National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for offsite electricityd total

  1. Table A13. Total Consumption of Offsite-Produced Energy for...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3. Total Consumption of Offsite-Produced Energy for Heat, Power, and" " Electricity Generation by Census Region ... Office of Energy Markets and End" "Use, Energy End Use and ...

  2. Table A32. Total Consumption of Offsite-Produced Energy for...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Consumption of Offsite-Produced Energy for Heat, Power, and" " Electricity Generation by ... The derived estimates presented" "in this table represent the consumption of energy ...

  3. Nevada Offsites Fact Sheet

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Nevada Offsites refers to sites where underground nuclear tests and experiments were performed outside of the primary testing location formerly known as the Nevada Test Site (now the Nevada...

  4. OFFSITE USE FORM

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

    OFFSITE USE FORM Fill form out in triplicate, send original to Property Control, m/s 85A, give a copy to the Gate Guard and keep a copy for your files. This form needs to be updated once a year. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Authorization Record Form: Stanford University Removal of Government Property from SLAC PO Box 4349 premises for Official Use Elsewhere (*) Date: To: Property Control, m/s 85A From: Name E Mail Address Group and Mail Stop SLAC Extension This is to notify you that I have

  5. EOI: Offsite Depleted Uranium Metalworking | Y-12 National Security...

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

    Offsite Depleted ... EOI: Offsite Depleted Uranium Metalworking Consolidated Nuclear ... of Depleted Uranium, for the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ...

  6. Recommendation 222: Recommendations on Additional Off-site Groundwater...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    2: Recommendations on Additional Off-site Groundwater Migration Studies Recommendation 222: Recommendations on Additional Off-site Groundwater Migration Studies ORSSAB recommends...

  7. Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases PropanePropylene Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other ...

  8. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases PropanePropylene Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Fuel ...

  9. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.9 Q Q Q Heat Pump......7.7 0.3 Q Q Steam or Hot Water System......Census Division Total West Energy Information Administration ...

  10. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.9 Q Q Q Heat Pump......6.2 3.8 2.4 Steam or Hot Water System......Census Division Total Northeast Energy Information ...

  11. Table 4.3 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010;

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: Values of Shipments and Employment Sizes; Column: Energy Sources; Unit: Trillion Btu. Economic Residual Distillate Natural LPG and Coke and Characteristic(a) Total Electricity(b) Fuel Oil Fuel Oil(c) Gas(d) NGL(e) Coal Breeze Other(f) Total United States Value of Shipments and Receipts (million dollars) Under 20 1,038 314 6 53 445 14 25 Q 181 20-49 918 296 11 19 381 10 97 5 97 50-99 1,018 308 7 13 440 5 130 6 110

  12. Total..........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    . 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.6 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 2.2 0.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 1.4 0.5 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 1.7 0.5 2,500 to

  13. Total..........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.5 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 3.9 2.4 1.5 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 4.4 3.2 1.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 3.5 2.4 1.1 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 3.2 2.1 1.1 2,500 to

  14. Total..........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.6 Q Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 9.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 8.6 4.7 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.0 2.9 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 4.1 2.1 0.7

  15. Total................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    .. 111.1 86.6 2,522 1,970 1,310 1,812 1,475 821 1,055 944 554 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................. 3.2 0.9 261 336 162 Q Q Q 334 260 Q 500 to 999.................................... 23.8 9.4 670 683 320 705 666 274 811 721 363 1,000 to 1,499.............................. 20.8 15.0 1,121 1,083 622 1,129 1,052 535 1,228 1,090 676 1,500 to 1,999.............................. 15.4 14.4 1,574 1,450 945 1,628 1,327 629 1,712 1,489 808 2,000 to

  16. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    .. 111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500...................................... 3.1 2.3 403 360 165 366 348 93 500 to 999.............................................. 22.2 14.4 763 660 277 730 646 303 1,000 to 1,499........................................ 19.1 5.8 1,223 1,130 496 1,187 1,086 696 1,500 to 1,999........................................ 14.4 1.0 1,700 1,422 412 1,698 1,544 1,348 2,000 to 2,499........................................ 12.7

  17. Total...................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500............................................ 3.2 0.4 Q 0.6 1.7 0.4 500 to 999................................................... 23.8 4.8 1.4 4.2 10.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499............................................. 20.8 10.6 1.8 1.8 4.0 2.6 1,500 to 1,999............................................. 15.4 12.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 2,000 to 2,499............................................. 12.2 10.7 1.0 0.2 Q Q 2,500 to

  18. Total.........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 2 Fewer than 500.................................................. 3.2 Q 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 500 to 999.......................................................... 23.8 1.5 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.3 1,000 to 1,499.................................................... 20.8 1.4 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.2 1,500 to 1,999.................................................... 15.4 1.4 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 2,000 to 2,499.................................................... 12.2 1.4 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.3

  19. Total..........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.9 9.0 6.3 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 4.4 8.6 5.0 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 3.5 6.0 4.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 3.2 4.1

  20. Total..........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.4 Q Q 0.5 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 3.7 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4

  1. Hi-Res WIPP onsite_offsite

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

    Information we have would indicate there is no offsite exposure risk The Radiological Release on Feb 14, 2014 13 Employees * Offsite sampling indicates radioactive levels only slightly above "background" at one location 0.6 miles from the site boundary. Background is defined as naturally-occurring radiation that is always present in our environment. * All indicators are that this was a one-time event. The event was detected by an underground continuous air monitor (CAM) that was in the

  2. Total...........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500.................................... 3.2 0.7 Q 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 2.7 1.4 2.2 2.8 5.5 5.1 3.0 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 1.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.2 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.4 0.9

  3. User's Guide for RESRAD-OFFSITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gnanapragasam, E.; Yu, C.

    2015-04-01

    The RESRAD-OFFSITE code can be used to model the radiological dose or risk to an offsite receptor. This User’s Guide for RESRAD-OFFSITE Version 3.1 is an update of the User’s Guide for RESRAD-OFFSITE Version 2 contained in the Appendix A of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-OFFSITE Version 2 (ANL/EVS/TM/07-1, DOE/HS-0005, NUREG/CR-6937). This user’s guide presents the basic information necessary to use Version 3.1 of the code. It also points to the help file and other documents that provide more detailed information about the inputs, the input forms and features/tools in the code; two of the features (overriding the source term and computing area factors) are discussed in the appendices to this guide. Section 2 describes how to download and install the code and then verify the installation of the code. Section 3 shows ways to navigate through the input screens to simulate various exposure scenarios and to view the results in graphics and text reports. Section 4 has screen shots of each input form in the code and provides basic information about each parameter to increase the user’s understanding of the code. Section 5 outlines the contents of all the text reports and the graphical output. It also describes the commands in the two output viewers. Section 6 deals with the probabilistic and sensitivity analysis tools available in the code. Section 7 details the various ways of obtaining help in the code.

  4. Table 4.2 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4.2 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS ... 2015 Table 4.2 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010; Level: National and Regional ...

  5. Table 4.1 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010;

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

    4.1 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS ... Next MECS will be fielded in 2015 Table 4.1 Offsite-Produced Fuel Consumption, 2010; ...

  6. Recommendation 222: Recommendations on Additional Off-site Groundwater

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Migration Studies | Department of Energy 2: Recommendations on Additional Off-site Groundwater Migration Studies Recommendation 222: Recommendations on Additional Off-site Groundwater Migration Studies ORSSAB recommends that DOE proceed with an off-site groundwater quality assessment project and that DOE secure additional baseline funding for analysis to further understanding of potential migration and effects on off-site receptors. Recommendation 222 (55.21 KB) Response to Recommendation

  7. Off-site Intensive Operational Period

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

    2 ARM Participating in Off-site Intensive Operational Period The ARM Program is playing a role in the Cirrus Regional Study of Tropical Anvils and Cirrus Layers-Florida Area Cirrus Experiment (CRYSTAL-FACE) intensive operational period (IOP), under way through July in South Florida. The objective of CRYSTAL-FACE is to investigate the physical properties and formation processes of tropical cirrus clouds. The ARM Program has deployed a suite of ground-based instruments in Florida for CRYSTAL-FACE

  8. Federal Off-Site Renewable Energy Purchases and Renewable Energy

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

    Certificates | Department of Energy Renewable Energy Procurement » Federal Off-Site Renewable Energy Purchases and Renewable Energy Certificates Federal Off-Site Renewable Energy Purchases and Renewable Energy Certificates If developing an on-site renewable energy project is impractical, federal agencies can purchase renewable energy from off-site renewable energy projects or purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs). Renewable energy purchases do not require project financing and can

  9. Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials...

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

    1.1C Second Draft, Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interests by Matthew Weber Functional areas: Defense Nuclear Facility Safety...

  10. Analysis of offsite emergency planning zones project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Petrocchi, A.J.; Armstrong, C.E. . Rocky Flats Plant); McKinney, J.M.; Verholek, M.G.; Fraser, P.J.; Dalfonso, P.H. )

    1991-07-18

    The Rocky Flats Plant maintains and uses significant nonradioactive chemically hazardous material (HAZMAT) inventories. Some of these materials are used in sufficient quantities to represent a credible risk to the offsite public in the event of an emergency at the facility. In Phase 2 of this project, the EG G Rocky Flats, Inc. and TENERA, L.P. Task Team (Task Team) produced an initial screening-level modeling analysis study and an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) encompassing the Vulnerable Zones (VZs) for hazardous materials stored at the facility. The screening-level analysis will be supplemented with more refined evaluations during subsequent phases of the project. The existence of these chemicals in the Rocky Flats Plant Occupational Health Information System (OHIS) chemical inventory database was verified. All liquid and gaseous chemicals were considered as potential hazardous material source terms for further screening analysis. Hazards associated with solid substances were not considered in this phase of the project. 2 figs., 13 tabs.

  11. Effects of spent fuel types on offsite consequences of hypothetical accidents

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Courtney, J. C.; Dwight, C. C.; Lehto, M. A.

    2000-02-18

    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) conducts experimental work on the development of waste forms suitable for several types of spent fuel at its facility on the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) located 48 km West of Idaho Falls, ID. The objective of this paper is to compare the offsite radiological consequences of hypothetical accidents involving the various types of spent nuclear fuel handled in nonreactor nuclear facilities. The highest offsite total effective dose equivalents (TEDEs) are estimated at a receptor located about 5 km SSE of ANL facilities. Criticality safety considerations limit the amount of enriched uranium and plutonium that could be at risk in any given scenario. Heat generated by decay of fission products and actinides does not limit the masses of spent fuel within any given operation because the minimum time elapsed since fissions occurred in any form is at least five years. At cooling times of this magnitude, fewer than ten radionuclides account for 99% of the projected TEDE at offsite receptors for any credible accident. Elimination of all but the most important nuclides allows rapid assessments of offsite doses with little loss of accuracy. Since the ARF (airborne release fraction), RF (respirable fraction), LPF (leak path fraction) and atmospheric dilution factor ({chi}/Q) can vary by orders of magnitude, it is not productive to consider nuclides that contribute less than a few percent of the total dose. Therefore, only {sup 134}Cs, {sup 137}Cs-{sup 137m}Ba, and the actinides significantly influence the offsite radiological consequences of severe accidents. Even using highly conservative assumptions in estimating radiological consequences, they remain well below current Department of Energy guidelines for highly unlikely accidents.

  12. Offsite Shipment Campaign Readiness Assessment (OSCRA): A tool for offsite shipment campaigns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michelhaugh, R.D.; Pope, R.B.; Bisaria, A.

    1995-12-31

    The Offsite Shipment Campaign Readiness Assessment (OSCRA) tool is designed to assist program managers in identifying, implementing, and verifying applicable transportation and disposal regulatory requirements for specific shipment campaigns. OSCRA addresses these issues and provides the program manager with a tool to support planning for safe and compliant transportation of waste and other regulated materials. Waste transportation and disposal requirements must be identified and addressed in the planning phase of a waste management project. In the past, in some cases, transportation and disposal requirements have not been included in overall project plans. These planning deficiencies have led to substantial delays and cost impacts. Additionally, some transportation regulatory requirements have not been properly implemented, resulting in substantial fines and public embarrassment for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). If a material has been processed and packaged for onsite storage (prior to offsite disposal) in a package that does not meet transportation requirements, it must be repackaged in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-compliant packaging for transport. This repackaging can result in additional cost, time, and personnel radiation exposure. The original OSCRA concept was developed during the Pond Waste Project at the K-25 Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The continued development of OSCRA as a user-friendly tool was funded in 1995 by the DOE Office of Environmental Management, Transportation Management Division (TMD). OSCRA is designed to support waste management managers, site remediation managers, and transportation personnel in defining applicable regulatory transportation and disposal requirements for offsite shipment of hazardous waste and other regulated materials. The need for this tool stems from increasing demands imposed on DOE and the need to demonstrate and document safe and compliant packaging and shipment of wastes from various DOE sites.

  13. Off-site Lodging (short-term) | Advanced Photon Source

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

    Off-site Lodging (short-term): Extended Stay America external link 2345 Sokol Court, Darien, IL (For special Argonne rates call 630-985-4708) Oakwood Apartments external link...

  14. DOE Idaho Sends First Offsite Waste to New Mexico

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

    DOE Idaho Sends First Offsite Waste to New Mexico BBWI President Jeff Mousseau. Five months ahead of schedule, Idaho sent the first shipment of offsite radioactive transuranic waste received from the U.S. Department of Energy�s Nevada Test Site for permanent disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The Nevada waste was characterized and validated at the Department�s Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, located at its Idaho site. �This first shipment of

  15. Benchmarking of RESRAD-OFFSITE : transition from RESRAD (onsite) toRESRAD-OFFSITE and comparison of the RESRAD-OFFSITE predictions with peercodes.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yu, C.; Gnanapragasam, E.; Cheng, J.-J.; Biwer, B.

    2006-05-22

    The main purpose of this report is to document the benchmarking results and verification of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code as part of the quality assurance requirements of the RESRAD development program. This documentation will enable the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its licensees and other stakeholders to use the quality-assured version of the code to perform dose analysis in a risk-informed and technically defensible manner to demonstrate compliance with the NRC's License Termination Rule, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E); DOE's 10 CFR Part 834, Order 5400.5, ''Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment''; and other Federal and State regulatory requirements as appropriate. The other purpose of this report is to document the differences and similarities between the RESRAD (onsite) and RESRAD-OFFSITE codes so that users (dose analysts and risk assessors) can make a smooth transition from use of the RESRAD (onsite) code to use of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code for performing both onsite and offsite dose analyses. The evolution of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code from the RESRAD (onsite) code is described in Chapter 1 to help the dose analyst and risk assessor make a smooth conceptual transition from the use of one code to that of the other. Chapter 2 provides a comparison of the predictions of RESRAD (onsite) and RESRAD-OFFSITE for an onsite exposure scenario. Chapter 3 documents the results of benchmarking RESRAD-OFFSITE's atmospheric transport and dispersion submodel against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) CAP88-PC (Clean Air Act Assessment Package-1988) and ISCLT3 (Industrial Source Complex-Long Term) models. Chapter 4 documents the comparison results of the predictions of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code and its submodels with the predictions of peer models. This report was prepared by Argonne National Laboratory's (Argonne

  16. All Hands Program Review- Off-site | MIT-Harvard Center for Excitonics

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

    Review- Off-site January 22, 2014 at 9am-7pm / MIT Endicott House

  17. User's Manual for RESRAD-OFFSITE Version 2.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yu, C.; Gnanapragasam, E.; Biwer, B. M.; Kamboj, S.; Cheng, J. -J.; Klett, T.; LePoire, D.; Zielen, A. J.; Chen, S. Y.; Williams, W. A.; Wallo, A.; Domotor, S.; Mo, T.; Schwartzman, A.; Environmental Science Division; DOE; NRC

    2007-09-05

    The RESRAD-OFFSITE code is an extension of the RESRAD (onsite) code, which has been widely used for calculating doses and risks from exposure to radioactively contaminated soils. The development of RESRAD-OFFSITE started more than 10 years ago, but new models and methodologies have been developed, tested, and incorporated since then. Some of the new models have been benchmarked against other independently developed (international) models. The databases used have also expanded to include all the radionuclides (more than 830) contained in the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 38 database. This manual provides detailed information on the design and application of the RESRAD-OFFSITE code. It describes in detail the new models used in the code, such as the three-dimensional dispersion groundwater flow and radionuclide transport model, the Gaussian plume model for atmospheric dispersion, and the deposition model used to estimate the accumulation of radionuclides in offsite locations and in foods. Potential exposure pathways and exposure scenarios that can be modeled by the RESRAD-OFFSITE code are also discussed. A user's guide is included in Appendix A of this manual. The default parameter values and parameter distributions are presented in Appendix B, along with a discussion on the statistical distributions for probabilistic analysis. A detailed discussion on how to reduce run time, especially when conducting probabilistic (uncertainty) analysis, is presented in Appendix C of this manual.

  18. Paducah Site Modernizes Equipment to Treat Off-Site Groundwater Contamination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    PADUCAH, Ky. – EM recently completed upgrades to modernize a key facility that reduces off-site groundwater contamination at the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site.

  19. EMSL-LV-0539-18 I OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR...

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

    18 I OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1977 Monitoring ...

  20. Analysis of offsite Emergency Planning Zones for Rocky Flats Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Inger, J.R. ); Brown-Strattan, M.A. . Rocky Flats Plant)

    1991-01-01

    The purpose of this quality assurance program was to ensure the quality and technical adequacy of Phase 2 of the Analysis of Offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ) for the Rocky Flats Plant project. Quality assurance was accomplished by managing and controlling the processes in the development of the product. The quality assurance task team conducted audits, reviews, and surveillances of project and related activities. This process contributed to identifying areas where the quality assurance plan was not fully implemented, areas needing improvement, and/or corrective actions resulting in a improved product. During the reviews and audits, several key areas were identified where quality assurance plan implementation needed to be improved. These areas included maintaining adequate documentation, reviewing technical results, making inputs traceable to technical results, and understanding that all personnel are responsible for quality.

  1. System transient response to loss of off-site power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sozer, A.

    1990-01-01

    A simultaneous trip of the reactor, main circulation pumps, secondary coolant pumps, and pressurizer pump due to loss of off-site power at the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has been analyzed to estimate available safety margin. A computer model based on the Modular Modeling System code has been used to calculate the transient response of the system. The reactor depressurizes from 482.7 psia down to about 23 psia in about 50 seconds and remains stable thereafter. Available safety margin has been estimated in terms of the incipient boiling heat flux ratio. It is a conservative estimate due to assumed less than available primary and secondary flows and higher than normal depressurization rate. The ratio indicates no incipient boiling conditions at the hot spot. No potential damage to the fuel is likely to occur during this transient. 2 refs., 6 figs.

  2. Code System for Calculating Early Offsite Consequences from Nuclear Reactor Accidents.

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1992-06-10

    SMART calculates early offsite consequences from nuclear reactor accidents. Once the air and ground concentrations of the radionuclide are estimated, the early dose to an individual is calculated via three pathways: cloudshine, short-term groundshine, and inhalation.

  3. Table 1c. Off-Site Produced Energy (Site Energy)For Selected...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    c Page Last Modified: May 2010 Table 1c. Off-Site Produced Energy (Site Energy) for Selected Industries, 1998, 2002 and 2006 (Trillion Btu) MECS Survey Years NAICS Subsector and...

  4. NERC-LV-539-17 OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVXTPES OF Tm

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

    ... For sim- plicity, these combined areas will be referred to in this report as the test range complex. At Project Rulison near Grand Junction, Colorado, the off-site area extended ...

  5. OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONI AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED EMSL-LV-0539-36

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

    OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONI AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED EMSL-LV-0539-36 TORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS ($515 0 January through December 1979 Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 April 1980 This work performed under Memorandum of Understanding No. EY-76-A-08-0539 for the U.S. Department of Energy OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONI AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED

  6. DRAFT - DOE O 461.1C, Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest

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

    The Order establishes requirements and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of packaging and transportation for offsite shipments of Materials of National Security Interest.

  7. Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest

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

    2016-07-20

    The purpose of this Order is to make clear that the packaging and transportation of all offsite shipments of Materials of National Security Interest (MNSI) for DOE must be conducted in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations that would be applicable to comparable commercial shipments, except where an alternative course of action is identified in this Order.

  8. Offsite environmental monitoring report. Radiation monitoring around United States nuclear test areas, calendar year 1982

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Black, S. C.; Grossman, R. F.; Mullen, A. A.; Potter, G. D.; Smith, D. D.

    1983-07-01

    A principal activity of the Offsite Radiological Safety Program is routine environmental monitoring for radioactive materials in various media and for radiation in areas which may be affected by nuclear tests. It is conducted to document compliance with standards, to identify trends, and to provide information to the public. This report summarizes these activities for CY 1982.

  9. Environmental Assessment Offsite Thermal Treatment of Low-Level Mixed Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    N /A

    1999-05-06

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) needs to demonstrate the economics and feasibility of offsite commercial treatment of contact-handled low-level mixed waste (LLMW), containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) and other organics, to meet existing regulatory standards for eventual disposal.

  10. Low-level radioactive waste management: transitioning to off-site disposal at Los Alamos National Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dorries, Alison M

    2010-11-09

    Facing the closure of nearly all on-site management and disposal capability for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is making ready to ship the majority of LLW off-site. In order to ship off-site, waste must meet the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility's (TSDF) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). In preparation, LANL's waste management organization must ensure LANL waste generators characterize and package waste compliantly and waste characterization documentation is complete and accurate. Key challenges that must be addressed to successfully make the shift to off-site disposal of LLW include improving the detail, accuracy, and quality of process knowledge (PK) and acceptable knowledge (AK) documentation, training waste generators and waste management staff on the higher standard of data quality and expectations, improved WAC compliance for off-site facilities, and enhanced quality assurance throughout the process. Certification of LANL generators will allow direct off-site shipping of LLW from their facilities.

  11. Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Charley Yu*, Argonne National Laboratory ; Emmanuel Gnanapragasam, Argonne National Laboratory; Carlos Corredor, U.S. Department of Energy; W. Alexander Williams, U.S. Department of Energy Abstract: The RESRAD-OFFSITE code was developed to evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The primary contamination, which is the source of all releases modeled by the code, is assumed to be a layer of soil. The code considers the release of contamination from the source to the atmosphere, to surface runoff, and to groundwater. The radionuclide leaching was modeled as a first order (without transport) release using radionuclide distribution coefficient and infiltration rate calculated from water balance (precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, etc.). Recently, a new source term model was added the RESRAD-OFFSITE code so that it can be applied to the evaluation of Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility performance assessment. This new improved source term model include (1) first order with transport, (2) equilibrium desorption (rinse) release, and (3) uniform release (constant dissolution). With these new source release options, it is possible to simulate both uncontainerized (soil) contamination and containerized (waste drums) contamination. A delay time in the source release was also added to the code. This allows modeling the LLW container degradation as a function of time. The RESRAD-OFFSITE code also allows linking to other codes using improved flux and concentration input options. Additional source release model such as diffusion release may be added later. In addition, radionuclide database with 1252 radionuclides (ICRP 107) and the corresponding dose coefficients (DCFPAK 3.02) and the Department of Energy’s new gender- and age-averaged Reference Person

  12. Offsite commercial disposal of oil and gas exploration and production waste :availability, options, and cost.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Puder, M. G.; Veil, J. A.

    2006-09-05

    A survey conducted in 1995 by the American Petroleum Institute (API) found that the U.S. exploration and production (E&P) segment of the oil and gas industry generated more than 149 million bbl of drilling wastes, almost 18 billion bbl of produced water, and 21 million bbl of associated wastes. The results of that survey, published in 2000, suggested that 3% of drilling wastes, less than 0.5% of produced water, and 15% of associated wastes are sent to offsite commercial facilities for disposal. Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) collected information on commercial E&P waste disposal companies in different states in 1997. While the information is nearly a decade old, the report has proved useful. In 2005, Argonne began collecting current information to update and expand the data. This report describes the new 2005-2006 database and focuses on the availability of offsite commercial disposal companies, the prevailing disposal methods, and estimated disposal costs. The data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, state oil and gas regulatory officials in 31 states were contacted to determine whether their agency maintained a list of permitted commercial disposal companies dedicated to oil. In the second stage, individual commercial disposal companies were interviewed to determine disposal methods and costs. The availability of offsite commercial disposal companies and facilities falls into three categories. The states with high oil and gas production typically have a dedicated network of offsite commercial disposal companies and facilities in place. In other states, such an infrastructure does not exist and very often, commercial disposal companies focus on produced water services. About half of the states do not have any industry-specific offsite commercial disposal infrastructure. In those states, operators take their wastes to local municipal landfills if permitted or haul the wastes to other states. This report provides state-by-state summaries of the

  13. Benchmarking the New RESRAD-OFFSITE Source Term Model with DUST-MS and GoldSim - 13377

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cheng, J.J.; Kamboj, S.; Gnanapragasam, E.; Yu, C.

    2013-07-01

    RESRAD-OFFSITE is a computer code developed by Argonne National Laboratory under the sponsorship of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It is designed on the basis of RESRAD (onsite) code, a computer code designated by DOE and NRC for evaluating soil-contaminated sites for compliance with human health protection requirements pertaining to license termination or environmental remediation. RESRAD-OFFSITE has enhanced capabilities of modeling radionuclide transport to offsite locations and calculating potential radiation exposure to offsite receptors. Recently, a new source term model was incorporated into RESRAD-OFFSITE to enhance its capability further. This new source term model allows simulation of radionuclide releases from different waste forms, in addition to the soil sources originally considered in RESRAD (onsite) and RESRAD-OFFSITE codes. With this new source term model, a variety of applications can be achieved by using RESRAD-OFFSITE, including but not limited to, assessing the performance of radioactive waste disposal facilities. This paper presents the comparison of radionuclide release rates calculated by the new source term model of RESRAD-OFFSITE versus those calculated by DUST-MS and GoldSim, respectively. The focus of comparison is on the release rates of radionuclides from the bottom of the contaminated zone that was assumed to contain radioactive source materials buried in soil. The transport of released contaminants outside of the primary contaminated zone is beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, the agreement between the RESRAD-OFFSITE results and the DUST-MS and GoldSim results is fairly good, with all three codes predicting identical or similar radionuclide release profiles over time. Numerical dispersion in the DUST-MS and GoldSim results was identified as potentially contributing to the disagreement in the release rates. In general, greater discrepancy in the release rates was found for short

  14. Applicability of Loss of Offsite Power (LOSP) Events in NUREG/CR-6890 for Entergy Nuclear South (ENS) Plants LOSP Calculations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Li, Yunlong; Yilmaz, Fatma; Bedell, Loys

    2006-07-01

    Significant differences have been identified in loss of offsite power (LOSP or LOOP) event description, category, duration, and applicability between the LOSP events used in NUREG/CR-6890 and ENS'LOSP packages, which were based on EPRI LOSP reports with plant-specific applicability analysis. Thus it is appropriate to reconcile the LOSP data listed in the subject NUREG and EPRI reports. A cross comparison showed that 62 LOSP events in NUREG/CR-6890 were not included in the EPRI reports while 4 events in EPRI reports were missing in the NUREG. Among the 62 events missing in EPRI reports, the majority were applicable to shutdown conditions, which could be classified as category IV events in EPRI reports if included. Detailed reviews of LERs concluded that some events did not result in total loss of offsite power. Some LOSP events were caused by subsequent component failures after a turbine/plant trip, which have been modeled specifically in most ENS plant PRA models. Moreover, ENS has modeled (or is going to model) the partial loss of offsite power events with partial LOSP initiating events. While the direct use of NUREG/CR-6890 results in SPAR models may be appropriate, its direct use in ENS' plant PRA models may not be appropriate because of modeling details in ENS' plant-specific PRA models. Therefore, this paper lists all the differences between the data in NUREG/CR-6890 and EPRI reports and evaluates the applicability of the LOSP events to ENS plant-specific PRA models. The refined LOSP data will characterize the LOSP risk in a more realistic fashion. (authors)

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shedrow, C.B.

    1999-11-29

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

  16. ELUCIDATING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ONSITE AND OFFSITE SHIPMENT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Loftin, B.; Watkins, R.

    2013-06-19

    Federal regulations stipulate how radioactive materials are transported within the United States. However, the Department of Energy, under Department of Energy Order, has the authority to operate, within the boundaries of their physical site, to other stipulations. In many cases the DOE sites have internal reviews for onsite transfers that rival reviews performed by the regulatory authorities for offsite shipments. Most of the differences are in the level or type of packaging that is required, but in some cases it may be in the amount and type of material that is allowed to be transferred. This paper will describe and discuss those differences and it will discuss ways to effectively align the onsite rules for transferring materials with those for offsite shipment.

  17. Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest

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

    2010-12-20

    The purpose of this Order is to make clear that the packaging and transportation of all offsite shipments of materials of national security interest for DOE must be conducted in accordance with DOT and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations that would be applicable to comparable commercial shipments, except where an alternative course of action is identified in this Order. Supersedes DOE O 461.1A.

  18. SWRHL-37~ OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTHWESTERN RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH LABORATORY

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

    7~ OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTHWESTERN RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH LABORATORY from January through June 1966 /' A w-'i 'Z ii-. iL ~, .e i,.<. 1 ,a Lx $8 <:: .- ,\" k. -7. -.=d ,) by the Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Environmental Health Service January 1970 This surveillance performed under a Memorandum of Understanding (No. SF 54 373) for the U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SWRHL-37r

  19. H FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE FOR THE FAULTLESS EVENT,

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    WRHL-Slr i, ' H FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE FOR THE FAULTLESS EVENT, January 19. 1968 by the Southwe stern Radiological Health Laboratory Department of Health, Education. and Welfare Public Health Service Consume r Protection and Environmental Health Service April 1969 This surveillance perforrned under a Memorandum of Understanding (No. SF 54 373) for the U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United

  20. Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Abstract: The RESRAD-OFFSITE code was developed to evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The primary contamination, which is the source of all releases modeled by the code, is assumed to be a layer of soil. The code considers the release of contamination from the source to the atmosphere, to surface runoff, and to groundwater. The radionuclide leaching was modeled as a first order (without transport) release using radionuclide distribution coefficient and infiltration rate calculated from water balance (precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, etc.). Recently, a new source term model was added the RESRAD-OFFSITE code so that it can be applied to the evaluation of Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility performance assessment. This new improved source term model include (1) first order with transport, (2) equilibrium desorption (rinse) release, and (3) uniform release (constant dissolution). With these new source release options, it is possible to simulate both uncontainerized (soil) contamination and containerized (waste drums) contamination. A delay time in the source release was also added to the code. This allows modeling the LLW container degradation as a function of time. The RESRAD-OFFSITE code also allows linking to other codes using improved flux and concentration input options. Additional source release model such as diffusion release may be added later. In addition, radionuclide database with 1252 radionuclides (ICRP 107) and the corresponding dose coefficients (DCFPAK 3.02) and the Department of Energy’s new gender- and age-averaged Reference Person dose coefficients (DOE-STD-1196-2011) which is based on the US census data will be added to the next version of RESRAD-OFFSITE code

  1. Savannah River Site offsite hazardous waste shipment data validation report. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Casey, C.; Kudera, D.E.; Page, L.A.; Rohe, M.J.

    1995-05-01

    The objective of this data validation is to verify that waste shipments reported in response to the US Department of Energy Headquarters data request are properly categorized according to DOE-HQ definitions. This report documents all findings and actions resulting from the independent review of the Savannah River Site data submittal, and provides a summary of the SRS data submittal and data validation strategy. The overall hazardous waste management and offsite release process from 1987--1991 is documented, along with an identification and description of the hazardous waste generation facilities. SRS did not ship any hazardous waste offsite before 1987. Sampling and analysis and surface surveying procedures and techniques used in determining offsite releasability of the shipments are also described in this report. SRS reported 150 manifested waste shipments from 1984 to 1991 that included 4,755 drums or lab packs and 13 tankers. Of these waste items, this report categorizes 4,251 as clean (including 12 tankers), 326 as likely clean, 138 as likely radioactive, and 55 as radioactive (including one tanker). Although outside the original scope of this report, 14 manifests from 1992 and 1993 are included, covering 393 drums or lab packs and seven tankers. From the 1992--1993 shipments, 58 drums or lab packs are categorized as radioactive and 16 drums are categorized as likely radioactive. The remainder are categorized as clean.

  2. ALTERNATIVES OF MACCS2 IN LANL DISPERSION ANALYSIS FOR ONSITE AND OFFSITE DOSES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, John HC

    2012-05-01

    In modeling atmospheric dispersion to determine accidental release of radiological material, one of the common statistical analysis tools used at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System, Version 2 (MACCS2). MACCS2, however, has some limitations and shortfalls for both onsite and offsite applications. Alternative computer codes, which could provide more realistic calculations, are being investigated for use at LANL. In the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP), the suitability of MACCS2 for the calculation of onsite worker doses was a concern; therefore, ARCON96 was chosen to replace MACCS2. YMP's use of ARCON96 provided results which clearly demonstrated the program's merit for onsite worker safety analyses in a wide range of complex configurations and scenarios. For offsite public exposures, the conservatism of MACCS2 on the treatment of turbulence phenomena at LANL is examined in this paper. The results show a factor of at least two conservatism in calculated public doses. The new EPA air quality model, AERMOD, which implements advanced meteorological turbulence calculations, is a good candidate for LANL applications to provide more confidence in the accuracy of offsite public dose projections.

  3. EMSL-LV-539-12 EMSL-LV-0539-12 OFF-SITE ENVXRDNMENTAL MONITORING...

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

    12 EMSL-LV-0539-12 OFF-SITE ENVXRDNMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND &HER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1936 ...

  4. Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-02: DOE Enforcement Activities where Off-site Transportation Issues are also Present.

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Recently several questions have arisen regarding the scope of Price-Anderson enforcement when transportation issues are directly or indirectly involved in an incident. These questions can be separated into two areas, (1) transportation issues that involve on-site transportation typically not regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT), and (2) transportation issues that involve off-site transportation. This guidance addresses off-site transportation that is regulated by DOT and other state and federal agencies.

  5. Offsite environmental monitoring report: Radiation monitoring around United States nuclear test areas, calendar year 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chaloud, D.J.; Dicey, B.B.; Mullen, A.A.; Neale, A.C.; Sparks, A.R.; Fontana, C.A.; Carroll, L.D.; Phillips, W.G.; Smith, D.D.; Thome, D.J.

    1992-01-01

    This report describes the Offsite Radiation Safety Program conducted during 1991 by the Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA`s) Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas. This laboratory operates an environmental radiation monitoring program in the region surrounding the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and at former test sites in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico. The surveillance program is designed to measure levels and trends of radioactivity, if present, in the environment surrounding testing areas to ascertain whether current radiation levels and associated doses to the general public are in compliance with existing radiation protection standards. The surveillance program additionally has the responsibility to take action to protect the health and well being of the public in the event of any accidental release of radioactive contaminants. Offsite levels of radiation and radioactivity are assessed by sampling milk, water, and air; by deploying thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and using pressurized ion chambers (PICs); and by biological monitoring of animals, food crops, and humans. Personnel with mobile monitoring equipment are placed in areas downwind from the test site prior to each nuclear weapons test to implement protective actions, provide immediate radiation monitoring, and obtain environmental samples rapidly after any occurrence of radioactivity release. Comparison of the measurements and sample analysis results with background levels and with appropriate standards and regulations indicated that there was no radioactivity detected offsite by the various EPA monitoring networks and no exposure above natural background to the population living in the vicinity of the NTS that could be attributed to current NTS activities. Annual and long-term trends were evaluated in the Noble Gas, Tritium, Milk Surveillance, Biomonitoring, TLD, PIC networks, and the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program.

  6. OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE ' i A N D OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1978 Nuclear Radiation Assessment D i v i s i o n Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 October 1979 This work performed under a Memorandum o f Understanding No. EY-76-A-08-0539 for t h e U.S. DEPARTMENT O F ENERGY OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE A N D OTHER TEST AREAS USED F

  7. Offsite Source Recovery Program (OSRP) Workshop Module: Tianjin, China, July 16-July 17, 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Houlton, Robert J.

    2012-07-11

    Recovering and disposal of radioactive sources that are no longer in service in their intended capacity is an area of high concern Globally. A joint effort to recover and dispose of such sources was formed between the US Department of Energy and the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), in preparation for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. LANL involvement in this agreement continues today under the DOE-Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) program. LANL will be presenting overview information on their Offsite Source Recovery (OSRP) and Source Disposal programs, in a workshop for the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) at Tianjin, China, on July 16 and 17, 2012.

  8. Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interests

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

    2015-09-25

    The Order establishes requirements and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of packaging and transportation for offsite shipments of Materials of National Security Interest. DOE Order 461.1C received a significant number of major and suggested comments the first time it was reviewed in RevCom. As a result of the number of comments received, the OPI have a second RevCom review. This revision of DOE O 461.1C incorporates changes which resulted from the comment resolution process of the initial draft.

  9. Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest

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

    2016-01-05

    The Order establishes requirements and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of packaging and transportation for offsite shipments of Materials of National Security Interest. DOE Order 461.1C received a significant number of major and suggested comments the first time it was reviewed in RevCom. As a result of the number of comments received, the OPI have a second RevCom review. This revision of DOE O 461.1C incorporates changes which resulted from the comment resolution process of the initial draft.

  10. " Level: National Data and Regional Totals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... office offsite, and quantities for which payment" "is made in-kind." " Source: Energy ... by a central purchasing office offsite, and quantities for which payment" "is made in-kind

  11. Total Imports

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data Series: Imports - Total Imports - Crude Oil Imports - Crude Oil, Commercial Imports - by SPR Imports - into SPR by Others Imports - Total Products Imports - Total Motor Gasoline Imports - Finished Motor Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Other Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Conventional Gasoline Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol, Ed55 & < Imports -

  12. Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events 1998–2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. E. Wierman

    2013-10-01

    Loss of offsite power (LOOP) can have a major negative impact on a power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. Risk analyses performed loss of all alternating current power contributes over 70% of the overall risk at some U.S. nuclear plants. LOOP event and subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study are based on the operating experience from fiscal year 1998 through 2012. Frequencies and durations were determined for four event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather-related. The EDG failure modes considered are failure to start, failure to load and run, and failure to run more than 1 hour. The component reliability estimates and the reliability data are trended for the most recent 10-year period while yearly estimates for reliability are provided for the entire active period. A statistically significant increase in industry performance was identified for plant-centered and switchyard-centered LOOP frequencies. There is no statistically significant trend in LOOP durations.

  13. Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events 1998–2013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schroeder, John Alton

    2015-02-01

    Loss of offsite power (LOOP) can have a major negative impact on a power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. Risk analyses suggest that loss of all alternating current power contributes over 70% of the overall risk at some U.S. nuclear plants. LOOP event and subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study are based on the operating experience during calendar years 1997 through 2013. Frequencies and durations were determined for four event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather-related. The emergency diesel generator failure modes considered are failure to start, failure to load and run, and failure to run more than 1 hour. The component reliability estimates and the reliability data are trended for the most recent 10-year period while yearly estimates for reliability are provided for the entire active period. No statistically significant trends in LOOP frequencies over the 1997–2013 period are identified. There is a possibility that a significant trend in grid-related LOOP frequency exists that is not easily detected by a simple analysis. Statistically significant increases in recovery times after grid- and switchyard-related LOOPs are identified.

  14. Offsite environmental monitoring report: Radiation monitoring around United States nuclear test areas, calendar year 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davis, M.G.; Flotard, R.D.; Fontana, C.A.; Hennessey, P.A.; Maunu, H.K.; Mouck, T.L.; Mullen, A.A.; Sells, M.D.

    1999-01-01

    This report describes the Offsite Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (OREMP) conducted during 1997 by the US Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPAs), Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. This laboratory operated an environmental radiation monitoring program in the region surrounding the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and at former test sites in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico. The surveillance program is designed to measure levels and trends of radioactivity, if present, in the environment surrounding testing areas to ascertain whether current radiation levels and associated doses to the general public are in compliance with existing radiation protection standards. The surveillance program additionally has the responsibility to take action to protect the health and well being of the public in the event of any accidental release of radioactive contaminants. Offsite levels of radiation and radioactivity are assessed by sampling and analyzing milk, water, and air; by deploying and reading thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs); and using pressurized ionization chambers (PICs) to measure ambient gamma exposure rates with a sensitivity capable of detecting low level exposures not detected by other monitoring methods.

  15. Analysis of offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ) for the Rocky Flats Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hodgin, C.R.; Armstrong, C.; Daugherty, N.M.; Foppe, T.L.; Petrocchi, A.J.; Southward, B.

    1990-05-01

    This project plan for Phase II summarizes the design of a project to complete analysis of offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ) for the Rocky Flats Plant. Federal, state, and local governments develop emergency plans for facilities that may affect the public in the event of an accidental release of nuclear or hazardous materials. One of the purposes of these plans is to identify EPZs where actions might be necessary to protect public health. Public protective actions include sheltering, evacuation, and relocation. Agencies use EPZs to develop response plans and to determine needed resources. The State of Colorado, with support from the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Rocky Flats contractors, has developed emergency plans and EPZs for the Rocky Flats Plant periodically beginning in 1980. In Phase II, Interim Emergency Planning Zones Analysis, Maximum Credible Accident'' we will utilize the current Rocky Flats maximum credible accident (MCA), existing dispersion methodologies, and upgraded dosimetry methodologies to update the radiological EPZs. Additionally, we will develop recommendations for EPZs for nonradiological hazardous materials releases and evaluate potential surface water releases from the facility. This project will allow EG G Rocky Flats to meet current commitments to the state of Colorado and make steady, tangible improvements in our understanding of risk to offsite populations during potential emergencies at the Rocky Flats Plant. 8 refs., 5 figs., 4 tabs.

  16. Offsite environmental monitoring report: Radiation monitoring around United States nuclear test areas, calendar year 1993

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chaloud, D.J; Daigler, D.M.; Davis, M.G.

    1996-06-01

    This report describes the Offsite Radiation Safety Program conducted during 1993 by the Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA`s) Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). This laboratory operates an environmental radiation monitoring program in the region surrounding the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and at former test sites in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico. The surveillance program is designed to measure levels and trends of radioactivity, if present, in the environment surrounding testing areas to ascertain whether current radiation levels and associated doses to the general public are in compliance with existing radiation protection standards. The surveillance program additionally has the responsibility to take action to protect the health and well being of the public in the event of any accidental release of radioactive contaminants. Offsite levels of radiation and radioactivity are assessed by sampling milk, water, and air; by deploying thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and using pressurized ionization chambers (PICs); by biological monitoring of foodstuffs including animal tissues and food crops; and by measurement of radioactive material deposited in humans.

  17. Country Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Country Total Percent of U.S. total Canada 61,078 1% China 3,323,297 57% Germany 154,800 3% Japan 12,593 0% India 47,192 1% South Korea 251,105 4% All Others 2,008,612 34% Total 5,858,677 100% Table 7 . Photovoltaic module import shipments by country, 2014 (peak kilowatts) Note: All Others includes Cambodia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Turkey Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic

  18. EA-1924: Consolidation and Relocation of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) OffSite Research Programs to a New Off-Site Location that also Allows for Future Growth, San Francisco East Bay Area, California

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to consolidate and relocate LBNL research programs that are currently in leased off-site buildings at various locations around the San Francisco East Bay Area in California, to a new single location that also provides room for future growth of LBNL research programs.

  19. Analysis of offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for the Rocky Flats Plant. [Contains glossary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-08-01

    A quality assurance plan (QAP) is a documented description or a listing of the controls to be implemented to assure that an operation or activity is accomplished in a consistent manner and in accordance with requirements. Federal, state, and local governments require emergency planning for facilities that may affect the public in the event of an accidental release of nuclear or hazardous materials. One of the purposes of this EG G Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) Analysis of Offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ) project is to identify the EPZs where actions could be necessary to protect public health. The RFP EPZ project is developing an interim basis for potential sheltering and evacuation recommendations in the event of an accidental release of radionuclides to the atmosphere from this facility. Also, RFP is developing EPZs for accidental releases of major nonradiological hazardous substances to the atmosphere, and will analyze the impacts of an unplanned surface water release from the facility.

  20. OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE A N D OTHER TEST AREAS USED F O R UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1979 Nuclear R a d i a t i o n Assessment D i v i s i o n Environmental M o n i t o r i n g Systems Laboratory U. S. Envi ronmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 A p r i l 1980 T h i s work performed under Memorandum o f ' Understanding No. EY-76-A-08-0539 f o r t h e U.S. Department o f Energy This page intentionally

  1. COT"IPREITENS IVE RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY P NIAGARA FALIS STORAGE SITE

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    COT"IPREITENS IVE RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY P NIAGARA FALIS STORAGE SITE LEWISTON, NEW YORK Prepared for U.S. DePartment of EnergY as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites - Remedial ActLon Program J . D . B e r g e r P r o j e c t S t a f f J. Burden* w.L. Smlth* R.D. Condra T.J. Sowell J.S . Epler* G.M. S tePhens P.Iil. Frame L.B. Taus* W . 0 . H e l t o n C . F . W e a v e r R . C . G o s s l e e B . S . Z a c h a r e k d I I Prepared bY Radiological Slte Assessoent Progran

  2. Pollution Prevention Plan for the Y-12 Analytical Chemistry Organization Off-Site Union Valley Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jackson, J. G.

    2010-03-01

    The Y-12 Analytical Chemistry Organization (ACO) Off-Site Union Valley Facility (Union Valley Facility) is managed by Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Y-12, L.L.C. (B and W Y-12) through the Y-12 National Security Complex organization. Accordingly, the Y-12 Pollution Prevention Program encompasses the operations conducted at the Union Valley Facility. The Y-12 Program is designed to fully comply with state, federal and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements concerning waste minimization/pollution prevention as documented in the Y-12 Pollution Prevention Program Plan. The Program is formulated to reduce the generation and toxicity of all Y-12 wastes in all media, including those wastes generated by the Union Valley Facility operations. All regulatory and DOE requirements are met by the Y-12 Program Plan.

  3. All Hands Program Review Off-site | MIT-Harvard Center for Excitonics

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

    Review Off-site January 25, 2012 at 9am-7pm / MIT Endicott House IMG_4534 IMG_4500.02 IMG_4452 IMG_4410 (click images for a larger view) Time Presenter 8:30-9:00AM Continental Breakfast 9:00AM Opening remarks-Marc Baldo EFRC - Seeds 9:10AM Natalia Shustova 9:15AM David Ciudad 9:20AM YongJoo Kim 9:25AM Will Tisdale 9:30AM Q&A EFRC - 4 10:30-10:55AM Break EFRC - 3 10:55AM Priya Jadhav 11:00AM Phil Reusswig 11:05AM Jiye Lee 11:10AM Nick Thompson 11:15AM Paul Azunre 11:20AM Shane Yost 11:25AM

  4. RHF RELAP5 Model and Preliminary Loss-Of-Offsite-Power Simulation Results for LEU Conversion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Licht, J. R.; Bergeron, A.; Dionne, B.; Thomas, F.

    2014-08-01

    The purpose of this document is to describe the current state of the RELAP5 model for the Institut Laue-Langevin High Flux Reactor (RHF) located in Grenoble, France, and provide an update to the key information required to complete, for example, simulations for a loss of offsite power (LOOP) accident. A previous status report identified a list of 22 items to be resolved in order to complete the RELAP5 model. Most of these items have been resolved by ANL and the RHF team. Enough information was available to perform preliminary safety analyses and define the key items that are still required. Section 2 of this document describes the RELAP5 model of RHF. The final part of this section briefly summarizes previous model issues and resolutions. Section 3 of this document describes preliminary LOOP simulations for both HEU and LEU fuel at beginning of cycle conditions.

  5. State Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    State Total Percent of U.S. total Alabama 482 0.0% Alaska 81 0.0% Arizona 194,476 3.3% Arkansas 336 0.0% California 3,163,120 53.0% Colorado 47,240 0.8% Connecticut 50,745 0.9% Delaware 6,600 0.1% District of Columbia 751 0.0% Florida 18,593 0.3% Georgia 47,660 0.8% Hawaii 78,329 1.3% Illinois 5,795 0.1% Indiana 37,016 0.6% Iowa 14,281 0.2% Kansas 1,809 0.0% Kentucky 520 0.0% Louisiana 12,147 0.2% Maine 1,296 0.0% Maryland 63,077 1.1% Massachusetts 157,415 2.6% Michigan 4,210 0.1% Minnesota

  6. Potential Offsite Radiological Doses Estimated for the Proposed Divine Strake Experiment, Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ron Warren

    2006-12-01

    An assessment of the potential radiation dose that residents offsite of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) might receive from the proposed Divine Strake experiment was made to determine compliance with Subpart H of Part 61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. The Divine Strake experiment, proposed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, consists of a detonation of 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil-emulsion above the U16b Tunnel complex in Area 16 of the NTS. Both natural radionuclides suspended, and historic fallout radionuclides resuspended from the detonation, have potential to be transported outside the NTS boundary by wind. They may, therefore, contribute radiological dose to the public. Subpart H states ''Emissions of radionuclides to the ambient air from Department of Energy facilities shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/yr'' (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61.92) where mrem/yr is millirem per year. Furthermore, application for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of construction of a new source or modification of an existing source is required if the effective dose equivalent, caused by all emissions from the new construction or modification, is greater than or equal to 0.1 mrem/yr (40 CFR 61.96). In accordance with Section 61.93, a dose assessment was conducted with the computer model CAP88-PC, Version 3.0. In addition to this model, a dose assessment was also conducted by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This modeling was conducted to obtain dose estimates from a model designed for acute releases and which addresses terrain effects and uses meteorology from multiple locations. Potential radiation dose to a hypothetical maximally

  7. Analysis of loss of off-site power ATWS in VVER-440 concept

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hoeppner, G.; Siltanen, P.; Kotro, J.

    1987-01-01

    During 1985 the Finnish state-owned utility Imatran Voima Oy signed a work order with Gesellschaft fuer Reaktorsicherheit mbH of the Federal Republic of Germany (GRS) for the analysis of abnormal transients in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) concept based on a Soviet design. The results of these calculations were intended to be introduced into the licensing process and to support a decision to build such a nuclear power station. A computer model was constructed of the VVER-440 concept, a 500-MW(electric) PWR designed in the USSR and modified for Finland. The ALMOD4 code, developed at GRS, was used for the investigation. The ALMOD4 code is a fast running code for the analysis of operational and abnormal transients in PWRs. Input data were set up to calculate anticipated transients without scram, most notably the loss of off-site power case. One-dimensional neutron kinetics was used to correctly model the neutronics feedback of axially distributed moderator density and fuel temperature in a changing axial power profile. Interlocking signals and the engineered safety systems were modeled to assess the overall systems response to this abnormal transient. Special analytical problems were encountered since a detailed and verified model of the steam generator (SG) with horizontally positioned heat exchanger tubes was not available. Therefore, two bounding calculations were performed with different SG models.

  8. I COMPRE}IENSIVE RADIOLOGICAI SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY N,-NORTS

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    COMPRE}IENSIVE RADIOLOGICAI SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY N,-NORTS NIAGARA FALLS STORAGE SITE LE'l,f ISTON ' NE'l^l YORK P r e p a r e d f o r U . S . D e p a t t m e n t o f E a e r g Y a s p a r t o f t h e F o r m e r l y U t i l i z e d S i t e s - - R e r n e d i a l A c t i o n P r o g r a m J . D . B e r g e r P r o j e c t S t a f f A . J . B o e r n e r W . 0 . E e l t o n R . D " C o n d r a T . J . S o w e l l P . W . F r a m e C . F . W e a v e r R . C . G o s s l e e B . S . Z a c h

  9. Analysis of offsite emergency planning zones for the Rocky Flats Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hodgin, C.R.; Daugherty, N.M.; Smith, M.L. . Rocky Flats Plant); Bunch, D.; Toresdahl, J.; Verholek, M.G. )

    1991-01-01

    The objective of this report is to fully document technical data and information that have been developed to support offsite emergency planning by the State of Colorado for potential accidents at the Rocky Flats Plant. Specifically, this report documents information and data that will assist the State of Colorado in upgrading its radiological emergency planning zones for Rocky Flats Plant. The Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services (DODES) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) represent the primary audience for this report. The secondary audience for this document includes the Rocky Flats Plant; federal, State, and local governmental agencies; the scientific community; and the interested public. Because the primary audience has a pre-existing background on the subject, this report assumes some exposure to emergency planning, health physics, and dispersion modeling on the part of the reader. The authors have limited their assumptions of background knowledge as much as possible, recognizing that the topics addressed in the report may be new to some secondary audiences.

  10. 10 years and 20,000 sources: the offsite source recovery project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Whitworth, Julia R; Abeyta, Cristy L; Pearson, Michael W

    2009-01-01

    The Global Threat Reduction Initiative's (GTRI) Offsite Source Recovery Project (OSRP) has been recovering excess and unwanted sealed sources for ten years. In January 2009, GTRI announced that the project had recovered 20,000 sealed radioactive sources. This project grew out of early efforts at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to recover and disposition excess Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) sealed sources that were distributed in the 1960s and 1970s under the Atoms for Peace Program. Sealed source recovery was initially considered a waste management activity, as evidenced by its initial organization under the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Environmental Management (EM) program. After the terrorist attacks of 2001, however, the interagency community began to recognize the threat posed by excess and unwanted radiological material, particularly those that could not be disposed at the end of their useful life. After being transferred to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to be part of GTRI, OSRP's mission was expanded to include not only material that would be classified as Greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) when it became waste, but also any other materials that might be a 'national security consideration.' This paper discusses OSRP's history, recovery operations, expansion to accept high-activity beta-gamma-emitting sealed sources and devices and foreign-possessed sources, and more recent efforts such as cooperative projects with the Council on Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) and involvement in GTRI's Search and Secure project. Current challenges and future work will also be discussed.

  11. Analysis of results from a loss-of-offsite-power-initiated ATWS experiment in the LOFT facility. [PWR

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Varacalle, D.J. Jr.; Koizumi, Y.; Giri, A.H.; Koske, J.E.; Sanchez-Pope, A.E.

    1983-01-01

    An anticipated transient without scram (ATWS), initiated by loss-of-offsite power, was experimentally simulated in the Loss-of-Fluid Test (LOFT) pressurized water reactor (PWR). Primary system pressure was controlled using a scaled safety relief valve (SRV) representative of those in a commercial PWR, while reactor power was reduced by moderator reactivity feedback in a natural circulation mode. The experiment showed that reactor power decreases more rapidly when the primary pumps are tripped in a loss-of-offsite-power ATWS than in a loss-of-feedwater induced ATWS when the primary pumps are left on. During the experiment, the SRV had sufficient relief capacity to control primary system pressure. Natural circulation was effective in removing core heat at high temperature, pressure, and core power. The system transient response predicted using the RELAP5/MOD1 computer code showed good agreement with the experimental data.

  12. Analysis of results from a loss-of-offsite-power-initiated ATWS experiment in the LOFT Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Varacalle, D.J.; Giri, A.M.; Koizumi, Y.; Koske, J.E.

    1983-07-01

    An anticipated transient without scram (ATWS), initiated by loss-of-offsite power, was experimentally simulated in the Loss-of-Fluid Test (LOFT) pressurized water reactor (PWR). Primary system pressure was controlled using a scaled safety relief valve (SRV) representative of those in a commercial PWR, while reactor power was reduced by moderator reactivity feedback in a natural circulation mode. The experiment showed that reactor power decreases more rapidly when the primary pumps are tripped in a loss-of-offsite-power ATWS than in a loss-of-feedwater induced ATWS when the primary pumps are left on. During the experiment, the SRV had sufficient relief capacity to control primary system pressure. Natural circulation was effective in removing core heat at high temperature, pressure, and core power. The system transient response predicted using the RELAPS/MOD1 computer code showed good agreement with the experimental data.

  13. EA-1061: The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive Waste From the Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposal for off-site volume reduction of low-level radioactive wastes generated at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site located...

  14. Second Draft - DOE O 461.1C, Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interests

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

    The Order establishes requirements and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of packaging and transportation for offsite shipments of Materials of National Security Interest. DOE Order 461.1C received a significant number of major and suggested comments the first time it was reviewed in RevCom. As a result of the number of comments received, the OPI have a second RevCom review. This revision of DOE O 461.1C incorporates changes which resulted from the comment resolution process of the initial draft.

  15. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory response to the December 13, 1991, Congressional inquiry on offsite release of hazardous and solid waste containing radioactive materials from Department of Energy facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shapiro, C.; Garcia, K.M.; McMurtrey, C.D.; Williams, K.L.; Jordan, P.J.

    1992-05-01

    This report is a response to the December 13, 1991, Congressional inquiry that requested information on all hazardous and solid waste containing radioactive materials sent from Department of Energy facilities to offsite facilities for treatment or disposal since January 1, 1981. This response is for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Other Department of Energy laboratories are preparing responses for their respective operations. The request includes ten questions, which the report divides into three parts, each responding to a related group of questions. Part 1 answers Questions 5, 6, and 7, which call for a description of Department of Energy and contractor documentation governing the release of waste containing radioactive materials to offsite facilities. Offsite'' is defined as non-Department of Energy and non-Department of Defense facilities, such as commercial facilities. Also requested is a description of the review process for relevant release criteria and a list of afl Department of Energy and contractor documents concerning release criteria as of January 1, 1981. Part 2 answers Questions 4, 8, and 9, which call for information about actual releases of waste containing radioactive materials to offsite facilities from 1981 to the present, including radiation levels and pertinent documentation. Part 3 answers Question 10, which requests a description of the process for selecting offsite facilities for treatment or disposal of waste from Department of Energy facilities. In accordance with instructions from the Department of Energy, the report does not address Questions 1, 2, and 3.

  16. The Y-12 Plant No Rad-Added Program for off-site shipment of nonradioactive hazardous waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooper, K.H.; Mattie, B.K.; Williams, J.L.; Jacobs, D.G.; Roberts, K.A.

    1994-02-14

    On May 17, 1991, the US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a directive for DOE operations to cease off-site shipments of non-radioactive hazardous waste pending further clarification and approvals. A DOE Performance Objective for Certification of Non-Radioactive Hazardous Waste was issued in November 1991. In response to these directives, the Waste Management Division of Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, with assistance from Roy F. Weston, Inc., has developed a No Rad-Added Program to provide small programmatic guidance and a set of procedures, approved by DOE, which will permit hazardous waste to be shipped from the Y-12 Plant to commercial treatment, storage, or disposal facilities after ensuring and certifying that hazardous waste has no radioactivity added as a result of DOE operations. There are serious legal and financial consequences of shipping waste containing radioactivity to an off-site facility not licensed to receive radioactive materials. Therefore, this program is designed with well-defined responsibilities and stringent documentation requirements.

  17. Barge Truck Total

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Barge Truck Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over...

  18. Steam generator behavior during loss-of-feedwater and loss-of-offsite-power ATWS experiments in LOFT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koizumi, Y.; Behling, S.R.; Grush, W.H.

    1983-11-01

    Two Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) experiments, L9-3 and L9-4, were conducted in the Loss-of-Fluid Test (LOFT) facility. The LOFT facility is a volumetrically scaled (1/44) pressurized water reactor (PWR) system with a nuclear core and is designed for integral loss-of-coolant accident/emergency core cooling experiments. Experiment L9-3 simulated a loss-of-feedwater ATWS in a commercial PWR; Experiment L9-4 simulated a loss-of-offsite-power ATWS. The system transient behavior in each experiment was dominated by interaction between the primary-to-secondary heat removal rate in the steam generator and by reactor kinetics in the core. Comparisons of RELAP5/MOD1 calculational results to the measured test data show that the degradation of the primary-to-secondary heat transfer and the transient response of the primary coolant system in both experiments were calculated well.

  19. Notice of Intent to Revise Department of Energy Order 461.1B, Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest

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

    2015-01-15

    The purpose of this memorandum is to provide justification for the proposed revision of DOE O 461.1B, Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest, dated 12-16-2010, as part of the the quadrennial review and recertification as required by DOE O 251.1C, Departmental Directives Program.

  20. Off-Site Radiation Exposure Review Project: Phase 2 soils program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McArthur, R.D.; Miller, F.L. Jr.

    1989-12-01

    To help estimate population doses of radiation from fallout originating at the Nevada Test Site, soil samples were collected throughout the western United States. Each sample was prepared by drying and ball-milling, then analyzed by gamma-spectrometry to determine the amount of {sup 137}Cs it contained. Most samples were also analyzed by chemical separation and alpha-spectrometry to determine {sup 239 + 240}Pu and by isotope mass spectroscopy to determine the ratios of {sup 240}Pu to {sup 239}Pu and {sup 241}Pu to {sup 239}Pu. The total inventories of cesium and plutonium at 171 sites were computed from the results. This report describes the sample collection, processing, and analysis, presents the analytical results, and assesses the quality of the data. 10 refs., 9 figs., 12 tabs.

  1. ,"Total Natural Gas Consumption

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Consumption (billion cubic feet)",,,,,"Natural Gas Energy Intensity (cubic feetsquare foot)" ,"Total ","Space Heating","Water Heating","Cook- ing","Other","Total ","Space...

  2. Analysis of offsite emergency planning zones for the Rocky Flats Plant. Evaluation of radiological materials, Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hodgin, C.R.; Daugherty, N.M.; Smith, M.L.; Bunch, D.; Toresdahl, J.; Verholek, M.G.

    1991-01-01

    The objective of this report is to fully document technical data and information that have been developed to support offsite emergency planning by the State of Colorado for potential accidents at the Rocky Flats Plant. Specifically, this report documents information and data that will assist the State of Colorado in upgrading its radiological emergency planning zones for Rocky Flats Plant. The Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services (DODES) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) represent the primary audience for this report. The secondary audience for this document includes the Rocky Flats Plant; federal, State, and local governmental agencies; the scientific community; and the interested public. Because the primary audience has a pre-existing background on the subject, this report assumes some exposure to emergency planning, health physics, and dispersion modeling on the part of the reader. The authors have limited their assumptions of background knowledge as much as possible, recognizing that the topics addressed in the report may be new to some secondary audiences.

  3. Costs for off-site disposal of nonhazardous oil field wastes: Salt caverns versus other disposal methods

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A.

    1997-09-01

    According to an American Petroleum Institute production waste survey reported on by P.G. Wakim in 1987 and 1988, the exploration and production segment of the US oil and gas industry generated more than 360 million barrels (bbl) of drilling wastes, more than 20 billion bbl of produced water, and nearly 12 million bbl of associated wastes in 1985. Current exploration and production activities are believed to be generating comparable quantities of these oil field wastes. Wakim estimates that 28% of drilling wastes, less than 2% of produced water, and 52% of associated wastes are disposed of in off-site commercial facilities. In recent years, interest in disposing of oil field wastes in solution-mined salt caverns has been growing. This report provides information on the availability of commercial disposal companies in oil-and gas-producing states, the treatment and disposal methods they employ, and the amounts they charge. It also compares cavern disposal costs with the costs of other forms of waste disposal.

  4. Analysis of offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for the Rocky Flats Plant. Phase 3, Sitewide spectrum-of-accidents and bounding EPZ analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Petrocchi, A.J.; Zimmerman, G.A.

    1994-03-14

    During Phase 3 of the EPZ project, a sitewide analysis will be performed applying a spectrum-of-accidents approach to both radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials release scenarios. This analysis will include the MCA but will be wider in scope and will produce options for the State of Colorado for establishing a bounding EPZ that is intended to more comprehensively update the interim, preliminary EPZ developed in Phase 2. EG&G will propose use of a hazards assessment methodology that is consistent with the DOE Emergency Management Guide for Hazards Assessments and other methods required by DOE orders. This will include hazards, accident, safety, and risk analyses. Using this methodology, EG&G will develop technical analyses for a spectrum of accidents. The analyses will show the potential effects from the spectrum of accidents on the offsite population together with identification of offsite vulnerable zones and areas of concern. These analyses will incorporate state-of-the-art technology for accident analysis, atmospheric plume dispersion modeling, consequence analysis, and the application of these evaluations to the general public population at risk. The analyses will treat both radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials and mixtures of both released accidentally to the atmosphere. DOE/RFO will submit these results to the State of Colorado for the State`s use in determining offsite emergency planning zones for the Rocky Flats Plant. In addition, the results will be used for internal Rocky Flats Plant emergency planning.

  5. OFF-SITE S

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    ... g r a d i o i o d i n e were from open s u p p l i e s n o t used f o r human consumption. ... i n e i n t h e milk, t h e r a t e of consumption, t h e above child-dose-conversion f a ...

  6. Nevada Offsites Fact Sheet

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    ... For more information about LM, contact: U.S. Department of Energy Offce of Legacy Management 2597 Legacy Way, Grand Junction, CO 81503 (970) 248-6070 or toll-free at (877) 695-5322 ...

  7. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration...

  8. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    A. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per...

  9. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    A. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  10. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Revised: December, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings...

  11. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings*...

  12. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    . Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per...

  13. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  14. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region, 1999" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per Square Foot"...

  15. Parallel Total Energy

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-10-21

    This is a total energy electronic structure code using Local Density Approximation (LDA) of the density funtional theory. It uses the plane wave as the wave function basis set. It can sue both the norm conserving pseudopotentials and the ultra soft pseudopotentials. It can relax the atomic positions according to the total energy. It is a parallel code using MP1.

  16. U.S. Total Exports

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt ... Sabine Pass, LA Total to Russia Total to South Korea Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total ...

  17. Summary Max Total Units

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

    Summary Max Total Units *If All Splits, No Rack Units **If Only FW, AC Splits 1000 52 28 28 2000 87 59 35 3000 61 33 15 4000 61 33 15 Totals 261 153 93 ***Costs $1,957,500.00 $1,147,500.00 $697,500.00 Notes: added several refrigerants removed bins from analysis removed R-22 from list 1000lb, no Glycol, CO2 or ammonia Seawater R-404A only * includes seawater units ** no seawater units included *** Costs = (total units) X (estimate of $7500 per unit) 1000lb, air cooled split systems, fresh water

  18. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other...

  19. ARM - Measurement - Total carbon

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

    carbon ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Measurement : Total carbon The total concentration of carbon in all its organic and non-organic forms. Categories Atmospheric Carbon, Aerosols Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including

  20. Total DOE/NNSA

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 Actuals 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 2014 Actuals 2015 Actuals Total DOE/NNSA 4,385 4,151 4,240 4,862 5,154 5,476 7,170 7,593 Total non-NNSA 3,925 4,017 4,005 3,821 3,875 3,974 3,826 3765 Total Facility 8,310 8,168 8,245 8,683 9,029 9,450 10,996 11,358 non-NNSA includes DOE offices and Strategic Parternship Projects (SPP) employees NNSA M&O Employee Reporting

  1. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    76 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 27 24 86 134 65 24 192 171 1189 423 PAY PLAN SES 96 EX 4 EJ/EK 60 EN 05 39 EN 04 159 EN 03 21 EN 00 8 NN (Engineering) 398 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1165 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 54 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 325 GS 15 3 GS 14 1 GS 13 1 GS 10 1 Total includes 2318 permanent and 17 temporary employees. DIVERSITY 2335 1559 66.8% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 33.2% National

  2. Analysis of offsite emergency planning zones (EPZs) for the Rocky Flats Plant. Phase 3, Sitewide spectrum-of-accidents and bounding EPZ analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Petrocchi, A.J.; Smith, M.L.

    1993-10-25

    This Charter provides the basis for a cooperative, interagency effort to conduct Phase III of the ``Analysis of Offsite Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for the Rocky Flats Plant`` Project. The purpose of this Charter is to define the Project and establish an Oversight Committee management structure together with responsibilities and commitments. This Charter establishes a commitment on the part of the signing agencies to participate in a Phase III EPZ analysis to refine existing EPZs for the Rocky Flats Plant. These agencies agree to commit resources to this Project to fulfill their identified roles. The specific types and levels of resources committed by each agency will be determined as part of the Project planning process. This Charter does not commit any agency to any specific level of effort or resources. It does, however, commit these agencies to support the Phase III analysis to completion.

  3. Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2 code using loss of offsite power transient data of KNU (Korea Nuclear Unit) No. 1 Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chung, Bud-Dong; Kim, Hho-Jung . Korea Nuclear Safety Center); Lee, Young-Jin )

    1990-04-01

    This report presents a code assessment study based on a real plant transient that occurred on June 9, 1981 at the KNU {number sign}1 (Korea Nuclear Unit Number 1). KNU {number sign}1 is a two-loop Westinghouse PWR plant of 587 Mwe. The loss of offsite power transient occurred at the 77.5% reactor power with 0.5%/hr power ramp. The real plant data were collected from available on-line plant records and computer diagnostics. The transient was simulated by RELAP5/MOD2/36.05 and the results were compared with the plant data to assess the code weaknesses and strengths. Some nodalization studies were performed to contribute to developing a guideline for PWR nodalization for the transient analysis. 5 refs., 18 figs., 3 tabs.

  4. Determination of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Using Total Carbon Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ekechukwu, A.A.

    2002-05-10

    Several methods have been proposed to replace the Freon(TM)-extraction method to determine total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content. For reasons of cost, sensitivity, precision, or simplicity, none of the replacement methods are feasible for analysis of radioactive samples at our facility. We have developed a method to measure total petroleum hydrocarbon content in aqueous sample matrixes using total organic carbon (total carbon) determination. The total carbon content (TC1) of the sample is measured using a total organic carbon analyzer. The sample is then contacted with a small volume of non-pokar solvent to extract the total petroleum hydrocarbons. The total carbon content of the resultant aqueous phase of the extracted sample (TC2) is measured. Total petroleum hydrocarbon content is calculated (TPH = TC1-TC2). The resultant data are consistent with results obtained using Freon(TM) extraction followed by infrared absorbance.

  5. Table A26. Total Quantity of Purchased Energy Sources by Census...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... purchased by a central purchasing office offsite, and quantities for" "which payment is made in-kind." " Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy ...

  6. U.S. Total Exports

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Barbados Total To Brazil Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Canada Eastport, ID Calais, ME Detroit, MI Marysville, MI Port Huron, MI Crosby, ND Portal, ND Sault St. Marie, MI St. Clair, MI Noyes, MN Warroad, MN Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Buffalo, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Sweetgrass, MT Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt Freeport, TX Total to India

  7. Stocking of Offsite Waters for Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Creston National Fish Hatchery, FY 2006 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hooley, Sharon

    2009-03-20

    A total of 350,000, M012 strain, westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) eggs were received from Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks (MFWP), Washoe Park State Fish Hatchery in June of 2005 to accomplish this fishery management objective. These eggs were incubated, hatched and reared entirely inside the hatchery nursery building using a protected well water supply. Fish grew according to schedule and survival was excellent. The hatchery achieved a 0.78 feed fed to pounds gained conversion ratio for this group of WCT. Not all of the progenies from this fish lot were used for Hungry Horse Dam Fishery Mitigation Implementation. Some were used for other regional fishery management projects. Westslope cutthroat trout were reared using approved fish culture techniques as recommended in the USFWS Fish Hatchery Management Handbook and also utilizing a regimen adapted for hatchery specific site conditions. The fish health for these WCT was very good. Survival from first feeding fry stage to stocking was 79%. The hatchery had an annual fish health inspection performed by the USFWS Bozeman Fish Health Center in mid March of 2006. This inspection found all fish lots at Creston to be disease free. The Montana State Fish Health Board has placed the hatchery under a limited quarantine since May of 2005 due to an epizootic of Furunculosis. This classification has allowed the Creston NFH to stock disease free fish in locations approved by regional fish managers. The hatchery has been working with the State Fish Pathologist to remove the limited quarantine classification from the facility. Although fish health for all station fish lots remains disease free, MFWP has asserted it will not remove the limited quarantine until the new influent water treatment system, including the ultraviolet disinfection unit, is running full time, year round. The USFWS is working to secure the additional funding necessary to operate the treatment building year round. Distribution of the WCT took place from March

  8. Total Eolica | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Eolica Jump to: navigation, search Name: Total Eolica Place: Spain Product: Project developer References: Total Eolica1 This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding...

  9. Total..............................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    111.1 86.6 2,720 1,970 1,310 1,941 1,475 821 1,059 944 554 Census Region and Division Northeast.................................... 20.6 13.9 3,224 2,173 836 2,219 1,619 583 903 830 Q New England.......................... 5.5 3.6 3,365 2,154 313 2,634 1,826 Q 951 940 Q Middle Atlantic........................ 15.1 10.3 3,167 2,181 1,049 2,188 1,603 582 Q Q Q Midwest...................................... 25.6 21.0 2,823 2,239 1,624 2,356 1,669 1,336 1,081 961 778 East North

  10. Total............................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

  11. Total..............................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,171 1,618 1,031 845 630 401 Census Region and Division Northeast................................................... 20.6 2,334 1,664 562 911 649 220 New England.......................................... 5.5 2,472 1,680 265 1,057 719 113 Middle Atlantic........................................ 15.1 2,284 1,658 670 864 627 254 Midwest...................................................... 25.6 2,421 1,927 1,360 981 781 551 East North Central.................................. 17.7 2,483 1,926 1,269

  12. Total...............................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 9.3 11.9 18.2 11.0 2.......................................................... 16.2 2.9 3.5 5.5 4.4 3 or More............................................. 9.0 1.5 2.1 2.9 2.5 Number of Laptop PCs

  13. Total...............................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 18.2 10.0 2.9 5.3 2.......................................................... 16.2 5.5 3.0 0.7 1.8 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  14. Total...............................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 17.1 10.8 4.2 1.8 1.6 10.3 20.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 9.6 18.0 16.4 11.3 20.3 6.4 17.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 8.3 14.2 11.4 7.2 9.2 5.3 14.2 2.......................................................... 16.2 0.9 2.6 3.7 2.9 6.2 0.8 2.6 3 or More............................................. 9.0 0.4 1.2

  15. Total...............................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 21.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 2.......................................................... 16.2 6.2 2.8 4.1 3.0 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  16. Total.................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    49.2 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................... 93.3 31.3 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Use Cooling Equipment................................ 91.4 30.4 14.6 15.4 11.1 6.9 5.2 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............... 1.9 1.0 0.5 Q Q Q Q Q Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................... 17.8 17.8 N N N N N N Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................. 65.9 3.9 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Without a Heat

  17. Total.................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment........ 1.2 N Q Q 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment........... 109.8 14.7 7.4 12.4 12.2 18.5 18.3 17.1 9.2 Use Main Space Heating Equipment............. 109.1 14.6 7.3 12.4 12.2 18.2 18.2 17.1 9.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It............... 0.8 Q Q Q Q 0.3 Q N Q Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas................................................... 58.2 9.2 4.9 7.8 7.1 8.8 8.4 7.8 4.2 Central

  18. Total..................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    . 111.1 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 3.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.6 1.7 0.4 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 10.8 5.6 10.3 10.4 15.8 16.0 15.6 8.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 10.6 5.5 10.3 10.3 15.3 15.7 15.3 8.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 Q Q Q Q 0.6 0.4 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central

  19. Total...................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    15.2 7.8 1.0 1.2 3.3 1.9 For Two Housing Units............................. 0.9 Q N Q 0.6 N Heat Pump.................................................. 9.2 7.4 0.3 Q 0.7 0.5 Portable Electric Heater............................... 1.6 0.8 Q Q Q 0.3 Other Equipment......................................... 1.9 0.7 Q Q 0.7 Q Fuel Oil........................................................... 7.7 5.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 Steam or Hot Water System........................ 4.7 2.9 Q 0.7 0.8 N For One Housing

  20. Total...................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................... 65.9 47.5 4.0 2.8 7.9 3.7 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 37.8 3.4 2.2 7.0 3.1 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 9.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 Window/Wall Units.......................................... 28.9 14.9 2.3 3.5 6.0 2.1 1 Unit........................................................... 14.5 6.6 1.0 1.6 4.2 1.2 2

  1. Total.......................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.9 5.3 1.6 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 13.7 9.8 3.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 9.3 6.8 2.5 2.................................................................. 16.2 2.9 1.9 1.0 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 1.5 1.1 0.4 Number of Laptop PCs

  2. Total.......................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.9 8.4 3.4 2.................................................................. 16.2 3.5 2.2 1.3 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  3. Total.......................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.0 3.4 7.6 2.................................................................. 16.2 4.4 1.3 3.1 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  4. Total........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 25.6 40.3 23.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 25.6 40.1 22.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N Q 0.6 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 18.4 13.6 14.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1

  5. Total........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 25.6 17.7 7.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 25.6 17.7 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 18.4 13.1 5.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 16.2 11.6 4.7 For One Housing

  6. Total........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 40.3 21.4 6.9 12.0 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 40.1 21.2 6.9 12.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 Q Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 13.6 5.6 2.3 5.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 11.0 4.4

  7. Total........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.2 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 7.1 6.8 7.9 11.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 7.1 6.6 7.9 11.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N Q N 0.5 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 3.8 0.4 3.8 8.4 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 1.8 Q 3.1 6.0

  8. Total...........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 16.5 12.8 3.8 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 16.3 12.6 3.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 0.3 Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat

  9. Total...........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  10. Total...........................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  11. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5 Without a Heat

  12. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 4.0 2.7 1.2 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 7.9 5.4 2.5 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 6.0 4.8 1.2 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.6 0.5 Q Less Than Once a

  13. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.4 1.0 0.4 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 5.8 3.5 2.3 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 10.7 7.8 2.9 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 5.6 4.0 1.6 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 Less Than Once a

  14. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  15. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a Heat

  16. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 2.6 0.7 1.9 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 6.6 2.0 4.6 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 8.8 2.9 5.8 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 4.7 1.5 3.1 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.7 Q 0.6 Less Than Once a

  17. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  18. Total.............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5 Without a Heat

  19. Total..............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5

  20. Total..............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a

  1. Total..............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer .......................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer....................................... 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Number of Desktop PCs 1......................................................................... 50.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 5.4 2......................................................................... 16.2 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.2 3 or More............................................................ 9.0 0.3

  2. Total..............................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5

  3. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 10.4 14.1 20.5 13.7 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.3 3.4 6.1 4.1 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  4. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 14.1 10.0 4.0 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.4 2.1 1.3 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  5. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.0 1.6 0.3 1.1 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 8.3 4.2 1.3 2.7 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 15.0 8.1 2.7 4.2 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 10.9 6.0 1.8 3.1 About Once a Week..................................................... 3.9

  6. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 20.5 11.0 3.4 6.1 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 6.1 3.5 0.7 1.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  7. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 13.7 4.2 9.5 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 4.1 1.1 3.0 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  8. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 10.8 4.1 4.3 5.5 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 17.0 7.2 8.7 9.3 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 11.4 4.7 6.4 4.8 About Once a Week.....................................................

  9. Total....................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    111.1 47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 22.9 9.8 14.1 11.9 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 7.4 2.7 4.0 2.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  10. Total.........................................................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ..... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer...................................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer.................................................. 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model............................................................. 58.6 3.2 3.9 4.0 6.7 Laptop Model................................................................. 16.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.4 Hours Turned on Per Week Less

  11. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Basements Basement in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings ... Attics Attic in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings ...

  12. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Climate region 3 Very coldCold 31,898 30,469 28,057 28,228 21,019 30,542 25,067 Mixed-humid 27,873 26,716 24,044 26,365 21,026 27,096 22,812 Mixed-dryHot-dry 12,037 10,484 7,628 ...

  13. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System......Central Air-Conditioning...... 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 ...

  14. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Income Relative to Poverty Line Below 100 Percent......1.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 1. Below 150 percent of poverty line or 60 percent of median State ...

  15. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  16. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.4 Space Heating Characteristics by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More Space Heating ...

  17. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... Table HC7.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Table HC7.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ...

  18. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ...

  19. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Table HC7.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty ... Table HC7.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty ...

  20. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Table HC7.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 40,000 to 59,999 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  1. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  2. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  3. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  4. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Median square feet per building (thousand) Median square feet per worker Median operating hours per week Median age of buildings (years) All buildings 5,557 87,093 88,182 5.0 1,029 50 32 Building floorspace (square feet) 1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.8 821 49 37 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.0 1,167 50 31 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 15.0 1,444 56 32 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.0 1,461 60 29 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 67.0 1,442 60 26 100,001 to 200,000 90

  5. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  6. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  7. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Housing Characteristics Tables Single-Family Units Detached Type of Housing Unit Table ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  8. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Living Space ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Living Space ...

  9. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural ...

  10. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... 41.8 2,603 2,199 1,654 941 795 598 1-Car Garage...... 9.5 2,064 1,664 1,039 775 624 390 2-Car Garage......

  11. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Average Square Feet per Apartment in a -- Apartments (millions) Major Outside Wall Construction Siding (Aluminum, Vinyl, Steel)...... 35.3 3.5 1,286 1,090 325 852 786 461 ...

  12. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC3.2 ...

  13. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Table HC4.2 Living Space Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy ...

  14. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Per Household Member Average Square Feet Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC1.2.2 ...

  15. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment...... 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment...... 93.3 ...

  16. Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and 1994 Vehicle Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total 1993 Family Income Below Poverty Line Eli- gible for Fed- eral Assist- ance 1 RSE Row Factor: Less than 5,000 5,000...

  17. ARM - Measurement - Total cloud water

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

    cloud water ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Measurement : Total cloud water The total concentration (mass/vol) of ice and liquid water particles in a cloud; this includes condensed water content (CWC). Categories Cloud Properties Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a

  18. CATEGORY Total Procurement Total Small Business Small Disadvantaged

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    CATEGORY Total Procurement Total Small Business Small Disadvantaged Business Woman Owned Small Business HubZone Small Business Veteran-Owned Small Business Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business FY 2013 Dollars Accomplished $1,049,087,940 $562,676,028 $136,485,766 $106,515,229 $12,080,258 $63,473,852 $28,080,960 FY 2013 % Accomplishment 54.40% 13.00% 10.20% 1.20% 6.60% 2.70% FY 2014 Dollars Accomplished $868,961,755 $443,711,175 $92,478,522 $88,633,031 $29,867,820 $43,719,452 $26,826,374

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 New Hampshire - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle ...

  20. Total Number of Operable Refineries

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data Series: Total Number of Operable Refineries Number of Operating Refineries Number of Idle Refineries Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/SD) Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge

  1. Total Estimated Contract Cost: Performance Period Total Fee Paid

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Performance Period Total Fee Paid FY2008 $134,832 FY2009 $142,578 FY2010 $299,878 FY2011 $169,878 Cumulative Fee Paid $747,166 Contract Period: September 2007 - October 2012 $31,885,815 C/P/E Environmental Services, LLC DE-AM09-05SR22405/DE-AT30-07CC60011/SL14 Contractor: Contract Number: Contract Type: Cost Plus Award Fee $357,223 $597,797 $894,699 EM Contractor Fee Site: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) Contract Name: SLAC Environmental Remediation December 2012 $1,516,646 Fee

  2. Design Storm for Total Retention.pdf

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

    Title: Design Storm for "Total Retention" under Individual Permit, Poster, Individual ... International. Environmental Programs Design Storm for "Total Retention" under ...

  3. U.S. Total Imports

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    St. Clair, MI International Falls, MN Noyes, MN Warroad, MN Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Del Bonita, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sweetgrass, MT Whitlash, MT Portal, ND Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Champlain, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Highgate Springs, VT North Troy, VT U.S. Pipeline Total from Mexico Ogilby, CA Otay Mesa, CA Alamo, TX El Paso, TX Galvan Ranch, TX Hidalgo, TX McAllen, TX Penitas, TX LNG Imports from Algeria Cove Point, MD Everett, MA Lake

  4. The use of real-time off-site observations as a methodology for increasing forecast skill in prediction of large wind power ramps one or more hours ahead of their impact on a wind plant.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Martin Wilde, Principal Investigator

    2012-12-31

    ABSTRACT Application of Real-Time Offsite Measurements in Improved Short-Term Wind Ramp Prediction Skill Improved forecasting performance immediately preceding wind ramp events is of preeminent concern to most wind energy companies, system operators, and balancing authorities. The value of near real-time hub height-level wind data and more general meteorological measurements to short-term wind power forecasting is well understood. For some sites, access to onsite measured wind data - even historical - can reduce forecast error in the short-range to medium-range horizons by as much as 50%. Unfortunately, valuable free-stream wind measurements at tall tower are not typically available at most wind plants, thereby forcing wind forecasters to rely upon wind measurements below hub height and/or turbine nacelle anemometry. Free-stream measurements can be appropriately scaled to hub-height levels, using existing empirically-derived relationships that account for surface roughness and turbulence. But there is large uncertainty in these relationships for a given time of day and state of the boundary layer. Alternatively, forecasts can rely entirely on turbine anemometry measurements, though such measurements are themselves subject to wake effects that are not stationary. The void in free-stream hub-height level measurements of wind can be filled by remote sensing (e.g., sodar, lidar, and radar). However, the expense of such equipment may not be sustainable. There is a growing market for traditional anemometry on tall tower networks, maintained by third parties to the forecasting process (i.e., independent of forecasters and the forecast users). This study examines the value of offsite tall-tower data from the WINDataNOW Technology network for short-horizon wind power predictions at a wind farm in northern Montana. The presentation shall describe successful physical and statistical techniques for its application and the practicality of its application in an operational

  5. Total quality management implementation guidelines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-12-01

    These Guidelines were designed by the Energy Quality Council to help managers and supervisors in the Department of Energy Complex bring Total Quality Management to their organizations. Because the Department is composed of a rich mixture of diverse organizations, each with its own distinctive culture and quality history, these Guidelines are intended to be adapted by users to meet the particular needs of their organizations. For example, for organizations that are well along on their quality journeys and may already have achieved quality results, these Guidelines will provide a consistent methodology and terminology reference to foster their alignment with the overall Energy quality initiative. For organizations that are just beginning their quality journeys, these Guidelines will serve as a startup manual on quality principles applied in the Energy context.

  6. Total Imports of Residual Fuel

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 View History U.S. Total 9,010 5,030 8,596 6,340 4,707 8,092 1936-2016 PAD District 1 3,127 2,664 2,694 1,250 1,327 2,980 1981-2016 Connecticut 1995-2015 Delaware 280 1995-2016 Florida 858 649 800 200 531 499 1995-2016 Georgia 210 262 149 106 1995-2016 Maine 1995-2015 Maryland 84 1995-2016 Massachusetts 1995-2015 New Hampshire 1995-2015 New Jersey 1,283 843 1,073 734 355 1,984 1995-2016 New York 234 824 210 196 175 1995-2016 North Carolina 1995-2011

  7. Total Imports of Residual Fuel

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History U.S. Total 133,646 119,888 93,672 82,173 63,294 68,265 1936-2015 PAD District 1 88,999 79,188 59,594 33,566 30,944 33,789 1981-2015 Connecticut 220 129 1995-2015 Delaware 748 1,704 510 1,604 2,479 1995-2015 Florida 15,713 11,654 10,589 8,331 5,055 7,013 1995-2015 Georgia 5,648 7,668 6,370 4,038 2,037 1,629 1995-2015 Maine 1,304 651 419 75 317 135 1995-2015 Maryland 3,638 1,779 1,238 433 938 539 1995-2015 Massachusetts 123 50 78 542 88 1995-2015 New

  8. Total Adjusted Sales of Kerosene

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    End Use: Total Residential Commercial Industrial Farm All Other Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: End Use Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 269,010 305,508 187,656 81,102 79,674 137,928 1984-2014 East Coast (PADD 1) 198,762 237,397 142,189 63,075 61,327 106,995 1984-2014 New England (PADD 1A) 56,661 53,363 38,448 15,983 15,991 27,500 1984-2014 Connecticut 8,800 7,437

  9. Total quality management program planning

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thornton, P.T.; Spence, K.

    1994-05-01

    As government funding grows scarce, competition between the national laboratories is increasing dramatically. In this era of tougher competition, there is no for resistance to change. There must instead be a uniform commitment to improving the overall quality of our products (research and technology) and an increased focus on our customers` needs. There has been an ongoing effort to bring the principles of total quality management (TQM) to all Energy Systems employees to help them better prepare for future changes while responding to the pressures on federal budgets. The need exists for instituting a vigorous program of education and training to an understanding of the techniques needed to improve and initiate a change in organizational culture. The TQM facilitator is responsible for educating the work force on the benefits of self-managed work teams, designing a program of instruction for implementation, and thus getting TQM off the ground at the worker and first-line supervisory levels so that the benefits can flow back up. This program plan presents a conceptual model for TQM in the form of a hot air balloon. In this model, there are numerous factors which can individually and collectively impede the progress of TQM within the division and the Laboratory. When these factors are addressed and corrected, the benefits of TQM become more visible. As this occurs, it is hoped that workers and management alike will grasp the ``total quality`` concept as an acceptable agent for change and continual improvement. TQM can then rise to the occasion and take its rightful place as an integral and valid step in the Laboratory`s formula for survival.

  10. Total-derivative supersymmetry breaking

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Haba, Naoyuki; Uekusa, Nobuhiro

    2010-05-15

    On an interval compactification in supersymmetric theory, boundary conditions for bulk fields must be treated carefully. If they are taken arbitrarily following the requirement that a theory is supersymmetric, the conditions could give redundant constraints on the theory. We construct a supersymmetric action integral on an interval by introducing brane interactions with which total-derivative terms under the supersymmetry transformation become zero due to a cancellation. The variational principle leads equations of motion and also boundary conditions for bulk fields, which determine boundary values of bulk fields. By estimating mass spectrum, spontaneous supersymmetry breaking in this simple setup can be realized in a new framework. This supersymmetry breaking does not induce a massless R axion, which is favorable for phenomenology. It is worth noting that fermions in hyper-multiplet, gauge bosons, and the fifth-dimensional component of gauge bosons can have zero-modes (while the other components are all massive as Kaluza-Klein modes), which fits the gauge-Higgs unification scenarios.

  11. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing...

  12. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings* ... 1,870 1,276...

  13. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All...

  14. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings* ... 1,602 1,397...

  15. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings ... 2,037...

  16. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Total Consumption ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)" ...

  17. ,"Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Exports"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products ... "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Exports" ...

  18. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Total Consumption ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)" ...

  19. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Total Consumption ... 9:10:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: North Dakota Natural Gas Total Consumption ...

  20. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption ... 9:10:33 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption ...

  1. " Level: National Data and Regional Totals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... by" "petroleum refineries, rather than purchased ... ,,"Total United States" ,"RSE Column ... 324,"Petroleum and Coal ...

  2. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Tables Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings* ... 634 578 46 1 Q 116.4 106.3...

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2 Alaska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S2. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alaska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 269 277 185 R 159 170 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 127,417 112,268

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 District of Columbia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S9. Summary statistics for natural gas - District of Columbia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Indiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S16. Summary statistics for natural gas - Indiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 620 914 819 R 921 895 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 6,802 9,075

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 Massachusetts - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S23. Summary statistics for natural gas - Massachusetts, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Nebraska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S29. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nebraska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 276 322 270 R 357 310 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 2,092 1,854

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    50 North Dakota - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S36. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Dakota, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 188 239 211 200 200 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  9. Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) Peer Review Panel for predicting the performance of a repository at Yucca Mountain.

  10. The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities Volume 3 of 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beck Colleen M.,Edwards Susan R.,King Maureen L.

    2011-09-01

    This document presents the results of nearly six years (2002-2008) of historical research and field studies concerned with evaluating potential environmental liabilities associated with U.S. Atomic Energy Commission projects from the Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs. The Plowshare Program's primary purpose was to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. The Vela Uniform Program focused on improving the capability of detecting, monitoring and identifying underground nuclear detonations. As a result of the Project Chariot site restoration efforts in the early 1990s, there were concerns that there might be other project locations with potential environmental liabilities. The Desert Research Institute conducted archival research to identify projects, an analysis of project field activities, and completed field studies at locations where substantial fieldwork had been undertaken for the projects. Although the Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear projects are well known, the projects that are included in this research are relatively unknown. They are proposed nuclear projects that were not executed, proposed and executed high explosive experiments, and proposed and executed high explosive construction activities off the Nevada Test Site. The research identified 170 Plowshare and Vela Uniform off-site projects and many of these had little or no field activity associated with them. However, there were 27 projects that merited further investigation and field studies were conducted at 15 locations.

  11. The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities Volume 2 of 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beck Colleen M.,Edwards Susan R.,King Maureen L.

    2011-09-01

    This document presents the results of nearly six years (2002-2008) of historical research and field studies concerned with evaluating potential environmental liabilities associated with U.S. Atomic Energy Commission projects from the Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs. The Plowshare Program's primary purpose was to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. The Vela Uniform Program focused on improving the capability of detecting, monitoring and identifying underground nuclear detonations. As a result of the Project Chariot site restoration efforts in the early 1990s, there were concerns that there might be other project locations with potential environmental liabilities. The Desert Research Institute conducted archival research to identify projects, an analysis of project field activities, and completed field studies at locations where substantial fieldwork had been undertaken for the projects. Although the Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear projects are well known, the projects that are included in this research are relatively unknown. They are proposed nuclear projects that were not executed, proposed and executed high explosive experiments, and proposed and executed high explosive construction activities off the Nevada Test Site. The research identified 170 Plowshare and Vela Uniform off-site projects and many of these had little or no field activity associated with them. However, there were 27 projects that merited further investigation and field studies were conducted at 15 locations.

  12. The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities Volume 1 of 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beck Colleen M,Edwards Susan R.,King Maureen L.

    2011-09-01

    This document presents the results of nearly six years (2002-2008) of historical research and field studies concerned with evaluating potential environmental liabilities associated with U.S. Atomic Energy Commission projects from the Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs. The Plowshare Program's primary purpose was to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. The Vela Uniform Program focused on improving the capability of detecting, monitoring and identifying underground nuclear detonations. As a result of the Project Chariot site restoration efforts in the early 1990s, there were concerns that there might be other project locations with potential environmental liabilities. The Desert Research Institute conducted archival research to identify projects, an analysis of project field activities, and completed field studies at locations where substantial fieldwork had been undertaken for the projects. Although the Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear projects are well known, the projects that are included in this research are relatively unknown. They are proposed nuclear projects that were not executed, proposed and executed high explosive experiments, and proposed and executed high explosive construction activities off the Nevada Test Site. The research identified 170 Plowshare and Vela Uniform off-site projects and many of these had little or no field activity associated with them. However, there were 27 projects that merited further investigation and field studies were conducted at 15 locations.

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Alabama - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S1. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alabama, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,026 7,063 6,327 R 6,165 6,118 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Arkansas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S4. Summary statistics for natural gas - Arkansas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,397 8,388 8,538 R 9,843 10,150 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 California - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S5. Summary statistics for natural gas - California, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 1,580 1,308 1,423 R 1,335 1,118 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Colorado - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S6. Summary statistics for natural gas - Colorado, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 28,813 30,101 32,000 R 32,468 38,346 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Florida - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S10. Summary statistics for natural gas - Florida, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 17,182 16,459 19,742

  18. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Georgia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S11. Summary statistics for natural gas - Georgia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Idaho - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S14. Summary statistics for natural gas - Idaho, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0

  20. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Illinois - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S15. Summary statistics for natural gas - Illinois, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 50 40 40 R 34 36 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells E 1,697 2,114

  1. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2 Iowa - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S17. Summary statistics for natural gas - Iowa, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0 0

  2. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 Kansas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S18. Summary statistics for natural gas - Kansas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 22,145 25,758 24,697 R 23,792 24,354 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Kentucky - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S19. Summary statistics for natural gas - Kentucky, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 17,670 14,632 17,936 R 19,494 19,256 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Louisiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S20. Summary statistics for natural gas - Louisiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 19,137 21,235 19,792 R 19,528 19,251 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Maine - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S21. Summary statistics for natural gas - Maine, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Michigan - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S24. Summary statistics for natural gas - Michigan, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 10,100 11,100 10,900 R 10,550 10,500 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Mississippi - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S26. Summary statistics for natural gas - Mississippi, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 1,979 5,732 1,669 R 1,967 1,645 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2 Missouri - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S27. Summary statistics for natural gas - Missouri, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 53 100 R 26 28 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 R 8 8 From

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 Montana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S28. Summary statistics for natural gas - Montana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,059 6,477 6,240 5,754 5,754 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Nevada - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S30. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nevada, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 R 4 4 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 3 From Oil Wells