skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Atmospheric Sciences Department Org. 6913 Operations Safety ES&H Overview Engineered Safety Process.


Abstract not provided.

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23)
OSTI Identifier:
Report Number(s):
DOE Contract Number:
Resource Type:
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the Sandia Labs ES&H advisory board review meeting held December 7, 2016 in Albuquerque, NM, US.
Country of Publication:
United States

Citation Formats

Ivey, Mark D. Atmospheric Sciences Department Org. 6913 Operations Safety ES&H Overview Engineered Safety Process.. United States: N. p., 2017. Web.
Ivey, Mark D. Atmospheric Sciences Department Org. 6913 Operations Safety ES&H Overview Engineered Safety Process.. United States.
Ivey, Mark D. Wed . "Atmospheric Sciences Department Org. 6913 Operations Safety ES&H Overview Engineered Safety Process.". United States. doi:.
title = {Atmospheric Sciences Department Org. 6913 Operations Safety ES&H Overview Engineered Safety Process.},
author = {Ivey, Mark D.},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2017},
month = {Wed Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2017}

Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary analysis and comparison of various environment, safety, and health (ES&H) management systems required of, or suggested for use by, the Departrnent of Energy Defense Programs` sites. The summary analysis is provided by means of a comparison matrix, a set of Vean diagrams that highlights the focus of the systems, and an `End Gate` filter diagram that integrates the three Vean diagrams. It is intended that this paper will act as a starting point for implementing a particular system or in establishing a comprehensive site-wide integrated ES&H management system. Obviously, themore » source documents for each system would need to be reviewed to assure proper implementation of a particular system. The matrix compares nine ES&H management systems against a list of elements generated by identifying the unique elements of all the systems. To simplify the matrix, the elements are listed by means of a brief title. An explanation of the matrix elements is provided in Attachment 2 entitled, `Description of System Elements.` The elements are categorized under the Total Quality Management (TQM) `Plan, Do, Check, Act` framework with the added category of `Policy`. (The TQM concept is explained in the `DOE Quality Management implementation Guidelines,` July 1997 (DOE/QM- 0008)). The matrix provides a series of columns and rows to compare the unique elements found in each of the management systems. A `V` is marked if the element is explicitly identified as part of the particular ES&H management system. An `X` is marked if the element is not found in the particular ES&H management system, or if it is considered to be inadequately addressed. A `?` is marked if incorporation of the element is not clear. Attachment I provides additional background information which explains the justification for the marks in the matrix cells. Through the Vean diagrams and the `End Gate` filter in Section 3, the paper attempts to pictorially display the focus of each system with respect to ES&H, the hazard of concern, and any limitations with respect to the TQM categories. A summary evaluation and explanation of each of the systems is provided in Section 4 of the paper. Several other ES&H systems were reviewed in preparation of the paper, but were not specifically included as a system in this matrix. Only those ES&H management systems that are potentially applicable to DOE Defense Program sites were included as part of the matrix comparison. A description of other ES&H management systems that were evaluated, but not specifically incorporated in this matrix comparison, are provided in Attachment 3 entitled, `Other ES&H Management Systems Reviewed.` In the past, it has been difficult integrating ES&H into work planning for several reasons. One barrier to this integration has been the complexity caused by the existence of several `stove pipe` ES&H systems. By analyzing the unique elements of the various ES&H systems, as well as their strengths and limitations, and their similarities and differences, it is envisioned that this paper will aid in facilitating the integration of ES&H into work planning. This paper was developed by the Office of Defense Programs (DP-45) and all questions or comments should be directed to Anthony Neglia of that office at (301) 903-3531 or« less
  • This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the US Department of Energy Integrated Safety Process or ``Seamless Safety (SS-21)`` program for reducing risk associated with nuclear explosive operations. A key element in the Integrated Safety Process is the use of hazard assessment techniques to evaluate process design changes in parallel or concurrently with process design and development. This concurrent hazard assessment method recently was employed for the B61-0, 2 & 5 and W69 nuclear explosive dismantlement activities. This paper reviews the SS-21 hazard assessment process and summarizes the results of the concurrent hazard assessments performed for the B61 and W69 dismantlementmore » programs. Comparisons of quantitative hazard assessment results before and after implementation of the SS-21 design process shed light on the effectiveness of the SS-21 program for achieving risk reduction.« less
  • All sites in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Complex prepare this report annually for the DOE Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH). The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the previous and current year's Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) execution commitments and the Safety and Health (S&H) resources that support these activities. The fiscal year (FY) 2000 and 2001 information and data contained in the Richland Operations Environment, Safefy and Health Fiscal Year 2002 Budget-Risk Management Summary (RL 2000a) were the basis for preparing this report. Fiscal year 2001 activities are based on themore » President's Amended Congressional Budget Request of $689.6 million for funding Ofice of Environmental Management (EM) $44.0 million for Fast Flux Test Facility standby less $7.0 million in anticipated DOE, Headquarters holdbacks for Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE); and $55.3 million for Safeguards and Security (SAS). Any funding changes as a result of the Congressional appropriation process will be reflected in the Fiscal Year 2003 ES&H Budget-Risk Management Summary to be issued in May 2001. This report provides the end-of-year status of FY 2000 ES&H execution commitments, including actual S&H expenditures, and describes planned FY 2001 ES&H execution commitments and the S&H resources needed to support those activities. This requirement is included in the ES&H guidance contained in the FY 2002 Field Budget Call (DOE 2000).« less
  • The Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability (ARAC), with its central facility located at LLL, is meeting the long-term need for rapid and accurate regional dose-to-man estimates of nuclear material released as a result of accidents, operations, or terrorism acts. During the past two years, ARAC has been used in four potential WARMSPOT events and for one accidental release. Continuing research, in terms of new modeling techniques, simulation of regional tracer experiments, and other verification activities, support this capability. Emergency response is currently being upgraded to evaluate the consequences of atmospheric releases at selected nuclear facilities and for potential acts of nuclearmore » terrorism anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Regional modeling was also applied in monitoring SO/sub 2/-sulfate concentrations in the northeastern USA.« less