DOE Order 5480.28 Hanford facilities database

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Hayenga, J.L., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-09-01

This document describes the development of a database of DOE and/or leased Hanford Site Facilities. The completed database will consist of structure/facility parameters essential to the prioritization of these structures for natural phenomena hazard vulnerability in compliance with DOE Order 5480.28, `Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation`. The prioritization process will be based upon the structure/facility vulnerability to natural phenomena hazards. The ACCESS based database, `Hanford Facilities Site Database`, is generated from current Hanford Site information and databases.

Programme for the Environmental Control at the Swedish Nuclear Facilities, Revision

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Linden, Ann-Marie

2004-12-01

This report contains a revised version of the Environmental Monitoring Programme for the Swedish Nuclear Facilities. The revision is based on earlier experiences and evaluations. Some samples have been excluded. Some have been added, for example spruce cone and the food products apple and currant. The sediment samples of 2 cm length have been completed with samples of 10 cm length every fourth year to follow the migration of radio nuclides down the sediment layers over time. The revised Environmental Monitoring Programme is valid from the 1st of January 2005

Workplace air monitoring and sampling practices at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Swinth, K.L.; Kenoyer, J.L.; Selby, J.M.

1987-01-01

The Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) surveyed the current air monitoring and sampling practices at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities as a part of an air monitoring upgrade task. A comprehensive questionnaire was developed and distributed to DOE contractors through the DOE field offices. Twenty-six facilities returned a completed questionnaire. Questionnaire replies indicate a large diversity in air sampling and monitoring practices among DOE facilities. The differences among the facilities exist in monitoring and sampling instrumentation, procedures, calibration, analytical methods, detection levels, and action levels. Many of these differences could be attributed to different operational needs. 5 references, 2 figures, 2 tables

Optimization (ALARA) of radiation protection at Department of Energy facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Weadock, A.A.; Jones, C.R.

1992-01-01

Maintaining worker and public exposures As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) is a key objective of the Department of Energy (DOE). Responsibility for occupational ALARA program policy and guidance resides within the DOE Office of Health. Current Office of Health initiatives related to ALARA include the development of additional regulatory guidance related to ALARA program implementation at DOE contractor facilities, the review of ALARA program status at various facilities and the production of technical reports summarizing this status, and the support of various mechanisms to improve communication among the DOE ALARA community. The Office of Health also monitors revisions to radiogenic risk estimates and radiation protection recommendations to evaluate adequacy of current DOE limits and impacts of potentially revised limits. (author)

Radiological performance assessment for the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Cook, J.R.

2000-01-01

This report is the first revision to ''Radiological Performance Assessment for the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility, Revision 0'', which was issued in April 1994 and received conditional DOE approval in September 1994. The title of this report has been changed to conform to the current name of the facility. The revision incorporates improved groundwater modeling methodology, which includes a large data base of site specific geotechnical data, and special Analyses on disposal of cement-based wasteforms and naval wastes, issued after publication of Revision 0

Waste receiving and processing facility module 1, detailed design report

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-10-01

WRAP 1 baseline documents which guided the technical development of the Title design included: (a) A/E Statement of Work (SOW) Revision 4C: This DOE-RL contractual document specified the workscope, deliverables, schedule, method of performance and reference criteria for the Title design preparation. (b) Functional Design Criteria (FDC) Revision 1: This DOE-RL technical criteria document specified the overall operational criteria for the facility. The document was a Revision 0 at the beginning of the design and advanced to Revision 1 during the tenure of the Title design. (c) Supplemental Design Requirements Document (SDRD) Revision 3: This baseline criteria document prepared by WHC for DOE-RL augments the FDC by providing further definition of the process, operational safety, and facility requirements to the A/E for guidance in preparing the design. The document was at a very preliminary stage at the onset of Title design and was revised in concert with the results of the engineering studies that were performed to resolve the numerous technical issues that the project faced when Title I was initiated, as well as, by requirements established during the course of the Title II design

Revision of DOE Order 5820.2 Radioactive Waste Management

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Albenesius, E.L.

1988-01-01

The Radioactive Waste Management Order of Department of Energy (DOE), 5820.2 was radically revised to a more prescriptive style with accountable performance objectives. In particular, major changes were required in the low-level radioactive waste (LLW) Management Chapter. These changes will move the Department toward equivalence with Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10 CFR 61 at arid disposal sites and, because of emphasis on groundwater protection beyond these requirements for DOE disposal sites in humid areas. Formal issue of the Order is expected at the end of September 1988

Current DOE direction in low-level waste management

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Wilhite, E.L.; Dolenc, M.R.; Shupe, M.W.; Waldo, L.C.

1989-01-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is implementing revised DOE Order 5820.2A Radioactive Waste Management. Chapter III of the revised order provides prescriptive requirements for managing low-level waste and is the subject of this paper. The revised order requires that all DOE low-level radioactive and mixed waste be systematically managed, using an approach that considers the combination of waste management practices used in waste generation reduction, segregation, treatment, packaging, storage, and disposal. The Order defines performance objectives for protecting groundwater, for protecting against intrusion, and for maintaining adequate operational practices. A performance assessment will be required to ensure that waste management operations comply with these performance objectives. DOE implementation of the revised Order includes work in the areas of leach testing, waste stabilization, waste certification, facility monitoring, and management of unique waste streams. This paper summarizes the status of this work and the current direction DOE is taking in managing low-level waste under DOE 5820.2A

Seismic design and evaluation criteria for DOE facilities (DOE-STD-1020-XX)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Short, S.A.; Kennedy, R.P.; Murray, R.C.

1993-01-01

Seismic design and evaluation criteria for DOE facilities are provided in DOE-STD-1020-XX. The criteria include selection of design/evaluation seismic input from probabilistic seismic hazard curves combined with commonly practiced deterministic response evaluation methods and acceptance criteria with controlled levels of conservatism. Conservatism is intentionally introduced in specification of material strengths and capacities, in the allowance of limited inelastic behavior and by a seismic load factor. These criteria are based on the performance or risk goals specified in DOE 5480.28. Criteria have been developed following a graded approach for several performance goals ranging from that appropriate for normal-use facilities to that appropriate for facilities involving hazardous or critical operations. Performance goals are comprised of desired behavior and of the probability of not achieving that behavior. Following the seismic design/evaluation criteria of DOE-STD-1020-XX is sufficient to demonstrate that the probabilistic performance or risk goals are achieved. The criteria are simple procedures but with a sound, rigorous basis for the achievement of goals

Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning Program Surveillance and Maintenance Plan, Revision 2

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Poderis, Reed J. [NSTec; King, Rebecca A. [NSTec

2013-09-30

This Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M) Plan describes the activities performed between deactivation and final decommissioning of the following facilities located on the Nevada National Security Site, as documented in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order under the Industrial Sites program as decontamination and decommissioning sites: ? Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (EMAD) Facility: o EMAD Building (Building 25-3900) o Locomotive Storage Shed (Building 25-3901) ? Test Cell C (TCC) Facility: o Equipment Building (Building 25-3220) o Motor Drive Building (Building 25-3230) o Pump Shop (Building 25-3231) o Cryogenic Lab (Building 25-3232) o Ancillary Structures (e.g., dewars, water tower, piping, tanks) These facilities have been declared excess and are in various stages of deactivation (low-risk, long-term stewardship disposition state). This S&M Plan establishes and implements a solid, cost-effective, and balanced S&M program consistent with federal, state, and regulatory requirements. A graded approach is used to plan and conduct S&M activities. The goal is to maintain the facilities in a safe condition in a cost-effective manner until their final end state is achieved. This plan accomplishes the following: ? Establishes S&M objectives and framework ? Identifies programmatic guidance for S&M activities to be conducted by National Security Technologies, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) ? Provides present facility condition information and identifies hazards ? Identifies facility-specific S&M activities to be performed and their frequency ? Identifies regulatory drivers, NNSA/NFO policies and procedures, and best management practices that necessitate implementation of S&M activities ? Provides criteria and frequencies for revisions and updates ? Establishes the process for identifying and dispositioning a condition that has not been previously identified or

Guidance document for revision of DOE Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Technical Support Program

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kudera, D.E.; McMurtrey, C.D.; Meagher, B.G.

1993-04-01

This document provides guidance for the revision of DOE Order 5820.2A, ''Radioactive Waste Management.'' Technical Working Groups have been established and are responsible for writing the revised order. The Technical Working Groups will use this document as a reference for polices and procedures that have been established for the revision process. The overall intent of this guidance is to outline how the order will be revised and how the revision process will be managed. In addition, this document outlines technical issues considered for inclusion by a Department of Energy Steering Committee

Developing a model lifeline protection program for DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lowing, A.N.

1996-01-01

A National Lifeline Standard Development Program is currently being conducted by FEMA and NIST. The Department of Energy is following these developments and supplementing them to meet Life-Safety and mission requirements for all DOE facilities as part of the Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Plan. The task will be overseen by a DOE management team with technical guidance provided by a Steering Group of management and operating contractor representatives. The DOE will participate in the federal program by conducting a workshop on lifeline protection issues, developing an overall plan, organizing a Steering Group, and conducting a pilot study at a DOE facility

Site maps and facilities listings

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1993-11-01

In September 1989, a Memorandum of Agreement among DOE offices regarding the environmental management of DOE facilities was signed by appropriate Assistant Secretaries and Directors. This Memorandum of Agreement established the criteria for EM line responsibility. It stated that EM would be responsible for all DOE facilities, operations, or sites (1) that have been assigned to DOE for environmental restoration and serve or will serve no future production need; (2) that are used for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed hazardous waste materials that have been properly characterized, packaged, and labelled, but are not used for production; (3) that have been formally transferred to EM by another DOE office for the purpose of environmental restoration and the eventual return to service as a DOE production facility; or (4) that are used exclusively for long-term storage of DOE waste material and are not actively used for production, with the exception of facilities, operations, or sites under the direction of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. As part of the implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement, Field Offices within DOE submitted their listings of facilities, systems, operation, and sites for which EM would have line responsibility. It is intended that EM facility listings will be revised on a yearly basis so that managers at all levels will have a valid reference for the planning, programming, budgeting and execution of EM activities.

Site maps and facilities listings

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-11-01

In September 1989, a Memorandum of Agreement among DOE offices regarding the environmental management of DOE facilities was signed by appropriate Assistant Secretaries and Directors. This Memorandum of Agreement established the criteria for EM line responsibility. It stated that EM would be responsible for all DOE facilities, operations, or sites (1) that have been assigned to DOE for environmental restoration and serve or will serve no future production need; (2) that are used for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed hazardous waste materials that have been properly characterized, packaged, and labelled, but are not used for production; (3) that have been formally transferred to EM by another DOE office for the purpose of environmental restoration and the eventual return to service as a DOE production facility; or (4) that are used exclusively for long-term storage of DOE waste material and are not actively used for production, with the exception of facilities, operations, or sites under the direction of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. As part of the implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement, Field Offices within DOE submitted their listings of facilities, systems, operation, and sites for which EM would have line responsibility. It is intended that EM facility listings will be revised on a yearly basis so that managers at all levels will have a valid reference for the planning, programming, budgeting and execution of EM activities

Hazard categorization and baseline documentation for the Sodium Storage Facility. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bowman, B.R.

1995-01-01

Hazard Categorization evaluation has been performed in accordance with DOE-STD-1027 for the Sodium Storage Facility at FFTF and a determination of less than Category 3 or non-nuclear has been made. Hazard Baseline Documentation has been performed in accordance with DOE-EM-STD-5502 and a determination of ''Radiological Facility'' has been made

US DOE surplus facilities management program (SFMP). International technology exchange activities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Broderick, J.

1986-01-01

The Surplus Facilities Management Program is one of five remedial action programs established by the US Department of Energy (DOE) to eliminate potential hazards to the public and environment from radioactive contamination. These programs provide remedial actions at various facilities and sites previously used by the US Government in national atomic energy programs. Included are uranium ore milling sites, nuclear materials production plants, and research and development facilities. The DOE's five remedial action programs are: the Grand Junction Remedial Action Project; the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Project; the West Valley Demonstration Project; and the Surplus Facilities Management Program. The Surplus Facilities Management Program (SWMP) was established by DOE in 1978. There are presently over 300 shutdown facilities in the SFMP located at sites across the United States and in Puerto Rico. In some cases, remedial action involves decontaminating and releasing a facility for some other use. In other instances, facilities are completely demolished and removed from the site

Need for realistic risk assessments at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hamilton, L.D.

1993-01-01

Widespread environmental contamination has been documented at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Human health risk assessments are increasingly being used to support decisions concerning remediation at these sites. Current methods for assessing risk at DOE facilities are generally excessively conservative or simplistic. Generic models, conservative parameter default values, and assumptions are often used, and unrealistic exposure and land-use scenarios are embedded in the analyses. These approaches are appropriate only as first-level screening analyses and identify contaminants or pathways that are not important in terms of risk to human health

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-12-01

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

Air pollution control at a DOE facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Curn, B.L.

1995-11-01

The Department of Energy (DOE) plutonium production program Produced some of the greatest scientific and engineering accomplishments of all time. It is remarkable to consider the accomplishments of the Manhattan Project. The Reactor on the Hanford Site, the first production reactor in the world, began operation only 13 months after the start of construction. The DOE nuclear production program was also instrumental in pioneering other fields such as health physics an radiation monitoring. The safety record of these installations is remarkable considering that virtually every significant accomplishment was on the technological threshold of the time. One other area that the DOE Facilities pioneered was the control of radioactive particles and gases emitted to the atmosphere. The high efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA) was a development that provided high collection efficiencies of particulates to protect workers and the public. The halogen and noble gases also were of particular concern. Radioactive iodine is captured by adsorption on activated carbon or synthetic zeolites. Besides controlling radioncuclide air pollution, DOE facilities are concerned with other criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Hanford Site encompasses all those air pollution challenges

User's guide to DOE facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1984-01-01

The Department of Energy's research laboratories represent valuable, often unique, resources for university and industrial scientists. It is DOE policy to make these laboratories and facilities available to qualified scientists. The answers to such questions as who are eligible, what and where are the facilities, what is the cost, when can they be used, are given. Data sheets are presented for each facility to provide information such as location, user contact, description of research, etc. A subject index refers to areas of research and equipment available.

A survey of ecological risk assessment at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Barnthouse, L.W.; Bascietto, J.; Joseph, T.; Bilyard, G.

1992-01-01

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Risk-Based Standards Working Group is studying standard-setting and remedial action based on realistic estimates of human health and ecological risks. Federal and state regulations require DOE to assess ecological risks due to present and past operation of DOE facilities and ecological damage caused by remedial actions. Unfortunately, little technical guidance has been provided by regulatory agencies about how these assessments should be performed or what constitutes an adequate assessment. Active ecological research, environmental characterization, and ecological risk assessment programs are already underway at many locations. Some of these programs were established more than 30 years ago. Because of the strength of its existing programs and the depth of expertise available within the DOE complex, the agency is in a position to lead in developing ecological risk assessment procedures that are fully consistent with the general principles defined by EPA and that will ensure environmentally sound and cost-effective restoration of its sites. As a prelude to guidance development, the working group conducted a survey of ecological risk assessment activities at a subset of major DOE facilities. The survey was intended to (1) identify approaches now being used in ecological risk assessments performed by DOE staff and contractors at each site, (2) record successes and failures of these approaches, (3) identify new technical developments with potential for general application to many DOE facilities, and (4) identify major data needs, data resources, and methodological deficiencies

Information on award fees paid at selected DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1989-10-01

This report states that the Department of Energy uses award fees to encourage effective work and to improve the quality of performance by its contractors. These fees are in addition to reimbursing the contractor for its cost and any possible base fees. Such fees are determined through DOE's evaluations of a contractor's performance. This report's review of award fees paid by DOE at six facilities during fiscal years 1987 and 1988 found that contractors at five of the six facilities were rated by DOE as very good to excellent for their overall performance and received award fees ranging from $1.4 million to nearly $10 million

DOE Region 6 Radiological Assistance Program plan. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Jakubowski, F.M.

1995-11-01

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has sponsored a Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) since the 1950's. The RAP is designed to make DOE resources available to other DOE facilities, state, tribal, local, private businesses, and individuals for the explicit purpose of assisting during radiological incidents. The DOE has an obligation, through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide resources through the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP, Nov. 1985) in the event of a radiological incident. Toward this end, the RAP program is implemented on a regional basis, and has planned for an incremental response capability with regional coordination between states and DOE response elements. This regional coordination is intended to foster a working relationship between DOE radiological assistance elements and those state, tribal, and local agencies responsible for first response to protect public health and safety

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-12-01

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

DOE LeRC photovoltaic systems test facility

Science.gov (United States)

Cull, R. C.; Forestieri, A. F.

1978-01-01

The facility was designed and built and is being operated as a national facility to serve the needs of the entire DOE National Photovoltaic Program. The object of the facility is to provide a place where photovoltaic systems may be assembled and electrically configured, without specific physical configuration, for operation and testing to evaluate their performance and characteristics. The facility as a breadboard system allows investigation of operational characteristics and checkout of components, subsystems and systems before they are mounted in field experiments or demonstrations. The facility as currently configured consist of 10 kW of solar arrays built from modules, two inverter test stations, a battery storage system, interface with local load and the utility grid, and instrumentation and control necessary to make a flexible operating facility. Expansion to 30 kW is planned for 1978. Test results and operating experience are summaried to show the variety of work that can be done with this facility.

340 Facility maintenance implementation plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-03-01

This Maintenance Implementation Plan (MIP) has been developed for maintenance functions associated with the 340 Facility. This plan is developed from the guidelines presented by Department of Energy (DOE) Order 4330.4B, Maintenance Management Program (DOE 1994), Chapter II. The objective of this plan is to provide baseline information for establishing and identifying Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) conformance programs and policies applicable to implementation of DOE order 4330.4B guidelines. In addition, this maintenance plan identifies the actions necessary to develop a cost-effective and efficient maintenance program at the 340 Facility. Primary responsibility for the performance and oversight of maintenance activities at the 340 Facility resides with Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC). Maintenance at the 340 Facility is performed by ICF-Kaiser Hanford (ICF-KH) South Programmatic Services crafts persons. This 340 Facility MIP provides interface requirements and responsibilities as they apply specifically to the 340 Facility. This document provides an implementation schedule which has been developed for items considered to be deficient or in need of improvement. The discussion sections, as applied to implementation at the 340 Facility, have been developed from a review of programs and practices utilizing the graded approach. Biennial review and additional reviews are conducted as significant programmatic and mission changes are made. This document is revised as necessary to maintain compliance with DOE requirements

340 Facility maintenance implementation plan

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-03-01

This Maintenance Implementation Plan (MIP) has been developed for maintenance functions associated with the 340 Facility. This plan is developed from the guidelines presented by Department of Energy (DOE) Order 4330.4B, Maintenance Management Program (DOE 1994), Chapter II. The objective of this plan is to provide baseline information for establishing and identifying Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) conformance programs and policies applicable to implementation of DOE order 4330.4B guidelines. In addition, this maintenance plan identifies the actions necessary to develop a cost-effective and efficient maintenance program at the 340 Facility. Primary responsibility for the performance and oversight of maintenance activities at the 340 Facility resides with Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC). Maintenance at the 340 Facility is performed by ICF-Kaiser Hanford (ICF-KH) South Programmatic Services crafts persons. This 340 Facility MIP provides interface requirements and responsibilities as they apply specifically to the 340 Facility. This document provides an implementation schedule which has been developed for items considered to be deficient or in need of improvement. The discussion sections, as applied to implementation at the 340 Facility, have been developed from a review of programs and practices utilizing the graded approach. Biennial review and additional reviews are conducted as significant programmatic and mission changes are made. This document is revised as necessary to maintain compliance with DOE requirements.

The organization of ALARA program at a DOE facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Setaro, J.A.

1992-01-01

The organization of an ALARA Program at a DOE Facility (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), it's relationship with laboratory management, facility operators, and the radiation protection program is described. The use of chartered ALARA committees at two distinct levels is discussed

Final report on DOE nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1991-11-01

Risk analysis policy and guidance should be developed, especially for the non-DOE nuclear facilities. Minimum standards should be set on issues including risk management, the scope and depth of risk analysis (e.g., site-wide analysis, worker risk), and approaches to treatment of external events. Continued vigilance is required in maintaining operation staffing levels at the DOE research and testing reactors. Safety Analysis Reports should be updated to reflect the evolving configurations of the facilities and the current safety analysis requirements. The high-level waste storage programs at Hanford, Savannah River and INEL were evaluated. The Department of Energy has not adopted a cleanup policy with specific, clear objectives. DOE should define the respective roles of Headquarters, the field offices, and the M ampersand O contractors. The proposed budget priority setting system should not be implemented. The plan to develop a nation-wide programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) should be rethought. An environmental impact statement on the total cleanup program is inconsistent with the localized nature of cleanup decisionmaking. DOE must provide for significant improvements in its radiation protection and safety programs to meet current, and future, technical, engineering, and scientific procedures and practices for controlling sources and contamination, performing external and internal dosimetry, and implementing incident response plans, including applicable protective action guides. The culture of safety is not yet well established at Rocky Flats. The philosophy of the Department of Energy and the management of Rocky Flats is not understood, accepted and believed by the work force. The Advisory Committee has serious concerns about whether DOE's current program at WIPP will be able to demonstrate, in a timely manner, compliance with EPA's proposed long-term performance and human intrusion requirements for disposal of TRU and high-level radioactive wastes

Supporting documentation for the 1997 revision to the DOE Insulation Fact Sheet

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Stovall, T.K.

1997-08-22

The Department of Energy (DOE) Insulation Fact Sheet has been revised to reflect developments in energy conservation technology and the insulation market. A nationwide insulation cost survey was made by polling insulation contractors and builders, and the results are reported here. These costs, along with regional weather data, regional fuel costs, and fuel-specific system efficiencies were used to produce recommended insulation levels for new and existing houses. This report contains all of the methodology, algorithms, assumptions, references, and data resources that were used to produce the 1997 DOE Insulation Fact Sheet.

Waste-clearance strategy for DOE waste processed at commercial facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Chen, S.Y.; Pfingston, M.; LePoire, D.

1996-01-01

In May 1991, a moratorium was issued on shipping potentially mixed waste from DOE facilities nationwide to commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. A potential waste-clearance strategy was developed to address the DOE mixed-waste moratorium issues, which had resulted from a lack of exisitng volume contamination regulations. This strategy also has important potential applications for establishing site clearance limits that ensure worker and public risks remain well below regulatory limits

DOE research and development and field facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1979-06-01

This report describes the roles of DOE's headquarters, field offices, major multiprogram laboratories, Energy Technology and Mining Operations Centers, and other government-owned, contractor-operated facilities which are located in all regions of the United States. It gives brief descriptions of resources, activities, and capabilities of each field facility (sections III through V). These represent a cumulative capital investment of $12 billion and involve a work force of approximately 12,000 government (field) employees and approximately 100,000 contractor employees.

Backup power sources for DOE facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1994-09-01

This standard establishes fundamental requirements and guidance for backup power sources at DOE facilities. Purpose is to document good engineering practices for installation, testing, and maintenance of these backup power sources, which also covers emergency power sources. Examples are those which supply power to nuclear safety systems, radiation monitors and alarms, fire protection systems, security systems, and emergency lighting.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-12-01

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

Systems concepts for DOE facilities: analysis of PF/LASS data

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bearse, R.C.; Shirk, D.G.; Marshall, R.S.; Thomas, C.C. Jr.

1982-06-01

We have analyzed Plutonium Facility/Los Alamos Safeguards System (PF/LASS) data for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) process. Highlights of the work are: the PF/LASS data base provides useful information for accountability purposes, some measurement code assignments appear to be in error, some other data are erroneous, and material in process (MIP) and cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts are powerful indicators of trouble areas. From these studies we recommend re-examination of instrument biases, adoption of new naming procedures for collection batches, improvement of measurement code assignment reliability, revision of round-off procedures, and strengthening of measurement control procedures

Waste management facilities cost information: System cost model product description. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lundeen, A.S.; Hsu, K.M.; Shropshire, D.E.

1996-02-01

In May of 1994, Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company (LITCO) in Idaho Falls, Idaho and subcontractors developed the System Cost Model (SCM) application. The SCM estimates life-cycle costs of the entire US Department of Energy (DOE) complex for designing; constructing; operating; and decommissioning treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities for mixed low-level, low-level, transuranic, and mixed transuranic waste. The SCM uses parametric cost functions to estimate life-cycle costs for various treatment, storage, and disposal modules which reflect planned and existing facilities at DOE installations. In addition, SCM can model new facilities based on capacity needs over the program life cycle. The SCM also provides transportation costs for DOE wastes. Transportation costs are provided for truck and rail and include transport of contact-handled, remote-handled, and alpha (transuranic) wastes. The user can provide input data (default data is included in the SCM) including the volume and nature of waste to be managed, the time period over which the waste is to be managed, and the configuration of the waste management complex (i.e., where each installation's generated waste will be treated, stored, and disposed). Then the SCM uses parametric cost equations to estimate the costs of pre-operations (designing), construction costs, operation management, and decommissioning these waste management facilities

Human factors methods in DOE nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bennett, C.T.; Banks, W.W.; Waters, R.J.

1993-01-01

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of developing a series of guidelines for the use of human factors standards, procedures, and methods to be used in nuclear facilities. This paper discusses the philosophy and process being used to develop a DOE human factors methods handbook to be used during the design cycle. The following sections will discuss: (1) basic justification for the project; (2) human factors design objectives and goals; and (3) role of human factors engineering (HFE) in the design cycle

Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility Complex Compliance Demonstration for DOE Order 435.1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Simonds, J.

2007-11-06

This compliance demonstration document provides an analysis of the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) Complex compliance with DOE Order 435.1. The ICDF Complex includes the disposal facility (landfill), evaporation pond, administration facility, weigh scale, and various staging/storage areas. These facilities were designed and constructed to be compliant with DOE Order 435.1, Resource Conservation and Recovery act Subtitle C, and Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyl design and construction standards. The ICDF Complex is designated as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) facility for the receipt, staging/storage, treatment, and disposal of INL Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) waste streams.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Sonnichsen, J.C.

1997-01-01

For purposes of the Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, the US Department of Energy's contractors are identified as ''co-operators'' and sign in that capacity (refer to Condition I.A.2. of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit). Any identification of these contractors as an ''operator'' elsewhere in the application is not meant to conflict with the contractors' designation as co-operators but rather is based on the contractors' contractual status with the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. The Dangerous Waste Portion of the initial Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, which incorporated five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, was based on information submitted in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application and in closure plan and closure/postclosure plan documentation. During 1995, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified twice to incorporate another eight treatment, storage, and/or disposal units; during 1996, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified once to incorporate another five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units. The permit modification process will be used at least annually to incorporate additional treatment, storage, and/or disposal units as permitting documentation for these units is finalized. The units to be included in annual modifications are specified in a schedule contained in the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit. Treatment, storage, and/or disposal units will remain in interim status until incorporated into the Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (this document, DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to individual operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units for which

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Sonnichsen, J.C.

1997-08-21

For purposes of the Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, the US Department of Energy`s contractors are identified as ``co-operators`` and sign in that capacity (refer to Condition I.A.2. of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit). Any identification of these contractors as an ``operator`` elsewhere in the application is not meant to conflict with the contractors` designation as co-operators but rather is based on the contractors` contractual status with the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. The Dangerous Waste Portion of the initial Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, which incorporated five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, was based on information submitted in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application and in closure plan and closure/postclosure plan documentation. During 1995, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified twice to incorporate another eight treatment, storage, and/or disposal units; during 1996, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified once to incorporate another five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units. The permit modification process will be used at least annually to incorporate additional treatment, storage, and/or disposal units as permitting documentation for these units is finalized. The units to be included in annual modifications are specified in a schedule contained in the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit. Treatment, storage, and/or disposal units will remain in interim status until incorporated into the Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (this document, DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to individual operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units for which

Codes, standards, and requirements for DOE facilities: natural phenomena design

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Webb, A.B.

1985-01-01

The basic requirements for codes, standards, and requirements are found in DOE Orders 5480.1A, 5480.4, and 6430.1. The type of DOE facility to be built and the hazards which it presents will determine the criteria to be applied for natural phenomena design. Mandatory criteria are established in the DOE orders for certain designs but more often recommended guidance is given. National codes and standards form a great body of experience from which the project engineer may draw. Examples of three kinds of facilities and the applicable codes and standards are discussed. The safety program planning approach to project management used at Westinghouse Hanford is outlined. 5 figures, 2 tables

Final Design Report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project, Revision 3

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Austad, Stephanie Lee

2015-01-01

The RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project was designed by AREVA Federal Services (AFS) and the design process was managed by Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) for the Department of Energy (DOE). The final design report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility Project is a compilation of the documents and deliverables included in the facility final design.

Risk management activities at the DOE Class A reactor facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Sharp, D.A.; Hill, D.J.; Linn, M.A.; Atkinson, S.A.; Hu, J.P.

1993-01-01

The probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and risk management group of the Association for Excellence in Reactor Operation (AERO) develops risk management initiatives and standards to improve operation and increase safety of the DOE Class A reactor facilities. Principal risk management applications that have been implemented at each facility are reviewed. The status of a program to develop guidelines for risk management programs at reactor facilities is presented

Nuclear security. Improving correction of security deficiencies at DOE's weapons facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Wells, James E.; Cannon, Doris E.; Fenzel, William F.; Lightner, Kenneth E. Jr.; Curtis, Lois J.; DuBois, Julia A.; Brown, Gail W.; Trujillo, Charles S.; Tumler, Pamela K.

1992-11-01

The US nuclear weapons research, development, and production are conducted at 10 DOE nuclear weapons facilities by contractors under the guidance and oversight of 9 DOE field offices. Because these facilities house special nuclear materials used in making nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components, DOE administers a security program to protect (1) against theft, sabotage, espionage, terrorism, or other risks to national security and (2) the safety and health of DOE employees and the public. DOE spends almost $1 billion a year on this security program. DOE administers the security program through periodic inspections that evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of facilities' safeguards and security. Security inspections identify deficiencies, instances of noncompliance with safeguards and security requirements or poor performance of the systems being evaluated, that must be corrected to maintain adequate security. The contractors and DOE share responsibility for correcting deficiencies. Contractors, in correcting deficiencies, must comply with several DOE orders. The contractors' performances were not adequate in conducting four of the eight procedures considered necessary in meeting DOE's deficiency correction requirements. For 19 of the 20 deficiency cases we reviewed, contractors could not demonstrate that they had conducted three critical deficiency analyses (root cause, risk assessment, and cost-benefit) required by DOE. Additionally, the contractors did not always adequately verify that corrective actions taken were appropriate, effective, and complete. The contractors performed the remaining four procedures (reviewing deficiencies for duplication, entering deficiencies into a data base, tracking the status of deficiencies, and preparing and implementing a corrective action plan) adequately in all 20 cases. DOE's oversight of the corrective action process could be improved in three areas. The computerized systems used to track the status of security

Progress in developing new commercial LLRW disposal facilities and DOE assistance

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Tait, T.D.; Hinschberger, S.T.

1988-01-01

This paper reports state and regional progress in developing new commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Specifically the paper addresses DOE determination of state and regional compliance with the 1988 milestone requirements of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). In addition, the paper summarizes the assistance provided by the Department of Energy (DOE) to the states and regions in their efforts to develop new disposal facilities as mandated in the LLRWPAA

Fire Hazard Analysis for the Cold Vacuum Drying facility (CVD) Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

SINGH, G.

2000-09-06

The CVDF is a nonreactor nuclear facility that will process the Spent Nuclear Fuels (SNF) presently stored in the 105-KE and 105-KW SNF storage basins. Multi-canister overpacks (MCOs) will be loaded (filled) with K Basin fuel transported to the CVDF. The MCOs will be processed at the CVDF to remove free water from the fuel cells (packages). Following processing at the CVDF, the MCOs will be transported to the CSB for interim storage until a long-term storage solution can be implemented. This operation is expected to start in November 2000. A Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) is required for all new facilities and all nonreactor nuclear facilities, in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.7A, Fire Protection. This FHA has been prepared in accordance with DOE 5480.7A and HNF-PRO-350, Fire Hazard Analysis Requirements. Additionally, requirements or criteria contained in DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) RL Implementing Directive (RLID) 5480.7, Fire Protection, or other DOE documentation are cited, as applicable. This FHA comprehensively assesses the risk of fire at the CVDF to ascertain whether the specific objectives of DOE 5480.7A are met. These specific fire protection objectives are: (1) Minimize the potential for the occurrence of a fire. (2) Ensure that fire does not cause an onsite or offsite release of radiological and other hazardous material that will threaten the public health and safety or the environment. (3) Establish requirements that will provide an acceptable degree of life safety to DOE and contractor personnel and ensure that there are no undue hazards to the public from fire and its effects in DOE facilities. (4) Ensure that vital DOE programs will not suffer unacceptable delays as a result of fire and related perils. (5) Ensure that property damage from fire and related perils does not exceed an acceptable level. (6) Ensure that process control and safety systems are not damaged by fire or related perils. This FHA is based on the

Fire Hazard Analysis for the Cold Vacuum Drying facility (CVD) Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

SINGH, G.

2000-01-01

The CVDF is a nonreactor nuclear facility that will process the Spent Nuclear Fuels (SNF) presently stored in the 105-KE and 105-KW SNF storage basins. Multi-canister overpacks (MCOs) will be loaded (filled) with K Basin fuel transported to the CVDF. The MCOs will be processed at the CVDF to remove free water from the fuel cells (packages). Following processing at the CVDF, the MCOs will be transported to the CSB for interim storage until a long-term storage solution can be implemented. This operation is expected to start in November 2000. A Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) is required for all new facilities and all nonreactor nuclear facilities, in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.7A, Fire Protection. This FHA has been prepared in accordance with DOE 5480.7A and HNF-PRO-350, Fire Hazard Analysis Requirements. Additionally, requirements or criteria contained in DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) RL Implementing Directive (RLID) 5480.7, Fire Protection, or other DOE documentation are cited, as applicable. This FHA comprehensively assesses the risk of fire at the CVDF to ascertain whether the specific objectives of DOE 5480.7A are met. These specific fire protection objectives are: (1) Minimize the potential for the occurrence of a fire. (2) Ensure that fire does not cause an onsite or offsite release of radiological and other hazardous material that will threaten the public health and safety or the environment. (3) Establish requirements that will provide an acceptable degree of life safety to DOE and contractor personnel and ensure that there are no undue hazards to the public from fire and its effects in DOE facilities. (4) Ensure that vital DOE programs will not suffer unacceptable delays as a result of fire and related perils. (5) Ensure that property damage from fire and related perils does not exceed an acceptable level. (6) Ensure that process control and safety systems are not damaged by fire or related perils. This FHA is based on the

Air pollution control system testing at the DOE offgas components test facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Burns, D.B.; Speed, D.; VanPelt, W.; Burns, H.H.

1997-01-01

In 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) plans to begin operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF) to treat solid and liquid RCRA hazardous and mixed wastes. The Savannah River Technology Center (SRTC) leads an extensive technical support program designed to obtain incinerator and air pollution control equipment performance data to support facility start-up and operation. A key component of this technical support program includes the Offgas Components Test Facility (OCTF), a pilot-scale offgas system test bed. The primary goal for this test facility is to demonstrate and evaluate the performance of the planned CIF Air Pollution Control System (APCS). To accomplish this task, the OCTF has been equipped with a 1/10 scale CIF offgas system equipment components and instrumentation. In addition, the OCTF design maximizes the flexibility of APCS operation and facility instrumentation and sampling capabilities permit accurate characterization of all process streams throughout the facility. This allows APCS equipment performance to be evaluated in an integrated system under a wide range of possible operating conditions. This paper summarizes the use of this DOE test facility to successfully demonstrate APCS operability and maintainability, evaluate and optimize equipment and instrument performance, and provide direct CIF start-up support. These types of facilities are needed to permit resolution of technical issues associated with design and operation of systems that treat and dispose combustible hazardous, mixed, and low-level radioactive waste throughout and DOE complex

Recycling entire DOE facilities: The National Conversion Pilot Project

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Floyd, D.R.

1996-01-01

The Mission of the National Conversion Pilot Project - to demonstrate, at the Rocky Flats Site, the feasibility of economic conversion of DOE Sites - is succeeding. Contaminated facilities worth $92 million are being cleaned and readied for reuse by commercial industry to manufacture products needed in the DOE cleanup and elsewhere. Former Rocky Flats workers have been hired, recultured, are conducting the cleanup and are expected to perform the future manufacturing by recycling DOE RSM and other metals requiring special environmental controls. Stakeholder sway over project activities is welcome and strong

Safety analysis report for the Mixed Waste Storage Facility and portable storage units at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Revision 4

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Peatross, R.

1997-01-01

This revision contains Section 2 only which gives a description of the Mixed Waste Storage Facility (MWSF) and its operations. Described are the facility location, services and utilities, process description and operation, and safety support systems. The MWSF serves as a storage and repackaging facility for low-level mixed waste

Safeguards systems analysis research and development and the practice of safeguards at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Zack, N.R.; Thomas, K.E.; Markin, J.T.; Tape, J.W.

1991-01-01

Los Alamos Safeguards Systems Group personnel interact with Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials processing facilities in a number of ways. Among them are training courses, formal technical assistance such as developing information management or data analysis software, and informal ad hoc assistance especially in reviewing and commenting on existing facility safeguards technology and procedures. These activities are supported by the DOE Office of Safeguards and Security, DOE Operations Offices, and contractor organizations. Because of the relationships with the Operations Office and facility personnel, the Safeguards Systems Group research and development (R and D) staff have developed an understanding of the needs of the entire complex. Improved safeguards are needed in areas such as materials control activities, accountability procedures and techniques, systems analysis and evaluation methods, and material handling procedures. This paper surveys the generic needs for efficient and cost effective enhancements in safeguards technologies and procedures at DOE facilities, identifies areas where existing safeguards R and D products are being applied or could be applied, and sets a direction for future systems analysis R and D to address practical facility safeguards needs

Seismic qualification program plan for continued operation at DOE-SRS nuclear material processing facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Talukdar, B.K.; Kennedy, W.N.

1991-01-01

The Savannah River Facilities for the most part were constructed and maintained to standards that were developed by Du Pont and are not rigorously in compliance with the current General Design Criteria (GDC); DOE Order 6430.IA requirements. In addition, many of the facilities were built more than 30 years ago, well before DOE standards for design were issued. The Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) his developed a program to address the evaluation of the Nuclear Material Processing (NMP) facilities to GDC requirements. The program includes a facility base-line review, assessment of areas that are not in compliance with the GDC requirements, planned corrective actions or exemptions to address the requirements, and a safety assessment. The authors from their direct involvement with the Program, describe the program plan for seismic qualification including other natural phenomena hazards,for existing NMP facility structures to continue operation Professionals involved in similar effort at other DOE facilities may find the program useful

Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225/Revision 5): Recommendations

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2011-01-01

This publication, Revision 5 of Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225), is intended to provide guidance to States and their competent authorities on how to develop or enhance, implement and maintain a physical protection regime for nuclear material and nuclear facilities, through the establishment or improvement of their capabilities to implement legislative and regulatory programmes. The recommendations presented in this publication reflect a broad consensus among IAEA Member States on the requirements which should be met for the physical protection of nuclear materials and nuclear facilities.

DOE standard: Filter test facility quality program plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1999-02-01

This standard was developed primarily for application in US Department of Energy programs. It contains specific direction for HEPA filter testing performed at a DOE-accepted HEPA Filter Test Facility (FTF). Beneficial comments (recommendations, additions, deletions) and any pertinent data that may improve this document should be sent to the Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Standards (EH-31), US Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, by letter or by using the self-addressed Document Improvement Proposal form (DOE F 1300.3) appearing at the end of this document

Procedure for Prioritization of Natural Phenomena Hazards Evaluations for Existing DOE Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Conrads, T.J., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-05-07

This document describes the procedure to be used for the prioritization for natural phenomena hazards evaluations of existing DOE facilities in conformance with DOE Order 5480.28, `Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation.`

Savannah River Site mixed waste Proposed Site Treatment Plan (PSTP). Volumes 1 and 2 and reference document: Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Helmich, E.; Noller, D.K.; Wierzbicki, K.S.; Bailey, L.L.

1995-01-01

The DOE is required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to prepare site treatment plans describing the development of treatment capacities and technologies for treating mixed waste. This proposed plan contains Savannah River Site's preferred options and schedules for constructing new facilities, and otherwise obtaining treatment for mixed wastes. The proposed plan consists of 2 volumes. Volume 1, Compliance Plan, identifies the capacity to be developed and the schedules as required. Volume 2, Background, provides a detailed discussion of the preferred options with technical basis, plus a description of the specific waste streams. Chapters are: Introduction; Methodology; Mixed low level waste streams; Mixed transuranic waste; High level waste; Future generation of mixed waste streams; Storage; Process for evaluation of disposal issues in support of the site treatment plans discussions; Treatment facilities and treatment technologies; Offsite waste streams for which SRS treatment is the Preferred Option (Naval reactor wastes); Summary information; and Acronyms and glossary. This revision does not contain the complete revised report, but only those pages that have been revised

Innovative technologies for recycling and reusing radioactively contaminated materials from DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bossart, S.J.; Hyde, J.

1993-01-01

Through award of ten contracts under the solicitation, DOE is continuing efforts to develop innovative technologies for decontamination and recycling or reusing of process equipment, scrap metal, and concrete. These ten technologies are describe briefly in this report. There is great economic incentive for recycling or reusing materials generated during D ampersand D of DOE's facilities. If successfully developed, these superior technologies will enable DOE to clean its facilities by 2019. These technologies will also generate a reusable or recyclable product, while achieving D ampersand D in less time at lower cost with reduced health and safety risks to the workers, the public and the environment

Impact of revised 10 CFR 20 on existing performance assessment computer codes used for LLW disposal facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Leonard, P.R.; Seitz, R.R.

1992-04-01

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently announced a revision to Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 (10 CFR 20) ''Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' which incorporates recommendations contained in Publications 26 and 30 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), issued in 1977 and 1979, respectively. The revision to 10 CFR 20 was also developed in parallel with Presidential Guidance on occupational radiation protection published in the Federal Register. Thus, this study concludes that the issuance of the revised 10 CFR 20 will not affect calculations using the computer codes considered in this report. In general, the computer codes and EPA and DOE guidance on which computer codes are based were developed in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ICRP 26/30, well before the revision of 10 CFR 20

Toxic chemical hazard classification and risk acceptance guidelines for use in DOE facilities. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Craig, D.K.; Davis, J.S.; Prowse, J.; Hoffman, P.W.

1995-01-01

The concentration-limit guidelines presented in this document apply to airborne releases of chemicals evaluated with respect to human health effects for the purposes of hazard classification and categorization, risk assessment and safety analysis. They apply to all DOE facilities and operations involving the use of potentially hazardous chemicals. The guidelines do not address other nonradiological hazards such as fire, pressure releases (including explosions), and chemical reactivity, but the guidelines are applicable to hazardous chemical releases resulting from these events. This report presents the subcommittee's evaluation and recommendations regarding analyses of accidentally released toxic chemicals. The premise upon which these recommendations are based is that the mechanism of action of toxic chemicals is fundamentally different from that associated with radionuclides, with the exception of carcinogens. The recommendations reported herein are restricted to the airborne pathway because in an accident scenario this typically represents the most immediately significant route of public exposure. However, the subcommittee recognizes that exposure to chemicals through other pathways, in particular waterborne, can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Although there are a number of chemicals for which absorption through the skin can contribute measurably to the total dose in chronic (e.g., occupational) exposure situations, this pathway has not been considered for the acute exposure scenarios considered in this report. Later studies. will address these issues if it appears desirable

Revised concept for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dennis, A.W.; Milloy, J.A.; Scully, L.W.; Shefelbine, H.C.; Stinebaugh, R.E.; Wowak, W.E.

1978-07-01

The quantities of remotely handled wastes that must be handled at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant have been reduced from 250 x 10 3 ft 3 /y to 10 x 10 3 ft 3 /y; the capital cost of the facility will be reduced from 534 to 428 million dollars. Changes in the facility design due to the reduction in the amount of remote-handled waste are discussed. If DOE should exercise its option to construct a high-level waste repository concurrently with the construction of the revised design, with both facilities receiving waste in 1985, the combined cost would be about 580 million dollars. However, it is unlikely that significant quantities of high-level waste in a form suitable for geologic disposal would be available until after 1990. (13 figures, 5 tables)

Gas processing at DOE nuclear facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Jacox, J.

1995-02-01

The term {open_quotes}Gas Processing{close_quotes} has many possible meanings and understandings. In this paper, and panel, we will be using it to generally mean the treatment of gas by methods other than those common to HVAC and Nuclear Air Treatment. This is only a working guideline not a rigorous definition. Whether a rigorous definition is desirable, or even possible is a question for some other forum. Here we will be discussing the practical aspects of what {open_quotes}Gas Processing{close_quotes} includes and how existing Codes, Standards and industry experience can, and should, apply to DOE and NRC Licensed facilities. A major impediment to use of the best engineering and technology in many nuclear facilities is the administrative mandate that only systems and equipment that meet specified {open_quotes}nuclear{close_quotes} documents are permissible. This paper will highlight some of the limitations created by this approach.

The mixed waste management facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Streit, R.D.

1995-10-01

During FY96, the Mixed Waste Management Facility (MWMF) Project has the following major objectives: (1) Complete Project Preliminary Design Review (PDR). (2) Complete final design (Title II) of MWMF major systems. (3) Coordinate all final interfaces with the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) for facility utilities and facility integration. (4) Begin long-lead procurements. (5) Issue Project Baseline Revision 2-Preliminary Design (PB2), modifying previous baselines per DOE-requested budget profiles and cost reduction. Delete Mediated Electrochemical Oxidation (MEO) as a treatment process for initial demonstration. (6) Complete submittal of, and ongoing support for, applications for air permit. (7) Begin detailed planning for start-up, activation, and operational interfaces with the Laboratory's Hazardous Waste Management Division (HWM). In achieving these objectives during FY96, the Project will incorporate and implement recent DOE directives to maximize the cost savings associated with the DWTF/MWMF integration (initiated in PB1.2); to reduce FY96 new Budget Authority to ∼$10M (reduced from FY97 Validation of $15.3M); and to keep Project fiscal year funding requirements largely uniform at ∼$10M/yr. A revised Project Baseline (i.e., PB2), to be issued during the second quarter of FY96, will address the implementation and impact of this guidance from an overall Project viewpoint. For FY96, the impact of this guidance is that completion of final design has been delayed relative to previous baselines (resulting from the delay in the completion of preliminary design); ramp-up in staffing has been essentially eliminated; and procurements have been balanced through the Project to help balance budget needs to funding availability

Current personnel dosimetry practices at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Fix, J.J.

1981-05-01

Only three parameters were included in the personnel occupational exposure records by all facilities. These are employee name, social security number, and whole body dose. Approximate percentages of some other parameters included in the record systems are sex (50%), birthdate (90%), occupation (26%), previous employer radiation exposure (74%), etc. Statistical analysis of the data for such parameters as sex versus dose distribution, age versus dose distribution, cumulative lifetime dose, etc. was apparently seldom done. Less than 50% of the facilities reported having formal documentation for either the dosimeter, records system, or reader. Slightly greater than 50% of facilities reported having routine procedures in place. These are considered maximum percentages because some respondents considered computer codes as formal documentation. The repository receives data from DOE facilities regarding the (a) distribution of annual whole body doses, (b) significant internal depositions, and (c) individual doses upon termination. It is expected that numerous differences exist in the dose data submitted by the different facilities. Areas of significant differences would likely include the determination of non-measurable doses, the methods used to determine previous employer radiation dose, the methods of determining cumulative radiation dose, and assessment of internal doses. Undoubtedly, the accuracy of the different dosimetry systems, especially at low doses, is very important to the credibility of data summaries (e.g., man-rem) provided by the repository

Guide to sampling airborne radioactive materials in nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Glissmeyer, J.A.

1995-01-01

The ANSI N13.1-1969 Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities is currently being revised. The revision is being drafted by a working group under the auspices of the Health Physics Society Standards Committee. The main differences between the original standard and the proposed revision are a narrowed scope, a greater emphasis on the design process, and the verification of meeting performance criteria. Compliance with the revised standard will present new challenges, especially in the area of performance validation. The progress made in the revision and key portions of the standard are discussed. The DOE has recently petitioned EPA for alternate approaches to complying with air-sampling regulations. Dealing with compliance issues until the revised standard is adopted will be a challenge for both designers and regulators. The objective of this paper is to briefly describe the content of the proposed revision in order to point out significant differences from the old standard and to describe the new challenges that the proposed revision will present

Guide to sampling airborne radioactive materials in nuclear facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Glissmeyer, J.A. [Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (United States)

1995-02-01

The ANSI N13.1-1969 Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities is currently being revised. The revision is being drafted by a working group under the auspices of the Health Physics Society Standards Committee. The main differences between the original standard and the proposed revision are a narrowed scope, a greater emphasis on the design process, and the verification of meeting performance criteria. Compliance with the revised standard will present new challenges, especially in the area of performance validation. The progress made in the revision and key portions of the standard are discussed. The DOE has recently petitioned EPA for alternate approaches to complying with air-sampling regulations. Dealing with compliance issues until the revised standard is adopted will be a challenge for both designers and regulators. The objective of this paper is to briefly describe the content of the proposed revision in order to point out significant differences from the old standard and to describe the new challenges that the proposed revision will present.

Special Analysis for Disposal of High-Concentration I-129 Waste in the Intermediate-Level Vaults at the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Collard, L.B.

2000-09-26

This revision was prepared to address comments from DOE-SR that arose following publication of revision 0. This Special Analysis (SA) addresses disposal of wastes with high concentrations of I-129 in the Intermediate-Level (IL) Vaults at the operating, low-level radioactive waste disposal facility (the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility or LLWF) on the Savannah River Site (SRS). This SA provides limits for disposal in the IL Vaults of high-concentration I-129 wastes, including activated carbon beds from the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), based on their measured, waste-specific Kds.

Special Analysis for Disposal of High-Concentration I-129 Waste in the Intermediate-Level Vaults at the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Collard, L.B.

2000-01-01

This revision was prepared to address comments from DOE-SR that arose following publication of revision 0. This Special Analysis (SA) addresses disposal of wastes with high concentrations of I-129 in the Intermediate-Level (IL) Vaults at the operating, low-level radioactive waste disposal facility (the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility or LLWF) on the Savannah River Site (SRS). This SA provides limits for disposal in the IL Vaults of high-concentration I-129 wastes, including activated carbon beds from the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), based on their measured, waste-specific Kds

Analysis of the suitability of DOE facilities for treatment of commercial low-level radioactive mixed waste

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1996-02-01

This report evaluates the capabilities of the United States Department of Energy's (DOE's) existing and proposed facilities to treat 52 commercially generated low-level radioactive mixed (LLMW) waste streams that were previously identified as being difficult-to-treat using commercial treatment capabilities. The evaluation was performed by comparing the waste matrix and hazardous waste codes for the commercial LLMW streams with the waste acceptance criteria of the treatment facilities, as identified in the following DOE databases: Mixed Waste Inventory Report, Site Treatment Plan, and Waste Stream and Technology Data System. DOE facility personnel also reviewed the list of 52 commercially generated LLMW streams and provided their opinion on whether the wastes were technically acceptable at their facilities, setting aside possible administrative barriers. The evaluation tentatively concludes that the DOE is likely to have at least one treatment facility (either existing or planned) that is technically compatible for most of these difficult-to-treat commercially generated LLMW streams. This conclusion is tempered, however, by the limited amount of data available on the commercially generated LLMW streams, by the preliminary stage of planning for some of the proposed DOE treatment facilities, and by the need to comply with environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act

Fire protection research for DOE facilities: FY 83 year-end report

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hasegawa, H.K.; Alvares, N.J.; Lipska-Quinn, A.E.; Beason, D.G.; Foote, K.L.; Priante, S.J.; Stagge, K.

1984-01-01

We summarize our research in FY 83 for the DOE-sponsored project, Fire Protection Research for DOE Facilities. This research program was initiated in 1977 to advance fire-protection strategies of energy technology facilities in order to keep abreast of the unique fire problems that develop along with energy technology research. Since 1977, the program has broadened its original scope, as reflected in previous year-end reports. We are developing an analytical methodology through detailed study of fusion energy experiments at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Using these experiments as models for methodology development, we are currently advancing three major task areas: (1) the identification of fire hazards unique to fusion energy facilities, (2) the evaluation of accepted fire-management measures to meet the negate hazards, and (3) the performance of unique research into problem areas we have identified to provide input into analytical fire-growth and damage-assessment models

Fire-protection research for DOE facilities: FY 82 year-end report

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hasegawa, H.K.; Alvares, N.J.; Lipska-Quinn, A.E.; Beason, D.G.; Priante, S.J.; Foote, K.L.

1983-01-01

We summarize our research in FY 82 for the DOE-sponsored project, Fire Protection Research for DOE Facilities. This research program was initiated in 1977 to advance fire-protection strategies for energy technology facilities to keep abreast of the unique fire problems that develop along with energy technology research. Since 1977, the program has broadened its original scope, as reflected in previous year-end reports. We are developing an analytical methodology through detailed study of fusion energy experiments at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Using these experiments as models for methodology development, we are concurrently advancing three major task areas: (1) the identification of fire hazards unique to current fusion energy facilities; (2) the evaluation of accepted fire-management measures to meet and negate hazards; and (3) the performance of unique research into problem areas we have identified to provide input into analytical fire-growth and damage-assessment models

Progress towards developing consistent design and evaluation guidelines for DOE facilities subjected to natural phenomena hazards

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kennedy, R.P.; Short, S.A.; McDonald, J.R.; McCann, M.W. Jr.; Reed, J.W.

1985-01-01

Probabilistic definitions of earthquake, wind and tornado natural phenomena hazards for many Department of Energy (DOE) facilities throughout the United States have been developed. In addition, definitions of the flood hazards which might affect these locations are currently being developed. The Department of Energy Natural Phenomena Hazards Panel is now preparing a document to provide guidance and criteria for DOE facility managers to assure that DOE facilities are adequately constructed to resist the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquake, strong wind and flood. The intent of this document is to provide instruction on how to utilize the hazard definitions to evaluate existing facilities and design new facilities in a manner such that the risk of adverse consequences is consistent with the cost, function, and danger to the public or environment of the facility. Potential effects on facilities of natural phenomena hazards are emphasized in this paper. The philosophy for mitigating these effects to be employed in the design and evaluation guidelines is also presented

DOE final report phase one startup, Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Jasen, W.G.

1998-01-01

This document is to validate that the WRAP facility is physically ready to start up phase 1, and that the managers and operators are prepared to safely manage and operate the facility when all pre-start findings have been satisfactorily corrected. The DOE Readiness Assessment (RA) team spent a week on-site at Waste Receiving and Processing Module 1 (WRAP-1) to validate the readiness for phase 1 start up of facility. The Contractor and DOE staff were exceptionally cooperative and contributed significantly to the overall success of the RA. The procedures and Conduct of Operations areas had significant discrepancies, many of which should have been found by the contractor review team. In addition the findings of the contractor review team should have led the WRAP-1 management team to correcting the root causes of the findings prior to the DOE RA team review. The findings and observations include many issues that the team believes should have been found by the contractor review and corrective actions taken. A significantly improved Operational Readiness Review (ORR) process and corrective actions of root causes must be fully implemented by the contractor prior to the performance of the contractor ORR for phase 2 operations. The pre-start findings as a result of this independent DOE Readiness Assessment are presented

Environmental assessment for the deactivation of the N Reactor facilities. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1994-11-01

This environmental assessment (EA) provides information for the US Department of Energy (DOE) to decide whether the Proposed Action for the N Reactor facilities warrants a Finding of No Significant Impact or requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EA describes current conditions at the N Reactor facilities, the need to take action at the facilities, the elements of the Proposed Action and alternatives, and the potential environmental impacts. The N Reactor facilities are currently in a surveillance and maintenance program, and will eventually be decontaminated and decommissioned (D and D). Operation and maintenance of the facilities resulted in conditions that could adversely impact human health or the environment if left as is until final D and D. The Proposed Action would deactivate the facilities to remove the conditions that present a potential threat to human health and the environment and to reduce surveillance and maintenance requirements. The action would include surveillance and maintenance after deactivation. Deactivation would take about three years and would involve about 80 facilities. Surveillance and maintenance would continue until final D and D, which is expected to be complete for all facilities except the N Reactor itself by the year 2018

An independent safety assessment of Department of Energy nuclear reactor facilities: Safety overview and management function

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Booth, M.; Brodsky, R.S.; Frankhouser, W.L.

1981-02-01

The Under Secretary of Energy established the Nuclear Facilities Personnel Qualification and Training (NFPQT) Committee in October, 1979, in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear accident, to assess the adequacy of training of personnel at DOE nuclear facilities. Subsequently, in February, 1980, the charge to this Committee was modified to assess all implications of the Kemeny Commission report on TMI with regard to DOE nuclear reactors, excluding those in the Division of Naval Reactors. The modified charge was also limited, for the time being, to reactor facilities instead of all nuclear facilities. This report describes the portion of the revised assessment activities that was assigned to the Assessment Support Team

Facility Interface Capability Assessment (FICA) project report

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Pope, R.B.; MacDonald, R.R.; Viebrock, J.M.; Mote, N.

1995-09-01

The US Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for developing the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System (CRWMS) to accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial facilities. The objective of the Facility Interface Capability Assessment (FICA) project was to assess the capability of each commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage facility, at which SNF is stored, to handle various SNF shipping casks. The purpose of this report is to present and analyze the results of the facility assessments completed within the FICA project. During Phase 1, the data items required to complete the facility assessments were identified and the database for the project was created. During Phase 2, visits were made to 122 facilities on 76 sites to collect data and information, the database was updated, and assessments of the cask-handling capabilities at each facility were performed. Each assessment of cask-handling capability contains three parts: the current capability of the facility (planning base); the potential enhanced capability if revisions were made to the facility licensing and/or administrative controls; and the potential enhanced capability if limited physical modifications were made to the facility. The main conclusion derived from the planning base assessments is that the current facility capabilities will not allow handling of any of the FICA Casks at 49 of the 122 facilities evaluated. However, consideration of potential revisions and/or modifications showed that all but one of the 49 facilities could be adapted to handle at least one of the FICA Casks. For this to be possible, facility licensing, administrative controls, and/or physical aspects of the facility would need to be modified

Facility Interface Capability Assessment (FICA) project report

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Pope, R.B. [ed.] [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); MacDonald, R.R. [ed.] [Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System, Vienna, VA (United States); Viebrock, J.M.; Mote, N. [Nuclear Assurance Corp., Norcross, GA (United States)

1995-09-01

The US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for developing the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System (CRWMS) to accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial facilities. The objective of the Facility Interface Capability Assessment (FICA) project was to assess the capability of each commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage facility, at which SNF is stored, to handle various SNF shipping casks. The purpose of this report is to present and analyze the results of the facility assessments completed within the FICA project. During Phase 1, the data items required to complete the facility assessments were identified and the database for the project was created. During Phase 2, visits were made to 122 facilities on 76 sites to collect data and information, the database was updated, and assessments of the cask-handling capabilities at each facility were performed. Each assessment of cask-handling capability contains three parts: the current capability of the facility (planning base); the potential enhanced capability if revisions were made to the facility licensing and/or administrative controls; and the potential enhanced capability if limited physical modifications were made to the facility. The main conclusion derived from the planning base assessments is that the current facility capabilities will not allow handling of any of the FICA Casks at 49 of the 122 facilities evaluated. However, consideration of potential revisions and/or modifications showed that all but one of the 49 facilities could be adapted to handle at least one of the FICA Casks. For this to be possible, facility licensing, administrative controls, and/or physical aspects of the facility would need to be modified.

TSD-DOSE : a radiological dose assessment model for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Pfingston, M.

1998-01-01

In May 1991, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Waste Operations, issued a nationwide moratorium on shipping slightly radioactive mixed waste from DOE facilities to commercial treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. Studies were subsequently conducted to evaluate the radiological impacts associated with DOE's prior shipments through DOE's authorized release process under DOE Order 5400.5. To support this endeavor, a radiological assessment computer code--TSD-DOSE (Version 1.1)--was developed and issued by DOE in 1997. The code was developed on the basis of detailed radiological assessments performed for eight commercial hazardous waste TSD facilities. It was designed to utilize waste-specific and site-specific data to estimate potential radiological doses to on-site workers and the off-site public from waste handling operations at a TSD facility. The code has since been released for use by DOE field offices and was recently used by DOE to evaluate the release of septic waste containing residual radioactive material to a TSD facility licensed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Revisions to the code were initiated in 1997 to incorporate comments received from users and to increase TSD-DOSE's capability, accuracy, and flexibility. These updates included incorporation of the method used to estimate external radiation doses from DOE's RESRAD model and expansion of the source term to include 85 radionuclides. In addition, a detailed verification and benchmarking analysis was performed

Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility Complex Compliance Demonstration for DOE Order 435.1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

J. Simonds

2006-09-01

This compliance demonstration document provides an analysis of the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) Complex compliance with DOE Order 435.1. The ICDF Complex includes the disposal facility (landfill), evaporation pond, admin facility, weigh scale, decon building, treatment systems, and various staging/storage areas. These facilities were designed and are being constructed to be compliant with DOE Order 435.1, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C, and Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyl design and construction standards. The ICDF Complex is designated as the central Idaho National Laboratory (INL) facilityyy for the receipt, staging/storage, treatment, and disposal of INL Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) waste streams. This compliance demonstration document discusses the conceptual site model for the ICDF Complex area. Within this conceptual site model, the selection of the area for the ICDF Complex is discussed. Also, the subsurface stratigraphy in the ICDF Complex area is discussed along with the existing contamination beneath the ICDF Complex area. The designs for the various ICDF Complex facilities are also included in this compliance demonstration document. These design discussions are a summary of the design as presented in the Remedial Design/Construction Work Plans for the ICDF landfill and evaporation pond and the Staging, Storage, Sizing, and Treatment Facility. Each of the major facilities or systems is described including the design criteria.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Coenenberg, J.G.

1997-01-01

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

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Coenenberg, J.G.

1997-08-15

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

Hanford Facility dangerous waste permit application, general information

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-05-01

The current Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (this document, number DOE/RL-91-28) and a treatment, storage, and/or disposal Unit-Specific Portion, which includes documentation for individual TSD units (e.g., document numbers DOE/RL-89-03 and DOE/RL-90-01). Both portions consist of a Part A division and a Part B division. The Part B division consists of 15 chapters that address the content of the Part B checklists prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information requirements mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology checklist section numbers, in brackets, follow the chapter headings and subheadings. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion (i.e., this document, number DOE/RL-91-28) is broader in nature and applies to all treatment, storage, and/or disposal units for which final status is sought. Because of its broad nature, the Part A division of the General Information Portion references the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Part A Permit Application (document number DOE/RL-88-21), a compilation of all Part A documentation for the Hanford Facility

Descriptions of representative contaminated sites and facilities within the DOE complex

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Short, S.M.; Buck, J.W.; Clark, L.L.; Fletcher, J.F.; Glantz, C.S.; Holdren, G.R.; Huesties, L.R.; Williams, M.D.; Oates, L.

1994-10-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has initiated efforts to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that will analyze the existing environmental restoration and waste management program and evaluate alternatives for an integrated program. The alternatives being evaluated include (1) a open-quotes No Actionclose quotes alternative as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (2) an Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR)-driven alternative, (3) a land-use-driven alternative, (4) a health-risk-driven alternative, and (5) a combination land-use and health-risk-driven alternative. The analytical approach being taken to evaluate each of these alternatives is to perform a remedial engineering analysis and human health and ecosystem effects analyses on every contaminated site and facility in the DOE complex. One of Pacific Northwest Laboratory's (PNL) roles in this approach has been to compile the source term and environmental setting data needed to drive each of these analyses. To date, over 10,000 individual contaminated sites and facilities located throughout the DOE complex of installations have been identified and at least some minimal data compiled on each. The PEIS analyses have been appreciably simplified by categorizing all of these contaminated sites and facilities into six broad categories: (1) contaminated buildings, (2) contaminated soils, (3) solid waste sites (e.g., burial grounds), (4) liquid containment structures (e.g., tanks), (5) surface water sites, and (6) contaminated groundwater sites. A report containing a complete description of each of these thousands of contaminated sites and facilities would be tremendously large and unwildy, as would separate reports describing the application of the analytical methodologies to each

DOE High Performance Computing Operational Review (HPCOR): Enabling Data-Driven Scientific Discovery at HPC Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Gerber, Richard; Allcock, William; Beggio, Chris; Campbell, Stuart; Cherry, Andrew; Cholia, Shreyas; Dart, Eli; England, Clay; Fahey, Tim; Foertter, Fernanda; Goldstone, Robin; Hick, Jason; Karelitz, David; Kelly, Kaki; Monroe, Laura; Prabhat,; Skinner, David; White, Julia

2014-10-17

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) High Performance Computing (HPC) facilities are on the verge of a paradigm shift in the way they deliver systems and services to science and engineering teams. Research projects are producing a wide variety of data at unprecedented scale and level of complexity, with community-specific services that are part of the data collection and analysis workflow. On June 18-19, 2014 representatives from six DOE HPC centers met in Oakland, CA at the DOE High Performance Operational Review (HPCOR) to discuss how they can best provide facilities and services to enable large-scale data-driven scientific discovery at the DOE national laboratories. The report contains findings from that review.

Radioactive Air Emmission Notice of Construction (NOC) for the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP)

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

MENARD, N.M.

2000-12-01

This document serves as a notice of construction (NOC) pursuant to the requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247-060, and as a request for approval to modify pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.07 for the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility. The rewrite of this NOC incorporates all the approved revisions (Sections 5.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 9.0), a revised potential to emit (PTE) based on the revised maximally exposed individual (MEI) (Sections 8.0, 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, and 15.0), the results of a study on fugitive emissions (Sections 6.0, 10.0, and 15.0), and reflects the current operating conditions at the WRAP Facility (Section 5.0). This NOC replaces DOE/RL-93-15 and DOE/RL-93-16 in their entirety. The primary function of the WRAP Facility is to examine, assay, characterize, treat, verify, and repackage radioactive material and mixed waste. There are two sources of emissions from the WRAP Facility: stack emissions and fugitive emissions. The stack emissions have an unabated total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) estimate to the hypothetical offsite MEI of 1.13 E+02 millirem per year. The abated TEDE for the stack emissions is estimated at 5.63 E-02 millirem per year to the MEI. The fugitive emissions have an unabated TEDE estimate to the hypothetical offsite MEI of 5.87 E-04. There is no abatement for the fugitive emissions.

Readiness plan, Hanford 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility: Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Storm, S.J.

1994-01-01

The 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF) is designed for the collection, treatment, and eventual disposal of liquid waste from the 300 Area Process Sewer (PS) system. The PS currently discharges water to the 300 Area Process Trenches. Facilities supported total 54 buildings, including site laboratories, inactive buildings, and support facilities. Effluent discharges to the process sewer from within these facilities include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, heat exchangers, floor drains, sinks, and process equipment. The wastewaters go through treatment processes that include iron coprecipitation, ion exchange and ultraviolet oxidation. The iron coprecipitation process is designed to remove general heavy metals. A series of gravity filters then complete the clarification process by removing suspended solids. Following the iron coprecipitation process is the ion exchange process, where a specific resin is utilized for the removal of mercury. The final main unit operation is the ultraviolet destruction process, which uses high power ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide to destroy organic molecules. The objective of this readiness plan is to provide the method by which line management will prepare for a Readiness Assessment (RA) of the TEDF. The self-assessment and RA will assess safety, health, environmental compliance and management readiness of the TEDF. This assessment will provide assurances to both WHC and DOE that the facility is ready to start-up and begin operation

Management plan -- Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Fritz, R.L.

1995-01-01

This Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF) Management Plan provides guidance for execution WHC MWTF Project activities related to design, procurement, construction, testing, and turnover. This Management Plan provides a discussion of organizational responsibilities, work planning, project management systems, quality assurance (QA), regulatory compliance, personnel qualifications and training, and testing and evaluations. Classified by the US Department of Energy (DOE) as a major systems acquisition (MSA), the MWTF mission is to provide a safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound method for interim storage of Hanford Site high-level wastes. This Management Plan provides policy guidance and direction to the Project Office for execution of the project activities

Management plan -- Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Fritz, R.L.

1995-01-11

This Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF) Management Plan provides guidance for execution WHC MWTF Project activities related to design, procurement, construction, testing, and turnover. This Management Plan provides a discussion of organizational responsibilities, work planning, project management systems, quality assurance (QA), regulatory compliance, personnel qualifications and training, and testing and evaluations. Classified by the US Department of Energy (DOE) as a major systems acquisition (MSA), the MWTF mission is to provide a safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound method for interim storage of Hanford Site high-level wastes. This Management Plan provides policy guidance and direction to the Project Office for execution of the project activities.

Problems and solutions in application of IEEE standards at Savannah River Site, Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lee, Y.S.; Bowers, T.L.; Chopra, B.J.; Thompson, T.T.; Zimmerman, E.W.

1993-01-01

The Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Material Production Facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) were designed, constructed, and placed into operation in the early 1950's, based on existing industry codes/standards, design criteria, analytical procedures. Since that time, DOE has developed Orders and Polices for the planning, design and construction of DOE Nuclear Reactor Facilities which invoke or reference commercial nuclear reactor codes and standards. The application of IEEE reactor design requirements such as Equipment Qualification, Seismic Qualification, Single Failure Criteria, and Separation Requirement, to non-reactor facilities has been a problem since the IEEE reactor criteria do not directly confirm to the needs of non-reactor facilities. SRS Systems Engineering is developing a methodology for the application of IEEE Standards to non-reactor facilities at SRS

Radioactive Air Emmission Notice of Construction (NOC) Application for the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

MENARD, N.M.

2000-01-01

This document serves as a notice of construction (NOC) pursuant to the requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247-060, and as a request for approval to modify pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.07 for the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility. The rewrite of this NOC incorporates all the approved revisions (Sections 5.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 9.0), a revised potential to emit (PTE) based on the revised maximally exposed individual (MEI) (Sections 8.0, 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, and 15.0), the results of a study on fugitive emissions (Sections 6.0, 10.0, and 15.0), and reflects the current operating conditions at the WRAP Facility (Section 5.0). This NOC replaces DOE/RL-93-15 and DOE/RL-93-16 in their entirety. The primary function of the WRAP Facility is to examine, assay, characterize, treat, verify, and repackage radioactive material and mixed waste. There are two sources of emissions from the WRAP Facility: stack emissions and fugitive emissions. The stack emissions have an unabated total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) estimate to the hypothetical offsite MEI of 1.13 E+02 millirem per year. The abated TEDE for the stack emissions is estimated at 5.63 E-02 millirem per year to the MEI. The fugitive emissions have an unabated TEDE estimate to the hypothetical offsite MEI of 5.87 E-04. There is no abatement for the fugitive emissions

Waste Management Facilities Cost Information report for Greater-Than-Class C and DOE equivalent special case waste

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Feizollahi, F.; Shropshire, D.

1993-07-01

This Waste Management Facility Cost Information (WMFCI) report for Greater-Than-Class C low-level waste (GTCC LLW) and DOE equivalent special case waste contains preconceptual designs and planning level life-cycle cost (PLCC) estimates for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities needed for management of GTCC LLW and DOE equivalent waste. The report contains information on 16 facilities (referred to as cost modules). These facilities are treatment facility front-end and back-end support functions (administration support, and receiving, preparation, and shipping cost modules); seven treatment concepts (incineration, metal melting, shredding/compaction, solidification, vitrification, metal sizing and decontamination, and wet/air oxidation cost modules); two storage concepts (enclosed vault and silo); disposal facility front-end functions (disposal receiving and inspection cost module); and four disposal concepts (shallow-land, engineered shallow-land, intermediate depth, and deep geological cost modules). Data in this report allow the user to develop PLCC estimates for various waste management options. A procedure to guide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractor personnel in the use of estimating data is also included in this report.

Waste Management Facilities Cost Information report for Greater-Than-Class C and DOE equivalent special case waste

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Feizollahi, F.; Shropshire, D.

1993-07-01

This Waste Management Facility Cost Information (WMFCI) report for Greater-Than-Class C low-level waste (GTCC LLW) and DOE equivalent special case waste contains preconceptual designs and planning level life-cycle cost (PLCC) estimates for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities needed for management of GTCC LLW and DOE equivalent waste. The report contains information on 16 facilities (referred to as cost modules). These facilities are treatment facility front-end and back-end support functions (administration support, and receiving, preparation, and shipping cost modules); seven treatment concepts (incineration, metal melting, shredding/compaction, solidification, vitrification, metal sizing and decontamination, and wet/air oxidation cost modules); two storage concepts (enclosed vault and silo); disposal facility front-end functions (disposal receiving and inspection cost module); and four disposal concepts (shallow-land, engineered shallow-land, intermediate depth, and deep geological cost modules). Data in this report allow the user to develop PLCC estimates for various waste management options. A procedure to guide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractor personnel in the use of estimating data is also included in this report

Draft Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for managing treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste. Volume 3, Appendix A: Public response to revised NOI, Appendix B: Environmental restoration, Appendix C, Environmental impact analysis methods, Appendix D, Risk

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-08-01

Volume three contains appendices for the following: Public comments do DOE`s proposed revisions to the scope of the waste management programmatic environmental impact statement; Environmental restoration sensitivity analysis; Environmental impacts analysis methods; and Waste management facility human health risk estimates.

Preparation of Phased and Merged Safety Analysis Reports for New DOE Nuclear Facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

BISHOP, G.E.

2000-01-01

The Spent Nuclear Fuels Project (SNFP) is charged with moving to storage 2,100 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel elements left over from plutonium production at DOE'S Hanford site in Washington state. Two new facilities, the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF) and the Canister Storage Building (CSB) are in final construction. In order to meet aggressive schedule commitments, the SNFP chose to prepare the safety analysis reports (SAR's) in phases that covered only specific portions of each facility's design as it was built. Each SAR also merged the preliminary and final safety analysis reports into a single SAR, thereby covering all aspects of design, construction, and operation for that portion (phase) of the facility. A policy of ''NRC equivalency'' was also implemented in parallel with this effort, with the goal of achieving a rigor of safety analysis equivalent to that of NRC-licensed fuel processing facilities. DOE Order 5480.23. ''Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports'' allows preparation of both a phased and a merged SAR to accelerate construction schedules. However, project managers must be aware that such acceleration is not guaranteed. Managers considering this approach for their project should be cognizant of numerous obstacles that will be encountered. Merging and phasing SAR's will create new, unique, and unanticipated difficulties which may actually slow construction unless expeditiously and correctly managed. Pitfalls to be avoided and good practices to be implemented in preparing phased and merged SAR's are presented. The value of applying NRC requirements to the DOE safety analysis process is also discussed. As of December, 1999, the SNFP has completed and approved a SAR for the CVDF. Approval of the SAR for the CSB is pending

41 CFR 102-76.60 - To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply?

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

... PROPERTY 76-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Architectural Barriers Act § 102-76.60 To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply? (a) The Architectural Barriers Act applies to any facility that is intended... the Architectural Barriers Act apply? 102-76.60 Section 102-76.60 Public Contracts and Property...

National Biomedical Tracer Facility planning and feasibility study. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Ketchem, L. [ed.; Holmes, R.A.

1991-03-02

Since its establishment in mid-1989, the DOE Office of Isotope Production and Distribution has examined the recommendations of the Los Alamos Report and the Health and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (HERAC) Report. The main recommendation from these deliberations is for the DOE to establish an accelerator dedicated to biomedical radioisotope production. Representatives of the nuclear medicine community, meeting at a DOE workshop in August 1988, evaluated present and future needs for accelerator-produced radioisotopes. Workshop participants concluded in the Los Alamos Report that approximately 90% of their radioisotope needs could be met by a machine that delivers a 70 million electronic volts (MeV), 500-microamp proton beam. The HERAC Report provides more quantification of radioisotope needs, and included isotopes that can be produced effectively only at higher energies. An accelerator facility with an upper energy limit of 100 MeV and beam current of 750 to 1,000 microamps, could produce all important accelerator- produced radioisotopes in current use, as well as those isotopes judged to have future potential value in medical research and clinical practice. We therefore recommend that the NBTF have a 100-MeV proton beam accelerator with an extracted beam current of 750 to 1,000 microamps.

Pollution prevention constraints within DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Walzer, A.E.

1992-01-01

The signing of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, has marked a new environmental era. The 1990s environmental movement is shifting from ''end of the pipe'' treatment towards a philosophy of source reduction (predicated by the Pollution Prevention Act), where engineering solutions and materials substitution are sought to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste. This change comes after 20 years of treatment legislation, where in many cases the location or media in which our pollution is deposited was merely changed. This problem is exemplified by the enormous environmental problems created by waste sites. Our inability to deal with the substantial waste generated has produced the environmental legacy on the Department of Energy (DOE) sites, a legacy that will cost billions of dollars to remediate. How then do we solve our waste problems and avoid future legacies? This paper outlines some of the obstacles to pollution prevention within the DOE system and explores opportunities to remove these barriers. Industry, whose foundation is economics, has found it attractive to reduce their wastes, particularly in the wake of escalating waste disposal costs. However, within federal facilities where basic economic principles do not prevail, incentives towards pollution prevention need to be evaluated. Our current system of segregated DOE programs creates obstacles for waste generators to work productively with other programs. Certain policies and practices also limit the generators' responsibility and costs for their waste, which is counter productive to waste minimization and pollution prevention. To meet new environmental challenges and to be proactive in pollution prevention we must evaluate our systems and remove barriers that impede progress toward pollution prevention

Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility Quality Assurance Program Plan, Project W-236A. Revision 2

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Hall, L.R.

1995-05-30

This document describes the Quality Assurance (QA) program for the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF) Project. The purpose of this QA program is to control project activities in such a manner as to achieve the mission of the MWTF Project in a safe and reliable manner. The QA program for the MWTF Project is founded on DOE Order 5700.6C, Quality Assurance, and implemented through the use of ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities (ASME 1989 with addenda la-1989, lb-1991 and lc-1992). This document describes the program and planned actions which the Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) will implement to demonstrate and ensure that the project meets the requirements of DOE Order 5700.6C through the interpretive guidance of ASME NQA-1.

Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility Quality Assurance Program Plan, Project W-236A. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hall, L.R.

1995-01-01

This document describes the Quality Assurance (QA) program for the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF) Project. The purpose of this QA program is to control project activities in such a manner as to achieve the mission of the MWTF Project in a safe and reliable manner. The QA program for the MWTF Project is founded on DOE Order 5700.6C, Quality Assurance, and implemented through the use of ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities (ASME 1989 with addenda la-1989, lb-1991 and lc-1992). This document describes the program and planned actions which the Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) will implement to demonstrate and ensure that the project meets the requirements of DOE Order 5700.6C through the interpretive guidance of ASME NQA-1

Development of a mixed waste management facility at the Nevada Test Site

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dodge, R.L.; Brich, R.F.

1988-01-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) produces radioactive low-level wastes (LLW) which contain hazardous components as identified by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261. Management of those mixed wastes (MW) requires compliance with U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for hazardous wastes and DOE regulations for LLW. In 1988, DOE's Nevada Operations Office (NV) began disposing of MW at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) under interim status as authorized by the state of Nevada. MW disposal is limited to Pit 3 while operating under interim status. This paper discusses how preparations for operation of a separate mixed waste management facility (MWMF) are underway. Those preparations include revising the NTS Part B Permit application, developing a MW certification program, developing and operating a vadose zone monitoring system, preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA), developing protocols for analysis of MW, and facility design and construction

Evaluation of replacement tritium facility (RTF) compliance with DOE safety goals using probabilistic consequence assessment methodology

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

O'Kula, K.R.; East, J.M.; Moore, M.L.

1993-01-01

The Savannah River Site (SRS), operated by the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) for the US Department of Energy (DOE), is a major center for the processing of nuclear materials for national defense, deep-space exploration, and medical treatment applications in the United States. As an integral part of the DOE's effort to modernize facilities, implement improved handling and processing technology, and reduce operational risk to the general public and onsite workers, transition of tritium processing at SRS from the Consolidated Tritium Facility to the Replacement Tritium Facility (RTF) began in 1993. To ensure that operation of new DOE facilities such as RTF present minimum involuntary and voluntary risks to the neighboring public and workers, indices of risk have been established to serve as target levels or safety goals of performance for assessing nuclear safety. These goals are discussed from a historical perspective in the initial part of this paper. Secondly, methodologies to quantify risk indices are briefly described. Lastly, accident, abnormal event, and normal operation source terms from RTF are evaluated for consequence assessment purposes relative to the safety targets

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Elder, J.; Graf, J.M.

1984-01-01

DOE Office of Nuclear Safety has sponsored preparation of a guidance document to aid field offices and contractors in their analyses of consequences of postulated major accidents. The guide addresses the requirements of DOE Orders 5480.1A, Chapter V, and 6430.1, including the general requirement that DOE nuclear facilities be sited, designed, and operated in accordance with standards, codes, and guides consistent with those applied to comparable licensed nuclear facilities. The guide includes both philosophical and technical information in the areas of: siting guidelines doses applied to an offsite reference person; consideration also given to an onsite reference person; physical parameters, models, and assumptions to be applied when calculating doses for comparison to siting criteria; and potential accident consequences other than radiological dose to a reference person which might affect siting and major design features of the facility, such as environmental contamination, population dose, and associated public health effects. Recommendations and/or clarifications are provided where this could be done without adding new requirements. In this regard, the guide is considered a valuable aid to the safety analyst, especially where requirements have been subject to inconsistent interpretation or where analysis methods are in transition, such as use of dose model (ICRP 2 or ICRP 30) or use of probabilistic methods of risk analysis in the siting and design of nuclear facilities

The changing Arena: New DOE waste management orders

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Albenesius, E.L.; Kluk, A.F.

1988-01-01

There are five orders that address waste management within the Department of Energy (DOE); three of these orders are being revised, which emphasize the rapidly changing arena in which the department is contending in this field. The need to change the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Order arose from the Superfund amendments of 1986 (SARA) with its hammer provisions in Section 120 for compliance at Federal facilities. The need to change the Hazardous and Mixed Waste Management Order was accelerated by the promulgation by DOE of the new mixed waste rule on May 1, 1987, (1) and cancellation of the obsolete existing order on October 5, 1987. The new rule requires coregulation of all DOE mixed waste with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the respective authorized states. 5 refs

Operational accidents and radiation exposures at DOE facilities. Fiscal year 1978

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1978-01-01

Comprehensive safety programs are maintained at DOE facilities in order to protect both personnel and property from accidents. To ensure compliance with safety standards and regulations and maximize effectiveness of the safety programs, an extensive inspection and appraisal program is conducted at the contractor and field office levels by both DOE field and Headquarters safety personnel. When accidents do occur, investigations are conducted to identify causes and determine managerial or safety actions needed to prevent similar occurrences. DOE safety requirements include the reporting of personnel injury, property and motor vehicle losses on a quarterly basis, and radiation doses on an annual basis. The radiation dose data for CY 1978 are presented and reviewed in this report. All other data in this report are for FY 1978

Facilities and procedures used for the performance testing of DOE personnel dosimetry systems

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Roberson, P.L.; Fox, R.A.; Hogan, R.T.; Holbrook, K.L.; Hooker, C.D.; Yoder, R.C.

1983-04-01

Radiological calibration facilities for personnel dosimeter testing were developed at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide a capability for evaluating the performance of DOE personnel dosimetry systems. This report includes the testing methodology used. The informational presented here meets requirements specified in draft ANSI N13.11 for the testing laboratory. The capabilities of these facilities include sealed source irradiations for /sup 137/Cs, several beta-particle emitters, /sup 252/Cf, and machine-generated x-ray beams. The x-ray beam capabilities include filtered techniques maintained by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and K-fluorescent techniques. The calibration techniques, dosimeter irradiation procedures, and dose-equivalent calculation methods follow techniques specified by draft ANSI N13.11 where appropriate.

Facilities and procedures used for the performance testing of DOE personnel-dosimetry systems

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Roberson, P.L.; Fox, R.A.; Hogan, R.T.; Holbrook, K.L.; Hooker, C.D.; Yoder, R.C.

1983-04-01

Radiological calibration facilities for personnel dosimeter testing were developed at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide a capability for evaluating the performance of DOE personnel dosimetry systems. This report includes the testing methodology used. The informational presented here meets requirements specified in draft ANSI N13.11 for the testing laboratory. The capabilities of these facilities include sealed source irradiations for 137 Cs, several beta-particle emitters, 252 Cf, and machine-generated x-ray beams. The x-ray beam capabilities include filtered techniques maintained by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and K-fluorescent techniques. The calibration techniques, dosimeter irradiation procedures, and dose-equivalent calculation methods follow techniques specified by draft ANSI N13.11 where appropriate

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant No-Migration Variance Petition. Revision 1, Volume 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Hunt, Arlen

1990-03-01

The purpose of the WIPP No-Migration Variance Petition is to demonstrate, according to the requirements of RCRA {section}3004(d) and 40 CFR {section}268.6, that to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the facility for as long as the wastes remain hazardous. The DOE submitted the petition to the EPA in March 1989. Upon completion of its initial review, the EPA provided to DOE a Notice of Deficiencies (NOD). DOE responded to the EPA`s NOD and met with the EPA`s reviewers of the petition several times during 1989. In August 1989, EPA requested that DOE submit significant additional information addressing a variety of topics including: waste characterization, ground water hydrology, geology and dissolution features, monitoring programs, the gas generation test program, and other aspects of the project. This additional information was provided to EPA in January 1990 when DOE submitted Revision 1 of the Addendum to the petition. For clarity and ease of review, this document includes all of these submittals, and the information has been updated where appropriate. This document is divided into the following sections: Introduction, 1.0: Facility Description, 2.0: Waste Description, 3.0; Site Characterization, 4.0; Environmental Impact Analysis, 5.0; Prediction and Assessment of Infrequent Events, 6.0; and References, 7.0.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

1986-01-01

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

Nevada Test Site Radiological Control Manual. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

None, None

2010-02-09

This document supersedes DOE/NV/25946--801, “Nevada Test Site Radiological Control Manual,” Revision 0 issued in October 2009. Brief Description of Revision: A minor revision to correct oversights made during revision to incorporate the 10 CFR 835 Update; and for use as a reference document for Tenant Organization Radiological Protection Programs.

Operator licensing examination standards for power reactors. Interim revision 8

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1997-01-01

These examination standards are intended to assist NRC examiners and facility licensees to better understand the processes associated with initial and requalification examinations. The standards also ensure the equitable and consistent administration of examinations for all applicants. These standards are for guidance purposes and are not a substitute for the operator licensing regulations (i.e., 10 CFR Part 55), and they are subject to revision or other changes in internal operator licensing policy. This interim revision permits facility licensees to prepare their initial operator licensing examinations on a voluntary basis pending an amendment to 10 CFR Part 55 that will require facility participation. The NRC intends to solicit comments on this revision during the rulemaking process and to issue a final Revision 8 in conjunction with the final rule

Addendum to the Composite Analysis for the E-Area Vaults and Saltstone Disposal Facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Cook, J.R.

2002-01-01

Revision 1 of the Composite Analysis (CA) Addendum has been prepared to respond to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities Federal Review Group review of the CA. This addendum to the composite analysis responds to the conditions of approval. The composite analysis was performed on the two active SRS low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. The facilities are the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility and the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility. The analysis calculated potential releases to the environment from all sources of residual radioactive material expected to remain in the General Separations Area (GSA). The GSA is the central part of the Savannah River Site and contains all of the waste disposal facilities, the chemical separation facilities and associated high-level waste storage facilities, as well as numerous other sources of radioactive material

Pre-title I safety evaluation for the retrieval operations of transuranic waste drums in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Rabin, M.S.

1992-08-01

Phase I of the Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facility Line Item Project includes the retrieval and safe storage of the pad drums that are stored on TRU pads 2-6 in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility (SWDF). Drums containing TRU waste were placed on these pads as early as 1974. The pads, once filled, were mounded with soil. The retrieval activities will include the excavation of the soil, retrieval of the pad drums, placing the drums in overpacks (if necessary) and venting and purging the retrieved drums. Once the drums have been vented and purged, they will be transported to other pads within the SWDF or in a designated area until they are eventually treated as necessary for ultimate shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This safety evaluation provides a bounding assessment of the radiological risk involved with the drum retrieval activities to the maximally exposed offsite individual and the co-located worker. The results of the analysis indicate that the risk to the maximally exposed offsite individual and the co-located worker using maximum frequencies and maximum consequences are within the acceptance criteria defined in WSRC Procedural Manual 9Q. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate the incremental risk from the SWDF due to the retrieval activities for use as design input only. As design information becomes available, this evaluation can be revised to satisfy the safety analysis requirements of DOE Orders 4700 and 5480.23

Knowledge, skills, and abilities for key radiation protection positions at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1997-01-01

This document provides detailed qualification criteria for contractor key radiation protection personnel. Although federal key radiation protection positions are also identified, qualification standards for federal positions are provided in DOE O 360.1 and the DOE Technical Qualifications Program. Appendices B and D provide detailed listings for knowledge, skills, and abilities for contractor and DOE federal key radiation protection positions. This information may be used in developing position descriptions and individual development plans. Information provided in Appendix C may be useful in developing performance measures and assessing an individual's performance in his or her specific position. Additionally, Federal personnel may use this information to augment their Office/facility qualification standards under the Technical Qualifications Program

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

HUNACEK, G.S.

2000-01-01

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

Benefits of improved environmental cooperation on a joint DoD/DOE facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Pratt, G.K.; Gibson, J.D.

1995-01-01

Numerous Federal facilities within the US involve multiple government agencies that face overlapping environmental concerns. This paper highlights the benefits of looking beyond the strict letter of environmental regulations that might affect a single tenant or environmental site to cooperative environmental efforts that focus on the entire facility, consistent with the missions of participating agencies. Using Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) as a model, seven areas of Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DOE) environmental cooperation are discussed that span technical, regulatory compliance, and administrative issues

Lessons Learned from the 200 West Pump and Treatment Facility Construction Project at the US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility - 13113

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Dorr, Kent A.; Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R.; Ostrom, Michael J. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, P.O. Box 1600, MSIN R4-41, 99352 (United States)

2013-07-01

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built to an accelerated schedule with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility to meet DOE's mission objective of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012. The project team's successful integration of the project's core values and green energy technology throughout design, procurement, construction, and start-up of this complex, first-of-its-kind Bio Process facility resulted in successful achievement of DOE's mission objective, as well as attainment of LEED GOLD certification (Figure 1), which makes this Bio Process facility the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award. (authors)

Lessons Learned from the 200 West Pump and Treatment Facility Construction Project at the US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility - 13113

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dorr, Kent A.; Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R.; Ostrom, Michael J.

2013-01-01

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built to an accelerated schedule with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility to meet DOE's mission objective of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012. The project team's successful integration of the project's core values and green energy technology throughout design, procurement, construction, and start-up of this complex, first-of-its-kind Bio Process facility resulted in successful achievement of DOE's mission objective, as well as attainment of LEED GOLD certification (Figure 1), which makes this Bio Process facility the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award. (authors)

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-03-01

The purpose of the Guideline to Good Practices for Control and Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment (M ampersand TE) at DOE Nuclear Facilities is to provide contractor maintenance organizations with information that may be used for the development and implementation of a rigorously controlled maintenance program directed at controlling and calibrating M ampersand TE used for maintenance tasks at DOE nuclear facilities. This document is intended to be an example guideline for the implementation of DOE Order 4330.4A, Maintenance Management Program, Chapter II, Element 11. DOE contractors should not feel obligated to adopt all parts of this guide. Rather, they should use the information contained herein as a guide for developing an M ampersand TE program applicable to their facility

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Geoffrion, R.R.; Loud, J.J.; Walter, E.C.

1996-01-01

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

Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-08-01

The 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application documentation consists of both Part A and a Part B permit application documentation. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this treatment and storage unit, including the current revision, is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. Once the initial Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit is issued, the following process will be used. As final, certified treatment, storage, and/or disposal unit-specific documents are developed, and completeness notifications are made by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology, additional unit-specific permit conditions will be incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit through the permit modification process. All treatment, storage, and/or disposal units that are included in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application will operate under interim status until final status conditions for these units are incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility contains information current as of May 1, 1993

Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1993-08-01

The 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application documentation consists of both Part A and a Part B permit application documentation. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this treatment and storage unit, including the current revision, is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. Once the initial Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit is issued, the following process will be used. As final, certified treatment, storage, and/or disposal unit-specific documents are developed, and completeness notifications are made by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology, additional unit-specific permit conditions will be incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit through the permit modification process. All treatment, storage, and/or disposal units that are included in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application will operate under interim status until final status conditions for these units are incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility contains information current as of May 1, 1993.

Local Government Implementation of Long-Term Stewardship at Two DOE Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

John Pendergrass; Roman Czebiniak; Kelly Mott; Seth Kirshenberg; Audrey Eidelman; Zachary Lamb; Erica Pencak; Wendy Sandoz

2003-08-13

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for cleaning up the radioactive and chemical contamination that resulted from the production of nuclear weapons. At more than one hundred sites throughout the country DOE will leave some contamination in place after the cleanup is complete. In order to protect human health and the environment from the remaining contamination DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state environmental regulatory agencies, local governments, citizens and other entities will need to undertake long-term stewardship of such sites. Long-term stewardship includes a wide range of actions needed to protect human health in the environment for as long as the risk from the contamination remains above acceptable levels, such as barriers, caps, and other engineering controls and land use controls, signs, notices, records, and other institutional controls. In this report the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and the Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) examine how local governments, state environmental agencies, and real property professionals implement long-term stewardship at two DOE facilities, Losa Alamos National Laboratory and Oak Ridge Reservation.

105-DR Large Sodium Fire Facility Supplemental Information to the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE/RL-93-75)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Edens, V.G.

1998-05-01

This document is a unit-specific contingency plan for the 105-DR Large Sodium Fire Facility and is intended to be used as a supplement to DOE/RL-93-75, Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE-RL 1993). This unit-specific plan is to be used to demonstrate compliance with the contingency plan requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303 for certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) waste management units.The LSFF occupied the former ventilation supply fan room and was established to provide a means of investigating fire and safety aspects associated with large sodium or other metal alkali fires. The unit was used to conduct experiments for studying the behavior of molten alkali metals and alkali metal fires. This unit had also been used for the storage and treatment of alkali metal dangerous waste. Additionally, the Fusion Safety Support Studies programs sponsored intermediate-size safety reaction tests in the LSFF with lithium and lithium-lead compounds. The LSFF, which is a RCRA site, was partially clean closed in 1995 and is documented in 'Transfer of the 105-DR Large Sodium Fire Facility to Bechtel Hanford, Inc.' (BHI 1998). In summary, the 105-DR supply fan room (1720-DR) has been demolished, and a majority of the surrounding soils were clean-closed. The 117-DR Filter Building, 116-DR Exhaust Stack, 119- DR Sampling Building, and associated ducting/tunnels were not covered under this closure

PNC/DOE Remote Monitoring Project at Japan's Joyo Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ross, M.; Hashimoto, Yu; Sonnier, C.; Dupree, S.; Ystesund, K.; Hale, W.

1996-01-01

The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) of Japan and the US Department of Energy (DOE) are cooperating on the development of a remote monitoring system for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. This cooperation is part of a broader safeguards agreement between PNC and DOE. A remote monitoring system is being installed in a spent fuel storage area at PNC's experimental reactor facility Joyo in Oarai. The system has been designed by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and is closely related to those used in other SNL remote monitoring projects. The Joyo project will particularly study the unique aspects of remote monitoring in contribution to nuclear nonproliferation. The project will also test and evaluate the fundamental design and implementation of the remote monitoring system in its application to regional and international safeguards efficiency. This paper will present a short history of the cooperation, the details of the monitoring system and a general schedule of activities

Compilation of nuclear safety criteria potential application to DOE nonreactor facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1992-03-01

This bibliographic document compiles nuclear safety criteria applied to the various areas of nuclear safety addressed in a Safety Analysis Report for a nonreactor nuclear facility (NNF). The criteria listed are derived from federal regulations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guides and publications, DOE and DOE contractor publications, and industry codes and standards. The titles of the chapters and sections of Regulatory Guide 3.26, ''Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Fuel Reprocessing Plants'' were used to format the chapters and sections of this compilation. In each section the criteria are compiled in four groups, namely: (1) Code of Federal Regulations, (2) USNRC Regulatory Guides, (3) Codes and Standards, and (4) Supplementary Information

Waste Management facilities cost information: System Cost Model Software Quality Assurance Plan. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Peterson, B.L.; Lundeen, A.S.

1996-02-01

In May of 1994, Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company (LITCO) in Idaho Falls, Idaho and subcontractors developed the System Cost Model (SCM) application. The SCM estimates life-cycle costs of the entire US Department of Energy (DOE) complex for designing; constructing; operating; and decommissioning treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities for mixed low-level, low-level, transuranic, and mixed transuranic waste. The SCM uses parametric cost functions to estimate life-cycle costs for various treatment, storage, and disposal modules which reflect planned and existing facilities at DOE installations. In addition, SCM can model new facilities based on capacity needs over the program life cycle. The SCM also provides transportation costs for truck and rail, which include transport of contact-handled, remote-handled, and alpha (transuranic) wastes. The user can provide input data (default data is included in the SCM) including the volume and nature of waste to be managed, the time period over which the waste is to be managed, and the configuration of the waste management complex (i.e., where each installation's generated waste will be treated, stored, and disposed). Then the SCM uses parametric cost equations to estimate the costs of pre-operations (designing), construction costs, operation management, and decommissioning these waste management facilities. For the product to be effective and useful the SCM users must have a high level of confidence in the data generated by the software model. The SCM Software Quality Assurance Plan is part of the overall SCM project management effort to ensure that the SCM is maintained as a quality product and can be relied on to produce viable planning data. This document defines tasks and deliverables to ensure continued product integrity, provide increased confidence in the accuracy of the data generated, and meet the LITCO's quality standards during the software maintenance phase. 8 refs., 1 tab

Waste Management facilities cost information: System Cost Model Software Quality Assurance Plan. Revision 2

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Peterson, B.L.; Lundeen, A.S.

1996-02-01

In May of 1994, Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company (LITCO) in Idaho Falls, Idaho and subcontractors developed the System Cost Model (SCM) application. The SCM estimates life-cycle costs of the entire US Department of Energy (DOE) complex for designing; constructing; operating; and decommissioning treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities for mixed low-level, low-level, transuranic, and mixed transuranic waste. The SCM uses parametric cost functions to estimate life-cycle costs for various treatment, storage, and disposal modules which reflect planned and existing facilities at DOE installations. In addition, SCM can model new facilities based on capacity needs over the program life cycle. The SCM also provides transportation costs for truck and rail, which include transport of contact-handled, remote-handled, and alpha (transuranic) wastes. The user can provide input data (default data is included in the SCM) including the volume and nature of waste to be managed, the time period over which the waste is to be managed, and the configuration of the waste management complex (i.e., where each installation`s generated waste will be treated, stored, and disposed). Then the SCM uses parametric cost equations to estimate the costs of pre-operations (designing), construction costs, operation management, and decommissioning these waste management facilities. For the product to be effective and useful the SCM users must have a high level of confidence in the data generated by the software model. The SCM Software Quality Assurance Plan is part of the overall SCM project management effort to ensure that the SCM is maintained as a quality product and can be relied on to produce viable planning data. This document defines tasks and deliverables to ensure continued product integrity, provide increased confidence in the accuracy of the data generated, and meet the LITCO`s quality standards during the software maintenance phase. 8 refs., 1 tab.

10 CFR 770.8 - May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less...

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

... facilities for economic development at less than fair market value? 770.8 Section 770.8 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT § 770.8 May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less than fair market...

Radiation exposures for DOE and DOE contractor employees Eighteenth annual report, 1985

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1986-12-01

All US Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE contractors are required to submit occupational radiation exposure records to a central repository. The data required include a summary of whole-body exposures to ionizing radiation, a summary of internal depositions of radioactive materials above specified limits, and occupational exposure reports for terminating employees. This report is a summary of the data submitted by DOE and DOE contractors for 1985. A total of 95,806 DOE and DOE contractor employees were monitored for whole-body ionizing radiation exposures in 1985. In addition to the employees, 96,665 visitors were monitored. Of all employees monitored, 58.4% received a dose equivalent that was less than measurable, 39.8% a measurable exposure less than 1 rem, and 1.9% an exposure greater than 1 rem. One employee received a dose equivalent greater than 5 rem (8.66 rem). The exposure received by 91.9% of the visitors to DOE facilities was less than measurable. No visitors received a dose equivalent greater than 2 rem. The collective dose equivalent for DOE and DOE contractor employees was 8223 person-rem. The collective dose equivalent for visitors was 461 person-rem. These averages are significantly less than the DOE 5-rem/year radiation protection standard for whole-body exposures. Ten new cases of internal depositions were reported in 1985 that exceeded 50% of the pertinent annual dose-equivalent standard. Of these ten cases, eight occurred in a previous year and are reported now because recent revisions in the dose calculations established these cases as reportable depositions. Twenty-six cases reported during 1985 were considered to be the continued tracking of previous depositions. 5 figs., 32 tabs

Lessons Learned From The 200 West Pump And Treatment Facility Construction Project At The US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership For Energy And Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dorr, Kent A.; Ostrom, Michael J.; Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R.

2012-01-01

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built in an accelerated manner with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds and has attained Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) GOLD certification, which makes it the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and LEED challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility. This paper will present the Project and LEED accomplishments, as well as Lessons Learned by CHPRC when additional ARRA funds were used to accelerate design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the 200 West Groundwater Pump and Treatment (2W PandT) Facility to meet DOE's mission of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012

Lessons Learned From The 200 West Pump And Treatment Facility Construction Project At The US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership For Energy And Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Dorr, Kent A. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States); Ostrom, Michael J. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States); Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States)

2012-11-14

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built in an accelerated manner with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds and has attained Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) GOLD certification, which makes it the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and LEED challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility. This paper will present the Project and LEED accomplishments, as well as Lessons Learned by CHPRC when additional ARRA funds were used to accelerate design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the 200 West Groundwater Pump and Treatment (2W P&T) Facility to meet DOE's mission of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012.

High-Level Waste Systems Plan. Revision 7 (U)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Brooke, J.N.; Gregory, M.V.; Paul, P.; Taylor, G.; Wise, F.E.; Davis, N.R.; Wells, M.N.

1996-10-01

This revision of the High-Level Waste (HLW) System Plan aligns SRS HLW program planning with the DOE Savannah River (DOE-SR) Ten Year Plan (QC-96-0005, Draft 8/6), which was issued in July 1996. The objective of the Ten Year Plan is to complete cleanup at most nuclear sites within the next ten years. The two key principles of the Ten Year Plan are to accelerate the reduction of the most urgent risks to human health and the environment and to reduce mortgage costs. Accordingly, this System Plan describes the HLW program that will remove HLW from all 24 old-style tanks, and close 20 of those tanks, by 2006 with vitrification of all HLW by 2018. To achieve these goals, the DWPF canister production rate is projected to climb to 300 canisters per year starting in FY06, and remain at that rate through the end of the program in FY18, (Compare that to past System Plans, in which DWPF production peaked at 200 canisters per year, and the program did not complete until 2026.) An additional $247M (FY98 dollars) must be made available as requested over the ten year planning period, including a one-time $10M to enhance Late Wash attainment. If appropriate resources are made available, facility attainment issues are resolved and regulatory support is sufficient, then completion of the HLW program in 2018 would achieve a $3.3 billion cost savings to DOE, versus the cost of completing the program in 2026. Facility status information is current as of October 31, 1996

Nuclear fuel reprocessing deactivation plan for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Patterson, M.W.

1994-10-01

The decision was announced on April 28, 1992 to cease all United States Department of Energy (DOE) reprocessing of nuclear fuels. This decision leads to the deactivation of all fuels dissolution, solvent extraction, krypton gas recovery operations, and product denitration at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP). The reprocessing facilities will be converted to a safe and stable shutdown condition awaiting future alternate uses or decontamination and decommissioning (D ampersand D). This ICPP Deactivation Plan includes the scope of work, schedule, costs, and associated staffing levels necessary to achieve a safe and orderly deactivation of reprocessing activities and the Waste Calcining Facility (WCF). Deactivation activities primarily involve shutdown of operating systems and buildings, fissile and hazardous material removal, and related activities. A minimum required level of continued surveillance and maintenance is planned for each facility/process system to ensure necessary environmental, health, and safety margins are maintained and to support ongoing operations for ICPP facilities that are not being deactivated. Management of the ICPP was transferred from Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company, Inc. (WINCO) to Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company (LITCO) on October 1, 1994 as part of the INEL consolidated contract. This revision of the deactivation plan (formerly the Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Phaseout Plan for the ICPP) is being published during the consolidation of the INEL site-wide contract and the information presented here is current as of October 31, 1994. LITCO has adopted the existing plans for the deactivation of ICPP reprocessing facilities and the plans developed under WINCO are still being actively pursued, although the change in management may result in changes which have not yet been identified. Accordingly, the contents of this plan are subject to revision

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1984-01-01

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

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1984-01-01

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

Los Alamos National Laboratory DOE M441.1-1 implementation

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Worl, Laura A.; Veirs, D. Kirk; Smith, Paul H.; Yarbro, Tresa F.; Stone, Timothy A.

2010-01-01

Loss of containment of nuclear material stored in containers such as food-pack cans, paint cans, or taped slip lid cans has generated concern about packaging requirements for interim storage of nuclear materials in working facilities such as the plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The Department of Energy (DOE) issued DOE M 441.1-1, Nuclear Materials Packaging Manual on March 7, 2008 in response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2005-1. The Manual directs DOE facilities to follow detailed packaging requirements to protect workers from exposure to nuclear materials stored outside of approved engineered-contamination barriers. Los Alamos National Laboratory has identified the activities that will be performed to bring LANL into compliance with DOE M 441.1-1. These include design, qualification and procurement of new containers, repackaging based on a risk-ranking methodology, surveillance and maintenance of containers, and database requirements. The primary purpose is to replace the out-dated nuclear material storage containers with more robust containers that meet present day safety and quality standards. The repackaging campaign is supported by an integrated risk reduction methodology to prioritize the limited resources to the highest risk containers. This methodology is systematically revised and updated based on the collection of package integrity data. A set of seven nested packages with built-in filters have been designed. These range in size from 1 qt. to 10 gallon. Progress of the testing to meet Manual requirements will be given. Due to the number of packages at LANL, repackaging to achieve full compliance will take five to seven years.

SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SELECTION METHODOLOGY FOR THE SLUDGE TREATMENT and M-91 SOLID WASTE PROCESSING FACILITIES PROJECTS

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

RYAN GW

2008-01-01

In complying with direction from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) (07-KBC-0055, 'Direction Associated with Implementation of DOE-STD-1189 for the Sludge Treatment Project,' and 08-SED-0063, 'RL Action on the Safety Design Strategy (SDS) for Obtaining Additional Solid Waste Processing Capabilities (M-91 Project) and Use of Draft DOE-STD-I 189-YR'), it has been determined that the seismic design requirements currently in the Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC) will be modified by DOE-STD-1189, Integration of Safety into the Design Process (March 2007 draft), for these two key PHMC projects. Seismic design requirements for other PHMC facilities and projects will remain unchanged. Considering the current early Critical Decision (CD) phases of both the Sludge Treatment Project (STP) and the Solid Waste Processing Facilities (M-91) Project and a strong intent to avoid potentially costly re-work of both engineering and nuclear safety analyses, this document describes how Fluor Hanford, Inc. (FH) will maintain compliance with the PHMC by considering both the current seismic standards referenced by DOE 0 420.1 B, Facility Safety, and draft DOE-STD-1189 (i.e., ASCE/SEI 43-05, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities, and ANSI ANS 2.26-2004, Categorization of Nuclear Facility Structures, Systems and Components for Seismic Design, as modified by draft DOE-STD-1189) to choose the criteria that will result in the most conservative seismic design categorization and engineering design. Following the process described in this document will result in a conservative seismic design categorization and design products. This approach is expected to resolve discrepancies between the existing and new requirements and reduce the risk that project designs and analyses will require revision when the draft DOE-STD-1189 is finalized

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hays, C.B.

1998-01-01

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

Draft Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for managing treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste. Volume 3, Appendix A: Public response to revised NOI, Appendix B: Environmental restoration, Appendix C, Environmental impact analysis methods, Appendix D, Risk

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-08-01

Volume three contains appendices for the following: Public comments do DOE's proposed revisions to the scope of the waste management programmatic environmental impact statement; Environmental restoration sensitivity analysis; Environmental impacts analysis methods; and Waste management facility human health risk estimates

Hanford surplus facilities hazards identification document. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Egge, R.G.

1996-02-01

This document provides general safety information needed by personnel who enter and work in surplus facilities managed by Bechtel Hanford, Inc. (BHI). The purpose of the document is to enhance access control of surplus facilities, educate personnel on the potential hazards associated with these facilities prior to entry, and ensure that safety precautions are taken while in the facility. Questions concerning the currency of this information should be directed to the building administrator (as listed in BHI-FS-01, Field Support Administration, Section 1.1, ''Access Control for ERC Surplus Facilities'')

9 CFR 108.6 - Revision of plot plans, blueprints, and legends.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

... 9 Animals and Animal Products 1 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Revision of plot plans, blueprints... FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS § 108.6 Revision of plot plans, blueprints, and legends... changes affecting the workflow are to be made. The licensee shall: (a) Prepare revised plot plans...

Damaged Spent Nuclear Fuel at U.S. DOE Facilities Experience and Lessons Learned

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Brett W. Carlsen; Eric Woolstenhulme; Roger McCormack

2005-01-01

From a handling perspective, any spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that has lost its original technical and functional design capabilities with regard to handling and confinement can be considered as damaged. Some SNF was damaged as a result of experimental activities and destructive examinations; incidents during packaging, handling, and transportation; or degradation that has occurred during storage. Some SNF was mechanically destroyed to protect proprietary SNF designs. Examples of damage to the SNF include failed cladding, failed fuel meat, sectioned test specimens, partially reprocessed SNFs, over-heated elements, dismantled assemblies, and assemblies with lifting fixtures removed. In spite of the challenges involved with handling and storage of damaged SNF, the SNF has been safely handled and stored for many years at DOE storage facilities. This report summarizes a variety of challenges encountered at DOE facilities during interim storage and handling operations along with strategies and solutions that are planned or were implemented to ameliorate those challenges. A discussion of proposed paths forward for moving damaged and nondamaged SNF from interim storage to final disposition in the geologic repository is also presented

Performance assessment review for DOE LLW disposal facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Wilhite, Elmer L.

1992-01-01

The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) disposes of low-level radioactive waste in near-surface disposal facilities. Safety of the disposal operations is evaluated for operational safety as well as long-term safety. Operational safety is evaluated based on the perceived level of hazard of the operation and may vary from a simple safety assessment to a safety analysis report. Long-term safety of all low-level waste disposal systems is evaluated through the conduct of a radiological performance assessment. The US DOE has established radiological performance objectives for disposal of low-level waste. They are to protect a member of the general public from receiving over 25 mrem/y, and an inadvertent intruder into the waste from receiving over 100 mrem/y continuous exposure or 500 mrem from a single exposure. For a disposal system to be acceptable, a performance assessment must be prepared which must be technically accurate and provide reasonable assurance that these performance objectives are met. Technical quality of the performance assessments is reviewed by a panel of experts. The panel of experts is used in two ways to assure the technical quality of performance assessment. A preliminary (generally 2 day) review by the panel is employed in the late stages of development to provide guidance on finalizing the performance assessment. The comments from this review are communicated to the personnel responsible for the performance assessment for consideration and incorporation. After finalizing the performance assessment, it is submitted for a formal review. The formal review is accomplished by a much more thorough analysis of the performance assessment over a multi-week time period. The panel then formally reports their recommendations to the US DOE waste management senior staff who make the final determination on acceptability of the performance assessment. A number of lessons have been learned from conducting several preliminary reviews of performance

A DOE/DP multisite approach to safeguards integration with facility operations

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ostenak, C.A.

1987-01-01

The Accountability Technology Exchange (ATEX) Working Group was established in October 1986 by the plutonium processing technology exchange steering committee under the US Department of Energy/Department of Defense program's materials management executive committee (DOE/DP MMEC). The ATEX Working Group provides a multisite, multidisciplinary forum for discussing, evaluating, and recommending both existing and emerging nuclear materials accountability measurement technologies for implementation into DOE/DP plutonium processing facilities. This forum assists technologists in understanding state-of-the-art plutonium processing and accountability measurement practices throughout the complex, as well as current and projected technical needs. As a result, the ATEX Working Group will contribute to the improvement of plutonium processing technologies by helping to assure that the best possible nuclear materials accountability measurement techniques are made available to all sites to process plutonium safely, securely, and cost-effectively

Seismic design criteria of fire protection systems for DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hardy, G.; Cushing, R.; Driesen, G.

1991-01-01

Fire protection systems are critical to the safety of personnel and to the protection of inventory during any kind of emergency situation that involves a fire. The importance of these fire protection systems is hightened for DOE facilities which often house nuclear, chemical or scientific processes. Current research into the topic of open-quotes fires following earthquakesclose quotes has demonstrated that the risks of a fire starting as a result of a major earthquake can be significant. Thus, fire protection systems need to be designed to withstand the anticipated seismic event for the site in question

DOE standard: Integration of environment, safety, and health into facility disposition activities. Volume 2: Appendices

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1998-05-01

This volume contains the appendices that provide additional environment, safety, and health (ES and H) information to complement Volume 1 of this Standard. Appendix A provides a set of candidate DOE ES and H directives and external regulations, organized by hazard types that may be used to identify potentially applicable directives to a specific facility disposition activity. Appendix B offers examples and lessons learned that illustrate implementation of ES and H approaches discussed in Section 3 of Volume 1. Appendix C contains ISMS performance expectations to guide a project team in developing and implementing an effective ISMS and in developing specific performance criteria for use in facility disposition. Appendix D provides guidance for identifying potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) when decommissioning facilities fall under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA) process. Appendix E discusses ES and H considerations for dispositioning facilities by privatization. Appendix F is an overview of the WSS process. Appendix G provides a copy of two DOE Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Standards memoranda that form the bases for some of the guidance discussed within the Standard. Appendix H gives information on available hazard analysis techniques and references. Appendix I provides a supplemental discussion to Sections 3.3.4, Hazard Baseline Documentation, and 3.3.6, Environmental Permits. Appendix J presents a sample readiness evaluation checklist.

DOE standard: Integration of environment, safety, and health into facility disposition activities. Volume 2: Appendices

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1998-05-01

This volume contains the appendices that provide additional environment, safety, and health (ES and H) information to complement Volume 1 of this Standard. Appendix A provides a set of candidate DOE ES and H directives and external regulations, organized by hazard types that may be used to identify potentially applicable directives to a specific facility disposition activity. Appendix B offers examples and lessons learned that illustrate implementation of ES and H approaches discussed in Section 3 of Volume 1. Appendix C contains ISMS performance expectations to guide a project team in developing and implementing an effective ISMS and in developing specific performance criteria for use in facility disposition. Appendix D provides guidance for identifying potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) when decommissioning facilities fall under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA) process. Appendix E discusses ES and H considerations for dispositioning facilities by privatization. Appendix F is an overview of the WSS process. Appendix G provides a copy of two DOE Office of Nuclear Safety Policy and Standards memoranda that form the bases for some of the guidance discussed within the Standard. Appendix H gives information on available hazard analysis techniques and references. Appendix I provides a supplemental discussion to Sections 3.3.4, Hazard Baseline Documentation, and 3.3.6, Environmental Permits. Appendix J presents a sample readiness evaluation checklist

Technical assessment of workplace air sampling requirements at tank farm facilities. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Olsen, P.A.

1994-01-01

WHC-CM-1-6 is the primary guidance for radiological control at Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC). It was written to implement DOE N 5480.6 ''US Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual'' as it applies to programs at Hanford which are now overseen by WHC. As such, it complies with Title 10, Part 835 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to WHC-CM-1-6, there is HSRCM-1, the ''Hanford Site Radiological Control Manual'' and several Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, national consensus standards, and reports that provide criteria, standards, and requirements for workplace air sampling programs. This document provides a summary of these, as they apply to WHC facility workplace air sampling programs. This document also provides an evaluation of the compliance of Tank Farms' workplace air sampling program to the criteria, standards, and requirements and documents compliance with the requirements where appropriate. Where necessary, it also indicates changes needed to bring specific locations into compliance

Clean Air Act. Revision 5

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1994-02-15

This Reference Book contains a current copy of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and those regulations that implement the statute and appear to be most relevant to DOE activities. The document is provided to DOE and contractor staff for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal guidance. This Reference Book has been completely revised and is current through February 15, 1994.

Guide to research facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1993-06-01

This Guide provides information on facilities at US Department of Energy (DOE) and other government laboratories that focus on research and development of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. These laboratories have opened these facilities to outside users within the scientific community to encourage cooperation between the laboratories and the private sector. The Guide features two types of facilities: designated user facilities and other research facilities. Designated user facilities are one-of-a-kind DOE facilities that are staffed by personnel with unparalleled expertise and that contain sophisticated equipment. Other research facilities are facilities at DOE and other government laboratories that provide sophisticated equipment, testing areas, or processes that may not be available at private facilities. Each facility listing includes the name and phone number of someone you can call for more information.

216-U-12 Crib supplemental information to the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE/RL-93-75)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ingle, S.J.

1996-05-01

This document is a unit-specific contingency plan for the 216-U-12 Crib and is intended to be used as a supplement to DOE/RL-93-75, Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE-RL 1993). This unit-specific plan is to be used to demonstrate compliance with the contingency plan requirements of the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173- 303 for certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 waste management units. The 216-U-12 Crib is a landfill that received waste from the 291-U-1 Stack, 244-WR Vault, 244-U via tank C-5, and the UO 3 Plant. The crib pipeline was cut and permanently capped in 1988, and the crib has been backfilled. The unit will be closed under final facility standards. Waste management activities are no longer required at the unit. The crib does not present a significant hazard to adjacent units, personnel, or the environment. It is unlikely that any incidents presenting hazards to public health or the environment would occur at the 216-U-12 Crib

Maintenance implementation plan for the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Revision 3

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Meldrom, C.A.

1996-03-01

This document outlines the Maintenance Implementation Plan (MIP) for the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) located at the Hanford site at Richland, Washington. This MIP describes the PFP maintenance program relative to DOE order 4330.4B. The MIP defines the key actions needed to meet the guidelines of the Order to produce a cost-effective and efficient maintenance program. A previous report identified the presence of significant quantities of Pu-bearing materials within PFP that pose risks to workers. PFP's current mission is to develop, install and operate processes which will mitigate these risks. The PFP Maintenance strategy is to equip the facility with systems and equipment able to sustain scheduled PFP operations. The current operating run is scheduled to last seven years. Activities following the stabilization operation will involve an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine future plant activities. This strategy includes long-term maintenance of the facility for safe occupancy and material storage. The PFP maintenance staff used the graded approach to dictate the priorities of the improvement and upgrade actions identified in Chapter 2 of this document. The MIP documents PFP compliance to the DOE 4330.4B Order. Chapter 2 of the MIP follows the format of the Order in addressing the eighteen elements. As this revision is a total rewrite, no sidebars are included to highlight changes

Treatment of DOE mixed wastes using commercial facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kramer, J.F.; Ross, M.A.; Dilday, D.R.

1992-02-01

In a demonstration program, Department of Energy (DOE) solid mixed wastes generated during uranium processing operations are characterized to define the unit operations required for treatment. The objectives included the implementation of these treatment operations utilizing a commercial Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF). In contracting for commercial hazardous and mixed waste treatment, it is important to characterize the waste beyond the identification of toxicity characteristic (TC) and radiological content. Performing treatability studies and verification of all the unit operations required for treatment is critical. The stream selected for this program was TC hazardous for barium (D005) and contaminated with both depleted and low enriched uranium. The program resulted in the generation of characterization data and treatment strategies. The characterization and treatability studies indicated that although a common unit operation was required to remove the toxic characteristic, multiple pretreatment operations were needed. Many of these operations do not exist at available TSDF's, rendering some portions of the stream untreatable using existing commercial TSDF's. For this project the need for pretreatment operations resulted in only a portion of the waste originally targeted for treatment being accepted for treatment at a commercial TSDF. The majority of the targeted stream could not be successfully treated due to lack of an off-site commercial treatment facility having the available equipment and capacity or with the correct combination of RCRA permits and radioactive material handling licenses. This paper presents a case study documenting the results of the project

Scientific Infrastructure To Support Manned And Unmanned Aircraft, Tethered Balloons, And Related Aerial Activities At Doe Arm Facilities On The North Slope Of Alaska

Science.gov (United States)

Ivey, M.; Dexheimer, D.; Hardesty, J.; Lucero, D. A.; Helsel, F.

2015-12-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), through its scientific user facility, the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) facilities, provides scientific infrastructure and data to the international Arctic research community via its research sites located on the North Slope of Alaska. DOE has recently invested in improvements to facilities and infrastructure to support operations of unmanned aerial systems for science missions in the Arctic and North Slope of Alaska. A new ground facility, the Third ARM Mobile Facility, was installed at Oliktok Point Alaska in 2013. Tethered instrumented balloons were used to make measurements of clouds in the boundary layer including mixed-phase clouds. A new Special Use Airspace was granted to DOE in 2015 to support science missions in international airspace in the Arctic. Warning Area W-220 is managed by Sandia National Laboratories for DOE Office of Science/BER. W-220 was successfully used for the first time in July 2015 in conjunction with Restricted Area R-2204 and a connecting Altitude Reservation Corridor (ALTRV) to permit unmanned aircraft to operate north of Oliktok Point. Small unmanned aircraft (DataHawks) and tethered balloons were flown at Oliktok during the summer and fall of 2015. This poster will discuss how principal investigators may apply for use of these Special Use Airspaces, acquire data from the Third ARM Mobile Facility, or bring their own instrumentation for deployment at Oliktok Point, Alaska. The printed poster will include the standard DOE funding statement.

SARP-II: Safeguards Accounting and Reports Program, Revised

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kempf, C.R.

1994-01-01

A computer code, SARP (Safeguards Accounting and Reports Program) which will generate and maintain at-facility safeguards accounting records, and generate IAEA safeguards reports based on accounting data input by the user, was completed in 1990 by the Safeguards, Safety, and Nonproliferation Division (formerly the Technical Support Organization) at Brookhaven National Laboratory as a task under the US Program of Technical Support to IAEA safeguards. The code was based on a State System of Accounting for and Control of Nuclear Material (SSAC) for off-load refueled power reactor facilities, with model facility and safeguards accounting regime as described in IAEA Safeguards Publication STR-165. Since 1990, improvements in computing capabilities and comments and suggestions from users engendered revision of the original code. The result is an updated, revised version called SARP-II which is discussed in this report

Estimating inventory thresholds for nuclear facilities using DOE STD-1027-92 Attachment 1 Table A.1 ''Thresholds for Radionuclides''

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Price, D.; Hildum, J.S.; Williams, A.C.

1997-01-01

It has recently been reports that Table A.1 of Attachment 1 of DOE STD-1027-92 is being improperly used to determine the Category 3 inventory threshold values for non-reactor nuclear facilities. The concern of this paper is that Safety Analysts and Facility Managers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), as well as at other locations in the DOE Complex, are improperly using the entries in Table A.1. It is noted at this point that the common use of this table is to establish the lower thresholds for both Categories 2 and 3 non-reactor nuclear facilities by considering inventory quantities, as opposed to a postulated accident scenario. This paper will provide insight regarding this error and will show that the error is most likely non-conservative in nature

The National Ignition Facility Project. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Paisner, J.A.; Campbell, E.M.; Hogan, W.J.

1994-01-01

The mission of the National Ignition Facility is to achieve ignition and gain in inertial confinement fusion targets in the laboratory. The facility will be used for defense applications such as weapons physics and weapons effects testing, and for civilian applications such as fusion energy development and fundamental studies of matter at high temperatures and densities. This paper reviews the design, schedule, and costs associated with the construction project

Facility effluent monitoring plan for K area spent fuel storage basin

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hunacek, G.S.

1996-01-01

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the U.S. Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400. 1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document was prepared using the specific guidelines identified in WHC-EP-0438-1, A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, and assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan is the second revision to the original annual report. Long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring system shall be ensured with updates of this report whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated at a minimum of every three years

303-K Storage Facility closure plan. Revision 2

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1993-12-15

Recyclable scrap uranium with zircaloy-2 and copper silicon alloy, uranium-titanium alloy, beryllium/zircaloy-2 alloy, and zircaloy-2 chips and fines were secured in concrete billets (7.5-gallon containers) in the 303-K Storage Facility, located in the 300 Area. The beryllium/zircaloy-2 alloy and zircaloy-2 chips and fines are designated as mixed waste with the characteristic of ignitability. The concretion process reduced the ignitability of the fines and chips for safe storage and shipment. This process has been discontinued and the 303-K Storage Facility is now undergoing closure as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303-040. This closure plan presents a description of the 303-K Storage Facility, the history of materials and waste managed, and the procedures that will be followed to close the 303-K Storage Facility. The 303-K Storage Facility is located within the 300-FF-3 (source) and 300-FF-5 (groundwater) operable units, as designated in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) (Ecology et al. 1992). Contamination in the operable units 300-FF-3 and 300-FF-5 is scheduled to be addressed through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 remedial action process. Therefore, all soil remedial action at the 304 Facility will be conducted as part of the CERCLA remedial action of operable units 300-FF-3 and 300-FF-5.

Lessons Learned from the 200 West Pump and Treatment Facility Construction Project at the US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Dorr, Kent A.; Ostrom, Michael J.; Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R.

2013-01-11

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built to an accelerated schedule with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility to meet DOE’s mission objective of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012. The project team’s successful integration of the project’s core values and green energy technology throughout design, procurement, construction, and start-up of this complex, first-of-its-kind Bio Process facility resulted in successful achievement of DOE’s mission objective, as well as attainment of LEED GOLD certification, which makes this Bio Process facility the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award.

Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Balance-of-Plant Facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ballinger, M.Y.; Shields, K.D.

1999-01-01

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operates a number of research and development (R and D) facilities for the Department of Energy on the Hanford Site. According to DOE Order 5400.1, a Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan is required for each site, facility, or process that uses, generates, releases, or manages significant pollutants or hazardous materials. Three of the R and D facilities: the 325, 331, and 3720 Buildings, are considered major emission points for radionuclide air sampling and thus individual Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans (FEMPs) have been developed for them. Because no definition of ''significant'' is provided in DOE Order 5400.1 or the accompanying regulatory guide DOE/EH-0173T, this FEMP was developed to describe monitoring requirements in the DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities that do not have individual FEMPs. The remainder of the DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities are referred to as Balance-of-Plant (BOP) facilities. Activities in the BOP facilities range from administrative to laboratory and pilot-scale R and D. R and D activities include both radioactive and chemical waste characterization, fluid dynamics research, mechanical property testing, dosimetry research, and molecular sciences. The mission and activities for individual buildings are described in the FEMP

Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Balance-of-Plant Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Ballinger, M.Y.; Shields, K.D.

1999-04-02

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operates a number of research and development (R and D) facilities for the Department of Energy on the Hanford Site. According to DOE Order 5400.1, a Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan is required for each site, facility, or process that uses, generates, releases, or manages significant pollutants or hazardous materials. Three of the R and D facilities: the 325, 331, and 3720 Buildings, are considered major emission points for radionuclide air sampling and thus individual Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans (FEMPs) have been developed for them. Because no definition of ''significant'' is provided in DOE Order 5400.1 or the accompanying regulatory guide DOE/EH-0173T, this FEMP was developed to describe monitoring requirements in the DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities that do not have individual FEMPs. The remainder of the DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities are referred to as Balance-of-Plant (BOP) facilities. Activities in the BOP facilities range from administrative to laboratory and pilot-scale R and D. R and D activities include both radioactive and chemical waste characterization, fluid dynamics research, mechanical property testing, dosimetry research, and molecular sciences. The mission and activities for individual buildings are described in the FEMP.

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR DOE STANDARD 3013 EQUIVALENCY SUPPORTING REDUCED TEMPERATURE STABILIZATION OF OXALATE-DERIVED PLUTONIUM OXIDE PRODUCED BY THE HB-LINE FACILITY AT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Duffey, J.; Livingston, R.; Berg, J.; Veirs, D.

2012-07-02

The HB-Line (HBL) facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is designed to produce high-purity plutonium dioxide (PuO{sub 2}) which is suitable for future use in production of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. The MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) requires PuO{sub 2} feed to be packaged per the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Standard 3013 (DOE-STD-3013) to comply with the facility's safety basis. The stabilization conditions imposed by DOE-STD-3013 for PuO{sub 2} (i.e., 950 C for 2 hours) preclude use of the HBL PuO{sub 2} in direct fuel fabrication and reduce the value of the HBL product as MFFF feedstock. Consequently, HBL initiated a technical evaluation to define acceptable operating conditions for production of high-purity PuO{sub 2} that fulfills the DOE-STD-3013 criteria for safe storage. The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that within the defined operating conditions, the HBL process will be equivalent for meeting the requirements of the DOE-STD-3013 stabilization process for plutonium-bearing materials from the DOE complex. The proposed 3013 equivalency reduces the prescribed stabilization temperature for high-purity PuO{sub 2} from oxalate precipitation processes from 950 C to 640 C and places a limit of 60% on the relative humidity (RH) at the lowest material temperature. The equivalency is limited to material produced using the HBL established flow sheet, for example, nitric acid anion exchange and Pu(IV) direct strike oxalate precipitation with stabilization at a minimum temperature of 640 C for four hours (h). The product purity must meet the MFFF acceptance criteria of 23,600 {micro}g/g Pu (i.e., 2.1 wt %) total impurities and chloride content less than 250 {micro}g/g of Pu. All other stabilization and packaging criteria identified by DOE-STD-3013-2012 or earlier revisions of the standard apply. Based on the evaluation of test data discussed in this document, the expert judgment of the authors supports packaging the HBL product under a 3013

US DOE Initiated Performance Enhancements to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low-activity Waste Vitrification (LAW) System

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hamel, William F.; Gerdes, Kurt D.; Holton, Langdon K.; Pegg, Ian L.; Bowen, Brad W.

2006-01-01

The U.S Department of Energy Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP) is constructing a Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) for the treatment and vitrification of underground tank wastes stored at the Hanford Site in Washington State. The WTP comprises four major facilities: a pretreatment facility to separate the tank waste into high level waste (HLW) and low-activity waste (LAW) process streams, a HLW vitrification facility to immobilize the HLW fraction; a LAW vitrification facility to immobilize the LAW fraction, and an analytical laboratory to support the operations of all four treatment facilities. DOE has established strategic objectives to optimize the performance of the WTP facilities and the LAW and HLW waste forms to reduce the overall schedule and cost for treatment and vitrification of the Hanford tank wastes. This strategy has been implemented by establishing performance expectations in the WTP contract for the facilities and waste forms. In addition, DOE, as owner-operator of the WTP facilities, continues to evaluate (1) the design, to determine the potential for performance above the requirements specified in the WTP contract; and (2) improvements in production of the LAW and HLW waste forms. This paper reports recent progress directed at improving production of the LAW waste form. DOE's initial assessment, which is based on the work reported in this paper, is that the capacity of the WTP LAW vitrification facility can be increased by a factor of 2 to 4 with a combination of revised glass formulations, modest increases in melter glass operating temperatures, and a second-generation LAW melter with a larger surface area. Implementing these improvements in the LAW waste immobilization capability can benefit the LAW treatment mission by reducing both processing time and cost

Experimental Fuels Facility Re-categorization Based on Facility Segmentation

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Reiss, Troy P.; Andrus, Jason

2016-07-01

The Experimental Fuels Facility (EFF) (MFC-794) at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) located on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site was originally constructed to provide controlled-access, indoor storage for radiological contaminated equipment. Use of the facility was expanded to provide a controlled environment for repairing contaminated equipment and characterizing, repackaging, and treating waste. The EFF facility is also used for research and development services, including fuel fabrication. EFF was originally categorized as a LTHC-3 radiological facility based on facility operations and facility radiological inventories. Newly planned program activities identified the need to receive quantities of fissionable materials in excess of the single parameter subcritical limit in ANSI/ANS-8.1, “Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors” (identified as “criticality list” quantities in DOE-STD-1027-92, “Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports,” Attachment 1, Table A.1). Since the proposed inventory of fissionable materials inside EFF may be greater than the single parameter sub-critical limit of 700 g of U-235 equivalent, the initial re-categorization is Hazard Category (HC) 2 based upon a potential criticality hazard. This paper details the facility hazard categorization performed for the EFF. The categorization was necessary to determine (a) the need for further safety analysis in accordance with LWP-10802, “INL Facility Categorization,” and (b) compliance with 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart B, “Safety Basis Requirements.” Based on the segmentation argument presented in this paper, the final hazard categorization for the facility is LTHC-3. Department of Energy Idaho (DOE-ID) approval of the final hazard categorization determined by this hazard assessment document (HAD) was required per the

DOE Coal Gasification Multi-Test Facility: fossil fuel processing technical/professional services

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Hefferan, J.K.; Lee, G.Y.; Boesch, L.P.; James, R.B.; Rode, R.R.; Walters, A.B.

1979-07-13

A conceptual design, including process descriptions, heat and material balances, process flow diagrams, utility requirements, schedule, capital and operating cost estimate, and alternative design considerations, is presented for the DOE Coal Gasification Multi-Test Facility (GMTF). The GMTF, an engineering scale facility, is to provide a complete plant into which different types of gasifiers and conversion/synthesis equipment can be readily integrated for testing in an operational environment at relatively low cost. The design allows for operation of several gasifiers simultaneously at a total coal throughput of 2500 tons/day; individual gasifiers operate at up to 1200 tons/day and 600 psig using air or oxygen. Ten different test gasifiers can be in place at the facility, but only three can be operated at one time. The GMTF can produce a spectrum of saleable products, including low Btu, synthesis and pipeline gases, hydrogen (for fuel cells or hydrogasification), methanol, gasoline, diesel and fuel oils, organic chemicals, and electrical power (potentially). In 1979 dollars, the base facility requires a $288 million capital investment for common-use units, $193 million for four gasification units and four synthesis units, and $305 million for six years of operation. Critical reviews of detailed vendor designs are appended for a methanol synthesis unit, three entrained flow gasifiers, a fluidized bed gasifier, and a hydrogasifier/slag-bath gasifier.

National Ignition Facility project acquisition plan revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Clobes, A.R.

1996-01-01

The purpose of this National Ignition Facility Acquisition Plan is to describe the overall procurement strategy planned for the National Ignition Facility M Project. It was prepared for the NIP Prood Office by the NIF Procurement Manager

216-A-36B Crib supplemental information to the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE/RL-93-75)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ingle, S.J.

1996-05-01

This document is a unit-specific contingency plan for the 216-A-36B Crib and is intended to be used as a supplement to DOE/RL-93-75, Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE-RL 1993). This unit-specific plan is to be used to demonstrate compliance with the contingency plan requirements of the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173- 303 for certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 waste management units. The 216-A-36B Crib is a landfill that received ammonia scrubber waste from the 202-A Building (Plutonium/Uranium Extraction Plant) between 1966 and 1972. In 1982, the unit was reactivated to receive additional waste from Plutonium/Uranium Extraction operations. Discharges ceased in 1987, and the crib will be closed under final facility standards. Because the crib is not receiving discharges, waste management activities are no longer required. The crib does not present a significant hazard to adjacent units, personnel, or the environment. There is little likelihood that any incidents presenting hazards to public health or the environment would occur at the 216-A-36B Crib

A revision of the cask designers guide for the '90s

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Shappert, L.B.; Green, V.M.

1993-01-01

DOE has requested that ORNL initiate a revision to NSIC-68, A Guide for the Design, Fabrication, and Operation of Shipping Casks for Nuclear Applications, commonly called the Cask Designers Guide. This revision, called the Cask Handbook, has two goals: (1) to improve the quality of SARPs that are submitted to DOE, and (2) to provide up-to-date information on the design of spent fuel shipping casks, including information on fabrication, quality assurance, SARP preparation, certification, use, maintenance, and other general topics. The revision provides guidance that will help engineers through the cask licensing process, in part, by providing as much regulator-approved data and 'lessons-learned' information as possible. The effort is sponsored by DOE-Environmental, Safety and Health (EH), guided by Transportation Technology staff members at ORNL, and the information is being generated by experts in the various technical fields. (J.P.N.)

Transuranic waste characterization sampling and analysis methods manual. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Suermann, J.F.

1996-04-01

This Methods Manual provides a unified source of information on the sampling and analytical techniques that enable Department of Energy (DOE) facilities to comply with the requirements established in the current revision of the Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Transuranic (TRU) Waste Characterization Program (the Program) and the WIPP Waste Analysis Plan. This Methods Manual includes all of the testing, sampling, and analytical methodologies accepted by DOE for use in implementing the Program requirements specified in the QAPP and the WIPP Waste Analysis Plan. The procedures in this Methods Manual are comprehensive and detailed and are designed to provide the necessary guidance for the preparation of site-specific procedures. With some analytical methods, such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, the Methods Manual procedures may be used directly. With other methods, such as nondestructive characterization, the Methods Manual provides guidance rather than a step-by-step procedure. Sites must meet all of the specified quality control requirements of the applicable procedure. Each DOE site must document the details of the procedures it will use and demonstrate the efficacy of such procedures to the Manager, National TRU Program Waste Characterization, during Waste Characterization and Certification audits

DOE standard: Integration of environment, safety, and health into facility disposition activities. Volume 1 of 2: Technical standard

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1998-05-01

This Department of Energy (DOE) technical standard (referred to as the Standard) provides guidance for integrating and enhancing worker, public, and environmental protection during facility disposition activities. It provides environment, safety, and health (ES and H) guidance to supplement the project management requirements and associated guidelines contained within DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset Management (LCAM), and amplified within the corresponding implementation guides. In addition, the Standard is designed to support an Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS), consistent with the guiding principles and core functions contained in DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy, and discussed in DOE G 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System Guide. The ISMS guiding principles represent the fundamental policies that guide the safe accomplishment of work and include: (1) line management responsibility for safety; (2) clear roles and responsibilities; (3) competence commensurate with responsibilities; (4) balanced priorities; (5) identification of safety standards and requirements; (6) hazard controls tailored to work being performed; and (7) operations authorization. This Standard specifically addresses the implementation of the above ISMS principles four through seven, as applied to facility disposition activities

Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility, Revision 3

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

WELLS, DANIEL

2005-01-01

Groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility since 1987. At that time, groundwater monitoring was not required by the industrial landfill regulations, but a modest monitoring program was required by the operating permit. At the time of the 1996 permit renewal, it was determined that a more robust monitoring program was needed. The draft permit required new monitoring wells within 25 feet of each active disposal cell. As an alternative, SRS proposed a program based on direct push sampling. This program called for biennial direct push sampling within 25 feet of each waste-containing cell with additional samples being taken in areas where excessive cracking had been observed. The direct push proposal was accepted by The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and was incorporated by reference into the Z-Area Saltstone Industrial Solid Waste Permit, No.025500-1603. The Industrial Solid Waste Landfill Regulations were revised in 1998 and now include specific requirements for groundwater monitoring. SRS's plan for complying with those regulations is discussed below. The plan calls for a return to traditional monitoring with permanent wells. It also proposes a more technically sound monitoring list based on the actual composition of saltstone

PUREX facility preclosure work plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Engelmann, R.H.

1997-01-01

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

Application of the LR-56 at DOE Facilities in the United States

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Smith, A.C.

1998-05-01

The ability to ship Type B liquid packages will be necessary for the nuclear industry to meet the energy production requirements of the next century. There are no packages licensed in the United States for transportation of large quantities of such liquids at present. Packages designed for transporting liquids must address technical challenges and incorporate features which are not common to packages designed for solid contents. These issues and the methods of addressing them are illustrated by the safety analysis performed for utilization of the LR-56 Liquid Package at US DOE facilities

Revision of the recommended international general standard for irradiated foods and of the recommended international code of practice for the operation of radiation facilities used for the treatment of foods

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1981-11-01

In view of the findings and statements of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food, convened in Geneva from 27 October to 3 November 1980, a Consultation Group, convened in Geneva from 1 to 3 July 1981 suggested the revision of the Recommended International General Standard for Irradiated Foods and of the Recommended International Code of Practice for the Operation of Radiation Facilities. The proposed changes are given and justified and the revised wording of the documents presented

The January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake: Effects on selected industrial facilities and lifelines

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Eli, M.W.; Sommer, S.C. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States); Roche, T.R.; Merz, K.L.

1995-02-01

Revision 0 of this report is being published in February 1995 to closely mark the one-year anniversary of the Northridge Earthquake. A September 1994 Draft version of the report was reviewed by DOE and NRC, and many of the review comments are incorporated into Revision 0. While this revision of the report is not entirely complete, it is being made available for comment, review, and evaluation. Since the report was written by several authors, sections of the report have slightly different styles. Several sections of Revision 0 are not complete, but are planned to be completed in Revision 1. The primary unfinished section is Section 3.3 on Electric Power Transmission. Other sections of Revision 0, such as Section 4.5.2 on the Energy Technology Engineering Center and 3.2 on Electric Power Generation, will be enhanced with further detailed information as it becomes available. In addition, further data, including processed response spectra for investigated facilities and cataloging of relay performance, will be added to Revision 1 depending upon investigation support. While Revision 0 of this report is being published by LLNL, Revision 1 is planned to be published by EPRI. The anticipated release date for Revision 1 is December 1995. Unfortunately, the one-year anniversary of the Northridge Earthquake was also marked by the devastating Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (or Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake in Kobe, Japan. As compared to the Northridge Earthquake, there were many more deaths, collapsed structures, destroyed lifelines, and fires following the Kobe Earthquake. Lessons from the Kobe Earthquake will both reemphasize topics discussed in this report and provide further issues to be addressed when designing and retrofitting structures, systems, and components for seismic strong motion.

Planning the School Food Service Facilities. Revised 1967.

Science.gov (United States)

Utah State Board of Education, Salt Lake City.

Evaluations of food service equipment, kitchen design and food service facilities are comprehensively reviewed for those concerned with the planning and equipping of new school lunchrooms or the remodeling of existing facilities. Information is presented in the form of general guides adaptable to specific local situations and needs, and is…

Development of Probabilistic Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) Parameters for Moderate and High Hazard Facilities at INEEL

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Payne, S. M.; Gorman, V. W.; Jensen, S. A.; Nitzel, M. E.; Russell, M. J.; Smith, R. P.

2000-01-01

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) horizontal and vertical response spectra are developed for moderate and high hazard facilities or Performance Categories (PC) 3 and 4, respectively, at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The probabilistic DBE response spectra will replace the deterministic DBE response spectra currently in the U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) Architectural Engineering Standards that govern seismic design criteria for several facility areas at the INEEL. Probabilistic DBE response spectra are recommended to DOE Naval Reactors for use at the Naval Reactor Facility at INEEL. The site-specific Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) developed by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Federal Services are used as the basis for developing the DBE response spectra. In 1999, the UHS for all INEEL facility areas were recomputed using more appropriate attenuation relationships for the Basin and Range province. The revised UHS have lower ground motions than those produced in the 1996 INEEL site-wide probabilistic ground motion study. The DBE response spectra were developed by incorporating smoothed broadened regions of the peak accelerations, velocities, and displacements defined by the site-specific UHS. Portions of the DBE response spectra were adjusted to ensure conservatism for the structural design process

Special Analysis: Revision of Saltstone Vault 4 Disposal Limits (U)

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Cook, J

2005-05-26

New disposal limits have been computed for Vault 4 of the Saltstone Disposal Facility based on several revisions to the models in the existing Performance Assessment and the Special Analysis issued in 2002. The most important changes are the use of a more rigorous groundwater flow and transport model, and consideration of radon emanation. Other revisions include refinement of the aquifer mesh to more accurately model the footprint of the vault, a new plutonium chemistry model accounting for the different transport properties of oxidation states III/IV and V/VI, use of variable infiltration rates to simulate degradation of the closure system, explicit calculation of gaseous releases and consideration of the effects of settlement and seismic activity on the vault structure. The disposal limits have been compared with the projected total inventory expected to be disposed in Vault 4. The resulting sum-of-fractions of the 1000-year disposal limits is 0.2, which indicates that the performance objectives and requirements of DOE 435.1 will not be exceeded. This SA has not altered the conceptual model (i.e., migration of radionuclides from the Saltstone waste form and Vault 4 to the environment via the processes of diffusion and advection) of the Saltstone PA (MMES 1992) nor has it altered the conclusions of the PA (i.e., disposal of the proposed waste in the SDF will meet DOE performance measures). Thus a PA revision is not required and this SA serves to update the disposal limits for Vault 4. In addition, projected doses have been calculated for comparison with the performance objectives laid out in 10 CFR 61. These doses are 0.05 mrem/year to a member of the public and 21.5 mrem/year to an inadvertent intruder in the resident scenario over a 10,000-year time-frame, which demonstrates that the 10 CFR 61 performance objectives will not be exceeded. This SA supplements the Saltstone PA and supersedes the two previous SAs (Cook et al. 2002; Cook and Kaplan 2003).

The Mixed Waste Management Facility, monthly report, February 1995

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Streit, R.D.

1995-03-01

Technical progress continued in general accordance with the Mixed Waste Management Facility (MWMF) FY95 Plan. Engineering development and design continued in support of preliminary design of MWMF major subsystems. Peer reviews have begun in preparation for system preliminary design reviews. Procurements in support of engineering design/development have continued to increase. Significant effort to provide technical and cost trade-off information for the Project Baseline Revision 1.2 (PB1.2) and FY97 Validation was completed. Management focus during February centered upon addressing the rebaseline for MWMF for the FY97 Validation in March, and upon completing the permitting strategy. We completed a consistent baseline plan for Validation that satisfied the DOE constraints of integration with DWTF, schedule stretchout, overall Project cost, and FY cost profiles. The revised permitting strategy was completed and reviewed by a number of stakeholders (LLNL, DOE, State). The proposed strategy involves no RCRA RD ampersand D permit, since all technology demonstrations can be done with surrogates and using limited treatability studies. The expenses for February continue to run somewhat below the plan due to the limited new hiring. This is a result of uncertain DOE funding and guidance to keep personnel to a minimum. However, the spending rate is picking up due to initiation of procurements for engineering development and a minimum of essential new hires. A significant imbalance in the OPEX/CENRTC funding split for FY95 exists (about $2.1M); DOE/OAK began to seek resolution this month. Critical-path items are DWTF construction, NEPA, and permitting (for both MWMF and DWTF). Contractual issues have delayed award of the A ampersand E contract for DWTF, but work-arounds are in progress to avoid schedule impact. NEPA and permitting issues are discussed below. Progress on preliminary design for MWMF is close to schedule

Site-specific meteorology identification for DOE facility accident analysis

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Rabin, S.B.

1995-01-01

Currently, chemical dispersion calculations performed for safety analysis of DOE facilities assume a Pasquill D-Stability Class with a 4.5 m/s windspeed. These meteorological conditions are assumed to conservatively address the source term generation mechanism as well as the dispersion mechanism thereby resulting in a net conservative downwind consequence. While choosing this Stability Class / Windspeed combination may result in an overall conservative consequence, the level of conservative can not be quantified. The intent of this paper is to document a methodology which incorporates site-specific meteorology to determine a quantifiable consequence of a chemical release. A five-year meteorological database, appropriate for the facility location, is utilized for these chemical consequence calculations, and is consistent with the approach used for radiological releases. The hourly averages of meteorological conditions have been binned into 21 groups for the chemical consequence calculations. These 21 cases each have a probability of occurrence based on the number of times each case has occurred over the five year sampling period. A code has been developed which automates the running of all the cases with a commercially available air modeling code. The 21 cases are sorted by concentration. A concentration may be selected by the user for a quantified level of conservatism. The methodology presented is intended to improve the technical accuracy and defensability of Chemical Source Term / Dispersion Safety Analysis work. The result improves the quality of safety analyses products without significantly increasing the cost

Revision history aware repositories of computational models of biological systems.

Science.gov (United States)

Miller, Andrew K; Yu, Tommy; Britten, Randall; Cooling, Mike T; Lawson, James; Cowan, Dougal; Garny, Alan; Halstead, Matt D B; Hunter, Peter J; Nickerson, David P; Nunns, Geo; Wimalaratne, Sarala M; Nielsen, Poul M F

2011-01-14

Building repositories of computational models of biological systems ensures that published models are available for both education and further research, and can provide a source of smaller, previously verified models to integrate into a larger model. One problem with earlier repositories has been the limitations in facilities to record the revision history of models. Often, these facilities are limited to a linear series of versions which were deposited in the repository. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, there are many instances in the history of biological systems modelling where an 'ancestral' model is modified by different groups to create many different models. With a linear series of versions, if the changes made to one model are merged into another model, the merge appears as a single item in the history. This hides useful revision history information, and also makes further merges much more difficult, as there is no record of which changes have or have not already been merged. In addition, a long series of individual changes made outside of the repository are also all merged into a single revision when they are put back into the repository, making it difficult to separate out individual changes. Furthermore, many earlier repositories only retain the revision history of individual files, rather than of a group of files. This is an important limitation to overcome, because some types of models, such as CellML 1.1 models, can be developed as a collection of modules, each in a separate file. The need for revision history is widely recognised for computer software, and a lot of work has gone into developing version control systems and distributed version control systems (DVCSs) for tracking the revision history. However, to date, there has been no published research on how DVCSs can be applied to repositories of computational models of biological systems. We have extended the Physiome Model Repository software to be fully revision history aware

Revision history aware repositories of computational models of biological systems

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Nickerson David P

2011-01-01

Full Text Available Abstract Background Building repositories of computational models of biological systems ensures that published models are available for both education and further research, and can provide a source of smaller, previously verified models to integrate into a larger model. One problem with earlier repositories has been the limitations in facilities to record the revision history of models. Often, these facilities are limited to a linear series of versions which were deposited in the repository. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, there are many instances in the history of biological systems modelling where an 'ancestral' model is modified by different groups to create many different models. With a linear series of versions, if the changes made to one model are merged into another model, the merge appears as a single item in the history. This hides useful revision history information, and also makes further merges much more difficult, as there is no record of which changes have or have not already been merged. In addition, a long series of individual changes made outside of the repository are also all merged into a single revision when they are put back into the repository, making it difficult to separate out individual changes. Furthermore, many earlier repositories only retain the revision history of individual files, rather than of a group of files. This is an important limitation to overcome, because some types of models, such as CellML 1.1 models, can be developed as a collection of modules, each in a separate file. The need for revision history is widely recognised for computer software, and a lot of work has gone into developing version control systems and distributed version control systems (DVCSs for tracking the revision history. However, to date, there has been no published research on how DVCSs can be applied to repositories of computational models of biological systems. Results We have extended the Physiome Model

Guidance for closure of existing DOE LLW disposal sites

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Blanchfield, L.

1987-01-01

During FY 1986, a closure guidance document was developed. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in support of DOE Order 5820.2 to site operating contractors for the stabilization and closure of existing low-level waste (LLW) shallow land disposal sites at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Guidance is provided to aid operators in placing existing LLW sites in a closed conditions, i.e., a condition in which a nonoperational site meets postclosure performance requirements and can be shown, within a high degree of confidence, to perform as anticipated in the future, under the most cost-effective maintenance approach. Guidance is based on the philosophy that closure should be planned and performed using a systems approach. Plans for FY 1987 call for revision of the document to incorporate more information on closure of LLW sites also containing radioactive mixed waste and/or transuranic waste. 4 references, 3 figures, 2 tables

Environment, safety, and health at DOE facilities. Annual report, calendar year 1981

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1982-10-01

During 1981 the US Department of Energy's (DOE) safety and property protection performance remained excellent in all reported categories with loss rates generally less than one-third of comparable private-industry rates. The 1981 occupational-injury rates of 1.0 lost-workday cases and 13.5 lost workdays per 200,000 work hours were better than 1980 rates of 1.1 lost-workday cases and 17.5 lost workdays per 200,000 work hours. The recorded occupational illness rate, based on only 61 cases in 1981, was 0.04 cases per 200,000 work hours compared to 0.06 cases per 200,000 work hours for 1980. Property losses during 1981 totaled $4.7 million, with the largest loss of $1.25 million resulting from a fire at a Bonneville Power Administration lighting substation in Ellenberg, Washington. Fire losses during 1981 totaled $2.01 million, resulting in a fire loss rate of 0.38 cent per $100 property valuation - about one-eight the best class private-sector rate. Non-fire losses during 1981 totaled $2.65 million. The resulting non-fire loss rate of 0.48 cent per $100 property valuation was approx. one-third (36%) the 1980 loss rate of 1.34 cents per $100 property valuation. The 82,873 monitored Department of Energy federal and contractor employees received a total radiation dose of 6902 rem in 1981. The total amount of effluent radioactivity released from all DOE facilities in 1981 was 1.9 million curies, compared to 1.4 million curies in 1980. The largest probable whole-body radiation dose received by a maximally exposed public individual from any of these facilities was the same as in 1980: 15 millirem, or 3% of the DOE Radiation Protection Guide standard. A major accomplishemet during 1981 was the successful pilot testing of the Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS), which will provide more-comprehensive safety information than the present data system

Ecological risks of DOE`s programmatic environmental restoration alternatives

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1994-06-01

This report assesses the ecological risks of the Department of Energy`s (DOE) Environmental Restoration Program. The assessment is programmatic in that it is directed at evaluation of the broad programmatic alternatives outlined in the DOE Implementation Plan. It attempts to (1) characterize the ecological resources present on DOE facilities, (2) describe the occurrence and importance of ecologically significant contamination at major DOE facilities, (3) evaluate the adverse ecological impacts of habitat disturbance caused by remedial activities, and (4) determine whether one or another of the programmatic alternatives is clearly ecologically superior to the others. The assessment focuses on six representative facilities: the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL); the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP); the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), including the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Y-12 plant, and K-25 plant; the Rocky Flats Plant; the Hanford Reservation; and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

Does PDC Belong in Facilities Management?

Science.gov (United States)

Dessoff, Alan

2012-01-01

Whether planning, design, and construction (PDC) of buildings should be part of facilities management, with its traditional operations and maintenance functions, or separated from it, has been a divisive question on many campuses for a long time. Now, although it is not happening everywhere, facilities managers at a number of institutions, public…

78 FR 9902 - DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Hanford...

Science.gov (United States)

2013-02-12

... Safety Board, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy; Correction AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice; Correction SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) published a document in the Federal... Facilities Safety Board, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy. This document corrects an error in...

NV/YMP radiological control manual, Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Gile, A.L.

1996-11-01

The Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the adjacent Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) are located in Nye County, Nevada. The NTS has been the primary location for testing nuclear explosives in the continental US since 1951. Current activities include operating low-level radioactive and mixed waste disposal facilities for US defense-generated waste, assembly/disassembly of special experiments, surface cleanup and site characterization of contaminated land areas, and non-nuclear test operations such as controlled spills of hazardous materials at the hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Spill Center (HSC). Currently, the major potential for occupational radiation exposure is associated with the burial of low-level nuclear waste and the handling of radioactive sources. Planned future remediation of contaminated land areas may also result in radiological exposures. The NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual, Revision 2, represents DOE-accepted guidelines and best practices for implementing Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain Project Radiation Protection Programs in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. These programs provide protection for approximately 3,000 employees and visitors annually and include coverage for the on-site activities for both personnel and the environment. The personnel protection effort includes a DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program accredited dosimetry and personnel bioassay programs including in-vivo counting, routine workplace air sampling, personnel monitoring, and programmatic and job-specific As Low as Reasonably Achievable considerations

NV/YMP radiological control manual, Revision 2

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Gile, A.L. [comp.

1996-11-01

The Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the adjacent Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) are located in Nye County, Nevada. The NTS has been the primary location for testing nuclear explosives in the continental US since 1951. Current activities include operating low-level radioactive and mixed waste disposal facilities for US defense-generated waste, assembly/disassembly of special experiments, surface cleanup and site characterization of contaminated land areas, and non-nuclear test operations such as controlled spills of hazardous materials at the hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Spill Center (HSC). Currently, the major potential for occupational radiation exposure is associated with the burial of low-level nuclear waste and the handling of radioactive sources. Planned future remediation of contaminated land areas may also result in radiological exposures. The NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual, Revision 2, represents DOE-accepted guidelines and best practices for implementing Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain Project Radiation Protection Programs in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. These programs provide protection for approximately 3,000 employees and visitors annually and include coverage for the on-site activities for both personnel and the environment. The personnel protection effort includes a DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program accredited dosimetry and personnel bioassay programs including in-vivo counting, routine workplace air sampling, personnel monitoring, and programmatic and job-specific As Low as Reasonably Achievable considerations.

Transuranic waste baseline inventory report. Revision No. 3

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1996-06-01

The Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report (TWBIR) establishes a methodology for grouping wastes of similar physical and chemical properties from across the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) transuranic (TRU) waste system into a series of open-quotes waste profilesclose quotes that can be used as the basis for waste form discussions with regulatory agencies. The purpose of Revisions 0 and 1 of this report was to provide data to be included in the Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) performance assessment (PA) processes for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Revision 2 of the document expanded the original purpose and was also intended to support the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) requirement for providing the total DOE TRU waste inventory. The document included a chapter and an appendix that discussed the total DOE TRU waste inventory, including nondefense, commercial, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated, and buried (predominately pre-1970) TRU wastes that are not planned to be disposed of at WIPP

Safety assessment for the 118-B-1 Burial Ground excavation treatability tests. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Zimmer, J.J.; Frain, J.M.

1994-12-01

This revision of the Safety Assessment provides an auditable safety analysis of the hazards for the proposed treatability test activities per DOE-EM-STD-5502-94, DOE Limited Standard, Hazard Baseline Documentation (DOE 1994). The proposed activities are classified as radiological activities and as such, no longer require Operational Safety Limits (OSLs). The OSLS, Prudent Actions, and Institutional and Organization Controls have been removed from this revision and replaced with ''Administrative Actions Important to Safety,'' as determined by the hazards analysis. Those Administrative Actions Important to Safety are summarized in Section 1.1, ''Assessment Summary.''

Review of in-place HEPA filter testing at several DOE facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Mokler, B.V.; Scripsick, R.C. [Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM (United States)

1995-02-01

The Office of Nuclear Energy Self-Assessment recently sponsored reviews of HEPA filter systems at several DOE facilities. One aspect emphasized in these reviews was in-place filter testing practices. Although in-place testing was generally performed as required in facility specifications, we noted several areas in which improvements were possible. Examples of some common problems and approaches to their solution will be presented. Areas of suggested improvement include: (1) ensuring the validity of test results; (2) recognizing and quantifying the uncertainty in penetration measurements; (3) expanding the analysis and reporting of test results to provide more than pass/fail information; (4) addressing the special problems of multiple stage systems; and (5) increasing the technical support and training provided in-place testing personnel. Ensuring the validity of test results, for example, requires more careful attention to the operation of test equipment, checking test measurements and system operating parameters for internal consistency, and more attention to documentation of system geometry and operation. Some issues will require additional study before the results can be incorporated into decision making on filter bank testing requirements and performance specifications.

Review of in-place HEPA filter testing at several DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Mokler, B.V.; Scripsick, R.C.

1995-01-01

The Office of Nuclear Energy Self-Assessment recently sponsored reviews of HEPA filter systems at several DOE facilities. One aspect emphasized in these reviews was in-place filter testing practices. Although in-place testing was generally performed as required in facility specifications, we noted several areas in which improvements were possible. Examples of some common problems and approaches to their solution will be presented. Areas of suggested improvement include: (1) ensuring the validity of test results; (2) recognizing and quantifying the uncertainty in penetration measurements; (3) expanding the analysis and reporting of test results to provide more than pass/fail information; (4) addressing the special problems of multiple stage systems; and (5) increasing the technical support and training provided in-place testing personnel. Ensuring the validity of test results, for example, requires more careful attention to the operation of test equipment, checking test measurements and system operating parameters for internal consistency, and more attention to documentation of system geometry and operation. Some issues will require additional study before the results can be incorporated into decision making on filter bank testing requirements and performance specifications

Design of the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) 2A Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lamberd, D.L.; Weingardt, K.M.

1994-07-01

Radioactive and Hazardous Mixed Waste have accumulated at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in south-central Washington State. Future generated waste streams from planned facilities at the Hanford Site and off site will also generate solid wastes that contain both radiological and hazardous chemical components. Most of the low-level waste (LLW) in this category is generated in batches sized to be stored in smaller containers (mostly 55-gallon drums and boxes). To meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions, most of this waste will need to be treated to meet disposal requirements. In general this treatment must include stabilization/solidification either as a sole method or as part of a treatment train. A planned DOE facility, the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Module 2A, Building 2337-W, is scoped to provide this required treatment for containerized contact-handle at sign d (CH), mixed low-level waste (MLLW) at the Hanford Site. The core processes in WRAP Module 2A include cement stabilization of particulate waste, polyethylene encapsulation (via extrusion) of particulate waste, and cement encapsulation (via vibratory infilling) of hard and soft debris. A conceptual design was prepared and issued in July 1992. Since that time, process development test activities and further design iterations have evolved into the optimized process and facility design presented in this paper. This paper will discuss the revised processing scheme, equipment configuration, and facility layout. The WRAP Module 2A will begin construction in 1996 after a detailed design effort and pilot testing activities

User's guide for the KBERT 1.0 code: For the knowledge-based estimation of hazards of radioactive material releases from DOE nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Browitt, D.S.; Washington, K.E.; Powers, D.A.

1995-07-01

The possibility of worker exposure to radioactive materials during accidents at nuclear facilities is a principal concern of the DOE. The KBERT software has been developed at Sandia National Laboratories under DOE support to address this issue by assisting in the estimation of risks posed by accidents at chemical and nuclear facilities. KBERT is an acronym for Knowledge-Based system for Estimating hazards of Radioactive material release Transients. The current prototype version of KBERT focuses on calculation of doses and consequences to in-facility workers due to accidental releases of radioactivity. This report gives detailed instructions on how a user who is familiar with the design, layout and potential hazards of a facility can use KBERT to assess the risks to workers in that facility. KBERT is a tool that allows a user to simulate possible accidents and observe the predicted consequences. Potential applications of KBERT include the evaluation of the efficacy of evacuation practices, worker shielding, personal protection equipment and the containment of hazardous materials

Resource description and access 2013 revision

CERN Document Server

2013-01-01

This e-book contains the 2013 Revision of RDA: Resource Description and Access, and includes the July 2013 Update. This e-book offers links within the RDA text and the capability of running rudimentary searches of RDA, but please note that this e-book does not have the full range of content or functionality provided by the subscription product RDA Toolkit. Included: A full accumulation of RDA- the revision contains a full set of all current RDA instructions. It replaces the previous version of RDA Print as opposed to being an update packet to that version. RDA has gone through many changes sin

DOE systems approach and integration

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Logan, J.A.

1987-01-01

Six sites are now disposing of most of DOE's currently generated waste. These are: Hanford, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. Within DOE, experience with disposal of solid LLW has been that arid site disposal facilities (first four) appear to have performed well, while humid site disposal facilities (last two) have experienced some waste migration. DOE's intent, of course, is to operate all its waste disposal facilities so that public health and safety are not adversely affected. To ensure that this continues to be the case, activities are underway to increase use of waste form stabilization and engineered barriers where appropriate. For the sake of overall economy, these measures are to be applied as and where needed, through use of the systems approach. In this paper the author discusses two topics: the system approach, which DOE has decided to use for resolving waste disposal problems in the management of DOE's low-level wastes; and DOE's intended integration of activities underway at the waste management systems throughout DOE facilities. 2 figures

A suite of standards for radiation monitors and their revisions

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Noda, Kimio

1991-01-01

A suite of standards for radiation monitors applied in nuclear facilities in Japan was compiled mainly by Health Physicists in Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development (PNC) and Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), and issued in 1971 as 'The Standard for Radiation Monitors'. PNC facilities such as Reprocessing Plant and Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility, as well as other nuclear industries have applied the standard, and contributed improvement of practical maintenability and availability of the radiation monitors. Meanwhile, the radiation monitors have remarkably progressed in its application and size of the monitors is growing. Furthermore, manufacturing techniques have significantly progressed especially in the field of system concepts and electronics elements. These progresses require revision of the standards. 'The Standard for Radiation Monitors' has been revised considering the problems in practical application and data processing capability. Considerations are given to keep compatibility of old and new modules. (author)

Team engineering for successful reuse and mission enhancement of a former DOE Weapons Material Production Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Blackford, L.T.; Mizner, J.H. Jr.

1994-11-01

This paper describes the team engineering approach used to resolve issues associated with converting a 50-year-old fuel processing facility into a decontamination facility. In only nine months, the multi-disciplinary team formed for this task has made significant progress toward both long-term and short-term goals, including conceptual design of two decontamination modules. The team's accomplishments are even more notable in light of frequent changes in scope and mission. Today, the team serves as a venue for troubleshooting operational issues, sharing vendor information, developing long-range strategies, and addressing integration issues within the facility's organizational structure. The team's approach could serve as a useful model to address the many issues surrounding the transition of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and commercial complexes from a production and supply role to one of cleanup and environmental remediation

Ventilation design for new plutonium recovery facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Oliver, A.J.; Amos, C.L.

1975-01-01

In 1972 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued revised guidelines on ''Minimum Design Criteria for New Plutonium Facilities.'' With these criteria as guidelines, a new Plutonium Recovery Facility is being designed and constructed at the AEC Rocky Flats Plant. The methods by which the confinement of contamination and air treatment are being handled in this facility are described. (U.S.)

The Effects of the Revised CPPNM on Legislative Framework

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kwak, Sung-Woo; Yoo, Ho-Sik; Shim, Hye-Won; Chang, Sun-Young; Lee, Jong-Uk

2006-01-01

A Diplomatic Conference was held last July at Vienna of Austria and adopted an important Convention in physical protection field. The Convention is the revised Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. A State Party to the revised CPPNM has obligation to meet the Convention. Since the Amendment to CPPNM is expected to enter into force in near future, there is an urgent need to prepare for implementing the international obligation. Thus, it is important to assess the effect of the revised Convention on national legislative and regulatory framework to govern physical protection of domestic nuclear material and facilities. The objective of this paper is to perform comparative assessment between new provisions of the revised Convention and national law in order to prepare for the implementation of the international norm

Safety of magnetic fusion facilities: Guidance

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1996-05-01

This document provides guidance for the implementation of the requirements identified in DOE-STD-6002-96, Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements. This guidance is intended for the managers, designers, operators, and other personnel with safety responsibilities for facilities designated as magnetic fusion facilities. While the requirements in DOE-STD-6002-96 are generally applicable to a wide range of fusion facilities, this Standard, DOE-STD-6003-96, is concerned mainly with the implementation of those requirements in large facilities such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Using a risk-based prioritization, the concepts presented here may also be applied to other magnetic fusion facilities. This Standard is oriented toward regulation in the Department of Energy (DOE) environment as opposed to regulation by other regulatory agencies. As the need for guidance involving other types of fusion facilities or other regulatory environments emerges, additional guidance volumes should be prepared. The concepts, processes, and recommendations set forth here are for guidance only. They will contribute to safety at magnetic fusion facilities

Underground Test Area Quality Assurance Project Plan Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 0

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Irene Farnham

2011-05-01

This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) provides the overall quality assurance (QA) program requirements and general quality practices to be applied to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sub-Project (hereafter the Sub-Project) activities. The requirements in this QAPP are consistent with DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance (DOE, 2005); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling (EPA, 2002); and EPA Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models (EPA, 2009). The QAPP Revision 0 supersedes DOE--341, Underground Test Area Quality Assurance Project Plan, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 4.

A general theory to explain the relatively high cost of environmental restoration at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Sullivan, W.H.

1995-01-01

Environmental Restoration costs for Department of Energy (DOE) facilities have been the subject of much scrutiny and concern for several years. General opinion is that DOE clean-up costs are as much as three times higher than costs for similar clean-up projects in the private sector. Consequently, DOE Environmental Restoration professionals are continually under pressure to do more with less, which, ironically, can lead to additional inefficiencies in the system. This paper proposes a general theory as to why DOE costs are higher, explains the reasons why current conditions will make it difficult to realize any pervasive or significant decreases in clean-up costs, and presents some general changes that need to take place in the DOE system in order to bring about conditions that will allow more efficient clean-up to occur. The theory is based on a simple economic model that describes the balance between the resources spent for risk avoidance and the corresponding changes in overall productivity as a function of risk. The elementary concepts illustrated with the economic model, when refined and specifically applied, have the potential to become the catalyst for significant change-change that is absolutely necessary if we truly intend to conduct environmental clean-up with the same efficiencies as private industry

42 CFR 456.523 - Revised UR plan.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

... control over the utilization of services; and (2) Conducts reviews in a way that improves the quality of...) MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS UTILIZATION CONTROL Utilization Review Plans: FFP, Waivers, and Variances for Hospitals and Mental Hospitals Ur Plan: Remote Facility Variances from Time Requirements § 456.523 Revised...

National Ignition Facility risk management plan, rev. 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Brereton, S J; Lane, M A

1998-01-01

The initial release of the National Ignition Facility (AUF) Risk Management Plan (LLNL, 1997a) was prepared in accordance with the DOE Life Cycle Asset Management Good Practice Guide (DOE, 1996a) and supported Critical Decision 3 (CD3), Approval to Initiate Construction (DOE, 1997a). The objectives of the plan were to: (1) Identify the risks to the completion of the Project in terms of meeting technical and regulatory requirements, cost, and schedule. (2) Assess the risks in terms of likelihood of occurrence and their impact potential relative to technical performance, ES and H (environmental, safety and health), costs, and schedule. (3) Address suitable risk mitigation measures for each identified risk. This revision of the Risk Management Plan considers project risks and vulnerabilities after CD3 (DOE, 1997a) was approved by the Secretary of Energy. During the one-year period since the initial release, the vulnerabilities of greatest concern have been the litigation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (DOE, 1996b) by a group of environmental organizations led by the Natural Resources Defense Council; the finding and successful clean-up of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-filled electrical capacitors at the NIF site excavation; the FY98 congressional budget authorization and request for the FY99 budget authorization; funding for Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF)/NIF programmatic activities (including French and other sources of funding); and finally, progress in the core science and technology, and optics program that form the basis for the NIF design

Overview of the applications of cement-based immobilization technologies developed at US DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dole, L.R.

1985-01-01

This paper briefly reviews seven cement-based waste form development programs at six of the US Department of Energy (DOE) sites. These sites have developed a variety of processes that range from producing 25-mm-(1-in.-) diam pellets in a glove box to producing 240-m-(800-ft-) diam grout sheets within the bedding planes of a deep shale formation. These successful applications of cement-based waste forms to the many radioactive waste streams from nuclear facilities bear witness to the flexibility and reliability of this class of immobilization materials. The US DOE sites and their programs are: (1) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Hydrofracture Grout; (2) Hanford, Transportable Grout Facility (TGF); (3) Savannah River Plant (SRP), Nitrate Saltcrete; (4) EG and G Idaho, Process Experimental Pilot Plant (PREPP); (5) Mound Laboratory (ML), Waste Pelletization Process; (6) ORNL, FUETAP Concretes, and (7) Rocky Flats Plant (RFP), Inert Carrier Concrete Process (ICCP). The major issues regarding the application of cement-based waste forms to radioactive waste management problems are also presented. These issues are (1) leachability, (2) radiation stability, (3) thermal stability, (4) phase complexity of the matrix, and (5) effects of the waste stream composition. A cursory review of current research in each of these areas is included along with a discussion of future trends in cement-based waste form developments and applications. 35 refs., 12 figs

Annual Status Report (FY2016) Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Casbon, M. A. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States); Nichols, W. E. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States)

2017-03-15

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, require that a determination of continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA), composite analysis (CA), and disposal authorization statement (DAS) be made on an annual basis, and it must consider the results of data collection and analysis from research, field studies, and monitoring. Annual summaries of low-level waste (LLW) disposal operations must be prepared with respect to the conclusions and recommendations of the PA and CA, and a determination of the need to revise the PA or CA must be made. The annual summary requirement provides a structured approach for demonstrating the continued adequacy of the PA and CA in demonstrating a reasonable expectation that the performance objectives will be met. This annual summary addresses only the status of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) PA (CP-60089, Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, formerly WCH-520 Rev. 1)1. The CA for ERDF is supported by DOE/RL-2016-62, Annual Status Report (FY 2016): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site. The ERDF PA portion of the CA document is found in Section 3.1.4, and the ERDF operations portion is found in Section 3.3.3.2 of that document.

Heater test planning for the near surface test facility at the Hanford reservation

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

DuBois, A.; Binnall, E.; Chan, T.; McEvoy, M.; Nelson, P.; Remer, J.

1979-03-01

The underground test facility NSTF being constructed at Gable Mountain, is the site for a group of experiments designed to evaluate the thermo-mechanical suitability of a deep basalt stratum as a permanent repository for nuclear waste. Thermo-mechanical modeling was performed to help design the instrumentation arrays for the three proposed heater tests (two full scale tests and one time scale test) and predict the thermal environment of the heaters and instruments. The modeling does not reflect recent RHO revisions to the in situ heater experiment plan. Heaters, instrumentation, and data acquisition system designs and recommendations were adapted from those used in Sweden

Surplus Facilities Management Program

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Coobs, J.H.

1983-01-01

This is the second of two programs that are concerned with the management of surplus facilities. The facilities in this program are those related to commercial activities, which include the three surplus experimental and test reactors [(MSRE, HRE-2, and the Low Intensity Test Reactor (LITR)] and seven experimental loops at the ORR. The program is an integral part of the Surplus Facilities Management Program, which is a national program administered for DOE by the Richland Operations Office. Very briefly reported here are routine surveillance and maintenance of surplus radioactively contaminated DOE facilities awaiting decommissioning

Manual for Accessibility: [Conference, Meeting, and Lodging Facilities]. Revised.

Science.gov (United States)

National Rehabilitation Association, Alexandria, VA.

This illustrated manual and survey forms are designed to be used by organizations, hotel and restaurant associations, interested individuals and others as a guide for selecting accessible conference, meeting, and lodging facilities. The guidelines can also be used with existing facilities to identify specific modifications and accommodations. The…

Regulations, guidelines, standards, and policies pertaining to decontamination and decommissioning activities: A literature review. Informal report, Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Cowgill, M.G.

1994-09-01

A literature review of the existing rules, regulations, and guidelines pertaining to the decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities has been updated. Included in the survey are US Government documents, national (industrial) standards, international standards and guidelines, and the regulations issued by various national governments, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany. The Department of Energy (DOE) complex contains within it almost 1,000 nuclear facilities which will require decommissioning in the coming years. This action will entail activities in many different areas, one of which will involve the development of the basic safety principles to be applied to the process as a whole. These principles will be used to guide personnel in the development of safety assessment procedures for decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) activities and in conducting safety assessments of such activities at the facilities themselves. The present report represents an updating of the original report. It retains all the information that appeared in the original report with the new material integrated into the applicable sections. Future revisions will be made as additional information becomes available

Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (Implementation of INFCIRC/225/Revision 5). Implementing Guide

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2018-01-01

This publication is the lead Implementing Guide in a suite of guidance on implementing the Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225/Revision 5), IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 13. It provides guidance and suggestions to assist States and their competent authorities in establishing, strengthening and sustaining their national physical protection regime and implementing the associated systems and measures, including operators’ physical protection systems. The structure of this publication is as follows. After this introduction, Section 2 describes the objectives of physical protection and the overall approach to managing the risks of the unauthorized removal of nuclear material and the sabotage of nuclear facilities. Section 3 provides guidance for the State and its competent authorities on the physical protection elements of the nuclear security regime; this guidance is based on the fundamental principles set out in the Recommendations publication. Section 4 provides guidance on the operator’s physical protection system and describes a systematic, integrated approach. Appendix I gives an annotated outline of the typical contents of an operator’s security plan. Appendix II provides similar guidance for the contingency plan. Appendix III provides a description of nuclear material aggregation that can be used to categorize nuclear material and determine the appropriate level of protection against unauthorized removal. Appendix IV presents a table of paragraph cross-references between the Recommendations publication and this Implementing Guide.

performance-based approach to design and evaluation of nuclear security systems for Brazilian nuclear facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Tavares, Renato L. A.; Filho, Josélio S. M., E-mail: renato.tavares@cnen.gov.br, E-mail: joselio@cnen.gov.br [Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear (CNEN), Rio de Janeiro, RJ (Brazil). Diretoria de Radioproteção e Segurança Nuclear. Divisão de Normas e Segurança Física; Fontes, Gladson S.; Fiel, J.C.B., E-mail: gsfontes@hotmail.com, E-mail: fiel@ime.eb.br [Instituto Militar de Engenharia (SE-7/IME), Rio de Janeiro, RJ (Brazil). Seção de Engenharia Nuclear

2017-07-01

This study presents an application of a performance-based approach to definition of requirements, design and evaluation of physical protection systems for nuclear facilities. Such approach considers a probabilistic analysis of the threat, equipment, systems and response forces used to prevent, dissuade and detain malicious acts against the integrity of facilities and the nuclear materials inside them. Nowadays, in the context of Brazilian nuclear facilities licensing, a mostly prescriptive approach is adopted, which despite having advantages such as simplified inspections and homogeneous regulatory requisites amid different fuel cycle facility types, does not consider evolution, dynamism and capacities of external or internal threats to facilities and to Brazilian Nuclear Program itself, neither provides metrics to evaluate system performance facing such threats. In order to preserve actual plans and systems confidentiality, a facility hypothetical model is created, including a research reactor and a waste storage facility. It is expected that the methodology and results obtained in this study serve in the future as a basis to Brazilian nuclear operators, in elaboration process of their Physical Protection Plans, which must comply with future regulation CNEN-NN 2.01, a revision of CNEN-NE 2.01, once that regulation will include performance requisites. (author)

performance-based approach to design and evaluation of nuclear security systems for Brazilian nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Tavares, Renato L. A.; Filho, Josélio S. M.; Fontes, Gladson S.; Fiel, J.C.B.

2017-01-01

This study presents an application of a performance-based approach to definition of requirements, design and evaluation of physical protection systems for nuclear facilities. Such approach considers a probabilistic analysis of the threat, equipment, systems and response forces used to prevent, dissuade and detain malicious acts against the integrity of facilities and the nuclear materials inside them. Nowadays, in the context of Brazilian nuclear facilities licensing, a mostly prescriptive approach is adopted, which despite having advantages such as simplified inspections and homogeneous regulatory requisites amid different fuel cycle facility types, does not consider evolution, dynamism and capacities of external or internal threats to facilities and to Brazilian Nuclear Program itself, neither provides metrics to evaluate system performance facing such threats. In order to preserve actual plans and systems confidentiality, a facility hypothetical model is created, including a research reactor and a waste storage facility. It is expected that the methodology and results obtained in this study serve in the future as a basis to Brazilian nuclear operators, in elaboration process of their Physical Protection Plans, which must comply with future regulation CNEN-NN 2.01, a revision of CNEN-NE 2.01, once that regulation will include performance requisites. (author)

Calculation of Fire Severity Factors and Fire Non-Suppression Probabilities For A DOE Facility Fire PRA

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Elicson, Tom; Harwood, Bentley; Lucek, Heather; Bouchard, Jim

2011-01-01

Over a 12 month period, a fire PRA was developed for a DOE facility using the NUREG/CR-6850 EPRI/NRC fire PRA methodology. The fire PRA modeling included calculation of fire severity factors (SFs) and fire non-suppression probabilities (PNS) for each safe shutdown (SSD) component considered in the fire PRA model. The SFs were developed by performing detailed fire modeling through a combination of CFAST fire zone model calculations and Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). Component damage times and automatic fire suppression system actuation times calculated in the CFAST LHS analyses were then input to a time-dependent model of fire non-suppression probability. The fire non-suppression probability model is based on the modeling approach outlined in NUREG/CR-6850 and is supplemented with plant specific data. This paper presents the methodology used in the DOE facility fire PRA for modeling fire-induced SSD component failures and includes discussions of modeling techniques for: Development of time-dependent fire heat release rate profiles (required as input to CFAST), Calculation of fire severity factors based on CFAST detailed fire modeling, and Calculation of fire non-suppression probabilities.

Revised Analyses of Decommissioning Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bierschbach, M.C.; Haffner, D.R.; Schneider, K.J.; Short, S.M.

2002-01-01

Cost information is developed for the conceptual decommissioning of non-fuel-cycle nuclear facilities that represent a significant decommissioning task in terms of decontamination and disposal activities. This study is a re-evaluation of the original study (NUREG/CR-1754 and NUREG/CR-1754, Addendum 1). The reference facilities examined in this study are the same as in the original study and include: a laboratory for the manufacture of 3 H-labeled compounds; a laboratory for the manufacture of 14 C-labeled compounds; a laboratory for the manufacture of 123 I-labeled compounds; a laboratory for the manufacture of 137 Cs sealed sources; a laboratory for the manufacture of 241 Am sealed sources; and an institutional user laboratory. In addition to the laboratories, three reference sites that require some decommissioning effort were also examined. These sites are: (1) a site with a contaminated drain line and hold-up tank; (2) a site with a contaminated ground surface; and (3) a tailings pile containing uranium and thorium residues. Decommissioning of these reference facilities and sites can be accomplished using techniques and equipment that are in common industrial use. Essentially the same technology assumed in the original study is used in this study. For the reference laboratory-type facilities, the study approach is to first evaluate the decommissioning of individual components (e.g., fume hoods, glove boxes, and building surfaces) that are common to many laboratory facilities. The information obtained from analyzing the individual components of each facility are then used to determine the cost, manpower requirements and dose information for the decommissioning of the entire facility. DECON, the objective of the 1988 Rulemaking for materials facilities, is the decommissioning alternative evaluated for the reference laboratories because it results in the release of the facility for restricted or unrestricted use as soon as possible. For a facility, DECON requires

Revised Analyses of Decommissioning Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

MC Bierschbach; DR Haffner; KJ Schneider; SM Short

2002-12-01

Cost information is developed for the conceptual decommissioning of non-fuel-cycle nuclear facilities that represent a significant decommissioning task in terms of decontamination and disposal activities. This study is a re-evaluation of the original study (NUREG/CR-1754 and NUREG/CR-1754, Addendum 1). The reference facilities examined in this study are the same as in the original study and include: a laboratory for the manufacture of {sup 3}H-labeled compounds; a laboratory for the manufacture of {sup 14}C-labeled compounds; a laboratory for the manufacture of {sup 123}I-labeled compounds; a laboratory for the manufacture of {sup 137}Cs sealed sources; a laboratory for the manufacture of {sup 241}Am sealed sources; and an institutional user laboratory. In addition to the laboratories, three reference sites that require some decommissioning effort were also examined. These sites are: (1) a site with a contaminated drain line and hold-up tank; (2) a site with a contaminated ground surface; and (3) a tailings pile containing uranium and thorium residues. Decommissioning of these reference facilities and sites can be accomplished using techniques and equipment that are in common industrial use. Essentially the same technology assumed in the original study is used in this study. For the reference laboratory-type facilities, the study approach is to first evaluate the decommissioning of individual components (e.g., fume hoods, glove boxes, and building surfaces) that are common to many laboratory facilities. The information obtained from analyzing the individual components of each facility are then used to determine the cost, manpower requirements and dose information for the decommissioning of the entire facility. DECON, the objective of the 1988 Rulemaking for materials facilities, is the decommissioning alternative evaluated for the reference laboratories because it results in the release of the facility for restricted or unrestricted use as soon as possible. For a

616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility dangerous waste permit application

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1991-10-01

The 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application consists of both a Part A and a Part B permit application. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this storage unit, including the Part A included with this document, is provided at the beginning of the Part A Section. The Part B consists of 15 chapters addressing the organization and content of the Part B Checklist prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987). For ease of reference, the checklist section numbers, in brackets, follow chapter headings and subheadings. The 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application (Revision 0) was submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the US Environmental Protection Agency on July 31, 1989. Revision 1, addressing Washington State Department of Ecology review comments made on Revision 0 dated November 21, 1989, and March 23, 1990, was submitted on June 22, 1990. This submittal, Revision 2, addresses Washington State Department of Ecology review comments made on Revision 1, dated June 22, 1990, August 30, 1990, December 18, 1990, and July 8, 1991

224-T Transuranic Waste Storage and Assay Facility dangerous waste permit application

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1992-01-01

Westinghouse Hanford Company is a major contractor to the US Department of Energy Richland Field Office and serves as cooperator of the 224-T Transuranic Waste Storage and Assay Facility, the storage unit addressed in this permit application. At the time of submission of this portion of the Hanford Facility. Dangerous Waste Permit Application covering the 224-T Transuranic Waste Storage and Assay Facility, many issues identified in comments to the draft Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit remain unresolved. This permit application reflects the positions taken by the US Department of Energy, Company on the draft Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit and may not be read to conflict with those comments. The 224-T Transuranic Waste Storage and Assay Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application (Revision 0) consists of both a Part A and Part B permit application. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this unit, including the Part A revision currently in effect, is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. The Part B consists of 15 chapters addressing the organization and content of the Part B Checklist prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987). The 224-T Transuranic Waste Storage and Assay Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application contains information current as of March 1, 1992

105-DR Large Sodium Fire Facility closure plan. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1993-05-01

The Hanford Site, located northwest of the city of Richland, Washington, houses reactors, chemical-separation systems, and related facilities used for the production of special nuclear materials, and activities associated with nuclear energy development. The 105-DR Large Sodium Fire Facility (LSFF), which was in operation from about 1972 to 1986, was a research laboratory that occupied the former ventilation supply room on the southwest side of the 105-DR Reactor facility. The LSFF was established to provide a means of investigating fire and safety aspects associated with large sodium or other metal alkali fires in the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) facilities. The 105-DR Reactor facility was designed and built in the 1950`s and is located in the 100-D Area of the Hanford Site. The building housed the 105-DR defense reactor, which was shut down in 1964. The LSFF was initially used only for engineering-scale alkali metal reaction studies. In addition, the Fusion Safety Support Studies program sponsored intermediate-size safety reaction tests in the LSFF with lithium and lithium lead compounds. The facility has also been used to store and treat alkali metal waste, therefore the LSFF is subject to the regulatory requirements for the storage and treatment of dangerous waste. Closure will be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-610. This closure plan presents a description of the facility, the history of waste managed, and the procedures that will be followed to close the LSFF as an Alkali Metal Treatment Facility. No future use of the LSFF is expected.

105-DR large sodium fire facility closure Plan. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ruck, F.A. III.

1995-03-01

The 105-DR Large Sodium Fire Facility (LSFF), which was operated 1972-1986, was a research laboratory that occupied the former ventilation supply room on the SW side of the 105-DR Reactor Facility. (The 105-DR defense reactor was shut down in 1964.) LSFF was used to investigate fire and safety aspects of large sodium or other metal alkali fires in the LMFBR facilities; it was also used to store and treat alkali metal waste. This closure plan presents a description of the unit, the history of the waste managed, and the procedures that will be followed to close the LSFF as an Alkali Metal Treatment Facility. No future use of LSFF is expected. It is located within the 100-DR-2 (source) and 100-HR-3 (groundwater) operable units, which will be addressed through the RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study process

Radiation exposures for DOE [Department of Energy] and DOE contractor employees, 1988

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Merwin, S.E.; Traub, R.J.; Millet, W.H.

1990-12-01

This is the 21st in a series of annual radiation exposure reports published by the Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessors. This report summarizes the radiation exposures received at DOE and DOE contractor facilities in 1988. Radiation exposures to both employees and visitors are included. Trends in radiation exposures are evaluated by comparing the doses received in 1988 to those received in previous years. The significance of the doses is addressed by comparing them to the DOE limits and by correlating the doses to health risks based on risk estimates from expert groups. This report represents a significant advancement from previous reports because it is the first for which detailed exposure data are available for each individual monitored at a DOE facility. This reports contains information on different types of radiation doses, such as penetrating, shallow, and neutron doses. It also contains analysis of exposures by age, sex, and occupation of the exposed individuals. This report is the first of any federal organization that presents such detailed exposure data. The purpose of this report is to disseminate information regarding radiation exposures received at US Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE contractor facilities. The primary purpose of this practice is to ensure that the DOE occupational dose limits are not exceeded and that as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) goals are met. A secondary purpose, however, is to provide information that can be used by other organizations and individuals who wish to collect and analyze such information. This information may be useful for estimating the effect of changing dose limits on operations at DOE facilities, determining the progress of DOE with respect to the ALARA principle, or, in combination with epidemiological information, assisting researchers in determining whether or not low doses of ionizing radiation are harmful. 23 refs., 20 figs., 23 tabs

Radiation exposures for DOE and DOE contractor employees, 1990

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Smith, M.H.; Hui, T.E.; Millet, W.H.; Scholes, V.A.

1994-03-01

This is the 23rd in a series of annual radiation exposure reports published by the Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessors. This report summarizes the radiation exposures received by both employees and visitors at DOE and DOE contractor facilities during 1990. Trends in radiation exposures are evaluated by comparing the doses received in 1990 to those received in previous years. The significance of the doses is addressed by comparing them to the DOE limits and by correlating the doses to health risks based on risk estimated from expert groups. This report is the third that is based on detailed exposure data for each individual monitored at a DOE facility. Prior to 1988, only summarized data from each facility were available. This report contains information on different types of radiation doses, including total effective, internal, penetrating, shallow, neutron, and extremity doses. It also contains analysis of exposures by age, sex, and occupation of the exposed individuals. This report also continues the precedent established in the Twenty-First (1988) Annual Report by conducting a detailed, one-time review and analysis of a particular topic of interest. The special topic for this report is a comparison of total effective, internal, and extremity dose equivalent values against penetrating dose equivalent values

(ICSID) ADDITIONAL FACILITY IN INTERNA

African Journals Online (AJOL)

Fr. Ikenga

... which is adopted by Article 5 of the Additional Facility Rules to guide the ... B, Barrister at Law, e-mail: kcezeibe@yahoo.com; Phone 08033950631 and .... revision and annulment which are internally available under the Washington ...

Revision surgery for failed thermal capsulorrhaphy.

Science.gov (United States)

Park, Hyung Bin; Yokota, Atsushi; Gill, Harpreet S; El Rassi, George; McFarland, Edward G

2005-09-01

With the failure of thermal capsulorrhaphy for shoulder instability, there have been concerns with capsular thinning and capsular necrosis affecting revision surgery. To report the findings at revision surgery for failed thermal capsulorrhaphy and to evaluate the technical effects on subsequent revision capsular plication. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Fourteen patients underwent arthroscopic evaluation and open reconstruction for a failed thermal capsulorrhaphy. The cause of the failure, the quality of the capsule, and the ability to suture the capsule were recorded. The patients were evaluated at follow-up for failure, which was defined as recurrent subluxations or dislocations. The origin of the instability was traumatic (n = 6) or atraumatic (n = 8). At revision surgery in the traumatic group, 4 patients sustained failure of the Bankart repair with capsular laxity, and the others experienced capsular laxity alone. In the atraumatic group, all patients experienced capsular laxity as the cause of failure. Of the 14 patients, the capsule quality was judged to be thin in 5 patients and ablated in 1 patient. A glenoid-based capsular shift could be accomplished in all 14 patients. At follow-up (mean, 35.4 months; range, 22 to 48 months), 1 patient underwent revision surgery and 1 patient had a subluxation, resulting in a failure rate of 14%. Recurrent capsular laxity after failed thermal capsular shrinkage is common and frequently associated with capsular thinning. In most instances, the capsule quality does not appear to technically affect the revision procedure.

Project management plan for Waste Area Grouping 5 Old Hydrofracture Facility tanks contents removal at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1998-06-01

On January 1, 1992, the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) concerning the Oak Ridge Reservation. The FFA requires that inactive liquid low-level (radioactive) waste (LLLW) tanks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) be remediated in accordance with requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This revision is to update the schedule and designation of responsibilities for the Old Hydrofracture Facility (OHF) tanks contents removal project. The scope of this project is to transfer inventory from the five inactive LLLW tanks at the OHF into the active LLLW system

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility. Revision 2A

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bowman, R.C.

1994-04-01

This permit application for the 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility consists for 15 chapters. Topics of discussion include the following: facility description and general provisions; waste characteristics; process information; personnel training; reporting and record keeping; and certification

A guide for preparing Hanford Site facility effluent monitoring plans

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Nickels, J.M.

1992-06-01

This document provides guidance on the format and content of effluent monitoring plans for facilities at the Hanford Site. The guidance provided in this document is designed to ensure compliance with US Department of Energy (DOE) Orders 5400.1 (DOE 1988a), 5400.3 (DOE 1989a), 5400.4 (DOE 1989b), 5400.5 (DOE 1990a), 5480.1 (DOE 1982), 5480.11 (DOE 1988b), and 5484.1 (DOE 1981). These require environmental monitoring plans for each site, facility, or process that uses, generates, releases, or manages significant pollutants of radioactive or hazardous materials. In support of DOE Orders 5400.5 (Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment) and 5400.1 (General Environmental Protection Program), the DOE Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance (DOE 1991) should be used to establish elements of a radiological effluent monitoring program in the Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan. Evaluation of facilities for compliance with the US Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1977 requirements also is included in the airborne emissions section of the Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans. Sampling Analysis Plans for Liquid Effluents, as required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement), also are included in the Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans. The Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans shall include complete documentation of gaseous and liquid effluent sampling and monitoring systems

Safety analysis--200 Area Savannah River Site: Separations Area operations Building 211-H Outside Facilities. Supplement 11, Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1993-01-01

The H-Area Outside Facilities are located in the 200-H Separations Area and are comprised of a number of processes, utilities, and services that support the separations function. Included are enriched uranium loadout, bulk chemical storage, water handling, acid recovery, general purpose evaporation, and segregated solvent facilities. In addition, services for water, electricity, and steam are provided. This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) documents an analysis of the H-Area Outside Facilities and is one of a series of documents for the Separations Area as specified in the SR Implementation Plan for DOE order 5481.1A. The primary purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate that the facility can be operated without undue risk to onsite or offsite populations, to the environment, and to operating personnel. In this report, risks are defined as the expected frequencies of accidents, multiplied by the resulting radiological consequences in person-rem. Following the summary description of facility and operations is the site evaluation including the unique features of the H-Area Outside Facilities. The facility and process design are described in Chapter 3.0 and a description of operations and their impact is given in Chapter 4.0. The accident analysis in Chapter 5.0 is followed by a list of safety related structures and systems (Chapter 6.0) and a description of the Quality Assurance program (Chapter 7.0). The accident analysis in this report focuses on estimating the risk from accidents as a result of operation of the facilities. The operations were evaluated on the basis of three considerations: potential radiological hazards, potential chemical toxicity hazards, and potential conditions uniquely different from normal industrial practice.

Safety analysis--200 Area Savannah River Site: Separations Area operations Building 211-H Outside Facilities. Supplement 11, Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-01-01

The H-Area Outside Facilities are located in the 200-H Separations Area and are comprised of a number of processes, utilities, and services that support the separations function. Included are enriched uranium loadout, bulk chemical storage, water handling, acid recovery, general purpose evaporation, and segregated solvent facilities. In addition, services for water, electricity, and steam are provided. This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) documents an analysis of the H-Area Outside Facilities and is one of a series of documents for the Separations Area as specified in the SR Implementation Plan for DOE order 5481.1A. The primary purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate that the facility can be operated without undue risk to onsite or offsite populations, to the environment, and to operating personnel. In this report, risks are defined as the expected frequencies of accidents, multiplied by the resulting radiological consequences in person-rem. Following the summary description of facility and operations is the site evaluation including the unique features of the H-Area Outside Facilities. The facility and process design are described in Chapter 3.0 and a description of operations and their impact is given in Chapter 4.0. The accident analysis in Chapter 5.0 is followed by a list of safety related structures and systems (Chapter 6.0) and a description of the Quality Assurance program (Chapter 7.0). The accident analysis in this report focuses on estimating the risk from accidents as a result of operation of the facilities. The operations were evaluated on the basis of three considerations: potential radiological hazards, potential chemical toxicity hazards, and potential conditions uniquely different from normal industrial practice

Commercial Decommissioning at DOE's Rocky Flats

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Freiboth, C.; Sandlin, N.; Schubert, A.; Hansen, S.

2002-01-01

Due in large part to the number of nuclear facilities that make up the DOE complex, DOE-EM work has historically been paperwork intensive and driven by extensive regulations. Requirements for non-nuclear facilities are often grouped with those of nuclear facilities, driving up costs. Kaiser-Hill was interested in applying a commercial model to demolition of these facilities and wanted to apply necessary and sufficient standards to the work activities, but avoid applying unnecessary requirements. Faced with demolishing hundreds of uncontaminated or non-radiologically contaminated facilities, Kaiser-Hill has developed a subcontracting strategy to drastically reduce the cost of demolishing these facilities at Rocky Flats. Aiming to tailor the demolition approach of such facilities to more closely follow commercial practices, Kaiser-Hill recently released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the demolition of the site's former central administration facility. The RFP significantly reduced requirements for compliance with specific DOE directives. Instead, the RFP required subcontractors to comply with health and safety requirements commonly found in the demolition of similar facilities in a commercial setting. This resulted in a number of bids from companies who have normally not bid on DOE work previously and at a reduced cost over previous approaches. This paper will discuss the details of this subcontracting strategy

Local public document room directory. Revision 7

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1998-04-01

This directory (NUREG/BR-0088, Revision 7) lists local public document rooms (LPDRs) for commercial nuclear power plants with operating or possession-only licenses or under construction, plus the LPDRs for potential high-level radioactive waste repository sites, gaseous diffusion plants, certain fuel cycle facilities, certain low-level waste disposal facilities, and any temporary LPDRs established for the duration of licensing proceedings. In some instances, the LPDR libraries maintain document collections for more than one licensed facility. The library staff members listed are the persons most familiar with the LPDR collections. Reference librarians in the NRC Headquarters Public Document Room (PDR) are also available to assist the public in locating NRC documents

Hazard Baseline Downgrade Effluent Treatment Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Blanchard, A.

1998-01-01

This Hazard Baseline Downgrade reviews the Effluent Treatment Facility, in accordance with Department of Energy Order 5480.23, WSRC11Q Facility Safety Document Manual, DOE-STD-1027-92, and DOE-EM-STD-5502-94. It provides a baseline grouping based on the chemical and radiological hazards associated with the facility. The Determination of the baseline grouping for ETF will aid in establishing the appropriate set of standards for the facility

Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 116: Area 25 Test Cell C Facility, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2011-09-29

This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 116, Area 25 Test Cell C Facility. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; the U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996 [as amended March 2010]). CAU 116 consists of the following two Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site: (1) CAS 25-23-20, Nuclear Furnace Piping and (2) CAS 25-41-05, Test Cell C Facility. CAS 25-41-05 consisted of Building 3210 and the attached concrete shield wall. CAS 25-23-20 consisted of the nuclear furnace piping and tanks. Closure activities began in January 2007 and were completed in August 2011. Activities were conducted according to Revision 1 of the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 116 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2008). This CR provides documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and provides data confirming that closure objectives for CAU 116 were met. Site characterization data and process knowledge indicated that surface areas were radiologically contaminated above release limits and that regulated and/or hazardous wastes were present in the facility.

Grout Treatment Facility dangerous waste permit application

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1992-07-01

The Grout Treatment Facility (GTF) is an existing treatment, storage, and/or disposal (TSD) unit located in the 200 East Area and the adjacent 600 Area of the Hanford Site. The GTF mixes dry cementitious solids with liquid mixed waste (containing both dangerous and radioactive constituents) produced by Hanford Site operations. The GTF consists of the following: The 241-AP-02D and 241-AP-04D waste pump pits and transfer piping; Dry Materials Facility (DMF); Grout Disposal Facility (GDF), consisting of the disposal vault and support and monitoring equipment; and Grout Processing Facility (GPF) and Westinghouse Hanford Company on the draft Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit and may not be read to conflict with those comments. The Grout Treatment Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application consists of both a Part A and a Part B permit application. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this TSD unit, including the current revision, is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. The Part B consists of 15 chapters addressing the organization and content of the Part B checklist prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987). For ease of reference, the checklist section numbers, in brackets, follow chapter headings and subheadings

ORNL Isotopes Facilities Shutdown Program Plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Gibson, S.M.; Patton, B.D.; Sears, M.B.

1990-10-01

This plan presents the results of a technical and economic assessment for shutdown of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) isotopes production and distribution facilities. On December 11, 1989, the Department of Energy (DOE), Headquarters, in a memorandum addressed to DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office (DOE-ORO), gave instructions to prepare the ORNL isotopes production and distribution facilities, with the exception of immediate facility needs for krypton-85, tritium, and yttrium-90, for safe shutdown. In response to the memorandum, ORNL identified 17 facilities for shutdown. Each of these facilities is located within the ORNL complex with the exception of Building 9204-3, which is located at the Y-12 Weapons Production Plant. These facilities have been used extensively for the production of radioactive materials by the DOE Isotopes Program. They currently house a large inventory of radioactive materials. Over the years, these aging facilities have inherited the problems associated with storing and processing highly radioactive materials (i.e., facilities' materials degradation and contamination). During FY 1990, ORNL is addressing the requirements for placing these facilities into safe shutdown while maintaining the facilities under the existing maintenance and surveillance plan. The day-to-day operations associated with the surveillance and maintenance of a facility include building checks to ensure that building parameters are meeting the required operational safety requirements, performance of contamination control measures, and preventative maintenance on the facility and facility equipment. Shutdown implementation will begin in FY 1993, and shutdown completion will occur by the end of FY 1994

Improvements to the DOE low-level waste regulatory structure and process under recommendation 94-2 - progress to date

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Regnier, E.

1995-01-01

Among the concerns expressed by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) in its Recommendation 94-2 was the lack of a clearly defined and effective internal Department of Energy (DOE) regulatory oversight and enforcement process for ensuring that low-level radioactive waste management health, safety, and environmental requirements are met. Therefore, part of the response to the DNFSB concern is a task to clarify and strengthen the low-level waste management regulatory structure. This task is being conducted in two steps. First, consistent with the requirements of the current DOE waste management order and within the framework of the current organizational structure, interim clarification of a review process and the associated organizational responsibilities has been issued. Second, in coordination with the revision of the waste management order and consistent with the organizational responsibilities resulting from the strategic alignment of DOE, a rigorous, more independent regulatory oversight structure will be developed

Improvements to the DOE low-level waste regulatory structure and process under recommendation 94-2 - progress to date

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Regnier, E.

1995-12-31

Among the concerns expressed by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) in its Recommendation 94-2 was the lack of a clearly defined and effective internal Department of Energy (DOE) regulatory oversight and enforcement process for ensuring that low-level radioactive waste management health, safety, and environmental requirements are met. Therefore, part of the response to the DNFSB concern is a task to clarify and strengthen the low-level waste management regulatory structure. This task is being conducted in two steps. First, consistent with the requirements of the current DOE waste management order and within the framework of the current organizational structure, interim clarification of a review process and the associated organizational responsibilities has been issued. Second, in coordination with the revision of the waste management order and consistent with the organizational responsibilities resulting from the strategic alignment of DOE, a rigorous, more independent regulatory oversight structure will be developed.

Hazards assessment for the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Calley, M.B.; Jones, J.L. Jr.

1994-09-19

This report documents the hazards assessment for the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which is operated by EG&G Idaho, Inc., for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The hazards assessment was performed to ensure that this facility complies with DOE and company requirements pertaining to emergency planning and preparedness for operational emergencies. DOE Order 5500.3A requires that a facility-specific hazards assessment be performed to provide the technical basis for facility emergency planning efforts. This hazards assessment was conducted in accordance with DOE Headquarters and DOE Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) guidance to comply with DOE Order 5500.3A. The hazards assessment identifies and analyzes hazards that are significant enough to warrant consideration in a facility`s operational emergency management program. This hazards assessment describes the WERF, the area surrounding WERF, associated buildings and structures at WERF, and the processes performed at WERF. All radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials stored, used, or produced at WERF were identified and screened. Even though the screening process indicated that the hazardous materials could be screened from further analysis because the inventory of radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials were below the screening thresholds specified by DOE and DOE-ID guidance for DOE Order 5500.3A, the nonradiological hazardous materials were analyzed further because it was felt that the nonradiological hazardous material screening thresholds were too high.

75 FR 24406 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control...

Science.gov (United States)

2010-05-05

...EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum facilities, chemical plants, and facilities which use organic solvents. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

75 FR 24544 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control...

Science.gov (United States)

2010-05-05

...EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum facilities, chemical plants, and facilities which use organic solvents. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

Fire Hazard Analysis for the Cold Vacuum Drying facility (CVD) Facility

CERN Document Server

Singh, G

2000-01-01

The CVDF is a nonreactor nuclear facility that will process the Spent Nuclear Fuels (SNF) presently stored in the 105-KE and 105-KW SNF storage basins. Multi-canister overpacks (MCOs) will be loaded (filled) with K Basin fuel transported to the CVDF. The MCOs will be processed at the CVDF to remove free water from the fuel cells (packages). Following processing at the CVDF, the MCOs will be transported to the CSB for interim storage until a long-term storage solution can be implemented. This operation is expected to start in November 2000. A Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) is required for all new facilities and all nonreactor nuclear facilities, in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.7A, Fire Protection. This FHA has been prepared in accordance with DOE 5480.7A and HNF-PRO-350, Fire Hazard Analysis Requirements. Additionally, requirements or criteria contained in DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) RL Implementing Directive (RLID) 5480.7, Fire Protection, or other DOE documentation are cite...

Facilities projects performance measurement system

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Erben, J.F.

1979-01-01

The two DOE-owned facilities at Hanford, the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF), and the Fusion Materials Irradiation Test Facility (FMIT), are described. The performance measurement systems used at these two facilities are next described

Operating and Assurance Program Plan. Revision 4

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1994-07-01

The LBL Operating and Assurance Program (OAP) is a management system and a set of requirements designed to maintain the level of performance necessary to achieve LBL`s programmatic and administrative objectives effectively and safely through the application of quality assurance and related conduct of operations and maintenance management principles. Implement an LBL management philosophy that supports and encourages continual improvement in performance and quality at the Laboratory. Provide an integrated approach to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and DOE orders. The OAP is intended to meet the requirements of DOE Order 5700.6C, Quality Assurance. The Program also contains management system elements of DOE Orders 5480.19, Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities; 5480.25, Safety of Accelerator Facilities; and 4330.4A, Maintenance Management Program, and is meant to integrate these elements into the overall LBL approach to Laboratory management. The requirements of this program apply to LBL employees and organizations, and to contractors and facility users as managed by their LBL sponsors. They are also applicable to external vendors and suppliers as specified in procurement documents and contracts.

A DOE Perspective

Science.gov (United States)

Bennett, Kristin

2004-03-01

As one of the lead agencies for nanotechnology research and development, the Department of Energy (DOE) is revolutionizing the way we understand and manipulate materials at the nanoscale. As the Federal government's single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and overseeing the Nation's cross-cutting research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences, the DOE guides the grand challenges in nanomaterials research that will have an impact on everything from medicine, to energy production, to manufacturing. Within the DOE's Office of Science, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) leads research and development at the nanoscale, which supports the Department's missions of national security, energy, science, and the environment. The cornerstone of the program in nanoscience is the establishment and operation of five new Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs), which are under development at six DOE Laboratories. Throughout its history, DOE's Office of Science has designed, constructed and operated many of the nation's most advanced, large-scale research and development user facilities, of importance to all areas of science. These state-of-the art facilities are shared with the science community worldwide and contain technologies and instruments that are available nowhere else. Like all DOE national user facilities, the new NSRCs are designed to make novel state-of-the-art research tools available to the world, and to accelerate a broad scale national effort in basic nanoscience and nanotechnology. The NSRCs will be sited adjacent to or near existing DOE/BES major user facilities, and are designed to enable national user access to world-class capabilities for the synthesis, processing, fabrication, and analysis of materials at the nanoscale, and to transform the nation's approach to nanomaterials.

Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Balance-of-Plant Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Ballinger, Marcel Y.; Gervais, Todd L.

2004-11-15

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operates a number of Research & Development (R&D) facilities for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the Hanford Site. Facility effluent monitoring plans (FEMPs) have been developed to document the facility effluent monitoring portion of the Environmental Monitoring Plan (DOE 2000) for the Hanford Site. Three of PNNL’s R&D facilities, the 325, 331, and 3720 Buildings, are considered major emission points for radionuclide air sampling, and individual FEMPs were developed for these facilities in the past. In addition, a balance-of-plant (BOP) FEMP was developed for all other DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities at the Hanford Site. Recent changes, including shutdown of buildings and transition of PNNL facilities to the Office of Science, have resulted in retiring the 3720 FEMP and combining the 331 FEMP into the BOP FEMP. This version of the BOP FEMP addresses all DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities at the Hanford Site, excepting the Radiochemical Processing Laboratory, which has its own FEMP because of the unique nature of the building and operations. Activities in the BOP facilities range from administrative to laboratory and pilot-scale R&D. R&D activities include both radioactive and chemical waste characterization, fluid dynamics research, mechanical property testing, dosimetry research, and molecular sciences. The mission and activities for individual buildings are described in Appendix A. Potential radioactive airborne emissions in the BOP facilities are estimated annually using a building inventory-based approach provided in federal regulations. Sampling at individual BOP facilities is based on a potential-to-emit assessment. Some of these facilities are considered minor emission points and thus are sampled routinely, but not continuously, to confirm the low emission potential. One facility, the 331 Life Sciences Laboratory, has a major emission point and is sampled continuously. Sampling systems are

Liquid Effluent Retention Facility/Effluent Treatment Facility Hazards Assessment

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Simiele, G.A.

1994-01-01

This document establishes the technical basis in support of Emergency Planning activities for the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and Effluent Treatment Facility the Hanford Site. The document represents an acceptable interpretation of the implementing guidance document for DOE ORDER 5500.3A. Through this document, the technical basis for the development of facility specific Emergency Action Levels and the Emergency Planning Zone is demonstrated

78 FR 63929 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and...

Science.gov (United States)

2013-10-25

... requirements for grandfathered facilities. The revisions will contribute to improvement in overall air quality... to contribute to improvement of air quality and attainment or maintenance of the federal air quality...] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and Regulations...

Radionuclide air emissions at Department of Energy facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Duvall, K. [Department of Energy, Washington, DC (United States)

1995-02-01

Facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) handle and process radioactive materials in conjunction with their research, nuclear materials production, remediation and waste disposal activities. Radionuclide emissions to the atmosphere from DOE facilities are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H for emissions other than radon. Subpart H requires DOE to monitor emissions from stacks and calculate a potential offsite dose to an individual using EPA approved methods and procedures. DOE has applied to EPA for approval to use alternative methods for some of the EPA requirements for continuous monitoring. The use of alternative methods such as single-point sampling with a shrouded probe will have an impact at several major DOE facilities. These facilities are identified.

DOE Standard: Fire protection design criteria

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1999-07-01

The development of this Standard reflects the fact that national consensus standards and other design criteria do not comprehensively or, in some cases, adequately address fire protection issues at DOE facilities. This Standard provides supplemental fire protection guidance applicable to the design and construction of DOE facilities and site features (such as water distribution systems) that are also provided for fire protection. It is intended to be used in conjunction with the applicable building code, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Codes and Standards, and any other applicable DOE construction criteria. This Standard replaces certain mandatory fire protection requirements that were formerly in DOE 5480.7A, ''Fire Protection'', and DOE 6430.1A, ''General Design Criteria''. It also contains the fire protection guidelines from two (now canceled) draft standards: ''Glove Box Fire Protection'' and ''Filter Plenum Fire Protection''. (Note: This Standard does not supersede the requirements of DOE 5480.7A and DOE 6430.1A where these DOE Orders are currently applicable under existing contracts.) This Standard, along with the criteria delineated in Section 3, constitutes the basic criteria for satisfying DOE fire and life safety objectives for the design and construction or renovation of DOE facilities

Revised Tijeras Arroyo Groundwater Current Conceptual Model and Corrective Measures Evaluation Report - February 2018.

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Copland, John R. [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)

2018-02-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the management and operating (M&O) contractor for Sandia National Laboratories beginning on May 1, 2017, National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS), hereinafter collectively referred to as DOE/NTESS, prepared this Revised Tijeras Arroyo Groundwater Current Conceptual Model (CCM) and Corrective Measures Evaluation (CME) Report , referred to as the Revised CCM/CME Report, to meet requirements under the Sandia National Laboratories-New Mexico (SNL/NM) Compliance Order on Consent (Consent Order). The Consent Order became effective on April 29, 2004. The Consent Order identifies the Tijeras Arroyo Groundwater (TAG) Area of Concern (AOC) as an area of groundwater contamination requiring further characterization and corrective action. In November 2004, New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) approved the July 2004 CME Work Plan. In April 2005, DOE and the SNL M&O contractor at the time, Sandia Corporation (Sandia), hereinafter collectively referred to as DOE/Sandia, submitted a CME Report, but NMED did not finalize review of that document. In December 2016, DOE/Sandia submitted a combined and updated CCM/CME Report. NMED issued a disapproval letter in May 2017 that included comments on the December 2016 CCM/CME Report. In August 2017, NMED and DOE/NTESS staff held a meeting to discuss and clarify outstanding issues. This Revised CCM/CME Report addresses (1) the issues presented in the NMED May 2017 disapproval letter and (2) findings from the August 2017 meeting.

CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

C.E. Sanders

2005-01-01

This design calculation revises and updates the previous criticality evaluation for the canister handling, transfer and staging operations to be performed in the Canister Handling Facility (CHF) documented in BSC [Bechtel SAIC Company] 2004 [DIRS 167614]. The purpose of the calculation is to demonstrate that the handling operations of canisters performed in the CHF meet the nuclear criticality safety design criteria specified in the ''Project Design Criteria (PDC) Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171599], Section 4.9.2.2), the nuclear facility safety requirement in ''Project Requirements Document'' (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], p. 4-206), the functional/operational nuclear safety requirement in the ''Project Functional and Operational Requirements'' document (Curry 2004 [DIRS 170557], p. 75), and the functional nuclear criticality safety requirements described in the ''Canister Handling Facility Description Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168992], Sections 3.1.1.3.4.13 and 3.2.3). Specific scope of work contained in this activity consists of updating the Category 1 and 2 event sequence evaluations as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167268], Section 7). The CHF is limited in throughput capacity to handling sealed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) canisters, defense high-level radioactive waste (DHLW), naval canisters, multicanister overpacks (MCOs), vertical dual-purpose canisters (DPCs), and multipurpose canisters (MPCs) (if and when they become available) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168992], p. 1-1). It should be noted that the design and safety analyses of the naval canisters are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of the Navy (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) and will not be included in this document. In addition, this calculation is valid for the current design of the CHF and may not reflect the ongoing design evolution of the facility

Compact Ignition Tokamak conventional facilities optimization

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Commander, J.C.; Spang, N.W.

1987-01-01

A high-field ignition machine with liquid-nitrogen-cooled copper coils, designated the Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT), is proposed for the next phase of the United States magnetically confined fusion program. A team of national laboratory, university, and industrial participants completed the conceptual design for the CIT machine, support systems and conventional facilities. Following conceptual design, optimization studies were conducted with the goal of improving machine performance, support systems design, and conventional facilities configuration. This paper deals primarily with the conceptual design configuration of the CIT conventional facilities, the changes that evolved during optimization studies, and the revised changes resulting from functional and operational requirements (F and ORs). The CIT conventional facilities conceptual design is based on two premises: (1) satisfaction of the F and ORs developed in the CIT building and utilities requirements document, and (2) the assumption that the CIT project will be sited at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) in order that maximum utilization can be made of existing Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) buildings and utilities. The optimization studies required reevaluation of the F and ORs and a second look at TFTR buildings and utilities. Some of the high-cost-impact optimization studies are discussed, including the evaluation criteria for a change from the conceptual design baseline configuration. The revised conventional facilities configuration are described and the estimated cost impact is summarized

Revised guidance on reporting of offshore hydrocarbon releases

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1996-11-01

The application offshore of the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR 1995) has resulted in a new statutory reporting form. The definitions in RIDDOR 95 covering offshore hydrocarbon releases have been slightly revised, making it necessary to revise the guidance on reporting of offshore hydrocarbon releases. RIDDOR 1995 does not affect the existing voluntary arrangements for completion of forms. The receipt of correctly completed forms is important to ensure good output data from the database, and the guidance contained in this document is therefore aimed at assisting completion of the voluntary form. (UK)

Pending revisions to ANS 56.8-81 containment systems leakage testing requirements

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Brown, T.M.

1986-01-01

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently processing a revision to Appendix J of Part 50, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The revised Appendix J will not reference any ANSI standard. Processed concurrently with the revised Appendix J is a draft Regulatory Guide which does endorse ANS Standard 56.8. The draft Regulatory Guide currently takes many exceptions to the Standard. Many of the exceptions are changes the Working Group had in process and the exceptions are to bring the draft Regulatory Guide in line with the future Standard. The Working Group has completed their revisions to the Standard and its appendices. These revisions have been submitted to the Nuclear Power Plants Standards Committee (NUPPSCO). The NUPPSCO comments have recently been addressed by the Working Group and the Working Group response has been sent to the NUPPSCO commentators. This paper will discuss the revisions made to the Standard, the significance of the revisions and future tasks or Standard revisions which the ANS 56.8 Working Group may address

Design criteria tank farm storage and staging facility. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lott, D.T.

1994-01-01

Tank Farms Operations must store/stage material and equipment until work packages are ready to work. Consumable materials are also required to be stored for routine and emergency work. Connex boxes and open storage is currently used for much of the storage because of the limited space at 272AW and 272WA. Safety issues based on poor housekeeping and material deteriorating due to weather damage has resulted from this inadequate storage space. It has been determined that a storage building in close proximity to the Tank Farm work force would be cost effective. Project W-402 and W-413 will provide a storage/staging area in 200 East and West Areas by the construction of two new storage facilities. The new facilities will be used by Operations, Maintenance and Materials groups to adequately store material and equipment. These projects will also furnish electrical services to the facilities for lighting and HVAC. Fire Protection shall be extended to the 200 East facility from 272AW if necessary

Environmental Guidance Regulatory Bulletin - revised rule issued, October 17, 1994

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-01-01

On September 15, 1994, at 59 FR 47384-47495, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a Final Rule revising 40 CFR Part 300; the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). One of the primary purposes of the revised NCP is to provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize adverse impact from oil discharges and hazardous substance releases. The NCP is required by Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and Section 311 (c) (2) of the Clean Water Act. The NCP establishes an organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants under these two Acts. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) amends the existing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and creates major new authorities addressing oil, and to a lesser extent, hazardous substance spill response. These amendments to the CWA, in turn, require revision of the NCP. The OPA specifies a number of revisions to the NCP that enhance and expand upon the current framework, standards, and procedures for response. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on changes to the NCP was issued on October 22, 1993 (58 FR 54702). DOE solicited comments on the proposed rule from DOE program and field offices, and submitted those comments to EPA on December 20, 1993

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-02-01

The US Department of Energy's liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility is a research and demonstration facility available on a user-fee basis to private and public sector test and training sponsors concerned with safety aspects of hazardous chemicals. Though initially designed to accommodate large liquefied natural gas releases, the Spill Test Facility (STF) can also accommodate hazardous materials training and safety-related testing of most chemicals in commercial use. The STF is located at DOE's Nevada Test Site near Mercury, Nevada, USA. Utilization of the Spill Test Facility provides a unique opportunity for industry and other users to conduct hazardous materials testing and training. The Spill Test Facility is the only facility of its kind for either large- or small-scale testing of hazardous and toxic fluids including wind tunnel testing under controlled conditions. It is ideally suited for test sponsors to develop verified data on prevention, mitigation, clean-up, and environmental effects of toxic and hazardous gaseous liquids. The facility site also supports structured training for hazardous spills, mitigation, and clean-up. Since 1986, the Spill Test Facility has been utilized for releases to evaluate the patterns of dispersion, mitigation techniques, and combustion characteristics of select materials. Use of the facility can also aid users in developing emergency planning under US P.L 99-499, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and other regulations. The Spill Test Facility Program is managed by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy (FE) with the support and assistance of other divisions of US DOE and the US Government. DOE/FE serves as facilitator and business manager for the Spill Test Facility and site. This brief document is designed to acquaint a potential user of the Spill Test Facility with an outline of the procedures and policies associated with the use of the facility

Mixed Waste Management Facility, monthly report June 1994

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Streit, R.

1994-07-01

This monthly report for June 1994 presents general progress in the development of the MWMF including bugetary considerations. During June, the outstanding issues of Project guidance and OPEX/CENRTC funding were essentially resolved. A letter from DOE/OAK on June 28 provided the KD-1 decision and provided revised scope and budget guidance for the Project. Prior to this, during June, an agreement with DOE for release of funds to mitigate the OPEX/CENRTC funding levels was also completed. In response to KD-1 guidance, work to provide a revised Project schedule and budget profile began. Preliminary design activities have been on hold since May 1

Guide for effluent radiological measurements at DOE installations

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Corley, J.P.; Corbit, C.D.

1983-07-01

Effluent monitoring and reporting programs are maintained at all US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities that may: (1) discharge significant concentrations of radioactivity in relation to applicable standards, or (2) discharge quantities of radioactivity that have potential health and safety or other environmental significance. This Guide is intended to provide supplemental guidance to DOE Orders on methods, procedures, and performance criteria to bring more comparable rationale to DOE facility effluent measurement programs and promote compliance with applicable standards and provide the DOE Office of Operational Safety (OOS) and Operations Offices with an additional tool for evaluating effluent measurement programs at DOE facilities

Nevada Test Site Radiological Control Manual, Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2010-01-01

This document supersedes DOE/NV/25946--801, 'Nevada Test Site Radiological Control Manual,' Revision 0 issued in October 2009. Brief Description of Revision: A minor revision to correct oversights made during revision to incorporate the 10 CFR 835 Update; and for use as a reference document for Tenant Organization Radiological Protection Programs. This manual contains the radiological control requirements to be used for all radiological activities conducted by programs under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). Compliance with these requirements will ensure compliance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 835, 'Occupational Radiation Protection.' Programs covered by this manual are located at the Nevada Test Site (NTS); Nellis Air Force Base and North Las Vegas, Nevada; Santa Barbara and Livermore, California; and Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. In addition, fieldwork by NNSA/NSO at other locations is covered by this manual. The NTS is located in Nye County, Nevada. The NTS is located approximately 105 kilometers (65 miles) northwest of Las Vegas. It is a remote facility that covers approximately 3,500 square kilometers (1,375 square miles) of land. The dimensions of the NTS vary from 46 to 56 kilometers (28 to 35 miles) in width (eastern to western border) and from 64 to 88 kilometers (40 to 55 miles) in length (northern to southern border). The NTS is surrounded to the west, north, and east by additional thousands of acres of land withdrawn from the public domain for use as a protected wildlife range and as a military gunnery range. These public exclusion areas comprise the Nellis Air Force Range complex, previously designated as the Nellis Air Force Base Bombing and Gunnery Range, and the Tonopah Test Range. These two areas provide a buffer zone between the test areas and public lands administered by the Federal Bureau of Land

Use of experience data for DOE seismic evaluations

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Barlow, M.W.; Budnitz, R.; Eder, S.J.; Eli, M.W.

1993-01-01

As dictated by DOE Order 5480.28, seismic evaluations of essential systems and components at DOE facilities will be conducted over the next several years. For many of these systems and components, few, if any, seismic requirements applied to the original design, procurement, installation, and maintenance process. Thus the verification of the seismic adequacy of existing systems and components presents a difficult challenge. DOE has undertaken development of the criteria and procedures for these seismic evaluations that will maximize safety benefits in a timely and cost effective manner. As demonstrated in previous applications at DOE facilities and by the experience from the commercial nuclear power industry, use of experience data for these evaluations is the only viable option for most existing systems and components. This paper describes seismic experience data, the needs at DOE facilities, the precedent of application at nuclear power plants and DOE facilities, and the program being put in place for the seismic verification task ahead for DOE

Fourteenth annual report radiation exposures for DOE and DOE contractor employees - 1981

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1983-03-01

All Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE contractors are required by DOE Order 5484.1, Chapter IV, to submit occupational exposure records to a central repository. The data required includes a summary of whole-body exposures to ionizing radiation, a summary of internal depositions of radioactive materials above specified limits, and occupational exposure reports for terminating employees. This report is a summary of the data submitted by DOE and DOE contractors for 1981. A total of 82,873 DOE and DOE contractor employees were monitored for whole-body ionizing radiation exposures in 1981. In addition to the employees, 84,343 visitors were monitored. Of all employees monitored, 54.43% received a dose equivalent that was less than measurable, 44.04% a measurable exposure less than 1 rem, and 1.53% an exposure granter than 1 rem. the exposure received by 88.14% of the visitors to DOE facilities was less than measurable. Only 11.85% of the visitors received a measurable exposure less than 1 rem, and 0.0% of the visitors received an exposure greater than 1 rem. No employees or visitors received a dose equivalent greater than 5 rem. The collective dose equivalent for DOE and DOE contractors employees was 6,902 person-rem. The collective dose equivalent for visitors was 579 person-rem. The total dose equivalent for employees and visitors combined was 7,481 person-rem. The average dose equivalent for all individuals (employees and visitors) monitored was 45 mrem and the average dose equivalent for all individuals who received a measurable exposure was 157 mrem. The highest average dose equivalent was observed for employees monitored at fuel processing facilities (342 mrem) and the lowest among visitors (7 mrem) to DOE facilities. These averages are significantly less than the DOE 5-rem/year radiation protection standard for whole-body exposures

40 CFR 51.123 - Findings and requirements for submission of State implementation plan revisions relating to...

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

... such undue risk, from other electricity generation facilities during the installation of control technology at the source necessary to comply with the SIP revision. (ii) For a source not used to generate...). (z) Each SIP revision must provide for State compliance with the reporting requirements in § 51.125...

216-A-29 Ditch supplemental information to the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE/RL-93-75)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ingle, S.J.

1996-05-01

This document is a unit-specific contingency plan for the 216-A-29 Ditch and is intended to be used as a supplement to DOE/RL-93-75, Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE-RL 1993). This unit-specific plan is to be used to demonstrate compliance with the contingency plan requirements of the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173- 303 for certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 waste management units. The 216-A-29 Ditch is a surface impoundment that received nonregulated process and cooling water and other dangerous wastes primarily from operations of the Plutonium/Uranium Extraction Plant. Active between 1955 and 1991, the ditch has been physically isolated and will be closed. Because it is no longer receiving discharges, waste management activities are no longer required at the unit. The ditch does not present a significant hazard to adjacent units, personnel, or the environment. It is unlikely that any incidents presenting hazards to public health or the environment would occur at the 216-A-29 Ditch

Hazards assessment for the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Calley, M.B.; Jones, J.L. Jr.

1994-01-01

This report documents the hazards assessment for the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which is operated by EG ampersand G Idaho, Inc., for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The hazards assessment was performed to ensure that this facility complies with DOE and company requirements pertaining to emergency planning and preparedness for operational emergencies. DOE Order 5500.3A requires that a facility-specific hazards assessment be performed to provide the technical basis for facility emergency planning efforts. This hazards assessment was conducted in accordance with DOE Headquarters and DOE Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) guidance to comply with DOE Order 5500.3A. The hazards assessment identifies and analyzes hazards that are significant enough to warrant consideration in a facility's operational emergency management program. This hazards assessment describes the WERF, the area surrounding WERF, associated buildings and structures at WERF, and the processes performed at WERF. All radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials stored, used, or produced at WERF were identified and screened. Even though the screening process indicated that the hazardous materials could be screened from further analysis because the inventory of radiological and nonradiological hazardous materials were below the screening thresholds specified by DOE and DOE-ID guidance for DOE Order 5500.3A, the nonradiological hazardous materials were analyzed further because it was felt that the nonradiological hazardous material screening thresholds were too high

Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 222-S Laboratory Complex

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

WILLIAMS, J.F.

2000-01-01

The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation submitted for individual, operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, such as the 222-S Laboratory Complex (this document, DOE/RL-91-27). Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987 and 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needs defined by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology alpha-numeric section identifiers from the permit application guidance documentation (Ecology 1996) follow, in brackets, the chapter headings and subheadings. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in the General Information Portion). Wherever appropriate, the 222-S Laboratory Complex permit application documentation makes cross-reference to the General Information Portion, rather than duplicating text. Information provided in this 222-S Laboratory Complex permit application documentation is current as of August 2000

Revision of the ASME nuclear quality assurance standard and its historical background

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Suzuki, Tetsuya

2009-01-01

ASME NQA-1-2008 'Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications' will be endorsed by US NRC by the end of 2009. This standard will apply to design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants newly erected in USA. It is important to Japanese vendors developing nuclear business in USA. Historical background, significance of revision and main revised points of the ASME nuclear quality assurance standard are described in the present paper. (T. Tanaka)

Active sites environmental monitoring Program - Program Plan: Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Morrissey, C.M.; Hicks, D.S.; Ashwood, T.L.; Cunningham, G.R.

1994-05-01

The Active Sites Environmental Monitoring Program (ASEMP), initiated in 1989, provides early detection and performance monitoring of active low-level-waste (LLW) and transuranic (TRU) waste facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Several changes have recently occurred in regard to the sites that are currently used for waste storage and disposal. These changes require a second set of revisions to the ASEMP program plan. This document incorporates those revisions. This program plan presents the organization and procedures for monitoring the active sites. The program plan also provides internal reporting levels to guide the evaluation of monitoring results

3718-F Alkali Metal Treatment and Storage Facility Closure Plan. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

None

1992-11-01

The Hanford Site, located northwest of the city of Richland, Washington, houses reactors, chemical-separation systems, and related facilities used for the production of special nuclear materials, as well as for activities associated with nuclear energy development. The 300 Area of the Hanford Site contains reactor fuel manufacturing facilities and several research and development laboratories. The 3718-F Alkali Metal Treatment and Storage Facility (3718-F Facility), located in the 300 Area, was used to store and treat alkali metal wastes. Therefore, it is subject to the regulatory requirements for the storage and treatment of dangerous wastes. Closure will be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-610 (Ecology 1989) and 40 CFR 270.1. Closure also will satisfy the thermal treatment facility closure requirements of 40 CFR 265.381. This closure plan presents a description of the 3718-F Facility, the history of wastes managed, and the approach that will be followed to close the facility. Only hazardous constituents derived from 3718-F Facility operations will be addressed.

Transition from Consultation to Monitoring-NRC's Increasingly Focused Review of Factors Important to F-Area Tank Farm Facility Performance - 13153

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Barr, Cynthia; Grossman, Christopher; Alexander, George; Parks, Leah; Fuhrmann, Mark; Shaffner, James; McKenney, Christepher [U.S. NRC, Rockville, MD (United States); Pabalan, Roberto; Pickett, David [Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX (United States); Dinwiddie, Cynthia [Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX (United States)

2013-07-01

In consultation with the NRC, DOE issued a waste determination for the F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) facility in March 2012. The FTF consists of 22 underground tanks, each 2.8 to 4.9 million liters in capacity, used to store liquid high-level waste generated as a result of spent fuel reprocessing. The waste determination concluded stabilized waste residuals and associated tanks and auxiliary components at the time of closure are not high-level and can be disposed of as LLW. Prior to issuance of the final waste determination, during the consultation phase, NRC staff reviewed and provided comments on DOE's revision 0 and revision 1 FTF PAs that supported the waste determination and produced a technical evaluation report documenting the results of its multi-year review in October 2011. Following issuance of the waste determination, NRC began to monitor DOE disposal actions to assess compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C. To facilitate its monitoring responsibilities, NRC developed a plan to monitor DOE disposal actions. NRC staff was challenged in developing a focused monitoring plan to ensure limited resources are spent in the most cost-effective manner practical. To address this challenge, NRC prioritized monitoring areas and factors in terms of risk significance and timing. This prioritization was informed by NRC staff's review of DOE's PA documentation, independent probabilistic modeling conducted by NRC staff, and NRC-sponsored research conducted by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, TX. (authors)

Characterization of emergency preparedness at DOE contractor facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Gillings, J.C.; Murphy, B.L.; Corbit, C.D.

1984-07-01

A study of emergency preparedness capabilities at DOE facilities was initiated following the incident at the Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Power Station. It was designed to parallel but expand on a study on emergency preparedness instrumentation that was conducted in 1970 by Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The 1970 survey findings led to the publication of four reports on performance criteria for radiological emergency instrumentation. Three of these reports - BNWL-1635 (Selby et al. 1972), BNWL-1742 (Anderson et al. 1974) and BNWL-1857 (Andersen et al. 1976) - addressed the criteria for emergency instrumentation at reactors, mixed oxide fuel fabrication plants, and fuel reprocessing plants, respectively. The fourth report, BNWL-1991 (Bramson et al. 1976), addressed evaluation testing and calibration methodology for these instruments. This report is presented in three parts. Part One is a review of the BNWL documents to determine whether they are applicable to state-of-the-art instrument capabilities. The Appendix to Part One provides a comparison between the instrument performance criteria established in BNWL-1991 to applicable American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for portable survey and contamination meters, installed radiation and area monitors, effluent monitors, calibration techniques, criticality detection systems, alarm systems, and direct reading dosimeters. Part Two compares the 1970 survey results with the 1980 survey results to identify trends in emergency preparedness. Part Three is a discussion of the results of the 1980 emergency preparedness survey and the supporting data for each of the 15 modules. 8 references

Comparison of risk-dominant scenario assumptions for several TRU waste facilities in the DOE complex

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Foppe, T.L.; Marx, D.R.

1999-01-01

In order to gain a risk management perspective, the DOE Rocky Flats Field Office (RFFO) initiated a survey of other DOE sites regarding risks from potential accidents associated with transuranic (TRU) storage and/or processing facilities. Recently-approved authorization basis documents at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) have been based on the DOE Standard 3011 risk assessment methodology with three qualitative estimates of frequency of occurrence and quantitative estimates of radiological consequences to the collocated worker and the public binned into three severity levels. Risk Class 1 and 2 events after application of controls to prevent or mitigate the accident are designated as risk-dominant scenarios. Accident Evaluation Guidelines for selection of Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) are based on the frequency and consequence bin assignments to identify controls that can be credited to reduce risk to Risk Class 3 or 4, or that are credited for Risk Class 1 and 2 scenarios that cannot be further reduced. This methodology resulted in several risk-dominant scenarios for either the collocated worker or the public that warranted consideration on whether additional controls should be implemented. RFFO requested the survey because of these high estimates of risks that are primarily due to design characteristics of RFETS TRU waste facilities (i.e., Butler-type buildings without a ventilation and filtration system, and a relatively short distance to the Site boundary). Accident analysis methodologies and key assumptions are being compared for the DOE sites responding to the survey. This includes type of accidents that are risk dominant (e.g., drum explosion, material handling breach, fires, natural phenomena, external events, etc.), source term evaluation (e.g., radionuclide material-at-risk, chemical and physical form, damage ratio, airborne release fraction, respirable fraction, leakpath factors), dispersion analysis (e.g., meteorological

77 FR 67628 - National Fire Codes: Request for Public Input for Revision of Codes and Standards

Science.gov (United States)

2012-11-13

... Standard on Fire and 7/8/2013 Life Safety in Animal Housing Facilities. NFPA 160--2011 Standard for the Use... five years in Revision Cycles that begin twice each year and take approximately two years to complete. Each Revision Cycle proceeds according to a published schedule that includes final dates for all major...

Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) for USA/5790/BLF (DOE-AL) and USA/5791/BLF (DOE-AL)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Roome, L.G.; Watkins, R.A.; Bertram, R.E.; Kreider, H.B.

1980-01-01

This revised Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) includes discussions of structural integrity, thermal resistance, radiation shielding and radiological safety, nuclear criticality safety, and quality control of shipping containers. Much of the information was previously submitted to AEC/OSD/ALO and the Department of Transportation (DOT) and provided the basis for obtaining special permits DOT-SP-5790 and DOT-SP-5791 as well as the Interim Certificates of Compliance until the original SARP could be prepared and Certificates of Compliance issued by ERDA. This SARP revision incorporates information on certain design changes, the most significant of which relate to the inner container for the type 5790 package. Complete physical and technical descriptions of the packages are presented. Each package consists of a cylindrical steel inner container centered within an insulating steel drum assembly. The contents may be any radioactive materials which satisfy the requirements established in this SARP. A shipment of plutonium-238 in the form of a solid oxide is evaluated in this SARP as an example. The results of the nuclear criticality safety analysis show how much of the fissile isotopes may be shipped as Fissile Class I, II, or III for each container. Design and development considerations, the tests and evaluations required to prove the ability of the containers to withstand normal transportation conditions, and the sequence of four hypothetical accident conditions (free drop, puncture, thermal, and water immersion) are discussed. Tables, graphs, dimensional sketches, photographs, technical references, loading and shipping procedures, Mound Facility experience in using the containers, and copies of the DOE Certificates of Compliance are included. Internal reviews of the original and revised SARP's have been performed in compliance with the requirement of DOEM 5201-Part V

48 CFR 970.3770 - Facilities management.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Facilities management. 970... REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770 Facilities management. ...

SNF project's MCO compliance assessment with DOE ''general design criteria,'' order 6430.1A and ''SNF project MCO additional NRC requirements,'' HNF-SD-SNF-DB-005

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

GOLDMANN, L.H.

1999-01-01

This document is presented to demonstrate the MCOs compliance to the major design criteria invoked on the MCO. This document is broken down into a section for the MCO's evaluation against DOE Order 6430.1A General Design Criteria sixteen divisions and then the evaluation of the MCO against HNF-SD-SNF-DB-005 ''Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Multi-Canister Overpack Additional NRC Requirements.'' The compliance assessment is presented as a matrix in tabular form. The MCO is the primary container for the K-basin's spent nuclear fuel as it leaves the basin pools and through to the 40 year interim storage at the Canister Storage Building (CSB). The MCO and its components interface with; the K basins, shipping cask and transportation system, Cold Vacuum Drying facility individual process bays and equipment, and CSB facility including the MCO handling machine (MHM), the storage tubes, and the MCO work stations where sampling, welding, and inspection of the MCO is performed. As the MCO is the primary boundary for handling, process, and storage, its main goals are to minimize the spread of its radiological contents to the outside of the MCO and provide for nuclear criticality control. The MCO contains personnel radiation shielding only on its upper end, in the form of a shield plug, where the process interfaces are located. Shielding beyond the shield plug is the responsibility of the using facilities. The design of the MCO and its components is depicted in drawings H-2-828040 through H-2-828075. Not every drawing number in the sequence is used. The first drawing number, H-2-828040, is the drawing index for the MCO. The design performance specification for the MCO is HW-S-0426, and was reviewed and approved by the interfacing design authorities, the safety, regulatory, and operations groups, and the local DOE office. The current revision for the design performance specification is revision 5. The designs of the MCO have been reviewed and approved in a similar way and the reports

Phenomenological analyses and their application to the Defense Waste Processing Facility probabilistic safety analysis accident progression event tree. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kalinich, D.A.; Thomas, J.K.; Gough, S.T.; Bailey, R.T.; Kearnaghan, D.P.

1995-01-01

In the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) for the Savannah River Site (SRS), risk-based perspectives have been included per US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.23. The NUREG-1150 Level 2/3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodology was selected as the basis for calculating facility risk. The backbone of this methodology is the generation of an Accident Progression Event Tree (APET), which is solved using the EVNTRE computer code. To support the development of the DWPF APET, deterministic modeling of accident phenomena was necessary. From these analyses, (1) accident progressions were identified for inclusion into the APET; (2) branch point probabilities and any attendant parameters were quantified; and (3) the radionuclide releases to the environment from accidents were determined. The phenomena of interest for accident progressions included explosions, fires, a molten glass spill, and the response of the facility confinement system during such challenges. A variety of methodologies, from hand calculations to large system-model codes, were used in the evaluation of these phenomena

77 FR 9591 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100, Revision 8

Science.gov (United States)

2012-02-17

... Fuel Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100, Revision 8 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed... spent fuel storage cask regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 dry cask storage... Amendment No. 8 to CoC No. 1014 and does not include other aspects of the HI-STORM 100 dry storage cask...

DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel strategic plan. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1996-09-01

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for safely and efficiently managing DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and SNF returned to the US from foreign research reactors (FRR). The fuel will be treated where necessary, packaged suitable for repository disposal where practicable, and placed in interim dry storage. These actions will remove remaining vulnerabilities, make as much spent fuel as possible ready for ultimate disposition, and substantially reduce the cost of continued storage. The goal is to complete these actions in 10 years. This SNF Strategic Plan updates the mission, vision, objectives, and strategies for the management of DOE-owned SNF articulated by the SNF Strategic Plan issued in December 1994. The plan describes the remaining issues facing the EM SNF Program, lays out strategies for addressing these issues, and identifies success criteria by which program progress is measured. The objectives and strategies in this plan are consistent with the following Em principles described by the Assistance Secretary in his June 1996 initiative to establish a 10-year time horizon for achieving most program objectives: eliminate and manage the most serious risks; reduce mortgage and support costs to free up funds for further risk reduction; protect worker health and safety; reduce generation of wastes; create a collaborative relationship between DOE and its regulators and stakeholders; focus technology development on cost and risk reduction; and strengthen management and financial control

The DOE/DHHS memorandum of understanding: The DOE perspective

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Goldsmith, R.

1991-01-01

On March 27, 1990, Secretary James D. Watkins established an Office of Health under the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. All epidemiologic activities throughout the department were consolidated into this office as part of an Office of Epidemiology and Health Surveillance (OEHS) with specific responsibilities for occupational and community health surveillance. The mission and functions of the OEHS include the conduct of epidemiologic studies at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, nearby communities, and other populations. These studies comprise retrospective mortality studies of DOE contractor workers, hypothesis-generating studies related to the potential health effects of energy production and use, ecologic studies of off-site populations, quick-response investigations of suspected disease clusters, and others as needed. In addition, OEHS is responsible for providing procedures, technical support, and other resources for the conduct of DOE-sponsored epidemiologic research studies to be managed outside of DOE, including analytic studies to be managed by the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) under a memorandum of understanding (MOU), dose-reconstruction studies, and studies related to DOE facilities to be conducted through state health departments

Revision of 'JASS 5N reinforced concrete work for nuclear power facilities'

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Masuda, Yoshihiro; Kitagawa, Takashi

2013-01-01

'JASS 5N, Reinforced Concrete Work at Nuclear Power Plants,' is part of the 'Japanese Architectural Standard Specification and Its Interpretation' established by the Architectural Institute of Japan. It is the stipulation to establish the standards for the implementation of reinforced concrete work and quality control for the major buildings of nuclear power plants, and to ensure the safety related to the construction work. The original specification was established in 1985, and its third revised edition was published in February 2013. This 2013 edition is composed of 15 sections and four items of appendices. This paper introduces the major revisions of each section, and explains the newly added section 'Section 14: Small-scale Reinforced Concrete Work.' In addition, this paper describes the newly added 'Appendix: Quality Standards for Heavy Mortal (tentative draft),' and the minor change that part of the appendix related to reinforced concrete was taken into the interpretation of 'Section 10: Reinforced Concrete Work.' (O.A.)

A national biomedical tracer facility (NBTF)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Erb, D.E.; Moody, D.; Peterson, E.; Mausner, L.; Atcher, R.

1991-01-01

The production, supply, and sale of isotopes and related services originating in Department of Energy production and research facilities has been a long-standing activity of DOE and predecessor organizations (AEC and ERDA). The authority for this activity is derived from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Stable isotopes and radioisotopes, together with related services, are now being produced in many DOE production and research facilities at several DOE installations which presently include: Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), EG ampersand G Mound Laboratories (Mound), Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), and the Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) at Richland, Washington. The products and services are, in many instances, unique in that their production and processing can be performed only in production and research facilities owned by, and operated for, DOE. In some instances, DOE is the sole supplier of such isotope products and services in the Western World

Negotiating equity for management of DOE wastes

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Carnes, S.A.

1994-01-01

One important factor frustrating optimal management of Department of Energy (DOE)-complex wastes is the inability to use licensed and permitted facilities systematically. Achieving the goal of optimal use of DOE's waste management facilities is politically problematic for two reasons. First, no locale wants to bear a disproportionate burden from DOE wastes. Second, the burden imposed by additional wastes transported from one site to another is difficult to characterize. To develop a viable framework for equitably distributing these burdens while achieving efficient use of all DOE waste management facilities, several implementation and equity issues must be addressed and resolved. This paper discusses stakeholder and equity issues and proposes a framework for joint research and action that could facilitate equity negotiations among stakeholder and move toward a more optimal use of DOE's waste management capabilities

Negotiating equity for management of DOE wastes

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Carnes, S.A.

1993-01-01

One important factor frustrating optimal management of DOE-complex wastes is inability to use licensed and permitted facilities systematically. Achieving the goal of optimal use of DOE's waste management facilities is politically problematic for two reasons. First, no locale wants to bear a disproportionate burden from DOE wastes. Second, the burden imposed by additional wastes transported from one site to another is difficult to characterize. To develop a viable framework for equitably distributing these burdens while achieving efficient use of all DOE waste management facilities, several implementation and equity issues must be addressed and resolved. This paper discusses stakeholders and equity issues and proposes a framework for joint research and action that could facilitate equity negotiations among stakeholders and move toward a more optimal use of DOE's waste management capabilities

Negotiating equity for management of DOE wastes

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Carnes, S.A.

1994-01-01

One important factor frustrating optimal management of Department of Energy (DOE)-complex wastes is the inability to use licensed and permitted facilities systematically. Achieving the goal of optimal use of DOE's waste management facilities is politically problematic for two reasons. First, no locale wants to bear a disproportionate burden from DOE wastes. Second, the burden imposed by additional wastes transported from one site to another is difficult to characterize. To develop a viable framework for equitably distributing these burdens while achieving efficient use of all DOE waste management facilities, several implementation and equity issues must be addressed and resolved. This paper discusses stakeholders and equity issues and proposes a framework for joint research and action that could facilitate equity negotiations among stakeholders and move toward a more optimal use of DOE's waste management capabilities

Working Memory and the Revision of Syntactic and Discourse Ambiguities

Science.gov (United States)

Evans, William S.; Caplan, David; Ostrowski, Adam; Michaud, Jennifer; Guarino, Anthony; Waters, Gloria

2015-01-01

Two hundred participants, 50 in each of four age ranges (19 – 29; 30 – 49, 50 – 69, 70 – 90) were tested for short term working memory, speed of processing and on-line processing of three types of sentences in which an initially assigned syntactic structure and/or semantic interpretation had to be revised. Self-paced reading times were longer for the segments which signaled the need for revision, and there were interactions of age and sentence type and of speed of processing and sentence type, but not of working memory and sentence type, on reading times for these segments. The results provide evidence that working memory does not support the processes that revise the structure and interpretation of sentences and discourse. PMID:25485458

Safety at DOE Nuclear Weapons Facilities. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, October 22, 1987 and May 11, 1988

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Anon.

1988-01-01

The hearings address the adequacy of health and safety programs at the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapons facilities. All the facilities are owned by the government and operated by contractors. Statements and documents are provided by officials from the DOE and its operating contractors

Milgrom's revision of Newton's laws: Dynamical and cosmological consequences

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Felten, J.E.; and University of Maryland, College Park)

1984-01-01

Milgrom's recent revision of Newtonian dynamics was introduced to eliminate the inference that large quantities of invisible mass exist in galaxies. I show by simple examples that a Milgrom acceleration, in the form presented so far, implies other far-reaching changes in dynamics. The momentum of an isolated system is not conserved, and the usual theorem for center-of-mass motion of any system does not hold. Naive applications require extreme caution. The model fails to provide a complete description of particle dynamics and should be thought of as a revision of Kepler's laws rather than Newton's

FY2010 ANNUAL REVIEW E-AREA LOW-LEVEL WASTE FACILITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND COMPOSITE ANALYSIS

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Butcher, T.; Swingle, R.; Crapse, K.; Millings, M.; Sink, D.

2011-01-01

The E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) consists of a number of disposal units described in the Performance Assessment (PA)(WSRC, 2008b) and Composite Analysis (CA)(WSRC, 1997; WSRC, 1999): Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vault, Intermediate Level (IL) Vault, Trenches (Slit Trenches [STs], Engineered Trenches [ETs], and Component-in-Grout [CIG] Trenches), and Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs). This annual review evaluates the adequacy of the approved 2008 ELLWF PA along with the Special Analyses (SAs) approved since the PA was issued. The review also verifies that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 low-level waste (LLW) disposal operations were conducted within the bounds of the PA/SA baseline, the Savannah River Site (SRS) CA, and the Department of Energy (DOE) Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS). Important factors considered in this review include waste receipts, results from monitoring and research and development (R&D) programs, and the adequacy of controls derived from the PA/SA baseline. Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of this review are a summary of the adequacy of the PA/SA and CA, respectively. An evaluation of the FY2010 waste receipts and the resultant impact on the ELLWF is summarized in Section 3.1. The results of the monitoring program, R&D program, and other relevant factors are found in Section 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. Section 4.0 contains the CA annual determination similarly organized. SRS low-level waste management is regulated under DOE Order 435.1 (DOE, 1999a) and is authorized under a DAS as a federal permit. The original DAS was issued by the DOE-Headquarters (DOE-HQ) on September 28, 1999 (DOE, 1999b) for the operation of the ELLWF and the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). The 1999 DAS remains in effect for the regulation of the SDF. Those portions of that DAS applicable to the ELLWF were superseded by revision 1 of the DAS on July 15, 2008 (DOE, 2008b). The 2008 PA and DAS were officially implemented by the facility on October 31, 2008

Near-Facility Environmental Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

MCKINNEY, S.M.

2000-01-01

This Quality Assurance Project Plan addresses the quality assurance requirements for the activities associated with the preoperational and near-facility environmental monitoring directed by Waste Management Technical Services and supersedes HNF-EP-0538-4. This plan applies to all sampling and monitoring activities performed by Waste Management Technical Services in implementing near-facility environmental monitoring at the Hanford Site. This Quality Assurance Project Plan is required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 5400.1 (DOE 1990) as a part of the Environmental Monitoring Plan (DOE-RL 1997) and is used to define: Environmental measurement and sampling locations used to monitor environmental contaminants near active and inactive facilities and waste storage and disposal sites; Procedures and equipment needed to perform the measurement and sampling; Frequency and analyses required for each measurement and sampling location; Minimum detection level and accuracy; Quality assurance components; and Investigation levels. Near-facility environmental monitoring for the Hanford Site is conducted in accordance with the requirements of U.S. Department of Energy Orders 5400.1 (DOE 1990), 5400.5 (DOE 1993), 5484.1 (DOE 1990), and 435.1 (DOE 1999), and DOE/EH-O173T (DOE 1991). It is Waste Management Technical Services' objective to manage and conduct near-facility environmental monitoring activities at the Hanford Site in a cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner that is in compliance with the letter and spirit of these regulations and other environmental regulations, statutes, and standards

Review of the Tritium Extraction Facility design

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Barton, R.W.; Bamdad, F.; Blackman, J.

2000-01-01

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is an independent executive branch agency responsible for technical safety oversight of the US Department of Energy's (DOE's) defense nuclear facilities. One of DNFSB's responsibilities is the review of design and construction projects for DOE's defense nuclear facilities to ensure that adequate health and safety requirements are identified and implemented. These reviews are performed with the expectation that facility designs are being developed within the framework of a site's Integrated Safety Management (ISM) program. This paper describes the application of ISM principles in DNFSB's ongoing review of the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) design/construction project

Review of the Tritium Extraction Facility Design

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ronald W. Barton; Farid Bamdad; Joel Blackman

2000-01-01

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is an independent executive branch agency responsible for technical safety oversight of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) defense nuclear facilities. One of DNFSB's responsibilities is the review of design and construction projects for DOE's defense nuclear facilities to ensure that adequate health and safety requirements are identified and implemented. These reviews are performed with the expectation that facility designs are being developed within the framework of a site's Integrated Safety Management (ISM) program. This paper describes the application of ISM principles in DNFSB's ongoing review of the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) design/construction project

A new conception for the central control facility of MEA

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Schimmel, F.

1986-01-01

To control the AFBU from the Central Control Facility some change will be necessary. This has led to a complete revision of the facilities of both consoles. Some proposals are made to improve the response time of the control systems. These improvements are feasible at short notice. (G.J.P.)

DOE Human Reliability Program Removals Report 2004-2006

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Center for Human Reliability Studies

2007-01-01

This report presents results of the comprehensive data analysis and assessment of all U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities that have positions requiring workers to be certified in the Human Reliability Program (HRP). Those facilities include: Albuquerque, Amarillo, DOE Headquarters, Hanford, Idaho, Nevada, Oak Ridge, Oakland, and Savannah River. The HRP was established to ensure, through continuous review and evaluation, the reliability of individuals who have access to the DOE's most sensitive facilities, materials, and information

Human factors design guidelines for maintainability of Department of Energy nuclear facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Bongarra, J.P. Jr.; VanCott, H.P.; Pain, R.F.; Peterson, L.R.; Wallace, R.I.

1985-06-18

Intent of these guidelines is to provide design and design review teams of DOE nuclear facilities with human factors principles to enhance the design and aid in the inspection of DOE nuclear facilities, systems, and equipment. These guidelines are concerned with design features of DOE nuclear facilities which can potentially affect preventive and corrective maintenance of systems within DOE nuclear facilities. Maintenance includes inspecting, checking, troubleshooting, adjusting, replacing, repairing, and servicing activities. Other factors which influence maintainability such as repair and maintenance suport facilities, maintenance information, and various aspects of the environment are also addressed.

Human factors design guidelines for maintainability of Department of Energy nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Bongarra, J.P. Jr.; VanCott, H.P.; Pain, R.F.; Peterson, L.R.; Wallace, R.I.

1985-01-01

Intent of these guidelines is to provide design and design review teams of DOE nuclear facilities with human factors principles to enhance the design and aid in the inspection of DOE nuclear facilities, systems, and equipment. These guidelines are concerned with design features of DOE nuclear facilities which can potentially affect preventive and corrective maintenance of systems within DOE nuclear facilities. Maintenance includes inspecting, checking, troubleshooting, adjusting, replacing, repairing, and servicing activities. Other factors which influence maintainability such as repair and maintenance suport facilities, maintenance information, and various aspects of the environment are also addressed

Oak Ridge National Laboratory West End Treatment Facility simulated sludge vitrification demonstration, Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Cicero, C.A.; Bickford, D.F.; Bennert, D.M.; Overcamp, T.J.

1994-01-01

Technologies are being developed by the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Facility sites to convert hazardous and mixed wastes to a form suitable for permanent disposal. Vitrification, which has been declared the Best Demonstrated Available Technology for high-level radioactive waste disposal by the EPA, is capable of producing a highly durable wasteform that minimizes disposal volumes through organic destruction, moisture evaporation, and porosity reduction. However, this technology must be demonstrated over a range of waste characteristics, including compositions, chemistries, moistures, and physical characteristics to ensure that it is suitable for hazardous and mixed waste treatment. These wastes are typically wastewater treatment sludges that are categorized as listed wastes due to the process origin or organic solvent content, and usually contain only small amounts of hazardous constituents. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) West End Treatment Facility's (WETF) sludge is considered on of these representative wastes. The WETF is a liquid waste processing plant that generates sludge from the biodenitrification and precipitation processes. An alternative wasteform is needed since the waste is currently stored in epoxy coated carbon steel tanks, which have a limited life. Since this waste has characteristics that make it suitable for vitrification with a high likelihood of success, it was identified as a suitable candidate by the Mixed Waste Integrated Program (MWIP) for testing at CU. The areas of special interest with this sludge are (1) minimum nitrates, (2) organic destruction, and (3) waste water treatment sludges containing little or no filter aid

Technical assessment of TRUSAF for compliance with work place air sampling. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Butler, J.D.

1995-01-01

The purpose of this Technical Work Document is to satisfy WHC-CM-1-6, the ''WHC Radiological Control Manual.'' This first revision of the original Supporting Document covers the period from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994. WHC-CM-1-6 is the primary guidance for radiological control at Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC). As such, it complies with Title 10, Part 835 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to WHC-CM-1-6, there is HSRCM-1, the ''Hanford Site Radiological Control Manual'' and several Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, national consensus standards, and reports that provide criteria, standards, and requirements for workplace air sampling programs. This document provides a summary of these, as they apply to WHC facility workplace air sampling programs. this document also provides an evaluation of the compliance of the TRUSAF workplace air sampling program to the criteria, standards, and requirements and documents. Where necessary, it also indicates changes needed to bring specific locations into compliance

Facility effluent monitoring plan for 242-A Evaporator facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Crummel, G.M.; Gustavson, R.D.

1993-03-01

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1* for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could affect employee or public safety or the environment. A facility effluent monitoring plan determination was performed during Calendar Year 1991 and the evaluation showed the need for a facility effluent monitoring plan. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-1**. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements

Performance indicator program for U.S. Department of Energy reactors and facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Sastry, R.; Fielding, J.R.; Snyder, B.J.; Usher, J.; Boccio, J.

1990-01-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing a Performance Indicator (PI) Program for all facilities. The objective is to periodically collect, statistically analyze and present performance-related information in a concise and consistent format for DOE and safety of facility operations. A set of 14 DOE-Hq. defined PI's has been established after review of programs used by other organizations. Since July 1989, these PI's have been used in a trial program for eight diverse DOE facilities. Electronic reporting is directly to the DOE Safety Performance Measurement System computer. This paper reports on results demonstrated for the feasibility and usefulness of a DOE-wide PI Program and steps being taken to include all DOE facilities

75 FR 19467 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR...

Science.gov (United States)

2010-04-14

... Rules Revisions; 112(g) Revisions (Rule Project No. 98001-116-AI). Under the Settlement Agreement in... provisions that either prohibit future increases at the Qualified Facility, or ensure that any future... commenters do not want coal to stand in the way of a clean energy future in Texas. Strong rules are needed to...

List of DOE radioisotope customers with summary of radioisotope shipments, FY 1986

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lamar, D.A.

1988-01-01

Data were collected and compiled on radioisotopes produced and sold by Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, and on services rendered by DOE facilities. Compiled data were published and distributed in the document list of DOE Radioisotope Customers with Summary of Radioisotope Shipments, FY 1986, PNL-6361, October 1987. The DOE facilities that supplied information for the compilation were Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Savannah River Plant, and UNC Nuclear Industries, Inc. (Hanford). The data provided were reported in several different ways: (1) a list of radioisotopes and services provided by each facility; (2) a list of radioisotope customers, the supplying DOE facility, and the radioisotope or service provided to each customer; and (3) a list of the quantity and value of each radioisotope or service sold by each DOE facility. The sales information covered foreign customers, domestic private customers, and domestic DOE customers

Fuel Handling Facility Description Document

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

M.A. LaFountain

2005-01-01

The purpose of the facility description document (FDD) is to establish the requirements and their bases that drive the design of the Fuel Handling Facility (FHF) to allow the design effort to proceed to license application. This FDD is a living document that will be revised at strategic points as the design matures. It identifies the requirements and describes the facility design as it currently exists, with emphasis on design attributes provided to meet the requirements. This FDD was developed as an engineering tool for design control. Accordingly, the primary audience and users are design engineers. It leads the design process with regard to the flow down of upper tier requirements onto the facility. Knowledge of these requirements is essential to performing the design process. It trails the design with regard to the description of the facility. This description is a reflection of the results of the design process to date

Radiological control manual. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Kloepping, R.

1996-05-01

This Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Radiological Control Manual (LBNL RCM) has been prepared to provide guidance for site-specific additions, supplements and interpretation of the DOE Radiological Control Manual. The guidance provided in this manual is one methodology to implement the requirements given in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835 (10 CFR 835) and the DOE Radiological Control Manual. Information given in this manual is also intended to provide demonstration of compliance to specific requirements in 10 CFR 835. The LBNL RCM (Publication 3113) and LBNL Health and Safety Manual Publication-3000 form the technical basis for the LBNL RPP and will be revised as necessary to ensure that current requirements from Rules and Orders are represented. The LBNL RCM will form the standard for excellence in the implementation of the LBNL RPP.

Radiological control manual. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kloepping, R.

1996-05-01

This Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Radiological Control Manual (LBNL RCM) has been prepared to provide guidance for site-specific additions, supplements and interpretation of the DOE Radiological Control Manual. The guidance provided in this manual is one methodology to implement the requirements given in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835 (10 CFR 835) and the DOE Radiological Control Manual. Information given in this manual is also intended to provide demonstration of compliance to specific requirements in 10 CFR 835. The LBNL RCM (Publication 3113) and LBNL Health and Safety Manual Publication-3000 form the technical basis for the LBNL RPP and will be revised as necessary to ensure that current requirements from Rules and Orders are represented. The LBNL RCM will form the standard for excellence in the implementation of the LBNL RPP

Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225/Revision 5). Recommendations (Spanish Edition); Recomendaciones de Seguridad Fisica Nuclear sobre la Proteccion Fisica de los Materiales y las Instalaciones Nucleares (INFCIRC/225/Rev.5). Recomendaciones

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

2012-06-15

This publication, Revision 5 of Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225), is intended to provide guidance to States and their competent authorities on how to develop or enhance, implement and maintain a physical protection regime for nuclear material and nuclear facilities, through the establishment or improvement of their capabilities to implement legislative and regulatory programmes. The recommendations presented in this publication reflect a broad consensus among IAEA Member States on the requirements which should be met for the physical protection of nuclear materials and nuclear facilities.

Conceptual design report for a remotely operated cask handling system. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Yount, J.A.; Berger, J.D.

1984-09-01

Recent advances in remote handling utilizing commercial robotics are conceptually applied to lowering operator cumulative radiation exposure and increasing throughput during cask handling operations in nuclear shipping and receiving facilities. Revision 1 incorporates functional criteria for facility equipment, equipment technical outline specifications, and interface control drawings to assist Architect Engineers in the application of remote handling to waste shipping and receiving facilities. The document has also been updated to show some of the equipment used in proof-of-principle testing during fiscal year 1984. 10 references, 50 figures, 1 table

CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

C.E. Sanders

2005-04-07

This design calculation revises and updates the previous criticality evaluation for the canister handling, transfer and staging operations to be performed in the Canister Handling Facility (CHF) documented in BSC [Bechtel SAIC Company] 2004 [DIRS 167614]. The purpose of the calculation is to demonstrate that the handling operations of canisters performed in the CHF meet the nuclear criticality safety design criteria specified in the ''Project Design Criteria (PDC) Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171599], Section 4.9.2.2), the nuclear facility safety requirement in ''Project Requirements Document'' (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], p. 4-206), the functional/operational nuclear safety requirement in the ''Project Functional and Operational Requirements'' document (Curry 2004 [DIRS 170557], p. 75), and the functional nuclear criticality safety requirements described in the ''Canister Handling Facility Description Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168992], Sections 3.1.1.3.4.13 and 3.2.3). Specific scope of work contained in this activity consists of updating the Category 1 and 2 event sequence evaluations as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167268], Section 7). The CHF is limited in throughput capacity to handling sealed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) canisters, defense high-level radioactive waste (DHLW), naval canisters, multicanister overpacks (MCOs), vertical dual-purpose canisters (DPCs), and multipurpose canisters (MPCs) (if and when they become available) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168992], p. 1-1). It should be noted that the design and safety analyses of the naval canisters are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of the Navy (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) and will not be included in this document. In addition, this calculation is valid for

Changing methodology for measuring airborne radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Glissmeyer, J.A.; Ligotke, M.W.

1995-05-01

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requires that measurements of airborne radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities be performed following outdated methods contained in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N13.1-1969 Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities. Improved methods are being introduced via two paths. First, the ANSI standard is being revised, and second, EPA's equivalency granting process is being used to implement new technology on a case-by-case or broad basis. The ANSI standard is being revised by a working group under the auspices of the Health Physics Society Standards Committee. The revised standard includes updated methods based on current technology and a performance-based approach to design. The performance-based standard will present new challenges, especially in the area of performance validation. Progress in revising the standard is discussed. The US Department of Energy recently received approval from the USEPA for an alternate approach to complying with air-sampling regulations. The alternate approach is similar to the revised ANSI standard. New design tools include new types of sample extraction probes and a model for estimating line-losses for particles and radioiodine. Wind tunnel tests are being performed on various sample extraction probes for use at small stacks. The data show that single-point sampling probes are superior to ANSI-Nl3.1-1969 style multiple-point sample extraction probes

Construction Cost Growth for New Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Kubic, Jr., William L. [Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)

2014-05-25

Cost growth and construction delays are problems that plague many large construction projects including the construction of new Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. A study was conducted to evaluate cost growth of large DOE construction projects. The purpose of the study was to compile relevant data, consider the possible causes of cost growth, and recommend measures that could be used to avoid extreme cost growth in the future. Both large DOE and non-DOE construction projects were considered in this study. With the exception of Chemical and Metallurgical Research Building Replacement Project (CMRR) and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), cost growth for DOE Nuclear facilities is comparable to the growth experienced in other mega construction projects. The largest increase in estimated cost was found to occur between early cost estimates and establishing the project baseline during detailed design. Once the project baseline was established, cost growth for DOE nuclear facilities was modest compared to non-DOE mega projects.

DOE Handbook: Supplementary guidance and design experience for the fusion safety standards DOE-STD-6002-96 and DOE-STD-6003-96

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1999-01-01

Two standards have been developed that pertain to the safety of fusion facilities. These are DOE- STD-6002-96, Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements, and DOE-STD-6003-96, Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Guidance. The first of these standards identifies requirements that subscribers to that standard must meet to achieve safety in fusion facilities. The second standard contains guidance to assist in meeting the requirements identified inthefirst This handbook provides additional documentation on good operations and design practices as well as lessons learned from the experiences of designers and operators of previous fusion facilities and related systems. It is intended to capture the experience gained in the various fields and pass it on to designers of future fusion facilities as a means of enhancing success and safeiy. The sections of this document are presented according to the physical location of the major systems of a t%sion facility, beginning with the vacuum vessel and proceeding to those systems and components outside the vacuum vessel (the ''Ex-vessel Systems''). The last section describes administrative procedures that cannot be localized to specific components. It has been tacitly assumed that the general structure of the fusion facilities addressed is that of a tokamak though the same principles would apply to other magnetic confinement options

DOE Handbook: Supplementary guidance and design experience for the fusion safety standards DOE-STD-6002-96 and DOE-STD-6003-96

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

None

1999-01-01

Two standards have been developed that pertain to the safety of fusion facilities. These are DOE- STD-6002-96, Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements, and DOE-STD-6003-96, Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Guidance. The first of these standards identifies requirements that subscribers to that standard must meet to achieve safety in fusion facilities. The second standard contains guidance to assist in meeting the requirements identified in the first This handbook provides additional documentation on good operations and design practices as well as lessons learned from the experiences of designers and operators of previous fusion facilities and related systems. It is intended to capture the experience gained in the various fields and pass it on to designers of future fusion facilities as a means of enhancing success and safety. The sections of this document are presented according to the physical location of the major systems of a fusion facility, beginning with the vacuum vessel and proceeding to those systems and components outside the vacuum vessel (the "Ex-vessel Systems"). The last section describes administrative procedures that cannot be localized to specific components. It has been tacitly assumed that the general structure of the fusion facilities addressed is that of a tokamak though the same principles would apply to other magnetic confinement options.

Safety analysis report for the Waste Storage Facility. Revision 2

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Bengston, S.J.

1994-05-01

This safety analysis report outlines the safety concerns associated with the Waste Storage Facility located in the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The three main objectives of the report are: define and document a safety basis for the Waste Storage Facility activities; demonstrate how the activities will be carried out to adequately protect the workers, public, and environment; and provide a basis for review and acceptance of the identified risk that the managers, operators, and owners will assume.

3718-F Alkali Metal Treatment and Storage Facility Closure Plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1991-12-01

Since 1987, Westinghouse Hanford Company has been a major contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office and has served as co-operator of the 3718-F Alkali Metal Treatment and Storage Facility, the waste management unit addressed in this closure plan. The closure plan consists of a Part A Dangerous waste Permit Application and a RCRA Closure Plan. An explanation of the Part A Revision (Revision 1) submitted with this document is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. The closure plan consists of 9 chapters and 5 appendices. The chapters cover: introduction; facility description; process information; waste characteristics; groundwater; closure strategy and performance standards; closure activities; postclosure; and references

3718-F Alkali Metal Treatment and Storage Facility Closure Plan

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

None

1991-12-01

Since 1987, Westinghouse Hanford Company has been a major contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office and has served as co-operator of the 3718-F Alkali Metal Treatment and Storage Facility, the waste management unit addressed in this closure plan. The closure plan consists of a Part A Dangerous waste Permit Application and a RCRA Closure Plan. An explanation of the Part A Revision (Revision 1) submitted with this document is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. The closure plan consists of 9 chapters and 5 appendices. The chapters cover: introduction; facility description; process information; waste characteristics; groundwater; closure strategy and performance standards; closure activities; postclosure; and references.

National Ignition Facility subsystem design requirements NIF site improvements SSDR 1.2.1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kempel, P.; Hands, J.

1996-01-01

This Subsystem Design Requirements (SSDR) document establishes the performance, design, and verification requirements associated with the NIF Project Site at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) at Livermore, California. It identifies generic design conditions for all NIF Project facilities, including siting requirements associated with natural phenomena, and contains specific requirements for furnishing site-related infrastructure utilities and services to the NIF Project conventional facilities and experimental hardware systems. Three candidate sites were identified as potential locations for the NIF Project. However, LLNL has been identified by DOE as the preferred site because of closely related laser experimentation underway at LLNL, the ability to use existing interrelated infrastructure, and other reasons. Selection of a site other than LLNL will entail the acquisition of site improvements and infrastructure additional to those described in this document. This SSDR addresses only the improvements associated with the NIF Project site located at LLNL, including new work and relocation or demolition of existing facilities that interfere with the construction of new facilities. If the Record of Decision for the PEIS on Stockpile Stewardship and Management were to select another site, this SSDR would be revised to reflect the characteristics of the selected site. Other facilities and infrastructure needed to support operation of the NIF, such as those listed below, are existing and available at the LLNL site, and are not included in this SSDR. Office Building. Target Receiving and Inspection. General Assembly Building. Electro- Mechanical Shop. Warehousing and General Storage. Shipping and Receiving. General Stores. Medical Facilities. Cafeteria services. Service Station and Garage. Fire Station. Security and Badging Services

IFMIF, International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility conceptual design activity cost report

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Rennich, M.J.

1996-12-01

This report documents the cost estimate for the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) at the completion of the Conceptual Design Activity (CDA). The estimate corresponds to the design documented in the Final IFMIF CDA Report. In order to effectively involve all the collaborating parties in the development of the estimate, a preparatory meeting was held at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in March 1996 to jointly establish guidelines to insure that the estimate was uniformly prepared while still permitting each country to use customary costing techniques. These guidelines are described in Section 4. A preliminary cost estimate was issued in July 1996 based on the results of the Second Design Integration Meeting, May 20--27, 1996 at JAERI, Tokai, Japan. This document served as the basis for the final costing and review efforts culminating in a final review during the Third IFMIF Design Integration Meeting, October 14--25, 1996, ENEA, Frascati, Italy. The present estimate is a baseline cost estimate which does not apply to a specific site. A revised cost estimate will be prepared following the assignment of both the site and all the facility responsibilities

Performance Assessment Program for the Savannah River Site Liquid Waste Facilities - 13610

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Rosenberger, Kent H. [Savannah River Remediation LLC, Building 705-1C, Aiken, SC 29808 (United States)

2013-07-01

The Liquid Waste facilities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) are operated by Liquid Waste Operations contractor Savannah River Remediation LLC (SRR). A separate Performance Assessment (PA) is prepared to support disposal operations at the Saltstone Disposal Facility and closure evaluations for the two liquid waste tank farm facilities at SRS, F-Tank Farm and H-Tank Farm. A PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified in operations and closure regulatory guidance. The Saltstone Disposal Facility is subject to a State of South Carolina industrial solid waste landfill permit and the tank farms are subject to a state industrial waste water permit. The three Liquid Waste facilities are also subject to a Federal Facility Agreement approved by the State, DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Due to the regulatory structure, a PA is a key technical document reviewed by the DOE, the State of South Carolina and the EPA. As the waste material disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility and the residual material in the closed tank farms is also subject to reclassification prior to closure via a waste determination pursuant to Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is also a reviewing agency for the PAs. Pursuant to the Act, the NRC also has a continuing role to monitor disposal actions to assess compliance with stated performance objectives. The Liquid Waste PA program at SRS represents a continual process over the life of the disposal and closure operations. When the need for a PA or PA revision is identified, the first step is to develop a conceptual model to best represent the facility conditions. The conceptual model will include physical dimensions of the closed system, both the engineered and natural system, and

Performance Assessment Program for the Savannah River Site Liquid Waste Facilities - 13610

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Rosenberger, Kent H.

2013-01-01

The Liquid Waste facilities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) are operated by Liquid Waste Operations contractor Savannah River Remediation LLC (SRR). A separate Performance Assessment (PA) is prepared to support disposal operations at the Saltstone Disposal Facility and closure evaluations for the two liquid waste tank farm facilities at SRS, F-Tank Farm and H-Tank Farm. A PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified in operations and closure regulatory guidance. The Saltstone Disposal Facility is subject to a State of South Carolina industrial solid waste landfill permit and the tank farms are subject to a state industrial waste water permit. The three Liquid Waste facilities are also subject to a Federal Facility Agreement approved by the State, DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Due to the regulatory structure, a PA is a key technical document reviewed by the DOE, the State of South Carolina and the EPA. As the waste material disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility and the residual material in the closed tank farms is also subject to reclassification prior to closure via a waste determination pursuant to Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is also a reviewing agency for the PAs. Pursuant to the Act, the NRC also has a continuing role to monitor disposal actions to assess compliance with stated performance objectives. The Liquid Waste PA program at SRS represents a continual process over the life of the disposal and closure operations. When the need for a PA or PA revision is identified, the first step is to develop a conceptual model to best represent the facility conditions. The conceptual model will include physical dimensions of the closed system, both the engineered and natural system, and modeling

Radiological safety training for accelerator facilities: DOE handbook

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1997-03-01

This program management guide describes the proper implementation standard for core training as outline in the DOE Radiological Control (RadCon) Manual. Its purpose is to assist DOE employees and Managing and Operating (M&O) contractors having responsibility for implementing the core training recommended by the RadCon Manual.

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the tank farm facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Crummel, G.M.

1998-05-18

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill supplemental information to the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE/RL-93-75)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ingle, S.J.

1996-05-01

This document is a unit-specific contingency plan for the Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and is intended to be used as a supplement to DOE/RL-93-75, 'Hanford Facility Contingency Plan.' This unit-specific plan is to be used to demonstrate compliance with the contingency plan requirements of the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-303 for certain Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 waste management units. The Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the 200 East Area at the Hanford Site) was used for disposal of nonradioactive dangerous waste from January 1975 to May 1985. Currently, there are no dangerous waste streams disposed in the Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill. Dangerous waste management activities are no longer required at the landfill. The landfill does not present a significant hazard to adjacent units, personnel, or the environment. It is unlikely that incidents presenting hazards to public health or the environment would occur at the Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill

Equilibrium distribution of hard-sphere systems and revised Enskog theory

NARCIS (Netherlands)

Beijeren, H. van

1983-01-01

A revised Enskog theory (RET) is shown to lead to a correct equilibrium distribution in hard-sphere systems in a stationary external potential, while the standard Enskog theory (SET) does not. Attention is given to the s-component hard-sphere mixture with constant external potential acting on

Radiological safety training for accelerator facilities: DOE handbook

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1997-03-01

This program management guide describes the proper implementation standard for core training as outline in the DOE Radiological Control (RadCon) Manual. Its purpose is to assist DOE employees and Managing and Operating (M ampersand O) contractors having responsibility for implementing the core training recommended by the RadCon Manual

CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

J.F. Beesley

2005-04-21

The purpose of this facility description document (FDD) is to establish requirements and associated bases that drive the design of the Canister Handling Facility (CHF), which will allow the design effort to proceed to license application. This FDD will be revised at strategic points as the design matures. This FDD identifies the requirements and describes the facility design, as it currently exists, with emphasis on attributes of the design provided to meet the requirements. This FDD is an engineering tool for design control; accordingly, the primary audience and users are design engineers. This FDD is part of an iterative design process. It leads the design process with regard to the flowdown of upper tier requirements onto the facility. Knowledge of these requirements is essential in performing the design process. The FDD follows the design with regard to the description of the facility. The description provided in this FDD reflects the current results of the design process.

CANISTER HANDLING FACILITY DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Beesley. J.F.

2005-01-01

The purpose of this facility description document (FDD) is to establish requirements and associated bases that drive the design of the Canister Handling Facility (CHF), which will allow the design effort to proceed to license application. This FDD will be revised at strategic points as the design matures. This FDD identifies the requirements and describes the facility design, as it currently exists, with emphasis on attributes of the design provided to meet the requirements. This FDD is an engineering tool for design control; accordingly, the primary audience and users are design engineers. This FDD is part of an iterative design process. It leads the design process with regard to the flowdown of upper tier requirements onto the facility. Knowledge of these requirements is essential in performing the design process. The FDD follows the design with regard to the description of the facility. The description provided in this FDD reflects the current results of the design process

Quality assurance grading guidelines for research and development at DOE facilities. DOE Order 5700.6C

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Powell, T.B.; Morris, R.N.

1992-10-01

The quality assurance (QA) requirements for the US Department of Energy (DOE) are established in DOE Order 5700.6C. This order is applicable for all DOE departmental elements, management, and maintenance and operating contractors and requires that documented Quality Assurance Programs (QAPS) are prepared at all levels; it has one attachment. The DOE Office of Energy Research (DOE-ER) has issued a standard to ensure implementation of the full intent of this order in the ER community. This report discusses order 5700.6C in relation to research with DOE.

Accident analysis and DOE criteria

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Graf, J.M.; Elder, J.C.

1982-01-01

In analyzing the radiological consequences of major accidents at DOE facilities one finds that many facilities fall so far below the limits of DOE Order 6430 that compliance is easily demonstrated by simple analysis. For those cases where the amount of radioactive material and the dispersive energy available are enough for accident consequences to approach the limits, the models and assumptions used become critical. In some cases the models themselves are the difference between meeting the criteria or not meeting them. Further, in one case, we found that not only did the selection of models determine compliance but the selection of applicable criteria from different chapters of Order 6430 also made the difference. DOE has recognized the problem of different criteria in different chapters applying to one facility, and has proceeded to make changes for the sake of consistency. We have proposed to outline the specific steps needed in an accident analysis and suggest appropriate models, parameters, and assumptions. As a result we feed DOE siting and design criteria will be more fairly and consistently applied

Investigation on candidates of principal facilities for exposure dose to public for the facilities using nuclear material

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Shimazaki, Yosuke; Sawahata, Hiroaki; Takada, Shoji; Fujimoto, Nozomu

2015-01-01

HTTR holds the nuclear fuel material use facilities in its reactor facilities, for the purpose of study on the fracture behavior of fuel and release behavior of fission products, development of high-performance fuel, and measurement of neutron flux. Due to the revision of the 'Act on the regulation of nuclear source material, nuclear fuel material and reactor', the facilities having the 'Important safety-related facilities' among the facilities applicable to the Enforcement Ordinance Article 41 (Article 41 facilities) has come to need to conform to the 'Regulations concerning standards for the location, structure, and equipment of used facilities and others'. In this case, actions such as modification by all possible means are required. The nuclear fuel substance use facilities of HTTR correspond to Article 41 facilities. So, whether it is a candidate for the 'Important safety-related facilities' has been examined. As a result, it is confirmed that the facilities are not correspond to the 'Important safety-related facilities', and it has been concluded that modification measures for the purpose of conforming to this approval standard rule are not necessary as of the present. (A.O.)

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the plutonium-uranium extraction facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Nickels, J.M.; Geiger, J.L.

1992-11-01

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. A facility effluent monitoring plan determination was performed during Calendar Year 1991 and the evaluation requires the need for a facility effluent monitoring plan. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified. in. A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements

Safety Software Guide Perspectives for the Design of New Nuclear Facilities (U)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

VINCENT, Andrew

2005-01-01

In June of this year, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued directives DOE O 414.1C and DOE G 414.1-4 to improve quality assurance programs, processes, and procedures among its safety contractors. Specifically, guidance entitled, ''Safety Software Guide for use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance, DOE G 414.1-4'', provides information and acceptable methods to comply with safety software quality assurance (SQA) requirements. The guidance provides a roadmap for meeting DOE O 414.1C, ''Quality Assurance'', and the quality assurance program (QAP) requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance, for DOE nuclear facilities and software application activities. [1, 2] The order and guide are part of a comprehensive implementation plan that addresses issues and concerns documented in Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2002-1. [3] Safety SQA requirements for DOE as well as National Nuclear Security Administration contractors are necessary to implement effective quality assurance (QA) processes and achieve safe nuclear facility operations. DOE G 414.1-4 was developed to provide guidance on establishing and implementing effective QA processes tied specifically to nuclear facility safety software applications. The Guide includes software application practices covered by appropriate national and international consensus standards and various processes currently in use at DOE facilities. While the safety software guidance is considered to be of sufficient rigor and depth to ensure acceptable reliability of safety software at all DOE nuclear facilities, new nuclear facilities are well suited to take advantage of the guide to ensure compliant programs and processes are implemented. Attributes such as the facility life-cycle stage and the hazardous nature of each facility operations are considered, along with the category and level of importance of the

Functional criteria for emergency response facilities. Technical report (final)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1981-02-01

This report describes the facilities and systems to be used by nuclear power plant licensees to improve responses to emergency situations. The facilities include the Technical Support Center (TSC), Onsite Operational Support Center (OSC), and Nearsite Emergency Operations Facility (EOF), as well as a brief discussion of the emergency response function of the control room. The data systems described are the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) and Nuclear Data Link (NDL). Together, these facilities and systems make up the total Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs). Licensees should follow the guidance provided both in this report and in NUREG-0654 (FEMA-REP-1), Revision 1, for design and implementation of the ERFs

Environmental restoration disposal facility applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements study report. Revision 00

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Roeck, F.V.; Vedder, B.L.; Rugg, J.E.

1995-10-01

The Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) will be a landfill authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and will comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) substantive requirements. The facility will also comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR), including portions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and to-be-considered (TBC) elements such as U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Orders. In considering the requirements of CERCLA, a detailed analysis of various alternatives for ERDF was completed using the nine CERCLA criteria, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and public comments. The ERDF record of decision (ROD) selected an alternative that includes a RCRA-compliant double-lined trench for the disposal of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes resulting from the remediation of operable units (OU) within the National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the 100, 200, and 300 Areas. Only wastes resulting from the remediation of Hanford NPL sites will be allowed in the ERDF. Of the various siting and design alternatives proposed for ERDF, the selected alternative provides the best combination of features by balancing the nine CERCLA criteria, ARAR compliance, environmentally protective site, and various stakeholder and public recommendations. The ERDF trench design, compliant with RCRA Subtitle C minimum technical requirements (MTR), will be double lined and equipped with a leachate collection system. This design provides a more reliable system to protect groundwater than other proposed alternatives. The ERDF is located on the Hanford Site Central Plateau, southeast of the 200 West Area

Decommissioning of surplus facilities at ORNL

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Myrick, T.E.; Coobs, J.H.

1985-01-01

The Surplus Facilities Management Program (SFMP) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is part of the Department of Energy's (DOE) National SFMP, administered by the Richland Operations Office. This program was established to provide for the management of certain DOE surplus radioactively contaminated facilities from the end of their operating life until final facility disposition is completed. As part of this program, the ORNL SFMP oversees some 75 facilities, ranging in complexity from abandoned waste storage tanks to large experimental reactors. This paper describes the scope of the ORNL program and outlines the decommissioning activities currently underway, including a brief description of the decontamination techniques being utilized. 4 refs., 3 figs., 2 tabs

DOE acceptance of commercial mixed waste -- Studies are under way

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Plummer, T.L. [Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC (United States). Technical Support Program; Owens, C.M. [Idaho National Engineering Lab., Idaho Falls, ID (United States). National Low-Level Waste Management Program

1993-03-01

The topic of the Department of Energy acceptance of commercial mixed waste at DOE facilities has been proposed by host States and compact regions that are developing low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. States support the idea of DOE accepting commercial mixed waste because (a) very little commercial mixed waste is generated compared to generation by DOE facilities (Department of Energy--26,300 cubic meters annually vs. commercial--3400 cubic meters annually); (b) estimated costs for commercial disposal are estimated to be $15,000 to $40,000 per cubic foot; (c) once treatment capability becomes available, 70% of the current levels of commercial mixed waste will be eliminated, (d) some State laws prohibit the development of mixed waste disposal facilities in their States; (e) DOE is developing a nationwide strategy that will include treatment and disposal capacity for its own mixed waste and the incremental burden on the DOE facilities would be minuscule, and (6) no States are developing mixed waste disposal facilities. DOE senior management has repeatedly expressed willingness to consider investigating the feasibility of DOE accepting commercial mixed waste. In January 1991, Leo Duffy of the Department of energy met with members of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, which led to an agreement to explore such an arrangement. He stated that this seems like a cost-effective way to solve commercial mixed waste management problems.

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, PUREX storage tunnels

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Price, S.M.

1997-01-01

The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation submitted for individual, operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, such as the PUREX Storage Tunnels (this document, DOE/RL-90-24). Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1996) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needs defined by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology alpha-numeric section identifiers from the permit application guidance documentation (Ecology 1996) follow, in brackets, the chapter headings and subheadings. A checklist indicating where information is contained in the PUREX Storage Tunnels permit application documentation, in relation to the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance, is located in the Contents Section. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in the General Information Portion). Wherever appropriate, the PUREX Storage Tunnels permit application documentation makes cross-reference to the General Information Portion, rather than duplicating text. Information provided in this PUREX Storage Tunnels permit application documentation is current as of April 1997

The Remote Handled Immobilization Low-Activity Waste Disposal Facility Environmental Permits and Approval Plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

DEFFENBAUGH, M.L.

2000-01-01

The purpose of this document is to revise Document HNF-SD-ENV-EE-003, ''Permitting Plan for the Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Project, which was submitted on September 4, 1997. That plan accounted for the interim storage and disposal of Immobilized-Low Activity Waste at the existing Grout Treatment Facility Vaults (Project W-465) and within a newly constructed facility (Project W-520). Project W-520 was to have contained a combination of concrete vaults and trenches. This document supersedes that plan because of two subsequent items: (1) A disposal authorization that was received on October 25, 1999, in a U. S. Department of Energy-Headquarters, memorandum, ''Disposal Authorization Statement for the Department of Energy Hanford site Low-Level Waste Disposal facilities'' and (2) ''Breakthrough Initiative Immobilized Low-Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Alternative,'' August 1999, from Lucas Incorporated, Richland, Washington. The direction within the U. S. Department of Energy-Headquarters memorandum was given as follows: ''The DOE Radioactive Waste Management Order requires that a Disposal authorization statement be obtained prior to construction of new low-level waste disposal facility. Field elements with the existing low-level waste disposal facilities shall obtain a disposal authorization statement in accordance with the schedule in the complex-wide Low-Level Waste Management Program Plan. The disposal authorization statement shall be issued based on a review of the facility's performance assessment and composite analysis or appropriate CERCLA documentation. The disposal authorization shall specify the limits and conditions on construction, design, operations, and closure of the low-level waste facility based on these reviews. A disposal authorization statement is a part of the required radioactive waste management basis for a disposal facility. Failure to obtain a disposal authorization statement or record of decision shall result in shutdown of an operational

Revised hypothesis and future perspectives

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Norsk, P; Drummer, C; Christensen, N J

2001-01-01

Results from space have been unexpected and not predictable from the results of ground-based simulations. Therefore, the concept of how weightlessness and gravity modulates the regulation of body fluids must be revised and a new simulation model developed. The main questions to ask in the future...... are the following: Does weightlessness induce a diuresis and natriuresis during the initial hours of space flight leading to an extracellular and intravascular fluid volume deficit? Can sodium in excess be stored in a hitherto unknown way, particularly during space flight? Why are fluid and sodium retaining systems...

216-A-10 Crib supplemental information to the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan (DOE/RL-93-75)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Ingle, S.J.

1996-05-01

This document is a unit-specific contingency plan for the 216-A-10 Crib. The Crib is a landfill that received process condensate from the 202-A building Plutonium/Uranium Extraction Plant from 1956 to 1987. The crib has not received waste since March 1987 and will be closed under final facility standards. Waste management activities are no longer required at the crib, and it does not present significant hazard to adjacent units, personnel or the environment. It is unlikely that any incidents presenting hazards to the public health or the environment would occur at the 216-A-10 Crib

Radiation safety training for accelerator facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Trinoskey, P.A.

1997-02-01

In November 1992, a working group was formed within the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) accelerator facilities to develop a generic safety training program to meet the basic requirements for individuals working in accelerator facilities. This training, by necessity, includes sections for inserting facility-specific information. The resulting course materials were issued by DOE as a handbook under its technical standards in 1996. Because experimenters may be at a facility for only a short time and often at odd times during the day, the working group felt that computer-based training would be useful. To that end, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) together have developed a computer-based safety training program for accelerator facilities. This interactive course not only enables trainees to receive facility- specific information, but time the training to their schedule and tailor it to their level of expertise

Spent nuclear fuel project cold vacuum drying facility safety equipment list

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

IRWIN, J.J.

1999-01-01

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

Tiger team findings related to DOE environmental restoration activities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Levitan, W.M.

1991-01-01

Tiger Team Assessments were implemented in June 1989 as part of a strategy to ensure that DOE facilities fully comply with Federal, state, local and DOE environment, safety, and health (ES ampersand H) requirements. The Tiger Teams provide the Secretary of Energy with information on current ES ampersand H compliance status of each DOE facility and causes for noncompliance. To date, Tiger Team Assessments have been completed at 25 DOE facilities. With regard to assessments of environmental restoration activities, the performance of DOE facilities was evaluated against the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and DOE Order 5400.4, CERCLA Requirements, among others. Five major categories of environmental restoration-related findings were identified: (1) environmental restoration program planning and management (found at 60 percent of the sites assessed); (2) community relations/administrative record (60 percent); (3) characterization of extent of contamination (56 percent); (4) identification and evaluation of inactive waste sites (56 percent); and (5) DOE and NCP requirements for response action studies (44 percent). Primary causal factors for these findings were inadequate procedures, resources, supervision, and policy implementation

Quality Assurance Grading Guidelines for Research and Development at DOE Facilities (DOE Order 5700.6C)

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Powell, T.B.

1992-01-01

The quality assurance (QA) requirements for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are established in DOE Order 5700.6C. This order is applicable for all DOE departmental elements, management, and maintenance and operating contractors and requires that documented Quality Assurance Programs (QAPs) are prepared at all levels; it has one attachment. The DOE Office of Energy Research (DOE-ER) has issued a standard to ensure implementation of the full intent of this order in the ER community.

A Guide for Equipping Industrial Arts Facilities.

Science.gov (United States)

American Industrial Arts Association, Washington, DC. Equipment Guide Committee.

A guide for planning new and revising existing industrial arts facilities which gives a listing of tools and equipment recommended for each of the major areas of instruction (automotive and power mechanics, ceramics, drafting, electronics, elementary, general shop, graphic arts, metalworking, plastics, and woodworking). General descriptions and…

A cost effective approach for criticality accident analysis of a DOE SNF storage facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Garrett, R.L.; Couture, G.F.; Gough, S.T.

1997-01-01

This paper presents the methodologies used to derive criticality accident analyses for a spent nuclear fuel receipt, storage, handling, and shipping facility. Two criticality events are considered: process-induced and Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH)-induced. The criticality analyses required the development of: (1) the frequency at which each sceanario occurred, (2) the estimated number of fissions for each scenario, and (3) the consequences associated with each criticality scenario. A fault tree analysis was performed to quantify the frequency of criticality due to process-induced events. For the frequency analysis of NPH-induced criticality, a probabilistic approach was employed. To estimate the consequences of a criticality event, the resulting fission yield was determined using a probabilistic approach. For estimating the source term, a 95% amount of overall conservatism was targeted. This methodology applied to the facility criticality scenarios indicated that: (1) the 95th percentile yield levels from the historical yield distributions are approximately 5 x 10 17 fissions and 5 x 10 18 fissions for internal event and NPH-induced criticality event, respectively; and (2) using probabilistic Latin Hypercube Sampling, the downwind 95th percentile dose to a receptor at the US DOE reservation boundary is 2.2 mrem. This estimate is compared to the bounding dose of 1.4 rem. 4 refs., 1 fig

Commercial Light Water Reactor -Tritium Extraction Facility Process Waste Assessment (Project S-6091)

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Hsu, R.H.; Delley, A.O.; Alexander, G.J.; Clark, E.A.; Holder, J.S.; Lutz, R.N.; Malstrom, R.A.; Nobles, B.R. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States); Carson, S.D. [Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, NM (United States); Peterson, P.K. [Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, NM (United States)

1997-11-30

The Savannah River Site (SRS) has been tasked by the Department of Energy (DOE) to design and construct a Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) to process irradiated tritium producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) from a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR). The plan is for the CLWR-TEF to provide tritium to the SRS Replacement Tritium Facility (RTF) in Building 233-H in support of DOE requirements. The CLWR-TEF is being designed to provide 3 kg of new tritium per year, from TPBARS and other sources of tritium (Ref. 1-4).The CLWR TPBAR concept is being developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The TPBAR assemblies will be irradiated in a Commercial Utility light water nuclear reactor and transported to the SRS for tritium extraction and processing at the CLWR-TEF. A Conceptual Design Report for the CLWR-TEF Project was issued in July 1997 (Ref. 4).The scope of this Process Waste Assessment (PWA) will be limited to CLWR-TEF processing of CLWR irradiated TPBARs. Although the CLWR- TEF will also be designed to extract APT tritium-containing materials, they will be excluded at this time to facilitate timely development of this PWA. As with any process, CLWR-TEF waste stream characteristics will depend on process feedstock and contaminant sources. If irradiated APT tritium-containing materials are to be processed in the CLWR-TEF, this PWA should be revised to reflect the introduction of this contaminant source term.

Commercial Light Water Reactor -Tritium Extraction Facility Process Waste Assessment (Project S-6091)

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hsu, R.H.; Delley, A.O.; Alexander, G.J.; Clark, E.A.; Holder, J.S.; Lutz, R.N.; Malstrom, R.A.; Nobles, B.R.; Carson, S.D.; Peterson, P.K.

1997-01-01

The Savannah River Site (SRS) has been tasked by the Department of Energy (DOE) to design and construct a Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) to process irradiated tritium producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) from a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR). The plan is for the CLWR-TEF to provide tritium to the SRS Replacement Tritium Facility (RTF) in Building 233-H in support of DOE requirements. The CLWR-TEF is being designed to provide 3 kg of new tritium per year, from TPBARS and other sources of tritium (Ref. 1-4).The CLWR TPBAR concept is being developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The TPBAR assemblies will be irradiated in a Commercial Utility light water nuclear reactor and transported to the SRS for tritium extraction and processing at the CLWR-TEF. A Conceptual Design Report for the CLWR-TEF Project was issued in July 1997 (Ref. 4).The scope of this Process Waste Assessment (PWA) will be limited to CLWR-TEF processing of CLWR irradiated TPBARs. Although the CLWR- TEF will also be designed to extract APT tritium-containing materials, they will be excluded at this time to facilitate timely development of this PWA. As with any process, CLWR-TEF waste stream characteristics will depend on process feedstock and contaminant sources. If irradiated APT tritium-containing materials are to be processed in the CLWR-TEF, this PWA should be revised to reflect the introduction of this contaminant source term

Procedure for estimating facility decommissioning costs for non-fuel-cycle nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Short, S.M.

1988-01-01

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has been reappraising its regulatory position relative to the decommissioning of nuclear facilities over the last several years. Approximately 30 reports covering the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning reference nuclear facilities have been published during this period in support of this effort. One of these reports, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear Facilities (NUREG/CR-1754), was published in 1981 and was felt by the NRC staff to be outdated. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) was asked by the NRC staff to revise the information provided in this report to reflect the latest information on decommissioning technology and costs and publish the results as an addendum to the previous report. During the course of this study, the NRC staff also asked that PNL provide a simplified procedure for estimating decommissioning costs of non-fuel-cycle nuclear facilities. The purpose being to provide NRC staff with the means to easily generate their own estimate of decommissioning costs for a given facility for comparison against a licensee's submittal. This report presents the procedure developed for use by NRC staff

Hanford Site Groundwater Protection Management Program: Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1993-11-01

Groundwater protection is a national priority that is promulgated in a variety of environmental regulations at local, state, and federal levels. To effectively coordinate and ensure compliance with applicable regulations, the US Department of Energy has issued DOE Order 5400.1 (now under revision) that requires all US Department of Energy facilities to prepare separate groundwater protection program descriptions and plans. This document describes the Groundwater Protection Management Program for the Hanford Site located in the state of Washington. DOE Order 5400.1 specifies that the Groundwater Protection Management Program cover the following general topical areas: (1) documentation of the groundwater regime, (2) design and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to support resource management and comply with applicable laws and regulations, (3) a management program for groundwater protection and remediation, (4) a summary and identification of areas that may be contaminated with hazardous waste, (5) strategies for controlling these sources, (6) a remedial action program, and (7) decontamination and decommissioning and related remedial action requirements. Many of the above elements are covered by existing programs at the Hanford Site; thus, one of the primary purposes of this document is to provide a framework for coordination of existing groundwater protection activities. Additionally, it describes how information needs are identified and can be incorporated into existing or proposed new programs. The Groundwater Protection Management Program provides the general scope, philosophy, and strategies for groundwater protection/management at the Hanford Site. Subtier documents provide the detailed plans for implementing groundwater-related activities and programs. Related schedule and budget information are provided in the 5-year plan for environmental restoration and waste management at the Hanford Site

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, Revision 15

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Burk, Kenneth W.; Cannon, Sandra D.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Reidel, Steve P.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.; Woody, Dave M.

2003-09-01

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

DOE groundwater protection strategy

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lichtman, S.

1988-01-01

EH is developing a DOE-wide Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy to express DOE's commitment to the protection of groundwater quality at or near its facilities. This strategy responds to a September 1986 recommendation of the General Accounting Office. It builds on EPA's August 1984 Ground-Water Protection Strategy, which establishes a classification system designed to protect groundwater according to its value and vulnerability. The purposes of DOE's strategy are to highlight groundwater protection as part of current DOE programs and future Departmental planning, to guide DOE managers in developing site-specific groundwater protection practices where DOE has discretion, and to guide DOE's approach to negotiations with EPA/states where regulatory processes apply to groundwater protection at Departmental facilities. The strategy calls for the prevention of groundwater contamination and the cleanup of groundwater commensurate with its usefulness. It would require long-term groundwater protection with reliance on physical rather than institutional control methods. The strategy provides guidance on providing long-term protection of groundwater resources; standards for new remedial actions;guidance on establishing points of compliance; requirements for establishing classification review area; and general guidance on obtaining variances, where applicable, from regulatory requirements. It also outlines management tools to implement this strategy

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory DOE-STD-3013 Surveillance Program for the Storage of Plutonium Packages

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Riley, D

2005-01-01

This document presents a site-specific DOE-STD-3013 (3013) surveillance program for 3013 material stored at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in the B332 Plutonium Facility. The 3013 standard requires the development of a surveillance program to assure the long-term safety of plutonium storage in 3013 compliant containers. A complex-wide Integrated Surveillance Program in Support of Long-Term Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials (ISP)(LA-UR-00-3246, Revision 1, March 2001) has been developed to give guidance on an acceptable surveillance approach and to set up a mechanism to integrate surveillance activities and facilitate the sharing of lessons learned. This LLNL 3013 surveillance program has been developed following guidelines established for Storage Sites in the ISP and is sufficient for the storage in the LLNL Plutonium Facility. The LLNL 3013 surveillance program must be coupled with the DOE complex wide Materials Identification and Surveillance (MIS) program and the ISP led by Savannah River Site (SRS). These programs support the technical basis for continuing safe storage of plutonium packages and provide the technical basis for the limited scope of the site-specific LLNL 3013 surveillance program. The LLNL 3013 surveillance program calls for surveillance of 3013 packages to begin approximately three years after packaging of the first oxide. One percent of the stored packages per year will be randomly selected and nondestructively examined (NDE) by LLNL per the guidelines of the ISP. Additional packages may be selected for NDE if recommended by the ISP Steering Committee and agreed upon by the MIS Working Group. One selected package will be shipped to SRS for destructive analysis each year starting when SRS can receive them. This is expected to be in FY2007. We expect to store a maximum of 400 3013 packages. This would result in an expected maximum of 4 surveillances per year. The activities outlined in the program evolved from the current

A DOE-STD-3009 hazard and accident analysis methodology for non-reactor nuclear facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

MAHN, JEFFREY A.; WALKER, SHARON ANN

2000-01-01

This paper demonstrates the use of appropriate consequence evaluation criteria in conjunction with generic likelihood of occurrence data to produce consistent hazard analysis results for nonreactor nuclear facility Safety Analysis Reports (SAR). An additional objective is to demonstrate the use of generic likelihood of occurrence data as a means for deriving defendable accident sequence frequencies, thereby enabling the screening of potentially incredible events ( -6 per year) from the design basis accident envelope. Generic likelihood of occurrence data has been used successfully in performing SAR hazard and accident analyses for two nonreactor nuclear facilities at Sandia National Laboratories. DOE-STD-3009-94 addresses and even encourages use of a qualitative binning technique for deriving and ranking nonreactor nuclear facility risks. However, qualitative techniques invariably lead to reviewer requests for more details associated with consequence or likelihood of occurrence bin assignments in the test of the SAR. Hazard analysis data displayed in simple worksheet format generally elicits questions about not only the assumptions behind the data, but also the quantitative bases for the assumptions themselves (engineering judgment may not be considered sufficient by some reviewers). This is especially true where the criteria for qualitative binning of likelihood of occurrence involves numerical ranges. Oftentimes reviewers want to see calculations or at least a discussion of event frequencies or failure probabilities to support likelihood of occurrence bin assignments. This may become a significant point of contention for events that have been binned as incredible. This paper will show how the use of readily available generic data can avoid many of the reviewer questions that will inevitably arise from strictly qualitative analyses, while not significantly increasing the overall burden on the analyst

77 FR 3389 - Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants...

Science.gov (United States)

2012-01-24

... Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants, State of West Virginia; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units, Plan Revision... final action to approve a revision to the West Virginia hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator...

77 FR 3422 - Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants...

Science.gov (United States)

2012-01-24

... Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of West Virginia; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units, Plan Revision... revision to the West Virginia hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) Section 111(d)/ 129...

Arctic Atmospheric Measurements Using Manned and Unmanned Aircraft, Tethered Balloons, and Ground-Based Systems at U.S. DOE ARM Facilities on the North Slope Of Alaska

Science.gov (United States)

Ivey, M.; Dexheimer, D.; Roesler, E. L.; Hillman, B. R.; Hardesty, J. O.

2016-12-01

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides scientific infrastructure and data to the international Arctic research community via research sites located on the North Slope of Alaska and an open data archive maintained by the ARM program. In 2016, DOE continued investments in improvements to facilities and infrastructure at Oliktok Point Alaska to support operations of ground-based facilities and unmanned aerial systems for science missions in the Arctic. The Third ARM Mobile Facility, AMF3, now deployed at Oliktok Point, was further expanded in 2016. Tethered instrumented balloons were used at Oliktok to make measurements of clouds in the boundary layer including mixed-phase clouds and to compare measurements with those from the ground and from unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace above AMF3. The ARM facility at Oliktok Point includes Special Use Airspace. A Restricted Area, R-2204, is located at Oliktok Point. Roughly 4 miles in diameter, it facilitates operations of tethered balloons and unmanned aircraft. R-2204 and a new Warning Area north of Oliktok, W-220, are managed by Sandia National Laboratories for DOE Office of Science/BER. These Special Use Airspaces have been successfully used to launch and operate unmanned aircraft over the Arctic Ocean and in international airspace north of Oliktok Point.A steady progression towards routine operations of unmanned aircraft and tethered balloon systems continues at Oliktok. Small unmanned aircraft (DataHawks) and tethered balloons were successfully flown at Oliktok starting in June of 2016. This poster will discuss how principal investigators may apply for use of these Special Use Airspaces, acquire data from the Third ARM Mobile Facility, or bring their own instrumentation for deployment at Oliktok Point, Alaska.

DRY TRANSFER FACILITY CRITICALITY SAFETY CALCULATIONS

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

C.E. Sanders

2005-01-01

This design calculation updates the previous criticality evaluation for the fuel handling, transfer, and staging operations to be performed in the Dry Transfer Facility (DTF) including the remediation area. The purpose of the calculation is to demonstrate that operations performed in the DTF and RF meet the nuclear criticality safety design criteria specified in the ''Project Design Criteria (PDC) Document'' (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171599], Section 4.9.2.2), the nuclear facility safety requirement in ''Project Requirements Document'' (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], p. 4-206), the functional/operational nuclear safety requirement in the ''Project Functional and Operational Requirements'' document (Curry 2004 [DIRS 170557], p. 75), and the functional nuclear criticality safety requirements described in the ''Dry Transfer Facility Description Document'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 173737], p. 3-8). A description of the changes is as follows: (1) Update the supporting calculations for the various Category 1 and 2 event sequences as identified in the ''Categorization of Event Sequences for License Application'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 171429], Section 7). (2) Update the criticality safety calculations for the DTF staging racks and the remediation pool to reflect the current design. This design calculation focuses on commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies, i.e., pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) SNF. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) owned SNF is evaluated in depth in the ''Canister Handling Facility Criticality Safety Calculations'' (BSC 2005 [DIRS 173284]) and is also applicable to DTF operations. Further, the design and safety analyses of the naval SNF canisters are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of the Navy (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) and will not be included in this document. Also, note that the results for the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR) Site specific Cask (MSC) calculations are limited to the

Non-Power Reactor Operator Licensing Examiner Standards. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-06-01

The Non-Power Reactor Operator Licensing Examiner Standards provide policy and guidance to NRC examiners and establish the procedures and practices for examining and licensing of applicants for NRC operator licenses pursuant to Part 55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 55). They are intended to assist NRC examiners and facility licensees to understand the examination process better and to provide for equitable and consistent administration of examinations to all applicants by NRC examiners. These standards are not a substitute for the operator licensing regulations and are subject to revision or other internal operator examination licensing policy changes. As appropriate, these standards will be revised periodically to accommodate comments and reflect new information or experience

Non-Power Reactor Operator Licensing Examiner Standards. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-06-01

The Non-Power Reactor Operator Licensing Examiner Standards provide policy and guidance to NRC examiners and establish the procedures and practices for examining and licensing of applicants for NRC operator licenses pursuant to Part 55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 55). They are intended to assist NRC examiners and facility licensees to understand the examination process better and to provide for equitable and consistent administration of examinations to all applicants by NRC examiners. These standards are not a substitute for the operator licensing regulations and are subject to revision or other internal operator examination licensing policy changes. As appropriate, these standards will be revised periodically to accommodate comments and reflect new information or experience.

Guide to good practices for on-the-job training. DOE guideline

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

1992-07-01

The purpose of the Department of Energy (DOE) Guide to Good Practices for On-the-Job Training (OJT) is to provide DOE contractor organizations with information that can be used to modify existing programs or to develop new programs. This guide replaces the Guide to Good Practices for On-the-Job Training that was distributed to DOE and DOE contractors in 1987. DOE contractors should not feel obligated to adopt all parts of this guide. Rather, they can use the information in this guide to develop programs that apply to their facility. This guide can be used as an aid in the design and development of a facility`s OJT programs and to assist the instructors who conduct OJT and performance tests in the areas of facility operations, maintenance, and technical supports.

Radiological Control Technician: Phase 4, Facility practical training attachment

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1992-10-01

At DOE sites with more than one facility, and where RCT tasks at each facility may differ, site and facility tasks should be separated. The tasks that are common to all the facilities on the site should be included in Phase II training with the core tasks. Tasks unique to a facility should be added to the training program qualification standard, as an attachment, as Phase IV training. Not all the DOE sites will include Phase IV training in their programs. Phase IV training allows each site to qualify technicians to a select facility. Since the core training for the technicians is standardized, the transfer of technicians between facilities requires that only facility tasks be taught, provided the core qualification is current

Information needs critical to implementing the Federal Facility Compliance Act

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Rasch, D.N. [Department of Energy-Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Kristofferson, K. [WINCO/INEL, Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Eaton, D.L. [EG& G Idaho/INEL, Idaho Falls, ID (United States)] [and others

1994-12-31

The presented paper summarizes the current status of data collection completed to support the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) Interim Mixed Waste Inventory Report (IMWIR), current needs, and related lessons learned. The Department of Energy (DOE), as required in Section 3021 of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), is required to prepare waste inventory reports, treatment reports and treatment plans. With this extensive effort, formulation of these requirements has required extensive data collection, validation and revision efforts. The framework for supporting these data needs has been enhanced by establishing a core database capable of supporting the required IMWIR, and has provided the basis for development of the Conceptual Site Treatment Plan (CSTP). The development of the CSTP has shown a need for complex wide standardized information that will ultimately become the basis for major land disposal restriction (LDR) activities such as; site treatment, equity resolution, consent agreement and continued capability to respond to stakeholder requests. DOE is in a position to dramatically demonstrate to the public and the states that mixed waste treatment can be cost effectively realized. To accomplish this program successfully will require use of existing data and expertise. This effort will be enhanced by implementation of basic system management processes which focus on completion of a mutually agreed to goal.

CHARACTERIZING DOE HANFORD SITE WASTE ENCAPSULATION STORAGE FACILITY CELLS USING RADBALL

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Farfan, E.; Coleman, R.

2011-03-31

RadBall{trademark} is a novel technology that can locate and quantify unknown radioactive hazards within contaminated areas, hot cells, and gloveboxes. The device consists of a colander-like outer tungsten collimator that houses a radiation-sensitive polymer semi-sphere. The collimator has a number of small holes with tungsten inserts; as a result, specific areas of the polymer are exposed to radiation becoming increasingly more opaque in proportion to the absorbed dose. The polymer semi-sphere is imaged in an optical computed tomography scanner that produces a high resolution 3D map of optical attenuation coefficients. A subsequent analysis of the optical attenuation data using a reverse ray tracing or backprojection technique provides information on the spatial distribution of gamma-ray sources in a given area forming a 3D characterization of the area of interest. RadBall{trademark} was originally designed for dry deployments and several tests, completed at Savannah River National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, substantiate its modeled capabilities. This study involves the investigation of the RadBall{trademark} technology during four submerged deployments in two water filled cells at the DOE Hanford Site's Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

Isotopes facilities deactivation project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Eversole, R.E.

1997-01-01

The production and distribution of radioisotopes for medical, scientific, and industrial applications has been a major activity at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) since the late 1940s. As the demand for many of these isotopes grew and their sale became profitable, the technology for the production of the isotopes was transferred to private industry, and thus, many of the production facilities at ORNL became underutilized. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) instructed ORNL to identify and prepare various isotopes production facilities for safe shutdown. In response, ORNL identified 19 candidate facilities for shutdown and established the Isotopes Facilities Shutdown Program. In 1993, responsibility for the program was transitioned from the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy to the DOE Office of Environmental Management and Uranium Enrichment Operation's Office of Facility Transition and Management. The program was retitled the Isotopes Facilities Deactivation Project (IFDP), and implementation responsibility was transferred from ORNL to the Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. (LMES), Environmental Restoration (ER) Program

Isotopes facilities deactivation project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Eversole, R.E.

1997-05-01

The production and distribution of radioisotopes for medical, scientific, and industrial applications has been a major activity at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) since the late 1940s. As the demand for many of these isotopes grew and their sale became profitable, the technology for the production of the isotopes was transferred to private industry, and thus, many of the production facilities at ORNL became underutilized. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) instructed ORNL to identify and prepare various isotopes production facilities for safe shutdown. In response, ORNL identified 19 candidate facilities for shutdown and established the Isotopes Facilities Shutdown Program. In 1993, responsibility for the program was transitioned from the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy to the DOE Office of Environmental Management and Uranium Enrichment Operation`s Office of Facility Transition and Management. The program was retitled the Isotopes Facilities Deactivation Project (IFDP), and implementation responsibility was transferred from ORNL to the Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. (LMES), Environmental Restoration (ER) Program.

The Mixed Waste Management Facility. Preliminary design review

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-01-01

This document presents information about the Mixed Waste Management Facility. Topics discussed include: cost and schedule baseline for the completion of the project; evaluation of alternative options; transportation of radioactive wastes to the facility; capital risk associated with incineration; radioactive waste processing; scaling of the pilot-scale system; waste streams to be processed; molten salt oxidation; feed preparation; initial operation to demonstrate selected technologies; floorplans; baseline revisions; preliminary design baseline; cost reduction; and project mission and milestones

New instrument calibration facility for the DOE Savannah River Site

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Wilkie, W.H.; Polz, E.J. [Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC (United States)

1993-12-31

A new laboratory facility is being designed, constructed, and equipped at the Savannah River Site (SRS) as a fiscal year 1992 line item project. This facility will provide space and equipment for test, evaluation, repair, maintenance, and calibration of radiation monitoring instrumentation. The project will replace an obsolete facility and will allow implementation of program upgrades necessary to meet ANSI N323 requirements and National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) criteria for accreditation of federally owned secondary calibration laboratories. An outline of the project is presented including description, scope, cost, management organization, chronology, and current status. Selected design criteria and their impacts on the project are discussed. The upgraded SRS calibration program is described, and important features of the new facility and equipment that will accommodate this program are listed. The floor plan for the facility is shown, and equipment summaries and functional descriptions for each area are provided.

New instrument calibration facility for the DOE Savannah River Site

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Wilkie, W.H.; Polz, E.J.

1993-01-01

A new laboratory facility is being designed, constructed, and equipped at the Savannah River Site (SRS) as a fiscal year 1992 line item project. This facility will provide space and equipment for test, evaluation, repair, maintenance, and calibration of radiation monitoring instrumentation. The project will replace an obsolete facility and will allow implementation of program upgrades necessary to meet ANSI N323 requirements and National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) criteria for accreditation of federally owned secondary calibration laboratories. An outline of the project is presented including description, scope, cost, management organization, chronology, and current status. Selected design criteria and their impacts on the project are discussed. The upgraded SRS calibration program is described, and important features of the new facility and equipment that will accommodate this program are listed. The floor plan for the facility is shown, and equipment summaries and functional descriptions for each area are provided

DOE Chair of Excellence in Environmental Disciplines-Final Technical Report

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Kurunganty, Sastry; Loran, Roberto; Roque-Malherbe, Rolando; Hijazi, Yazan; Nieto, Santander; Gomez, Will A.; Duconge, Jose; Cotto, María del C.; Muniz, Carlos; Diaz, Francisco J.; Neira, Carlos F.; Marquez, Francisco; Del Valle, W.; Thommes, M.

2014-02-19

The report Massie Chair of Excellence Program at Universidad del Turabo, contract DE-FG02-95EW12610, during the period of 9/29/1995 to 9/29/2011. The initial program aims included development of academic programs in the Environmental Sciences and Engineering, and Research and Development focused initially on environmentally friendly processes and later revised also include: renewable energy and international cooperation. From 1995 -2005, the Program at UT lead the establishment of the new undergraduate program in electrical engineering at the School of Engineering (SoE), worked on requirements to achieve ABET accreditation of the SoE B.S. Mechanical Engineering and B.S. Electrical Engineering programs, mentored junior faculty, taught undergraduate courses in electrical engineering, and revised the electrical engineering curriculum. Engineering undergraduate laboratories were designed and developed. The following research sub-project was developed: Research and development of new perovskite-alumina hydrogen permeable asymmetrical nanostructured membranes for hydrogen purification, and extremely high specific surface area silica materials for hydrogen storage in the form of ammonia, Dr. Rolando Roque-Malherbe Subproject PI, Dr. Santander Nieto and Mr. Will Gómez Research Assistants. In 2006, the Massie Chair of Excellence Program was transferred to the National Nuclear Security Agency, NNSA and DNN. DoE required a revised proposal aligned with the priorities of the Administration. The revised approved program aims included: (1) Research (2) Student Development: promote the development of minority undergraduate and graduate students through research teams, internships, conferences, new courses; and, (3) Support: (a) Research administration and (b) Dissemination through international conferences, the UT Distinguished Lecturer Series in STEM fields and at the annual Universidad del Turabo (UT) Researchers Conference. Research included: Sub-Project 1: Synthesis and

Methods and results of implementing a commercially available videotaped health physics training program in a multi-disciplined DOE facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

O'Neal, B.L.

1979-01-01

Sandia, a prime contractor for DOE, is a multi-disciplined research and development laboratory. Its various activities include the operations of two nuclear reactors, several multi-kilocurie gamma irradiation facilities, a transuranic hot cell facility, various and numerous particle accelerators and x-ray generators, and many other areas involving employees working with or around radioactive materials or radiation producing machines. Since March 1979, Sandia has conducted a formalized basic radiation safety training program using a commercially available videotaped training package. The videotapes are generic in nature and are accompanied with hard copy text material, vu-graphs, quizzes, and an instructor's guide. Sandia's overall training program and the methods, results, and problem areas of implementing an off the shelf, commercially available videotaped training program are described. Results are summarized using an instructor/course/student evaluation form

Environmental assessment of the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center Facility

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-10-01

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to determine if the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center (the Center), or its alternatives would have significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement. DOE`s proposed action is to continue funding the Center. While DOE is not funding construction of the planned Center facility, operation of that facility is dependent upon continued funding. To implement the proposed action, the Center would initially construct a facility of approximately 2,300 square meters (25,000 square feet). The Phase 1 laboratory facilities and parking lot will occupy approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of approximately 8.9 hectares (22 acres) of land which were donated to New Mexico State University (NMSU) for this purpose. The facility would contain laboratories to analyze chemical and radioactive materials typical of potential contaminants that could occur in the environment in the vicinity of the DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site or other locations. The facility also would have bioassay facilities to measure radionuclide levels in the general population and in employees of the WIPP. Operation of the Center would meet the DOE requirement for independent monitoring and assessment of environmental impacts associated with the planned disposal of transuranic waste at the WIPP.

Revising Translations

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch; Schjoldager, Anne

2011-01-01

The paper explains the theoretical background and findings of an empirical study of revision policies, using Denmark as a case in point. After an overview of important definitions, types and parameters, the paper explains the methods and data gathered from a questionnaire survey and an interview...... survey. Results clearly show that most translation companies regard both unilingual and comparative revisions as essential components of professional quality assurance. Data indicate that revision is rarely fully comparative, as the preferred procedure seems to be a unilingual revision followed by a more...... or less comparative rereading. Though questionnaire data seem to indicate that translation companies use linguistic correctness and presentation as the only revision parameters, interview data reveal that textual and communicative aspects are also considered. Generally speaking, revision is not carried...

Optically-based Sensor System for Critical Nuclear Facilities Post-Event Seismic Structural Assessment

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

McCallen, David [Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States); Petrone, Floriana [Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States); Buckle, Ian [Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV (United States); Wu, Suiwen [Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV (United States); Coates, Jason [California State Univ., Chico, CA (United States)

2017-09-30

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has ownership and operational responsibility for a large enterprise of nuclear facilities that provide essential functions to DOE missions ranging from national security to discovery science and energy research. These facilities support a number of DOE programs and offices including the National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Science, and Office of Environmental Management. With many unique and “one of a kind” functions, these facilities represent a tremendous national investment, and assuring their safety and integrity is fundamental to the success of a breadth of DOE programs. Many DOE critical facilities are located in regions with significant natural phenomenon hazards including major earthquakes and DOE has been a leader in developing standards for the seismic analysis of nuclear facilities. Attaining and sustaining excellence in nuclear facility design and management must be a core competency of the DOE. An important part of nuclear facility management is the ability to monitor facilities and rapidly assess the response and integrity of the facilities after any major upset event. Experience in the western U.S. has shown that understanding facility integrity after a major earthquake is a significant challenge which, lacking key data, can require extensive effort and significant time. In the work described in the attached report, a transformational approach to earthquake monitoring of facilities is described and demonstrated. An entirely new type of optically-based sensor that can directly and accurately measure the earthquake-induced deformations of a critical facility has been developed and tested. This report summarizes large-scale shake table testing of the sensor concept on a representative steel frame building structure, and provides quantitative data on the accuracy of the sensor measurements.

Transition projects, Fiscal Year 1996: Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) for WBS 1.31, 7.1, and 6.13. Revision 1, Volume 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Cartmell, D.B.

1995-09-01

Based on US Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) review, specific areas of Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), Transition Projects ``Draft`` Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) were revised in preparation for the RL approval ceremony on September 26, 1995. These changes were reviewed with the appropriate RL Project Manager. The changes have been incorporated to the MYPP electronic file, and hard copies replacing the ``Draft`` MYPP will be distributed after the formal signing. In addition to the comments received, a summary level schedule and outyear estimates for the K Basin deactivation beginning in FY 2001 have been included. The K Basin outyear waste data is nearing completion this week and will be incorporated. This exclusion was discussed with Mr. N.D. Moorer, RL, Facility Transition Program Support/Integration. The attached MYPP scope/schedule reflects the Integrated Target Case submitted in the April 1995 Activity Data Sheets (ADS) with the exception of B Plant and the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP). The 8 Plant assumption in FY 1997 reflects the planning case in the FY 1997 ADS with a shortfall of $5 million. PFP assumptions have been revised from the FY 1997 ADS based on the direction provided this past summer by DOE-Headquarters. This includes the acceleration of the polycube stabilization back to its originally planned completion date. Although the overall program repricing in FY 1996 allowed the scheduled acceleration to fall with the funding allocation, the FY 1997 total reflects a shortfall of $6 million.

Transition projects, Fiscal Year 1996: Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) for WBS 1.31, 7.1, and 6.13. Revision 1, Volume 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Cartmell, D.B.

1995-09-01

Based on US Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) review, specific areas of Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), Transition Projects ''Draft'' Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) were revised in preparation for the RL approval ceremony on September 26, 1995. These changes were reviewed with the appropriate RL Project Manager. The changes have been incorporated to the MYPP electronic file, and hard copies replacing the ''Draft'' MYPP will be distributed after the formal signing. In addition to the comments received, a summary level schedule and outyear estimates for the K Basin deactivation beginning in FY 2001 have been included. The K Basin outyear waste data is nearing completion this week and will be incorporated. This exclusion was discussed with Mr. N.D. Moorer, RL, Facility Transition Program Support/Integration. The attached MYPP scope/schedule reflects the Integrated Target Case submitted in the April 1995 Activity Data Sheets (ADS) with the exception of B Plant and the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP). The 8 Plant assumption in FY 1997 reflects the planning case in the FY 1997 ADS with a shortfall of $5 million. PFP assumptions have been revised from the FY 1997 ADS based on the direction provided this past summer by DOE-Headquarters. This includes the acceleration of the polycube stabilization back to its originally planned completion date. Although the overall program repricing in FY 1996 allowed the scheduled acceleration to fall with the funding allocation, the FY 1997 total reflects a shortfall of $6 million

Nevada Test Site Site Treatment Plan. Revision 2

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1996-03-01

Treatment Plans (STPS) are required for facilities at which the US Department of Energy (DOE) or stores mixed waste, defined by the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCAct) as waste containing both a hazardous waste subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and a radioactive material subject to the Atomic Energy Act. On April 6, 1993, DOE published a Federal Register notice (58 FR 17875) describing its proposed process for developing the STPs in three phases including a Conceptual, a Draft, and a Proposed Site Treatment Plan (PSTP). All of the DOE Nevada Operations Office STP iterations have been developed with the state of Nevada's input. The options and schedules reflect a ''bottoms-up'' approach and have been evaluated for impacts on other DOE sites, as well as impacts to the overall DOE program. Changes may have occurred in the preferred option and associated schedules between the PSTP, which was submitted to the state of Nevada and US Environmental Protection Agency April 1995, and the Final STP (hereafter referred to as the STP) as treatment evaluations progressed. The STP includes changes that have occurred since the submittal of the PSTP as a result of state-to-state and DOE-to-state discussions

The regulatory approach for spent nuclear storage and conditioning facility: The Hanford example

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Sellers, E.D.; Mooers, G.C. III; Daschke, K.D.; Driggers, S.A.; Timmins, D.C.

1996-01-01

Hearings held before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in March 1994, requested that officials of federal agencies and other experts explore options for providing regulatory oversight of the US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities and operations. On January, 25, 1995, the DOE, supported by the White House Office of Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget, formally initiated an Advisory Committee on External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Safety. In concert with this initiative and public opinion, the DOE Richland Operations Office has initiated the K Basin Spent Nuclear Fuel Project -- Regulatory Policy. The DOE has established a program to move the spent nuclear fuel presently stored in the K Basins to a new storage facility located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. New facilities will be designed and constructed for safe conditioning and interim storage of the fuel. In implementing this Policy, DOE endeavors to achieve in these new facilities ''nuclear safety equivalency'' to comparable US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed facilities. The DOE has established this Policy to take a proactive approach to better align its facilities to the requirements of the NRC, anticipating the future possibility of external regulation. The Policy, supplemented by other DOE rules and directives, form the foundation of an enhanced regulatory, program that will be implemented through the DOE K Basin Spent Nuclear Fuel Project (the Project)

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1991-01-01

This document, Set 2, the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Part B Permit Application, consists of 15 chapters that address the content of the Part B checklists prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR 270), with additional information requirements mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and revisions of WAC 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology checklist section numbers, in brackets, follow the chapter headings and subheadings. This permit application contains ''umbrella- type'' documentation with overall application to the Hanford Facility. This documentation is broad in nature and applies to all TSD units that have final status under the Hanford Facility Permit

Solid waste integrated forecast technical (SWIFT) report: FY1997 to FY 2070, Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Valero, O.J.

1997-01-01

This web site provides an up-to-date report on the radioactive solid waste expected to be managed by Hanford's Waste Management (WM) Project from onsite and offsite generators. It includes: an overview of Hanford-wide solid waste to be managed by the WM Project; program-level and waste class-specific estimates; background information on waste sources; and comparisons with previous forecasts and with other national data sources. This web site does not include: liquid waste (current or future generation); waste to be managed by the Environmental Restoration (EM-40) contractor (i.e., waste that will be disposed of at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)); or waste that has been received by the WM Project to date (i.e., inventory waste). The focus of this web site is on low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and transuranic waste (both non-mixed and mixed) (TRU(M)). Some details on low-level waste and hazardous waste are also provided. Currently, this web site is reporting data that was requested on 10/14/96 and submitted on 10/25/96. The data represent a life cycle forecast covering all reported activities from FY97 through the end of each program's life cycle. Therefore, these data represent revisions from the previous FY97.0 Data Version, due primarily to revised estimates from PNNL. There is some useful information about the structure of this report in the SWIFT Report Web Site Overview

Performance assessment review guide for DOE low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dodge, R.L.; Hansen, W.R.; Kennedy, W.E. Jr.; Layton, D.W.; Lee, D.W.; Maheras, S.T.; Neuder, S.M.; Wilhite, E.L.; Curl, R.U.; Grahn, K.F.; Heath, B.A.; Turner, K.H.

1991-10-01

This report was prepared under the direction of the Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel. The intent is to help Department of Energy sites prepare performance assessments that meet the Panel's expectations in terms of detail, quality, content, and consistency. Information on the Panel review process and philosophy are provided, as well as important technical issues that will be focused on during a review. This guidance is not intended to provide a detailed review plan as in NUREG-1200, Standard Review Plan for Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (January 1988). The focus and intent of the Panel's reviews differ significantly from a regulatory review. The review of a performance assessment by the Panel uses the collective professional judgment of the members to ascertain that the approach taken the methodology used, the assumptions made, etc., are technically sound and adequately justified. The results of the Panel's review will be used by Department of Energy Headquarters in determining compliance with the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A, ''Radioactive Waste Management.''

Faith and Ethics, Covenant and Code: The 2015 Revision of the ANA Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements.

Science.gov (United States)

Fowler, Marsha D

How does and should the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements, with foundations from the late 1800s, impact today's nursing practice? How can the Code help you? The earlier 2001 Code was revised and became effective January 2015. The nine provisions received modest revision, as did the corresponding interpretive statements. However, Provisions 8 and 9 and their interpretive statements received more substantial revision. This article explains the Code and summarizes the 2015 revisions, considering points of particular interest for nurses of faith.

34 CFR 104.22 - Existing facilities.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

... 34 Education 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Existing facilities. 104.22 Section 104.22 Education... Accessibility § 104.22 Existing facilities. (a) Accessibility. A recipient shall operate its program or activity.... This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a...

[DOE method for evaluating environmental and waste management samples: Revision 1, Addendum 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Goheen, S.C.

1995-04-01

The US Dapartment of Energy`s (DOE`s) environmental and waste management (EM) sampling and analysis activities require that large numbers of samples be analyzed for materials characterization, environmental surveillance, and site-remediation programs. The present document, DOE Methods for Evaluating Environmental and Waste Management Samples (DOE Methods), is a supplemental resource for analyzing many of these samples.

Commercial treatability study capabilities for application to the US Department of Energy`s anticipated mixed waste streams. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1996-09-01

US DOE mixed low-level and mixed transuranic waste inventory was estimated at 181,000 cubic meters (about 2,000 waste streams). Treatability studies may be used as part of DOE`s mixed waste management program. Commercial treatability study suppliers have been identified that either have current capability in their own facilities or have access to licensed facilities. Numerous federal and state regulations, as well as DOE Order 5820.2A, impact the performance of treatability studies. Generators, transporters, and treatability study facilities are subject to regulation. From a mixed- waste standpoint, a key requirement is that the treatability study facility must have an NRC or state license that allows it to possess radioactive materials. From a RCRA perspective, the facility must support treatability study activities with the applicable plans, reports, and documentation. If PCBs are present in the waste, TSCA will also be an issue. CERCLA requirements may apply, and both DOE and NRC regulations will impact the transportation of DOE mixed waste to an off-site treatment facility. DOE waste managers will need to be cognizant of all applicable regulations as mixed-waste treatability study programs are initiated.

77 FR 13200 - Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

Science.gov (United States)

2012-03-06

... Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA... December 26, 1984 (49 FR 48300), to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management Program. This... Waste 53478, September Annotated Sections Management facilities. 8, 2005. 5.103 and 5.105 (Checklist 210...

A guide for determining compliance with the Clean Air Act Standards for radionuclide emissions from NRC-licensed and non-DOE federal facilities (Rev. 1)

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1989-10-01

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued standards under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act of February 6, 1985 that limit airborne emissions of radionuclides to the atmosphere. In February 1989 these standards were re proposed , and in November 1989 final standards may be promulgated. This document provides guidance for determining compliance with one of the National Emissions for Hazardous Air Pollutants covering facilities that are licensed by NRC, and federal facilities not operated by the DOE, that could emit radionuclides to the ai00.

West Valley Demonstration Project facilities utilization plan for the existing facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Skillern, C.G.

1986-05-01

In 1980, Congress passed Public Law 96-368, the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act. As a primary objective, the Act authorized the US Department of Energy (DOE) to solidify the high-level waste (HLW) stored at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC) into a form suitable for transportation and disposal in a federal repository. This report will describe how WVDP proposes to use the existing WNYNSC Facilities in an efficient and technically effective manner to comply with Public Law 96-368. In support of the above cited law, the DOE has entered into a ''Cooperative agreement between the United States Department of Energy and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, New York.'' The state-owned areas turned over to the DOE for use are as follows: Process Plant, Waste Storage, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility, Service Facilities, Plant Security, and Additional Facilities. The Facilities Utilization Plan (FUP) describes how the state-owned facilities will be utilized to complete the Project; it is divided into five sections as follows: Executive Summary - an overview; Introduction - the WVDP approach to utilizing the WNYNSC Facilities; WVDP Systems - a brief functional description of the system, list of equipment and components to be used and decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) support; WVDP Support Facilities; and Caveats that could effect or change the potential usage of a particular area

Revised accident source terms for light-water reactors

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Soffer, L. [Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States)

1995-02-01

This paper presents revised accident source terms for light-water reactors incorporating the severe accident research insights gained in this area over the last 15 years. Current LWR reactor accident source terms used for licensing date from 1962 and are contained in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4. These specify that 100% of the core inventory of noble gases and 25% of the iodine fission products are assumed to be instantaneously available for release from the containment. The chemical form of the iodine fission products is also assumed to be predominantly elemental iodine. These assumptions have strongly affected present nuclear air cleaning requirements by emphasizing rapid actuation of spray systems and filtration systems optimized to retain elemental iodine. A proposed revision of reactor accident source terms and some im implications for nuclear air cleaning requirements was presented at the 22nd DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference. A draft report was issued by the NRC for comment in July 1992. Extensive comments were received, with the most significant comments involving (a) release fractions for both volatile and non-volatile species in the early in-vessel release phase, (b) gap release fractions of the noble gases, iodine and cesium, and (c) the timing and duration for the release phases. The final source term report is expected to be issued in late 1994. Although the revised source terms are intended primarily for future plants, current nuclear power plants may request use of revised accident source term insights as well in licensing. This paper emphasizes additional information obtained since the 22nd Conference, including studies on fission product removal mechanisms, results obtained from improved severe accident code calculations and resolution of major comments, and their impact upon the revised accident source terms. Revised accident source terms for both BWRS and PWRS are presented.

78 FR 59661 - Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection for the State Energy Program

Science.gov (United States)

2013-09-27

... the final version of the information collection request. The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public... information collection requests a revision and three-year extension of its State Energy Program, OMB Control...

Facility effluent monitoring plan for the 2724-W Protective Equipment Decontamination Facility

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Nickels, J.M.; Lavey, G.H.

1992-12-01

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the US Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1* for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could impact employee or public safety or the environment. A facility effluent monitoring plan determination was performed during Calendar Year 1991 and the evaluation requires the need for a facility effluent monitoring plan. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438**. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements

National Synchrotron Light Source Facility Manual Maintenance Management Program. Revision 1

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Fewell, N.

1993-12-01

The purpose of this program s to meet the policy and objectives for the management and performance of cost-effective maintenance and repair of the National Synchrotron Light Source, as required by the US Department of Energy order DOE 433O.4A. It is the DOE`s policy that: The maintenance management program for the NSLS be consistent with this Order and that NSLS property is maintained in a manner which promotes operational safety, worker health, environmental protection and compliance, property preservation, and cost-effectiveness while meeting the NSLS`s programmatic mission. Structures, components and systems (active and passive) that are imporant to safe operation of the NSLS shall be subject to a maintenance program to ensure that they meet or exceed their design requirements throughout the life of the NSLS. Periodic examination of structures, systems components and equipment be performed to determine deterioration or technical obsolescence which may threaten performance and/or safety. Primary responsibility, authority, and accountability for the direction and management of the maintenance program at the NSLS reside with the line management assigned direct programmatic responsibility. Budgeting and accounting for maintenance programs are consistent with DOE Orders guidance.

Report on DOE labs takes aim at cleanup

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Anon.

1995-01-01

This article is a review of the Galvin report on the environmental restoration activities at DOE nuclear facilities. The report is highly critical of DOE efforts, calling for a management overhaul and partial privitization of some facilities. Urging that the facilities be more integrated into the environmental management program, the report asserts that the low quality of science and technology in field cleanup work is the most important reason for the limited pace of cleanup activities. Excessive administrative costs were also cited

The Remote Handled Immobilization Low Activity Waste Disposal Facility Environmental Permits & Approval Plan

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

DEFFENBAUGH, M.L.

2000-08-01

The purpose of this document is to revise Document HNF-SD-ENV-EE-003, ''Permitting Plan for the Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Project, which was submitted on September 4, 1997. That plan accounted for the interim storage and disposal of Immobilized-Low Activity Waste at the existing Grout Treatment Facility Vaults (Project W-465) and within a newly constructed facility (Project W-520). Project W-520 was to have contained a combination of concrete vaults and trenches. This document supersedes that plan because of two subsequent items: (1) A disposal authorization that was received on October 25, 1999, in a U. S. Department of Energy-Headquarters, memorandum, ''Disposal Authorization Statement for the Department of Energy Hanford site Low-Level Waste Disposal facilities'' and (2) ''Breakthrough Initiative Immobilized Low-Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Alternative,'' August 1999, from Lucas Incorporated, Richland, Washington. The direction within the U. S. Department of Energy-Headquarters memorandum was given as follows: ''The DOE Radioactive Waste Management Order requires that a Disposal authorization statement be obtained prior to construction of new low-level waste disposal facility. Field elements with the existing low-level waste disposal facilities shall obtain a disposal authorization statement in accordance with the schedule in the complex-wide Low-Level Waste Management Program Plan. The disposal authorization statement shall be issued based on a review of the facility's performance assessment and composite analysis or appropriate CERCLA documentation. The disposal authorization shall specify the limits and conditions on construction, design, operations, and closure of the low-level waste facility based on these reviews. A disposal authorization statement is a part of the required radioactive waste management basis for a disposal facility. Failure to obtain a disposal authorization statement

Revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery.

Science.gov (United States)

Khatod, Monti; Cafri, Guy; Inacio, Maria C S; Schepps, Alan L; Paxton, Elizabeth W; Bini, Stefano A

2015-03-04

The survivorship of implants after revision total hip arthroplasty and risk factors associated with re-revision are not well defined. We evaluated the re-revision rate with use of the institutional total joint replacement registry. The purpose of this study was to determine patient, implant, and surgeon factors associated with re-revision total hip arthroplasty. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The total joint replacement registry was used to identify patients who had undergone revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic reasons from April 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010. The end point of interest was re-revision total hip arthroplasty. Risk factors evaluated for re-revision total hip arthroplasty included: patient risk factors (age, sex, body mass index, race, and general health status), implant risk factors (fixation type, bearing surface, femoral head size, and component replacement), and surgeon risk factors (volume and experience). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used. Six hundred and twenty-nine revision total hip arthroplasties with sixty-three (10%) re-revisions were evaluated. The mean cohort age (and standard deviation) was 57.0 ± 12.4 years, the mean body mass index (and standard deviation) was 29.5 ± 6.1 kg/m(2), and most of the patients were women (64.5%) and white (81.9%) and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of associated with the risk of re-revision. For every ten-year increase in patient age, the hazard ratio for re-revision decreases by a factor of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.90). For every five revision surgical procedures performed by a surgeon, the risk of revision decreases by a factor of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.99). At the time of revision, a new or retained cemented femoral implant or all-cemented hip implant increases the risk of revision by a factor of 3.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 8.38) relative to a retained or new uncemented hip implant. A ceramic on a

PRTR/309 building nuclear facility preliminary

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Cornwell, B.C.

1994-01-01

The hazard classification of the Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor (PRTR)/309 building as a ''Radiological Facility'' and the office portions as ''Other Industrial Facility'' are documented by this report. This report provides: a synopsis of the history and facility it's uses; describes major area of the facility; and assesses the radiological conditions for the facility segments. The assessment is conducted using the hazard category threshold values, segmentation methodology, and graded approach guidance of DOE-STD-1027-92

Site characterization criteria (DOE-STD-1022-94) for natural phenomena hazards at DOE sites. Revision 1

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Chen, J.C.; Ueng, Tzou-Shin; Boissonnade, A.C.

1995-01-01

This paper briefly summarizes requirements of site characterization for Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) at DOE sites. In order to comply with DOE Order 5480.28, site characterization criteria has been developed to provide site-specific information needed for development of NPH assessment criteria. Appropriate approaches are outlined to ensure that the current state-of-the-art methodologies and procedures are used in the site characterization. General and detailed site characterization requirements are provided in the areas of meteorology, hydrology, geology, seismology and geotechnical studies

Development of an auditable safety analysis in support of a radiological facility classification

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kinney, M.D.; Young, B.

1995-01-01

In recent years, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities commonly have been classified as reactor, non-reactor nuclear, or nuclear facilities. Safety analysis documentation was prepared for these facilities, with few exceptions, using the requirements in either DOE Order 5481.1B, Safety Analysis and Review System; or DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by development of an extensive Safety Analysis Report (SAR), which identifies hazards, assesses risks of facility operation, describes and analyzes adequacy of measures taken to control hazards, and evaluates potential accidents and their associated risks. This process is complicated by analysis of secondary hazards and adequacy of backup (redundant) systems. The traditional SAR process is advantageous for DOE facilities with appreciable hazards or operational risks. SAR preparation for a low-risk facility or process can be cost-prohibitive and quite challenging because conventional safety analysis protocols may not readily be applied to a low-risk facility. The DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management recognized this potential disadvantage and issued an EM limited technical standard, No. 5502-94, Hazard Baseline Documentation. This standard can be used for developing documentation for a facility classified as radiological, including preparation of an auditable (defensible) safety analysis. In support of the radiological facility classification process, the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project has developed an auditable safety analysis document based upon the postulation criteria and hazards analysis techniques defined in DOE Order 5480.23

Recommended management practices for operation and closure of shallow injection wells at DOE facilities

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)