFSB) | Department of Energy Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) The Office of the Departmental Representative ensures effective cross-organizational leadership and coordination to resolve DNFSB-identified technical and management issues as we work to ensure the health, safety, and security of the workers, public, and environment. This web site is an important

  9. An Integrated Safety Assessment Methodology for Generation IV Nuclear Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy J. Leahy

    2010-06-01

    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.

  10. Exploratory Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis and Visualization via

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Integrated Topological and Geometric Techniques (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Technical Report: Exploratory Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis and Visualization via Integrated Topological and Geometric Techniques Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Exploratory Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis and Visualization via Integrated Topological and Geometric Techniques A recent trend in the nuclear power engineering field is the implementation of heavily computational and time consuming

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alan Bond

    2001-04-01

    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.

  12. Processing Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules and Approval of Alternative Methods for Documented Safety Analyses

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    083-2009 June 2009 Reaffirmation 2015 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, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1083-2009 ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web Page at http://energy.gov/ehss/services/nuclear-safety/department-energy-technical-

  13. NSC nears move completion with outstanding safety record | National Nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Security Administration nears move completion with outstanding safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases

  14. World nuclear fuel cycle requirements 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-10-26

    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.

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

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

    Energy 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 the Office of Nuclear Safety, within the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security (AU) to provide corporate-level leadership supporting nuclear safety research and development throughout the Department of Energy (DOE). The NSR&D Program also consults with the Nuclear Safety Council,

  16. Nuclear Safety Enforcement Documents | Department of Energy

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

    Exposure at the Hanford Site June 14, 2005 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Safety and Ecology Corporation - EA-2005-03 Issued to Safety and Ecology Corporation related to a 10 CFR...

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

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

    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 ...

  18. Spent nuclear fuel project path forward preliminary safety evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brehm, J.R.; Crowe, R.D.; Siemer, J.M.; Wojdac, L.F.; Hosler, A.G.

    1995-03-01

    This preliminary safety evaluation (PSE) provides validation of the initial project design criteria for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project (SNFP) Path Forward for removal of fuel from K Basins.

  19. Preparation Of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis

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

    2014-11-12

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

  20. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    1996-12-30

    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.

  1. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    1999-01-26

    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.

  2. Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

    2001-03-30

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

  3. Lessons in Nuclear Safety, Panel on Integration of People and Programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pinkston, David

    2015-02-24

    Four slides present a historical perspective on the evolution of nuclear safety, a description of systemic misalignment (available resources do not match expectations, demographic cliff developing, promulgation of increased expectations and new requirements proceeds unabated), and needs facing nuclear safety (financial stability, operational stability, and succession planning). The following conclusions are stated under the heading "Nuclear Safety - 'The System'": the current universe of requirements is too large for the resource pool available; the current universe of requirements has too many different sources of interpretation; there are so many indicators that it’s hard to know what is leading (or important); and the net result can come to defy integrated comprehension at the worker level.

  4. Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety...

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

    ... with AEGLs, ERPGs, & TEELs," Rev 27, ... of safety management programs. DOE-STD-3009-2014 65 ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT ... and the published journal article are ...

  5. Safety Oversight of Decommissioning Activities at DOE Nuclear Sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zull, Lawrence M.; Yeniscavich, William

    2008-01-15

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

  6. Sandia Nuclear Power Safety Expert Elected to National Academy of

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

    Engineering Nuclear Power Safety Expert Elected to National Academy of Engineering - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing

  7. Nuclear and Facility Safety Directives | Department of Energy

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

    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. AU-30 Contact: Jeff Feit DOE Policy (P) 420.1, Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy DOE P 420.1,

  8. Energy Department and Catholic University Improve Safety of Nuclear Waste |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy 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

  9. FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Safety Specialist | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Job Task Analyses - Nuclear Safety Specialist FAQS Job Task Analyses are performed on the Function Area Qualification Standards. The FAQS Job Task Analyses consists of: Developing a comprehensive list of tasks that define the job such as the duties and responsibilities which include determining their levels of importance and frequency. Identifying and evaluating competencies. Last step is evaluating linkage between job tasks and competencies. PDF icon FAQS JTA -

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy Chief of Nuclear Safety FTCP Site Specific Information - Chief of Nuclear Safety FTCP Agent Organization Name Phone E-Mail CNS Richard Lagdon 202/586-9471 chip.lagdon@hq.doe.gov Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Reports Calendar Year 2015 Calendar Year 2014 Calendar Year 2013 Calendar Year 2012 Calendar Year 2011 Calendar Year 2010 TQP Self-Assessments STSM Self-Assessment, August

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Supplemental 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

  12. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Proposal Review and Prioritization and Criteria

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Nuclear Safety Research and Development Proposal Review and Prioritization Process and Criteria Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Office of Nuclear Safety Office of Environment, Health, Safety, and Security U.S. Department of Energy December 2015 NSR&D Proposal Review and Prioritization Process and Criteria 2 | P a g e Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program 1. Introduction Per the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy 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

  14. 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)

    Not Available

    1993-12-01

    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.

  15. Workshop on Program for Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety: Proceedings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dey, M. [Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States). Div. of Safety Issue Resolution; Arsenault, F.; Patterson, M.; Gaal, M. [SCIENTECH, Inc., Rockville, MD (United States)

    1993-09-01

    These are the proceedings of the Public Workshop on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s Program for Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety. The workshop was held at the Holiday Inn, Bethesda, on April 27 and 28, 1993. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity for public and industry input to the program. The workshop addressed the institutionalization of the program to review regulations with the purpose of eliminating those that are marginal. The objective is to avoid the dilution of safety efforts. One session was devoted to discussion of the framework for a performance-based regulatory approach. In addition, panelists and attendees discussed scope, schedules and status of specific regulatory items: containment leakage testing requirements, fire protection requirements, requirements for environmental qualification of electrical equipment, requests for information under 10CFR50.54(f), requirements for combustible gas control systems, and quality assurance requirements.

  16. A Web-Based Nuclear Criticality Safety Bibliographic Database

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koponen, B L; Huang, S

    2007-02-22

    A bibliographic criticality safety database of over 13,000 records is available on the Internet as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) website. This database is easy to access via the Internet and gets substantial daily usage. This database and other criticality safety resources are available at ncsp.llnl.gov. The web database has evolved from more than thirty years of effort at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), beginning with compilations of critical experiment reports and American Nuclear Society Transactions.

  17. Office of Safety | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home / Office

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Morris, Tommy J.

    2012-07-05

    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.

  19. 2015 Nuclear & Facility Safety Programs Workshop

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The workshop will feature training opportunities, sharing of best practices and lessons-learned, thought-provoking discussions, and an award ceremony recognizing outstanding performance by DOE safety professionals.

  20. Design of Safety Significant Safety Instrumented Systems Used at DOE Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    STD-1195-2011 April 2011 DOE STANDARD DESIGN OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INSTRUMENTED SYSTEMS USED AT DOE NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Web page at http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds i FOREWORD Safety instrumented systems (SIS) that include both analog and

  1. Environment, Safety & Health | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Environment, Safety & Health | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs

  2. Pantex raises bike safety awareness | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration raises bike safety awareness | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our

  3. Pantex sets safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    sets safety record | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA

  4. Y-12 hosts safety workshop | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    safety workshop | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA

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

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

    ... Addthis Related Articles In the photo, L to R: Matt Moury, Associate Undersecretary of Energy for Environment, Health, Safety and Security Mike Sweitzer, NNSA Office of Environment and ...

  6. CRAD, Facility Safety- Nuclear Facility Design

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    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 Design.

  7. [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...

  8. National Nuclear Security Administration Fact Sheet Preliminary Notice of Violation: Worker Safety and Health Violations at

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Sandia National Laboratories On November 17, 2015, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Sandia Corporation (Sandia) for violations of Department of Energy (DOE) worker safety and health requirements. Sandia is the management and operating contractor for NNSA's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The PNOV cites Sandia for deficiencies in implementation of worker safety and health program

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

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

    Nuclear Safety Workshop A Look Back at the Nuclear Safety Workshop June 16, 2011 - 2:59pm Addthis Glenn Podonsky Glenn Podonsky Director, Independent Enterprise Assessments As the Department's Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, my job is to make sure that we continue to enhance and improve the safety of the Energy Department's nuclear facilities. That is why, in response to the March accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, the Department hosted a Nuclear Safety Workshop to

  10. Nuclear Criticality Safety Guide for Fire Protection

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This guide is intended to provide information for use by fire protection professionals in the application of reasonable methods of fire protection in those facilities where there is a potential for nuclear criticality.

  11. Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy

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

    2011-02-08

    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. Supersedes SEN-35-91.

  12. safety

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    contractor at the Nevada National Security Site, has been recognized by the Department of Energy for excellence in occupational safety and health protection. National Nuclear...

  13. Enhancement of NRC station blackout requirements for nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McConnell, M. W.

    2012-07-01

    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)

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  15. Guidance for identifying, reporting and tracking nuclear safety noncompliances

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-12-01

    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.

  16. Nuclear Safety Specialist FTCP Functional Area Qualification Standards - Draft

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

    83-20XX DOE-STD-1183-20XX Draft: Month Year 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 NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1183-20XX ii This document is available on the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program Website at

  17. Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    i 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

  18. Nuclear Explosives Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  19. Identifying, Implementing and Complying with Environment, Safety and Health Requirements

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

    1996-05-15

    This Policy sets forth the framework for identifying, implementing and complying with environment, safety and health (ES&H) requirements so that work is performed in the DOE complex in a manner that ensures adequate protection of workers, the public and the environment. Ownership of this policy is shared between GC and HS. Cancels DOE P 450.2. Canceled by DOE P 450.4A.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  1. 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.

  2. Facility Safety

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

    2000-11-20

    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.

  3. 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.

  4. Development of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Safety Applications

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1628-2013 November 2013 DOE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT 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; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-1628-2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Foreword ........................................................................................................................................... i 1.

  5. 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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Health, 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

  6. CNS names Guess Director of Nuclear Safety Oversight | Y-12 National

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

    Security Complex CNS names Guess Director of ... CNS names Guess Director of Nuclear Safety Oversight Posted: August 20, 2015 - 10:44am Ken Guess recently joined Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC as the director of Nuclear Safety Oversight. Ken Guess recently joined Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC as the director of Nuclear Safety Oversight. A 25-year submarine officer in the U.S. Nuclear Navy, Guess' most recent position was as Power Ascension Test Director in the Operational Readiness

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1985-02-01

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

  8. 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...

  9. Nuclear Safety R&D in the Waste Processing Technology Development...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    & Technology 2 Outline Nuclear Safety Research & Development Overview Summary of EM- NSR&D Presentations from February 2009 Evaluating Performance of Nuclear Grade HEPA Filters ...

  10. AUDIT REPORT Follow-up on Nuclear Safety: Safety Basis and Quality Assurance at the Los Alamos National

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

    Nuclear Safety: Safety Basis and Quality Assurance at the Los Alamos National Laboratory DOE/IG-0941 July 2015 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Office of Audits and Inspections Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 July 16, 2015 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY FROM: Gregory H. Friedman Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report: "Follow-up on Nuclear Safety: Safety Basis and Quality Assurance at the Los Alamos National Laboratory" BACKGROUND A primary

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2002-02-26

    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.

  12. Facility Safety | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Facility Safety Facility Safety In addition to establishing nuclear safety requirements related to safety management programs that are essential to the safety of DOE nuclear facilities, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Facility Safety works proactively with headquarters and field offices to foster continuous improvement and nuclear safety excellence. In addition, the Office provides high quality, customer-oriented assistance that enables improved DOE program and field

  13. Facility Safety | Department of Energy

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

    Facility Safety Facility Safety In addition to establishing nuclear safety requirements related to safety management programs that are essential to the safety of DOE nuclear facilities, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Facility Safety works proactively with headquarters and field offices to foster continuous improvement and nuclear safety excellence. In addition, the Office provides high quality, customer-oriented assistance that enables improved DOE program and field

  14. DOE Cites CH2M Hill Hanford for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules...

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

    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 ...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Booker, Paul M.; Brown, Lisa M.

    2005-07-01

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

  16. Safety of Department of Energy-Owned Nuclear Reactors

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

    1986-09-23

    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.

  17. Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Proposal Submittal Instrustions for Fiscal Year 2016

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    5 Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Proposal Submittal Instructions for Fiscal Year 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program was created to provide corporate-level leadership supporting NSR&D throughout the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NSR&D Program is managed under the Office of Nuclear Safety (AU-30), within the Office of Environment, Health, Safety, and Security

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

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

    2010-04-21

    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.

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

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

    2010-04-21

    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. Admin Chg 1, dated 7-29-13, supersedes DOE O 426.2.

  20. Double-clad nuclear-fuel safety rod

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    1981-12-30

    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.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  2. Handbook of nuclear power plant seismic fragilities, Seismic Safety Margins Research Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cover, L.E.; Bohn, M.P.; Campbell, R.D.; Wesley, D.A.

    1983-12-01

    The Seismic Safety Margins Research Program (SSMRP) has a gola to develop a complete fully coupled analysis procedure (including methods and computer codes) for estimating the risk of an earthquake-induced radioactive release from a commercial nuclear power plant. As part of this program, calculations of the seismic risk from a typical commercial nuclear reactor were made. These calculations required a knowledge of the probability of failure (fragility) of safety-related components in the reactor system which actively participate in the hypothesized accident scenarios. This report describes the development of the required fragility relations and the data sources and data reduction techniques upon which they are based. Both building and component fragilities are covered. The building fragilities are for the Zion Unit 1 reactor which was the specific plant used for development of methodology in the program. Some of the component fragilities are site-specific also, but most would be usable for other sites as well.

  3. Investigation of criticality safety control infraction data at a nuclear facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cournoyer, Michael E.; Merhege, James F.; Costa, David A.; Art, Blair M.; Gubernatis, David C.

    2014-10-27

    Chemical and metallurgical operations involving plutonium and other nuclear materials account for most activities performed at the LANL's Plutonium Facility (PF-4). The presence of large quantities of fissile materials in numerous forms at PF-4 makes it necessary to maintain an active criticality safety program. The LANL Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) Program provides guidance to enable efficient operations while ensuring prevention of criticality accidents in the handling, storing, processing and transportation of fissionable material at PF-4. In order to achieve and sustain lower criticality safety control infraction (CSCI) rates, PF-4 operations are continuously improved, through the use of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma (LSS) business practices. Employing LSS, statistically significant variations (trends) can be identified in PF-4 CSCI reports. In this study, trends have been identified in the NCS Program using the NCS Database. An output metric has been developed that measures ADPSM Management progress toward meeting its NCS objectives and goals. Using a Pareto Chart, the primary CSCI attributes have been determined in order of those requiring the most management support. Data generated from analysis of CSCI data help identify and reduce number of corresponding attributes. In-field monitoring of CSCI's contribute to an organization's scientific and technological excellence by providing information that can be used to improve criticality safety operation safety. This increases technical knowledge and augments operational safety.

  4. Investigation of criticality safety control infraction data at a nuclear facility

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Cournoyer, Michael E.; Merhege, James F.; Costa, David A.; Art, Blair M.; Gubernatis, David C.

    2014-10-27

    Chemical and metallurgical operations involving plutonium and other nuclear materials account for most activities performed at the LANL's Plutonium Facility (PF-4). The presence of large quantities of fissile materials in numerous forms at PF-4 makes it necessary to maintain an active criticality safety program. The LANL Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) Program provides guidance to enable efficient operations while ensuring prevention of criticality accidents in the handling, storing, processing and transportation of fissionable material at PF-4. In order to achieve and sustain lower criticality safety control infraction (CSCI) rates, PF-4 operations are continuously improved, through the use of Lean Manufacturing andmore » Six Sigma (LSS) business practices. Employing LSS, statistically significant variations (trends) can be identified in PF-4 CSCI reports. In this study, trends have been identified in the NCS Program using the NCS Database. An output metric has been developed that measures ADPSM Management progress toward meeting its NCS objectives and goals. Using a Pareto Chart, the primary CSCI attributes have been determined in order of those requiring the most management support. Data generated from analysis of CSCI data help identify and reduce number of corresponding attributes. In-field monitoring of CSCI's contribute to an organization's scientific and technological excellence by providing information that can be used to improve criticality safety operation safety. This increases technical knowledge and augments operational safety.« less

  5. National Nuclear Security Administration Fact Sheet Preliminary Notice of Violation: Worker Safety and Health Violations at

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nevada National Security Site On August 25, 2015, 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 (DOE) worker safety and health requirements. NSTec is the management and operating contractor to DOE's NNSA Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). The violations are associated with the chemical explosion that injured two workers at NNSS's Nonproliferation Test and

  6. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22

    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.

  7. NSS 18.2 Technical Safety Requirements 12/8/03

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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...

  8. Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Staff Assignments & Expertise | Department of

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

    Energy Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Staff Assignments & Expertise Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Staff Assignments & Expertise Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS) Staff Assignments & Expertise CNS staff maintains adequate technical proficiency, including the timely completion of Senior Technical Safety Manager (STSM) qualification. Further, CNS staff periodically review and assess whether EM is maintaining adequate numbers of technically competent personnel necessary to fulfill its

  9. 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...

  10. Foundational development of an advanced nuclear reactor integrated safety code.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clarno, Kevin; Lorber, Alfred Abraham; Pryor, Richard J.; Spotz, William F.; Schmidt, Rodney Cannon; Belcourt, Kenneth; Hooper, Russell Warren; Humphries, Larry LaRon

    2010-02-01

    This report describes the activities and results of a Sandia LDRD project whose objective was to develop and demonstrate foundational aspects of a next-generation nuclear reactor safety code that leverages advanced computational technology. The project scope was directed towards the systems-level modeling and simulation of an advanced, sodium cooled fast reactor, but the approach developed has a more general applicability. The major accomplishments of the LDRD are centered around the following two activities. (1) The development and testing of LIME, a Lightweight Integrating Multi-physics Environment for coupling codes that is designed to enable both 'legacy' and 'new' physics codes to be combined and strongly coupled using advanced nonlinear solution methods. (2) The development and initial demonstration of BRISC, a prototype next-generation nuclear reactor integrated safety code. BRISC leverages LIME to tightly couple the physics models in several different codes (written in a variety of languages) into one integrated package for simulating accident scenarios in a liquid sodium cooled 'burner' nuclear reactor. Other activities and accomplishments of the LDRD include (a) further development, application and demonstration of the 'non-linear elimination' strategy to enable physics codes that do not provide residuals to be incorporated into LIME, (b) significant extensions of the RIO CFD code capabilities, (c) complex 3D solid modeling and meshing of major fast reactor components and regions, and (d) an approach for multi-physics coupling across non-conformal mesh interfaces.

  11. Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. Risk Informed Assessment of Regulatory and Design Requirements for Future Nuclear Power Plants. Annual Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ritterbusch, S.E.

    2000-08-01

    The overall goal of this research project is to support innovation in new nuclear power plant designs. This project is examining the implications, for future reactors and future safety regulation, of utilizing a new risk-informed regulatory system as a replacement for the current system. This innovation will be made possible through development of a scientific, highly risk-informed approach for the design and regulation of nuclear power plants. This approach will include the development and.lor confirmation of corresponding regulatory requirements and industry standards. The major impediment to long term competitiveness of new nuclear plants in the U.S. is the capital cost component--which may need to be reduced on the order of 35% to 40% for Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWRs) such as System 80+ and Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). The required cost reduction for an ALWR such as AP600 or AP1000 would be expected to be less. Such reductions in capital cost will require a fundamental reevaluation of the industry standards and regulatory bases under which nuclear plants are designed and licensed. Fortunately, there is now an increasing awareness that many of the existing regulatory requirements and industry standards are not significantly contributing to safety and reliability and, therefore, are unnecessarily adding to nuclear plant costs. Not only does this degrade the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy, it results in unnecessary costs to the American electricity consumer. While addressing these concerns, this research project will be coordinated with current efforts of industry and NRC to develop risk-informed, performance-based regulations that affect the operation of the existing nuclear plants; however, this project will go farther by focusing on the design of new plants.

  12. Surveys of organizational culture and safety culture in nuclear power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, Walter S.

    2000-07-30

    The results of a survey of organizational culture at a nuclear power plant are summarized and compared with those of a similar survey which has been described in the literature on ''high-reliability organizations''. A general-purpose cultural inventory showed a profile of organizational style similar to that reported in the literature; the factor structure for the styles was also similar to that of the plant previously described. A specialized scale designed to measure ''safety culture'' did not distinguished among groups within the organization that would be expected to differ.

  13. Data requirements for intermediate energy nuclear applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pearlstein, S.

    1990-01-01

    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.

  14. Risk-informed assessment of regulatory and design requirements for future nuclear power plants. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2000-08-01

    OAK B188 Risk-informed assessment of regulatory and design requirements for future nuclear power plants. Annual report. The overall goal of this research project is to support innovation in new nuclear power plant designs. This project is examining the implications, for future reactors and future safety regulation, of utilizing a new risk-informed regulatory system as a replacement for the current system. This innovation will be made possible through development of a scientific, highly risk-formed approach for the design and regulation of nuclear power plants. This approach will include the development and/or confirmation of corresponding regulatory requirements and industry standards. The major impediment to long term competitiveness of new nuclear plants in the U.S. is the capital cost component--which may need to be reduced on the order of 35% to 40% for Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWRS) such as System 80+ and Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). The required cost reduction for an ALWR such as AP600 or AP1000 would be expected to be less. Such reductions in capital cost will require a fundamental reevaluation of the industry standards and regulatory bases under which nuclear plants are designed and licensed. Fortunately, there is now an increasing awareness that many of the existing regulatory requirements and industry standards are not significantly contributing to safety and reliability and, therefore, are unnecessarily adding to nuclear plant costs. Not only does this degrade the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy, it results in unnecessary costs to the American electricity consumer. While addressing these concerns, this research project will be coordinated with current efforts of industry and NRC to develop risk-informed, performance-based regulations that affect the operation of the existing nuclear plants; however, this project will go further by focusing on the design of new plants.

  15. Proceedings of the 1984 DOE nuclear reactor and facility safety conference. Volume II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1984-01-01

    This report is a collection of papers on reactor safety. The report takes the form of proceedings from the 1984 DOE Nuclear Reactor and Facility Safety Conference, Volume II of two. These proceedings cover Safety, Accidents, Training, Task/Job Analysis, Robotics and the Engineering Aspects of Man/Safety interfaces.

  16. 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.

  17. Facility Safety

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

    1995-10-13

    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.

  18. Facility Safety

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

    2012-12-04

    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.

  19. Facility Safety

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

    2005-12-22

    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.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chung, W. S.; Yun, S. W.; Lee, D. S.; Go, D. Y.

    2012-07-01

    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)

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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

  2. Nuclear Safety Risk Management in Refueling Outage of Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meijing Wu; Guozhang Shen [Qinshan Nuclear power company (China)

    2006-07-01

    The NPP is used to planning maintenance, in-service inspection, surveillance test, fuel handling and design modification in the refueling outage; the operator response capability will be reduced plus some of the plant systems out of service or loss of power at this time. Based on 8 times refueling outage experiences of the Qinshan NPP, this article provide some good practice and lesson learned for the nuclear safety risk management focus at four safety function areas of Residual Heat Removal Capability, Inventory Control, Power availability and Reactivity control. (authors)

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Immobilization Plant Project, October 2010 | Department of Energy 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 Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project, October 2010 October 2010 Report for independent review of the nuclear safety culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project at DOE's Hanford Site. This report provides the results of a

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

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

    2001-07-12

    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

  5. Fiscal Year 2016 Call for Nuclear Safety Research and Development Propsals

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    December 9,2015 MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION JAMES B. O'BRIEN DIRECTOR OFFICE OF NUCLEAR AFETY OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY FROM: SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2016 Call for Nuclear Safety Research and Development Proposals The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the Fiscal Year 2016 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program. The NSR&D Program is managed under the Office of Nuclear Safety (AU-30),

  6. 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...

  7. Facility Safety

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

    2002-05-20

    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.

  8. 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.

  9. DOE G 423.1-1B, Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements

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

    This Guide provides a complete description of what Technical Safety Requirements should contain and how they should be developed and maintained. This revision of the guide provides new guidance on Technical Safety Requirements for Specific Administrative Controls, incorporates and addresses lessons learned, and makes clarifications and organization changes to improve usability.

  10. Large Scale Production Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear

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

    Physics: Target 2017 Large Scale Production Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics: Target 2017 NPicon.png This invitation-only review is organized by the Department of Energy's Offices of Nuclear Physics (NP) and Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) and by NERSC. The goal is to determine production high-performance computing, storage, and services that will be needed for NP to achieve its science goals through 2017. The review brings together DOE Program Managers,

  11. Nuclear Safety. Technical Progress Journal, October--December 1991: Volume 32, No. 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-01-01

    This document is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1999-02-01

    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.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1983-02-01

    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.

  14. National Nuclear Security Administration Supplemental Listing...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration Supplemental Listing of Directives Affecting Nuclear Safety Requirements Last Updated 062014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Nuclear ...

  15. Risk-Informing Safety Reviews for Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mubayi, V.; Azarm, A.; Yue, M.; Mukaddam, W.; Good, G.; Gonzalez, F.; Bari, R.A.

    2011-03-13

    This paper describes a methodology used to model potential accidents in fuel cycle facilities that employ chemical processes to separate and purify nuclear materials. The methodology is illustrated with an example that uses event and fault trees to estimate the frequency of a specific energetic reaction that can occur in nuclear material processing facilities. The methodology used probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)-related tools as well as information about the chemical reaction characteristics, information on plant design and operational features, and generic data about component failure rates and human error rates. The accident frequency estimates for the specific reaction help to risk-inform the safety review process and assess compliance with regulatory requirements.

  16. Construction safety program for the National Ignition Facility Appendix A: Safety Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cerruti, S.J.

    1997-01-14

    These rules apply to all LLNL employees, non-LLNL employees (including contract labor, supplemental labor, vendors, personnel matrixed/assigned from other National Laboratories, participating guests, visitors and students) and construction contractors/subcontractors. The General Safety and Health rules shall be used by management to promote accident prevention through indoctrination, safety and health training and on-the-job application. As a condition for contracts award, all contractors and subcontractors and their employees must certify on Form S & H A-1 that they have read and understand, or have been briefed and understand, the National Ignition Facility OCIP Project General Safety Rules.

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

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

    Reactors | Department of Energy 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

  18. Real-time graphic display utility for nuclear safety applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yang, S.; Huang, X.; Taylor, J.; Stevens, J.; Gerardis, T.; Hsu, A.; McCreary, T.

    2006-07-01

    With the increasing interests in the nuclear energy, new nuclear power plants will be constructed and licensed, and older generation ones will be upgraded for assuring continuing operation. The tendency of adopting the latest proven technology and the fact of older parts becoming obsolete have made the upgrades imperative. One of the areas for upgrades is the older CRT display being replaced by the latest graphics displays running under modern real time operating system (RTOS) with safety graded modern computer. HFC has developed a graphic display utility (GDU) under the QNX RTOS. A standard off-the-shelf software with a long history of performance in industrial applications, QNX RTOS used for safety applications has been examined via a commercial dedication process that is consistent with the regulatory guidelines. Through a commercial survey, a design life cycle and an operating history evaluation, and necessary tests dictated by the dedication plan, it is reasonably confirmed that the QNX RTOS was essentially equivalent to what would be expected in the nuclear industry. The developed GDU operates and communicates with the existing equipment through a dedicated serial channel of a flat panel controller (FPC) module. The FPC module drives a flat panel display (FPD) monitor. A touch screen mounted on the FPD serves as the normal operator interface with the FPC/FPD monitor system. The GDU can be used not only for replacing older CRTs but also in new applications. The replacement of the older CRT does not disturb the function of the existing equipment. It not only provides modern proven technology upgrade but also improves human ergonomics. The FPC, which can be used as a standalone controller running with the GDU, is an integrated hardware and software module. It operates as a single board computer within a control system, and applies primarily to the graphics display, targeting, keyboard and mouse. During normal system operation, the GDU has two sources of data input: a serial interface with field equipment and a serial input from the FPD touch screen. The mechanism for data collection from the field equipment consists of the regular exchange of the data update request messages and target commands sent to the equipment and the update messages returned to the FPC. The data updates from field equipment control displays presented on the graphic pages. Touch screen contacts are decoded to identify physical position that was contacted. If that position corresponds with one of the buttons on the graphic page, the software uses that input to initiate the function defined for the particular button contacted. In this paper, the FPC will be illustrated as a standalone system as well as a module in a dedicated control system. The GDU design concepts and its design flow will be demonstrated. The dedication process of the QNX RTOS needed for the GDU will be highlighted. Finally, the GDU with a specific application example used in one of the nuclear power plants will be presented. (authors)

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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...

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

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

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

  1. Global Survey of the Concepts and Understanding of the Interfaces Between Nuclear Safety, Security, and Safeguards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kovacic, Don N.; Stewart, Scott; Erickson, Alexa R.; Ford, Kerrie D.; Mladineo, Stephen V.

    2015-07-15

    There is increasing global discourse on how the elements of nuclear safety, security, and safeguards can be most effectively implemented in nuclear power programs. While each element is separate and unique, they must nevertheless all be addressed in a country’s laws and implemented via regulations and in facility operations. This topic is of particular interest to countries that are currently developing the infrastructure to support nuclear power programs. These countries want to better understand what is required by these elements and how they can manage the interfaces between them and take advantages of any synergies that may exist. They need practical examples and guidance in this area in order to develop better organizational strategies and technical capacities. This could simplify their legal, regulatory, and management structures and avoid inefficient approaches and costly mistakes that may not be apparent to them at this early stage of development. From the perspective of IAEA International Safeguards, supporting Member States in exploring such interfaces and synergies provides a benefit to them because it acknowledges that domestic safeguards in a country do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, it relies on a strong State System of Accounting and Control that is in turn dependent on a capable and independent regulatory body as well as a competent operator and technical staff. These organizations must account for and control nuclear material, communicate effectively, and manage and transmit complete and correct information to the IAEA in a timely manner. This, while in most cases also being responsible for the safety and security of their facilities. Seeking efficiencies in this process benefits international safeguards and nonproliferation. This paper will present the results of a global survey of current and anticipated approaches and practices by countries and organizations with current or future nuclear power programs on how they are implementing, or planning to implement, safety, security, and safeguards in their programs. The idea is to capture current knowledge and thinking on this topic and to identify common themes in organizations and management. It will also document the most commonly held ideas and perception (and misperceptions) of what it means to manage interfaces and take advantage of synergies for operating nuclear facilities and those that are building their infrastructures. It is desired that the results of this paper will inform the current discourse on this topic with some quantitative data and identify any general trends in understanding.

  2. 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.

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

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

    accident and increased safety - 1958 brought accidents, more safety The first X-ray machine was brought to Y-12 in February, 1949. It was a 1,000 KV system installed in Building...

  4. Department of Energy Cites Fluor B&W Portsmouth, LLC for Nuclear Safety and

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Radiation Protection Violations | Department of Energy Fluor B&W Portsmouth, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations Department of Energy Cites Fluor B&W Portsmouth, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations January 30, 2015 - 4:14pm Addthis News Media Contact 202 586 4940 DOENews@hq.doe.gov Department of Energy Cites Fluor B&W Portsmouth, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Department of

  5. 2016 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Research and Development (NSR&D) Program | Department of Energy Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program 2016 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program January 20, 2016 - 9:10am Addthis 2016 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program These documents include the Proposal

  6. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CITES FLUOR B&W PORTSMOUTH, LLC FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY AND

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    FLUOR B&W PORTSMOUTH, LLC FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY AND RADIATION PROTECTION VIOLATIONS January 30, 2015 - 4:14pm Share on emailShare on facebook NEWS MEDIA CONTACT * 202 586 4940 * DOENews@hq.doe.gov Department of Energy Cites Fluor B&W Portsmouth, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations WASHINGTON, D.C. - 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 DOE's nuclear safety and

  7. 2015 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety

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

    Research and Development (NSR&D) Program | Department of Energy Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program 2015 Call for Proposals for the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Safety Research and Development (NSR&D) Program February 9, 2015 - 11:34am Addthis The purpose of the Call for Proposals is to identify potential projects addressing cross-cutting nuclear safety issues across the DOE complex. The purpose of

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

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

    Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports Facility Safety Policy, Guidance & Reports The Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Programs within the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Environment, Health, Safety and Security organization, establishes nuclear safety requirements related to safety management programs that are essential to the safety of DOE nuclear facilities. In addition, establishes requirements for facility design and operation for facility-wide hazards that are not unique to

  9. Criticality Safety Analysis Of As-loaded Spent Nuclear Fuel Casks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Banerjee, Kaushik; Scaglione, John M

    2015-01-01

    The final safety analysis report (FSAR) or the safety analysis report (SAR) for a particular spent nuclear fuel (SNF) cask system documents models and calculations used to demonstrate that a system meets the regulatory requirements under all normal, off-normal, and accident conditions of spent fuel storage, and normal and accident conditions of transportation. FSAR/SAR calculations and approved content specifications are intended to be bounding in nature to certify cask systems for a variety of fuel characteristics with simplified SNF loading requirements. Therefore, in general, loaded cask systems possess excess and uncredited criticality margins (i.e., the difference between the licensing basis and the as-loaded calculations). This uncredited margin could be quantified by employing more detailed cask-specific evaluations that credit the actual as-loaded cask inventory, and taking into account full (actinide and fission product) burnup credit. This uncredited criticality margin could be potentially used to offset (1) uncertainties in the safety basis that needs to account for the effects of system aging during extended dry storage prior to transportation, and (2) increases in SNF system reactivity over a repository performance period (e.g., 10,000 years or more) as the system undergoes degradation and internal geometry changes. This paper summarizes an assessment of cask-specific, as-loaded criticality margins for SNF stored at eight reactor sites (215 loaded casks were analyzed) under fully flooded conditions to assess the margins available during transportation after extended storage. It is observed that the calculated keff margin varies from 0.05 to almost 0.3 keff for the eight selected reactor sites, demonstrating that significant uncredited safety margins are present. In addition, this paper evaluates the sufficiency of this excess margin in applications involving direct disposal of currently loaded SNF casks.

  10. Safety and Nonsafety Communications and Interactions in International Nuclear Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kisner, Roger A; Mullens, James Allen; Wilson, Thomas L; Wood, Richard Thomas; Korsah, Kofi; Qualls, A L; Muhlheim, Michael David; Holcomb, David Eugene; Loebl, Andy

    2007-08-01

    Current industry and NRC guidance documents such as IEEE 7-4.3.2, Reg. Guide 1.152, and IEEE 603 do not sufficiently define a level of detail for evaluating interdivisional communications independence. The NRC seeks to establish criteria for safety systems communications that can be uniformly applied in evaluation of a variety of safety system designs. This report focuses strictly on communication issues related to data sent between safety systems and between safety and nonsafety systems. Further, the report does not provide design guidance for communication systems nor present detailed failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) results for existing designs. This letter report describes communications between safety and nonsafety systems in nuclear power plants outside the United States. A limited study of international nuclear power plants was conducted to ascertain important communication implementations that might have bearing on systems proposed for licensing in the United States. This report provides that following information: 1.communications types and structures used in a representative set of international nuclear power reactors, and 2.communications issues derived from standards and other source documents relevant to safety and nonsafety communications. Topics that are discussed include the following: communication among redundant safety divisions, communications between safety divisions and nonsafety systems, control of safety equipment from a nonsafety workstation, and connection of nonsafety programming, maintenance, and test equipment to redundant safety divisions during operation. Information for this report was obtained through publicly available sources such as published papers and presentations. No proprietary information is represented.

  11. The history of nuclear weapon safety devices (Conference) | SciTech Connect

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    The history of nuclear weapon safety devices Citation Details In-Document Search Title: The history of nuclear weapon safety devices × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in energy science and technology. A paper copy of this document is also available for sale to the

  12. Department of Energy Cites Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC for Nuclear Safety

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

    and Radiation Protection Violations | Department of Energy for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations Department of Energy Cites Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Violations October 4, 2012 - 3:18pm Addthis News Media Contact (202) 586-4940 WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) for two radiological incidents which occurred at the Idaho

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  14. Office of Safety Infrastructure & Operations | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration Infrastructure & Operations | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-12-01

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

  16. FAQS Qualification Card – Nuclear Explosive Safety Study

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  17. 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.

  18. Message from Chief of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

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

    of Complex, and High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. The primary mission of the CNS is to provide independent analysis, ... of CNS and staff are basic and fundamental: ...

  19. 2015 Nuclear and Facility Safety Programs Workshop Block Agenda

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

    Worthington (AU-10) ISM o Colette Broussard (AU-23) QA and Other Data Trending o Pat Lewis (SC-CH) Lessons From Safety Basis Reviews o Carl Sykes (NA-511) Exemptions * Readiness...

  20. WASTE PROCESSING ANNUAL NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED R AND D REPORT FOR CY2008

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fellinger, A.

    2009-10-15

    The Engineering and Technology Office of Waste Processing identifies and reduces engineering and technical risks associated with key waste processing project decisions. The risks, and actions taken to mitigate those risks, are determined through technology readiness assessments, program reviews, technology information exchanges, external technical reviews, technical assistance, and targeted technology development and deployment (TDD). The Office of Waste Processing TDD program prioritizes and approves research and development scopes of work that address nuclear safety related to processing of highly radioactive nuclear wastes. Thirteen of the thirty-five R&D approved work scopes in FY2009 relate directly to nuclear safety, and are presented in this report.

  1. DOE nuclear material packaging manual: storage container requirements for plutonium oxide materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veirs, D Kirk

    2009-01-01

    Loss of containment of nuclear material stored in containers such as food-pack cans, paint cans, or taped slip lid cans has generated concern about packaging requirements for interim storage of nuclear materials in working facilities such as the plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). In response, DOE has recently issued DOE M 441.1 'Nuclear Material Packaging Manual' with encouragement from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. A unique feature compared to transportation containers is the allowance of filters to vent flammable gases during storage. Defining commonly used concepts such as maximum allowable working pressure and He leak rate criteria become problematic when considering vented containers. Los Alamos has developed a set of container requirements that are in compliance with 441.1 based upon the activity of heat-source plutonium (90% Pu-238) oxide, which bounds the requirements for weapons-grade plutonium oxide. The pre and post drop-test He leak rates depend upon container size as well as the material contents. For containers that are routinely handled, ease of handling and weight are a major consideration. Relatively thin-walled containers with flat bottoms are desired yet they cannot be He leak tested at a differential pressure of one atmosphere due to the potential for plastic deformation of the flat bottom during testing. The He leak rates and He leak testing configuration for containers designed for plutonium bearing materials will be presented. The approach to meeting the other manual requirements such as corrosion and thermal degradation resistance will be addressed. The information presented can be used by other sites to evaluate if their conditions are bounded by LANL requirements when considering procurement of 441.1 compliant containers.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  3. Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics Research

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gerber, Richard A.; Wasserman, Harvey J.

    2012-03-02

    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, DOE’s Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) and DOE’s 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 NERSC’s 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.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schultz, Peter Andrew

    2011-12-01

    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.

  5. Advanced Nuclear Technology: Advanced Light Water Reactors Utility Requirements Document Small Modular Reactors Inclusion Summary

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Advanced Nuclear Technology: Advanced Light Water Reactors Utility Requirements Document Small Modular Reactors Inclusion Summary November 2014

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1982-10-21

    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.

  7. Preparation of Documented Safety Analysis for Interim Operations at DOE Nuclear Facilities

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    3011-2016 January 2016 DOE STANDARD PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR INTERIM OPERATIONS AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOE-STD-3011-2016 ii FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) Standard (STD) has been approved to be used by DOE, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, and their contractors. 2. Beneficial comments

  8. DOE-STD-1183-2004; Nuclear Safety Specialist Functional Area Qualification Standard

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

  9. DOE-STD-1185-2004; Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Functional Area Qualification Standard

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tierney, Ed., Brian L; Dart, Ed., Eli; Carlson, Rich; Dattoria, Vince; Ernest, Michael; Hitchcock, Daniel; Johnston, William; Kowalski, Andy; Lauret, Jerome; Maguire, Charles; Olson, Douglas; Purschke, Martin; Rai, Gulshan; Watson, Chip; Vale, Carla

    2008-11-10

    The Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) is the primary provider of network connectivity for the US Department of Energy Office of Science, the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States of America. In support of the Office of Science programs, ESnet regularly updates and refreshes its understanding of the networking requirements of the 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 20 years. In May 2008, ESnet and the Nuclear Physics (NP) Program Office of the DOE Office of Science organized a workshop to characterize the networking requirements of the science programs funded by the NP Program Office. Most of the key DOE sites for NP related work will require significant increases in network bandwidth in the 5 year time frame. This includes roughly 40 Gbps for BNL, and 20 Gbps for NERSC. Total transatlantic requirements are on the order of 40 Gbps, and transpacific requirements are on the order of 30 Gbps. Other key sites are Vanderbilt University and MIT, which will need on the order of 20 Gbps bandwidth to support data transfers for the CMS Heavy Ion program. In addition to bandwidth requirements, the workshop emphasized several points in regard to science process and collaboration. One key point is the heavy reliance on Grid tools and infrastructure (both PKI and tools such as GridFTP) by the NP community. The reliance on Grid software is expected to increase in the future. Therefore, continued development and support of Grid software is very important to the NP science community. Another key finding is that scientific productivity is greatly enhanced by easy researcher-local access to instrument data. This is driving the creation of distributed repositories for instrument data at collaborating institutions, along with a corresponding increase in demand for network-based data transfers and the tools to manage those transfers effectively. Network reliability is also becoming more important as there is often a narrow window between data collection and data archiving when transfer and analysis can be done. The instruments do not stop producing data, so extended network outages can result in data loss due to analysis pipeline stalls. Finally, as the scope of collaboration continues to increase, collaboration tools such as audio and video conferencing are becoming ever more critical to the productivity of scientific collaborations.

  11. Processes and Procedures for Application of CFD to Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard W. Johnson; Richard R. Schultz; Patrick J. Roache; Ismail B. Celik; William D. Pointer; Yassin A. Hassan

    2006-09-01

    Traditionally, nuclear reactor safety analysis has been performed using systems analysis codes such as RELAP5, which was developed at the INL. However, goals established by the Generation IV program, especially the desire to increase efficiency, has lead to an increase in operating temperatures for the reactors. This increase pushes reactor materials to operate towards their upper temperature limits relative to structural integrity. Because there will be some finite variation of the power density in the reactor core, there will be a potential for local hot spots to occur in the reactor vessel. Hence, it has become apparent that detailed analysis will be required to ensure that local ‘hot spots’ do not exceed safety limits. It is generally accepted that computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes are intrinsically capable of simulating fluid dynamics and heat transport locally because they are based on ‘first principles.’ Indeed, CFD analysis has reached a fairly mature level of development, including the commercial level. However, CFD experts are aware that even though commercial codes are capable of simulating local fluid and thermal physics, great care must be taken in their application to avoid errors caused by such things as inappropriate grid meshing, low-order discretization schemes, lack of iterative convergence and inaccurate time-stepping. Just as important is the choice of a turbulence model for turbulent flow simulation. Turbulence models model the effects of turbulent transport of mass, momentum and energy, but are not necessarily applicable for wide ranges of flow types. Therefore, there is a well-recognized need to establish practices and procedures for the proper application of CFD to simulate flow physics accurately and establish the level of uncertainty of such computations. The present document represents contributions of CFD experts on what the basic practices, procedures and guidelines should be to aid CFD analysts to obtain accurate estimates of the flow and energy transport as applied to nuclear reactor safety. However, it is expected that these practices and procedures will require updating from time to time as research and development affect them or replace them with better procedures. The practices and procedures are categorized into five groups. These are: 1.Code Verification 2.Code and Calculation Documentation 3.Reduction of Numerical Error 4.Quantification of Numerical Uncertainty (Calculation Verification) 5.Calculation Validation. These five categories have been identified from procedures currently required of CFD simulations such as those required for publication of a paper in the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering and from the literature such as Roache [1998]. Code verification refers to the demonstration that the equations of fluid and energy transport have been correctly coded in the CFD code. Code and calculation documentation simply means that the equations and their discretizations, etc., and boundary and initial conditions used to pose the fluid flow problem are fully described in available documentation. Reduction of numerical error refers to practices and procedures to lower numerical errors to negligible or very low levels as is reasonably possible (such as avoiding use of first-order discretizations). The quantification of numerical uncertainty is also known as calculation verification. This means that estimates are made of numerical error to allow the characterization of the numerical

  12. Passive cooling safety system for liquid metal cooled nuclear reactors

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hunsbedt, Anstein (Los Gatos, CA); Boardman, Charles E. (Saratoga, CA); Hui, Marvin M. (Sunnyvale, CA); Berglund, Robert C. (Saratoga, CA)

    1991-01-01

    A liquid metal cooled nuclear reactor having a passive cooling system for removing residual heat resulting from fuel decay during reactor shutdown. The passive cooling system comprises a plurality of partitions surrounding the reactor vessel in spaced apart relation forming intermediate areas for circulating heat transferring fluid which remove and carry away heat from the reactor vessel. The passive cooling system includes a closed primary fluid circuit through the partitions surrounding the reactor vessel and a partially adjoining secondary open fluid circuit for carrying transferred heat out into the atmosphere.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cottrell, W.B.; Passiakos, M.

    1982-06-01

    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.

  14. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Structures, Systems, and Components Safety Classification White Paper

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pete Jordan

    2010-09-01

    This white paper outlines the relevant regulatory policy and guidance for a risk-informed approach for establishing the safety classification of Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and sets forth certain facts for review and discussion in order facilitate an effective submittal leading to an NGNP Combined Operating License application under 10 CFR 52.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cappelli, M.; Gadomski, A. M.; Sepiellis, M.; Wronikowska, M. W.

    2012-07-01

    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)

  16. Evaluation of station blackout accidents at nuclear power plants: Technical findings related to unresolved safety issue A-44: Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-06-01

    ''Station Blackout,'' which is the complete loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power in a nuclear power plant, has been designated as Unresolved Safety Issue A-44. Because many safety systems required for reactor core decay heat removal and containment heat removal depend on AC power, the consequences of a station blackout could be severe. This report documents the findings of technical studies performed as part of the program to resolve this issue. The important factors analyzed include: the fequency of loss of offsite power; the probability that emergency or onsite AC power supplies would be unavailable; the capability and reliability of decay heat removal systems independent of AC power; and the likelihood that offsite power would be restored before systems that cannot operate for extended periods without AC power fail, thus resulting in core damage. This report also addresses effects of different designs, locations, and operational features on the estimated frequency of core damage resulting from station blackout events.

  17. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2001-01-08

    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.

  18. Safety of Accelerator Facilities

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

    2004-07-23

    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.

  19. Notice of Intent to Revise Department of Energy Order 426.2 Change 1, Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification and Certification Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    The Office of Nuclear Safety consulted field and Headquarters (HQ) offices on whether or not a revision is warranted for DOE O 426.2. As a result, certain aspects of DOE O 426.2 were identified as needing clarification and revision. Based on this feedback, the revision is intended to clarify educational requirements, certification requirements, and applicability. Addressing these concerns should improve operating training programs, and result in less time focused on managing ambiguous or possibly unnecessary requirements.

  20. Notice of Intent to Revise Department of Energy Order 426.2 Change 1, Personnel Selection, Training, Qualification and Certification Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2015-02-19

    The Office of Nuclear Safety consulted field and Headquarters (HQ) offices on whether or not a revision is warranted for DOE O 426.2. As a result, certain aspects of DOE O 426.2 were identified as needing clarification and revision. Based on this feedback, the revision is intended to clarify educational requirements, certification requirements, and applicability. Addressing these concerns should improve operating training programs, and result in less time focused on managing ambiguous or possibly unnecessary requirements.

  1. Hanford safety analysis and risk assessment handbook (SARAH)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L.J.

    2003-01-20

    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.

  2. Hybrid nuclear reactor grey rod to obtain required reactivity worth

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Miller, John V. (Munhall, PA); Carlson, William R. (Scott Township, Allegheny County, PA); Yarbrough, Michael B. (Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA)

    1991-01-01

    Hybrid nuclear reactor grey rods are described, wherein geometric combinations of relatively weak neutron absorber materials such as stainless steel, zirconium or INCONEL, and relatively strong neutron absorber materials, such as hafnium, silver-indium cadmium and boron carbide, are used to obtain the reactivity worths required to reach zero boron change load follow. One embodiment includes a grey rod which has combinations of weak and strong neutron absorber pellets in a stainless steel cladding. The respective pellets can be of differing heights. A second embodiment includes a grey rod with a relatively thick stainless steel cladding receiving relatively strong neutron absorber pellets only. A third embodiment includes annular relatively weak netron absorber pellets with a smaller diameter pellet of relatively strong absorber material contained within the aperture of each relatively weak absorber pellet. The fourth embodiment includes pellets made of a homogeneous alloy of hafnium and a relatively weak absorber material, with the percentage of hafnium chosen to obtain the desired reactivity worth.

  3. Safety

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

    Safety All JLF participants must comply fully with all LLNL safety regulations and procedures by becoming a Registered User of the facility. All JLF participants must complete available LLNL safety training: HS5200-W Laser Safety HS4258-W Beryllium Awareness HS4261-W Lead Awareness HS5220-W Electrical Safety Awareness HS6001-W General Employee Radiological HS4240-W Chemical Safety HS4680-W PPE To access these training modules link here [LTRAIN] from inside LLNL, or here from anywhere. All JLF

  4. ORNL Nuclear Safety Research and Development Program Bimonthly Report for July-August 1968

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cottrell, W.B.

    2001-08-17

    The accomplishments during the months of July and August in the research and development program under way at ORNL as part of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Nuclear Safety Program are summarized, Included in this report are work on various chemical reactions, as well as the release, characterization, and transport of fission products in containment systems under various accident conditions and on problems associated with the removal of these fission products from gas streams. Although most of this work is in general support of water-cooled power reactor technology, including LOFT and CSE programs, the work reflects the current safety problems, such as measurements of the prompt fuel element failure phenomena and the efficacy of containment spray and pool-suppression systems for fission-product removal. Several projects are also conducted in support of the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). Other major projects include fuel-transport safety investigations, a series of discussion papers on various aspects of water-reactor technology, antiseismic design of nuclear facilities, and studies of primary piping and steel, pressure-vessel technology. Experimental work relative to pressure-vessel technology includes investigations of the attachment of nozzles to shells and the implementation of joint AEX-PVFX programs on heavy-section steel technology and nuclear piping, pumps, and valves. Several of the projects are directly related to another major undertaking; namely, the AEC's standards program, which entails development of engineering safeguards and the establishment of codes and standards for government-owned or -sponsored reactor facilities. Another task, CHORD-S, is concerned with the establishment of computer programs for the evaluation of reactor design data, The recent activities of the NSIC and the Nuclear Safety journal in behalf of the nuclear community are also discussed.

  5. Technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning reference nuclear research and test reactors. Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1982-03-01

    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 EMTOMB (entombment). The study results are presented in two volumes. Volume 2 (Appendices) contains the detailed data that support the results given in Volume 1, including unit-component data.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None, None

    2004-02-28

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

  7. Nuclear criticality safety assessment of the proposed CFC replacement coolants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jordan, W.C.; Dyer, H.R.

    1993-12-01

    The neutron multiplication characteristics of refrigerant-114 (R-114) and proposed replacement coolants perfluorobutane (C{sub 4}F{sub 10}) and cycloperfluorobutane C{sub 4}F{sub 8}) have been compared by evaluating the infinite media multiplication factors of UF{sub 6}/H/coolant systems and by replacement calculations considering a 10-MW freezer/sublimer. The results of these comparisons demonstrate that R-114 is a neutron absorber, due to its chlorine content, and that the alternative fluorocarbon coolants are neutron moderators. Estimates of critical spherical geometries considering mixtures of UF{sub 6}/HF/C{sub 4}F{sub 10} indicate that the flourocarbon-moderated systems are large compared with water-moderated systems. The freezer/sublimer calculations indicate that the alternative coolants are more reactive than R-114, but that the reactivity remains significantly below the condition of water in the tubes, which was a limiting condition. Based on these results, the alternative coolants appear to be acceptable; however, several follow-up tasks have been recommended, and additional evaluation will be required on an individual equipment basis.

  8. Aging and service wear of air-operated valves used in safety-related systems at nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cox, D.F.; McElhaney, K.L.; Staunton, R.H.

    1995-05-01

    Air-operated valves (AOVs) are used in a variety of safety-related applications at nuclear power plants. They are often used where rapid stroke times are required or precise control of the valve obturator is required. They can be designed to operate automatically upon loss of power, which is often desirable when selecting components for response to design basis conditions. The purpose of this report is to examine the reported failures of AOVs and determine whether there are identifiable trends in the failures related to predictable causes. This report examines the specific components that comprise a typical AOV, how those components fail, when they fail, and how such failures are discovered. It also examines whether current testing frequencies and methods are effective in predicting such failures.

  9. Safety requirements, facility user needs, and reactor concepts for a new Broad Application Test Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ryskamp, J.M.; Liebenthal, J.L.; Denison, A.B.; Fletcher, C.D.

    1992-07-01

    This report describes the EG&G Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program (LDRD) Broad Application Test Reactor (BATR) Project that was conducted in fiscal year 1991. The scope of this project was divided into three phases: a project process definition phase, a requirements development phase, and a preconceptual reactor design and evaluation phase. Multidisciplinary teams of experts conducted each phase. This report presents the need for a new test reactor, the project process definition, a set of current and projected regulatory compliance and safety requirements, a set of facility user needs for a broad range of projected testing missions, and descriptions of reactor concepts capable of meeting these requirements. This information can be applied to strategic planning to provide the Department of Energy with management options.

  10. Safety requirements, facility user needs, and reactor concepts for a new Broad Application Test Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ryskamp, J.M.; Liebenthal, J.L.; Denison, A.B.; Fletcher, C.D.

    1992-07-01

    This report describes the EG G Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program (LDRD) Broad Application Test Reactor (BATR) Project that was conducted in fiscal year 1991. The scope of this project was divided into three phases: a project process definition phase, a requirements development phase, and a preconceptual reactor design and evaluation phase. Multidisciplinary teams of experts conducted each phase. This report presents the need for a new test reactor, the project process definition, a set of current and projected regulatory compliance and safety requirements, a set of facility user needs for a broad range of projected testing missions, and descriptions of reactor concepts capable of meeting these requirements. This information can be applied to strategic planning to provide the Department of Energy with management options.

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  12. Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    STD-3007-2007 February 2007 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES 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 has been reproduced 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,

  13. DOE-STD-0100T; DOE Standard Licensed Reactor Nuclear Safety Criteria Applicable to DOE Reactors

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Bean; Casey Durst

    2009-10-01

    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.

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

  16. DOE-STD-6002-96; DOE Standard Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    2-96 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,

  17. Comparison and Analysis of Regulatory and Derived Requirements for Certain DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments; Lessons Learned for Future Spent Fuel Transportation Campaigns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kramer, George L., Ph.D.; Fawcett, Rick L.; Rieke, Philip C.

    2003-02-27

    Radioactive materials transportation is stringently regulated by the Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect the public and the environment. As a Federal agency, however, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must seek State, Tribal and local input on safety issues for certain transportation activities. This interaction has invariably resulted in the imposition of extra-regulatory requirements, greatly increasing transportation costs and delaying schedules while not significantly enhancing the level of safety. This paper discusses the results an analysis of the regulatory and negotiated requirements established for a July 1998 shipment of spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries through the west coast to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Staff from the INEEL Nuclear Materials Engineering and Disposition Department undertook the analysis in partnership with HMTC, to discover if there were instances where requirements derived from stakeholder interactions duplicate, contradict, or otherwise overlap with regulatory requirements. The study exhaustively lists and classifies applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. These are then compared with a similarly classified list of requirements from the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and those developed during stakeholder negotiations. Comparison and analysis reveals numerous attempts to reduce transportation risk by imposing more stringent safety measures than those required by DOT and NRC. These usually took the form of additional inspection, notification and planning requirements. There are also many instances of overlap with, and duplication of regulations. Participants will gain a greater appreciation for the need to understand the risk-oriented basis of the radioactive materials regulations and their effectiveness in ensuring safety when negotiating extra-regulatory requirements.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frost, R.L.

    1999-02-26

    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.

  19. Initial Requirements for Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) System Design, Performance, and Safety Analysis Models

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kevan D. Weaver; Thomas Y. C. Wei

    2004-08-01

    The gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) was chosen as one of the Generation IV nuclear reactor systems to be developed based on its excellent potential for sustainability through reduction of the volume and radio toxicity of both its own fuel and other spent nuclear fuel, and for extending/utilizing uranium resources orders of magnitude beyond what the current open fuel cycle can realize. In addition, energy conversion at high thermal efficiency is possible with the current designs being considered, thus increasing the economic benefit of the GFR. However, research and development challenges include the ability to use passive decay heat removal systems during accident conditions, survivability of fuels and in-core materials under extreme temperatures and radiation, and economical and efficient fuel cycle processes. Nevertheless, the GFR was chosen as one of only six Generation IV systems to be pursued based on its ability to meet the Generation IV goals in sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, proliferation resistance and physical protection.

  20. NUCLEAR DATA TARGET ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS FOR MA BURNERS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G. Palmiotti; M. Salvatores

    2011-06-01

    A nuclear data target accuracy assessment has been carried out for two types of transmuters: a critical sodium fast reactor(SFR) and an accelerator driven system (ADMAB). Results are provided for a 7 group energy structure. Considerations about fuel cycle parameters uncertainties illustrate their dependence from the isotope final densities at end of cycle.

  1. Report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Nuclear Laboratory Requirements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    As an element of its plans to return the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) site in eastern Idaho to its historic mission of nuclear technology development, the DOE asked its Nuclear Energy Research...

  2. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Transuranic Waste Facility 90% Draft Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Submittals … EA-LANL-2015-07-07

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    EA-LANL-2015-07-07 Site: Los Alamos National Laboratory Subject: Review of Transuranic Waste Facility 90% Draft Documented Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements Submittals Dates of Activity: 07/07/2015 - 08/06/2015 Report Preparer: James O. Low Activity Description / Purpose: The Office of Environment, Safety and Health Assessments within the Office of Enterprise Assessments (EA) reviewed the 90% Draft Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and Technical Safety Requirements (TSR), which

  3. Emergency preparedness source term development for the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards-Licensed Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sutter, S.L.; Mishima, J.; Ballinger, M.Y.; Lindsey, C.G.

    1984-08-01

    In order to establish requirements for emergency preparedness plans at facilities licensed by the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to develop source terms (the amount of material made airborne) in accidents. These source terms are used to estimate the potential public doses from the events, which, in turn, will be used to judge whether emergency preparedness plans are needed for a particular type of facility. Pacific Northwest Laboratory is providing the NRC with source terms by developing several accident scenarios for eleven types of fuel cycle and by-product operations. Several scenarios are developed for each operation, leading to the identification of the maximum release considered for emergency preparedness planning (MREPP) scenario. The MREPP scenarios postulated were of three types: fire, tornado, and criticality. Fire was significant at oxide fuel fabrication, UF/sub 6/ production, radiopharmaceutical manufacturing, radiopharmacy, sealed source manufacturing, waste warehousing, and university research and development facilities. Tornadoes were MREPP events for uranium mills and plutonium contaminated facilities, and criticalities were significant at nonoxide fuel fabrication and nuclear research and development facilities. Techniques for adjusting the MREPP release to different facilities are also described.

  4. Implementing Stakeholders' Access to Expertise: Experimenting on Nuclear Installations' Safety Cases - 12160

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gilli, Ludivine; Charron, Sylvie

    2012-07-01

    In 2009 and 2010, the Institute for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (IRSN) led two pilot actions dealing with nuclear installations' safety cases. One concerned the periodical review of the French 900 MWe nuclear reactors, the other concerned the decommissioning of a workshop located on the site of Areva's La Hague fuel-reprocessing plant site in Northwestern France. The purpose of both these programs was to test ways for IRSN and a small number of stakeholders (Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) members, local elected officials, etc.) to engage in technical discussions. The discussions were intended to enable the stakeholders to review future applications and provide valuable input. The test cases confirmed there is a definite challenge in successfully opening a meaningful dialogue to discuss technical issues, in particular the fact that most expertise reports were not public and the conflict that exists between the contrary demands of transparency and confidentiality of information. The test case also confirmed there are ways to further improvement of stakeholders' involvement. (authors)

  5. AP1000{sup R} nuclear power plant safety overview for spent fuel cooling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gorgemans, J.; Mulhollem, L.; Glavin, J.; Pfister, A.; Conway, L.; Schulz, T.; Oriani, L.; Cummins, E.; Winters, J. [Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (United States)

    2012-07-01

    The AP1000{sup R} plant is an 1100-MWe class pressurized water reactor with passive safety features and extensive plant simplifications that enhance construction, operation, maintenance, safety and costs. The AP1000 design uses passive features to mitigate design basis accidents. The passive safety systems are designed to function without safety-grade support systems such as AC power, component cooling water, service water or HVAC. Furthermore, these passive features 'fail safe' during a non-LOCA event such that DC power and instrumentation are not required. The AP1000 also has simple, active, defense-in-depth systems to support normal plant operations. These active systems provide the first level of defense against more probable events and they provide investment protection, reduce the demands on the passive features and support the probabilistic risk assessment. The AP1000 passive safety approach allows the plant to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in case of an accident for 72 hours without operator action, meeting the expectations provided in the U.S. Utility Requirement Document and the European Utility Requirements for passive plants. Limited operator actions are required to maintain safe conditions in the spent fuel pool via passive means. In line with the AP1000 approach to safety described above, the AP1000 plant design features multiple, diverse lines of defense to ensure spent fuel cooling can be maintained for design-basis events and beyond design-basis accidents. During normal and abnormal conditions, defense-in-depth and other systems provide highly reliable spent fuel pool cooling. They rely on off-site AC power or the on-site standby diesel generators. For unlikely design basis events with an extended loss of AC power (i.e., station blackout) or loss of heat sink or both, spent fuel cooling can still be provided indefinitely: - Passive systems, requiring minimal or no operator actions, are sufficient for at least 72 hours under all possible pool heat load conditions. - After 3 days, several different means are provided to continue spent fuel cooling using installed plant equipment as well as off-site equipment with built-in connections. Even for beyond design basis accidents with postulated pool damage and multiple failures in the passive safety-related systems and in the defense-in-depth active systems, the AP1000 multiple spent fuel pool spray and fill systems provide additional lines of defense to prevent spent fuel damage. (authors)

  6. Mock Nuclear Processing Facility-Safeguards Training Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gibbs, Philip; Hasty, Tim; Johns, Rissell; Baum, Gregory

    2014-08-31

    This document outlines specific training requirements in the topical areas of Material Control and Accounting (MC&A) and Physical Protection(PP) which are to be used as technical input for designing a mock Integrated Security Facility (ISF) at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The overall project objective for these requirements is to enhance the ability to deliver training on Material Protection Control and Accounting (MC&A) concepts regarding hazardous material such as irradiated materials with respect to bulk processing facilities.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2001-03-01

    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.

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    -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

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  11. DOE-STD-1083-95; DOE Standard Requesting and Granting Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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

  13. Operation Cornerstone onsite radiological safety report for announced nuclear tests, October 1988--September 1989

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-08-01

    Cornerstone was the name assigned to the series of underground nuclear experiments conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) from October 1, 1988, through September 30, 1989. This report includes those experiments publicly announced. Remote radiation measurements were taken during and after each nuclear experiment by a telemetry system. Radiation Protection Technicians (RPT) with portable radiation detection instruments surveyed reentry routes into ground zeros (GZ) before other planned entries were made. Continuous surveillance was provided while personnel were in radiation areas and appropriate precautions were taken to protect persons from unnecessary exposure to radiation and toxic gases. Protective clothing and equipment were issued as needed. Complete radiological safety and industrial hygiene coverage were provided during drilling and mineback operations. Telemetered and portable radiation detector measurements are listed. Detection instrumentation used is described and specific operational procedures are defined.

  14. NWTS program criteria for mined geologic disposal of nuclear waste: program objectives, functional requirements, and system performance criteria

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1981-04-01

    At the present time, final repository criteria have not been issued by the responsible agencies. This document describes general objectives, requirements, and criteria that the DOE intends to apply in the interim to the National Waste Terminal Storage (NWTS) Program. These objectives, requirements, and criteria have been developed on the basis of DOE's analysis of what is needed to achieve the National objective of safe waste disposal in an environmentally acceptable and economic manner and are expected to be consistent with anticipated regulatory standards. The qualitative statements in this document address the broad issues of public and occupational health and safety, institutional acceptability, engineering feasibility, and economic considerations. A comprehensive set of criteria, general and project specific, of which these are a part, will constitute a portion of the technical basis for preparation and submittal by the DOE of formal documents to support future license applications for nuclear waste repositories.

  15. Research on long term safety of nuclear waste disposal at the research center Karlsruhe, Germany

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gompper, Klaus; Bosbach, Dirk; Denecke, Melissa A.; Geckeis, Horst; Kienzler, Bernhard; Klenze, Reinhardt

    2007-07-01

    In Germany the safe disposal of radioactive waste is in the responsibility of the federal government. The R and D performed in the Institute for Nuclear Waste Disposal (INE) at the Research Center Karlsruhe contributes to the German provident research in the field of long-term safety for final disposal of high level heat producing nuclear wastes. INE's research is focused on the actinide elements and long lived fission products since these dominate the radiotoxicity over a long time. The research strategy synergistically combines fundamental science of aquatic radionuclide chemistry with applied investigations of real systems (waste form, host rock, aquifer), studied on laboratory scale and in underground laboratories. Because Germany has not yet selected a site for a high-level waste repository, all host rock formations under discussion in the international community (salt, hard rock, clay/tone) are investigated. Emphasis in long-term safety R and D at INE is on the development of actinide speciation methods and techniques in the trace concentration range. (authors)

  16. Deep geologic burial of spent nuclear fuel: Is criticality a public health and safety issue?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McLaughlin, T.P.

    1996-12-31

    While the answer to the question posed in the title to this paper may never be complete, there is evidence that suggests that the technical answer is {open_quotes}no.{close_quotes} Certainly there will likely be vigorous public policy discussions as to the acceptability of criticality events at indeterminate times in the future even if the technical arguments for acceptably low risk are compelling. This paper attempts to further the technical discussions of criticality events associated with geologic disposal of fissile material being considered acceptably low risks to future inhabitants. Current U.S. regulations governing the deep geologic disposal of materials that may be capable of achieving the critical state are found in 10 CFR 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The pertinent paragraph, 60.131(b)(7), states: {open_quotes}Criticality control. All systems for processing, transporting, handling, storage, retrieval, emplacement, and isolation of radioactive waste shall be designed to ensure that a nuclear criticality accident is not possible unless at least two unlikely, independent, and concurrent or sequential changes have occurred in the conditions essential to nuclear criticality safety. Each system shall be designed for criticality safety under normal and accident conditions. The calculated effective multiplication factor (k{sub eff}) must be sufficiently below unity to show at least a 5% margin, after allowance for the bias in the method of calculation and the uncertainty in the experiments used to validate the method of calculation.{close_quotes}

  17. BFS, a Legacy to the International Reactor Physics, Criticality Safety, and Nuclear Data Communities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. Blair Briggs; Anatoly Tsibulya; Yevgeniy Rozhikhin

    2012-03-01

    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.

  18. Updating Human Factors Engineering Guidelines for Conducting Safety Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O, J.M.; Higgins, J.; Stephen Fleger - NRC

    2011-09-19

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the human factors engineering (HFE) programs of applicants for nuclear power plant construction permits, operating licenses, standard design certifications, and combined operating licenses. The purpose of these safety reviews is to help ensure that personnel performance and reliability are appropriately supported. Detailed design review procedures and guidance for the evaluations is provided in three key documents: the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), the HFE Program Review Model (NUREG-0711), and the Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700). These documents were last revised in 2007, 2004 and 2002, respectively. The NRC is committed to the periodic update and improvement of the guidance to ensure that it remains a state-of-the-art design evaluation tool. To this end, the NRC is updating its guidance to stay current with recent research on human performance, advances in HFE methods and tools, and new technology being employed in plant and control room design. This paper describes the role of HFE guidelines in the safety review process and the content of the key HFE guidelines used. Then we will present the methodology used to develop HFE guidance and update these documents, and describe the current status of the update program.

  19. Facility Safety

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

    2013-06-21

    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.

  20. 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)

    S.G. Johnson; K.L. Lively; C.C. Dwight

    2014-07-01

    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 Administration’s Mars Science Laboratory, which launched in November of 2011.

  1. Hanford Generic Interim Safety Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lavender, J.C.

    1994-09-09

    The purpose of this document is to identify WHC programs and requirements that are an integral part of the authorization basis for nuclear facilities that are generic to all WHC-managed facilities. The purpose of these programs is to implement the DOE Orders, as WHC becomes contractually obligated to implement them. The Hanford Generic ISB focuses on the institutional controls and safety requirements identified in DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.

  2. Challenges to Integration of Safety and Reliability with Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    H. Khalil; P. F. Peterson; R. Bari; G. -L. Fiorini; T. Leahy; R. Versluis

    2012-07-01

    The optimization of a nuclear energy system's performance requires an integrated consideration of multiple design goals - sustainability, safety and reliability (S&R), proliferation resistance and physical protection (PR&PP), and economics - as well as careful evaluation of trade-offs for different system design and operating parameters. Design approaches motivated by each of the goal areas (in isolation from the other goal areas) may be mutually compatible or in conflict. However, no systematic methodology approach has yet been developed to identify and maximize synergies and optimally balance conflicts across the possible design configurations and operating modes of a nuclear energy system. Because most Generation IV systems are at an early stage of development, design, and assessment, designers and analysts are only beginning to identify synergies and conflicts between PR&PP, S&R, and economics goals. The close coupling between PR&PP and S&R goals has motivated early attention within the Generation IV International Forum to their integrated consideration to facilitate the optimization of their effects and the minimization of potential conflicts. This paper discusses the status of this work.

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

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

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

  4. 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)

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

    1982-10-21

    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.

  5. Safeguards Guidance for Designers of Commercial Nuclear Facilities – International Safeguards Requirements for Uranium Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Philip Casey Durst; Scott DeMuth; Brent McGinnis; Michael Whitaker; James Morgan

    2010-04-01

    For the past two years, the United States National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of International Regimes and Agreements (NA-243), has sponsored the Safeguards-by-Design Project, through which it is hoped new nuclear facilities will be designed and constructed worldwide more amenable to nuclear safeguards. In the course of this project it was recognized that commercial designer/builders of nuclear facilities are not always aware of, or understand, the relevant domestic and international safeguards requirements, especially the latter as implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). To help commercial designer/builders better understand these requirements, a report was prepared by the Safeguards-by-Design Project Team that articulated and interpreted the international nuclear safeguards requirements for the initial case of uranium enrichment plants. The following paper summarizes the subject report, the specific requirements, where they originate, and the implications for design and construction. It also briefly summarizes the established best design and operating practices that designer/builder/operators have implemented for currently meeting these requirements. In preparing the subject report, it is recognized that the best practices are continually evolving as the designer/builder/operators and IAEA consider even more effective and efficient means for meeting the safeguards requirements and objectives.

  6. 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...

  7. "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,...

  8. FLUOR HANFORD SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    GARVIN, L J; JENSEN, M A

    2004-04-13

    This document summarizes safety management programs used within the scope of the ''Project Hanford Management Contract''. The document has been developed to meet the format and content requirements of DOE-STD-3009-94, ''Preparation Guide for US. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses''. This document provides summary descriptions of Fluor Hanford safety management programs, which Fluor Hanford nuclear facilities may reference and incorporate into their safety basis when producing facility- or activity-specific documented safety analyses (DSA). Facility- or activity-specific DSAs will identify any variances to the safety management programs described in this document and any specific attributes of these safety management programs that are important for controlling potentially hazardous conditions. In addition, facility- or activity-specific DSAs may identify unique additions to the safety management programs that are needed to control potentially hazardous conditions.

  9. Required Assets for a Nuclear Energy Applied R&D Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harold F. McFarlane; Craig L. Jacobson

    2009-03-01

    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 Capabilities—An 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 Battelle’s 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.

  10. Microsoft PowerPoint - Fire Safety workshop NQA-1 CGD 4 29 15 [Read-Only]

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    v Nuclear and Facility Safety Programs Workshop Fire Safety Track May 5th, 2015 Overview NQA 1 Commercial Grade Dedication Critical Characteristics Department of Energy Nuclear and Facility Safety Programs Workshop Fire Safety Track May 5 th , 2015 Randy P. Lanham PE, CSP Dale Moon, PE Fire Protection Chief Engineer Facility Engineering Depart. Mng. Randy.Lanham@cns.doe.gov Consolidated Nuclear Security Pantex and Y12 2 Overview CGD Definition Safety Function / DSA Requirements Example of CGD

  11. Preliminary Safety Design RM

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Identifier Safety Guidance & Requirements SG Hazards Identification & Control Selection HI Preliminary Safety Design Report PR Risks to Project Safety Decisions SR Safety Design...

  12. The ORSphere Benchmark Evaluation and Its Potential Impact on Nuclear Criticality Safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John D. Bess; Margaret A. Marshall; J. Blair Briggs

    2013-10-01

    In the early 1970’s, critical experiments using an unreflected metal sphere of highly enriched uranium (HEU) were performed with the focus to provide a “very accurate description…as an ideal benchmark for calculational methods and cross-section data files.” Two near-critical configurations of the Oak Ridge Sphere (ORSphere) were evaluated as acceptable benchmark experiments for inclusion in the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook). The results from those benchmark experiments were then compared with additional unmoderated and unreflected HEU metal benchmark experiment configurations currently found in the ICSBEP Handbook. For basic geometries (spheres, cylinders, and slabs) the eigenvalues calculated using MCNP5 and ENDF/B-VII.0 were within 3 of their respective benchmark values. There appears to be generally a good agreement between calculated and benchmark values for spherical and slab geometry systems. Cylindrical geometry configurations tended to calculate low, including more complex bare HEU metal systems containing cylinders. The ORSphere experiments do not calculate within their 1s uncertainty and there is a possibility that the effect of the measured uncertainties for the GODIVA I benchmark may need reevaluated. There is significant scatter in the calculations for the highly-correlated ORCEF cylinder experiments, which are constructed from close-fitting HEU discs and annuli. Selection of a nuclear data library can have a larger impact on calculated eigenvalue results than the variation found within calculations of a given experimental series, such as the ORCEF cylinders, using a single nuclear data set.

  13. Safety apparatus for nuclear reactor to prevent structural damage from overheating by core debris

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gabor, John D.; Cassulo, John C.; Pedersen, Dean R.; Baker, Jr., Louis

    1986-01-01

    The invention teaches safety apparatus that can be included in a nuclear reactor, either when newly fabricated or as a retrofit add-on, that will minimize proliferation of structural damage to the reactor in the event the reactor is experiencing an overheating malfunction whereby radioactive nuclear debris might break away from and be discharged from the reactor core. The invention provides a porous bed or sublayer on the lower surface of the reactor containment vessel so that the debris falls on and piles up on the bed. Vapor release elements upstand from the bed in some laterally spaced array. Thus should the high heat flux of the debris interior vaporize the coolant at that location, the vaporized coolant can be vented downwardly to and laterally through the bed to the vapor release elements and in turn via the release elements upwardly through the debris. This minimizes the pressure buildup in the debris and allows for continuing infiltration of the liquid coolant into the debris interior.

  14. Safety apparatus for nuclear reactor to prevent structural damage from overheating by core debris

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gabor, J.D.; Cassulo, J.C.; Pedersen, D.R.; Baker, L. Jr.

    The invention teaches safety apparatus that can be included in a nuclear reactor, either when newly fabricated or as a retrofit add-on, that will minimize proliferation of structural damage to the reactor in the event the reactor is experiencing an overheating malfunction whereby radioactive nuclear debris might break away from and can be discharged from the reactor core. The invention provides a porous bed of sublayer on the lower surface of the reactor containment vessel so that the debris falls on and piles up on the bed. Vapor release elements upstand from the bed in some laterally spaced array. Thus should the high heat flux of the debris interior vaporize the coolant at that location, the vaporized coolant can be vented downwardly to and laterally through the bed to the vapor release elements and in turn via the release elements upwardly through the debris. This minimizes the pressure buildup in the debris and allows for continuing infiltration of the liquid coolant into the debris interior.

  15. Activities in Support of Continuing the Service of Nuclear Power Plant Safety-Related Concrete Structures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Naus, Dan J

    2014-01-01

    Nuclear power plant (NPP) concrete structures are described. In-service inspection and testing requirements in the U.S. are summarized. The license renewal process in the U.S. is outlined and its current status provided. Operating experience related to performance of the concrete structures is presented. Basic components of a program to manage aging of the concrete structures are identified and described: (1) Degradation mechanisms, damage models, and material performance; (2) Assessment and remediation: i.e., component selection, in- service inspection, non-destructive examinations, and remedial actions; and (3) Estimation of performance at present or some future point in time: i.e., application of structural reliability theory to the design and optimization of in-service inspection/maintenance strategies, and determination of the effects of degradation on plant risk. Finally, areas are noted where additional research would be of benefit to aging management of nuclear power plant concrete structures.

  16. Health & Safety

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

    Health & Safety Health & Safety1354608000000Health & SafetySome of these resources are LANL-only and will require Remote Access.NoQuestions? 667-5809library@lanl.gov Health &...

  17. Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC) : FY10 development and integration.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Criscenti, Louise Jacqueline; Sassani, David Carl; Arguello, Jose Guadalupe, Jr.; Dewers, Thomas A.; Bouchard, Julie F.; Edwards, Harold Carter; Freeze, Geoffrey A.; Wang, Yifeng; Schultz, Peter Andrew

    2011-02-01

    This report describes the progress in fiscal year 2010 in developing the Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC) in support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Campaign. The goal of the Waste IPSC is to develop an integrated suite of computational 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. Waste IPSC activities in fiscal year 2010 focused on specifying a challenge problem to demonstrate proof of concept, developing a verification and validation plan, and performing an initial gap analyses to identify candidate codes and tools to support the development and integration of the Waste IPSC. The current Waste IPSC strategy is to acquire and integrate the necessary Waste IPSC capabilities wherever feasible, and develop only those capabilities that cannot be acquired or suitably integrated, verified, or validated. This year-end progress report documents the FY10 status of acquisition, development, and integration of thermal-hydrologic-chemical-mechanical (THCM) code capabilities, frameworks, and enabling tools and infrastructure.

  18. Assessment of inservice conditions of safety-related nuclear plant structures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ashar, H.; Bagchi, G.

    1995-06-01

    The report is a compilation from a number of sources of information related to the condition Of structures and civil engineering features at operating nuclear power plants in the United States. The most significant information came from the hands-on inspection of the six old plants (licensed prior to 1977) performed by the staff of the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch (ECGB) in the Division of Engineering of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. For the containment structures, most of the information related to the degraded conditions came from the licensees as part of the Licensing Event Report System (10 CFR 50.73), or as part of the requirement under limiting condition of operation of the plant-specific Technical Specifications. Most of the information related to the degradation of other Structures and civil engineering features was extracted from the industry survey, the reported incidents, and the plant visits. The report discusses the condition of the structures and civil engineering features at operating nuclear power plants and provides information that would help detect, alleviate, and correct the degraded conditions of the structures and civil engineering features.

  19. Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP): Model AL-M1 nuclear packaging (DOE C of C No. USA/9507/BLF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coleman, H.L.; Whitney, M.A.; Williams, M.A.; Alexander, B.M.; Shapiro, A.

    1987-11-24

    This Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) satisfies the request of the US Department of Energy for a formal safety analysis of the shipping container identified as USA/9507/BLF, also called AL-M1, configuration 5. This report makes available to all potential users the technical information and the limits pertinent to the construction and use of the shipping containers. It includes discussions of structural integrity, thermal resistance, radiation shielding and radiological safety, nuclear criticality safety, and quality control. A complete physical and technical description of the package is presented. The package consists of an inner container centered within an insulated steel drum. The configuration-5 package contains tritiated water held on sorbent material. There are two other AL-M1 packages, designated configurations 1 and 3. These use the same insulated outer drum, but licensing of these containers will not be addressed in this SARP. Design and development considerations, the tests and evaluations required to prove the ability of the container to withstand normal transportation conditions, and the sequence of four hypothetical accident conditions (free drop, puncture, thermal, and water immersion) are discussed. Tables, graphs, dimensional sketches, photographs, technical references, loading and shipping procedures, Monsanto Research Corporation-Mound experience in using the containers, and a copy of the DOE/OSD/ALO Certificate of Compliance are included.

  20. New Resolved Resonance Region Evaluation for 63Cu and 65Cu for Nuclear Criticality Safety Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sobes, Vladimir; Leal, Luiz C; Guber, Klaus H; Forget, Benoit; Kopecky, S.; Schillebeeckx, P.; Siegler, P.

    2014-01-01

    A new resolved resonance region evaluation of 63Cu and 65Cu was done in the energy region from 10-5 eV to 99.5 keV. The R-Matrix SAMMY method using the Reich-Moore approximation was used to create a new set of consistent resonance parameters. The new evaluation was based on three experimental transmission data sets; two measured at ORELA and one from MITR, and two radiative capture experimental data sets from GELINA. A total of 141 new resonances were identied for 63Cu and 117 for 65Cu. The corresponding set of external resonances for each isotope was based on the identied resonances above 99.5 keV from the ORELA transmission data. The negative external levels (bound levels) were determined to match the dierential thermal cross section measured at the MITR. Double dierential elastic scattering cross sections were calculated from the new set of resonance parameters. Benchmarking calculations were carried out on a set of ICSBEP benchmarks. This work is in support of the DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program.

  1. Challenge problem and milestones for : Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC).

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Freeze, Geoffrey A.; Wang, Yifeng; Howard, Robert; McNeish, Jerry A.; Schultz, Peter Andrew; Arguello, Jose Guadalupe, Jr.

    2010-09-01

    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.

  2. Facts and Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Safety Improvement- The Operator Viewpoints

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Presenter: Akira Kawano, General Manager, Nuclear International Relations and Strategy Group, Nuclear Power and Plant Siting Administrative Department, Tokyo Electric Power Company

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Presenter: Undine Shoop, Chief, Health Physics and Human Performance Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  4. Packaging and Transportation Safety

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

    2003-04-04

    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.

  5. Nuclear safety analyses and core design calculations to convert the Texas A & M University Nuclear Science Center reactor to low enrichment uranium fuel. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Parish, T.A.

    1995-03-02

    This project involved performing the nuclear design and safety analyses needed to modify the license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow operation of the Texas A& M University Nuclear Science Center Reactor (NSCR) with a core containing low enrichment uranium (LEU) fuel. The specific type of LEU fuel to be considered was the TRIGA 20-20 fuel produced by General Atomic. Computer codes for the neutronic analyses were provided by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and the assistance of William Woodruff of ANL in helping the NSCR staff to learn the proper use of the codes is gratefully acknowledged. The codes applied in the LEU analyses were WIMSd4/m, DIF3D, NCTRIGA and PARET. These codes allowed full three dimensional, temperature and burnup dependent calculations modelling the NSCR core to be performed for the first time. In addition, temperature coefficients of reactivity and pulsing calculations were carried out in-house, whereas in the past this modelling had been performed at General Atomic. In order to benchmark the newly acquired codes, modelling of the current NSCR core with highly enriched uranium fuel was also carried out. Calculated results were compared to both earlier licensing calculations and experimental data and the new methods were found to achieve excellent agreement with both. Therefore, even if an LEU core is never loaded at the NSCR, this project has resulted in a significant improvement in the nuclear safety analysis capabilities established and maintained at the NSCR.

  6. QCD Thermodynamics at High Temperature Peter Petreczky Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics (NP),

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

    QCD Thermodynamics at High Temperature Peter Petreczky Large Scale Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics (NP), Bethesda MD, April 29-30, 2014 NY Center for Computational Science 2 Defining questions of nuclear physics research in US: Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) "The Frontiers of Nuclear Science", 2007 Long Range Plan "What are the phases of strongly interacting matter and what roles do they play in the cosmos ?" "What does QCD predict for

  7. 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)

    Newvahner, R.L.; Pryor, W.A.

    1991-12-31

    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.

  8. KEY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR NUCLEAR HEAT SUPPLY SYSTEM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.E. Demick

    2010-09-01

    Key requirements that affect the design of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor nuclear heat supply system (HTGR-NHSS) as the NGNP Project progresses through the design, licensing, construction and testing of the first of a kind HTGR based plant are summarized. These requirements derive from pre-conceptual design development completed to-date by HTGR Suppliers, collaboration with potential end users of the HTGR technology to identify energy needs, evaluation of integration of the HTGR technology with industrial processes and recommendations of the NGNP Project Senior Advisory Group.

  9. Prototyping and validating requirements of radiation and nuclear emergency plan simulator

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hamid, AHA.; Rozan, MZA.; Ibrahim, R.; Deris, S.; Selamat, A.

    2015-04-29

    Organizational incapability in developing unrealistic, impractical, inadequate and ambiguous mechanisms of radiological and nuclear emergency preparedness and response plan (EPR) causing emergency plan disorder and severe disasters. These situations resulting from 65.6% of poor definition and unidentified roles and duties of the disaster coordinator. Those unexpected conditions brought huge aftermath to the first responders, operators, workers, patients and community at large. Hence, in this report, we discuss prototyping and validating of Malaysia radiation and nuclear emergency preparedness and response plan simulation model (EPRM). A prototyping technique was required to formalize the simulation model requirements. Prototyping as systems requirements validation was carried on to endorse the correctness of the model itself against the stakeholder’s intensions in resolving those organizational incapability. We have made assumptions for the proposed emergency preparedness and response model (EPRM) through the simulation software. Those assumptions provided a twofold of expected mechanisms, planning and handling of the respective emergency plan as well as in bringing off the hazard involved. This model called RANEPF (Radiation and Nuclear Emergency Planning Framework) simulator demonstrated the training emergency response perquisites rather than the intervention principles alone. The demonstrations involved the determination of the casualties’ absorbed dose range screening and the coordination of the capacity planning of the expected trauma triage. Through user-centred design and sociotechnical approach, RANEPF simulator was strategized and simplified, though certainly it is equally complex.

  10. DOE-HDBK-1139/3-2003; Chemical Management (Volume 3 of 3) Consolidated Chemical User Safety and Health Requirements

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    TS NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-1139/3-2003 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. September 2003 DOE-HDBK-1139/3-2003 This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. It is available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S.

  11. Policy of EDF for the future of nuclear power generation safety and economy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roche, B.

    1997-12-01

    EDF improves at the same time economy and safety of its existing units. For new designs, it is the same fight.

  12. Canister storage building evaluation of nuclear safety for solidified high-level waste transfer and storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kidder, R.J., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-09-17

    This document is issued to evaluate the safety impacts to the Canister Storage Building from transfer and storage of solidified high-level waste.

  13. Job Safety and Health Poster | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Job Safety and Health Poster Job Safety and Health Poster Department of Energy (DOE) Job Safety and Health poster. DOE Order 440.1B Worker Protection Program for DOE (Including the National Nuclear Security Administration) Federal Employees and title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, both require that a worker safety and health poster be posted in a prominent location to inform employees of their rights and responsibilities. In the past, DOE has

  14. FAQS Reference Guide - Criticality Safety (NNSA) | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Safety (NNSA) FAQS Reference Guide - Criticality Safety (NNSA) This reference guide has been developed to address the competency statements in DOE-STD-1173-2009, Criticality Safety Functional Area Qualification Standard. PDF icon Criticality Safety Qualification Standard Reference Guide, September 2010 More Documents & Publications FAQS Qualification Card - Criticality Safety DOE-STD-1173-2009 Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities Standard Review

  15. Revision of the energy conservation requirements in the manufactured home construction and safety standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Conner, C.C.; Lee, A.D.; Lucas, R.G.; Taylor, Z.T.

    1992-02-01

    Thermal requirements were developed for manufactured (mobile) homes in response to legislation requiring the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to revise its thermal standards for manufactured homes. A life-cycle cost minimization from the home owner`s perspecetive was used to establish an optimum in a large number of cities for several prototype homes. The development of the economic, financial, and energy conservation measure parameters input into the life-cycle cost analysis was documented. The optimization results were aggregated to zones which were expressed as a maximum overall home U-value (thermal transmittance) requirement. The revised standard`s costs, benefits, and net value to the consumer were quantified. 50 refs.

  16. Revision of the Energy-Efficiency Requirements in the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Conner, Craig C.; Dillon, Heather E.; Lucas, Robert G.; Lubliner, Michael

    2004-06-01

    Energy-efficiency requirements were developed for manufactured (mobile) homes, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. A life-cycle cost analysis from the homeowner's perspective was used to establish parameters for a least-cost home in a large number of cities. Economic, financial, and energy-efficiency measures for the life-cycle cost analysis were selected and documented. The resulting energy-efficiency levels were aggregated to zones that were expressed as a maximum overall home U-factor (thermal transmittance) requirement for the building envelope. The proposed revised standard's costs, benefits, and net value to the consumer were quantified. This analysis updates a similar effort completed in 1992, which was the basis for the existing HUD code overall U-factor requirement.

  17. Transportation Safety

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

    Safety - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced Nuclear Energy

  18. Implementation Guide for Use in Developing Technical Safety Requirements--Withdrawn

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

    2013-06-21

    As part of the one-year accuracy review of the November 2010 change to the Guide, as required by DOE O 251.1C, Departmental Directives Program, Section 7, additional changes to the Guide were identified by the program offices to make it more complete and effective. Withdrawn 4-10-14.

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

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

    2005-06-17

    This Guide provides acceptable methods for implementing the safety software quality assurance requirements of draft DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance. Certified 11-3-10. No cancellation.

  20. Addressing Control of Hazardous Energy (COHE) Requirements in a Laser Safety Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Woods, Michael; /SLAC

    2012-02-15

    OSHA regulation 29CFR1910.147 specifies control of hazardous energy requirements for 'the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees.' Class 3B and Class 4 laser beams must be considered hazardous energy sources because of the potential for serious eye injury; careful consideration is therefore needed to safely de-energize these lasers. This paper discusses and evaluates control of hazardous energy principles in this OSHA regulation, in ANSI Z136.1 ''Safe Use of Lasers,'' and in ANSI Z244.1 ''Control of Hazardous Energy, Lockout/Tagout and Alternative Methods.'' Recommendations are made for updating and improving CoHE (control of hazardous energy) requirements in these standards for their applicability to safe laser operations.

  1. Review of nuclear power plant safety cable aging studies with recommendations for improved approaches and for future work.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gillen, Kenneth Todd; Bernstein, Robert

    2010-11-01

    Many U. S. nuclear power plants are approaching 40 years of age and there is a desire to extend their life for up to 100 total years. Safety-related cables were originally qualified for nuclear power plant applications based on IEEE Standards that were published in 1974. The qualifications involved procedures to simulate 40 years of life under ambient power plant aging conditions followed by simulated loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Over the past 35 years or so, substantial efforts were devoted to determining whether the aging assumptions allowed by the original IEEE Standards could be improved upon. These studies led to better accelerated aging methods so that more confident 40-year lifetime predictions became available. Since there is now a desire to potentially extend the life of nuclear power plants way beyond the original 40 year life, there is an interest in reviewing and critiquing the current state-of-the-art in simulating cable aging. These are two of the goals of this report where the discussion is concentrated on the progress made over the past 15 years or so and highlights the most thorough and careful published studies. An additional goal of the report is to suggest work that might prove helpful in answering some of the questions and dealing with some of the issues that still remain with respect to simulating the aging and predicting the lifetimes of safety-related cable materials.

  2. An Overview of Nuclear vs. Non-Nuclear Design Code Requirements for a Candidate Steam Supply System for Commercial Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Jetter

    2011-04-01

    The objective is to identify (mostly for industrial end-users) the difference between a Section III nuclear steam generator (classified as Structures, Systems and Components (SSC)) and a Section VIII steam generator in the same general conditions, but used in a conventional application. Specifically, applicable temperature and pressure ranges and a more quantitative description of how materials change, design margins change and required design rigor changes are of interest. This overview focuses on the steam generator pressure boundary but the downstream piping will also be considered. Within the designations of Section III and Section VIII there are subcategories with their specific regions of applicability. Each of these subcategories has evolved their own unique features with respect to design rules and their implementation. A general overview of the various design codes will be provided in sufficient detail to illustrate the major differences; however, a detailed discussion of the various design requirements and their implementation is beyond the scope of this discussion. References (1) and (2) are sources of more detailed information. Also, example wall sizing calculations will be provided to illustrate the application of the relevant design codes under the candidate design conditions. The candidate steam supply Design Conditions are 600C (1112F) and 24MPa (3,480psi). The Operating Conditions or Service Levels will be somewhat lower and the difference shows up in some of the various design methodologies employed.

  3. Safety research programs sponsored by Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Quarterly progress report, January 1-March 31, 1983. Volume 3, No. 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bari, R A; Cerbone, R J; Ginsberg, T; Greene, G A; Guppy, J G; Hall, R E; Luckas, Jr, W J; Reich, M; Saha, P; Sastre, C

    1983-06-01

    The projects reported are the following: HTGR Safety Evaluation, SSC Development, Validation and Application, CRBR Balance of Plant Modeling, Thermal-Hydraulic Reactor Safety Experiments, LWR Plant Analyzer Development, LWR Code Assessment and Application; Stress Corrosion Cracking of PWR Steam Generator Tubing, Bolting Failure Analysis, Probability Based Load Combinations for Design of Category I Structures, Mechanical Piping Benchmark Problems, Soil Structure Interaction; Human Error Data for Nuclear Power Plant Safety Related Events, Criteria for Human Engineering Regulatory Guides and Human Factors in Nuclear Power Plant Safeguards.

  4. Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program

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

    2015-01-26

    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. Supersedes DOE O 452.1D.

  5. High Performance Computing and Storage Requirements for Nuclear Physics: Target 2017

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gerber, Richard; Wasserman, Harvey

    2015-01-20

    In April 2014, NERSC, ASCR, and the DOE Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) held a review to characterize high performance computing (HPC) and storage requirements for NP research through 2017. This review is the 12th in a series of reviews held by NERSC and Office of Science program offices that began in 2009. It is the second for NP, and the final in the second round of reviews that covered the six Office of Science program offices. This report is the result of that review

  6. Guidelines for nuclear power plant safety issue prioritization information development. Supplement 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tabatabai, A.S.; Fecht, B.A.; Powers, T.B.; Bickford, W.E.; Andrews, W.B.; Gallucci, R.H.V.; Bian, S.H.; Daling, P.M.; Eschbach, E.J.; Allen, C.H.

    1986-07-01

    This is the fifth in a series of reports to document the use of a methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory to calculate, for prioritization purposes, the risk, dose and cost impacts of implementing resolutions to reactor safety issues (NUREG/CR-2800, Andrews et al. 1983). This report contains results of issue-specific analyses for 23 issues. Each issue was considered within the constraints of available information as of winter 1986, and two staff-weeks of labor. The results are referenced, as one consideration in setting priorities for reactor safety issues, in NUREG-0933, ''A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues.''

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Calderoni; P. Sharpe; M. Shimada

    2009-09-01

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

  8. Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391). Supplement No. 12

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tam, P.S.

    1993-10-01

    Supplement No. 12 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the application filed by the Tennessee Valley Authority for license to operate Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, located in Rhea County, Tennessee, has been prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The purpose of this supplement is to update the Safety Evaluation of (1) additional information submitted by the applicant since Supplement No. 11 was issued, and (2) matters that the staff had under review when Supplement No. 11 was issued.

  9. Microsoft Word - SRP on Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements to DOE Nuclear Facilities_Projects_CNS_Draft Fina

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Final for DOE Peer Review - December 28, 2012 1 Standard Review Plan Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities Strengthening Line Management Oversight and Federal Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities and Projects Draft Final for DOE Peer Review- December 28, 2012 Draft Final for DOE Peer Review - December 28, 2012 2 Table of Contents Objective

  10. Hot Cell Facility (HCF) Safety Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2000-11-01

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

  11. American National Standard: design requirements for light water reactor spent fuel storage facilities at nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1983-10-07

    This standard presents necessary design requirements for facilities at nuclear power plants for the storage and preparation for shipment of spent fuel from light-water moderated and cooled nuclear power stations. It contains requirements for the design of fuel storage pool; fuel storage racks; pool makeup, instrumentation and cleanup systems; pool structure and integrity; radiation shielding; residual heat removal; ventilation, filtration and radiation monitoring systems; shipping cask handling and decontamination; building structure and integrity; and fire protection and communication.

  12. Thermal-Hydraulic Analyses of Heat Transfer Fluid Requirements and Characteristics for Coupling A Hydrogen Production Plant to a High-Temperature Nuclear Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C. B. Davis; C. H. Oh; R. B. Barner; D. F. Wilson

    2005-06-01

    The Department of Energy is investigating the use of high-temperature nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen using either thermochemical cycles or high-temperature electrolysis. Although the hydrogen production processes are in an early stage of development, coupling either of these processes to the hightemperature reactor requires both efficient heat transfer and adequate separation of the facilities to assure that off-normal events in the production facility do not impact the nuclear power plant. An intermediate heat transport loop will be required to separate the operations and safety functions of the nuclear and hydrogen plants. A next generation high-temperature reactor could be envisioned as a single-purpose facility that produces hydrogen or a dual-purpose facility that produces hydrogen and electricity. Early plants, such as the proposed Next Generation Nuclear Plant, may be dual-purpose facilities that demonstrate both hydrogen and efficient electrical generation. Later plants could be single-purpose facilities. At this stage of development, both single- and dual-purpose facilities need to be understood. Seven possible configurations for a system that transfers heat between the nuclear reactor and the hydrogen and/or electrical generation plants were identified. These configurations included both direct and indirect cycles for the production of electricity. Both helium and liquid salts were considered as the working fluid in the intermediate heat transport loop. Methods were developed to perform thermalhydraulic and cycle-efficiency evaluations of the different configurations and coolants. The thermalhydraulic evaluations estimated the sizes of various components in the intermediate heat transport loop for the different configurations. The relative sizes of components provide a relative indication of the capital cost associated with the various configurations. Estimates of the overall cycle efficiency of the various configurations were also determined. The evaluations determined which configurations and coolants are the most promising from thermal-hydraulic and efficiency points of view. These evaluations also determined which configurations and options do not appear to be feasible at the current time.

  13. National Nuclear Security Administration Supplemental Listing of Directives

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration Supplemental Listing of Directives Affecting Nuclear Safety Requirements Last Updated 06/2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Nuclear Security Administration Office of the Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: http://hq.na.gov link to NNSA Policies/Supplemental Directives Updated 6/10/14 This Page Intentionally Blank. Concurrence on Exemptions or Exceptions Page 1 ADDITIONAL DIRECTIVES (LATEST VERSION) REQUIRING CENTRAL TECHNICAL

  14. National Nuclear Security Administration Supplemental Listing of Directives

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Updated 9/15/11 National Nuclear Security Administration Supplemental Listing of Directives Affecting Nuclear Safety Requirements Last Updated 09/15/11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Nuclear Security Administration Office of the Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: http://hq.na.gov link to NNSA Policies/Supplemental Directives This Page Intentionally Blank. Concurrence on Exemptions or Exceptions Page 1 Updated 9/15/11 ADDITIONAL DIRECTIVES (LATEST VERSION) REQUIRING CENTRAL

  15. Guidelines for nuclear-power-plant safety-issue-prioritization information development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrews, W.B.; Gallucci, R.H.V.; Heaberlin, S.W.; Bickford, W.E.; Konzek, G.J.; Strenge, D.L.; Smith, R.I.; Weakley, S.A.

    1983-02-01

    Pacific Northwest Laboratory has developed a methodology, with examples, to calculate - to an approximation serviceable for prioritization purposes - the risk, dose and cost impacts of implementing resolutions to reactor safety issues. This report is an applications guide to issue-specific calculations. A description of the approach, mathematical models, worksheets and step-by-step examples are provided. Analysis using this method is intended to provide comparable results for many issues at a cost of two staff-weeks per issue. Results will be used by the NRC to support decisions related to issue priorities in allocation of resources to complete safety issue resolutions.

  16. Development of an Updated Societal-Risk Goal for Nuclear Power Safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-07-01

    This report briefly summarizes work done in FY 2013 on the subject LDRD. The working hypothesis is that societal disruption should be addressed in a safety goal. This is motivated by the point that the Fukushima disaster resulted in very little public dose, but enormous societal disruption; a goal that addressed societal disruption would fill a perceived gap in the US NRC safety goal structure. This year's work entailed analyzing the consequences of postulated accidents at various reactor sites in the US, specifically with a view to quantifying the number of people relocated and the duration of their relocation, to see whether this makes sense as a measure of societal disruption.

  17. Guidelines for nuclear power plant safety issue prioritization information development. Supplement 5

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Daling, P.M.; Lavender, J.C.

    1996-07-01

    This is the sixth in a series of reports to document the development and use of a methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) to calculate, for prioritization purposes, the risk, dose, and cost impacts of implementing potential resolutions to reactor safety issues (see NUREG/CR-2800, Andrews, et al., 1983). This report contains the results of issue-specific analyses for 34 generic issues. Each issue was considered within the constraints of available information at the time the issues were examined and approximately 2 staff-weeks of labor. The results are referenced as one consideration in NUREG-0933, A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (Emrit, et al., 1983).

  18. 2014 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  19. 2012 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  20. 2013 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  1. 2010 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  2. 2011 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  3. 2015 Annual Workforce Analysis and Staffing Plan Report- Chief of Nuclear Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Managers perform an annual workforce analysis of their organization and develop staffing plans that identify technical capabilities and positions they need to ensure safe operation of defense nuclear facilities.

  4. CRITICALITY SAFETY TRAINING AT FLUOR HANFORD (FH)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TOFFER, H.

    2005-05-02

    The Fluor Hanford Criticality Safety engineers are extensively trained. The objectives and requirements for training are derived from Department of Energy (DOE) and American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society Standards (ANSI/ANS), and are captured in the Hanford Criticality Safety Program manual, HNF-7098. Qualification cards have been established for the general Criticality Safety Engineer (CSE) analyst, CSEs who support specific facilities, and for the facility Criticality Safety Representatives (CSRs). Refresher training and continuous education in the discipline are emphasized. Weekly Brown Bag Sessions keep the criticality safety engineers informed of the latest developments and historic perspectives.

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

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

    2003-08-27

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

  6. Use of InSpector{sup TM} 1 1000 Instrument with LaBr{sub 3} for Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) Applications at the Westinghouse Hematite Decommissioning Project (HDP) - 13132

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pritchard, Megan; Guido, Joe

    2013-07-01

    The Westinghouse Hematite Decommissioning Project (HDP) is a former nuclear fuel cycle facility that is currently undergoing decommissioning. One aspect of the decommissioning scope is remediation of buried nuclear waste in unlined burial pits. The current Nuclear Criticality Safety program relies on application of criticality controls based on radiological setpoints from a 2 x 2 Sodium Iodide (NaI) detector. Because of the nature of the material buried (Low Enriched Uranium (LEU), depleted uranium, thorium, and radium) and the stringent threshold for application of criticality controls based on waste management (0.1 g {sup 235}U/L), a better method for {sup 235}U identification and quantification has been developed. This paper outlines the early stages of a quick, in-field nuclear material assay and {sup 235}U mass estimation process currently being deployed at HDP. Nuclear material initially classified such that NCS controls are necessary can be demonstrated not to require such controls and dispositioned as desired by project operations. Using Monte Carlo techniques and a high resolution Lanthanum Bromide (LaBr) detector with portable Multi-Channel Analyzer (MCA), a bounding {sup 235}U mass is assigned to basic geometries of nuclear material as it is excavated. The deployment of these methods and techniques has saved large amounts of time and money in the nuclear material remediation process. (authors)

  7. Stakeholder Transportation Scorecard: Reviewing Nevada's Recommendations for Enhancing the Safety and Security of Nuclear Waste Shipments - 13518

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dilger, Fred C.; Ballard, James D.; Halstead, Robert J.

    2013-07-01

    As a primary stakeholder in the Yucca Mountain program, the state of Nevada has spent three decades examining and considering national policy regarding spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste transportation. During this time, Nevada has identified 10 issues it believes are critical to ensuring the safety and security of any spent nuclear fuel transportation program, and achieving public acceptance. These recommendations are: 1) Ship the oldest fuel first; 2) Ship mostly by rail; 3) Use dual-purpose (transportable storage) casks; 4) Use dedicated trains for rail shipments; 5) Implement a full-scale cask testing program; 6) Utilize a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the selection of a new rail spur to the proposed repository site; 7) Implement the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB) 'straw man' process for route selection; 8) Implement Section 180C assistance to affected States, Tribes and localities through rulemaking; 9) Adopt safety and security regulatory enhancements proposed states; and 10) Address stakeholder concerns about terrorism and sabotage. This paper describes Nevada's proposals in detail and examines their current status. The paper describes the various forums and methods by which Nevada has presented its arguments and sought to influence national policy. As of 2012, most of Nevada's recommendations have been adopted in one form or another, although not yet implemented. If implemented in a future nuclear waste program, the State of Nevada believes these recommendations would form the basis for a successful national transportation plan for shipments to a geologic repository and/or centralized interim storage facility. (authors)

  8. Nuclear Energy

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

    Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management ...

  9. Notice of Intent to Revise DOE O 452.2D, Nuclear Explosive Safety

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

    2014-06-05

    NNSA is proposing revisions for the suite of directives in order to (1) revise requirements to improve NES processes and (2) align the directives with the requirements of DOE Order 251.1C, Departmental Directives Program.

  10. CRAD, Assessment Criteria and Guidelines for Determining the Adequacy of Software Used in the Safety Analysis and Design of Defense Nuclear Facilities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These guidelines and criteria provide a consistent overall framework for assessment of the processes that are currently in place to ensure that the software being used in the safety analysis and design of the SSCs in defense nuclear facilities is adequate. These reviews will be conducted only on software that is currently in use, not on software that was previously used as part of a safety analysis and design process.

  11. Sandia Energy » Nuclear Energy

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

    afety-expert-elected-to-national-academy-of-engineeringfeed 0 Sandia Teaches Nuclear Safety Course http:energy.sandia.govsandia-teaches-nuclear-safety-course http:...

  12. Safety - 88-Inch Cyclotron

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

    Safety The Nuclear Sciences Division (NSD) is committed to providing a safe workplace for its employees, contractors, and guests and conducting its research and operations in a manner that protects the environment. In conducting its operations and research, NSD meets or exceeds Berkeley Lab, University of California, and U.S. Department of Energy policies and requirements. To report a life-threatening accident, call x7911 For all other accidents or near-hits, call x6999 For Emergency Status

  13. Safety research programs sponsored by Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Quarterly progress report, October 1-December 31, 1983. Volume 3, No. 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Weiss, A J

    1984-05-01

    The projects reported are the following: High Temperature Reactor Research, SSC Development, Validation and Application, CRBR Balance of Plant Modeling, Thermal-Hydraulic Reactor Safety Experiments, Development of Plant Analyzer, Code Assessment and Application (Transient and LOCA Analyses), Thermal Reactor Code Development (RAMONA-3B), Calculational Quality Assurance in Support of PTS; Stress Corrosion Cracking of PWR Steam Generator Tubing, Bolting Failure Analysis, Probability Based Load Combinations for Design of Category I Structures, Mechanical Piping Benchmark Problems, Identification of Age-Related Failure Modes; Analysis of Human Error Data for Nuclear Power Plant Safety-Related Events, Human Factors in Nuclear Power Plant Safeguards, Emergency Action Levels, and Protective Action Decision Making.

  14. 2011 Annual Criticality Safety Program Performance Summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrea Hoffman

    2011-12-01

    The 2011 review of the INL Criticality Safety Program has determined that the program is robust and effective. The review was prepared for, and fulfills Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) item H.20, 'Annual Criticality Safety Program performance summary that includes the status of assessments, issues, corrective actions, infractions, requirements management, training, and programmatic support.' This performance summary addresses the status of these important elements of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Assessments - Assessments in 2011 were planned and scheduled. The scheduled assessments included a Criticality Safety Program Effectiveness Review, Criticality Control Area Inspections, a Protection of Controlled Unclassified Information Inspection, an Assessment of Criticality Safety SQA, and this management assessment of the Criticality Safety Program. All of the assessments were completed with the exception of the 'Effectiveness Review' for SSPSF, which was delayed due to emerging work. Although minor issues were identified in the assessments, no issues or combination of issues indicated that the INL Criticality Safety Program was ineffective. The identification of issues demonstrates the importance of an assessment program to the overall health and effectiveness of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Issues and Corrective Actions - There are relatively few criticality safety related issues in the Laboratory ICAMS system. Most were identified by Criticality Safety Program assessments. No issues indicate ineffectiveness in the INL Criticality Safety Program. All of the issues are being worked and there are no imminent criticality concerns. Infractions - There was one criticality safety related violation in 2011. On January 18, 2011, it was discovered that a fuel plate bundle in the Nuclear Materials Inspection and Storage (NMIS) facility exceeded the fissionable mass limit, resulting in a technical safety requirement (TSR) violation. The TSR limits fuel plate bundles to 1085 grams U-235, which is the maximum loading of an ATR fuel element. The overloaded fuel plate bundle contained 1097 grams U-235 and was assembled under an 1100 gram U-235 limit in 1982. In 2003, the limit was reduced to 1085 grams citing a new criticality safety evaluation for ATR fuel elements. The fuel plate bundle inventories were not checked for compliance prior to implementing the reduced limit. A subsequent review of the NMIS inventory did not identify further violations. Requirements Management - The INL Criticality Safety program is organized and well documented. The source requirements for the INL Criticality Safety Program are from 10 CFR 830.204, DOE Order 420.1B, Chapter III, 'Nuclear Criticality Safety,' ANSI/ANS 8-series Industry Standards, and DOE Standards. These source requirements are documented in LRD-18001, 'INL Criticality Safety Program Requirements Manual.' The majority of the criticality safety source requirements are contained in DOE Order 420.1B because it invokes all of the ANSI/ANS 8-Series Standards. DOE Order 420.1B also invokes several DOE Standards, including DOE-STD-3007, 'Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities.' DOE Order 420.1B contains requirements for DOE 'Heads of Field Elements' to approve the criticality safety program and specific elements of the program, namely, the qualification of criticality staff and the method for preparing criticality safety evaluations. This was accomplished by the approval of SAR-400, 'INL Standardized Nuclear Safety Basis Manual,' Chapter 6, 'Prevention of Inadvertent Criticality.' Chapter 6 of SAR-400 contains sufficient detail and/or reference to the specific DOE and contractor documents that adequately describe the INL Criticality Safety Program per the elements specified in DOE Order 420.1B. The Safety Evaluation Report for SAR-400 specifically recognizes that the approval of SAR-400 approves the INL Criticality Safety Program. No new source requirements were released in 2011. A revision to LRD-18001 is

  15. Verification of voltage/frequency requirement for emergency diesel generator in nuclear power plant using dynamic modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hur, Jin-Suk; Roh, Myung- Sub

    2014-02-12

    One major cause of the plant shutdown is the loss of electrical power. The study is to comprehend the coping action against station blackout including emergency diesel generator, sequential loading of safety system and to ensure that the emergency diesel generator should meet requirements, especially voltage and frequency criteria using modeling tool. This paper also considered the change of the sequencing time and load capacity only for finding electrical design margin. However, the revision of load list must be verified with safety analysis. From this study, it is discovered that new load calculation is a key factor in EDG localization and in-house capability increase.

  16. HANFORD SAFETY ANALYSIS & RISK ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK (SARAH)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    EVANS, C B

    2004-12-21

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

  17. Setting clear expectations for safety basis development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MORENO, M.R.

    2003-05-03

    DOE-RL has set clear expectations for a cost-effective approach for achieving compliance with the Nuclear Safety Management requirements (10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Rule) which will ensure long-term benefit to Hanford. To facilitate implementation of these expectations, tools were developed to streamline and standardize safety analysis and safety document development resulting in a shorter and more predictable DOE approval cycle. A Hanford Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment Handbook (SARAH) was issued to standardized methodologies for development of safety analyses. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (RADIDOSE) was issued for the evaluation of radiological consequences for accident scenarios often postulated for Hanford. A standard Site Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) detailing the safety management programs was issued for use as a means of compliance with a majority of 3009 Standard chapters. An in-process review was developed between DOE and the Contractor to facilitate DOE approval and provide early course correction. As a result of setting expectations and providing safety analysis tools, the four Hanford Site waste management nuclear facilities were able to integrate into one Master Waste Management Documented Safety Analysis (WM-DSA).

  18. Health and Safety Considerations Associated with Sodium-Cooled Experimental Nuclear Fuel Dismantlement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carvo, Alan E.

    2015-04-01

    Between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s Sandia National Laboratory constructed eleven experimental assemblies to simulate debris beds formed in a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor. All but one of the assemblies were irradiated. The experimental assemblies were transferred to the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in 2007 and 2008 for storage, dismantlement, recovery of the uranium for reuse in the nuclear fuel cycle, and disposal of unneeded materials. This paper addresses the effort to dismantle the assemblies down to the primary containment vessel and repackage them for temporary storage until such time as equipment necessary for sodium separation is in place.

  19. High Level Requirements for the Nuclear Energy -- Knowledge Base for Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NE-KAMS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rich Johnson; Hyung Lee; Kimberlyn C. Mousseau

    2011-09-01

    The US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), has been tasked with the important mission of ensuring that nuclear energy remains a compelling and viable energy source in the U.S. The motivations behind this mission include cost-effectively meeting the expected increases in the power needs of the country, reducing carbon emissions and reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. In the near term, to ensure that nuclear power remains a key element of U.S. energy strategy and portfolio, the DOE-NE will be working with the nuclear industry to support safe and efficient operations of existing nuclear power plants. In the long term, to meet the increasing energy needs of the U.S., the DOE-NE will be investing in research and development (R&D) and working in concert with the nuclear industry to build and deploy new, safer and more efficient nuclear power plants. The safe and efficient operations of existing nuclear power plants and designing, licensing and deploying new reactor designs, however, will require focused R&D programs as well as the extensive use and leveraging of advanced modeling and simulation (M&S). M&S will play a key role in ensuring safe and efficient operations of existing and new nuclear reactors. The DOE-NE has been actively developing and promoting the use of advanced M&S in reactor design and analysis through its R&D programs, e.g., the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) and Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) programs. Also, nuclear reactor vendors are already using CFD and CSM, for design, analysis, and licensing. However, these M&S tools cannot be used with confidence for nuclear reactor applications unless accompanied and supported by verification and validation (V&V) and uncertainty quantification (UQ) processes and procedures which provide quantitative measures of uncertainty for specific applications. The Nuclear Energy Knowledge base for Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NE-KAMS) is being developed at the Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Bettis Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory, Utah State University and others with the objective of establishing a comprehensive and web-accessible knowledge base that will provide technical services and resources for V&V and UQ of M&S in nuclear energy sciences and engineering. The knowledge base will serve as an important resource for technical exchange and collaboration that will enable credible and reliable computational models and simulations for application to nuclear reactor design, analysis and licensing. NE-KAMS will serve as a valuable resource for the nuclear industry, academia, the national laboratories, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the public and will help ensure the safe, economical and reliable operation of existing and future nuclear reactors. From its inception, NE-KAMS will directly support nuclear energy research, development and demonstration programs within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including the CASL, NEAMS, Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS), Small Modular Reactors (SMR), and Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant (NGNP) programs. These programs all involve M&S of nuclear reactor systems, components and processes, and it is envisioned that NE-KAMS will help to coordinate and facilitate collaboration and sharing of resources and expertise for V&V and UQ across these programs.

  20. Requirements

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

    Certificate in Renewable Energy and the Environment Requirements Earn this certificate by completing a total of 11 points from the following categories: Courses (minimum 4 points) For more information about courses, contact Erin Plut (eplut@wustl.edu) 100 - 200 Level Course Earn 1 point Receive a grade of B- or better in a 2.00 or 3.00 unit course 300 - 400 Level Course Earn 2 points Receive a grade of C or better in a 2.00 or more unit course Independent Study Earn 3 points Students may arrange

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

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

    Department of Energy High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight - November 2012 Protocol, High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight - November 2012 November 2012 Protocol for High Hazard Nuclear Facility Project Oversight This protocol establishes requirements and responsibilities for managing and conducting independent oversight of Department of Energy high-hazard nuclear facility projects by the Office of Health, Safety and Security's Office of Safety and Emergency Management

  2. Code of Federal Regulations Nuclear Activities | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Activities Code of Federal Regulations Nuclear Activities April 24,2010 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. 10 C.F.R. 820, Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, sets forth the procedures to implement the provisions of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 (PAAA), which subjects DOE

  3. LWR Sustainability: Assessment of Aging of Nuclear Power Plant Safety Related Concrete Strutures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Graves III, Herman; Naus, Dan J

    2013-01-01

    Current regulatory testing and inspection requirements are reviewed and a summary of degradation experience is presented. Techniques commonly used to inspect NPP concrete structures to assess and quantify age-related degradation are summarized. An approach for conduct of condition assessments of structures in NPPs is presented. Criteria, based primarily on visual indications, are provided for use in classification and assessment of concrete degradation. Materials and techniques for repair of degraded structures are generally discussed.

  4. Analysis of Flow in Pilot Operated Safety and Relief Valve of Nuclear Reactor Coolant System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kwon, Soon-Bum; Lee, Dong-Won; Kim, In-Goo; Ahn, Hyung-Joon; Kim, Hho-Jung

    2004-07-01

    When the POSRV equipped in a nuclear power plant opens in instant by a failure in coolant system of PWR, a moving shock wave generates, and propagates downstream of the valve, inducing a complicated unsteadiness. The moving shock wave may exert severe load to the structure. In this connection, a method of gradual opening of the valve is used to reduce the load acting on the wall at the downstream of the POSRV. In the present study, experiments and calculations are performed to investigate the detail unsteady flow at the various pipe units and the effect of valve opening time on the flow downstream of the valve. In calculation by using of air as working fluid, 2-dimensional, unsteady compressible Navier-Stokes equations are solved by finite volume method. It was found that when the incident shock wave passes through the pipe unit, it may experience diffraction, reflection and interaction with a vortex. Furthermore, the geometry of the pipe unit affects the reflection type of shock wave and changes the load acting on the wall of pipe unit. It was also turned out that the maximum force acting on the wall of the pipe unit becomes in order of T-junction, 108 deg. elbow and branch in magnitude, respectively. And, the results obtained that show that the rapid pressure rise due to the moving shock wave by instant POSRV valve opening is attenuated by employing the gradual opening. (authors)

  5. Advanced reactor safety program. Stakeholder interaction and feedback

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Szilard, Ronaldo H.; Smith, Curtis L.

    2014-08-01

    In the Spring of 2013, we began discussions with our industry stakeholders on how to upgrade our safety analysis capabilities. The focus of these improvements would primarily be on advanced safety analysis capabilities that could help the nuclear industry analyze, understand, and better predict complex safety problems. The current environment in the DOE complex is such that recent successes in high performance computer modeling could lead the nuclear industry to benefit from these advances, as long as an effort to translate these advances into realistic applications is made. Upgrading the nuclear industry modeling analysis capabilities is a significant effort that would require substantial participation and coordination from all industry segments: research, engineering, vendors, and operations. We focus here on interactions with industry stakeholders to develop sound advanced safety analysis applications propositions that could have a positive impact on industry long term operation, hence advancing the state of nuclear safety.

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

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

    Safety and Security Report to the Secretary on the Status and Effectiveness of DOE Efforts to Learn from Internal and External Operating Experience in Accordance with Commitment #20 of the DOE Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-1 February 2011 Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security HSS Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction

  7. A safety and regulatory assessment of generic BWR and PWR permanently shutdown nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Travis, R.J.; Davis, R.E.; Grove, E.J.; Azarm, M.A.

    1997-08-01

    The long-term availability of less expensive power and the increasing plant modification and maintenance costs have caused some utilities to re-examine the economics of nuclear power. As a result, several utilities have opted to permanently shutdown their plants. Each licensee of these permanently shutdown (PSD) plants has submitted plant-specific exemption requests for those regulations that they believe are no longer applicable to their facility. This report presents a regulatory assessment for generic BWR and PWR plants that have permanently ceased operation in support of NRC rulemaking activities in this area. After the reactor vessel is defueled, the traditional accident sequences that dominate the operating plant risk are no longer applicable. The remaining source of public risk is associated with the accidents that involve the spent fuel. Previous studies have indicated that complete spent fuel pool drainage is an accident of potential concern. Certain combinations of spent fuel storage configurations and decay times, could cause freshly discharged fuel assemblies to self heat to a temperature where the self sustained oxidation of the zircaloy fuel cladding may cause cladding failure. This study has defined four spent fuel configurations which encompass all of the anticipated spent fuel characteristics and storage modes following permanent shutdown. A representative accident sequence was chosen for each configuration. Consequence analyses were performed using these sequences to estimate onsite and boundary doses, population doses and economic costs. A list of candidate regulations was identified from a screening of 10 CFR Parts 0 to 199. The continued applicability of each regulation was assessed within the context of each spent fuel storage configuration and the results of the consequence analyses.

  8. Proceedings of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission fifteenth water reactor safety information meeting: Volume 6, Decontamination and decommissioning, accident management, TMI-2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Weiss, A. J.

    1988-02-01

    This six-volume report contains 140 papers out of the 164 that were presented at the Fifteenth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting held at the National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland, during the week of October 26-29, 1987. The papers are printed in the order of their presentation in each session and describe progress and results of programs in nuclear safety research conducted in this country and abroad. This report, Volume 6, discusses decontamination and decommissioning, accident management, and the Three Mile Island-2 reactor accident. Thirteen reports have been cataloged separately.

  9. Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for 30, 60, and 90%

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

    Design of DOE Nuclear Facilities | Department of Energy 30, 60, and 90% Design of DOE Nuclear Facilities Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for 30, 60, and 90% Design of DOE Nuclear Facilities This Standard Review Plan (SRP), Application of Engineering and Technical Requirements for 30, 60 and 90% Design of DOE Nuclear Facilities, was developed by the Office of Chief of Nuclear Safety (CNS), Office of the Environmental Management. The SRP is designed to help strengthen the

  10. Strategic Safety Goals | Department of Energy

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

    Strategic Safety Goals Strategic Safety Goals July 19, 2012 Strategic Safety Goals, Safety Performance for 2nd Quarter 2012 - Events DOE Strives to Avoid PDF icon Strategic Safety Goals More Documents & Publications Strategic Safety Goals Occupational Safety Performance Trends Development of the Nuclear Safety Information Dashboard - September 2012

  11. Safety Software Quality Assurance Functional Area Qualification Standard

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

    2011-02-10

    This SSQA FAQS identifies the minimum technical competency requirements for DOE personnel who have a responsibility for safety software. Although there may be other competency requirements associated with the positions held by DOE personnel, this technical FAQS is limited to identifying the specific technical competencies required throughout all defense nuclear facilities

  12. DOE-STD-1027-92; Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques For Compliance With DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    7-92 December 1992 CHANGE NOTICE NO.1 September 1997 DOE STANDARD HAZARD CATEGORIZATION AND ACCIDENT ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DOE ORDER 5480.23, NUCLEAR SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS 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,

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    7-93 November 1993 CHANGE NOTICE NO. 1 September 1998 DOE STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING CRITICALITY SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NON-REACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62,

  14. Health, Safety, & Quality Assurance | Department of Energy

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

    Health, Safety, & Quality Assurance Health, Safety, & Quality Assurance Nuclear Safety and Worker Safety and Health training Nuclear Safety and Worker Safety and Health training PPPO's Safety and Health, Nuclear Safety, and Quality Assurance programs collectively ensure protection of public and worker health and safety and the environment. This is accomplished by empowering and holding accountable managers, employees and contractors to prioritize health, safety and environmental

  15. Transportation Safety Excellence in Operations Through Improved Transportation Safety Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dr. Michael A. Lehto; MAL

    2007-05-01

    A recent accomplishment of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) Nuclear Safety analysis group was to obtain DOE-ID approval for the inter-facility transfer of greater-than-Hazard-Category-3 quantity radioactive/fissionable waste in Department of Transportation (DOT) Type A drums at MFC. This accomplishment supported excellence in operations through safety analysis by better integrating nuclear safety requirements with waste requirements in the Transportation Safety Document (TSD); reducing container and transport costs; and making facility operations more efficient. The MFC TSD governs and controls the inter-facility transfer of greater-than-Hazard-Category-3 radioactive and/or fissionable materials in non-DOT approved containers. Previously, the TSD did not include the capability to transfer payloads of greater-than-Hazard-Category-3 radioactive and/or fissionable materials using DOT Type A drums. Previous practice was to package the waste materials to less-than-Hazard-Category-3 quantities when loading DOT Type A drums for transfer out of facilities to reduce facility waste accumulations. This practice allowed operations to proceed, but resulted in drums being loaded to less than the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste acceptance criteria (WAC) waste limits, which was not cost effective or operations friendly. An improved and revised safety analysis was used to gain DOE-ID approval for adding this container configuration to the MFC TSD safety basis. In the process of obtaining approval of the revised safety basis, safety analysis practices were used effectively to directly support excellence in operations. Several factors contributed to the success of MFC’s effort to obtain approval for the use of DOT Type A drums, including two practices that could help in future safety basis changes at other facilities. 1) The process of incorporating the DOT Type A drums into the TSD at MFC helped to better integrate nuclear safety requirements with waste requirements. MFC’s efforts illustrate that utilizing the requirements of other disciplines, beyond nuclear safety, can provide an efficient process. Analyzing current processes to find better ways of meeting the requirements of multiple disciplines within a safety basis can lead to a more cost-effective, streamlined process. 2) Incorporating the DOT Type A drums into the MFC TSD was efficient because safety analysts utilized a transportation plan that provided analysis that could also be used for the change to the TSD addendum. In addition, because the plan they used had already been approved and was in use by the Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) at the INL, justification for the change to the TSD was more compelling. MFC safety analysts proved that streamlining a process can be made more feasible by drawing from analysis that has already been completed.

  16. Risk Informed Assessment of Regulatory and Design Requirements for Future Nuclear Power Plants - Final Technical Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ritterbusch, Stanley; Golay, Michael; Duran, Felicia; Galyean, William; Gupta, Abhinav; Dimitrijevic, Vesna; Malsch, Marty

    2003-01-29

    OAK B188 Summary of methods proposed for risk informing the design and regulation of future nuclear power plants. All elements of the historical design and regulation process are preserved, but the methods proposed for new plants use probabilistic risk assessment methods as the primary decision making tool.

  17. Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Software Verification and Validation (V&V) Plan Requirements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Software Verification and Validation (V&V) Plan is to define what the NEAMS program expects in terms of V&V for the computational models that are developed under NEAMS.

  18. Order Module--DOE O 452.1D, NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE AND WEAPON SURETY PROGRAM, DOE O 452.2D, NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE SAFETY

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    "To prevent accidents and inadvertent or unauthorized use of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear explosives. In conjunction with the Department of Defense (DoD), to protect the public health and...

  19. Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting

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

    2003-08-19

    To ensure timely collection, reporting, analysis, and dissemination of information on environment, safety, and health issues as required by law or regulations or as needed to ensure that the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are kept fully informed on a timely basis about events that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or the workers, the environment, the intended purpose of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 210.1, DOE O 231.1, and DOE O 232.1A. Canceled by DOE O 232.2.

  20. Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roald Wigeland; Temitope Taiwo; Michael Todosow; William Halsey; Jess Gehin

    2010-06-01

    A systematic evaluation has been conducted of the potential for advanced nuclear fuel cycle strategies and options to address the issues ascribed to the use of nuclear power. Issues included nuclear waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security, economics and affordability, and sustainability. The two basic strategies, once-through and recycle, and the range of possibilities within each strategy, are considered for all aspects of the fuel cycle including options for nuclear material irradiation, separations if needed, and disposal. Options range from incremental changes to today’s implementation to revolutionary concepts that would require the development of advanced nuclear technologies.

  1. Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Waste IPSC) verification and validation plan. version 1.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartlett, Roscoe Ainsworth; Arguello, Jose Guadalupe, Jr.; Urbina, Angel; Bouchard, Julie F.; Edwards, Harold Carter; Freeze, Geoffrey A.; Knupp, Patrick Michael; Wang, Yifeng; Schultz, Peter Andrew; Howard, Robert (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN); McCornack, Marjorie Turner

    2011-01-01

    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. To meet this objective, NEAMS Waste IPSC M&S capabilities will be applied to challenging spatial domains, temporal domains, multiphysics couplings, and multiscale couplings. A strategic verification and validation (V&V) goal is to establish evidence-based metrics for the level of confidence in M&S codes and capabilities. Because it is economically impractical to apply the maximum V&V rigor to each and every M&S capability, M&S capabilities will be ranked for their impact on the performance assessments of various components of the repository systems. Those M&S capabilities with greater impact will require a greater level of confidence and a correspondingly greater investment in V&V. This report includes five major components: (1) a background summary of the NEAMS Waste IPSC to emphasize M&S challenges; (2) the conceptual foundation for verification, validation, and confidence assessment of NEAMS Waste IPSC M&S capabilities; (3) specifications for the planned verification, validation, and confidence-assessment practices; (4) specifications for the planned evidence information management system; and (5) a path forward for the incremental implementation of this V&V plan.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2007-06-07

    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.

  3. Christopher D. Fischahs Of Los Alamos Field Office Presented 2013 Safety

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

    System Oversight Annual Award | Department of Energy Christopher D. Fischahs Of Los Alamos Field Office Presented 2013 Safety System Oversight Annual Award About 70 Department of Energy (DOE) federal employees serve as Safety System Oversight (SSO) personnel, providing federal oversight of contractor management of safety systems at DOE nuclear facilities. SSO personnel ensure that the engineered safety systems perform as required to protect the public, workers, and the environment. Each year

  4. Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports

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

    1992-04-30

    Cancels DOE O 5481.1B; paragraphs 7b(3), 7e(3) & 8c of DOE O 5480.6; and 51, 7b(3), 7b(4), 7e(3), 8a & 8h of DOE O 5480.5.

  5. Safety Advisor (Nuclear Engineer)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    WHO MAY APPLY: Current or former (competitive and excepted service) Federal civilian employees; Veterans discharged under honorable conditions (this means an honorable or general discharge), AND...

  6. Safety Advisor (Nuclear Engineer)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    **This is an Excepted Service position. This appointment will not confer Competitive Service career-conditional or career tenure status. This means that if you are selected, you would have to...

  7. NEW - DOE O 452.1E, 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.

  8. Integrated Safety Management Safety Culture Resources | Department of

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy Safety Culture Resources Integrated Safety Management Safety Culture Resources A collection of resources available in implementing ISM safety culture activities Safety from the Operator's Perspective: We are All in This Together (2005) Transcript, Keeping the Edge: Enhancing Performance Through Managing Culture (2003), Edgar H. Schein, Ph.D. Proceedings of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Safety Culture Workshop (2003) Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations: Guidance for

  9. Advanced Nuclear Technology: Advanced Light Water Reactors Utility Requirements Document Small Modular Reactors Inclusion Summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Loflin, Leonard; McRimmon, Beth

    2014-12-18

    This report summarizes a project by EPRI to include requirements for small modular light water reactors (smLWR) into the EPRI Utility Requirements Document (URD) for Advanced Light Water Reactors. The project was jointly funded by EPRI and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The report covers the scope and content of the URD, the process used to revise the URD to include smLWR requirements, a summary of the major changes to the URD to include smLWR, and how to use the URD as revised to achieve value on new plant projects.

  10. Nuclear Energy Systems Laboratory (NESL) / Transient Nuclear...

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

    Transient Nuclear Fuels Testing - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations ... Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & ...

  11. Requirements for Computer Based-Procedures for Nuclear Power Plant Field Operators Results from a Qualitative Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Katya Le Blanc; Johanna Oxstrand

    2012-05-01

    Although computer-based procedures (CBPs) have been investigated as a way to enhance operator performance on procedural tasks in the nuclear industry for almost thirty years, they are not currently widely deployed at United States utilities. One of the barriers to the wide scale deployment of CBPs is the lack of operational experience with CBPs that could serve as a sound basis for justifying the use of CBPs for nuclear utilities. Utilities are hesitant to adopt CBPs because of concern over potential costs of implementation, and concern over regulatory approval. Regulators require a sound technical basis for the use of any procedure at the utilities; without operating experience to support the use CBPs, it is difficult to establish such a technical basis. In an effort to begin the process of developing a technical basis for CBPs, researchers at Idaho National Laboratory are partnering with industry to explore CBPs with the objective of defining requirements for CBPs and developing an industry-wide vision and path forward for the use of CBPs. This paper describes the results from a qualitative study aimed at defining requirements for CBPs to be used by field operators and maintenance technicians.

  12. nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2%2A en U.S-, Japan Exchange Best Practices on Nuclear Emergency Response http:nnsa.energy.govmediaroompressreleasesu.s-japan-exchange-best-practices-nuclear-emergency-respon...

  13. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

  14. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

  15. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

  16. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

  17. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

  18. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

  19. Complete Safety Training

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

    Complete Safety Training Print Facility Safety Training Required for ALL Users Users must register with the ALS to obtain an LBNL ID number before they can complete safety training courses. Once registered, choose the non-LDAP login and enter your LBNL ID number to begin. ALS 1001: Safety at the ALS EHS 0470: General Employee Radiation Training (GERT) Special Training Required for Some Users Laser Safety Users working with a Class 3B/4 laser EHS 0302 Macromolecular Crystallography Users

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

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

    1998-05-01

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

  1. Margin of Safety Definition and Examples Used in Safety Basis Documents and the USQ Process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beaulieu, R. A.

    2013-10-03

    The Nuclear Safety Management final rule, 10 CFR 830, provides an undefined term, margin of safety (MOS). Safe harbors listed in 10 CFR 830, Table 2, such as DOE?STD?3009 use but do not define the term. This lack of definition has created the need for the definition. This paper provides a definition of MOS and documents examples of MOS as applied in a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approved safety basis for an existing nuclear facility. If we understand what MOS looks like regarding Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) parameters, then it helps us compare against other parameters that do not involve a MOS. This paper also documents parameters that are not MOS. These criteria could be used to determine if an MOS exists in safety basis documents. This paper helps DOE, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its contractors responsible for the safety basis improve safety basis documents and the unreviewed safety question (USQ) process with respect to MOS.

  2. Code of Federal Regulations Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities Part II

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing procedural rules to be used in applying its substantive regulations and orders relating to nuclear safety. These procedural rules are intended to be an essential part of the framework through which DOE deals with its contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers to ensure its nuclear facilities are operated in a manner that protects public and worker safety and the environment. In particular, this part sets forth the procedures to implement the provisions of the Price- Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 (PAAA) which subjects DOE contractors to potential civil and criminal penalties for violations of DOE rules, regulations and orders relating to nuclear safety (DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements).

  3. Testing, licensing, and code requirements for seismic isolation systems (for nuclear power plants)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seidensticker, R.W.

    1987-01-01

    The use of seismic isolation as an earthquake hazard mitigation strategy for nuclear reactor power plants is rapidly receiving interest throughout the world. Seismic isolation has already been used on at least two French PWR plants, was to have been used for plants to be built in Iran, and is under serious consideration for advanced LMR plants (in the US, UK, France, and Japan). In addition, there is a growing use of seismic isolation throughout the world for other critical facilities such as hospitals, emergency facilities, buildings with very high-cost equipment (e.g., computers) and as a strategy to reduce loss of life and expensive equipment in earthquakes. Such a design approach is in complete contrast to the conventional seismic design strategy in which the structure and components are provided with sufficient strength and ductility to resist the earthquake forces and to prevent structural collapses or failure. The use of seismic isolation for nuclear plants can, therefore, be expected to be a significant licensing issue. For isolation, the licensing process must shift away in large measure from the superstructure and concentrate on the behavior of the seismic isolation system. This paper is not intended to promote the advantages of seismic isolation system, but to explore in some detail those technical issues which must be satisfactorily addressed to achieve full licensability of the use of seismic isolation as a viable, attractive and economical alternative to current traditional design approaches. Special problems and topics associated with testing and codes and standards development are addressed. A positive program for approach or strategy to secure licensing is presented.

  4. CSB Investigations and Safety Culture | Department of Energy

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

    from occurring again. Analysis of Safety Systems CSB Investigations and Safety Culture More Documents & Publications Nuclear Safety Workshop Summary Operating Experience...

  5. Senior Technical Safety Manager Qualification Program Self-Assessment...

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

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

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  7. Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC) : gap analysis for high fidelity and performance assessment code development.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, Joon H.; Siegel, Malcolm Dean; Arguello, Jose Guadalupe, Jr.; Webb, Stephen Walter; Dewers, Thomas A.; Mariner, Paul E.; Edwards, Harold Carter; Fuller, Timothy J.; Freeze, Geoffrey A.; Jove-Colon, Carlos F.; Wang, Yifeng

    2011-03-01

    This report describes a gap analysis performed in the process of developing the Waste Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (IPSC) in support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Campaign. The goal of the Waste IPSC is to develop an integrated suite of computational 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 rigorous verification, validation, and software quality requirements. The gap analyses documented in this report were are performed during an initial gap analysis to identify candidate codes and tools to support the development and integration of the Waste IPSC, and during follow-on activities that delved into more detailed assessments of the various codes that were acquired, studied, and tested. The current Waste IPSC strategy is to acquire and integrate the necessary Waste IPSC capabilities wherever feasible, and develop only those capabilities that cannot be acquired or suitably integrated, verified, or validated. The gap analysis indicates that significant capabilities may already exist in the existing THC codes although there is no single code able to fully account for all physical and chemical processes involved in a waste disposal system. Large gaps exist in modeling chemical processes and their couplings with other processes. The coupling of chemical processes with flow transport and mechanical deformation remains challenging. The data for extreme environments (e.g., for elevated temperature and high ionic strength media) that are needed for repository modeling are severely lacking. In addition, most of existing reactive transport codes were developed for non-radioactive contaminants, and they need to be adapted to account for radionuclide decay and in-growth. The accessibility to the source codes is generally limited. Because the problems of interest for the Waste IPSC are likely to result in relatively large computational models, a compact memory-usage footprint and a fast/robust solution procedure will be needed. A robust massively parallel processing (MPP) capability will also be required to provide reasonable turnaround times on the analyses that will be performed with the code. A performance assessment (PA) calculation for a waste disposal system generally requires a large number (hundreds to thousands) of model simulations to quantify the effect of model parameter uncertainties on the predicted repository performance. A set of codes for a PA calculation must be sufficiently robust and fast in terms of code execution. A PA system as a whole must be able to provide multiple alternative models for a specific set of physical/chemical processes, so that the users can choose various levels of modeling complexity based on their modeling needs. This requires PA codes, preferably, to be highly modularized. Most of the existing codes have difficulties meeting these requirements. Based on the gap analysis results, we have made the following recommendations for the code selection and code development for the NEAMS waste IPSC: (1) build fully coupled high-fidelity THCMBR codes using the existing SIERRA codes (e.g., ARIA and ADAGIO) and platform, (2) use DAKOTA to build an enhanced performance assessment system (EPAS), and build a modular code architecture and key code modules for performance assessments. The key chemical calculation modules will be built by expanding the existing CANTERA capabilities as well as by extracting useful components from other existing codes.

  8. USING CFD TO ANALYZE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS BEHAVIOR: DEFINING THE VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard Schultz

    2012-09-01

    A recommended protocol to formulate numeric tool specifications and validation needs in concert with practices accepted by regulatory agencies for advanced reactors is described. The protocol is based on the plant type and perceived transient and accident envelopes that translates to boundary conditions for a process that gives the: (a) key phenomena and figures-of-merit which must be analyzed to ensure that the advanced plant can be licensed, (b) specification of the numeric tool capabilities necessary to perform the required analyses—including bounding calculational uncertainties, and (c) specification of the validation matrices and experiments--including the desired validation data. The result of applying the process enables a complete program to be defined, including costs, for creating and benchmarking transient and accident analysis methods for advanced reactors. By following a process that is in concert with regulatory agency licensing requirements from the start to finish, based on historical acceptance of past licensing submittals, the methods derived and validated have a high probability of regulatory agency acceptance.

  9. Nuclear Energy Workshops

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

    Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management ...

  10. Nuclear Energy Systems Lab

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

    Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management ...

  11. Integrated Safety Management

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

    Safety Management BEHAVIOR (SAFETY CULTURE) - principles of behavior (values) - align motivations PLAN WORK define project scope define facility functional requirements define and analyze hazards mitigate hazards develop & implement controls authorize work assess & improve work execution reaction to changed conditions LEVELS - INSTITUTIONAL - site wide programs - DOE directives & requirements, cultural values - DOE/contractor interface - FACILITY OR PROJECT - Documented Safety

  12. Environment, Safety and Health Reporting

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

    2012-01-01

    To ensure timely collection, reporting, analysis, and dissemination of information on environment, safety, and health issues as required by law or regulations or as needed to ensure that the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration are kept fully informed on a timely basis about events that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or the workers, the environment, the intended purpose of DOE facilities, or the credibility of the Department. Cancels DOE O 210.1, DOE O 231.1, DOE O 232.1A. Canceled by DOE O 231.1B. DOE O 231.1B cancels all portions pertaining to environment, safety, and health reporting. Occurrence reporting and processing of operations information provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2012.

  13. CRITICALITY SAFETY CONTROLS AND THE SAFETY BASIS AT PFP

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kessler, S

    2009-04-21

    With the implementation of DOE Order 420.1B, Facility Safety, and DOE-STD-3007-2007, 'Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities', a new requirement was imposed that all criticality safety controls be evaluated for inclusion in the facility Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and that the evaluation process be documented in the site Criticality Safety Program Description Document (CSPDD). At the Hanford site in Washington State the CSPDD, HNF-31695, 'General Description of the FH Criticality Safety Program', requires each facility develop a linking document called a Criticality Control Review (CCR) to document performance of these evaluations. Chapter 5, Appendix 5B of HNF-7098, Criticality Safety Program, provided an example of a format for a CCR that could be used in lieu of each facility developing its own CCR. Since the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) is presently undergoing Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D), new procedures are being developed for cleanout of equipment and systems that have not been operated in years. Existing Criticality Safety Evaluations (CSE) are revised, or new ones written, to develop the controls required to support D&D activities. Other Hanford facilities, including PFP, had difficulty using the basic CCR out of HNF-7098 when first implemented. Interpretation of the new guidelines indicated that many of the controls needed to be elevated to TSR level controls. Criterion 2 of the standard, requiring that the consequence of a criticality be examined for establishing the classification of a control, was not addressed. Upon in-depth review by PFP Criticality Safety staff, it was not clear that the programmatic interpretation of criterion 8C could be applied at PFP. Therefore, the PFP Criticality Safety staff decided to write their own CCR. The PFP CCR provides additional guidance for the evaluation team to use by clarifying the evaluation criteria in DOE-STD-3007-2007. In reviewing documents used in classifying controls for Nuclear Safety, it was noted that DOE-HDBK-1188, 'Glossary of Environment, Health, and Safety Terms', defines an Administrative Control (AC) in terms that are different than typically used in Criticality Safety. As part of this CCR, a new term, Criticality Administrative Control (CAC) was defined to clarify the difference between an AC used for criticality safety and an AC used for nuclear safety. In Nuclear Safety terms, an AC is a provision relating to organization and management, procedures, recordkeeping, assessment, and reporting necessary to ensure safe operation of a facility. A CAC was defined as an administrative control derived in a criticality safety analysis that is implemented to ensure double contingency. According to criterion 2 of Section IV, 'Linkage to the Documented Safety Analysis', of DOESTD-3007-2007, the consequence of a criticality should be examined for the purposes of classifying the significance of a control or component. HNF-PRO-700, 'Safety Basis Development', provides control selection criteria based on consequence and risk that may be used in the development of a Criticality Safety Evaluation (CSE) to establish the classification of a component as a design feature, as safety class or safety significant, i.e., an Engineered Safety Feature (ESF), or as equipment important to safety; or merely provides defense-in-depth. Similar logic is applied to the CACs. Criterion 8C of DOE-STD-3007-2007, as written, added to the confusion of using the basic CCR from HNF-7098. The PFP CCR attempts to clarify this criterion by revising it to say 'Programmatic commitments or general references to control philosophy (e.g., mass control or spacing control or concentration control as an overall control strategy for the process without specific quantification of individual limits) is included in the PFP DSA'. Table 1 shows the PFP methodology for evaluating CACs. This evaluation process has been in use since February of 2008 and has proven to be simple and effective. Each control identified i

  14. Technical support document: Survey data used in revising the energy conservation requirements in the manufactured home construction and safety standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, A.D.; Conner, C.C.

    1992-02-01

    This report documents data used in the development of revised energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. The approach used in developing the proposed standard revision is a cost-benefit analysis in which the costs of energy conservation measures (ECM) are balanced against the benefits of energy savings. The analysis used to develop the recommendations for revision of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) energy conservation standards for manufactured housing requires information on specific ECMs. This technical support document contains the data from two of the three surveys that were used primarily to characterize the available ECMs and their associated costs. The analyses of these data are provided in separate reports. 5 refs.

  15. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21

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

  16. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2007-02-13

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

  17. Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear Facilities

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

    2010-04-21

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

  18. Pantex Plant final safety analysis report, Zone 4 magazines. Staging or interim storage for nuclear weapons and components: Issue D

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-04-01

    This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) contains a detailed description and evaluation of the significant environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) issues associated with the operations of the Pantex Plant modified-Richmond and steel arch construction (SAC) magazines in Zone 4. It provides (1) an overall description of the magazines, the Pantex Plant, and its surroundings; (2) a systematic evaluations of the hazards that could occur as a result of the operations performed in these magazines; (3) descriptions and analyses of the adequacy of the measures taken to eliminate, control, or mitigate the identified hazards; and (4) analyses of potential accidents and their associated risks.

  19. Review guidelines for software languages for use in nuclear power plant safety systems: Final report. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hecht, M.; Decker, D.; Graff, S.; Green, W.; Lin, D.; Dinsmore, G.; Koch, S.

    1997-10-01

    Guidelines for the programming and auditing of software written in high level languages for safety systems are presented. The guidelines are derived from a framework of issues significant to software safety which was gathered from relevant standards and research literature. Language-specific adaptations of these guidelines are provided for the following high level languages: Ada83 and Ada95; C and C++; International Electrochemical Commission (IEC) Standard 1131-3 Ladder Logic, Sequential Function Charts, Structured Text, and Function Block Diagrams; Pascal; and PL/M. Appendices to the report include a tabular summary of the guidelines and additional information on selected languages.

  20. TWRS safety program plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Calderon, L.M., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-08-01

    Management of Nuclear Safety, Industrial Safety, Industrial Hygiene, and Fire Protection programs, functions, and field support resources for Tank Waste Remediation Systems (TWRS) has, until recently, been centralized in TWRS Safety, under the Emergency, Safety, and Quality organization. Industrial hygiene technician services were also provided to support operational needs related to safety basis compliance. Due to WHC decentralization of safety and reengineering efforts in West Tank Farms, staffing and safety responsibilities have been transferred to the facilities. Under the new structure, safety personnel for TWRS are assigned directly to East Tank Farms, West Tank Farms, and a core Safety Group in TWRS Engineering. The Characterization Project Operations (CPO) safety organization will remain in tact as it currently exists. Personnel assigned to East Tank Farms, West Tank Farms, and CPO will perform facility-specific or project-specific duties and provide field implementation of programs. Those assigned to the core group will focus on activities having a TWRS-wide or programmatic focus. Hanford-wide activities will be the responsibility of the Safety Center of Expertise. In order to ensure an effective and consistent safety program for TWRS under the new organization program functions, goals, organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, and path forward must be clearly established. The purpose of the TWRS Safety Program Plan is to define the overall safety program, responsibilities, relationships, and communication linkages for safety personnel under the new structure. In addition, issues associated with reorganization transition are addressed, including training, project ownership, records management, and dissemination of equipment. For the purpose of this document ``TWRS Safety`` refers to all safety professionals and technicians (Industrial Safety, Industrial Hygiene, Fire Protection, and Nuclear Safety) within the TWRS organization, regardless of their location in the organization.