Sample records for facilities doe order

  1. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ward, Anderson; Basabilvazo, George T.

    The purpose of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Annual Site Environmental Report for 2016 (ASER) is to provide the information required by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting. The DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) and the management and operating contractor (MOC) maintain and preserve the environmental resources at the WIPP facility. DOE Order 231.1B; DOE Order 436.1, Departmental Sustainability; and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, require that the affected environment at and near DOE facilities be monitored to ensure the safety and health of the public andmore » workers, and preservation of the environment. This report was prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, which requires DOE facilities to submit an ASER to the DOE Headquarters Chief Health, Safety, and Security Officer.« less

  2. Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for Department of Energy Facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1996-01-01

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has issued an Order 420.1 which establishes policy for its facilities in the event of natural phenomena hazards (NPH) along with associated NPH mitigation requirements. This DOE Standard gives design and evaluation criteria for NPH effects as guidance for implementing the NPH mitigation requirements of DOE Order 420.1 and the associated implementation Guides. These are intended to be consistent design and evaluation criteria for protection against natural phenomena hazards at DOE sites throughout the United States. The goal of these criteria is to assure that DOE facilities can withstand the effects of natural phenomena suchmore » as earthquakes, extreme winds, tornadoes, and flooding. These criteria apply to the design of new facilities and the evaluation of existing facilities. They may also be used for modification and upgrading of existing facilities as appropriate. The design and evaluation criteria presented herein control the level of conservatism introduced in the design/evaluation process such that earthquake, wind, and flood hazards are treated on a consistent basis. These criteria also employ a graded approach to ensure that the level of conservatism and rigor in design/evaluation is appropriate for facility characteristics such as importance, hazards to people on and off site, and threat to the environment. For each natural phenomena hazard covered, these criteria consist of the following: Performance Categories and target performance goals as specified in the DOE Order 420.1 NPH Implementation Guide, and DOE-STD-1 021; specified probability levels from which natural phenomena hazard loading on structures, equipment, and systems is developed; and design and evaluation procedures to evaluate response to NPH loads and criteria to assess whether or not computed response is permissible.« less

  3. Fire hazard analysis for Plutonium Finishing Plant complex

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    MCKINNIS, D.L.

    1999-02-23

    A fire hazards analysis (FHA) was performed for the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex at the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford site. The scope of the FHA focuses on the nuclear facilities/structures in the Complex. The analysis was conducted in accordance with RLID 5480.7, [DOE Directive RLID 5480.7, 1/17/94] and DOE Order 5480.7A, ''Fire Protection'' [DOE Order 5480.7A, 2/17/93] and addresses each of the sixteen principle elements outlined in paragraph 9.a(3) of the Order. The elements are addressed in terms of the fire protection objectives stated in paragraph 4 of DOE 5480.7A. In addition, the FHA also complies with WHC-CM-4-41,more » Fire Protection Program Manual, Section 3.4 [1994] and WHC-SD-GN-FHA-30001, Rev. 0 [WHC, 1994]. Objectives of the FHA are to determine: (1) the fire hazards that expose the PFP facilities, or that are inherent in the building operations, (2) the adequacy of the fire safety features currently located in the PFP Complex, and (3) the degree of compliance of the facility with specific fire safety provisions in DOE orders, related engineering codes, and standards.« less

  4. Fluor Daniel Hanford implementation plan for DOE Order 5480.28, Natural phenomena hazards mitigation

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Conrads, T.J.

    1997-09-12

    Natural phenomena hazards (NPH) are unexpected acts of nature that pose a threat or danger to workers, the public, or the environment. Earthquakes, extreme winds (hurricane and tornado), snow, flooding, volcanic ashfall, and lightning strikes are examples of NPH that could occur at the Hanford Site. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) policy requires facilities to be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that protects workers, the public, and the environment from hazards caused by natural phenomena. DOE Order 5480.28, Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation, includes rigorous new natural phenomena criteria for the design of new DOE facilities, as well asmore » for the evaluation and, if necessary, upgrade of existing DOE facilities. The Order was transmitted to Westinghouse Hanford Company in 1993 for compliance and is also identified in the Project Hanford Management Contract, Section J, Appendix C. Criteria and requirements of DOE Order 5480.28 are included in five standards, the last of which, DOE-STD-1023, was released in fiscal year 1996. Because the Order was released before all of its required standards were released, enforcement of the Order was waived pending release of the last standard and determination of an in-force date by DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL). Agreement also was reached between the Management and Operations Contractor and DOE-RL that the Order would become enforceable for new structures, systems, and components (SSCS) 60 days following issue of a new order-based design criteria in HNF-PRO-97, Engineering Design and Evaluation. The order also requires that commitments addressing existing SSCs be included in an implementation plan that is to be issued 1 year following the release of the last standard. Subsequently, WHC-SP-1175, Westinghouse Hanford Company Implementation Plan for DOE Order 5480.28, Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation, Rev. 0, was issued in November 1996, and this document, HNF-SP-1175, Fluor Daniel Hanford Implementation Plan for DOE Order 5480.28, Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation, is Rev. 1 of that plan.« less

  5. DOE standard 3009 - a reasoned, practical approach to integrating criticality safety into SARs

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Vessard, S.G.

    1995-12-31

    In the past there have been efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide guidance on those elements that should be included in a facility`s safety analysis report (SAR). In particular, there are two DOE Orders (5480.23, {open_quotes}Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports,{close_quotes} and 5480.24, {open_quotes}Nuclear Criticality Safety{close_quotes}), an interpretive guidance document (NE-70, Interpretive Guidance for DOE Order 5480.24, {open_quotes}Nuclear Criticality Safety{close_quotes}), and DOE Standard DOE-STD-3009-94 {open_quotes}Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports.{close_quotes} Of these, the most practical and useful (pertaining to the application of criticality safety) is DOE-STD-3009-94. This paper is a reviewmore » of Chapters 3, 4, and 6 of this standard and how they provide very clear, helpful, and reasoned criticality safety guidance.« less

  6. Advanced Post-Irradiation Examination Capabilities Alternatives Analysis Report

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Jeff Bryan; Bill Landman; Porter Hill

    2012-12-01

    An alternatives analysis was performed for the Advanced Post-Irradiation Capabilities (APIEC) project in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order DOE O 413.3B, “Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets”. The Alternatives Analysis considered six major alternatives: ? No Action ? Modify Existing DOE Facilities – capabilities distributed among multiple locations ? Modify Existing DOE Facilities – capabilities consolidated at a few locations ? Construct New Facility ? Commercial Partnership ? International Partnerships Based on the alternatives analysis documented herein, it is recommended to DOE that the advanced post-irradiation examination capabilities be provided by amore » new facility constructed at the Materials and Fuels Complex at the Idaho National Laboratory.« less

  7. Quality assurance grading guidelines for research and development at DOE facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

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

    1993-01-01

    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.

  8. Waste reduction plan for The Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Schultz, R.M.

    1990-04-01

    The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a multipurpose Research and Development (R D) facility. These R D activities generate numerous small waste streams. Waste minimization is defined as any action that minimizes the volume or toxicity of waste by avoiding its generation or recycling. This is accomplished by material substitution, changes to processes, or recycling wastes for reuse. Waste reduction is defined as waste minimization plus treatment which results in volume or toxicity reduction. The ORNL Waste Reduction Program will include both waste minimization and waste reduction efforts. Federal regulations, DOE policies and guidelines, increased costs and liabilities associatedmore » with the management of wastes, limited disposal options and facility capacities, and public consciousness have been motivating factors for implementing comprehensive waste reduction programs. DOE Order 5820.2A, Section 3.c.2.4 requires DOE facilities to establish an auditable waste reduction program for all LLW generators. In addition, it further states that any new facilities, or changes to existing facilities, incorporate waste minimization into design considerations. A more recent DOE Order, 3400.1, Section 4.b, requires the preparation of a waste reduction program plan which must be reviewed annually and updated every three years. Implementation of a waste minimization program for hazardous and radioactive mixed wastes is sited in DOE Order 5400.3, Section 7.d.5. This document has been prepared to address these requirements. 6 refs., 1 fig., 2 tabs.« less

  9. Guide to good practices for operations and administration updates through required reading

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-12-01

    This Guide to Good Practices is written to enhance understanding of, and provide direction for, Required Reading, Chapter XIV of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.19, Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities. The practices in this guide should be considered when planning or reviewing programs for updating personnel with operations and administration information through required reading. Contractors are advised to adopt procedures that meet the intent of DOE Order 5480.19. Required Reading is an element of an effective Conduct of Operations program. The complexity and array of activities performed in DOE facilities dictate the necessity for a coordinated requiredmore » reading program to promote safe and efficient operations.« less

  10. Comprehensive integrated planning: A process for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-05-01

    The Oak Ridge Comprehensive Integrated Plan is intended to assist the US Department of Energy (DOE) and contractor personnel in implementing a comprehensive integrated planning process consistent with DOE Order 430.1, Life Cycle Asset Management and Oak Ridge Operations Order 430. DOE contractors are charged with developing and producing the Comprehensive Integrated Plan, which serves as a summary document, providing information from other planning efforts regarding vision statements, missions, contextual conditions, resources and facilities, decision processes, and stakeholder involvement. The Comprehensive Integrated Plan is a planning reference that identifies primary issues regarding major changes in land and facility use andmore » serves all programs and functions on-site as well as the Oak Ridge Operations Office and DOE Headquarters. The Oak Ridge Reservation is a valuable national resource and is managed on the basis of the principles of ecosystem management and sustainable development and how mission, economic, ecological, social, and cultural factors are used to guide land- and facility-use decisions. The long-term goals of the comprehensive integrated planning process, in priority order, are to support DOE critical missions and to stimulate the economy while maintaining a quality environment.« less

  11. Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kammerer, Annie

    Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should bemore » considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment by once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.« less

  12. Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kammerer, Annie

    Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should bemore » considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.« less

  13. Walkthrough screening evaluation field guide. Natural phenomena hazards at Department of Energy facilities: Revision 2

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Eder, S.J.; Eli, M.W.; Salmon, M.W.

    1993-11-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) has a large inventory of existing facilities. Many of these facilities were not designed and constructed to current natural phenomena hazard (NPH) criteria. The NPH events include earthquakes, extreme winds and tornadoes, and floods. DOE Order 5480.28 establishes policy and requirements for NPH mitigation for DOE facilities. DOE is conducting a multiyear project to develop evaluation guidelines for assessing the condition and determining the need for upgrades at DOE facilities. One element of the NPH evaluation guidelines` development involves the existing systems and components at DOE facilities. This effort is described in detail inmore » a cited reference. In the interim period prior to availability of the final guidelines, DOE facilities are encouraged to implement an NPH walk through screening evaluation process by which systems and components that need attention can be rapidly identified. Guidelines for conducting the walk through screening evaluations are contained herein. The result of the NPH walk through screening evaluation should be a prioritized list of systems and components that need further action. Simple and inexpensive fixes for items identified in the walk through as marginal or inadequate should be implemented without further study. By implementing an NPH walk through screening evaluation, DOE facilities may realize significant reduction in risk from NPH in the short term.« less

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    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 ormore » 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.« less

  15. A conceptual framework for using DOE 5700.6C and the other DOE orders as an integrated management system; the Fermilab experience

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Bodnarczuk, M.

    In this paper, I describe a conceptual framework that uses DOE Order 5700.6C and more than 140 other DOE Orders as an integrated management system -- but I describe it within the context of the broader sociological and cultural issues of doing research at DOE funded facilities. The conceptual framework has two components. The first involves an interpretation of the 10 criteria of DOE 5700.6C that is tailored for a research environment. The second component involves using the 10 criteria as functional categories that orchestrate and integrate the other DOE Orders into a total management system. The Fermilab approach aimsmore » at reducing (or eliminating) the redundancy and overlap within the DOE Orders system at the contractor level.« less

  16. A conceptual framework for using DOE 5700. 6C and the other DOE orders as an integrated management system; the Fermilab experience

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Bodnarczuk, M.

    In this paper, I describe a conceptual framework that uses DOE Order 5700.6C and more than 140 other DOE Orders as an integrated management system -- but I describe it within the context of the broader sociological and cultural issues of doing research at DOE funded facilities. The conceptual framework has two components. The first involves an interpretation of the 10 criteria of DOE 5700.6C that is tailored for a research environment. The second component involves using the 10 criteria as functional categories that orchestrate and integrate the other DOE Orders into a total management system. The Fermilab approach aimsmore » at reducing (or eliminating) the redundancy and overlap within the DOE Orders system at the contractor level.« less

  17. Report on SARS backfit evaluation, Catalytic, Inc. Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Wilsonville, Alabama

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Meyer, A.F. Jr.

    1980-07-02

    A site visit was made in company with the DOE-OPTA-EA Safety and Health Official for the purpose of providing that official with technical assistance in evaluating the validity of an earlier DOE-OPTA recommendation exempting this facility from the Safety and Analysis and Review backfit requirements of DOE Order 5481.1. A further purpose of the visit was to assess and evaluate the occupational safety and health program at this facility, as compared with the criteria and guidelines contained in ASFE Order 5481.1. Adequate documentation regarding compliance with codes, standards, and regulations were observed at this facility. There is in existence anmore » ongoing continuous safety analysis effort for both modifications or additions to this facility. Adequate environmental safeguards and plans and procedures were observed. The SARS backfit exemption is appropriate. The occupational safety and health program is in many ways a model for the scope of work and nature of hazards involved, and is consistent with ASFE guidelines and statutory requirements.« less

  18. Department of Energy Operational Readiness Review for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    None, None

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed an Operational Readiness Review (ORR) for the restart of Contact Handled (CH) waste emplacement at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The ORR team assessed the readiness of Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC (NWP) to manage and perform receipt through CH waste emplacement, and associated waste handling and management activities, including the ability of the National TRU Program (NTP) to evaluate the waste currently stored at the WIPP site against the revised and enhanced Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). Field work for this review began on November 14, 2015more » and was completed on November 30, 2016. The DOE ORR was conducted in accordance with the Department of Energy Operational Readiness Review Implementation Plan for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, dated November 8, 2016, and DOE Order 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities. The review activities included personnel interviews, record reviews, direct observation of operations and maintenance demonstrations, and observation of multiple operational and emergency drills/exercises. The DOE ORR also evaluated the adequacy of the contractor’s ORR (CORR) and the readiness of the DOE Carlsbad field Office (CBFO) to oversee the startup and execution of CH waste emplacement activities at the WIPP facility. The WIPP facility is categorized as a Hazard Category 2 DOE Nonreactor Nuclear Facility for all surface and Underground (UG) operations per DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. In addition, the WIPP experienced two events in February, 2014 that resulted in Accident Investigations being performed in accordance with the requirements of DOE Order 225.1B, Accident Investigations. Based upon the results of the accident investigations and hazard categorization of the facility, the team placed significant emphasis on the following areas: fire protection, emergency preparedness, radiological protection, nuclear safety, and operations. The identification of specific focus areas was not intended to diminish the importance of other areas of the review, but to ensure that these areas received a particularly thorough and in-depth evaluation due to their significance with respect to the safe operation of the facility.« less

  19. Policies and practices pertaining to the selection, qualification requirements, and training programs for nuclear-reactor operating personnel at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Culbert, W.H.

    1985-10-01

    This document describes the policies and practices of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) regarding the selection of and training requirements for reactor operating personnel at the Laboratory's nuclear-reactor facilities. The training programs, both for initial certification and for requalification, are described and provide the guidelines for ensuring that ORNL's research reactors are operated in a safe and reliable manner by qualified personnel. This document gives an overview of the reactor facilities and addresses the various qualifications, training, testing, and requalification requirements stipulated in DOE Order 5480.1A, Chapter VI (Safety of DOE-Owned Reactors); it is intended to be in compliancemore » with this DOE Order, as applicable to ORNL facilities. Included also are examples of the documentation maintained amenable for audit.« less

  20. Calendar year 2002 annual site environmental report for Tonopah Test Range, Nevada and Kauai Test Facility, Hawaii.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Wagner, Katrina; Sanchez, Rebecca V.; Mayeux, Lucie

    2003-09-01

    Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada and Kauai Test Facility (KTF) in Hawaii are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities operated by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Sandia Site Office (SSO), in Albuquerque, NM, oversees TTR and KTF's operations. Sandia Corporation conducts operations at TTR in support of DOE/NNSA's Weapons Ordnance Program and has operated the site since 1957. Westinghouse Government Services subcontracts to Sandia Corporation in administering most of the environmental programs at TTR. Sandia Corporation operates KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility.more » This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes data and the compliance status of the environmental protection and monitoring program at TTR and KTF through Calendar Year (CY) 2002. The compliance status of environmental regulations applicable at these sites include state and federal regulations governing air emissions, wastewater effluent, waste management, terrestrial surveillance, and Environmental Restoration (ER) cleanup activities. Sandia Corporation is responsible only for those environmental program activities related to its operations. The DOE/NNSA, Nevada Site Office (NSO) retains responsibility for the cleanup and management of ER TTR sites. Currently, there are no ER Sites at KTF. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program (DOE 1990) and DOE Order 231.1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 1996).« less

  1. Calendar year 2003 : annual site enviromental report for Tonopah Test Range, Nevada and Kauai Test Facility, Hawaii.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Wagner, Katrina; Sanchez, Rebecca V.; Mayeux, Lucie

    2004-09-01

    Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada and Kauai Test Facility (KTF) in Hawaii are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities operated by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Sandia Site Office (SSO), in Albuquerque, NM, manages TTR and KTF's operations. Sandia Corporation conducts operations at TTR in support of DOE/NNSA's Weapons Ordnance Program and has operated the site since 1957. Westinghouse Government Services subcontracts to Sandia Corporation in administering most of the environmental programs at TTR. Sandia Corporation operates KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility.more » This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes data and the compliance status of the environmental protection and monitoring program at TTR and KTF through Calendar Year (CY) 2003. The compliance status of environmental regulations applicable at these sites include state and federal regulations governing air emissions, wastewater effluent, waste management, terrestrial surveillance, and Environmental Restoration (ER) cleanup activities. Sandia Corporation is responsible only for those environmental program activities related to its operations. The DOE/NNSA, Nevada Site Office (NSO) retains responsibility for the cleanup and management of ER TTR sites. Currently, there are no ER Sites at KTF. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program (DOE 2003) and DOE Order 231.1 Chg 2., Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 1996).« less

  2. 76 FR 11436 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Ontario Power Generation

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-03-02

    ... facilities. DOE renewed the OPG export authorization on June 21, 2006 in Order No. EA-290-A. Order No. EA-290..., Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the United States. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by OPG have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued...

  3. Hazardous Substance Release Reporting Under CERCLA, EPCR {section}304 and DOE Emergency Management System (EMS) and DOE Occurrence Reporting Requirements. Environmental Guidance

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Traceski, T.T.

    1994-06-01

    Releases of various substances from DOE facilities may be subject to reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), as well as DOE`s internal ``Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information`` and the ``Emergency Management System`` (EMS). CERCLA and EPCPA are Federal laws that require immediate reporting of a release of a Hazardous Substance (HS) and an Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS), respectively, in a Reportable Quantity (RQ) or more within a 24-hour period. This guidance uses a flowchart, supplemental information, and tables to provide an overview ofmore » the process to be followed, and more detailed explanations of the actions that must be performed, when chemical releases of HSs, EHSs, pollutants, or contaminants occur at DOE facilities. This guidance should be used in conjunction with, rather than in lieu of, applicable laws, regulations, and DOE Orders. Relevant laws, regulations, and DOE Orders are referenced throughout this guidance.« less

  4. Evaluation of radiological dispersion/consequence codes supporting DOE nuclear facility SARs

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    O`Kula, K.R.; Paik, I.K.; Chung, D.Y.

    1996-12-31

    Since the early 1990s, the authorization basis documentation of many U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities has been upgraded to comply with DOE orders and standards. In this process, many safety analyses have been revised. Unfortunately, there has been nonuniform application of software, and the most appropriate computer and engineering methodologies often are not applied. A DOE Accident Phenomenology and Consequence (APAC) Methodology Evaluation Program was originated at the request of DOE Defense Programs to evaluate the safety analysis methodologies used in nuclear facility authorization basis documentation and to define future cost-effective support and development initiatives. Six areas, includingmore » source term development (fire, spills, and explosion analysis), in-facility transport, and dispersion/ consequence analysis (chemical and radiological) are contained in the APAC program. The evaluation process, codes considered, key results, and recommendations for future model and software development of the Radiological Dispersion/Consequence Working Group are summarized in this paper.« less

  5. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Montoya, Amber L.; Wagner, Katrina; Goering, Teresa Lynn

    Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada and Kauai Test Facility (KTF) in Hawaii are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities operated by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Sandia Site Office (SSO), in Albuquerque, NM, manages TTR and KTF's operations. Sandia Corporation conducts operations at TTR in support of DOE/NNSA's Weapons Ordnance Program and has operated the site since 1957. Westinghouse Government Services subcontracts to Sandia Corporation in administering most of the environmental programs at TTR. Sandia Corporation operates KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility.more » This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes data and the compliance status of the environmental protection and monitoring program at TTR and KTF through Calendar Year (CY) 2004. The compliance status of environmental regulations applicable at these sites include state and federal regulations governing air emissions, wastewater effluent, waste management, terrestrial surveillance, and Environmental Restoration (ER) cleanup activities. Sandia Corporation is responsible only for those environmental program activities related to its operations. The DOE/NNSA, Nevada Site Office (NSO) retains responsibility for the cleanup and management of ER TTR sites. Currently, there are no ER Sites at KTF. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program (DOE 2005) and DOE Order 231.1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 2004b).« less

  6. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator standards/requirements identification document (S/RID), Vol. 7

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    This Requirements Identification Document (RID) describes an Occupational Health and Safety Program as defined through the Relevant DOE Orders, regulations, industry codes/standards, industry guidance documents and, as appropriate, good industry practice. The definition of an Occupational Health and Safety Program as specified by this document is intended to address Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendations 90-2 and 91-1, which call for the strengthening of DOE complex activities through the identification and application of relevant standards which supplement or exceed requirements mandated by DOE Orders. This RID applies to the activities, personnel, structures, systems, components, and programs involved in maintaining themore » facility and executing the mission of the High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms.« less

  7. Comprehensive facilities plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1997-09-01

    The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory`s Comprehensive Facilities Plan (CFP) document provides analysis and policy guidance for the effective use and orderly future development of land and capital assets at the Berkeley Lab site. The CFP directly supports Berkeley Lab`s role as a multiprogram national laboratory operated by the University of California (UC) for the Department of Energy (DOE). The CFP is revised annually on Berkeley Lab`s Facilities Planning Website. Major revisions are consistent with DOE policy and review guidance. Facilities planing is motivated by the need to develop facilities for DOE programmatic needs; to maintain, replace and rehabilitatemore » existing obsolete facilities; to identify sites for anticipated programmatic growth; and to establish a planning framework in recognition of site amenities and the surrounding community. The CFP presents a concise expression of the policy for the future physical development of the Laboratory, based upon anticipated operational needs of research programs and the environmental setting. It is a product of the ongoing planning processes and is a dynamic information source.« less

  8. Site Environmental Report for 2010, Volumes 1 & 2

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Baskin, David; Bauters, Tim; Borglin, Ned

    2011-09-01

    LBNL is a multiprogram scientific facility operated by the UC for the DOE. LBNL’s research is directed toward the physical, biological, environmental, and computational sciences, in order to deliver scientific knowledge and discoveries pertinent to DOE’s missions. This annual Site Environmental Report covers activities conducted in CY 2010. The format and content of this report satisfy the requirements of DOE Order 231.1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting,1 and the operating contract between UC and DOE

  9. 76 FR 14636 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Lead Smelting

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-03-17

    ... 15 days to April 19, 2011. The EPA received a request for this extension from the Doe Run Company, the sole covered facility. Doe Run Company requested the extension in order to analyze data and review...

  10. 10 CFR 216.4 - Evaluation by DOE of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OIL MATERIALS ALLOCATION AND PRIORITY PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACTS OR ORDERS... described supplies of materials and equipment, services, or facilities are critical and essential to the... and equipment, services, or facilities described in the application are critical and essential to an...

  11. 10 CFR 216.4 - Evaluation by DOE of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OIL MATERIALS ALLOCATION AND PRIORITY PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACTS OR ORDERS... described supplies of materials and equipment, services, or facilities are critical and essential to the... and equipment, services, or facilities described in the application are critical and essential to an...

  12. 10 CFR 216.4 - Evaluation by DOE of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OIL MATERIALS ALLOCATION AND PRIORITY PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACTS OR ORDERS... described supplies of materials and equipment, services, or facilities are critical and essential to the... and equipment, services, or facilities described in the application are critical and essential to an...

  13. 10 CFR 216.4 - Evaluation by DOE of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OIL MATERIALS ALLOCATION AND PRIORITY PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACTS OR ORDERS... described supplies of materials and equipment, services, or facilities are critical and essential to the... and equipment, services, or facilities described in the application are critical and essential to an...

  14. 10 CFR 216.4 - Evaluation by DOE of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OIL MATERIALS ALLOCATION AND PRIORITY PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACTS OR ORDERS... described supplies of materials and equipment, services, or facilities are critical and essential to the... and equipment, services, or facilities described in the application are critical and essential to an...

  15. The USER: Utilizing Scientific Environments for Research

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Walker, Lakeisha

    A lot of hard work goes into submitting a proposal for access to equipment in our nation's top science research facilities. It seems the biggest focus for a facility USER should be on the acceptance of the proposal, however, the job of a facility USER actually begins after the acceptance letter arrives. In order to make the most of the Awarded experiment time and cultivate collaborations for the future, facility USERs need to look beyond the proposal. From experiment scheduling to arrival to data analysis the entire USER experience is valuable and worth doing well. This presentation will discuss best practices for facility USERs and highlight successful USER collaborations at ORNL's High Flux Isotope Reactor. Funded by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. DOE. ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for US DOE.

  16. Template for updating regulations in QA manuals

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    White, M.G.; Banerjee, B.

    1992-01-01

    Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued new quality assurance (QA) orders to reflect current policies for conduct and operation of DOE-authorized programs and facilities. Establishing traceability to new QA criteria and requirements from former multidraft orders, QA manuals, and guidance documentation for DOE-funded work can be confusing. Identified critical considerations still must be addressed. Most of the newly stated QA criteria can be cross referenced, where applicable, to former QA plans and manuals. Where additional criteria occur, new procedures may be required, together with revisions in QA plans and manuals.

  17. 48 CFR 970.5223-6 - Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ..., Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. 970.5223-6 Section 970.5223-6... Contracts 970.5223-6 Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation... contracts for the operation of a DOE facility or motor vehicle fleet. Executive Order 13423, Strengthening...

  18. 48 CFR 970.5223-6 - Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ..., Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. 970.5223-6 Section 970.5223-6... Contracts 970.5223-6 Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation... contracts for the operation of a DOE facility or motor vehicle fleet. Executive Order 13423, Strengthening...

  19. 48 CFR 970.5223-6 - Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ..., Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. 970.5223-6 Section 970.5223-6... Contracts 970.5223-6 Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation... contracts for the operation of a DOE facility or motor vehicle fleet. Executive Order 13423, Strengthening...

  20. 48 CFR 970.5223-6 - Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ..., Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. 970.5223-6 Section 970.5223-6... Contracts 970.5223-6 Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation... contracts for the operation of a DOE facility or motor vehicle fleet. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13423, STRENGTHENING...

  1. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Decommissioning of TAN-607 Hot Shop Area

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    J. P. Floerke

    Test Area North (TAN) -607, the Technical Support Facility, is located at the north end of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site. U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) is proposing to decommission the northern section of the TAN-607 facility, hereinafter referred to as TAN-607 Hot Shop Area, under a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA). Despite significant efforts by the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) to secure new business, no future mission has been identified for the TAN-607 Hot Shop Area. Its disposition has been agreed to by the Idahomore » State Historical Preservation Office documented in the Memorandum of Agreement signed October 2005 and it is therefore considered a surplus facility. A key element in DOE's strategy for surplus facilities is decommissioning to the maximum extent possible to ensure risk and building footprint reduction and thereby eliminating operations and maintenance cost. In addition, the DOE's 2006 Strategic Plan is ''complete cleanup of the contaminated nuclear weapons manufacturing and testing sites across the United States. DOE is responsible for the risk reduction and cleanup of the environmental legacy of the Nation's nuclear weapons program, one of the largest, most diverse, and technically complex environmental programs in the world. The Department will successfully achieve this strategic goal by ensuring the safety of the DOE employees and U.S. citizens, acquiring the best resources to complete the complex tasks, and managing projects throughout the United States in the most efficient and effective manner.'' TAN-607 is designated as a historical Signature Property by DOE Headquarters Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and, as such, public participation is required to determine the final disposition of the facility. The decommissioning action will place the TAN-607 Hot Shop Area in a final configuration that will be protective of human health and the environment. Decommissioning the TAN-607 Hot Shop Area is consistent with the joint DOE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Policy on Decommissioning of Department of Energy Facilities Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which establishes the CERCLA NTCRA process as the preferred approach for decommissioning surplus DOE facilities. Under this policy, a NTCRA may be taken when DOE determines that the action will prevent, minimize, stabilize, or eliminate a risk to human health and/or the environment. When DOE determines that a CERCLA NTCRA is necessary, DOE is authorized to evaluate, select, and implement the removal action that DOE determines is most appropriate to address the potential risk posed by the release or threat of release. This action is taken in accordance with applicable authorities and in conjunction with EPA and the State of Idaho pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. In keeping with the joint policy, this engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) was developed in accordance with CERCLA as amended by the ''Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986'' and in accordance with the ''National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.'' This EE/CA is consistent with the remedial action objectives (RAOs) of the Final Record of Decision, Test Area North, Operable Unit 1-10 and supports the overall remediation goals established through the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order for Waste Area Group 1. Waste Area Group 1 is located at TAN.« less

  2. Preoperational Subsurface Conditions at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Service Waste Disposal Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ansley, Shannon Leigh

    2002-02-01

    The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Service Wastewater Discharge Facility replaces the existing percolation ponds as a disposal facility for the INTEC Service Waste Stream. A preferred alternative for helping decrease water content in the subsurface near INTEC, closure of the existing ponds is required by the INTEC Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Record of Decision (ROD) for Waste Area Group 3 Operable Unit 3-13 (DOE-ID 1999a). By August 2002, the replacement facility was constructed approximately 2 miles southwest of INTEC, near the Big Lost River channel. Because groundwater beneath the Idaho National Engineering andmore » Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is protected under Federal and State of Idaho regulations from degradation due to INEEL activities, preoperational data required by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.1 were collected. These data include preexisting physical, chemical, and biological conditions that could be affected by the discharge; background levels of radioactive and chemical components; pertinent environmental and ecological parameters; and potential pathways for human exposure or environmental impact. This document presents specific data collected in support of DOE Order 5400.1, including: four quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of chemical and radiological parameters; general facility description; site specific geology, stratigraphy, soils, and hydrology; perched water discussions; and general regulatory requirements. However, in order to avoid duplication of previous information, the reader is directed to other referenced publications for more detailed information. Documents that are not readily available are compiled in this publication as appendices. These documents include well and borehole completion reports, a perched water evaluation letter report, the draft INEEL Wellhead Protection Program Plan, and the Environmental Checklist.« less

  3. Experimental Fuels Facility Re-categorization Based on Facility Segmentation

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Reiss, Troy P.; Andrus, Jason

    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 excessmore » 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-ID Supplemental Guidance for DOE-STD-1027-92 based on the proposed downgrade of the initial facility categorization of Hazard Category 2.« less

  4. 7 CFR 959.8 - Registered handler.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... facilities within the production area for preparing onions for commercial market, who customarily does so... and Orders; Fruits, Vegetables, Nuts), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ONIONS GROWN IN SOUTH TEXAS Order... production area, and has recorded with the committee his ability and willingness to assume customary...

  5. Document control and Conduct of Operations

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Collins, S.K.; Meltzer, F.L.

    1993-01-01

    Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5480.19, Conduct of operations, places stringent requirements on a wide range of activities at DOE facilities. These requirements directly affect personnel at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), which is located in the Test Reactor Area of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and operated for DOE by EG G Idaho, Inc. In order for the ATR to comply with 5480.19, the very personality of the reactor facility's document control unit has had to undergo a major change. The Facility and Administrative Support Unit (FAS) is charged with nudntenance of ATR's controlled ddcuments-diousands of operating and administrativemore » procedures. Prior to the imposition of 5480.19, FAS was content to operate in a clerical support mode, seldom questioning or seeking to improve. This numer of doing business is inappropriate within the framework of DOE 5480.19 and is also at odds with the approach to Total Quality Management (TQM) promulgated by EG G Idaho.To comply with the requirements of 5480.19, FAS has Actively applied TQM principles. Empowered personnel to unprove operations through the establishment of a teatn approach. Begun an automation process that is already paying large dividends in terms of improved procedure accuracy and compliance. A state-of-the-art text retrival system is already in place. We are vigorously pursuing fully automated document tmcidng and document management. This paper describes in detail the steps taken to date, the improvements and the lessons learned. It aLw discusses plans for the future that will enable FAS to support the ATR in inccreasing its responsiveness to the Conduct of Operations Order.« less

  6. Tiger Team Assessment of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-06-01

    This draft report documents the Tiger Team Assessment of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) located in Batavia, Illinois. Fermilab is a program-dedicated national laboratory managed by the Universities Research Association, Inc. (URA) for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The Tiger Team Assessment was conducted from May 11 to June 8, 1992, under the auspices of DOE`s Office of Special Projects (OSP) under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH). The assessment was comprehensive, encompassing environmental, safety and health (ES&H), and quality assurance (QA) disciplines; site remediation; facilities management; and waste management operations. Compliancemore » with applicable Federal , State of Illinois, and local regulations; applicable DOE Orders; best management practices; and internal Fermilab requirements was addressed. In addition, an evaluation of the effectiveness of DOE and Fermilab management of the ES&H/QA and self-assessment programs was conducted. The Fermilab Tiger Team Assessment is part a larger, comprehensive DOE Tiger Team Independent Assessment Program planned for DOE facilities. The objective of the initiative is to provide the Secretary of Energy with information on the compliance status of DOE facilities with regard to ES&H requirements, root causes for noncompliance, adequacy of DOE and contractor ES&H management programs, response actions to address the identified problem areas, and DOE-wide ES&H compliance trends and root causes.« less

  7. Data development technical support document for the aircraft crash risk analysis methodology (ACRAM) standard

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kimura, C.Y.; Glaser, R.E.; Mensing, R.W.

    1996-08-01

    The Aircraft Crash Risk Analysis Methodology (ACRAM) Panel has been formed by the US Department of Energy Office of Defense Programs (DOE/DP) for the purpose of developing a standard methodology for determining the risk from aircraft crashes onto DOE ground facilities. In order to accomplish this goal, the ACRAM panel has been divided into four teams, the data development team, the model evaluation team, the structural analysis team, and the consequence team. Each team, consisting of at least one member of the ACRAM plus additional DOE and DOE contractor personnel, specializes in the development of the methodology assigned to thatmore » team. This report documents the work performed by the data development team and provides the technical basis for the data used by the ACRAM Standard for determining the aircraft crash frequency. This report should be used to provide the generic data needed to calculate the aircraft crash frequency into the facility under consideration as part of the process for determining the aircraft crash risk to ground facilities as given by the DOE Standard Aircraft Crash Risk Assessment Methodology (ACRAM). Some broad guidance is presented on how to obtain the needed site-specific and facility specific data but this data is not provided by this document.« less

  8. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    MITCHELL,GERRY W.; LONGLEY,SUSAN W.; PHILBIN,JEFFREY S.

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

  9. Guide to good practices for operations and administration updates through required reading

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-12-01

    The purpose of this Guide to Good Practices is to provide Department of Energy (DOE) contractors with information that can be used to validate and/or modify existing programs relative to Conduct of Operations. This Guide to Good Practices is part of a series of guides designed to enhance the guidelines set forth in DOE Order 5480. 19, Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities.'' (JDB)

  10. Guide to good practices for operations and administration updates through required reading

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-12-01

    The purpose of this Guide to Good Practices is to provide Department of Energy (DOE) contractors with information that can be used to validate and/or modify existing programs relative to Conduct of Operations. This Guide to Good Practices is part of a series of guides designed to enhance the guidelines set forth in DOE Order 5480. 19, ``Conduct of Operations Requirements for DOE Facilities.`` (JDB)

  11. Tiger Team Assessment of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-06-01

    This draft report documents the Tiger Team Assessment of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) located in Batavia, Illinois. Fermilab is a program-dedicated national laboratory managed by the Universities Research Association, Inc. (URA) for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The Tiger Team Assessment was conducted from May 11 to June 8, 1992, under the auspices of DOE's Office of Special Projects (OSP) under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH). The assessment was comprehensive, encompassing environmental, safety and health (ES H), and quality assurance (QA) disciplines; site remediation; facilities management; and waste management operations.more » Compliance with applicable Federal , State of Illinois, and local regulations; applicable DOE Orders; best management practices; and internal Fermilab requirements was addressed. In addition, an evaluation of the effectiveness of DOE and Fermilab management of the ES H/QA and self-assessment programs was conducted. The Fermilab Tiger Team Assessment is part a larger, comprehensive DOE Tiger Team Independent Assessment Program planned for DOE facilities. The objective of the initiative is to provide the Secretary of Energy with information on the compliance status of DOE facilities with regard to ES H requirements, root causes for noncompliance, adequacy of DOE and contractor ES H management programs, response actions to address the identified problem areas, and DOE-wide ES H compliance trends and root causes.« less

  12. Environmental Performance Report 2014. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Rukavina, Frank; Myers, Lissa; Elmore, Adrienne

    The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety, and security of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report and has been prepared in accordance with the DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

  13. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site Environmental Report for 1998

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hooda, Balwan S.; Allen, Vivian L.

    This 1998 annual Site Environmental Report (SER) was prepared in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.1, ''General Environmental Protection Program''; DOE Order 231.1, ''Environmental Safety and Health Reporting''; the ''Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance'' (DOE/EH-0173T); and the Environmental Protection Implementation Plan (DOE/WIPP 96-2199). The above orders and guidance documents require that DOE facilities submit an SER to DOE Headquarters, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health. The purpose of the SER is to provide a comprehensive description of operational environmental monitoring activities, an abstract of environmental activities conducted tomore » characterize site environmental management performance, to confirm compliance with environmental standards and requirements, and to highlight significant programs and efforts of environmental merit at WIPP during calendar year ( CY) 1998. The content of this SER is not restricted to a synopsis of the required data. Information pertaining to new and continued monitoring and compliance activities during CY 1998 are also included.« less

  14. Site Environmental Report for 2016 Sandia National Laboratories California.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Larsen, Barbara L.

    Sandia National Laboratories, California (SNL/CA) is a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The management and operations of the facility are under a contract with the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). On May 1, 2017, the name of the management and operating contractor changed from Sandia Corporation to National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS). The DOE, NNSA, Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. This Site Environmental Report for 2016 was prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting (DOE 2012). The report provides a summary ofmore » environmental monitoring information and compliance activities that occurred at SNL/CA during calendar year 2016, unless noted otherwise. General site and environmental program information is also included.« less

  15. Authorization basis supporting documentation for plutonium finishing plant

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    King, J.P., Fluor Daniel Hanford

    1997-03-05

    The identification and definition of the authorization basis for the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) facility and operations are essential for compliance to DOE Order 5480.21, Unreviewed Safety Questions. The authorization basis, as defined in the Order, consists of those aspects of the facility design basis, i.e., the structures, systems and components (SSCS) and the operational requirements that are considered to be important to the safety of operations and are relied upon by DOE to authorize operation of the facility. These facility design features and their function in various accident scenarios are described in WHC-SD-CP-SAR-021, Plutonium Finishing Plant Final Safety Analysismore » Report (FSAR), Chapter 9, `Accident Analysis.` Figure 1 depicts the relationship of the Authorization Basis to its components and other information contained in safety documentation supporting the Authorization Basis. The PFP SSCs that are important to safety, collectively referred to as the `Safety Envelope` are discussed in various chapters of the FSAR and in WHC-SD-CP-OSR-010, Plutonium Finishing Plant Operational Safety Requirements. Other documents such as Criticality Safety Evaluation Reports (CSERS) address and support some portions of the Authorization Basis and Safety Envelope.« less

  16. Terminal hospitalizations of nursing home residents: does facility increasing the rate of do not resuscitate orders reduce them?

    PubMed

    Teno, Joan M; Gozalo, Pedro; Mitchell, Susan L; Bynum, Julie P W; Dosa, David; Mor, Vincent

    2011-06-01

    Terminal hospitalizations are costly and often avoidable with appropriate advance care planning. This study examined the association between advance care planning, as measured by facility rate of do not resuscitate (DNR) orders in U.S. nursing homes (NHs) and changes in terminal hospitalization rates. Retrospective cohort study of the changing prevalence of DNR orders in U.S. NHs. Using a fixed effect multivariate model, we examined whether increasing facility rate of DNR orders correlates with reductions in terminal hospitalizations in the last week of life, controlling for changes in facility characteristics (staffing, use of NP/PA, case mix of nursing residents, admission volume, racial composition, payer mix). The average facility rate of terminal hospitalizations was 15.5%, fluctuating between 1999 (15.0%) and 2007 (14.8%). NHs starting with low rates of DNR orders that increased their rates had fewer terminal hospital admissions in 2007 (11.2%) than facilities with continuously low DNR usage. Even after applying a multivariate fixed effect model, the effect of changes in facility DNR order rate on terminal hospitalization was -0.056 (95% confidence interval: -0.061, -0.050), indicating that for every 10% increase in DNR orders there was 0.56% decrease in terminal hospitalizations. This rate can be compared with the increase of 0.70% in the terminal hospitalization rate when an NH became disproportionately dependent on Medicaid funding or the 0.40% decrease in terminal hospitalization rate associated with adding a nurse practitioner to the clinical staff complement. NHs that changed their culture of decision making by increasing their facility rate of DNR orders decreased their rate of terminal hospitalizations. Copyright © 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  17. K Basin Hazard Analysis

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    PECH, S.H.

    This report describes the methodology used in conducting the K Basins Hazard Analysis, which provides the foundation for the K Basins Final Safety Analysis Report. This hazard analysis was performed in accordance with guidance provided by DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for U. S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports and implements the requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Report.

  18. Calendar year 2004 annual site environmental report:Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Montoya, Amber L.; Goering, Teresa Lynn; Wagner, Katrina

    2005-09-01

    Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and managed by the Sandia Site Office (SSO), Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sandia Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, operates SNL/NM. This annual report summarizes data and the compliance status of Sandia Corporation's environmental protection and monitoring programs through December 31, 2004. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention (P2), environmental restoration (ER), oil and chemical spill prevention, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmentalmore » monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program (DOE 2005) and DOE Order 231.1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 2004a). (DOE 2004a).« less

  19. Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program FY 2006

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hansen

    2007-03-08

    The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab or LBNL) is a multi-program national research facility operated by the University of California for the Department of Energy (DOE). As an integral element of DOE's National Laboratory System, Berkeley Lab supports DOE's missions in fundamental science, energy resources, and environmental quality. Berkeley Lab programs advance four distinct goals for DOE and the nation: (1) To perform leading multidisciplinary research in the computing sciences, physical sciences, energy sciences, biosciences, and general sciences in a manner that ensures employee and public safety and protection of the environment. (2) To develop and operatemore » unique national experimental facilities for qualified investigators. (3) To educate and train future generations of scientists and engineers to promote national science and education goals. (4) To transfer knowledge and technological innovations and to foster productive relationships among Berkeley Lab's research programs, universities, and industry in order to promote national economic competitiveness.« less

  20. Capsule review of the DOE research and development and field facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    None

    1980-09-01

    A description is given of the roles of DOE's headquarters, field offices, major multiprogram laboratories, Energy Technology and Mining Technology Centers, and other government-owned, contractor-operated facilities, which are located in all regions of the US. Descriptions of DOE facilities are given for multiprogram laboratories (12); program-dedicated facilities (biomedical and environmental facilities-12, fossil energy facilities-7, fusion energy facility-1, nuclear development facilities-3, physical research facilities-4, safeguards facility-1, and solar facilities-2); and Production, Testing, and Fabrication Facilities (nuclear materials production facilities-5, weapon testing and fabrication complex-8). Three appendices list DOE field and project offices; DOE field facilities by state or territory, names, addresses,more » and telephone numbers; DOE R and D field facilities by type, contractor names, and names of directors. (MCW)« less

  1. Nuclear electric propulsion development and qualification facilities

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Dutt, D. S.; Thomassen, K.; Sovey, J.; Fontana, Mario

    1991-01-01

    This paper summarizes the findings of a Tri-Agency panel consisting of members from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that were charged with reviewing the status and availability of facilities to test components and subsystems for megawatt-class nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) systems. The facilities required to support development of NEP are available in NASA centers, DOE laboratories, and industry. However, several key facilities require significant and near-term modification in order to perform the testing required to meet a 2014 launch date. For the higher powered Mars cargo and piloted missions, the priority established for facility preparation is: (1) a thruster developmental testing facility, (2) a thruster lifetime testing facility, (3) a dynamic energy conversion development and demonstration facility, and (4) an advanced reactor testing facility (if required to demonstrate an advanced multiwatt power system). Facilities to support development of the power conditioning and heat rejection subsystems are available in industry, federal laboratories, and universities. In addition to the development facilities, a new preflight qualifications and acceptance testing facility will be required to support the deployment of NEP systems for precursor, cargo, or piloted Mars missions. Because the deployment strategy for NEP involves early demonstration missions, the demonstration of the SP-100 power system is needed by the early 2000's.

  2. Calendar year 2003 annual site environmental report for Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Wagner, Katrina; Sanchez, Rebecca V.; Mayeux, Lucie

    2004-09-01

    Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and managed by the Sandia Site Office (SSO), Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sandia Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, operates SNL/NM. This annual report summarizes data and the compliance status of Sandia Corporation's environmental protection and monitoring programs through December 31, 2003. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention (P2), environmental restoration (ER), oil and chemical spill prevention, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmentalmore » monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 450.1, ''Environmental Protection Program'' (DOE 2003a) and DOE Order 231.1 Chg.2, ''Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting'' (DOE 1996).« less

  3. Safety analysis, risk assessment, and risk acceptance criteria

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Jamali, K.; Stack, D.W.; Sullivan, L.H.

    1997-08-01

    This paper discusses a number of topics that relate safety analysis as documented in the Department of Energy (DOE) safety analysis reports (SARs), probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) as characterized primarily in the context of the techniques that have assumed some level of formality in commercial nuclear power plant applications, and risk acceptance criteria as an outgrowth of PRA applications. DOE SARs of interest are those that are prepared for DOE facilities under DOE Order 5480.23 and the implementing guidance in DOE STD-3009-94. It must be noted that the primary area of application for DOE STD-3009 is existing DOE facilities andmore » that certain modifications of the STD-3009 approach are necessary in SARs for new facilities. Moreover, it is the hazard analysis (HA) and accident analysis (AA) portions of these SARs that are relevant to the present discussions. Although PRAs can be qualitative in nature, PRA as used in this paper refers more generally to all quantitative risk assessments and their underlying methods. HA as used in this paper refers more generally to all qualitative risk assessments and their underlying methods that have been in use in hazardous facilities other than nuclear power plants. This discussion includes both quantitative and qualitative risk assessment methods. PRA has been used, improved, developed, and refined since the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) was published in 1975 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Much debate has ensued since WASH-1400 on exactly what the role of PRA should be in plant design, reactor licensing, `ensuring` plant and process safety, and a large number of other decisions that must be made for potentially hazardous activities. Of particular interest in this area is whether the risks quantified using PRA should be compared with numerical risk acceptance criteria (RACs) to determine whether a facility is `safe.` Use of RACs requires quantitative estimates of consequence frequency and magnitude.« less

  4. Revision to flood hazard evaluation for the Savannah River Site

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Buckley, R.; Werth, D.

    Requirements for the Natural Phenomena Hazard (NPH) mitigation for new and existing Department of Energy (DOE) facilities are outlined in DOE Order 420.1. This report examines the hazards posed by potential flooding and represents an update to two previous reports. The facility-specific probabilistic flood hazard curve is defined as the water elevation for each annual probability of precipitation occurrence (or inversely, the return period in years). New design hyetographs for both 6-hr and 24-hr precipitation distributions were used in conjunction with hydrological models of various basins within the Savannah River Site (SRS). For numerous locations of interest, peak flow dischargemore » and flood water elevation were determined. In all cases, the probability of flooding of these facilities for a 100,000 year precipitation event is negligible.« less

  5. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Agogino, Karen; Sanchez, Rebecca

    Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada and Kauai Test Facility (KTF) in Hawaii are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities operated by Sandia Corporation (Sandia), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Sandia Site Offi ce (SSO), in Albuquerque, NM, administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at TTR and KTF. Sandia manages and conducts operations at TTR in support of the DOE/NNSA’s Weapons Ordnance Program and has operated the site since 1957. Washington Group International subcontracts to Sandia in administering most of the environmental programs at TTR. Sandia operatesmore » KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility. This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes data and the compliance status of the environmental protection and monitoring program at TTR and KTF through Calendar Year (CY) 2007. The compliance status of environmental regulations applicable at these sites include state and federal regulations governing air emissions, wastewater effluent, waste management, terrestrial surveillance, and Environmental Restoration (ER) cleanup activities. Sandia is responsible only for those environmental program activities related to its operations. The DOE/NNSA/Nevada Site Offi ce (NSO) retains responsibility for the cleanup and management of ER TTR sites. Currently, there are no ER Sites at KTF. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program (DOE 2007a) and DOE Manual 231.1-1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual (DOE 2007).« less

  6. Tiger Team Assessment of the Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1990-02-01

    This document contains the findings and associated root causes identified during the Tiger Team Assessment of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. This assessment was conducted by the Department's Office of Environment, Safety and Health between October 2 and 31, 1989. The scope of the assessment of the Pantex Plant covered all areas of environment, safety and health (ES H) activities, including compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, requirements, permits, agreements, orders and consent decrees, and DOE ES H Orders. The assessment also included an evaluation of the adequacy of DOE and site contractor ESmore » H management programs. The draft findings were submitted to the Office of Defense Programs, the Albuquerque Operations Office, the Amarillo Area Office, and regulatory agencies at the conclusion of the on-site assessment activities for review and comment on technical accuracy. Final modifications and any other appropriate changes have been incorporated in the final report. The Tiger Team Assessment of the Pantex Plant is part of the larger Tiger Team Assessment program which will encompass over 100 DOE operating facilities. The assessment program is part of a 10-point initiative announced by Secretary of Energy James D. Watkins on June 27, 1989, to strengthen environmental protection and waste management activities in the Department. The results of the program will provide the Secretary with information on the compliance status of DOE facilities with regard to ES H requirements, root causes for noncompliance, adequacy of DOE and site contractor ES H management programs, and DOE-wide ES H compliance trends.« less

  7. Environmental Audit of the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-02-01

    This document contains the findings identified during the Environmental Audit of the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML), conducted from December 2 to 13, 1991. The Audit included the EML facility located in a fifth-floor General Services Administration (GSA) office building located in New York City, and a remote environmental monitoring station located in Chester, New Jersey. The scope of this Environmental Audit was comprehensive, covering all areas of environmental activities and waste management operations, with the exception of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is the responsibility of the DOE Headquarters Office of NEPA Oversight. Compliance with applicable Federal, state,more » and local requirements; applicable DOE Orders; and internal facility requirements was addressed.« less

  8. Laboratory directed research and development program FY 1999

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hansen, Todd; Levy, Karin

    2000-03-08

    The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab or LBNL) is a multi-program national research facility operated by the University of California for the Department of Energy (DOE). As an integral element of DOE's National Laboratory System, Berkeley Lab supports DOE's missions in fundamental science, energy resources, and environmental quality. Berkeley Lab programs advance four distinct goals for DOE and the nation: (1) To perform leading multidisciplinary research in the computing sciences, physical sciences, energy sciences, biosciences, and general sciences in a manner that ensures employee and public safety and protection of the environment. (2) To develop and operatemore » unique national experimental facilities for qualified investigators. (3) To educate and train future generations of scientists and engineers to promote national science and education goals. (4) To transfer knowledge and technological innovations and to foster productive relationships among Berkeley Lab's research programs, universities, and industry in order to promote national economic competitiveness. This is the annual report on Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program for FY99.« less

  9. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Waste Management Plan, fiscal year 1994. Revision 3

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Turner, J.W.

    1993-12-01

    US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A was promulgated in final form on September 26, 1988. The order requires heads of field organizations to prepare and to submit updates on the waste management plans for all operations under their purview according to the format in Chap. 6, {open_quotes}Waste Management Plan Outline.{close_quotes} These plans are to be submitted by the DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office (DOE-ORO) in December of each year and distributed to the DP-12, ES&H-1, and other appropriate DOE Headquarters (DOE-HQ) organizations for review and comment. This document was prepared in response to this requirement for fiscal year (FY)more » 1994. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) waste management mission is reduction, collection, storage, treatment, and disposal of DOE wastes, generated primarily in pursuit of ORNL missions, in order to protect human health and safety and the environment. In carrying out this mission, waste management staff in the Waste Management and Remedial Action Division (WMRAD) will (1) guide ORNL in optimizing waste reduction and waste management capabilities and (2) conduct waste management operations in a compliant, publicly acceptable, technically sound, and cost-efficient manner. Waste management requirements for DOE radioactive wastes are detailed in DOE Order 5820.2A, and the ORNL Waste Management Program encompasses all elements of this order. The requirements of this DOE order and other appropriate DOE orders, along with applicable Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and regulations, provide the principal source of regulatory guidance for waste management operations at ORNL. The objective of this document is compilation and consolidation of information on how the ORNL Waste Management Program is conducted, which waste management facilities are being used to manage wastes, what activities are planned for FY 1994, and how all of the activities are documented.« less

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    John Pendergrass; Roman Czebiniak; Kelly Mott

    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 asmore » 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.« less

  11. THE COST OF POSITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS VERSUS COLLABORATIVE OR RELATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEGOTIATING COMPLIANCE MILESTONES AT HANFORD WA

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    HOPKINS, A.M.

    The Hanford site is subject to the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO), an order on consent signed by the DOE, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Under the HFFCCO, negotiations for transition milestones begin within six months after the issuance of a shutdown order. In the case of the PFP, the Nuclear Materials disposition and stabilization activities, a DOE responsibility, were necessary as precursor activities to Transition. This situation precipitated a crisis in the negotiations between the agencies, and formal negotiations initiated in 1997 ended in failure. The negotiationsmore » reached impasse on several key regulatory and operational issues. The 1997 negotiation was characterized by a strongly positional style. DOE and the regulatory personnel took hard lines early in the negotiations and were unable to move to resolution of key issues after a year and a half. This resulted in unhappy stakeholders, poor publicity, and work delays as well as wounded relationships between DOE and the regulatory community. The PFP is a former plutonium metal production facility. The operating mission of the PFP ended with a DOE Headquarters shutdown letter in October of 1996. Generally, the receipt of a shutdown letter initiates the start of Transition (as the first step of Decommissioning) of a facility. In the 2000-2001 PFP negotiations, a completely different approach was suggested and eventually initiated: Collaborative or Relational Negotiations. The relational negotiation style resulted in agreement between the agencies on all key issues within 6 months of initiation. All parties were very pleased with the results and all parties were relieved that protracted negotiations sessions were not needed with the new style of working together collaboratively to serve each other's interests without compromising each party's needs. The characteristics of collaborative negotiations included building trust, emphasizing equality of team members, problem solving by the entire team, relying on individual communications, and self-management skills. A specific example of positional negotiations is given with the resultant increase in cost, duration of negotiations, and lingering questions regarding trust among the parties.« less

  12. UMTRA project list of reportable occurrences

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    This UMTRA Project List of Reportable occurrences is provided to facilitate efficient categorization of reportable occurrences. These guidelines have been established in compliance with DOE minimum reporting requirements under DOE Order 5000.3B. Occurrences are arranged into nine groups relating to US Department of Energy (DOE) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project operations for active sites. These nine groupings are provided for reference to determined whether an occurrence meets reporting requirement criteria in accordance with the minimum reporting requirements. Event groups and significance categories that cannot or will not occur, and that do not apply to UMTRA Project operations, aremore » omitted. Occurrence categorization shall be as follows: Group 1. Facility Condition; Group 2. Environmental; Group 3. Personnel Safety; Group 4. Personnel Radiation Protection; Group 5. Safeguards and Security; Group 6. Transportation; Group 7. Value Basis Reporting; Group 8. Facility Status; and Group 9. Cross-Category Items.« less

  13. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Griffith, Stacy Rene; Agogino, Karen; Li, Jun

    Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada and Kauai Test Facility (KTF) in Hawaii are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities managed and operated by Sandia Corporation (Sandia), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Sandia Field Office (SFO), in Albuquerque, New Mexico, administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at TTR and KTF. Sandia manages and conducts operations at TTR in support of the DOE/NNSA’s Weapons Ordnance Program and has operated the site since 1957. Navarro Research and Engineering subcontracts to Sandia in administering most of the environmental programsmore » at TTR. Sandia operates KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility. This Annual Site Environmental Report summarizes data and the compliance status of the sustainability, environmental protection, and monitoring program at TTR and KTF through Calendar Year 2013. The compliance status of environmental regulations applicable at these sites include state and federal regulations governing air emissions, wastewater effluent, waste management, terrestrial surveillance, Environmental Restoration (ER) cleanup activities, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Sandia is responsible only for those environmental program activities related to its operations. The DOE/NNSA/Nevada Field Office retains responsibility for the cleanup and management of TTR ER sites. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 2012).« less

  14. 47 CFR 73.3700 - Channel sharing.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ...) of this section will be afforded expedited processing if the application: (A) Does not seek to expand... and expanded facilities applications and specifying appropriate processing guidelines, including the... Channel Reassignment Public Notice; and (ii) MVPDs in order to continue to carry the signal of a full...

  15. Environmental Performance Report 2013: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1-1B (Management Publication)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Schlomberg, K.; Eickhoff, J.; Beatty, B.

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities for 2013, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety, and security of the public or workers; the environment; or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report and ismore » prepared in accordance with the DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.« less

  16. Consideration of liners and covers in performance assessments

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Phifer, Mark A.; Seitz, Robert R.; Suttora, Linda C.

    2014-09-18

    On-site disposal cells are in use and being considered at several United States Department of Energy (USDOE) sites as the final disposition for large amounts of waste associated with cleanup of contaminated areas and facilities. These disposal cells are typically regulated by States and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in addition to having to comply with requirements in DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management due to the radioactive waste. The USDOE-Environmental Management Office of Site Restoration formed a working group to foster improved communication and sharing of information for personnelmore » associated with these CERCLA disposal cells and work towards more consistent assumptions, as appropriate, for technical and policy considerations related to CERCLA risk assessments and DOE Order 435.1 performance assessments in support of a Record of Decision and Disposal Authorization Statement, respectively. One of the issues considered by the working group, which is addressed in this report, was how to appropriately consider the performance of covers and liners/leachate collections systems in the context of a DOE Order 435.1 performance assessment (PA). This same information may be appropriate for consideration within CERCLA risk assessments for these facilities. These OSDCs are generally developed to meet hazardous waste (HW) disposal design standards under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as the DOE Order 435.1 performance based standards for disposal of radioactive waste. To meet the standards for HW, the facilities typically include engineered covers and liner/leachate collection systems. Thus, when considering such facilities in the context of a DOE Order 435.1 PA, there is a need to address the evolution of performance of covers and liner/leachate collection systems in the context of meeting a performance standard considering time frames of 1,000 years for compliance and potentially thousands of years based on the wastes to test the robustness of the system. Experience has shown that there are a range of expectations and perspectives from the different regulators involved at different sites when reviewing assumptions related to cover and liner/leachate collection system performance. However for HW disposal alone under RCRA the design standards are typically considered sufficient by the regulators without a requirement to assess long-term performance thus avoiding the need to consider the details addressed in this report. This report provides suggestions for a general approach to address covers and liners/leachate collection systems in a DOE Order 435.1 PA and how to integrate assessments with defense-in-depth considerations such as design, operations, and waste acceptance criteria to address uncertainties. The emphasis is on water balances and management in such assessments. Specific information and references are provided for details needed to address the evolution of individual components of cover and liner/leachate collection systems. This information was then synthesized into suggestions for best practices for cover and liner system design and examples of approaches to address the performance of covers and liners as part of a performance assessment of the disposal system. Numerous references are provided for sources of information to help describe the basis for performance of individual components of cover and liner systems.« less

  17. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    GOLDSTON, WELFORD T.; SMITH, WINCHESTER IV

    DOE issued Order 435.1, ''Radioactive Waste Management,'' on July 9, 1999 for immediate implementation. The requirements for Low Level Mixed, Transuranic, and High Level Waste have been completely rewritten. The entire DOE complex has been struggling with how to implement these new requirements within the one year required timeframe. This paper will chronicle the implementation strategy and actual results of the work to carry out that strategy at the Savannah River Site. DOE-SR and the site contractors worked closely together to implement each of the new requirements across the SRS, crossing many barriers and providing innovative solutions to the manymore » problems that surfaced throughout the year. The results are that SRS declared compliance with all of the requirements of the Order within the prescribed timeframe. The challenge included all waste types in SRS facilities and programs that handle LLW, MLLW, TRU, and HLW. This paper will describe the implementation details for development of Radioactive Waste Management Basis for each facility, Identification of Wastes with No Path to Disposal, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determinations, Low Level Waste 90-Day Staging and One Year Limits for Storage Programs, to name a few of the requirements that were addressed by the SRS 435.1 Implementation Team. This paper will trace the implementation, problems (both technical and administrative), and the current pushback efforts associated with the DOE ''Top-to-Bottom'' review.« less

  18. Postirradiation Testing Laboratory (327 Building)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kammenzind, D.E.

    A Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is the total list of the Environment, Safety and Health (ES and H) requirements to be implemented by a site, facility, or activity. These requirements are appropriate to the life cycle phase to achieve an adequate level of protection for worker and public health and safety, and the environment during design, construction, operation, decontamination and decommissioning, and environmental restoration. S/RlDs are living documents, to be revised appropriately based on change in the site`s or facility`s mission or configuration, a change in the facility`s life cycle phase, or a change to the applicable standards/requirements. S/RIDs encompassmore » health and safety, environmental, and safety related safeguards and security (S and S) standards/requirements related to the functional areas listed in the US Department of Energy (DOE) Environment, Safety and Health Configuration Guide. The Fluor Daniel Hanford (FDH) Contract S/RID contains standards/requirements, applicable to FDH and FDH subcontractors, necessary for safe operation of Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC) facilities, that are not the direct responsibility of the facility manager (e.g., a site-wide fire department). Facility S/RIDs contain standards/requirements applicable to a specific facility that are the direct responsibility of the facility manager. S/RlDs are prepared by those responsible for managing the operation of facilities or the conduct of activities that present a potential threat to the health and safety of workers, public, or the environment, including: Hazard Category 1 and 2 nuclear facilities and activities, as defined in DOE 5480.23. Selected Hazard Category 3 nuclear, and Low Hazard non-nuclear facilities and activities, as agreed upon by RL. The Postirradiation Testing Laboratory (PTL) S/RID contains standards/ requirements that are necessary for safe operation of the PTL facility, and other building/areas that are the direct responsibility of the specific facility manager. The specific DOE Orders, regulations, industry codes/standards, guidance documents and good industry practices that serve as the basis for each element/subelement are identified and aligned with each subelement.« less

  19. Tiger Team Assessment of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-05-01

    This report documents the Tiger Team Assessment of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER) and the Bartlesville Project Office (BPO) of the Department of Energy (DOE), co-located in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The assessment investigated the status of the environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) programs of the two organizations. The Tiger Team Assessment was conducted from April 6 to May 1, 1992, under the auspices of DOE`s Office of Special Projects (OSP) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH). The assessment was comprehensive, encompassing environmental, safety, and health issues; management practices; quality assurance;more » and NIPER and BPO self-assessments. Compliance with Federal, state, and local regulations; DOE Orders; best management practices; and internal IITRI requirements was assessed. In addition, an evaluation was conducted of the adequacy and effectiveness of BPO and IITRI management of the ES&H and self-assessment processes. The NIPER/BPO Tiger Team Assessment is part of a larger, comprehensive DOE Tiger Team Independent Assessment Program planned for DOE facilities. The objective of the initiative is to provide the Secretary with information on the compliance status of DOE facilities with regard to ES&H requirements, root causes for noncompliance, adequacy of DOE and contractor ES&H management programs, response actions to address the identified problem areas, and DOE-wide ES&H compliance trends and root causes.« less

  20. Y-12 Site environmental protection program implementation plan (EPPIP)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1996-11-01

    The Y-12 Plant Environmental Protection Program is conducted to: (1) protect public health and the environment from chemical and radiological releases occurring from current plant operations and past waste management and operational practices; (2) ensure compliance with federal, state, and local environmental regulations and DOE directives; (3) identify potential environmental problems; (4) evaluate existing environmental contamination and determine the need for remedial actions and mitigative measures; (5) monitor the progress of ongoing remedial actions and cleanup measures; and (6) inform the public of environmental issues relating to DOE operations. DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program, defines the general requirementsmore » for environmental protection programs at DOE facilities. This Environmental Protection Program Implementation Plan (EPPIP) defines the methods by which the Y-12 Plant staff will comply with the order by: (1) referencing environmental protection goals and objectives and identifying strategies and timetables for attaining them; (2) providing the overall framework for the design and implementation of the Y-12 Environmental Protection Program; and (3) assigning responsibilities for complying with the requirements of the order. The EPPIP is revised and updated annually.« less

  1. Make safety awareness a priority: Use a login software in your research facility

    DOE PAGES

    Camino, Fernando E.

    2017-01-21

    We report on a facility login software, whose objective is to improve safety in multi-user research facilities. Its most important safety features are: 1) blocks users from entering the lab after being absent for more than a predetermined number of days; 2) gives users a random safety quiz question, which they need to answer satisfactorily in order to use the facility; 3) blocks unauthorized users from using the facility afterhours; and 4) displays the current users in the facility. Besides restricting access to unauthorized users, the software keeps users mindful of key safety concepts. In addition, integration of the softwaremore » with a door controller system can convert it into an effective physical safety mechanism. Depending on DOE approval, the code may be available as open source.« less

  2. Make safety awareness a priority: Use a login software in your research facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Camino, Fernando E.

    We report on a facility login software, whose objective is to improve safety in multi-user research facilities. Its most important safety features are: 1) blocks users from entering the lab after being absent for more than a predetermined number of days; 2) gives users a random safety quiz question, which they need to answer satisfactorily in order to use the facility; 3) blocks unauthorized users from using the facility afterhours; and 4) displays the current users in the facility. Besides restricting access to unauthorized users, the software keeps users mindful of key safety concepts. In addition, integration of the softwaremore » with a door controller system can convert it into an effective physical safety mechanism. Depending on DOE approval, the code may be available as open source.« less

  3. 38 CFR 17.66 - Notice of noncompliance with VA standards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... AFFAIRS MEDICAL Community Residential Care § 17.66 Notice of noncompliance with VA standards. If the hearing official determines that an approved community residential care facility does not comply with the... standards must be met in order to avoid revocation of VA approval; (c) The community residential care...

  4. Tiger Team Assessment of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-05-01

    This report documents the Tiger Team Assessment of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER) and the Bartlesville Project Office (BPO) of the Department of Energy (DOE), co-located in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The assessment investigated the status of the environmental, safety, and health (ES H) programs of the two organizations. The Tiger Team Assessment was conducted from April 6 to May 1, 1992, under the auspices of DOE's Office of Special Projects (OSP) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH). The assessment was comprehensive, encompassing environmental, safety, and health issues; management practices; qualitymore » assurance; and NIPER and BPO self-assessments. Compliance with Federal, state, and local regulations; DOE Orders; best management practices; and internal IITRI requirements was assessed. In addition, an evaluation was conducted of the adequacy and effectiveness of BPO and IITRI management of the ES H and self-assessment processes. The NIPER/BPO Tiger Team Assessment is part of a larger, comprehensive DOE Tiger Team Independent Assessment Program planned for DOE facilities. The objective of the initiative is to provide the Secretary with information on the compliance status of DOE facilities with regard to ES H requirements, root causes for noncompliance, adequacy of DOE and contractor ES H management programs, response actions to address the identified problem areas, and DOE-wide ES H compliance trends and root causes.« less

  5. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Napper, P.R.; Carpenter, W.R.; Garner, R.W.

    By DOE-ID Order 5481.1A, a five year currency review is required of the Safety Analysis Reports of all ID or ID contractor operations having hazards of a type and magnitude not routinely encountered and/or accepted by the public. In keeping with this order, a currency review has been performed of the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility (ADTRC) Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Issue 003, 1990. The objectives of this currency review were to: evaluate the content, completeness, clarity of presentation and compliance with NRC Regulatory Guides and DOE Orders, etc., and evaluate the technical content of the SAR, particularly the Technicalmore » Specifications, and to evaluate the safety of continued operation of the ATRC. The reviewers concluded that although improvements may be needed in the overall content, clarity, and demonstration of compliance with current orders and regulations, the safety of the ATRC is in no way compromised and no unreviewed safety questions were identified. 6 figs., 3 tabs.« less

  6. Dancing with the regulations - Part Deux

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nitschke, R.L.

    1995-12-31

    The disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in the United States has long been subjected to two very similar regulations depending upon the location. Disposal sites located on Department of Energy (DOE) Reservations are subject to DOE Order 5820.2A {open_quotes}Radioactive Waste Management,{close_quotes} while disposal sites located elsewhere are subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation 10 CFR 61 {open_quotes}Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.{close_quotes} While life was not necessarily good, there was only one sheet of music to dance to. Recently a new player, named CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act), has ridden into those DOEmore » towns, and for those whose disposal facilities lie within or adjacent to Superfund sites, she has brought along a different drum to dance to. This paper discusses the differences and similarities between the different dance partners and their associated musical scores (i.e., the performance assessment (PA) required by the DOE order and the baseline risk assessment (BRA) required by CERCLA). The paper then provides a brief discussion on the latest dancer to cut in: the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). This discussion should help to alleviate the confusion while dancing on the LLW disposal regulatory ballroom floor.« less

  7. Facility effluent monitoring plan for the plutonium uranium extraction facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Wiegand, D.L.

    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-0438-01. 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. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure long-range integrity of themore » effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update 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.« less

  8. Table-top job analysis

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1994-12-01

    The purpose of this Handbook is to establish general training program guidelines for training personnel in developing training for operation, maintenance, and technical support personnel at Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. TTJA is not the only method of job analysis; however, when conducted properly TTJA can be cost effective, efficient, and self-validating, and represents an effective method of defining job requirements. The table-top job analysis is suggested in the DOE Training Accreditation Program manuals as an acceptable alternative to traditional methods of analyzing job requirements. DOE 5480-20A strongly endorses and recommends it as the preferred method for analyzing jobsmore » for positions addressed by the Order.« less

  9. Meteorology Assessment of Historic Rainfall for Los Alamos During September 2013

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Bruggeman, David Alan; Dewart, Jean Marie

    2016-02-12

    DOE Order 420.1, Facility Safety, requires that site natural phenomena hazards be evaluated every 10 years to support the design of nuclear facilities. The evaluation requires calculating return period rainfall to determine roof loading requirements and flooding potential based on our on-site rainfall measurements. The return period rainfall calculations are done based on statistical techniques and not site-specific meteorology. This and future studies analyze the meteorological factors that produce the significant rainfall events. These studies provide the meteorology context of the return period rainfall events.

  10. TWRS Retrieval and Storage Mission and Immobilized Low Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    BURBANK, D.A.

    This project plan has a twofold purpose. First, it provides a waste stream project plan specific to the River Protection Project (RPP) (formerly the Tank Waste Remediation System [TWRS] Project) Immobilized Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Disposal Subproject for the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) that meets the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-90-01 (Ecology et al. 1994) and is consistent with the project plan content guidelines found in Section 11.5 of the Tri-Party Agreement action plan (Ecology et al. 1998). Second, it provides an upper tier document that can be used as themore » basis for future subproject line-item construction management plans. The planning elements for the construction management plans are derived from applicable U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) planning guidance documents (DOE Orders 4700.1 [DOE 1992] and 430.1 [DOE 1995a]). The format and content of this project plan are designed to accommodate the requirements mentioned by the Tri-Party Agreement and the DOE orders. A cross-check matrix is provided in Appendix A to explain where in the plan project planning elements required by Section 11.5 of the Tri-Party Agreement are addressed.« less

  11. 76 FR 42686 - DOE Response to Recommendation 2011-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Safety...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-07-19

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2011-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities... Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000... Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledges receipt of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board...

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    McCallen, David; Petrone, Floriana; Buckle, Ian

    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 regionsmore » 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.« less

  13. 78 FR 21164 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-04-09

    ... system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer... Docket ID NRC-2013-0059. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access..., financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which...

  14. 10 CFR Appendix D to Subpart D of... - Classes of Actions That Normally Require EISs

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    .../operation/decommissioning of reactors D5. Main transmission system additions D6. Integrating transmission... waste) D1Strategic Systems, as defined in DOE Order 430.1, “Life-Cycle Asset Management,” and designated... facilities (that is, transmission system additions for integrating major new sources of generation into a...

  15. Site maps and facilities listings

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    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 formore » 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.« less

  16. Environmental Performance Report 2015

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities for 2015, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety, and security of the public or workers; the environment; or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report and ismore » prepared in accordance with the DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.« less

  17. Environmental Performance Report 2016

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Braus, Genevieve

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities for 2016, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety, and security of the public or workers; the environment; or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report and ismore » prepared in accordance with the DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.« less

  18. 20 CFR 30.212 - How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer... Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.212 How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer facility or a RECA...

  19. 20 CFR 30.212 - How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-04-01

    ... employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer... Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.212 How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer facility or a RECA...

  20. 10 CFR 770.5 - How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available for transfer for economic development? 770.5 Section 770.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC...

  1. 10 CFR 770.5 - How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available for transfer for economic development? 770.5 Section 770.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC...

  2. 20 CFR 30.212 - How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-04-01

    ... employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer... Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.212 How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer facility or a RECA...

  3. 20 CFR 30.212 - How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-04-01

    ... employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer... Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.212 How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer facility or a RECA...

  4. 20 CFR 30.212 - How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-04-01

    ... employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer... Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.212 How does a claimant establish that the employee contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility, an atomic weapons employer facility or a RECA...

  5. GrayQb TM Single-Faced Version 2 (SF2) Hanford Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF) deployment report

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Plummer, J. R.; Immel, D. M.; Serrato, M. G.

    2015-11-18

    The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) in partnership with CH2M Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) deployed the GrayQb TM SF2 radiation imaging device at the Hanford Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF) to assist in the radiological characterization of the canyon. The deployment goal was to locate radiological contamination hot spots in the PRF canyon, where pencil tanks were removed and decontamination/debris removal operations are on-going, to support the CHPRC facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) effort. The PRF canyon D&D effort supports completion of the CHPRC Plutonium Finishing Plant Decommissioning Project. The GrayQb TM SF2 (Single Faced Version 2) is a non-destructive examinationmore » device developed by SRNL to generate radiation contour maps showing source locations and relative radiological levels present in the area under examination. The Hanford PRF GrayQbTM Deployment was sponsored by CH2M Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) through the DOE Richland Operations Office, Inter-Entity Work Order (IEWO), DOE-RL IEWO- M0SR900210.« less

  6. 48 CFR 970.3770-1 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770-1 Policy. Contractors managing Department of Energy (DOE) facilities shall be required to comply with the DOE Directives applicable to facilities management. [65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36374, July 22, 2009] ...

  7. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Dahl, Suzanne; Biyani, Rabindra; Holmes, Erika

    The United States Department of Energy's (US DOE's) Hanford Nuclear Site has 177 underground waste storage tanks located 19 to 24 km (12 to 15 miles) from the Columbia River in south-central Washington State. Hanford's tanks now hold about 212,000 cu m (56 million gallons) of highly radioactive and chemically hazardous waste. Sixty-seven tanks have leaked an estimated 3,785 cu m (1 million gallons) of this waste into the surrounding soil. Further releases to soil, groundwater, and the Columbia River are the inevitable result of the tanks continuing to age. The risk from this waste is recognized as a threatmore » to the Northwest by both State and Federal governments. US DOE and Bechtel National, Inc., are building the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to treat and vitrify (immobilize in glass) the waste from Hanford's tanks. As is usual for any groundbreaking project, problems have arisen that must be resolved as they occur if treatment is to take place as specified in the court-enforceable Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) and the Consent Decree, entered into by US DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). At times, US DOE's approach to solving these critical issues seems to have caused undue wastes of time, energy, and, ultimately, public funds. Upon reviewing the history of Hanford's tank waste treatment project, Ecology hopes that constructive criticism of past failures and praise of successes will inspire US DOE to consider changing practices, be more transparent with regulatory agencies and the public, and take a 'lean production' approach to successfully completing this project. All three Tri-Party Agreement agencies share the goal of completing WTP on time, ensuring it is operational and in compliance with safety standards. To do this, Ecology believes US DOE should: - Maintain focus on the primary goal of completing the five major facilities of WTP. - Construct a supplemental low-activity waste (LAW) vitrification facility for the two-thirds balance of LAW that will not be treated by the vitrification facility under construction. - Prepare infrastructure for waste feed from the tanks and facilities to handle the WTP waste streams. To support this project track, Ecology expedites dangerous waste permitting by using a design-build approach to integrate WTP into the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit for Hanford. (authors)« less

  8. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Loftin, B.; Abramczyk, G.; Koenig, R.

    Radioactive materials are stored in a variety of locations throughout the DOE complex. At the Savannah River Site (SRS), materials are stored within dedicated facilities. Each of those facilities has a documented safety analysis (DSA) that describes accidents that the facility and the materials within it may encounter. Facilities at the SRS are planning on utilizing the certified Model 9977 Shipping Package as a long term storage package and one of these facilities required ballistics testing. Specifically, in order to meet the facility DSA, the radioactive materials (RAM) must be contained within the storage package after impact by a .223more » caliber round. In order to qualify the Model 9977 Shipping Package for storage in this location, the package had to be tested under these conditions. Over the past two years, the Model 9977 Shipping Package has been subjected to a series of ballistics tests. The purpose of the testing was to determine if the 9977 would be suitable for use as a storage package at a Savannah River Site facility. The facility requirements are that the package must not release any of its contents following the impact in its most vulnerable location by a .223 caliber round. A package, assembled to meet all of the design requirements for a certified 9977 shipping configuration and using simulated contents, was tested at the Savannah River Site in March of 2011. The testing was completed and the package was examined. The results of the testing and examination are presented in this paper.« less

  9. Advanced Test Reactor Safety Basis Upgrade Lessons Learned Relative to Design Basis Verification and Safety Basis Management

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    G. L. Sharp; R. T. McCracken

    The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is a pressurized light-water reactor with a design thermal power of 250 MW. The principal function of the ATR is to provide a high neutron flux for testing reactor fuels and other materials. The reactor also provides other irradiation services such as radioisotope production. The ATR and its support facilities are located at the Test Reactor Area of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). An audit conducted by the Department of Energy's Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance (DOE OA) raised concerns that design conditions at the ATR were not adequately analyzedmore » in the safety analysis and that legacy design basis management practices had the potential to further impact safe operation of the facility.1 The concerns identified by the audit team, and issues raised during additional reviews performed by ATR safety analysts, were evaluated through the unreviewed safety question process resulting in shutdown of the ATR for more than three months while these concerns were resolved. Past management of the ATR safety basis, relative to facility design basis management and change control, led to concerns that discrepancies in the safety basis may have developed. Although not required by DOE orders or regulations, not performing design basis verification in conjunction with development of the 10 CFR 830 Subpart B upgraded safety basis allowed these potential weaknesses to be carried forward. Configuration management and a clear definition of the existing facility design basis have a direct relation to developing and maintaining a high quality safety basis which properly identifies and mitigates all hazards and postulated accident conditions. These relations and the impact of past safety basis management practices have been reviewed in order to identify lessons learned from the safety basis upgrade process and appropriate actions to resolve possible concerns with respect to the current ATR safety basis. The need for a design basis reconstitution program for the ATR has been identified along with the use of sound configuration management principles in order to support safe and efficient facility operation.« less

  10. 39 CFR 778.7 - How does the Postal Service communicate with state and local officials concerning the Postal...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... notice directly to affected state, areawide, regional, and local entities in a state of a proposed direct Federal development project if: (1) The state has not adopted a process under the Order; or (2) The development project involves a facility project action category not selected for the state process. This...

  11. COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATIONS A SUCCESSFUL APPROACH FOR NEGOTIATING COMPLIANCE MILESTONES FOR THE TRANSITION OF THE PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT (PFP), HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION, AND HANFORD, WASHINGTON

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hebdon, J.; Yerxa, J.; Romine, L.

    The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is a former U. S. Department of Energy Defense Production Site. The site is currently listed on the National Priorities List of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and is undergoing cleanup and environmental restoration. The PFP is a former Plutonium metal production facility. The operating mission of the PFP ended with a DOE Headquarters shutdown letter in October of 1996. Generally, the receipt of a shutdown letter initiates the start of Transition (as the first step of Decommissioning) of a facility. The Hanford site is subject to the Hanford Federalmore » Facilities Compliance Act and Consent Order (HFFCCO), an order on consent signed by the DOE, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Under the HFFCCO, negotiations for transition milestones begin within six months after the issuance of a shutdown order. In the case of the PFP, the Nuclear Materials disposition and stabilization activities, a DOE responsibility, were necessary as precursor activities to Transition. This situation precipitated a crisis in the negotiations between the agencies, and formal negotiations initiated in 1997 ended in failure. The negotiations reached impasse on several key regulatory and operational issues. The 1997 negotiation was characterized by a strongly positional style. DOE and the regulatory personnel took hard lines early in the negotiations and were unable to move to resolution of key issues after a year and a half. This resulted in unhappy stakeholders, poor publicity and work delays as well as wounded relationships between DOE and the regulatory community. In the 2000-2001 PFP negotiations, a completely different approach was suggested and eventually initiated: Collaborative Negotiations. The collaborative negotiation style resulted in agreement between the agencies on all key issues within 6 months of initiation. All parties were very pleased with the results and all parties were relieved that protracted negotiations sessions were not needed with the new style of working together collaboratively to serve each other's interests. The characteristics of collaborative negotiations included building trust, emphasizing equality of team members, problem solving by the entire team, relying on individual communications and self-management skills. The team found that trust building sessions were key to successfully working through issues. Relationship differences were too often ignored in the past negotiations and were recognized and worked through in the collaborative process.« less

  12. Development of an Industry Dynamometer/Spin Test Facility--Equipment Only: Cooperative Research and Development Final Report, CRADA Number CRD-05-164

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    McDade, Mark

    2016-12-01

    The Department of Energy/National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE/NREL) owns and operates a megawatt-scale dynamometer used for testing wind turbine drive trains up to 1.5 megawatt (MW) in rated capacity. At this time, this unit is the only unit of its type in the United States, available for use by the American Wind Industry. Currently this dynamometer is heavily backlogged and unavailable to provide testing needed by various wind industry members. DOE/NREL is in possession of two critical pieces of equipment that may be used to develop an alternative Dynamometer facility, but does not have the funds or other resources necessarymore » to develop such a facility. The Participant possesses complimentary facilities and infrastructure that when combined with the NREL equipment can create such a test facility. The Participant is also committed to expending funds to develop and operate such a facility to the subsequent benefit of the Wind Industry and DOE Wind Energy program. In exchange for DOE/NREL providing the critical equipment, the Participant will grant DOE/NREL a minimum of 90 days of testing time per year in the new facility while incurring no facilities fees.« less

  13. WIPP waste characterization program sampling and analysis guidance manual

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1991-01-01

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Characterization Program Sampling and Analysis Guidance Manual (Guidance 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 Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for the WIPP Experimental-Waste Characterization Program (the Program). This Guidance Manual includes all of the sampling and testing methodologies accepted by the WIPP Project Office (DOE/WPO) for use in implementing the Program requirements specified in the QAPP. This includes methods for characterizing representative samples of transuranic (TRU) wastesmore » at DOE generator sites with respect to the gas generation controlling variables defined in the WIPP bin-scale and alcove test plans, as well as waste container headspace gas sampling and analytical procedures to support waste characterization requirements under the WIPP test program and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The procedures in this Guidance Manual are comprehensive and detailed and are designed to provide the necessary guidance for the preparation of site specific procedures. The use of these procedures is intended to provide the necessary sensitivity, specificity, precision, and comparability of analyses and test results. The solutions to achieving specific program objectives will depend upon facility constraints, compliance with DOE Orders and DOE facilities' operating contractor requirements, and the knowledge and experience of the TRU waste handlers and analysts. With some analytical methods, such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, the Guidance Manual procedures may be used directly. With other methods, such as nondestructive/destructive characterization, the Guidance Manual provides guidance rather than a step-by-step procedure.« less

  14. 41 CFR 102-76.60 - To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false To which facilities does... Management Federal Property Management Regulations System (Continued) FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 76-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Architectural Barriers Act § 102-76.60 To which facilities does the...

  15. 41 CFR 102-76.60 - To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false To which facilities does... Management Federal Property Management Regulations System (Continued) FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 76-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Architectural Barriers Act § 102-76.60 To which facilities does the...

  16. 41 CFR 102-76.60 - To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false To which facilities does... Management Federal Property Management Regulations System (Continued) FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 76-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Architectural Barriers Act § 102-76.60 To which facilities does the...

  17. 41 CFR 102-76.60 - To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false To which facilities does... Management Federal Property Management Regulations System (Continued) FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 76-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Architectural Barriers Act § 102-76.60 To which facilities does the...

  18. 41 CFR 102-76.60 - To which facilities does the Architectural Barriers Act apply?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false To which facilities does... Management Federal Property Management Regulations System (Continued) FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 76-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Architectural Barriers Act § 102-76.60 To which facilities does the...

  19. Reevaluation of air surveillance station siting

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Abbott, K.; Jannik, T.

    2016-07-06

    DOE Technical Standard HDBK-1216-2015 (DOE 2015) recommends evaluating air-monitoring station placement using the analytical method developed by Waite. The technique utilizes wind rose and population distribution data in order to determine a weighting factor for each directional sector surrounding a nuclear facility. Based on the available resources (number of stations) and a scaling factor, this weighting factor is used to determine the number of stations recommended to be placed in each sector considered. An assessment utilizing this method was performed in 2003 to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing SRS air-monitoring program. The resulting recommended distribution of air-monitoring stations wasmore » then compared to that of the existing site perimeter surveillance program. The assessment demonstrated that the distribution of air-monitoring stations at the time generally agreed with the results obtained using the Waite method; however, at the time new stations were established in Barnwell and in Williston in order to meet requirements of DOE guidance document EH-0173T.« less

  20. DOE’s Management and Oversight of the Nuclear Weapons Complex

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1990-03-22

    and Economic Development Division Before the Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities Panel Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives...and newly created DOE offices. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, whose board members were appointed this past year, was created to provide 6...mandated Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Continuing dialogue between DOE and the Board can also serve to enhance DOE’s ability to respond more

  1. Closure Plan for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site at the Nevada Test Site

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NSTec Environmental Management

    The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RMWS) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is managed and operated by National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). This document is the first update of the preliminary closure plan for the Area 5 RWMS at the NTS that was presented in the Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan (DOE, 2005a). The major updates to the plan include a new closure schedule, updated closure inventory, updated site and facility characterization data, the Title II engineering cover design, and the closure processmore » for the 92-Acre Area of the RWMS. The format and content of this site-specific plan follows the Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans (DOE, 1999a). This interim closure plan meets closure and post-closure monitoring requirements of the order DOE O 435.1, manual DOE M 435.1-1, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, 40 CFR 265, Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.743, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements as incorporated into NAC 444.8632. The Area 5 RWMS accepts primarily packaged low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and asbestiform low-level waste (ALLW) for disposal in excavated disposal cells.« less

  2. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-04-01

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials. Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities. Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex. Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in DOE's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure strategy and contractor integration analysis. Interstate waste and materials shipments. Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from December 31, 1997 through April 30, 1998 under the NGA project. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; and provided ongoing support to state-DOE interactions in preparation for the March 30-31, 1998 NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force Meeting with DOE. maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, DOE's Environmental Management Budget, and DOE's proposed Intersite Discussions.« less

  3. Design and evaluation guidelines for Department of Energy facilities subjected to natural phenomena hazards

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kennedy, R.P.; Short, S.A.; McDonald, J.R.

    1990-06-01

    The Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE Natural Phenomena Hazards Panel have developed uniform design and evaluation guidelines for protection against natural phenomena hazards at DOE sites throughout the United States. The goal of the guidelines is to assure that DOE facilities can withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, extreme winds, tornadoes, and flooding. The guidelines apply to both new facilities (design) and existing facilities (evaluation, modification, and upgrading). The intended audience is primarily the civil/structural or mechanical engineers conducting the design or evaluation of DOE facilities. The likelihood of occurrence of natural phenomena hazards atmore » each DOE site has been evaluated by the DOE Natural Phenomena Hazard Program. Probabilistic hazard models are available for earthquake, extreme wind/tornado, and flood. Alternatively, site organizations are encouraged to develop site-specific hazard models utilizing the most recent information and techniques available. In this document, performance goals and natural hazard levels are expressed in probabilistic terms, and design and evaluation procedures are presented in deterministic terms. Design/evaluation procedures conform closely to common standard practices so that the procedures will be easily understood by most engineers. Performance goals are expressed in terms of structure or equipment damage to the extent that: (1) the facility cannot function; (2) the facility would need to be replaced; or (3) personnel are endangered. 82 refs., 12 figs., 18 tabs.« less

  4. Seismic assessment of Technical Area V (TA-V).

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Medrano, Carlos S.

    The Technical Area V (TA-V) Seismic Assessment Report was commissioned as part of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Self Assessment Requirement per DOE O 414.1, Quality Assurance, for seismic impact on existing facilities at Technical Area-V (TA-V). SNL TA-V facilities are located on an existing Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zone IIB Site within the physical boundary of the Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB). The document delineates a summary of the existing facilities with their safety-significant structure, system and components, identifies DOE Guidance, conceptual framework, past assessments and the present Geological and Seismic conditions. Building upon the past information and themore » evolution of the new seismic design criteria, the document discusses the potential impact of the new standards and provides recommendations based upon the current International Building Code (IBC) per DOE O 420.1B, Facility Safety and DOE G 420.1-2, Guide for the Mitigation of Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and Non-Nuclear Facilities.« less

  5. Calendar Year 2013 Annual Site Environmental Report for Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Griffith, Stacy

    2014-09-01

    Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico is a government-owned/contractor-operated facility. Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, manages and operates the laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The DOE/NNSA, Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. This annual report summarizes data and the compliance status of Sandia Corporation’s sustainability, environmental protection, and monitoring programs through December 31, 2013. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention, environmental restoration, oil and chemical spill prevention, and implementation of themore » National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 2012).« less

  6. Commercial Decommissioning at DOE's Rocky Flats

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

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

    2002-02-25

    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 Rockymore » 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.« less

  7. Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for Department of Energy Facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    This DOE standard gives design and evaluation criteria for natural phenomena hazards (NPH) effects as guidance for implementing the NPH mitigation requirements of DOE 5480.28. Goal of the criteria is to assure that DOE facilities can withstand the effects of earthquakes, extreme winds, tornadoes, flooding, etc. They apply to the design of new facilities and the evaluation of existing facilities; they may also be used for modification and upgrading of the latter.

  8. Racial/ethnic differences in access to substance abuse treatment.

    PubMed

    Lo, Celia C; Cheng, Tyrone C

    2011-05-01

    A secondary dataset, Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES), 2001-2003, was employed to examine racial/ethnic differences in access to specialty and non-specialty substance abuse treatment (compared with no access to treatment). The study found that non-Hispanic White Americans were (1) likelier than members of all racial/ethnic minority groups (other than Hispanics) to address substance abuse by accessing care through specialty addiction-treatment facilities, and were (2) also less likely to access substance abuse care through non-specialty facilities. Because non-specialty facilities may have staffs whose professional training does not target treating chronic, bio-psycho-social illness such as substance abuse, our results imply that treatment facilities deemed non-specialty may need to enhance staff training, in order to ensure individuals are properly screened for substance use conditions and are referred for or provided with effective counseling and medications as appropriate.

  9. Tank waste remediation system nuclear criticality safety program management review

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    BRADY RAAP, M.C.

    1999-06-24

    This document provides the results of an internal management review of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) criticality safety program, performed in advance of the DOE/RL assessment for closure of the TWRS Nuclear Criticality Safety Issue, March 1994. Resolution of the safety issue was identified as Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-40-12, due September 1999.

  10. Annual Site Environmental Report Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Calendar year 2007

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Agogino, Karen; Sanchez, Rebecca

    2008-09-30

    Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) is a government-owned/contractor-operated facility. Sandia Corporation (Sandia), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, manages and operates the laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The DOE/NNSA Sandia Site Office (SSO) administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. This annual report summarizes data and the compliance status of Sandia Corporation’s environmental protection and monitoring programs through December 31, 2007. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention (P2), environmental restoration (ER), oil and chemical spill prevention,more » and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program (DOE 2007a) and DOE Manual 231.1-1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 2007).« less

  11. 10 CFR 770.8 - May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear... 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...

  12. 10 CFR 770.8 - May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear... 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...

  13. 10 CFR 770.8 - May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear 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...

  14. 10 CFR 770.8 - May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear 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...

  15. Environmental Management System Plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Fox, Robert; Thorson, Patrick; Horst, Blair

    2009-03-24

    Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management establishes the policy that Federal agencies conduct their environmental, transportation, and energy-related activities in a manner that is environmentally, economically and fiscally sound, integrated, continually improving, efficient, and sustainable. The Department of Energy (DOE) has approved DOE Order 450.1A, Environmental Protection Program and DOE Order 430.2B, Departmental Energy, Renewable Energy and Transportation Management as the means of achieving the provisions of this Executive Order. DOE Order 450.1A mandates the development of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) to implement sustainable environmental stewardship practices that: (1) Protect the air, water, land, and othermore » natural and cultural resources potentially impacted by facility operations; (2) Meet or exceed applicable environmental, public health, and resource protection laws and regulations; and (3) Implement cost-effective business practices. In addition, the DOE Order 450.1A mandates that the EMS must be integrated with a facility's Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) established pursuant to DOE P 450.4, 'Safety Management System Policy'. DOE Order 430.2B mandates an energy management program that considers energy use and renewable energy, water, new and renovated buildings, and vehicle fleet activities. The Order incorporates the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Order also includes the DOE's Transformational Energy Action Management initiative, which assures compliance is achieved through an Executable Plan that is prepared and updated annually by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL, Berkeley Lab, or the Laboratory) and then approved by the DOE Berkeley Site Office. At the time of this revision to the EMS plan, the 'FY2009 LBNL Sustainability Executable Plan' represented the most current Executable Plan. These DOE Orders and associated policies establish goals and sustainable stewardship practices that are protective of environmental, natural, and cultural resources, and take a life cycle approach that considers aspects such as: (1) Acquisition and use of environmentally preferable products; (2) Electronics stewardship; (3) Energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy; (4) Pollution prevention, with emphasis on toxic and hazardous chemical and material reduction; (5) Procurement of efficient energy and water consuming materials and equipment; (6) Recycling and reuse; (7) Sustainable and high-performance building design; (8) Transportation and fleet management; and (9) Water conservation. LBNL's approach to sustainable environmental stewardship required under Order 450.1A poses the challenge of implementing its EMS in a compliance-based, performance-based, and cost-effective manner. In other words, the EMS must deliver real and tangible business value at a minimal cost. The purpose of this plan is to describe Berkeley Lab's approach for achieving such an EMS, including an overview of the roles and responsibilities of key Laboratory parties. This approach begins with a broad-based environmental policy consistent with that stated in Chapter 11 of the LBNL Health and Safety Manual (PUB-3000). This policy states that Berkeley Lab is committed to the following: (1) Complying with applicable environmental, public health, and resource conservation laws and regulations. (2) Preventing pollution, minimizing waste, and conserving natural resources. (3) Correcting environmental hazards and cleaning up existing environmental problems, and (4) Continually improving the Laboratory's environmental performance while maintaining operational capability and sustaining the overall mission of the Laboratory. A continual cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes will be performed to achieve goals, objectives, and targets that will help LBNL carry out this policy. Each year, environmental aspects will be identified and their impacts to the environment will be evaluated. Objectives and targets will be developed (or updated) for each aspect that is determined to have a significant impact. Environmental Management Programs (EMPs) will be prepared (or updated) to document actions necessary for reducing certain environmental impacts. Each EMP will identify responsible parties and associated target deadlines for each action. Quarterly, environmental programs will be reviewed for compliance issues and effectiveness. Annually, an internal assessment will be performed to evaluate the progress of the EMS, and LBNL senior management will review the results. In addition, at least once every 3 years a third-party audit will be performed to validate that the EMS is being implemented according to plan.« less

  16. Environmental assessment of the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    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) ofmore » 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.« less

  17. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2011 Glass Testing Summary Report

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.

    2011-09-29

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 x 10{sup 5} m{sup 3} of glass (Certa and Wells 2010). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 8.9 x 10{sup 14} Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally {sup 99}Tc (t{sub 1/2} = 2.1 x 10{sup 5}), plannedmore » for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessment (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2011 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses.« less

  18. Data Sharing Report Characterization of Isotope Row Facilities Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge TN

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Weaver, Phyllis C.

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (EM-OR) requested that Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), working under the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) contract, provide technical and independent waste management planning support using funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Specifically, DOE EM-OR requested ORAU to plan and implement a survey approach, focused on characterizing the Isotope Row Facilities located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for future determination of an appropriate disposition pathway for building debris and systems, should the buildings be demolished. The characterization effort wasmore » designed to identify and quantify radiological and chemical contamination associated with building structures and process systems. The Isotope Row Facilities discussed in this report include Bldgs. 3030, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3033A, 3034, 3036, 3093, and 3118, and are located in the northeast quadrant of the main ORNL campus area, between Hillside and Central Avenues. Construction of the isotope production facilities was initiated in the late 1940s, with the exception of Bldgs. 3033A and 3118, which were enclosed in the early 1960s. The Isotope Row facilities were intended for the purpose of light industrial use for the processing, assemblage, and storage of radionuclides used for a variety of applications (ORNL 1952 and ORAU 2013). The Isotope Row Facilities provided laboratory and support services as part of the Isotopes Production and Distribution Program until 1989 when DOE mandated their shutdown (ORNL 1990). These facilities performed diverse research and developmental experiments in support of isotopes production. As a result of the many years of operations, various projects, and final cessation of operations, production was followed by inclusion into the surveillance and maintenance (S&M) project for eventual decontamination and decommissioning (D&D). The process for D&D and final dismantlement of facilities requires that the known contaminants of concern (COCs) be evaluated and quantified and to identify and quantify any additional contaminants in order to satisfy the waste acceptance criteria requirements for the desired disposal pathway. Known facility contaminants include, but are not limited to, asbestos-containing material (ACM), radiological contaminants, and chemical contaminants including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals.« less

  19. Construction Cost Growth for New Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kubic, Jr., William L.

    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 Facilitymore » (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.« less

  20. Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 570: Area 9 Yucca Flat Atmospheric Test Sites, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Matthews, Patrick

    2013-11-01

    This Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 570: Area 9 Yucca Flat Atmospheric Test Sites, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada. This complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. The purpose of the CADD/CR is to provide justification and documentation supporting the recommendation that no further corrective action is needed.

  1. Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) Facility Stewardship Plan: Revision 2.1

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Torres, Juan; Anderson, Art

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), has established the Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) on the campus of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and has designated it as a DOE user facility. This 182,500-ft2 research facility provides state-of-the-art laboratory and support infrastructure to optimize the design and performance of electrical, thermal, fuel, and information technologies and systems at scale. This Facility Stewardship Plan provides DOE and other decision makers with information about the existing and expected capabilities of the ESIF and the expected performance metrics to be applied to ESIF operations.more » This plan is a living document that will be updated and refined throughout the lifetime of the facility.« less

  2. Site Sustainability Plan with FY2015 Performance Data

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nichols, Teresa A.; Lapsa, Melissa Voss; Hudey, Bryce D.

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is both the largest science and energy laboratory in the US Department of Energy (DOE) complex and one of the oldest national laboratories still operating at its original site. ORNL implemented an aggressive modernization program in 2000, providing modern, energy-efficient facilities that help to support the growth of important national scientific missions while faced with the unique and challenging opportunity to integrate sustainability into legacy assets. ORNL is committed to leveraging the outcomes of DOE-sponsored research programs to maximize the efficient use of energy and natural resources across a diverse campus. ORNL leadership in conjunctionmore » with the Sustainable Campus Initiative (SCI) maintains a commitment to the integration of technical innovations into new and existing facilities, systems, and processes with a comprehensive approach to achieving DOE directives and the new Executive Order 13693. Energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reductions, climate change resiliency, and other pursuits toward integrated sustainability factor in all we do. ORNL continues to pursue and deploy innovative solutions and initiatives to advance regional, national, and worldwide sustainability and continues to transform its culture and engage employees in supporting sustainability at work, at home, and in the community.« less

  3. Navy Water Conservation Guide for Shore Activities.

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1996-07-01

    maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection ofinformation . Sendcomments regarding this burden estimate orany otherospectof...Submittal Packages E-1 vi LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Flowchart Showing the Requirements of Executive Order 12902 for Water Conservation 2 1-2 Roles of DOE, GSA...subsequent year. has its own unique role in imple- menting water conservation. In the An audit can be considered Navy, the Naval Facilities Engineer- current

  4. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nichols, Teresa A.; Lapsa, Melissa Voss

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is both the largest science and energy laboratory of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and one of the oldest national laboratories still operating at its original site. These characteristics provide the Sustainable Campus Initiative (SCI) both a unique opportunity and a unique challenge to integrate sustainability into facilities and activities. As outlined in this report, SCI is leveraging the outcomes of ORNL’s DOE-sponsored research and development programs to maximize the efficient use of energy and natural resources across ORNL. Wherever possible, ORNL is integrating technical innovations into new and existing facilities, systems, and processesmore » with a widespread approach to achieving Executive Order 13514. ORNL continues to pursue and deploy innovative solutions and initiatives to advance regional, national, and worldwide sustainability and continues to transform its culture and engage employees in supporting sustainability at work, at home, and in the community. Table 1 summarizes ORNL's FY 2013 performance and planned actions to attain future goals. ORNL has achieved numerous successes during FY 2013, which are described in detail throughout this document.« less

  5. STEADY STATE MODELING OF THE MINIMUM CRITICAL CORE OF THE TRANSIENT REACTOR TEST FACILITY

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Anthony L. Alberti; Todd S. Palmer; Javier Ortensi

    2016-05-01

    With the advent of next generation reactor systems and new fuel designs, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has identified the need for the resumption of transient testing of nuclear fuels. The DOE has decided that the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is best suited for future testing. TREAT is a thermal neutron spectrum, air-cooled, nuclear test facility that is designed to test nuclear fuels in transient scenarios. These specific scenarios range from simple temperature transients to full fuel melt accidents. DOE has expressed a desire to develop a simulation capability that will accurately modelmore » the experiments before they are irradiated at the facility. It is the aim for this capability to have an emphasis on effective and safe operation while minimizing experimental time and cost. The multi physics platform MOOSE has been selected as the framework for this project. The goals for this work are to identify the fundamental neutronics properties of TREAT and to develop an accurate steady state model for future multiphysics transient simulations. In order to minimize computational cost, the effect of spatial homogenization and angular discretization are investigated. It was found that significant anisotropy is present in TREAT assemblies and to capture this effect, explicit modeling of cooling channels and inter-element gaps is necessary. For this modeling scheme, single element calculations at 293 K gave power distributions with a root mean square difference of 0.076% from those of reference SERPENT calculations. The minimum critical core configuration with identical gap and channel treatment at 293 K resulted in a root mean square, total core, radial power distribution 2.423% different than those of reference SERPENT solutions.« less

  6. 20 CFR 655.1113 - Element III-What does “facility wage rate” mean?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... Facility Meet to Employ H-1C Nonimmigrant Workers as Registered Nurses? § 655.1113 Element III—What does... for registered nurses similarly employed by the facility.” (b) The facility must pay the higher of the...., prevailing wage). (c) Wage obligations for H-1C nurses in nonproductive status—(1) Circumstances where wages...

  7. 20 CFR 655.1113 - Element III-What does “facility wage rate” mean?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-04-01

    ... Facility Meet to Employ H-1C Nonimmigrant Workers as Registered Nurses? § 655.1113 Element III—What does... for registered nurses similarly employed by the facility.” (b) The facility must pay the higher of the...., prevailing wage). (c) Wage obligations for H-1C nurses in nonproductive status—(1) Circumstances where wages...

  8. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-01-01

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials. Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities. Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex. Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the EM 2006 cleanup plans and contractor integration analysis. Interstate waste and materials shipments. Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from October 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997, under the NGA project. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; and maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, DOE activities in the area of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, and DOE's proposed National Dialogue.« less

  9. Feasibility Study for a Combined Radiation Environment in the ACRR-FRECII Cavity.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Parma, Edward J.

    The objective of this report is to determine the feasibility of a combined pulsed - power accelerator machine, similar to HERMES - III, with the Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR) Fueled - Ring External Cavity (FREC - II) in a new facility. The document is conceptual in nature, and includes some neutronic analysis that i llustrates that that the physics of such a concept would be feasible. There would still be many engineering design considerations and issues that would need to be investigated in order to determine the true viability of such a concept. This report does n ot addressmore » engineering design details, the cost of such a facility, or what would be required to develop the safety authorization of the concept. The radiation requirements for the "on - target" gamma - ray dose and dose rate are not addressed in this report . It is assumed that if the same general on - target specifications for a HERMES - III type machine could be met with the proposed concept, that the machine would b e considered highly useful as a radiation effects sciences platform. In general, the combined accelerator/ACRR reactor concept can be shown to be feasible with no major issues that would preclude the usefulness of such a facility. The new facility would provide a capability that currently does not exist in the radiation testing complex.« less

  10. Development of consistent hazard controls for DOE transuranic waste operations

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Woody, W.J.

    2007-07-01

    This paper describes the results of a re-engineering initiative undertaken with the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) in order to standardize hazard analysis assumptions and methods and resulting safety controls applied to multiple transuranic (TRU) waste operations located across the United States. A wide range of safety controls are historically applied to transuranic waste operations, in spite of the fact that these operations have similar operational characteristics and hazard/accident potential. The re-engineering effort supported the development of a DOE technical standard with specific safety controls designated for accidents postulated during waste container retrieval, staging/storage, venting, onsitemore » movements, and characterization activities. Controls cover preventive and mitigative measures; include both hardware and specific administrative controls; and provide protection to the facility worker, onsite co-located workers and the general public located outside of facility boundaries. The Standard development involved participation from all major DOE sites conducting TRU waste operations. Both safety analysts and operations personnel contributed to the re-engineering effort. Acknowledgment is given in particular to the following individuals who formed a core working group: Brenda Hawks, (DOE Oak Ridge Office), Patrice McEahern (CWI-Idaho), Jofu Mishima (Consultant), Louis Restrepo (Omicron), Jay Mullis (DOE-ORO), Mike Hitchler (WSMS), John Menna (WSMS), Jackie East (WSMS), Terry Foppe (CTAC), Carla Mewhinney (WIPP-SNL), Stephie Jennings (WIPP-LANL), Michael Mikolanis (DOESRS), Kraig Wendt (BBWI-Idaho), Lee Roberts (Fluor Hanford), and Jim Blankenhorn (WSRC). Additional acknowledgment is given to Dae Chung (EM) and Ines Triay (EM) for leadership and management of the re-engineering effort. (authors)« less

  11. Evaluation of alternatives for best available technology treatment and retreatment of uranium-contaminated solutions at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant C-400 Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Del Cul, G.D.

    1991-02-01

    The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant C-400 Decontamination Facility generators aqueous solutions that originate in drum washing, machine parts and equipment cleaning, and other decontamination processes. In general, the waste contains uranyl, fluoride, carbonate, and nitrate ions, in addition to soaps, detergents, secondary contaminants, and particulate matter. The main contaminants are fluoride, technetium, uranium, and other heavy metals. In accordance with Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5, the releases of radioactive materials must be as low as reasonably achievable and be below the derived concentration guide limits. To comply with the DOE order, an action plan was formulated. The action planmore » included a literature search to support best available technology evaluation of treatment alternatives, a quality assurance/quality control plan, suggestion of alternative treatment options, bench-scale test studies of the proposed treatment alternatives, and establishment of the final recommendation. Five major technologies were considered: precipitation/coprecipitation, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, supported liquid membranes, and ion exchange. Biosorption was also briefly considered. Based on C-400's requirements and facilities, the precipitation/coprecipitation process appears to be the best suited for use at the plant. Four different treatment options using the precipitation/coprecipitation technology were proposed. Bench-scale studies of all four options were suggested. Options 1 and 2 represent a combination of lime-softening and iron coprecipitation. Laboratory test evaluations were initiated and the results involving Options 1 and 2 reported here. 29 refs., 1 fig., 2 tabs.« less

  12. Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1993-11-17

    This manual defines the Hanford Site radioactive, hazardous, and sanitary solid waste acceptance criteria. Criteria in the manual represent a guide for meeting state and federal regulations; DOE Orders; Hanford Site requirements; and other rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards as they apply to acceptance of radioactive and hazardous solid waste at the Hanford Site. It is not the intent of this manual to be all inclusive of the regulations; rather, it is intended that the manual provide the waste generator with only the requirements that waste must meet in order to be accepted at Hanford Site TSD facilities.

  13. Calendar Year 2001 Annual Site Environmental Report, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    VIGIL, FRANCINE S.; SANCHEZ, REBECCA D.; WAGNER, KATRINA

    2002-09-01

    Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility overseen by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) through the Albuquerque Operations Office (AL), Office of Kirtland Site Operations (OKSO). Sandia Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, operates SNL/NM. Work performed at SNL/NM is in support of the DOE and Sandia Corporation's mission to provide weapon component technology and hardware for the needs of the nation's security. Sandia Corporation also conducts fundamental research and development (R&D) to advance technology in energy research, computer science, waste management, microelectronics, materials science, and transportation safetymore » for hazardous and nuclear components. In support of Sandia Corporation's mission, the Integrated Safety and Security (ISS) Center and the Environmental Restoration (ER) Project at SNL/NM have established extensive environmental programs to assist Sandia Corporation's line organizations in meeting all applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations and DOE requirements. This annual report summarizes data and the compliance status of Sandia Corporation's environmental protection and monitoring programs through December 31, 2001. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention (P2), environmental remediation, oil and chemical spill prevention, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program (DOE 1990) and DOE Order 231.1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 1996).« less

  14. An Application of the SSHAC Level 3 Process to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Nuclear Facilities at the Hanford Site, Eastern Washington, USA

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Coppersmith , Kevin J.; Bommer, Julian J.; Bryce, Robert W.

    Under the sponsorship of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the electric utility Energy Northwest, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is conducting a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) within the framework of a SSHAC Level 3 procedure (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee; Budnitz et al., 1997). Specifically, the project is being conducted following the guidelines and requirements specified in NUREG-2117 (USNRC, 2012b) and consistent with approach given in the American Nuclear Standard ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. The collaboration between DOE and Energy Northwest is spawned by the needs of both organizations for an accepted PSHA with highmore » levels of regulatory assurance that can be used for the design and safety evaluation of nuclear facilities. DOE committed to this study after performing a ten-year review of the existing PSHA, as required by DOE Order 420.1C. The study will also be used by Energy Northwest as a basis for fulfilling the NRC’s 10CFR50.54(f) requirement that the western US nuclear power plants conduct PSHAs in conformance with SSHAC Level 3 procedures. The study was planned and is being carried out in conjunction with a project Work Plan, which identifies the purpose of the study, the roles and responsibilities of all participants, tasks and their associated schedules, Quality Assurance (QA) requirements, and project deliverables. New data collection and analysis activities are being conducted as a means of reducing the uncertainties in key inputs to the PSHA. It is anticipated that the results of the study will provide inputs to the site response analyses at multiple nuclear facility sites within the Hanford Site and at the Columbia Generating Station.« less

  15. 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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

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

    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 tomore » 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)« less

  16. Tiger Team assessment of the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1991-05-01

    This report documents the Tiger Team Assessment of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. SNL, Albuquerque, is operated by the Sandia Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company) for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The environmental assessment also included DOE tenant facilities at Ross Aviation, Albuquerque Microelectronics Operation, and the Central Training Academy. The assessment was conducted from April 15 to May 24, 1991, under the auspices of DOE's Office of Special Projects under the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (ES H). The assessment was comprehensive, encompassing ESmore » H disciplines, management, self-assessments, and quality assurance; transportation; and waste management operations. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; applicable DOE Orders; best management practices; and internal SNL, Albuquerque, requirements were assessed. In addition, an evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of DOE and SNL, Albuquerque management of ES H programs was conducted.« less

  17. High-Explosives Applications Facility (HEAF)

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Morse, J. L.; Weingart, R. C.

    1989-03-01

    This Safety Analysis Report (SAR) reviews the safety and environmental aspects of the High Explosives Applications Facility (HEAF). Topics covered include the site selected for the HEAF, safety design criteria, operations planned within the facility, and the safety and environmental analyses performed on this project to date. Provided in the Summary section is a review of hazards and the analyses, conclusions, and operating limits developed in this SAR. Appendices provide supporting documents relating to this SAR. This SAR is required by the LLNL Health and Safety Manual and DOE Order 5481.1B(2) to document the safety analysis efforts. The SAR was assembled by the Hazards Control Department, B-Division, and HEAF project personnel. This document was reviewed by B Division, the Chemistry Department, the Hazards Control Department, the Laboratory Associate Director for Administration and Operations, and the Associate Directors ultimately responsible for HEAF operations.

  18. Content of system design descriptions

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    A System Design Description (SDD) describes the requirements and features of a system. This standard provides guidance on the expected technical content of SDDs. The need for such a standard was recognized during efforts to develop SDDs for safety systems at DOE Hazard Category 2 nonreactor nuclear facilities. Existing guidance related to the corresponding documents in other industries is generally not suitable to meet the needs of DOE nuclear facilities. Across the DOE complex, different contractors have guidance documents, but they vary widely from site to site. While such guidance documents are valuable, no single guidance document has all themore » attributes that DOE considers important, including a reasonable degree of consistency or standardization. This standard is a consolidation of the best of the existing guidance. This standard has been developed with a technical content and level of detail intended to be most applicable to safety systems at DOE Hazard Category 2 nonreactor nuclear facilities. Notwithstanding that primary intent, this standard is recommended for other systems at such facilities, especially those that are important to achieving the programmatic mission of the facility. In addition, application of this standard should be considered for systems at other facilities, including non-nuclear facilities, on the basis that SDDs may be beneficial and cost-effective.« less

  19. Basis for Interim Operation for Fuel Supply Shutdown Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    BENECKE, M.W.

    2003-02-03

    This document establishes the Basis for Interim Operation (BIO) for the Fuel Supply Shutdown Facility (FSS) as managed by the 300 Area Deactivation Project (300 ADP) organization in accordance with the requirements of the Project Hanford Management Contract procedure (PHMC) HNF-PRO-700, ''Safety Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements''. A hazard classification (Benecke 2003a) has been prepared for the facility in accordance with DOE-STD-1027-92 resulting in the assignment of Hazard Category 3 for FSS Facility buildings that store N Reactor fuel materials (303-B, 3712, and 3716). All others are designated Industrial buildings. It is concluded that the risks associated with the currentmore » and planned operational mode of the FSS Facility (uranium storage, uranium repackaging and shipment, cleanup, and transition activities, etc.) are acceptable. The potential radiological dose and toxicological consequences for a range of credible uranium storage building have been analyzed using Hanford accepted methods. Risk Class designations are summarized for representative events in Table 1.6-1. Mitigation was not considered for any event except the random fire event that exceeds predicted consequences based on existing source and combustible loading because of an inadvertent increase in combustible loading. For that event, a housekeeping program to manage transient combustibles is credited to reduce the probability. An additional administrative control is established to protect assumptions regarding source term by limiting inventories of fuel and combustible materials. Another is established to maintain the criticality safety program. Additional defense-in-depth controls are established to perform fire protection system testing, inspection, and maintenance to ensure predicted availability of those systems, and to maintain the radiological control program. It is also concluded that because an accidental nuclear criticality is not credible based on the low uranium enrichment, the form of the uranium, and the required controls, a Criticality Alarm System (CAS) is not required as allowed by DOE Order 420.1 (DOE 2000).« less

  20. Occupational dose reduction at Department of Energy contractor facilities: Bibliography of selected readings in radiation protection and ALARA; Volume 5

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Dionne, B.J.; Sullivan, S.G.; Baum, J.W.

    1994-01-01

    Promoting the exchange of information related to implementation of the As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) philosophy is a continuing objective for the Department of Energy (DOE). This report was prepared by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) ALARA Center for the DOE Office of Health. It contains the fifth in a series of bibliographies on dose reduction at DOE facilities. The BNL ALARA Center was originally established in 1983 under the sponsorship of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to monitor dose-reduction research and ALARA activities at nuclear power plants. This effort was expanded in 1988 by the DOE`s Office of Environment,more » Safety and Health, to include DOE nuclear facilities. This bibliography contains abstracts relating to various aspects of ALARA program implementation and dose-reduction activities, with a specific focus on DOE facilities. Abstracts included in this bibliography were selected from proceedings of technical meetings, journals, research reports, searches of the DOE Energy, Science and Technology Database (in general, the citation and abstract information is presented as obtained from this database), and reprints of published articles provided by the authors. Facility types and activities covered in the scope of this report include: radioactive waste, uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel storage and reprocessing, facility decommissioning, hot laboratories, tritium production, research, test and production reactors, weapons fabrication and testing, fusion, uranium and plutonium processing, radiography, and accelerators. Information on improved shielding design, decontamination, containments, robotics, source prevention and control, job planning, improved operational and design techniques, as well as on other topics, has been included. In addition, DOE/EH reports not included in previous volumes of the bibliography are in this volume (abstracts 611 to 684). This volume (Volume 5 of the series) contains 217 abstracts.« less

  1. 10 CFR 770.8 - May DOE transfer real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development at less...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    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...

  2. TANK FARM CLOSURE - A NEW TWIST ON REGULATORY STRATEGIES FOR CLOSURE OF WASTE TANK RESIDUALS FOLLOWING NUREG

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    LEHMAN LL

    2008-01-23

    Waste from a number of single-shell tanks (SST) at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site has been retrieved by CH2M HILL Hanford Group to fulfill the requirements of the 'Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO) [1]. Laboratory analyses of the Hanford tank residual wastes have provided concentration data which will be used to determine waste classification and disposal options for tank residuals. The closure of tank farm facilities remains one of the most challenging activities faced by the DOE. This is due in part to the complicated regulatory structures that have developed. These regulatory structures aremore » different at each of the DOE sites, making it difficult to apply lessons learned from one site to the next. During the past two years with the passage of the Section 3116 of the 'Ronald Reagan Defense Authorization Act of 2005' (NDAA) [2] some standardization has emerged for Savannah River Site and the Idaho National Laboratory tank residuals. Recently, with the issuance of 'NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to US. Department of Energy Waste Determinations' (NUREG-1854) [3] more explicit options may be considered for Hanford tank residuals than are presently available under DOE Orders. NUREG-1854, issued in August 2007, contains several key pieces of information that if utilized by the DOE in the tank closure process, could simplify waste classification and streamline the NRC review process by providing information to the NRC in their preferred format. Other provisions of this NUREG allow different methods to be applied in determining when waste retrieval is complete by incorporating actual project costs and health risks into the calculation of 'technically and economically practical'. Additionally, the NUREG requires a strong understanding of the uncertainties of the analyses, which given the desire of some NRC/DOE staff may increase the likelihood of using probabilistic approaches to uncertainty analysis. The purpose of this paper is to discuss implications of NUREG-1854 and to examine the feasibility and potential benefits of applying these provisions to waste determinations and supporting documents such as future performance assessments for tank residuals.« less

  3. Transuranic Waste Processing Center (TWPC) Legacy Tank RH-TRU Sludge Processing and Compliance Strategy - 13255

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Rogers, Ben C.; Heacker, Fred K.; Shannon, Christopher

    2013-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) needs to safely and efficiently treat its 'legacy' transuranic (TRU) waste and mixed low-level waste (LLW) from past research and defense activities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) so that the waste is prepared for safe and secure disposal. The TWPC operates an Environmental Management (EM) waste processing facility on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). The TWPC is classified as a Hazard Category 2, non-reactor nuclear facility. This facility receives, treats, and packages low-level waste and TRU waste stored at various facilities on the ORR for eventual off-site disposal at various DOE sitesmore » and commercial facilities. The Remote Handled TRU Waste Sludge held in the Melton Valley Storage Tanks (MVSTs) was produced as a result of the collection, treatment, and storage of liquid radioactive waste originating from the ORNL radiochemical processing and radioisotope production programs. The MVSTs contain most of the associated waste from the Gunite and Associated Tanks (GAAT) in the ORNL's Tank Farms in Bethel Valley and the sludge (SL) and associated waste from the Old Hydro-fracture Facility tanks and other Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) tanks. The SL Processing Facility Build-outs (SL-PFB) Project is integral to the EM cleanup mission at ORNL and is being accelerated by DOE to meet updated regulatory commitments in the Site Treatment Plan. To meet these commitments a Baseline (BL) Change Proposal (BCP) is being submitted to provide continued spending authority as the project re-initiation extends across fiscal year 2012 (FY2012) into fiscal year 2013. Future waste from the ORNL Building 3019 U-233 Disposition project, in the form of U-233 dissolved in nitric acid and water, down-blended with depleted uranyl nitrate solution is also expected to be transferred to the 7856 MVST Annex Facility (formally the Capacity Increase Project (CIP) Tanks) for co-processing with the SL. The SL-PFB project will construct and install the necessary integrated systems to process the accumulated MVST Facilities SL inventory at the TWPC thus enabling safe and effective disposal of the waste. This BCP does not include work to support current MVST Facility Surveillance and Maintenance programs or the ORNL Building 3019 U-233 Disposition project, since they are not currently part of the TWPC prime contract. The purpose of the environmental compliance strategy is to identify the environmental permits and other required regulatory documents necessary for the construction and operation of the SL- PFB at the TWPC, Oak Ridge, TN. The permits and other regulatory documents identified are necessary to comply with the environmental laws and regulations of DOE Orders, and other requirements documented in the SL-PFB, Safety Design Strategy (SDS), SL-A-AD-002, R0 draft, and the Systems, Function and Requirements Document (SFRD), SL-X-AD-002, R1 draft. This compliance strategy is considered a 'living strategy' and it is anticipated that it will be revised as design progresses and more detail is known. The design basis on which this environmental permitting and compliance strategy is based is the Wastren Advantage, Inc., (WAI), TWPC, SL-PFB (WAI-BL-B.01.06) baseline. (authors)« less

  4. 48 CFR 970.2672-1 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is necessary, DOE contractors and subcontractors at DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities shall accomplish work force restructuring or displacement so as to mitigate social and... with the objectives of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, 42...

  5. 48 CFR 970.2672-1 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is necessary, DOE contractors and subcontractors at DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities shall accomplish work force restructuring or displacement so as to mitigate social and... with the objectives of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, 42...

  6. 48 CFR 970.2672-1 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is necessary, DOE contractors and subcontractors at DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities shall accomplish work force restructuring or displacement so as to mitigate social and... with the objectives of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, 42...

  7. 48 CFR 970.2672-1 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is necessary, DOE contractors and subcontractors at DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities shall accomplish work force restructuring or displacement so as to mitigate social and... with the objectives of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, 42...

  8. Guide of good practices for occupational radiological protection in plutonium facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-06-01

    This Technical Standard (TS) does not contain any new requirements. Its purpose is to provide guides to good practice, update existing reference material, and discuss practical lessons learned relevant to the safe handling of plutonium. the technical rationale is given to allow US Department of Energy (DOE) health physicists to adapt the recommendations to similar situations throughout the DOE complex. Generally, DOE contractor health physicists will be responsible to implement radiation protection activities at DOE facilities and DOE health physicists will be responsible for oversight of those activities. This guidance is meant to be useful for both efforts. This TSmore » replaces PNL-6534, Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Plutonium Facilities, by providing more complete and current information and by emphasizing the situations that are typical of DOE`s current plutonium operations; safe storage, decontamination, and decommissioning (environmental restoration); and weapons disassembly.« less

  9. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-07-01

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials. Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities. Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex. Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in DOE's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure strategy and contractor integration analysis. Interstate waste and materials shipments. Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from April 30, 1998 through June 30, 1998 under the NGA project. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; and provided ongoing support to state-DOE interactions. maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, DOE's Environmental Management Budget, and DOE's proposed Intersite Discussions.« less

  10. Air modelling as an alternative to sampling for low-level radioactive airborne releases

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Morgenstern, M.Y.; Hueske, K.

    1995-05-01

    This paper describes our efforts to assess the effect of airborne releases at one DOE laboratory using air modelling based on historical data. Among the facilities affected by these developments is Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) in 1984, requires all facilities which involve the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste obtain a RCRA/HSWA waste facility permit. LANL complied with CEARP by initiating a process of identifying potential release sites associated with LANL operations prior to filing a RCRA/HSWA permit application. In the process of preparingmore » the RCRA/HSWA waste facility permit application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a total of 603 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) were identified as part of the requirements of the HSWA Module VIH permit requirements. The HSWA Module VIII permit requires LANL to determine whether there have been any releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from SWMUs at the facility dating from the 1940`s by performing a RCRA Facility Investigation to address known or suspected releases from specified SWMUs to affected media (i.e. soil, groundwater, surface water, and air). Among the most troublesome of the potential releases sites are those associated with airborne radioactive releases. In order to assess health risks associated with radioactive contaminants in a manner consistent with exposure standards currently in place, the DOE and LANL have established Screening Action Levels (SALs) for radioactive soil contamination. The SALs for each radionuclide in soil are derived from calculations based on a residential scenario in which individuals are exposed to contaminated soil via inhalation and ingestion as well as external exposure to gamma emitters in the soil. The applicable SALs are shown.« less

  11. Guide for Determining Compliance With the Clean Air Act Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From NRC-Licensed and Non-DOE Federal Facilities: Revision 2

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    The requirements described apply to certain facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or its Agreement States to handle radioactive materials. Federal facilities not part of the Department of Energy (DOE) are also covered.

  12. 10 CFR 770.2 - What real property does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ....2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC... sale or lease at closed or downsized defense nuclear facilities, for the purpose of permitting economic development. (b) DOE may transfer, by lease only, improvements at defense nuclear facilities on land withdrawn...

  13. 10 CFR 770.2 - What real property does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ....2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC... sale or lease at defense nuclear facilities, for the purpose of permitting economic development. (b) DOE may transfer, by lease only, improvements at defense nuclear facilities on land withdrawn from the...

  14. 78 FR 4404 - DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Hanford...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-01-22

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On September 28, 2012 the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board submitted...

  15. 30 CFR 553.10 - What facilities does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 30 Mineral Resources 2 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false What facilities does this part cover? 553.10 Section 553.10 Mineral Resources BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFSHORE OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSHORE FACILITIES Applicability and Amount of OSFR § 553.10...

  16. 30 CFR 553.10 - What facilities does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 30 Mineral Resources 2 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false What facilities does this part cover? 553.10 Section 553.10 Mineral Resources BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFSHORE OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSHORE FACILITIES Applicability and Amount of OSFR § 553.10...

  17. 30 CFR 553.10 - What facilities does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 30 Mineral Resources 2 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false What facilities does this part cover? 553.10 Section 553.10 Mineral Resources BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFSHORE OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSHORE FACILITIES Applicability and Amount of OSFR § 553.10...

  18. Progress on plutonium stabilization

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hurt, D.

    1996-05-01

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has safety oversight responsibility for most of the facilities where unstable forms of plutonium are being processed and packaged for interim storage. The Board has issued recommendations on plutonium stabilization and has has a considerable influence on DOE`s stabilization schedules and priorities. The Board has not made any recommendations on long-term plutonium disposition, although it may get more involved in the future if DOE develops plans to use defense nuclear facilities for disposition activities.

  19. Lessons learned from case studies of inhalation exposures of workers to radioactive aerosols

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hoover, M.D.; Fencl, A.F.; Newton, G.J.

    1995-12-01

    Various Department of Energy requirements, rules, and orders mandate that lessons learned be identified, evaluated, shared, and incorporated into current practices. The recently issued, nonmandatory DOE standard for Development of DOE Lessons Learned Program states that a DOE-wide lessons learned program will {open_quotes}help to prevent recurrences of negative experiences, highlight best practices, and spotlight innovative ways to solve problems or perform work more safely, efficiently, and cost effectively.{close_quotes} Additional information about the lessons learned program is contained in the recently issued DOE handbook on Implementing U.S. Department of Energy Lessons Learned Programs and in October 1995 DOE SAfety Notice onmore » Lessons Learned Programs. This report summarizes work in progress at ITRI to identify lessons learned for worker exposures to radioactive aerosols, and describes how this work will be incorporated into the DOE lessons learned program, including a new technical guide for measuring, modeling, and mitigating airborne radioactive particles. Follow-on work is focusing on preparation of {open_quotes}lessons learned{close_quotes} training materials for facility designers, managers, health protection professionals, line supervisors, and workers.« less

  20. [Physician's competence and obligations at the place of subject's death outside the health-care facilities].

    PubMed

    Dvorácek, I

    2005-10-01

    The valid law does not unequivocally define a physician's competence and obligations at the place of a subject's death outside the health-care facilities. The scheme creates a general instruction for the medical personnel to be used in cases of death outside health-care facilities. It is aimed at a better understanding of the problem, and it is supplemented with relevant legal regulations. The scheme is divided into 3 horizontal levels, the death being placed on the first level, the decision about autopsy on the second level, and the burial on the third level. These three levels are interconnected vertically, in order to represent the chronological sequence of individual steps and the respective decisions made by the examining physician. The schematic representation of the problems of death outside health-care facilities resulted in several lines of action, all that with regard to the medical and forensic aspects of the death. In every line of action, the work of the examining physician's is summarised.

  1. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 18. Part 1B: Citations with abstracts, sections 10 through 16

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1997-09-01

    This bibliography contains 3,638 citations with abstracts of documents relevant to environmental restoration, nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D and D), uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions. The bibliography contains scientific, technical, financial, and regulatory information that pertains to DOE environmental restoration programs. The citations are separated by topic into 16 sections, including (1) DOE Environmental Restoration Program; (2) DOE D and D Program; (3) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning; (4) DOE Formerly Utilized sites Remedial Action Program; (5) NORM-Contaminated Site Restoration; (6) DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project; (7) Uranium Mill Tailings Management; (8) DOE Site-Wide Remedial Actions;more » (9) DOE Onsite Remedial Action Projects; (10) Contaminated Site Remedial Actions; (11) DOE Underground Storage Tank Remediation; (12) DOE Technology Development, Demonstration, and Evaluation; (13) Soil Remediation; (14) Groundwater Remediation; (15) Environmental Measurements, Analysis, and Decision-Making; and (16) Environmental Management Issues.« less

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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.

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Feizollahi, F.; Shropshire, D.

    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 (enclosedmore » 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.« less

  4. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ann M. Beauchesne

    1999-07-30

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials; Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex; Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the Department's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure plan and contractor integration analysis; Interstate waste and materials shipments; and Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from May 1, 1999, through July 30, 1999, under the NGA grant. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, external regulation of DOE; and continued to facilitate interactions between the states and DOE to develop a foundation for an ongoing substantive relationship between the Governors of key states and Secretary Richardson.« less

  5. 78 FR 9902 - DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Hanford...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-02-12

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy; Correction AGENCY: Department of Energy... Facilities Safety Board, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy. This document corrects an error in...

  6. 77 FR 43583 - DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Savannah...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-07-25

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Savannah River Site Building 235-F Safety AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On May 8, 2012, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board submitted Recommendation 2012-1...

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Gerber, Richard; Allcock, William; Beggio, Chris

    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 themore » DOE national laboratories. The report contains findings from that review.« less

  8. Paducah Site annual report for 1995

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Belcher, G.

    1997-01-01

    The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, located in McCracken County, Kentucky, has been producing enriched uranium since 1952. In July 1993, the US department of Energy (DOE) leased the production areas of the site to the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC). A new subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Lockheed Martin Utility Services, manages the leased facilities for USEC. DOE maintains responsibility for the environmental restoration, waste management, and enrichment facilities activities at the plant through its management contractor, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems. The purpose of this document is to summarize calendar year 1995 environmental monitoring activities for DOE activities at the Paducahmore » Site. DOE requires all of its facilities to conduct and document such activities annually. This report does not include USEC environmental activities.« less

  9. Development and construction of a comprehensive set of research diagnostics for the FLARE user facility

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Yoo, Jongsoo; Jara-Almonte, J.; Majeski, S.; Frank, S.; Ji, H.; Yamada, M.

    2016-10-01

    FLARE (Facility for Laboratory Reconnection Experiments) will be operated as a flexible user facility, and so a complete set of research diagnostics is under development, including magnetic probe arrays, Langmuir probes, Mach probes, spectroscopic probes, and a laser interferometer. In order to accommodate the various requirements of users, large-scale (1 m), variable resolution (0.5-4 cm) magnetic probes have been designed, and are currently being prototyped. Moreover, a fully fiber-coupled laser interferometer has been designed to measure the line-integrated electron density. This fiber-coupled interferometer system will reduce the complexity of alignment processes and minimize maintenance of the system. Finally, improvements to the electrostatic probes and spectroscopic probes currently used in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) are discussed. The specifications of other subsystems, such as integrators and digitizers, are also presented. This work is supported by DoE Contract No. DE-AC0209CH11466.

  10. Annual Summary of the Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment 2011

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Lehman, L. L.

    2012-03-12

    An annual summary of the adequacy of the Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste (ILAW) Performance Assessment (PA) is required each year (DOE O 435.1 Chg 1,1 DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1,2 DOE/ORP-2000-013). The most recently approved PA is DOE/ORP-2000-24.4 The ILAW PA evaluated the adequacy of the ILAW disposal facility, now referred to as the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF), for the safe disposal of vitrified Hanford Site tank waste. More recently, a preliminary evaluation for the disposal of offsite low-level waste and mixed low-level waste was considered in RPP-1583.

  11. 78 FR 70934 - Trespassing on DOE Property: Kansas City Plant Facilities

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-11-27

    ..., National Nuclear Security Administration, Kirtland Operations operating area. The facilities are described...). Addition of the Kirtland Operations operating area property does not terminate the prior Kansas City Plant...

  12. GAO’s Views on DOE’s 1991 Budget for Addressing Problems at the Nuclear Weapons Complex

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1990-03-02

    management, and efforts by DOE to make its contractors more accountable. Also, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board mandated by the Congress became...and safety matters. 6 Finally, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was established. Although not a DOE action, its establishment, nevertheless

  13. 10 CFR 770.5 - How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... available for transfer for economic development? (a) Field Office Managers annually make available to... the availability of the list. (b) Upon request, Field Office Managers provide to interested persons... facilities that DOE has identified as appropriate for transfer for economic development. Field Office...

  14. 10 CFR 770.5 - How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... available for transfer for economic development? (a) Field Office Managers annually make available to... the availability of the list. (b) Upon request, Field Office Managers provide to interested persons... facilities that DOE has identified as appropriate for transfer for economic development. Field Office...

  15. Performance assessment for continuing and future operations at solid waste storage area 6

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1997-09-01

    This revised performance assessment (PA) for the continued disposal operations at Solid Waste Storage Area (SWSA) 6 on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal contained in the US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A. This revised PA considers disposal operations conducted from September 26, 1988, through the projects lifetime of the disposal facility.

  16. 20 CFR 30.213 - How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons... Radiogenic Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.213 How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons...

  17. 20 CFR 30.213 - How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-04-01

    ... radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons... Radiogenic Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.213 How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons...

  18. 20 CFR 30.213 - How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-04-01

    ... radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons... Radiogenic Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.213 How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons...

  19. 20 CFR 30.213 - How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-04-01

    ... radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons... Radiogenic Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.213 How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons...

  20. 20 CFR 30.213 - How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-04-01

    ... radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons... Radiogenic Cancer Under Parts B and E of Eeoicpa § 30.213 How does a claimant establish that the radiogenic cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at the DOE facility, the atomic weapons...

  1. Evolution of a beam dynamics model for the transport line in a proton therapy facility

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Rizzoglio, V.; Adelmann, A.; Baumgarten, C.; Frey, M.; Gerbershagen, A.; Meer, D.; Schippers, J. M.

    2017-12-01

    During the conceptual design of an accelerator or beamline, first-order beam dynamics models are essential for studying beam properties. However, they can only produce approximate results. During commissioning, these approximate results are compared to measurements, which will rarely coincide if the model does not include the relevant physics. It is therefore essential that this linear model is extended to include higher-order effects. In this paper, the effects of particle-matter interaction have been included in the model of the transport lines in the proton therapy facility at the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) in Switzerland. The first-order models of these beamlines provide an approximated estimation of beam size, energy loss and transmission. To improve the performance of the facility, a more precise model was required and has been developed with opal (Object Oriented Parallel Accelerator Library), a multiparticle open source beam dynamics code. In opal, the Monte Carlo simulations of Coulomb scattering and energy loss are performed seamless with the particle tracking. Beside the linear optics, the influence of the passive elements (e.g., degrader, collimators, scattering foils, and air gaps) on the beam emittance and energy spread can be analyzed in the new model. This allows for a significantly improved precision in the prediction of beam transmission and beam properties. The accuracy of the opal model has been confirmed by numerous measurements.

  2. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ann M. Beauchesne

    1999-04-30

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials; Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex; Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the Department's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure plan and contractor integration analysis; Interstate waste and materials shipments; and Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from February 1, 1999, through April 30, 1999, under the NGA grant. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, external regulation of DOE; and EM Integration activities; and continued to serve as a liaison between the NGA FFCA Task Force states and the Department.« less

  3. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ann B. Beauchesne

    1998-09-30

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: (1) Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials; (2) Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; (3) Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect onmore » individual sites in the complex; (4) Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the Department's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure plan and contractor integration analysis; (5) Interstate waste and materials shipments; and (6) Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from June 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998, under the NGA grant. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: (1) maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; (2) maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, external regulation of DOE; and EM Integration activities; and (3) continued to serve as a liaison between the NGA FFCA Task Force states and the Department.« less

  4. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ann M. Beauchesne

    1999-01-31

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: (1) Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials; (2) Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; (3) Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect onmore » individual sites in the complex; (4) Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the Department's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure plan and contractor integration analysis; (5) Interstate waste and materials shipments; and (6) Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the quarter from October 1, 1998 through January 31, 1999, under the NGA grant. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: (1) maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; (2) maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, external regulation of DOE; and EM Integration activities; and (3) continued to serve as a liaison between the NGA FFCA Task Force states and the Department.« less

  5. Tritium systems test assembly stabilization

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Jasen, W. G.; Michelotti, R. A.; Anast, K. R.

    The Tritium Systems Test Assembly (TSTA) was a facility dedicated to tritium technology Research and Development (R&D) primarily for future fusion power reactors. The facility was conceived in mid 1970's, operations commenced in early 1980's, stabilization and deactivation began in 2000 and were completed in 2003. The facility will remain in a Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M) mode until the Department of Energy (DOE) funds demolition of the facility, tentatively in 2009. A safe and stable end state was achieved by the TSTA Facility Stabilization Project (TFSP) in anticipation of long term S&M. At the start of the stabilization project, withmore » an inventory of approximately 140 grams of tritium, the facility was designated a Hazard Category (HC) 2 Non-Reactor Nuclear facility as defined by US Department of Energy standard DOE-STD-1027-92 (1997). The TSTA facility comprises a laboratory area, supporting rooms, offices and associated laboratory space that included more than 20 major tritium handling systems. The project's focus was to reduce the tritium inventory by removing bulk tritium, tritiated water wastes, and tritium-contaminated high-inventory components. Any equipment that remained in the facility was stabilized in place. All of the gloveboxes and piping were rendered inoperative and vented to atmosphere. All equipment, and inventoried tritium contamination, remaining in the facility was left in a safe-and-stable state. The project used the End Points process as defined by the DOE Office of Environmental Management (web page http://www.em.doe.- gov/deact/epman.htmtlo) document and define the end state required for the stabilization of TSTA Facility. The End Points process added structure that was beneficial through virtually all phases of the project. At completion of the facility stabilization project the residual tritium inventory was approximately 3,000 curies, considerably less than the 1.6-gram threshold for a HC 3 facility. TSTA is now designated as a Radiological Facility. Innovative approaches were employed for characterization and removal of legacy wastes and high inventory components. Major accomplishments included: (1) Reduction of tritium inventory, elimination of chemical hazards, and identification and posting of remaining hazards. (2) Removal of legacy wastes. (3) Transferred equipment for reuse in other DOE projects, including some at other DOE facilities. (4) Transferred facility in a safe and stable condition to the S&M organization. The project successfully completed all project goals and the TSTA facility was transferred into S&M on August 1,2003. This project demonstrates the benefit of radiological inventory reduction and the removal of legacy wastes to achieve a safe and stable end state that protects workers and the environment pending eventual demolition of the facility.« less

  6. REGULATORY STRATEGIES TO MINIMIZE GENERATION OF REGULATED WASTES FROM CLEANUP, CONTINUED USE OR DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES CONTAMINATED WITH POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) - 11198

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Lowry, N.

    Disposal costs for liquid PCB radioactive waste are among the highest of any category of regulated waste. The high cost is driven by the fact that disposal options are extremely limited. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations require most liquids with PCBs at concentration of {ge} 50 parts-per-million to be disposed by incineration or equivalent destructive treatment. Disposal fees can be as high as $200 per gallon. This figure does not include packaging and the cost to transport the waste to the disposal facility, or the waste generator's labor costs for managing the waste prior to shipment. Minimizing the generationmore » of liquid radioactive PCB waste is therefore a significant waste management challenge. PCB spill cleanups often generate large volumes of waste. That is because the removal of PCBs typically requires the liberal use of industrial solvents followed by a thorough rinsing process. In a nuclear facility, the cleanup process may be complicated by the presence of radiation and other occupational hazards. Building design and construction features, e.g., the presence of open grating or trenches, may also complicate cleanup. In addition to the technical challenges associated with spill cleanup, selection of the appropriate regulatory requirements and approach may be challenging. The TSCA regulations include three different sections relating to the cleanup of PCB contamination or spills. EPA has also promulgated a separate guidance policy for fresh PCB spills that is published as Subpart G of 40 CFR 761 although it is not an actual regulation. Applicability is based on the circumstances of each contamination event or situation. Other laws or regulations may also apply. Identification of the allowable regulatory options is important. Effective communication with stakeholders, particularly regulators, is just as important. Depending on the regulatory path that is taken, cleanup may necessitate the generation of large quantities of regulated waste. Allowable options must be evaluated carefully in order to reduce compliance risks, protect personnel, limit potential negative impacts on facility operations, and minimize the generation of wastes subject to TSCA. This paper will identify critical factors in selecting the appropriate TSCA regulatory path in order to minimize the generation of radioactive PCB waste and reduce negative impacts to facilities. The importance of communicating pertinent technical issues with facility staff, regulatory personnel, and subsequently, the public, will be discussed. Key points will be illustrated by examples from five former production reactors at the DOE Savannah River Site. In these reactors a polyurethane sealant was used to seal piping penetrations in the biological shield walls. During the intense neutron bombardment that occurred during reactor operation, the sealant broke down into a thick, viscous material that seeped out of the piping penetrations over adjacent equipment and walls. Some of the walls were painted with a PCB product. PCBs from the paint migrated into the degraded sealant, creating PCB 'spill areas' in some of these facilities. The regulatory cleanup approach selected for each facility was based on its operational status, e.g., active, inactive or undergoing decommissioning. The selected strategies served to greatly minimize the generation of radioactive liquid PCB waste. It is expected that this information would be useful to other DOE sites, DOD facilities, and commercial nuclear facilities constructed prior to the 1979 TSCA ban on most manufacturing and uses of PCBs.« less

  7. 36 CFR 1234.30 - How does an agency request authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property 3 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false How does an agency request authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities? 1234.30 Section 1234.30 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION RECORDS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STANDARDS FOR...

  8. 36 CFR 1234.30 - How does an agency request authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property 3 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false How does an agency request authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities? 1234.30 Section 1234.30 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION RECORDS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STANDARDS FOR...

  9. Operating Experience and Lessons Learned in the Use of Soft-Sided Packaging for Transportation and Disposal of Low Activity Radioactive Waste

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Kapoor, A.; Gordon, S.; Goldston, W.

    2013-07-08

    This paper describes the operating experience and lessons learned at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites as a result of an evaluation of potential trailer contamination and soft-sided packaging integrity issues related to the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level (LLW/MLLW) radioactive waste shipments. Nearly 4.3 million cubic meters of LLW/MLLW will have been generated and disposed of during fiscal year (FY) 2010 to FY 2015—either at commercial disposal sites or disposal sites owned by DOE. The LLW/MLLW is packaged in several different types of regulatory compliant packaging and transported via highway or rail to disposal sites safely and efficientlymore » in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and DOE orders. In 1999, DOE supported the development of LLW containers that are more volumetrically efficient, more cost effective, and easier to use as compared to metal or wooden containers that existed at that time. The DOE Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), working in conjunction with the plastic industry, tested several types of soft-sided waste packaging systems that meet U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for transport of low specific activity and surface contaminated objects. Since then, soft-sided packaging of various capacities have been used successfully by the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) projects to package, transport, and dispose D&D wastes throughout the DOE complex. The joint team of experts assembled by the Energy Facility Contractors Group from DOE waste generating sites, DOE and commercial waste disposal facilities, and soft-sided packaging suppliers conducted the review of soft-sided packaging operations and transportation of these packages to the disposal sites. As a result of this evaluation, the team developed several recommendations and best practices to prevent or minimize the recurrences of equipment contamination issues and proper use of soft-sided packaging for transport and disposal of waste.« less

  10. State waste discharge permit application: 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (Project W-049H)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01

    As part of the original Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Concent Order negotiations, US DOE, US EPA and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground to the Hanford Site are subject to permitting in the State Waste Discharge Permit Program (SWDP). This document constitutes the SWDP Application for the 200 Area TEDF stream which includes the following streams discharged into the area: Plutonium Finishing Plant waste water; 222-S laboratory Complex waste water; T Plant waste water; 284-W Power Plant waste water; PUREX chemical Sewer; B Plant chemical sewer, process condensate, steam condensate; 242-A-81more » Water Services waste water.« less

  11. Sonic Detection and Ranging (SODAR) Wind Profiler Instrument Handbook

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Coulter, Richard L.

    2016-04-01

    The SODAR (Sonic Detection and Ranging) wind profiler measures wind profiles and backscattered signal strength between (nominally) 15 meters (m) and 500 m. It operates by transmitting acoustic energy into the atmosphere and measuring the strength and frequency of backscattered energy. The strength of the backscattered signal is determined by the strength of temperature inhomogeneities with size on the order of 10 centimeters (cm). Assuming the scattering elements in the atmosphere are moving with the mean wind, the horizontal wind field can be derived. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility Mobile Facility (AMF)more » has a system developed by Scintec, Inc. that transmits a sequence of frequencies to enhance signal determination.« less

  12. Evolution of US DOE Performance Assessments Over 20 Years - 13597

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Suttora, Linda C.; Seitz, Roger R.

    2013-07-01

    Performance assessments (PAs) have been used for many years for the analysis of post-closure hazards associated with a radioactive waste disposal facility and to provide a reasonable expectation of the ability of the site and facility design to meet objectives for the protection of members of the public and the environment. The use of PA to support decision-making for LLW disposal facilities has been mandated in United States Department of Energy (US DOE) directives governing radioactive waste management since 1988 (currently DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management). Prior to that time, PAs were also used in a less formal role.more » Over the past 20+ years, the US DOE approach to conduct, review and apply PAs has evolved into an efficient, rigorous and mature process that includes specific requirements for continuous improvement and independent reviews. The PA process has evolved through refinement of a graded and iterative approach designed to help focus efforts on those aspects of the problem expected to have the greatest influence on the decision being made. Many of the evolutionary changes to the PA process are linked to the refinement of the PA maintenance concept that has proven to be an important element of US DOE PA requirements in the context of supporting decision-making for safe disposal of LLW. The PA maintenance concept is central to the evolution of the graded and iterative philosophy and has helped to drive the evolution of PAs from a deterministic compliance calculation into a systematic approach that helps to focus on critical aspects of the disposal system in a manner designed to provide a more informed basis for decision-making throughout the life of a disposal facility (e.g., monitoring, research and testing, waste acceptance criteria, design improvements, data collection, model refinements). A significant evolution in PA modeling has been associated with improved use of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques to support efficient implementation of the graded and iterative approach. Rather than attempt to exactly predict the migration of radionuclides in a disposal unit, the best PAs have evolved into tools that provide a range of results to guide decision-makers in planning the most efficient, cost effective, and safe disposal of radionuclides. (authors)« less

  13. An evaluation of concrete recycling and reuse practices

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nakhjiri, K.S.; MacKinney, J.

    1997-02-01

    Nuclear facilities operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), and NRC licensees contain many concrete structures that are contaminated with radioactivity. Dismantling these structures will result in significant quantities of waste materials, both contaminated and uncontaminated. Bartlett estimates the total volume of waste from demolition of concrete structures to be on the order of 4 million cubic meters, but that only 20,000 cubic meters would be contaminated with radioactivity. Other studies suggest that as much as 5% of the concrete in these facilities would be contaminated with radioactivity. While the actual quantity of contaminated material shouldmore » be fixed with greater precision, the fact that so much uncontaminated concrete exists (over 95% of the total 4 million cubic meters) suggests that a program that recycles concrete could produce substantial savings for both government agencies (DOE, DOD) and private companies (NRC licensees). This paper presents a fundamental discussion of (1) various methods of processing concrete, (2) demolition methods, especially those compatible with recycling efforts, and (3) state-of-the-art concrete dismantlement techniques.« less

  14. Ecological risks of DOE`s programmatic environmental restoration alternatives

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    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 representativemore » 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.« less

  15. CERT tribal internship program. Final intern report: Lewis Yellowrobe, 1995

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1998-09-01

    The purpose of this internship was to present state legislators with the history and an overview of the Department of Energy`s policies towards occupational health and safety during cleanup of nuclear weapons production facilities. The approach used library research and phone and personal interviews to acquire information on DOE policies. This intern report contains the final report to legislators entitled ``Environmental restoration and waste management: Worker health and safety concerns during nuclear facility cleanup.`` It presents the current status of DOE occupational health and safety at production facilities, Congressional intent, past DOE occupational policies, and options for state legislators tomore » use to get involved with DOE policy direction.« less

  16. Formation of wadsleyite in a shock experiment - implications for the duration of shock events in meteorite parent bodies

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Tschauner, O.; Asimow, P. D.; Ahrens, T. J.; Kostandova, N.; Sinogeikin, S.

    2007-12-01

    We report the first observation of the high-pressure silicate phase wadsleyite in the recovery products of a shock experiment. Wadsleyite was detected by micro-X ray diffraction and EBSD. Wadsleyite grew from melt which formed by chemical reaction of periclase and silica during shock. Our findings show that the growth rate of high pressure silicate phases in shock-generated melts can be of the order of m/s and is probably not diffusion controlled. Our finding has important implications for the time scale of shock events recorded by meteorites and indicates that the presence of high pressure silicates found in shocked meteorites does not necessarily imply large impactor sizes. This work was supported by the NNSA Cooperative Agreement DOE-FC88-01NV14049 and NASA/Goddard grants under awards NNG04GP57G and NNG04GI07G. Use of the HPCAT facility was supported by DOE-BES, DOE-NNSA, NSF, DOD -TACOM, and the W.M. Keck Foundation. APS is supported by DOE-BES under Contract No. W-31-109-Eng-38.

  17. B Plant Complex preclosure work plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    ADLER, J.G.

    1999-02-02

    This preclosure work plan describes the condition of the dangerous waste treatment storage, and/or disposal (TSD) unit after completion of the B Plant Complex decommissioning Transition Phase preclosure activities. This description includes waste characteristics, waste types, locations, and associated hazards. The goal to be met by the Transition Phase preclosure activities is to place the TSD unit into a safe and environmentally secure condition for the long-term Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M) Phase of the facility decommissioning process. This preclosure work plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 8.0 of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement)more » (Ecology et al. 1996). The preclosure work plan is one of three critical Transition Phase documents, the other two being: B Plant End Points Document (WHC-SD-WM-TPP-054) and B Plant S&M plan. These documents are prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) and its contractors with the involvement of Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The tanks and vessels addressed by this preclosure work plan are limited to those tanks end vessels included on the B Plant Complex Part A, Form 3, Permit Application (DOE/RL-88-21). The criteria for determining which tanks or vessels are in the Part A, Form 3, are discussed in the following. The closure plan for the TSD unit will not be prepared until the Disposition Phase of the facility decommissioning process is initiated, which follows the long-term S&M Phase. Final closure will occur during the Disposition Phase of the facility decommissioning process. The Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) is excluded from the scope of this preclosure work plan.« less

  18. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    Training programs at DOE facilities should prepare personnel to safely and efficiently operate and maintain the facilities in accordance with DOE requirements. This guide presents good practices for a systematic approach to on-the-job training (OJT) and OJT programs and should be used in conjunction with DOE Training Program Handbook: A Systematic Approach to Training, and with the DOE Handbook entitled Alternative Systematic Approaches to Training to develop performance-based OJT programs. DOE contractors may also use this guide to modify existing OJT programs that do not meet the systematic approach to training (SAT) objectives.

  19. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ethan W. Brown

    2001-09-01

    Through the National Governors' Association (NGA) project ''Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials. Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities. Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex. Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the Department's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure plan and contractor integration analysis. Interstate waste and materials shipments. Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the period from April 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001, under the NGA grant.« less

  20. 41 CFR 102-74.345 - Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Does the smoking policy... REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 74-FACILITY MANAGEMENT Facility Management Smoking § 102-74.345 Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch? This smoking policy applies to the judicial branch when...

  1. 41 CFR 102-74.345 - Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Does the smoking policy... REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 74-FACILITY MANAGEMENT Facility Management Smoking § 102-74.345 Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch? This smoking policy applies to the judicial branch when...

  2. 41 CFR 102-74.345 - Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Does the smoking policy... REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 74-FACILITY MANAGEMENT Facility Management Smoking § 102-74.345 Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch? This smoking policy applies to the judicial branch when...

  3. 41 CFR 102-74.345 - Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Does the smoking policy... REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 74-FACILITY MANAGEMENT Facility Management Smoking § 102-74.345 Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch? This smoking policy applies to the judicial branch when...

  4. 41 CFR 102-74.345 - Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Does the smoking policy... REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 74-FACILITY MANAGEMENT Facility Management Smoking § 102-74.345 Does the smoking policy in this part apply to the judicial branch? This smoking policy applies to the judicial branch when...

  5. THE NGA-DOE GRANT TO EXAMINE CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MATERIALS DISPOSITION INVOLVING DOE FACILITIES

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ann M. Beauchesne

    2000-01-01

    Through the National Governors Association (NGA) project ``Critical Issues Related to Radioactive Waste and Materials Disposition Involving DOE Facilities'' NGA brings together Governors' policy advisors, state regulators, and DOE officials to examine critical issues related to the cleanup and operation of DOE nuclear weapons and research facilities. Topics explored through this project include: Decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials; Decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; Strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites inmore » the complex; Changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the Department's Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure plan and contractor integration analysis; Interstate waste and materials shipments; and Reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes. The overarching theme of this project is to help the Department improve coordination of its major program decisions with Governors' offices and state regulators and to ensure such decisions reflect input from these key state officials and stakeholders. This report summarizes activities conducted during the period from October 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000, under the NGA grant. The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past three months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; convened and facilitated the October 6--8 NGA FFCA Task Force Meeting in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, external regulation of DOE; and continued to facilitate interactions between the states and DOE to develop a foundation for an ongoing substantive relationship between the Governors of key states and the Department.« less

  6. DOE Fire Protection Handbook, Volume I

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    The Department of Energy (DOE) Fire Protection Program is delineated in a number of source documents including; the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), DOE Policy Statements and Orders, DOE and national consensus standards (such as those promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association), and supplementary guidance, This Handbook is intended to bring together in one location as much of this material as possible to facilitate understanding and ease of use. The applicability of any of these directives to individual Maintenance and Operating Contractors or to given facilities and operations is governed by existing contracts. Questions regarding applicability should be directedmore » to the DOE Authority Having Jurisdiction for fire safety. The information provided within includes copies of those DOE directives that are directly applicable to the implementation of a comprehensive fire protection program. They are delineated in the Table of Contents. The items marked with an asterisk (*) are included on the disks in WordPerfect 5.1 format, with the filename noted below. The items marked with double asterisks are provided as hard copies as well as on the disk. For those using MAC disks, the files are in Wordperfect 2.1 for MAC.« less

  7. 48 CFR 970.3770 - Facilities management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Facilities management. 970... REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770 Facilities management. ...

  8. 48 CFR 970.3770 - Facilities management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Facilities management. 970... REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770 Facilities management. ...

  9. 48 CFR 970.3770 - Facilities management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Facilities management. 970... REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770 Facilities management. ...

  10. 48 CFR 970.3770 - Facilities management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Facilities management. 970... REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770 Facilities management. ...

  11. 48 CFR 970.3770 - Facilities management.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    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. ...

  12. Evaluation of a hybrid paper-electronic medication management system at a residential aged care facility.

    PubMed

    Elliott, Rohan A; Lee, Cik Yin; Hussainy, Safeera Y

    2016-06-01

    Objectives The aims of the study were to investigate discrepancies between general practitioners' paper medication orders and pharmacy-prepared electronic medication administration charts, back-up paper charts and dose-administration aids, as well as delays between prescribing, charting and administration, at a 90-bed residential aged care facility that used a hybrid paper-electronic medication management system. Methods A cross-sectional audit of medication orders, medication charts and dose-administration aids was performed to identify discrepancies. In addition, a retrospective audit was performed of delays between prescribing and availability of an updated electronic medication administration chart. Medication administration records were reviewed retrospectively to determine whether discrepancies and delays led to medication administration errors. Results Medication records for 88 residents (mean age 86 years) were audited. Residents were prescribed a median of eight regular medicines (interquartile range 5-12). One hundred and twenty-five discrepancies were identified. Forty-seven discrepancies, affecting 21 (24%) residents, led to a medication administration error. The most common discrepancies were medicine omission (44.0%) and extra medicine (19.2%). Delays from when medicines were prescribed to when they appeared on the electronic medication administration chart ranged from 18min to 98h. On nine occasions (for 10% of residents) the delay contributed to missed doses, usually antibiotics. Conclusion Medication discrepancies and delays were common. Improved systems for managing medication orders and charts are needed. What is known about the topic? Hybrid paper-electronic medication management systems, in which prescribers' orders are transcribed into an electronic system by pharmacy technicians and pharmacists to create medication administration charts, are increasingly replacing paper-based medication management systems in Australian residential aged care facilities. The accuracy and safety of these systems has not been studied. What does this paper add? The present study identified discrepancies between general practitioners' orders and pharmacy-prepared electronic medication administration charts, back-up paper medication charts and dose-administration aids, as well as delays between ordering, charting and administering medicines. Discrepancies and delays sometimes led to medication administration errors. What are the implications for practitioners? Facilities that use hybrid systems need to implement robust systems for communicating medication changes to their pharmacy and reconciling prescribers' orders against pharmacy-generated medication charts and dose-administration aids. Fully integrated, paperless medication management systems, in which prescribers' electronic medication orders directly populate an electronic medication administration chart and are automatically communicated to the facility's pharmacy, could improve patient safety.

  13. Annual Sustainability Report FY 2014. Incorporates NREL Site Sustainability Plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Rukavina, Frank

    NREL's Sustainability Program is responsible for upholding all executive orders, federal regulations, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) orders, and goals related to sustainable and resilient facility operations. But NREL continues to expand sustainable practices above and beyond the laboratory's regulations and requirements to ensure that the laboratory fulfills its mission into the future, leaves the smallest possible legacy footprint, and models sustainable operations and behaviors on national, regional, and local levels. The report, per the GRI reporting format, elaborates on multi-year goals relative to executive orders, achievements, and challenges; and success stories provide specific examples. A section called 'Sustaining NREL'smore » Future Through Integration' provides insight into how NREL is successfully expanding the adoption of renewable energy technologies through integration.« less

  14. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NREL's Sustainability Program is responsible for upholding all executive orders, federal regulations, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) orders, and goals related to sustainable and resilient facility operations. But NREL continues to expand sustainable practices above and beyond the laboratory's regulations and requirements to ensure that the laboratory fulfills its mission into the future, leaves the smallest possible legacy footprint, and models sustainable operations and behaviors on national, regional, and local levels. The report, per the GRI reporting format, elaborates on multi-year goals relative to executive orders, achievements, and challenges; and success stories provide specific examples. A section called 'NREL's Resiliencymore » is Taking Many Forms' provides insight into how NREL is drawing on its deep knowledge of renewable energy and energy efficiency to help mitigate or avoid climate change impacts.« less

  15. Ingham County Medical Care Facility solar energy project (Engineering Materials)

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    A complete set of as-built drawings for the Ingham County Geriatric Medical Care Facility's solar water heating system is included. These drawings accompany report No. DOE/CS/32382-T1 and DOE/CS/32382-T2. (LS)

  16. Haselden/RNL - Research Support Facility Documentary

    ScienceCinema

    Haselden, Byron; Baker, Jeff; Glover, Bill; von Luhrte, Rich; Randock, Craig; Andary, John; Macey, Philip; Okada, David

    2017-12-12

    The US Department of Energy's (DOE) Research Support Facility (RSF) on the campus of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is positioned to be one of the most energy efficient buildings in the world. It will demonstrate NREL's role in moving advanced technologies and transferring knowledge into commercial applications. Because 19 percent of the country's energy is used by commercial buildings, DOE plans to make this facility a showcase for energy efficiency. DOE hopes the design of the RSF will be replicated by the building industry and help reduce the nation's energy consumption by changing the way commercial buildings are designed and built.

  17. 2010 Ecological Survey of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Site

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Chamness, Michele A.; Perry, Christopher; Downs, Janelle L.

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) oversees and manages the DOE contract for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), a DOE Office of Science multi-program laboratory located in Richland, Washington. PNSO is responsible for ensuring that all activities conducted on the PNNL Site comply with applicable laws, policies, and DOE orders. The DOE Pacific Northwest Site Office Cultural and Biological Resources Management Plan (DOE/PNSO 2008) addresses the requirement for annual surveys and monitoring for species of concern and to identify and map invasive species. In addition to the requirement for an annual survey, proposed projectmore » activities must be reviewed to assess any potential environmental consequences of conducting the project. The assessment process requires a thorough understanding of the resources present, the potential impacts of a proposed action to those resources, and the ultimate consequences of those actions. The PNNL Site is situated on the southeastern corner of the DOE Hanford Site, located at the north end of the city of Richland in south-central Washington. The site is bordered on the east by the Columbia River, on the west by Stevens Drive, and on the north by the Hanford Site 300 Area (Figure 1). The environmental setting of the PNNL Site is described in Larson and Downs (2009). There are currently two facilities on the PNNL Site: the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), and the recently completed Physical Sciences Facility (PSF). This report describes the results of the annual survey of the biological resources found on the undeveloped portions of the PNNL Site in 2010. A brief description of the methods PNNL ecologists used to conduct the surveys and the results of the surveys are presented. Actions taken to fully delineate noxious weed populations discovered in 2009 and efforts in 2010 to control those weeds also are described. Appendix A provides a list of plant and animal species identified on the PNNL Site.« less

  18. The integration of Human Factors (HF) in the SAR process training course text

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ryan, T.G.

    1995-03-01

    This text provides the technical basis for a two-day course on human factors (HF), as applied to the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) process. The overall objective of this text and course is to: provide the participant with a working knowledge of human factors-related requirements, suggestions for doing a human safety analysis applying a graded approach, and an ability to demonstrate using the results of the human safety analysis, that human factors elements as defined by DOE (human factors engineering, procedures, training, oversight, staffing, qualifications), can support wherever necessary, nuclear safety commitments in the SAR. More specifically, the objectives of themore » text and course are: (1) To provide the SAR preparer with general guidelines for doing HE within the context of a graded approach for the SAR; (2) To sensitize DOE facility managers and staff, safety analysts and SAR preparers, independent reviewers, and DOE reviewers and regulators, to DOE Order 5480.23 requirements for HE in the SAR; (3) To provide managers, analysts, reviewers and regulators with a working knowledge of HE concepts and techniques within the context of a graded approach for the SAR, and (4) To provide SAR managers and DOE reviewers and regulators with general guidelines for monitoring and coordinating the work of preparers of HE inputs throughout the SAR process, and for making decisions regarding the safety relevance of HE inputs to the SAR. As a ready reference for implementing the human factors requirements of DOE Order 5480.22 and DOE Standard 3009-94, this course text and accompanying two-day course are intended for all persons who are involved in the SAR.« less

  19. 2011 Annual Criticality Safety Program Performance Summary

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Andrea Hoffman

    The 2011 review of the INL Criticality Safety Program has determined that the program is robust and effective. The review was prepared for, and fulfills Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) item H.20, 'Annual Criticality Safety Program performance summary that includes the status of assessments, issues, corrective actions, infractions, requirements management, training, and programmatic support.' This performance summary addresses the status of these important elements of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Assessments - Assessments in 2011 were planned and scheduled. The scheduled assessments included a Criticality Safety Program Effectiveness Review, Criticality Control Area Inspections, a Protection of Controlled Unclassified Information Inspection,more » an Assessment of Criticality Safety SQA, and this management assessment of the Criticality Safety Program. All of the assessments were completed with the exception of the 'Effectiveness Review' for SSPSF, which was delayed due to emerging work. Although minor issues were identified in the assessments, no issues or combination of issues indicated that the INL Criticality Safety Program was ineffective. The identification of issues demonstrates the importance of an assessment program to the overall health and effectiveness of the INL Criticality Safety Program. Issues and Corrective Actions - There are relatively few criticality safety related issues in the Laboratory ICAMS system. Most were identified by Criticality Safety Program assessments. No issues indicate ineffectiveness in the INL Criticality Safety Program. All of the issues are being worked and there are no imminent criticality concerns. Infractions - There was one criticality safety related violation in 2011. On January 18, 2011, it was discovered that a fuel plate bundle in the Nuclear Materials Inspection and Storage (NMIS) facility exceeded the fissionable mass limit, resulting in a technical safety requirement (TSR) violation. The TSR limits fuel plate bundles to 1085 grams U-235, which is the maximum loading of an ATR fuel element. The overloaded fuel plate bundle contained 1097 grams U-235 and was assembled under an 1100 gram U-235 limit in 1982. In 2003, the limit was reduced to 1085 grams citing a new criticality safety evaluation for ATR fuel elements. The fuel plate bundle inventories were not checked for compliance prior to implementing the reduced limit. A subsequent review of the NMIS inventory did not identify further violations. Requirements Management - The INL Criticality Safety program is organized and well documented. The source requirements for the INL Criticality Safety Program are from 10 CFR 830.204, DOE Order 420.1B, Chapter III, 'Nuclear Criticality Safety,' ANSI/ANS 8-series Industry Standards, and DOE Standards. These source requirements are documented in LRD-18001, 'INL Criticality Safety Program Requirements Manual.' The majority of the criticality safety source requirements are contained in DOE Order 420.1B because it invokes all of the ANSI/ANS 8-Series Standards. DOE Order 420.1B also invokes several DOE Standards, including DOE-STD-3007, 'Guidelines for Preparing Criticality Safety Evaluations at Department of Energy Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities.' DOE Order 420.1B contains requirements for DOE 'Heads of Field Elements' to approve the criticality safety program and specific elements of the program, namely, the qualification of criticality staff and the method for preparing criticality safety evaluations. This was accomplished by the approval of SAR-400, 'INL Standardized Nuclear Safety Basis Manual,' Chapter 6, 'Prevention of Inadvertent Criticality.' Chapter 6 of SAR-400 contains sufficient detail and/or reference to the specific DOE and contractor documents that adequately describe the INL Criticality Safety Program per the elements specified in DOE Order 420.1B. The Safety Evaluation Report for SAR-400 specifically recognizes that the approval of SAR-400 approves the INL Criticality Safety Program. No new source requirements were released in 2011. A revision to LRD-18001 is planned for 2012 to clarify design requirements for criticality alarms. Training - Criticality Safety Engineering has developed training and provides training for many employee positions, including fissionable material handlers, facility managers, criticality safety officers, firefighters, and criticality safety engineers. Criticality safety training at the INL is a program strength. A revision to the training module developed in 2010 to supplement MFC certified fissionable material handlers (operators) training was prepared and presented in August of 2011. This training, 'Applied Science of Criticality Safety,' builds upon existing training and gives operators a better understanding of how their criticality controls are derived. Improvements to 00INL189, 'INL Criticality Safety Principles' are planned for 2012 to strengthen fissionable material handler training.« less

  20. The NGA-DOE grant to examine critical issues related to radioactive waste and materials disposition involving DOE facilities. Quarterly report, October 1--December 31, 1997

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Beauchesne, A.M.

    1997-12-31

    Topics explored through this project include: decisions involving disposal of mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and disposition of nuclear materials; decisions involving DOE budget requests and their effect on environmental cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; strategies to treat mixed, low-level, and transuranic (TRU) waste and their effect on individual sites in the complex; changes to the FFCA site treatment plans as a result of proposals in the EM 2006 cleanup plans and contractor integration analysis; interstate waste and materials shipments; and reforms to existing RCRA and CERCLA regulations/guidance to address regulatory overlap and risks posed by DOE wastes.more » The work accomplished by the NGA project team during the past four months can be categorized as follows: maintained open communication with DOE on a variety of activities and issues within the DOE environmental management complex; and maintained communication with NGA Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force members regarding DOE efforts to formulate a configuration for mixed low-level waste and low-level treatment and disposal, DOE activities in the area of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, and DOE`s proposed National Dialogue.« less

  1. Annual Site Environmental Report: 2006

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nuckolls, H.; /SLAC

    2008-02-22

    This report provides information about environmental programs during the calendar year (CY) of 2006 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), Menlo Park, California. Activities that span the calendar year; i.e., stormwater monitoring covering the winter season of 2006/2007 (October 2006 through May 2007), are also included. Production of an annual site environmental report (ASER) is a requirement established by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) for all management and operating (M&O) contractors throughout the DOE complex. SLAC is a federally-funded research and development center with Stanford University as the M&O contractor. SLAC continued to follow the path tomore » self-declare an environmental management system under DOE Order 450.1, 'Environmental Protection Program' and effectively applied environmental management in meeting the site's integrated safety and environmental management system goals. For normal daily activities, all SLAC managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that proper procedures are followed so that Worker safety and health are protected; The environment is protected; and Compliance is ensured. Throughout 2006, SLAC focused on these activities through the SLAC management systems. These systems were also the way SLAC approached implementing 'greening of the government' initiatives such as Executive Order 13148. The management systems at SLAC are effective, supporting compliance with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The SLAC Office of Assurance was created during 2006 in response to DOE Order 226.1. During 2006, there were no reportable releases to the environment from SLAC operations, and there were no Notice of Violations issued to SLAC from any of the regulatory agencies that oversee SLAC. In addition, many improvements in waste minimization, recycling, stormwater drain system, groundwater restoration, and SLAC's chemical management system (CMS) were continued during 2006 to better manage chemical use. Program-specific details are discussed below. SLAC operates its air quality management program in compliance with its established permit conditions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) did not conduct a facility inspection of SLAC during 2006, though it did visit the site on four different occasions. The BAAQMD did compliment SLAC for the overall configuration of SLAC's gasoline dispensing facility and of SLAC's asbestos/demolition notification program during two of the visits. DOE awarded SLAC the 2006 Best in Class for Pollution Prevention and Environmental Stewardship Accomplishment in recognition of SLAC's CMS program which manages the procurement and use of chemicals. As an example of the efficiency of the CMS, SLAC reviewed its use of gases and associated tanks and phased out numerous gas tanks that were no longer needed or were not acceptable for long-term storage, in turn, reducing SLAC's on-site chemical inventory. As part of SLAC's waste minimization and management efforts, more than one thousand tons of municipal solid waste was recycled by SLAC during 2006. SLAC operates its industrial and sanitary wastewater management program in compliance with established permit conditions. During 2006, SLAC obtained a new facility-wide wastewater discharge permit which replaced four separate permits that were previously issued to SLAC. In 2006, no radiological incidents occurred that increased radiation levels or released radioactivity to the environment. In addition to managing its radioactive wastes safely and responsibly, SLAC worked to reduce the amount of waste generated. SLAC has implemented programs and systems to ensure compliance with all radiological requirements related to the environment. The Environmental Restoration Program continued work on site characterization and evaluation of remedial alternatives at four sites with volatile organic compounds in groundwater and several areas with polychlorinated biphenyls and low concentrations of lead in soil. SLAC is regulated under a site cleanup requirements order (board order) issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) for the investigation and remediation of impacted soil and groundwater at SLAC. The new board order lists specific tasks and deadlines for groundwater and soil remedial investigation. All 2006 submittals to the board were completed on time.« less

  2. Project Execution Plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    DOE /NV

    1999-03-22

    Created in 1989 to address over 50 years of environmental liabilities arising out of nuclear weapons production and testing in the United States since World War II, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Environmental Management (EM) Programs decade-long effort to reduce the costs of those environmental liabilities, collectively known as DOE's ''environmental mortgage,'' includes past as well as future cleanup costs associated with environmental contamination, hazardous and radioactive materials and wastes, contaminated buildings and facilities, and their associated risks. Tasked with the bulk of these cleanup efforts, the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office's (DOE/NV's), Nevada Environmental Restoration Projectmore » (NV ERP) is attempting to complete applicable corrective actions at inactive contaminated sites and facilities managed by DOE/NV, while at the same time protecting human health and the environment. Regulated under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, the objectives of the NV ERP are to identify the nature and extent of the contamination, determine its potential risk to the public and the environment, and to perform the necessary corrective actions in compliance with this and other state and federal regulations, guidelines, and requirements. Associated with this vast effort are approximately 2,000 sites both on and off of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) that were used primarily for nuclear testing and are addressed in the NV ERP. This includes sites that were underground areas where tests were actually conducted, contaminated surface soils resulting from aboveground testing activities, and sites that supported other related testing hardware paraphenalia and/or NTS real estate properties (e.g., underground storage tanks, leachfields, landfills, contaminated waste areas, injection wells, muckpiles, and ponds). To assist in this effort, a NV ERP Team was assembled which is composed of organizations from both the public and private sectors. The strategy to be employed for environmental restoration is based on commonality of work and the DOE EM Program's vision to remediate the contaminated sites on a project-specific, site-by-site basis over an approximate ten-year period to be completed by the year 2006.« less

  3. 43 CFR 404.53 - Does this rule provide authority for the transfer of pre-existing facilities from Federal to...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RECLAMATION RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM Miscellaneous § 404.53 Does...-existing facilities or pre-existing components of any water system from Federal to private ownership, or...

  4. Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program FY 2008 Annual Report

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    editor, Todd C Hansen

    2009-02-23

    The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab or LBNL) is a multi-program national research facility operated by the University of California for the Department of Energy (DOE). As an integral element of DOE's National Laboratory System, Berkeley Lab supports DOE's missions in fundamental science, energy resources, and environmental quality. Berkeley Lab programs advance four distinct goals for DOE and the nation: (1) To perform leading multidisciplinary research in the computing sciences, physical sciences, energy sciences, biosciences, and general sciences in a manner that ensures employee and public safety and protection of the environment. (2) To develop and operatemore » unique national experimental facilities for qualified investigators. (3) To educate and train future generations of scientists and engineers to promote national science and education goals. (4) To transfer knowledge and technological innovations and to foster productive relationships among Berkeley Lab's research programs, universities, and industry in order to promote national economic competitiveness. Berkeley Lab's research and the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program support DOE's Strategic Themes that are codified in DOE's 2006 Strategic Plan (DOE/CF-0010), with a primary focus on Scientific Discovery and Innovation. For that strategic theme, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 LDRD projects support each one of the three goals through multiple strategies described in the plan. In addition, LDRD efforts support the four goals of Energy Security, the two goals of Environmental Responsibility, and Nuclear Security (unclassified fundamental research that supports stockpile safety and nonproliferation programs). The LDRD program supports Office of Science strategic plans, including the 20-year Scientific Facilities Plan and the Office of Science Strategic Plan. The research also supports the strategic directions periodically under consideration and review by the Office of Science Program Offices, such as LDRD projects germane to new research facility concepts and new fundamental science directions. Berkeley Lab LDRD program also play an important role in leveraging DOE capabilities for national needs. The fundamental scientific research and development conducted in the program advances the skills and technologies of importance to our Work For Others (WFO) sponsors. Among many directions, these include a broad range of health-related science and technology of interest to the National Institutes of Health, breast cancer and accelerator research supported by the Department of Defense, detector technologies that should be useful to the Department of Homeland Security, and particle detection that will be valuable to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Berkeley Lab Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program FY2008 report is compiled from annual reports submitted by principal investigators following the close of the fiscal year. This report describes the supported projects and summarizes their accomplishments. It constitutes a part of the LDRD program planning and documentation process that includes an annual planning cycle, project selection, implementation, and review.« less

  5. The importance of living wills and advance directives.

    PubMed

    Alfonso, Heather

    2009-10-01

    Living wills and advance directives are important components of patients' medical records, which all too often do not indicate the appropriate palliative care measures the patient desires. A review of the current literature indicates that approximately 85% to 95% of the population does not have adequate advance directives or palliative care measures written in their medical record. Furthermore, these orders may not follow the patient when he or she is transferred to other facilities for intermittent care. Unwanted tracheal intubations can be both costly to the facility and distressing to the patient and family members. By instituting a change in policy, organizations can ensure that patients' wishes for end-of-life care are met appropriately. In addition, nurses should advocate for a centralized database at the political level. Copyright 2009, SLACK Incorporated.

  6. Process monitoring in modern safeguards applications

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ehinger, M.H.

    1989-11-01

    From the safeguards standpoint, regulatory requirements are finally moving into the modern world of communication and information processing. Gone are the days when the accountant with the green eye shade and arm bands made judgments on the material balance a month after the balance was closed. The most recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) orders have very strict standards for timeliness and sensitivity to loss or removal of material. The latest regulations recognize that plant operators have a lot of information on and control over the location and movement of material within their facilities.more » This information goes beyond that traditionally reported under accountability requirements. These new regulations allow facility operators to take credit for many of the more informal process controls.« less

  7. Final Report for the “WSU Neutron Capture Therapy Facility Support”

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Gerald E. Tripard; Keith G. Fox

    2006-08-24

    The objective for the cooperative research program for which this report has been written was to provide separate NCT facility user support for the students, faculty and scientists who would be doing the U.S. Department of Energy Office (DOE) of Science supported advanced radiotargeted research at the WSU 1 megawatt TRIGA reactor. The participants were the Idaho National laboratory (INL, P.I., Dave Nigg), the Veterinary Medical Research Center of Washington State University (WSU, Janean Fidel and Patrick Gavin), and the Washington State University Nuclear Radiation Center (WSU, P.I., Gerald Tripard). A significant number of DOE supported modifications were made tomore » the WSU reactor in order to create an epithermal neutron beam while at the same time maintaining the other activities of the 1 MW reactor. These modifications were: (1) Removal of the old thermal column. (2) Construction and insertion of a new epithermal filter, collimator and shield. (3) Construction of a shielded room that could accommodate the very high radiation field created by an intense neutron beam. (4) Removal of the previous reactor core fuel cluster arrangement. (5) Design and loading of the new reactor core fuel cluster arrangement in order to optimize the neutron flux entering the epithermal neutron filter. (6) The integration of the shielded rooms interlocks and radiological controls into the SCRAM chain and operating electronics of the reactor. (7) Construction of a motorized mechanism for moving and remotely controlling the position of the entire reactor bridge. (8) The integration of the reactor bridge control electronics into the SCRAM chain and operating electronics of the reactor. (9) The design, construction and attachment to the support structure of the reactor of an irradiation box that could be inserted into position next to the face of the reactor. (Necessitated by the previously mentioned core rearrangement). All of the above modifications were successfully completed and tested. The resulting epithermal beam of 1 x 10{sup 9} n/sec-cm{sup 2} was measured by Idaho National Laboratory with assistance from WSU's Neutron Activation Analysis Group. The beam is as good as our initial proposals for the project had predicted. In addition to all of the design, construction and insertion of the hardware, shielding, electronics and radiation monitoring systems there was considerable manpower and effort put into changes in the Technical Specifications of the reactor and implementing procedures for use of the new facility. This staff involvement is one of the reasons we requested special facility support from the DOE. Once the facility was competed and all of the recalibrations and measurements made to characterize the differences between this reactor core and the previous core we began to assist INL in making their beam measurements with foils and phantoms. Although we proposed support for only one additional staff position to support this new NCT facility the staff support provided by the WSU Nuclear Radiation Center was greater than had been anticipated by our initial proposal. INL was also assisted in the testing of a heavy water (deuterated water) bladder that can be inserted into the collimator in order to produce an intense, external thermal neutron beam. The external epithermal and/or thermal neutron beam capability remains available for use, if funding becomes available for future research projects.« less

  8. A performance goal-based seismic design philosophy for waste repository facilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Hossain, Q.A.

    1994-12-31

    A performance goal-based seismic design philosophy, compatible with DOE`s present natural phenomena hazards mitigation and {open_quotes}graded approach{close_quotes} philosophy, has been proposed for high level nuclear waste repository facilities. The rationale, evolution, and the desirable features of this method have been described. Why and how the method should and can be applied to the design of a repository facility are also discussed.

  9. DOE Network 2025: Network Research Problems and Challenges for DOE Scientists. Workshop Report

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    None, None

    2016-02-01

    The growing investments in large science instruments and supercomputers by the US Department of Energy (DOE) hold enormous promise for accelerating the scientific discovery process. They facilitate unprecedented collaborations of geographically dispersed teams of scientists that use these resources. These collaborations critically depend on the production, sharing, moving, and management of, as well as interactive access to, large, complex data sets at sites dispersed across the country and around the globe. In particular, they call for significant enhancements in network capacities to sustain large data volumes and, equally important, the capabilities to collaboratively access the data across computing, storage, andmore » instrument facilities by science users and automated scripts and systems. Improvements in network backbone capacities of several orders of magnitude are essential to meet these challenges, in particular, to support exascale initiatives. Yet, raw network speed represents only a part of the solution. Indeed, the speed must be matched by network and transport layer protocols and higher layer tools that scale in ways that aggregate, compose, and integrate the disparate subsystems into a complete science ecosystem. Just as important, agile monitoring and management services need to be developed to operate the network at peak performance levels. Finally, these solutions must be made an integral part of the production facilities by using sound approaches to develop, deploy, diagnose, operate, and maintain them over the science infrastructure.« less

  10. Tiger Team Assessment of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1991-03-01

    This report documents the Tiger Team Assessment of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) conducted from February 11 to March 12, 1991. The PPPL is operated for the US Department of Energy (DOE) by Princeton University. The assessment was conducted under the auspices of the Headquarters, DOE, Office of Special Projects which is under the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Activities of the Tiger Team Assessment resulted in identification of compliance findings or concerns and noteworthy practices and an analysis as to the root causes for noncompliance. The PPPL Tiger Team Assessment is one component of a larger,more » comprehensive DOE Tiger Team Assessment program for DOE facilities that will eventually encompass over 100 of the Department's operating facilities. The objective of the initiative is to provide the Secretary with information on the compliance status of DOE facilities with regard to ES H requirements; root causes for noncompliances; adequacy of DOE and contractor ES H management programs; response actions to address the identified problems areas; and DOE-wide ES H compliance trends and root causes.« less

  11. Nuclear waste

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1991-09-01

    Radioactive waste is mounting at U.S. nuclear power plants at a rate of more than 2,000 metric tons a year. Pursuant to statute and anticipating that a geologic repository would be available in 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into disposal contracts with nuclear utilities. Now, however, DOE does not expect the repository to be ready before 2010. For this reason, DOE does not want to develop a facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) by 1998. This book is concerned about how best to store the waste until a repository is available, congressional requesters asked GAO to review themore » alternatives of continued storage at utilities' reactor sites or transferring waste to an MRS facility, GAO assessed the likelihood of an MRSA facility operating by 1998, legal implications if DOE is not able to take delivery of wastes in 1998, propriety of using the Nuclear Waste Fund-from which DOE's waste program costs are paid-to pay utilities for on-site storage capacity added after 1998, ability of utilities to store their waste on-site until a repository is operating, and relative costs and safety of the two storage alternatives.« less

  12. 10 CFR 900.2 - Applicability.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... ENERGY COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES § 900.2 Applicability... facilities that are used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce for the sale of electric energy at wholesale. (b) DOE does not accept requests for coordination under this part of Federal...

  13. 10 CFR 900.2 - Applicability.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... ENERGY COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES § 900.2 Applicability... facilities that are used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce for the sale of electric energy at wholesale. (b) DOE does not accept requests for coordination under this part of Federal...

  14. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 117: Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Mark Burmeister

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 117: Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. Corrective Action Unit 117 comprises Corrective Action Site (CAS) 26-41-01, Pluto Disassembly Facility, located in Area 26 of the Nevada Test Site. The purpose of this CR is to provide documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and providemore » data confirming that the closure objectives for CAU 117 were met. To achieve this, the following actions were performed: • Review the current site conditions, including the concentration and extent of contamination. • Implement any corrective actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. • Properly dispose of corrective action and investigation wastes. • Document Notice of Completion and closure of CAU 117 issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. From May 2008 through February 2009, closure activities were performed as set forth in the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for Corrective Action Unit 117, Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The purpose of the activities as defined during the data quality objectives process were: • Determine whether contaminants of concern (COCs) are present. • If COCs are present, determine their nature and extent, implement appropriate corrective actions, and properly dispose of wastes. Analytes detected during the closure activities were evaluated against final action levels to determine COCs for CAU 117. Assessment of the data generated from closure activities indicated that the final action levels were exceeded for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) reported as total Aroclor and radium-226. A corrective action was implemented to remove approximately 50 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil, approximately 1 cubic foot of radium-226 contaminated soil (and scabbled asphalt), and a high-efficiency particulate air filter that was determined to meet the criteria of a potential source material (PSM). Electrical and lighting components (i.e., PCB-containing ballasts and capacitors) and other materials (e.g., mercury-containing thermostats and switches, lead plugs and bricks) assumed to be PSM were also removed from Building 2201, as practical, without the need for sampling. Because the COC contamination and PSMs have been removed, clean closure of CAS 26-41-01 is recommended, and no use restrictions are required to be placed on this CAU. No further action is necessary because no other contaminants of potential concern were found above preliminary action levels. The physical end state for Building 2201 is expected to be eventual demolition to slab. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office provides the following recommendations: • Clean closure is the recommended corrective action for CAS 26-41-01 in CAU 117. • A Notice of Completion to the DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office is requested from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for closure of CAU 117. • Corrective Action Unit 117 should be moved from Appendix III to Appendix IV of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.« less

  15. Safety Oversight of Decommissioning Activities at DOE Nuclear Sites

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Zull, Lawrence M.; Yeniscavich, William

    2008-01-15

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

  16. Haselden/RNL - Research Support Facility Documentary

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Haselden, Byron; Baker, Jeff; Glover, Bill

    2010-06-10

    The US Department of Energy's (DOE) Research Support Facility (RSF) on the campus of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is positioned to be one of the most energy efficient buildings in the world. It will demonstrate NREL's role in moving advanced technologies and transferring knowledge into commercial applications. Because 19 percent of the country's energy is used by commercial buildings, DOE plans to make this facility a showcase for energy efficiency. DOE hopes the design of the RSF will be replicated by the building industry and help reduce the nation's energy consumption by changing the way commercial buildings are designedmore » and built.« less

  17. Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve West Hackberry Facility Raw Water Intake Pipeline Replacement Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    N /A

    DOE has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE/EA-1497, for the proposed replacement of the existing 107 centimeter (cm) [42 inch (in)] 6.87 kilometer (km) [4.27 mile (mi)] raw water intake pipeline (RWIPL). This action is necessary to allow for continued, optimum operations at the West Hackberry facility (main site/facility). The EA described the proposed action (including action alternatives) and three alternatives to the proposed action. The EA evaluated only the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action (one action alternative), and Alternative 3, which consisted of the No Build Action that is required by 10 CFR 1021.321(c). Based on themore » analysis in DOE/EA-1497, DOE has determined that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting humans or the natural environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 USC 4321 et seq. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required, and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). To further minimize impacts to environmental media, the DOE will also implement a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) for this action. The MAP is included as Appendix F of this EA, which is appended to this FONSI. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, authorizes the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to store crude oil to reduce the United States' vulnerability to energy supply disruptions. Crude oil is stored in geologic formations, or salt domes, located under these facilities. The purpose of this proposed project is to construct a new RWIPL at the main site to replace the existing RWIPL which services this facility.« less

  18. Comparison of DOE and NIRMA approaches to configuration management programs

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Yang, E.Y.; Kulzick, K.C.

    One of the major management programs used for commercial, laboratory, and defense nuclear facilities is configuration management. The safe and efficient operation of a nuclear facility requires constant vigilance in maintaining the facility`s design basis with its as-built condition. Numerous events have occurred that can be attributed to (either directly or indirectly) the extent to which configuration management principles have been applied. The nuclear industry, as a whole, has been addressing this management philosophy with efforts taken on by its constituent professional organizations. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the implementation plans for enhancing a configurationmore » management program as outlined in the U.S. Department of Energy`s (DOE`s) DOE-STD-1073-93, {open_quotes}Guide for Operational Configuration Management Program,{close_quotes} with the following guidelines developed by the Nuclear Information and Records Management Association (NIRMA): 1. PP02-1994, {open_quotes}Position Paper on Configuration Management{close_quotes} 2. PP03-1992, {open_quotes}Position Paper for Implementing a Configuration Management Enhancement Program for a Nuclear Facility{close_quotes} 3. PP04-1994 {open_quotes}Position Paper for Configuration Management Information Systems.{close_quotes}« less

  19. Technical basis, supporting information, and strategy for development and implementation of DOE policy for natural phenomena hazards

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Murray, R.C.

    1991-09-01

    Policy for addressing natural phenomenon comprises a hierarchy of interrelated documents. The top level of policy is contained in the code of Federal Regulations which establishes the framework and intent to ensure overall safety of DOE facilities when subjected to the effects of natural phenomena. The natural phenomena to be considered include earthquakes and tsunami, winds, hurricanes and tornadoes, floods, volcano effects and seiches. Natural phenomena criteria have been established for design of new facilities; evaluation of existing facilities; additions, modifications, and upgrades to existing facilities; and evaluation criteria for new or existing sites. Steps needed to implement these fourmore » general criteria are described. The intent of these criteria is to identify WHAT needs to be done to ensure adequate protection from natural phenomena. The commentary provides discussion of WHY this is needed for DOE facilities within the complex. Implementing procedures identifying HOW to carry out these criteria are next identified. Finally, short and long term tasks needed to identify the implementing procedure are tabulated. There is an overall need for consistency throughout the DOE complex related to natural phenomena including consistent terminology, policy, and implementation. 1 fig, 6 tabs.« less

  20. Federal environmental standards of potential importance to operations and activities at US Department of Energy sites. Draft

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Fowler, K.M.; Bilyard, G.R.; Davidson, S.A.

    1993-06-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is now engaged in a program of environmental restoration nationwide across its 45 sites. It is also bringing its facilities into compliance with environmental regulations, decontaminating and decommissioning unwanted facilities, and constructing new waste management facilities. One of the most difficult questions that DOE must face in successfully remediating its inactive waste sites, decontaminating and decommissioning its inactive facilities, and operating its waste management facilities is: ``What criteria and standards should be met?`` Acceptable standards or procedures for determining standards will assist DOE in its conduct of ongoing waste management and pending cleanup activitiesmore » by helping to ensure that those activities are conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and are accepted by the regulatory community and the public. This document reports on the second of three baseline activities that are being conducted as prerequisites to either the development of quantitative standards that could be used by DOE, or consistent procedures for developing such standards. The first and third baseline activities are also briefly discussed in conjunction with the second of the three activities.« less

  1. A whole body counting facility in a remote Enewetak Island setting.

    PubMed

    Bell, Thomas R; Hickman, David; Yamaguchi, Lance; Jackson, William; Hamilton, Terry

    2002-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has recently implemented a series of strategic initiatives to address long-term radiological surveillance needs at former U.S. test sites in the Marshall Islands. The plan is to engage local atoll communities in developing shared responsibilities for implementing radiation protection programs for resettled and resettling populations. As part of this new initiative, DOE agreed to design and construct a radiological laboratory on Enewetak Island, and help develop the necessary local resources to maintain and operate the facility. This cooperative effort was formalized in August 2000 between the DOE, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Atoll Government (EULGOV). The laboratory facility was completed in May 2001. The laboratory incorporates both a permanent whole body counting system to assess internal exposures to 137Cs, and clean living space for people providing 24-h void urine samples. DOE continues to provide on-going technical assistance, training, and data quality review while EULGOV provides manpower and infrastructure development to sustain facility operations on a full-time basis. This paper will detail the special construction, transportation and installation issues in establishing a whole body counting facility in an isolated, harsh environmental setting.

  2. Risk assessment and optimization (ALARA) analysis for the environmental remediation of Brookhaven National Laboratory`s hazardous waste management facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Dionne, B.J.; Morris, S.C. III; Baum, J.W.

    1998-01-01

    The Department of Energy`s (DOE) Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (EH) sought examples of risk-based approaches to environmental restoration to include in their guidance for DOE nuclear facilities. Extensive measurements of radiological contamination in soil and ground water have been made at Brookhaven National Laboratory`s Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) as part of a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) remediation process. This provided an ideal opportunity for a case study. This report provides a risk assessment and an {open_quotes}As Low as Reasonably Achievable{close_quotes} (ALARA) analysis for use at other DOE nuclear facilities as an example ofmore » a risk-based decision technique. This document contains the Appendices for the report.« less

  3. Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2010

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    C. Wills, ed.

    2011-09-13

    This NNSSER was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the NNSA/NSO Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This NNSSER summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2010 at the Nevada Nationalmore » Security Site (NNSS) (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and its two support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory–Nellis (RSL-Nellis). It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NSO is responsible for the oversight of TTR ER projects, and the Sandia Site Office of NNSA (NNSA/SSO) has oversight of all other TTR activities. NNSA/SSO produces the TTR annual environmental report available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.« less

  4. The development of an experimental facility and investigation of rapidly maneuvering Micro-Air-Vehicle wings

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Wilson, Lee Alexander

    Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing (VTOL) Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) provide a versatile operational platform which combines the capabilities of fixed wing and rotary wing MAVs. In order to improve performance of these vehicles, a better understanding of the rapid transition between horizontal and vertical flight is required. This study examines the flow structures around the Mini-Vertigo VTOL MAV using flow visualization techniques. This will gives an understanding of the flow structures which dominate the flight dynamics of rapid pitching maneuvers. This study consists of three objectives: develop an experimental facility, use flow visualization to investigate the flow around the experimental subject during pitching, and analyze the results. The flow around the Mini-Vertigo VTOL MAV is dominated by the slipstream from its propellers. The slipstream delays LE separation and causes drastic deflection in the flow. While the frequency of the vortices shed from the LE and TE varies with flow speed, the non-dimensional frequency does not. It does, however, vary slightly with the pitching rate. These results are applicable across a wide range of flight conditions. The results correlate to previous research done to examine the aerodynamic forces on the MAV.

  5. DOE LeRC photovoltaic systems test facility

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    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.

  6. Joint Services Electronics Program: Annual Progress Report Number 103, 1 October 1988 - 31 July 1989 (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts)

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1989-07-31

    facility awaits integration in the soon-to-be funded DOE 36 project, Robert Martinez has been using it to develop a method to evaluate surface stresses...explained as resulting from a pressure- dependent effective mass, m*, and we suggested that this was evidence for r - x 0 mixing. However, simple models of...between near Q i 2.6A’-. The overall shape of this type of data, measured over 10 orders of magnitude, places severe constraints on any possible model for

  7. Environmental guidance for public participation in environmental restoration activities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1991-11-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this document, entitled Guidance on Public Participation for US Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Activities, to summarize policy and provide guidance for public participation in environmental restoration activities at DOE Headquarters, Field Offices, facilities, and laboratories. While the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) has environmental restoration responsibility for the majority of DOE sites and facilities, other DOE Project Offices have similar responsibilities at their sites and facilities. This guidance is applicable to all environment restoration activities conducted by or for DOE under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilitymore » Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) (corrective actions only); and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This guidance also is applicable to CERCLA remedial action programs under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, where DOE is the designated lead. The primary objectives of this guidance document are as follows: acclimate DOE staff to a changing culture that emphasizes the importance of public participation activities; provide direction on implementing these public participation activities; and, provide consistent guidance for all DOE Field Offices and facilities. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on conducting effective public participation activities for environmental restoration activities under CERCLA; RCRA corrective actions under sections 3004(u), 3004(v), and 3008(h); and NEPA public participation activities.« less

  8. Congress targets DOE plants

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Maggs, William Ward

    Calling the Department of Energy's management of the nation's crippled nuclear weapons production complex “a 35-year secret chemical war waged against people living near DOE's sites,” Representative Thomas Luken (D-OH) opened a congressional hearing on February 23 with an appeal to DOE Secretary-designate James Watkins to release secret health records of workers at the plants. In testimony that followed, Comptroller General Charles Bowsher told a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that President Bush's new budget does not go far enough on the long and costly road of cleaning up and modernizing the contaminated and aging facilities. The renovation is expected to cost up to $155 billion.By next month, 11 of the 17 installations that make up the DOE complex will be on the EPA's Superfund list of the nation's most contaminated waste sites. Some o f the DOE facilities, including the Rocky Flats plant in Denver, Colo., the Hanford Reservation in eastern Washington, and the Savannah River plant in South Carolina, are among the most polluted sites ever identified by EPA. The principal function of the facilities, the production of tritium and plutonium for nuclear weapons, has stopped, creating what DOE has characterized as a looming national security crisis.

  9. ABR - Home

    Science.gov Websites

    Argonne National Laboratory Applied Battery Research for Transportation Program DOE Logo Home ; ABR > About ABR Projects News cell fabrication faciity posttest facility MERF Cell Fabrication Facility Post-Test Facility Materials Engineering Research Facility Battery News Recent Reports Funding

  10. New FEDS Software Helps You Design for Maximum Energy Efficiency, Minimum Cost

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Gilbride, Theresa L.

    2003-01-30

    This article was written for the Partner Update a newsletter put out by Potomac Communications for DOE's Rebuild America program. The article describes the FEDS (Federal Energy Decision System) software, the official analytical tool of the Rebuild America program. This software, developed by PNNL with support from DOE, FEMP and Rebuild, helps government entities and contractors make informed decisions about which energy efficiency improvements are the most cost effective for their facilities. FEDS churns thru literally thousands of calculations accounting for energy uses, costs, and interactions from different types of HVAC systems, lighting types, insulation levels, building types, occupancy levelsmore » and times. FEDS crunchs the numbers so decision makers can get fast reliable answers on which alternatives are the best for their particular building. In this article, we're touting the improvements in the latest upgrade of FEDS, which is available free to Rebuild America partners. We tell partners what FEDS does, how to order it, and even where to get tech support and training.« less

  11. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    van der Eide, Edwin F.; Yang, Ping; Walter, Eric D.

    Unlike the very labile, unobservable radical cations [{l_brace}CpM(CO){sub 3}{r_brace}{sub 2}]{sup {sm_bullet}+} (M = W, Mo), derivatives [{l_brace}CpM(CO){sub 2}(PMe{sub 3}){r_brace}{sub 2}]{sup {sm_bullet}+} are stable enough to be isolated and characterized. Experimental and theoretical studies show that the shortened M-M bonds are of order 1 1/2, and that they are not supported by bridging ligands. The unpaired electron is fully delocalized, with a spin density of ca. 45% on each metal atom. We thank the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Chemical Sciences, Biosciences and Geosciences for support of this work. Pacific Northwestmore » National Laboratory (PNNL) is a multiprogram national laboratory operated for DOE by Battelle. The EPR and computational studies were performed using EMSL, a national scientific user facility sponsored by the DOE's Office of Biological and Environmental Research and located at PNNL. We thank Dr. Charles Windisch for access to his UV-Vis-NIR spectrometer.« less

  12. Performance assessment for continuing and future operations at Solid Waste Storage Area 6

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01

    This radiological performance assessment for the continued disposal operations at Solid Waste Storage Area 6 (SWSA 6) on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the US DOE. The analysis of SWSA 6 required the use of assumptions to supplement the available site data when the available data were incomplete for the purpose of analysis. Results indicate that SWSA 6 does not presently meet the performance objectives of DOE Order 5820.2A. Changes in operations and continued work on the performance assessment are expected to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives for continuingmore » operations at the Interim Waste Management Facility (IWMF). All other disposal operations in SWSA 6 are to be discontinued as of January 1, 1994. The disposal units at which disposal operations are discontinued will be subject to CERCLA remediation, which will result in acceptable protection of the public health and safety.« less

  13. 41 CFR 102-74.140 - On what basis does the Administrator select construction and alteration projects?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... Property Management Federal Property Management Regulations System (Continued) FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION REAL PROPERTY 74-FACILITY MANAGEMENT Facility Management Asset Services § 102-74.140 On what basis... 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 3 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false On what basis does the...

  14. 36 CFR 1281.16 - What standard does NARA use for measuring building size?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property 3 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false What standard does NARA use for measuring building size? 1281.16 Section 1281.16 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.16 What standard...

  15. 10 CFR 770.2 - What real property does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false What real property does this part cover? 770.2 Section 770.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC... sale or lease at defense nuclear facilities, for the purpose of permitting economic development. (b...

  16. 10 CFR 770.2 - What real property does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false What real property does this part cover? 770.2 Section 770.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC... sale or lease at defense nuclear facilities, for the purpose of permitting economic development. (b...

  17. Department of Energy Arm Facilities on the North Slope of Alaska and Plans for a North Slope "Mega-Site"

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ivey, M.; Verlinde, J.

    2014-12-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), through its scientific user facility, the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, provides scientific infrastructure and data to the international Arctic research community via its research sites located on the North Slope of Alaska. The DOE ARM Program has operated an atmospheric measurement facility in Barrow, Alaska, since 1998. Major upgrades to this facility, including scanning radars, were added in 2010. Facilities and infrastructure to support operations of unmanned aerial systems for science missions in the Arctic and North Slope of Alaska were established at Oliktok Point Alaska in 2013. Tethered instrumented balloons will be used in the near future to make measurements of clouds in the boundary layer including mixed-phase clouds. The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility is implementing "mega-sites" at the Southern Great Plains and North Slope of Alaska sites. Two workshops were held to gather input from the scientific community on these mega-sites. The NSA workshop was held September 10 and 11 in the Washington DC area. The workshops included discussions of additional profiling remote sensors, detailed measurements of the land-atmosphere interface, aerial operations to link the Barrow and Oliktok sites, unmanned aerial system measurements, and routine large eddy simulation model runs. The "mega-sites" represent a significant new scientific and infrastructure investment by DOE Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research. This poster will present information on plans for a North Slope "Megasite" as well as new opportunities for members of the arctic research community to make atmospheric measurements using unmanned aerial systems or tethered balloons in conjunction with the DOE ARM facilities on the North Slope of Alaska.

  18. Facilities maintenance handbook

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    1991-01-01

    This handbook is a guide for facilities maintenance managers. Its objective is to set minimum facilities maintenance standards. It also provides recommendations on how to meet the standards to ensure that NASA maintains its facilities in a manner that protects and preserves its investment in the facilities in a cost-effective manner while safely and efficiently performing its mission. This handbook implements NMI 8831.1, which states NASA facilities maintenance policy and assigns organizational responsibilities for the management of facilities maintenance activities on all properties under NASA jurisdiction. It is a reference for facilities maintenance managers, not a step-by-step procedural manual. Because of the differences in NASA Field Installation organizations, this handbook does not assume or recommend a typical facilities maintenance organization. Instead, it uses a systems approach to describe the functions that should be included in any facilities maintenance management system, regardless of its organizational structure. For documents referenced in the handbook, the most recent version of the documents is applicable. This handbook is divided into three parts: Part 1 specifies common definitions and facilities maintenance requirements and amplifies the policy requirements contained in NMI 8831. 1; Part 2 provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of Part 1, containing recommendations only; Part 3 contains general facilities maintenance information. One objective of this handbook is to fix commonality of facilities maintenance definitions among the Centers. This will permit the application of uniform measures of facilities conditions, of the relationship between current replacement value and maintenance resources required, and of the backlog of deferred facilities maintenance. The utilization of facilities maintenance system functions will allow the Centers to quantitatively define maintenance objectives in common terms, prepare work plans, and develop management information in order to statistically identify and analyze variances from those plans. It will also add credibility to the NASA facilities maintenance budgeting process. The key to a successful maintenance program is the understanding and support of the senior Center managers.

  19. Sandia QIS Capabilities.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Muller, Richard P.

    2017-07-01

    Sandia National Laboratories has developed a broad set of capabilities in quantum information science (QIS), including elements of quantum computing, quantum communications, and quantum sensing. The Sandia QIS program is built atop unique DOE investments at the laboratories, including the MESA microelectronics fabrication facility, the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT) facilities (joint with LANL), the Ion Beam Laboratory, and ASC High Performance Computing (HPC) facilities. Sandia has invested $75 M of LDRD funding over 12 years to develop unique, differentiating capabilities that leverage these DOE infrastructure investments.

  20. Certification of Plutonium Standards for KAMS Neutron Multiplicity Counter

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Salaymeh, S.R.

    2002-05-31

    As part of the implementation of the PEIS record of decision in January of 1997, DOE will pursue two technologies to disposition fifty metric tons of its stockpile of plutonium. As a result of this and in order to expedite the closure of Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Colorado, DOE decided to use existing facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) for storing all material containing plutonium at KAMS. A neutron multiplicity counter was designed and built to carry out receipt verification measurement at the facility. Since the material covers a wide range and different levels of impurities, itmore » is essential that we obtain a set of working standards. An agreement was drafted to select the first drums to be these standards. A plan was developed for the certification of these standards using Rocky Flat's existing nondestructive assay equipment. This paper will discuss the types of materials to be shipped to SRS, number of standards to certify for each type of material, and the certification plan. It will also discuss the activities necessary to determine the nuclear content of these working standards to be used at SRS facilities in support of shipment and receipt of the Pu containing materials. Definition of instrument qualifications, measurement control processes, measurement methodologies, and calculations necessary to report the gram quantities and their uncertainties for plutonium, americium-241, uranium-235 (if present) and neptunium-237 (if present) will also be presented.« less

  1. 75 FR 19467 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-14

    ...EPA is taking final action to disapprove revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of Texas that relate to the Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities (the Qualified Facilities Program or the Program). EPA is disapproving the Texas Qualified Facilities Program because it does not meet the Minor NSR SIP requirements nor does it meet the NSR SIP requirements for a substitute Major NSR SIP revision. EPA is also approving three definitions that are severable from the Qualified Facilities submittals. These three definitions we are approving are, ``grandfathered facility,'' ``maximum allowable emission rate table (MAERT),'' and ``new facility.'' Moreover, we are making an administrative correction to the SIP-approved definition of ``facility.'' We are taking this action under section 110, part C, and part D of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

  2. Evaluation of Low-Level Waste Disposal Receipt Data for Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    French, Sean B.; Shuman, Robert

    2012-04-17

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Operational or institutional waste is generated from a wide variety of research and development activities including nuclear weapons development, energy production, and medical research. Environmental restoration (ER), and decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) waste is generated as contaminated sites and facilities at LANL undergo cleanup or remediation. The majority of this waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and is disposed of at the Technical Area 54 (TA-54), Area G disposal facility. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 (DOE, 2001) requiresmore » that radioactive waste be managed in a manner that protects public health and safety, and the environment. To comply with this order, DOE field sites must prepare and maintain site-specific radiological performance assessments for LLW disposal facilities that accept waste after September 26, 1988. Furthermore, sites are required to conduct composite analyses that account for the cumulative impacts of all waste that has been (or will be) disposed of at the facilities and other sources of radioactive material that may interact with the facilities. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 (LANL, 2008). These analyses estimate rates of radionuclide release from the waste disposed of at the facility, simulate the movement of radionuclides through the environment, and project potential radiation doses to humans for several on-site and off-site exposure scenarios. The assessments are based on existing site and disposal facility data and on assumptions about future rates and methods of waste disposal. The accuracy of the performance assessment and composite analysis depends upon the validity of the data used and assumptions made in conducting the analyses. If changes in these data and assumptions are significant, they may invalidate or call into question certain aspects of the analyses. For example, if the volumes and activities of waste disposed of during the remainder of the disposal facility's lifetime differ significantly from those projected, the doses projected by the analyses may no longer apply. DOE field sites are required to implement a performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance program. The purpose of this program is to ensure the continued applicability of the analyses through incremental improvement of the level of understanding of the disposal site and facility. Site personnel are required to conduct field and experimental work to reduce the uncertainty in the data and models used in the assessments. Furthermore, they are required to conduct periodic reviews of waste receipts, comparing them to projected waste disposal rates. The radiological inventory for Area G was updated in conjunction with Revision 4 of the performance assessment and composite analysis (Shuman, 2008). That effort used disposal records and other sources of information to estimate the quantities of radioactive waste that have been disposed of at Area G from 1959, the year the facility started receiving waste on a routine basis, through 2007. It also estimated the quantities of LLW that will require disposal from 2008 through 2044, the year in which it is assumed that disposal operations at Area G will cease. This report documents the fourth review of Area G disposal receipts since the inventory was updated and examines information for waste placed in the ground during fiscal years (FY) 2008 through 2011. The primary objective of the disposal receipt review is to ensure that the future waste inventory projections developed for the performance assessment and composite analysis are consistent with the actual types and quantities of waste being disposed of at Area G. Toward this end, the disposal data that are the subject of this review are used to update the future waste inventory projections for the disposal facility. These projections are compared to the future inventory projections that were developed for Revision 4 of the performance assessment and composite analysis. The approach used to characterize the FY 2008 through 2011 waste is generally the same as that used to characterize the inventory for the Revision 4 analyses (Shuman, 2008). This methodology is described in Section 2. The results of the disposal receipt review are presented in Section 3 and discussed in terms of their significance to the Area G analyses.« less

  3. Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science: The Impact ofSciDAC on Accelerator Science&Technology

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ryne, Robert D.

    2006-08-10

    Particle accelerators are among the most complex and versatile instruments of scientific exploration. They have enabled remarkable scientific discoveries and important technological advances that span all programs within the DOE Office of Science (DOE/SC). The importance of accelerators to the DOE/SC mission is evident from an examination of the DOE document, ''Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook''. Of the 28 facilities listed, 13 involve accelerators. Thanks to SciDAC, a powerful suite of parallel simulation tools has been developed that represent a paradigm shift in computational accelerator science. Simulations that used to take weeks or more now takemore » hours, and simulations that were once thought impossible are now performed routinely. These codes have been applied to many important projects of DOE/SC including existing facilities (the Tevatron complex, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider), facilities under construction (the Large Hadron Collider, the Spallation Neutron Source, the Linac Coherent Light Source), and to future facilities (the International Linear Collider, the Rare Isotope Accelerator). The new codes have also been used to explore innovative approaches to charged particle acceleration. These approaches, based on the extremely intense fields that can be present in lasers and plasmas, may one day provide a path to the outermost reaches of the energy frontier. Furthermore, they could lead to compact, high-gradient accelerators that would have huge consequences for US science and technology, industry, and medicine. In this talk I will describe the new accelerator modeling capabilities developed under SciDAC, the essential role of multi-disciplinary collaboration with applied mathematicians, computer scientists, and other IT experts in developing these capabilities, and provide examples of how the codes have been used to support DOE/SC accelerator projects.« less

  4. Extraordinary tools for extraordinary science: the impact of SciDAC on accelerator science and technology

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ryne, Robert D.

    2006-09-01

    Particle accelerators are among the most complex and versatile instruments of scientific exploration. They have enabled remarkable scientific discoveries and important technological advances that span all programs within the DOE Office of Science (DOE/SC). The importance of accelerators to the DOE/SC mission is evident from an examination of the DOE document, ''Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook.'' Of the 28 facilities listed, 13 involve accelerators. Thanks to SciDAC, a powerful suite of parallel simulation tools has been developed that represent a paradigm shift in computational accelerator science. Simulations that used to take weeks or more now take hours, and simulations that were once thought impossible are now performed routinely. These codes have been applied to many important projects of DOE/SC including existing facilities (the Tevatron complex, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider), facilities under construction (the Large Hadron Collider, the Spallation Neutron Source, the Linac Coherent Light Source), and to future facilities (the International Linear Collider, the Rare Isotope Accelerator). The new codes have also been used to explore innovative approaches to charged particle acceleration. These approaches, based on the extremely intense fields that can be present in lasers and plasmas, may one day provide a path to the outermost reaches of the energy frontier. Furthermore, they could lead to compact, high-gradient accelerators that would have huge consequences for US science and technology, industry, and medicine. In this talk I will describe the new accelerator modeling capabilities developed under SciDAC, the essential role of multi-disciplinary collaboration with applied mathematicians, computer scientists, and other IT experts in developing these capabilities, and provide examples of how the codes have been used to support DOE/SC accelerator projects.

  5. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nichols, Will E.; Mehta, Sunil

    The updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis will provide an all-pathways dose projection to a hypothetical future member of the public from all planned low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities and potential contributions from all other projected end-state sources of radioactive material left at Hanford following site closure. Its primary purpose is to support the decision-making process of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under DOE O 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management (DOE, 2001), related to managing low-level waste disposal facilities at the Hanford Site.

  6. 48 CFR 252.239-7004 - Orders for facilities and services.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Orders for facilities and... of Provisions And Clauses 252.239-7004 Orders for facilities and services. As prescribed in 239.7411(a), use the following clause: Orders for Facilities and Services (NOV 2005) The Contractor shall...

  7. A DOE Perspective

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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.

  8. List of DOE radioisotope customers with summary of radioisotope shipments FY 1978

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Burlison, J.S.; Laidler, R.I.

    1979-05-01

    The purpose of the document is to list DOE's radioisotopes production and distribution activities by its facilities at Argonne National Laboratory; Pacific Northwest Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory; Idaho Operations Office; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; Mound Facility; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Savannah River Laboratory; and UNC Nuclear Industries, Inc.

  9. 36 CFR § 1281.16 - What standard does NARA use for measuring building size?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property 3 2013-07-01 2012-07-01 true What standard does NARA use for measuring building size? § 1281.16 Section § 1281.16 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.16 What...

  10. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2009

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Cathy Wills, ed.

    2010-09-13

    The Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2009 was prepared to meet the information needs of the public and the requirements and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for annual site environmental reports. It was prepared by National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). This and previous years’ Nevada Test Site Environmental Reports (NTSERs) are posted on the NNSA/NSO website at http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/aser.aspx. This NTSER was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1A, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status withmore » environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the NNSA/NSO Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This NTSER summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2009 at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and its two support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL)-Nellis. It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NSO is responsible for the oversight of TTR ER projects, and the Sandia Site Office of NNSA (NNSA/SSO) has oversight of all other TTR activities. NNSA/SSO produces the TTR annual environmental report available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.« less

  11. Pathways to privatization: Issues and concerns on the road to privatization of facilities on the Oak Ridge Reservation

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Yard, C.R.

    1997-02-01

    Through the cooperative efforts of the State of Tennessee and the Department of Energy, privatization of the first federal facility on the Oak Ridge Reservation has become a reality. One section of the facility has been transferred to private industry while the other portion of the facility remains in control of the government`s prime contractor. Due to this unusual arrangement, there are significant issues to be dealt with. This paper will describe the issues and concerns expressed by the participants in the process. The State of Tennessee`s efforts are primarily conducted by two Divisions of the Department of Environment andmore » Conservation. These two Divisions (Radiological Health and DOE-Oversight) share the responsibility of assuring that the privatization effort is properly implemented. This shared responsibility is divided along distinct lines by the Divisions respective regulatory and nonregulatory functions. DOE responsibilities during transfer are delineated in the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) section XLIII. Property Transfer. The FFA states (in part) that {open_quotes}the DOE shall include notice of this agreement in any document transferring ownership or operation of the site to any subsequent owner and/or operator of any portion of the site and shall notify EPA and TDEC of any such sale or Transfer.{close_quotes} The FFA continues by stating that {open_quotes}No change in ownership of the site or any portionthereof or notice pursuant to Section 120 (h) (3) (B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. {delta} 9620 (h) (3) (B), shall relieve the DOE of its obligation to perform pursuant to this agreement. No change of ownership of the site or any portion thereof shall be consummated by the DOE without provision for continued maintenance of any containment system, treatment system, or other response action(s) installed or implemented pursuant to this Agreement. This provision does not relieve the DOE of its obligation under 40 C.F.R. Part 270.{close_quotes}« less

  12. 14 CFR 1251.301 - Existing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... HANDICAP Accessibility § 1251.301 Existing facilities. (a) Accessibility. A recipient shall operate each... readily accessible to handicapped persons. This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. (b...

  13. 14 CFR 1251.301 - Existing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... HANDICAP Accessibility § 1251.301 Existing facilities. (a) Accessibility. A recipient shall operate each... readily accessible to handicapped persons. This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. (b...

  14. 14 CFR 1251.301 - Existing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... HANDICAP Accessibility § 1251.301 Existing facilities. (a) Accessibility. A recipient shall operate each... readily accessible to handicapped persons. This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. (b...

  15. 14 CFR 1251.301 - Existing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... HANDICAP Accessibility § 1251.301 Existing facilities. (a) Accessibility. A recipient shall operate each... readily accessible to handicapped persons. This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. (b...

  16. 10 CFR 611.202 - Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award... TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Facility/Funding Awards § 611.202 Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program. DOE may issue, under the Advanced Technology Vehicle...

  17. 10 CFR 611.202 - Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award... TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Facility/Funding Awards § 611.202 Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program. DOE may issue, under the Advanced Technology Vehicle...

  18. 10 CFR 611.202 - Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award... TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Facility/Funding Awards § 611.202 Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program. DOE may issue, under the Advanced Technology Vehicle...

  19. 10 CFR 611.202 - Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award... TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Facility/Funding Awards § 611.202 Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program. DOE may issue, under the Advanced Technology Vehicle...

  20. 10 CFR 611.202 - Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award... TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Facility/Funding Awards § 611.202 Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Facility Award Program. DOE may issue, under the Advanced Technology Vehicle...

  1. End State Condition Report for Materials and Fuels Complex Facilities MFC-799, 799A, and 770C

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Gary Mecham

    2010-10-01

    The Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) facilities MFC-799, “Sodium Processing Facility” (a single building consisting of two areas: the Sodium Process Area and the Carbonate Process Area); MFC-799A, “Caustic Storage Area;” and MFC-770C, “Nuclear Calibration Laboratory,” have been declared excess to future Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy(NE) mission requirements. Transfer of these facilities from NE to the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), and an associated schedule for doing so, have been agreed upon by the two offices. This report documents the completion of pre-transfer stabilization actions, as identified in DOE Guide 430.1-5, “Transition Implementation Guide,” formore » buildings MFC-799/799A and 770C, and indicates that these facilities are ready for transfer from NE to EM. The facilities are in a known, safe condition and information is provided to support efficient decommissioning and demolition (D&D) planning while minimizing the possibility of encountering unforeseen circumstances during the D&D activities.« less

  2. The Oak Ridge Refrigerant Management Program

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Kevil, Thomas H.

    1995-01-01

    For many years, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) have been used by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant in air conditioning and process refrigeration systems. However, Title 6 of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and Executive Order 12843 (Procurement Requirements and Policies for Federal Agencies for Ozone Depleting Substances) signed by President Clinton require, as policy, that all federal agencies maximize their use of safe, alternate refrigerants and minimize, where economically practical, the use of Class 1 refrigerants. Unfortunately, many government facilities and industrial plants have no plan or strategy in place to make this changeover, even though their air conditioning and process refrigeration equipment may not be sustainable after CFC production ends December 31, 1995. The Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, has taken an aggressive approach to complying with the CAAA and is working with private industry and other government agencies to solve tough manufacturing and application problems associated with CFC and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) alternatives. Y-12 was the first DOE Defense Program (DP) facility to develop a long-range Stratospheric Ozone Protection Plan for refrigerant management for compliance with the CAAA. It was also the first DOE DP facility to complete detailed engineering studies on retrofitting and replacing all air conditioning and process refrigeration equipment to enable operation with alternate refrigerants. The management plan and engineering studies are models for use by other government agencies, manufacturing plants, and private industry. This presentation identifies some of the hidden pitfalls to be encountered in the accelerated phaseout schedule of CFC's and explains how to overcome and prevent these problems. In addition, it outlines the general issues that must be considered when addressing the phase-out of ozone depleting substances and gives some 'lessons learned' by Y-12 from its Refrigerant Management Program. Discussion topics include requirements for developing a refrigerant management plan and establishing priorities for cost-effective compliance with the CAAA, as well as ways in which employees can be empowered to develop a comprehensive refrigerant management plan. The result of this employee empowerment was a cooperative labor-management effort that is beneficial for Y-12, DOE, and the environment.

  3. Environmental Baseline Survey Report for the Title Transfer of Land Parcel ED-4 at the East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    SAIC

    2008-05-01

    This environmental baseline survey (EBS) report documents the baseline environmental conditions of a land parcel referred to as 'ED-4' (ED-4) at the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). DOE is proposing to transfer the title of this land to the Heritage Center, LLC. Parcel ED-4 is a land parcel that consists of two noncontiguous areas comprising a total of approximately 18 acres located east of the ETTP. The western tract of ED-4 encompasses approximately 8.5 acres in the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Boulevard Road and Highway 58. The eastern tract encompasses an areamore » of approximately 9.5 acres in the northwestern quadrant of the intersection of Blair Road and Highway 58 (the Oak Ridge Turnpike). Aerial photographs and site maps from throughout the history of the ETTP, going back to its initial development in the 1940s as the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP), indicate that this area has been undeveloped woodland with the exception of three support facilities for workers constructing the ORGDP since federal acquisition in 1943. These three support facilities, which were located in the western tract of ED-4, included a recreation hall, the Town Hall Camp Operations Building, and the Property Warehouse. A railroad spur also formerly occupied a portion of Parcel ED-4. These former facilities only occupied approximately 5 percent of the total area of Parcel ED-4. This report provides supporting information for the transfer of this government-owned property at ETTP to a non-federal entity. This EBS is based upon the requirements of Sect. 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). In order to support a Clean Parcel Determination (CPD) in accordance with CERCLA Sect. 120(h)(4)(d), groundwater and sediment samples were collected within, and adjacent to, the Parcel ED-4 study area. The potential for DOE to make a CPD for ED-4 is further supported by a No Further Investigation (NFI) determination made on land that adjoins ED-4 to the east (DOE 1997a) and to the south (DOE 1997b).« less

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Butcher, T.; Swingle, R.; Crapse, K.

    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/SAmore » 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 and are the authorization documents for this FY2010 Annual Review. Department of Energy Headquarters approval of the 2008 DAS was subject to numerous conditions specified in the document. Two of those conditions are to update the ELLWF closure plan and monitoring plan to align with the conceptual model analyzed in the PA. Both of these conditions were met with the issuance of the PA Monitoring Plan (Millings, 2009a) and the Closure Plan (Phifer et al, 2009a). The PA Monitoring Plan was approved by DOE on July 22, 2009 and the Closure Plan was approved by DOE on May 21, 2009. Both will be updated as needed to remain consistent with the PA. The DAS also specifies that the maintenance plan include activities to resolve each of the secondary issues identified in the DOEHQ review of the 2008 PA that were not completely addressed either with supplemental material provided to the review team or in final revisions to the PA. These outstanding issues were originally documented in the 2008 update of the PA/CA Maintenance Plan (WSRC, 2008a) and in subsequent PA/CA Maintenance Plans (most recently SRNS, 2010a) as required and are actively being worked.« less

  5. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Volume 13: Part 1, Main text

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Goins, L.F.; Webb, J.R.; Cravens, C.D.

    1992-09-01

    This publication contains 1035 abstracted references on environmental restoration, nuclear facility decommissioning, uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions. These citations constitute the thirteenth in a series of reports prepared annually for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Restoration programs. Citations to foreign and domestic literature of all types. There are 13 major sections of the publication, including: (1) DOE Decontamination and Decommissioning Program; (2) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning; (3) DOE Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; (4) DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project; (5) Uranium Mill Tailings Management; (6) DOE Environmental Restoration Program; (7) DOE Site-Specific Remedialmore » Actions; (8) Contaminated Site Restoration; (9) Remediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater; (10) Environmental Data Measurements, Management, and Evaluation; (11) Remedial Action Assessment and Decision-Making; (12) Technology Development and Evaluation; and (13) Environmental and Waste Management Issues. Bibliographic references are arranged in nine subject categories by geographic location and then alphabetically by first author, corporate affiliation, or publication title. Indexes are provided for author, corporate affiliation, title word, publication description, geographic location, subject category, and key word.« less

  6. Assisted Living

    MedlinePlus

    ... Recreational activities Security Transportation How to Choose a Facility A good match between a facility and a resident's needs depends as much on the philosophy and services of the assisted living facility as it does on the quality of care. ...

  7. 21 CFR 200.10 - Contract facilities (including consulting laboratories) utilized as extramural facilities by...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... (IND) Application, any information obtained during the inspection of an extramural facility having a... Administration does not consider results of validation studies of analytical and assay methods and control...

  8. Opportunities for Cost Effective Disposal of Radioactively Contaminated Solid Waste on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, TN - 13045

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    DeMonia, Brian; Dunning, Don; Hampshire John

    2013-07-01

    Department of Energy (DOE) requirements for the release of non-real property, including solid waste, containing low levels of residual radioactive materials are specified in DOE Order 458.1 and associated guidance. Authorized limits have been approved under the requirements of DOE Order 5400.5, predecessor to DOE Order 458.1, to permit disposal of solid waste containing low levels of residual radioactive materials at solid waste landfills located within the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Specifically, volumetric concentration limits for disposal of solid waste at Industrial Landfill V and at Construction/Demolition Landfill VII were established in 2003 and 2007, respectively, based on themore » requirements in effect at that time, which included: an evaluation to ensure that radiation doses to the public would not exceed 25 mrem/year and would be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), with a goal of a few mrem/year or less (in fact, these authorized limits actually were derived to meet a dose constraint of 1 mrem/year); an evaluation of compliance with groundwater protection requirements; and reasonable assurance that the proposed disposal is not likely to result in a future requirement for remediation of the landfill. Prior to approval as DOE authorized limits, these volumetric concentration limits were coordinated with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and documented in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the TDEC Division of Radiological Health and the TDEC Division of Solid Waste Management. These limits apply to the disposal of soil and debris waste generated from construction, maintenance, environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) activities on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation. The approved site-specific authorized limits were incorporated in the URS/CH2M Oak Ridge LLC (UCOR) waste profile system that authorizes disposal of special wastes at either of the RCRA Subtitle D landfills. However, a recent DOE assessment found that implementation of the site-specific authorized limits for volumetrically contaminated waste was potentially limited due in part to confusion regarding the applicability of volumetric concentration limits and/or surface activity limits to specific wastes. This paper describes recent efforts to update the authorized limits for Industrial Landfill V and Construction/Demolition Landfill VII and to improve the procedures for implementation of these criteria. The approved authorized limits have been evaluated and confirmed to meet the current requirements of DOE Order 458.1, which superseded DOE Order 5400.5 in February 2011. In addition, volumetric concentration limits have been developed for additional radionuclides, and site-specific authorized limits for wastes with surface contamination have been developed. Implementing procedures have been revised to clarify the applicability of volumetric concentration limits and surface activity limits, and to allow the use of non-destructive waste characterization methods. These changes have been designed to promote improved utilization of available disposal capacity of the onsite disposal facilities within the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation. In addition, these changes serve to bring the waste acceptance requirements at these DOE onsite landfills into greater consistency with the requirements for commercial/ public landfills under the TDEC Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR) program, including two public RCRA Subtitle D landfills in close proximity to the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation. (authors)« less

  9. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Elvado Environmental LLC; Environmental Compliance Department Environment, Safety, and Health Division Y-12 National Security Complex

    This document presents the Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP) management plan for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12 National Security Complex (hereafter referenced as Y-12). The Y-12 GWPP functions as the primary point-of-contact for groundwater-related issues at Y-12, provides stewardship of the extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells at Y-12, and serves as a resource for technical expertise, support, and historical data for groundwater-related activities at Y-12. These organizational functions each serve the primary programmatic purpose of the GWPP, which is to ensure that groundwater monitoring activities within areas under Y-12 administrative control provide representative data in compliance with themore » multiple purposes of applicable state and federal regulations, DOE orders, and the corporate policies of BWXT Y-12, L.L.C. (hereafter referenced as BWXT), the Y-12 management and operations (M&O) contractor for DOE. This GWPP management plan addresses the requirements of DOE Order 450.1 (BWXT Y12 S/RID) regarding the implementation of a site-wide approach for groundwater protection at each DOE facility. Additionally, this plan is a ''living'' document that is reviewed annually, revised and reissued every three years, and is formatted to provide for updating individual sections independent of the rest of the document. Section 2 includes a short description of the groundwater system at Y-12, the history of groundwater monitoring at Y-12 and the corresponding evolution of the GWPP, and an overview of ongoing Y-12 groundwater monitoring activities. Section 3 describes the key elements of the GWPP management strategy. Organizational roles and responsibilities of GWPP personnel are outlined in Section 4. Section 5 presents an overview of the GWPP project plans for applicable programmatic elements. Section 6 lists the reports, plans, and documents that are referenced for technical and administrative details.« less

  10. 20 CFR 655.1115 - Element V-What does “no strike/lockout or layoff” mean?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... Facility Meet to Employ H-1C Nonimmigrant Workers as Registered Nurses? § 655.1115 Element V—What does “no... not lay off a registered nurse employed by the facility within the period beginning 90 days before and... intended or designated to influence an election for a bargaining representative for registered nurses of...

  11. Who is Responsible for the DUF6 Conversion Facility EISs?

    Science.gov Websites

    project and web site. your e-mail address Sign Me Up Search: OK Button DUF6 Guide DU Uses DUF6 Management U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Management is preparing the two Depleted UF6 Conversion Facility EISs Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for preparation of the Depleted UF6

  12. 20 CFR 655.1115 - Element V-What does “no strike/lockout or layoff” mean?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-04-01

    ... Facility Meet to Employ H-1C Nonimmigrant Workers as Registered Nurses? § 655.1115 Element V—What does “no... not lay off a registered nurse employed by the facility within the period beginning 90 days before and... intended or designated to influence an election for a bargaining representative for registered nurses of...

  13. LEDs: DOE Programs Add Credibility to a Developing Technology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Conbere, Susan

    2009-01-01

    LED (light-emitting diode) technology is moving fast, and with justification, some facility managers have viewed it with a wary eye. Some LEDs on the market do not perform as promised, and the technology is changing rapidly. But new developments from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) now make it easier for facility managers to find LEDs that…

  14. 36 CFR 1281.10 - When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... library? 1281.10 Section 1281.10 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.10 When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change, or addition to an existing library? A foundation...

  15. 36 CFR 1281.10 - When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... library? 1281.10 Section 1281.10 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.10 When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change, or addition to an existing library? A foundation...

  16. 36 CFR 1281.10 - When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... library? 1281.10 Section 1281.10 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.10 When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change, or addition to an existing library? A foundation...

  17. 36 CFR 1281.10 - When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... library? 1281.10 Section 1281.10 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.10 When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change, or addition to an existing library? A foundation...

  18. 40 CFR 63.7882 - What site remediation sources at my facility does this subpart affect?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 13 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What site remediation sources at my... Remediation What This Subpart Covers § 63.7882 What site remediation sources at my facility does this subpart... remediation as designated by paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Process vents. The affected...

  19. Conceptual Site Treatment Plan Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research Environmental Restoration Project

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Chapman, T.E.

    1993-10-01

    The Federal Facilities Compliance Act (the Act) of 1992 waives sovereign immunity for federal facilities for fines and penalties under the provisions of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, state, interstate, and local hazardous and solid waste management requirements. However, for three years the Act delays the waiver for violations involving US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The Act, however, requires that the DOE prepare a Conceptual Site Treatment Plan (CSTP) for each of its sites that generate or store mixed wastes (MWs). The purpose of the CSTP is to present DOE`s preliminary evaluations of the development of treatment capacitiesmore » and technologies for treating a site`s MW. This CSTP presents the preliminary capacity and technology evaluation for the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR). The five identified MW streams at LEHR are evaluated to the extent possible given available information. Only one MW stream is sufficiently well defined to permit a technology evaluation to be performed. Two other MW streams are in the process of being characterized so that an evaluation can be performed. The other two MW streams will be generated by the decommissioning of inactive facilities onsite within the next five years.« less

  20. Uncertainty analysis for low-level radioactive waste disposal performance assessment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Lee, D.W.; Yambert, M.W.; Kocher, D.C.

    1994-12-31

    A performance assessment of the operating Solid Waste Storage Area 6 (SWSA 6) facility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been prepared to provide the technical basis for demonstrating compliance with the performance objectives of DOE Order 5820.2A, Chapter 111.2 An analysis of the uncertainty incorporated into the assessment was performed which addressed the quantitative uncertainty in the data used by the models, the subjective uncertainty associated with the models used for assessing performance of the disposal facility and site, and the uncertainty in the models used for estimating dose and humanmore » exposure. The results of the uncertainty analysis were used to interpret results and to formulate conclusions about the performance assessment. This paper discusses the approach taken in analyzing the uncertainty in the performance assessment and the role of uncertainty in performance assessment.« less

  1. Congress, NRC mull utility access to FBI criminal files

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ultroska, D.

    1984-08-01

    Experiences at Alabama Power Company and other nuclear utilities have promped a request for institutionalizing security checks of personnel in order to eliminated convicted criminals and drug users. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which could provide FBI criminal history information by submitting fingerprints, does not do so, and would require new legislation to take on that duty. Believing that current malevolent employees can be managed with existing procedures, NRC allows criminal background checks only on prospective employees in order to avoid a negative social impact on personnel. Legislation to transfer criminal histories to nuclear facilities is now pending, and NRCmore » is leaning toward a request for full disclosure, partly because of terrorist threats and partly to save manpower time and costs in reviewing case histories.« less

  2. List of DOE radioisotope customers with summary of radioisotope shipments, FY 1980

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Burlison, J.S.

    1981-08-01

    The sixteenth edition of the radioisotope customer list was prepared at the request of the Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of energy Research, Department of Energy (DOE). This document lists DOE's radioisotope production and distribution activities by its facilities at Argonne National Laboratory; Pacific Northwest Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboraory; Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory; Idaho Operations Office; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; Mound Facility; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Savannah River Laboratory; and UNC Nuclear Industries, Inc. The information is divided into five sections: (1) isotope suppliers, facility, contracts and isotopes or services supplied; (2) alphabetical list of customers, and isotopesmore » purchased; (3) alphabetical list of isotopes cross-referenced to customer numbers; (4) geographical location of radioisotope customers; and (5) radioisotope sales and transfers-FY 1980.« less

  3. List of DOE radioisotope customers with summary of radioisotope shipments, FY 1979

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Burlison, J.S.

    1980-06-01

    The fifteenth edition of the radioisotope customer list was prepared at the request of the Division of Financial Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Department of Energy (DOE). This document lists DOE's radioisotope production and distribution activities by its facilities at Argonne National Laboratory; Pacific Northwest Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory; Idaho Operations Office; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; Mound Facility; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Rocky Flats Area Office; Savannah River Laboratory; and UNC Nuclear Industries, Inc. The information is divided into five sections: Isotope suppliers, facility, contracts and isotopes or services supplied; alphabetical list ofmore » customers, and isotopes purchased; alphabetical list of isotopes cross-referenced to customer numbers; geographical location of radioisotope customers; and radioisotope sales and transfers-FY 1979.« less

  4. List of DOE radioisotope customers with summary of radioisotope shipments, FY 1981

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Burlison, J.S.

    1982-09-01

    The seventeenth edition of the radioisotope customer list was prepared at the request of the Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy (DOE). This document lists DOE's radioisotope production and distribution activities by its facilities at Argonne National Laboratory: Pacific Northwest Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory; Idaho Operations Office; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; Mound Facility; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Savannah River Laboratory; and UNC Nuclear Industries, Inc. The information is divided into five sections: (1) isotope suppliers, facility, contracts and isotopes or services supplied; (2) alphabetical list of customers, and isotopesmore » purchased; (3) alphabetical list of isotopes cross-referenced to customer numbers; (4) geographical location of radioisotope customers; and (5) radioisotope sales and transfers-FY 1980.« less

  5. EMSL Outlook Review 2005

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Campbell, Allison A.

    2005-04-01

    The William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) is a national user facility that contains state-of-the-art instrumentation and expert resources available for use by researchers from academia, industry, and the national laboratory system. The facility is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Biological and Environmental Research Program, but the research conducted within the facility benefits many funding agencies, including other branches of DOE, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. EMSL requires the continued funding and support of its stakeholders and clients to continue to grow its mission, build itsmore » reputation as a sought-after national user facility with cutting-edge capabilities, and attract high-profile users who will work to solve the most critical scientific challenges that affect DOE and the nation. In this vein, this document has been compiled to provide these stakeholders and clients with a review document that provides an abundance of information on EMSL’s history, current research activities, and proposed future direction.« less

  6. Adapting Dry Cask Storage for Aging at a Geologic Repository

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    C. Sanders; D. Kimball

    2005-08-02

    A Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Aging System is a crucial part of operations at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in the United States. Incoming commercial SNF that does not meet thermal limits for emplacement will be aged on outdoor pads. U.S. Department of Energy SNF will also be managed using the Aging System. Proposed site-specific designs for the Aging System are closely based upon designs for existing dry cask storage (DCS) systems. This paper evaluates the applicability of existing DCS systems for use in the SNF Aging System at Yucca Mountain. The most important difference between existing DCS facilities andmore » the Yucca Mountain facility is the required capacity. Existing DCS facilities typically have less than 50 casks. The current design for the aging pad at Yucca Mountain calls for a capacity of over 2,000 casks (20,000 MTHM) [1]. This unprecedented number of casks poses some unique problems. The response of DCS systems to off-normal and accident conditions needs to be re-evaluated for multiple storage casks. Dose calculations become more complicated, since doses from multiple or very long arrays of casks can dramatically increase the total boundary dose. For occupational doses, the geometry of the cask arrays and the order of loading casks must be carefully considered in order to meet ALARA goals during cask retrieval. Due to the large area of the aging pad, skyshine must also be included when calculating public and worker doses. The expected length of aging will also necessitate some design adjustments. Under 10 CFR 72.236, DCS systems are initially certified for a period of 20 years [2]. Although the Yucca Mountain facility is not intended to be a storage facility under 10 CFR 72, the operational life of the SNF Aging System is 50 years [1]. Any cask system selected for use in aging will have to be qualified to this design lifetime. These considerations are examined, and a summary is provided of the adaptations that must be made in order to use DCS technologies successfully at a geologic repository.« less

  7. Nuclear facility decommissioning and site remedial actions: A selected bibliography, Vol. 18. Part 2. Indexes

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1997-09-01

    This bibliography contains 3638 citations with abstracts of documents relevant to environmental restoration, nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), uranium mill tailings management, and site remedial actions. This report is the eighteenth in a series of bibliographies prepared annually for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Restoration. Citations to foreign and domestic literature of all types - technical reports, progress reports, journal articles, symposia proceedings, theses, books, patents, legislation, and research project descriptions - have been included in Part 1 of the report. The bibliography contains scientific, technical, financial, and regulatory information that pertains to DOE environmentalmore » restoration programs. The citations are separated by topic into 16 sections, including (1) DOE Environmental Restoration Program; (2) DOE D&D Program; (3) Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning; (4) DOE Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Programs; (5) NORM-Contaminated Site Restoration; (6) DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project; (7) Uranium Mill Tailings Management; (8) DOE Site-Wide Remedial Actions; (9) DOE Onsite Remedial Action Projects; (10) Contaminated Site Remedial Actions; (11) DOE Underground Storage Tank Remediation; (12) DOE Technology Development, Demonstration, and Evaluations; (13) Soil Remediation; (14) Groundwater Remediation; (15) Environmental Measurements, Analysis, and Decision-Making; and (16) Environmental Management Issues. Within the 16 sections, the citations are sorted by geographic location. If a geographic location is not specified, the citations are sorted according to the document title. In Part 2 of the report, indexes are provided for author, author affiliation, selected title phrase, selected title word, publication description, geographic location, and keyword.« less

  8. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURES TO WORKERS COVERED UNDER THE U.S. ENERGY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT

    PubMed Central

    Neton, James W.

    2015-01-01

    Since the mid-1940s, hundreds of thousands of workers have been engaged in nuclear weapons-related activities for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies. In 2000, Congress promulgated the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), which provides monetary compensation and medical benefits to certain energy employees who have developed cancer. Under Part B of EEOICPA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is required to estimate radiation doses for those workers who have filed a claim, or whose survivors have filed a claim, under Part B of the Act. To date, over 39,000 dose reconstructions have been completed for workers from more than 200 facilities. These reconstructions have included assessment of both internal and external exposure at all major DOE facilities, as well as at a large number of private companies [known as Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities in the Act] that engaged in contract work for the DOE and its predecessor agencies. To complete these dose reconstructions, NIOSH has captured and reviewed thousands of historical documents related to site operations and worker/workplace monitoring practices at these facilities. Using the data collected and reviewed pursuant to NIOSH’s role under EEOICPA, this presentation will characterize historical internal and external exposures received by workers at DOE and AWE facilities. To the extent possible, use will be made of facility specific coworker models to highlight changes in exposure patterns over time. In addition, the effects that these exposures have on compensation rates for workers are discussed. PMID:24378500

  9. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of the exterior land areas at the Grand Junction Projects Office facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1995-09-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) facility occupies approximately 56.4 acres (22.8 hectares) along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. The site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium-refining activities conducted by the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot-milling experiments conducted for the US Atomic Energy Commission`s (AEC`s) domestic uranium procurement program. The GJPO facility was the collection and assay point for AEC uranium and vanadium oxide purchases until the early 1970s. The DOE Decontamination and Decommissioning Program sponsored the Grand Junction Projects Office Remedial Action Project (GJPORAP) to remediate themore » facility lands, site improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor, Rust Geotech, was the Remedial Action Contractor for GJPORAP. The exterior land areas of the facility assessed as contaminated have been remediated in accordance with identified standards and can be released for unrestricted use. Restoration of the aquifer will be accomplished through the natural flushing action of the aquifer during the next 50 to 80 years. The remediation of the DOE-GJPO facility buildings is ongoing and will be described in a separate report.« less

  10. 10 CFR 770.1 - What is the purpose of this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC... or lease real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development. (b) This part also... DOE activities at the defense nuclear facility. ...

  11. Preliminary hazards analysis -- vitrification process

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Coordes, D.; Ruggieri, M.; Russell, J.

    1994-06-01

    This paper presents a Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA) for mixed waste vitrification by joule heating. The purpose of performing a PHA is to establish an initial hazard categorization for a DOE nuclear facility and to identify those processes and structures which may have an impact on or be important to safety. The PHA is typically performed during and provides input to project conceptual design. The PHA is then followed by a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) performed during Title 1 and 2 design. The PSAR then leads to performance of the Final Safety Analysis Report performed during the facility`s constructionmore » and testing. It should be completed before routine operation of the facility commences. This PHA addresses the first four chapters of the safety analysis process, in accordance with the requirements of DOE Safety Guidelines in SG 830.110. The hazards associated with vitrification processes are evaluated using standard safety analysis methods which include: identification of credible potential hazardous energy sources; identification of preventative features of the facility or system; identification of mitigative features; and analyses of credible hazards. Maximal facility inventories of radioactive and hazardous materials are postulated to evaluate worst case accident consequences. These inventories were based on DOE-STD-1027-92 guidance and the surrogate waste streams defined by Mayberry, et al. Radiological assessments indicate that a facility, depending on the radioactive material inventory, may be an exempt, Category 3, or Category 2 facility. The calculated impacts would result in no significant impact to offsite personnel or the environment. Hazardous materials assessment indicates that a Mixed Waste Vitrification facility will be a Low Hazard facility having minimal impacts to offsite personnel and the environment.« less

  12. Forgotten, excluded or included? Students with disabilities: A case study at the University of Mauritius.

    PubMed

    Pudaruth, Sameerchand; Gunputh, Rajendra P; Singh, Upasana G

    2017-01-01

    Students with disabilities in the tertiary education sector are more than a just a phenomenon, they are a reality. In general, little attention is devoted to their needs despite the fact that they need more care and attention. This paper, through a case study at the University of Mauritius, sought to answer some pertinent questions regarding students with disabilities. Does the University of Mauritius have sufficient facilities to support these students? Are students aware of existing facilities? What additional structures need to be put in place so that students with any form of disability are neither victimised, nor their education undermined? Are there any local laws about students with disabilities in higher education? To answer these questions and others, an online questionnaire was sent to 500 students and the responses were then analysed and discussed. The response rate was 24.4% which showed that students were not reticent to participate in this study. Our survey revealed that most students were not aware of existing facilities and were often neglected in terms of supporting structures and resources. ICT facilities were found to be the best support that is provided at the University of Mauritius. The right legal framework for tertiary education was also missing. Ideally, students with disabilities should have access to special facilities to facilitate their learning experiences at tertiary institutions. Awareness about existing facilities must also be raised in order to offer equal opportunities to them and to enable a seamless inclusion.

  13. A Multidisciplinary Paradigm and Approach to Protecting Human Health and the Environment, Society, and Stakeholders at Nuclear Facilities - 12244

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Burger, Joanna; Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Piscataway, NJ; Gochfeld, Michael

    2012-07-01

    As the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to remediate its lands, and to consider moving toward long-term stewardship and the development of energy parks on its industrial, remediated land, it is essential to adequately characterize the environment around such facilities to protect society, human health, and the environment. While DOE sites re considering several different land-use scenarios, all of them require adequate protection of the environment. Even if DOE lands are developed for energy parks that are mainly for industrializes sections of DOE lands that will not be remediated to residential standards, there is still the need to consider themore » protection of human health and the environment. We present an approach to characterization and establishment of teams that will gather the information, and integrate that information for a full range of stakeholders from technical personnel, to public policy makers, and that public. Such information is needed to establish baselines, site new energy facilities in energy parks, protect existing nuclear facilities and nuclear wastes, improve the basis for emergency planning, devise suitable monitoring schemes to ensure continued protection, provide data to track local and regional response changes, and for mitigation, remediation and decommissioning planning. We suggest that there are five categories of information or data needs, including 1) geophysical, sources, fate and transport, 2) biological systems, 3) human health, 4) stakeholder and environmental justice, and 5) societal, economic, and political. These informational needs are more expansive than the traditional site characterization, but encompass a suite of physical, biological, and societal needs to protect all aspects of human health and the environment, not just physical health. We suggest a Site Committee be established that oversees technical teams for each of the major informational categories, with appropriate representation among teams and with a broad involvement of a range of governmental personnel, natural and social scientists, Native Americans, environmental justice communities, and other stakeholders. Such informational teams (and Oversight Committee) would report to a DOE-designated authority or Citizen's Advisory Board. Although designed for nuclear facilities and energy parks on DOE lands, the templates and information teams can be adapted for other hazardous facilities, such as a mercury storage facility at Oak Ridge. (authors)« less

  14. 36 CFR § 1281.10 - When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change, or addition to an existing library... ADMINISTRATION NARA FACILITIES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY FACILITIES § 1281.10 When does a foundation consult with NARA before offering a gift of a physical or material change, or addition to an existing library? A foundation...

  15. 76 FR 16758 - DOE Response to Recommendation 2010-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Safety...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-03-25

    ... of the public, our workers, and the environment at all of our facilities. We share your conviction that a clear set of requirements and standards is vital for safe operations. In 2008, we began a... of DOE Standard 3009-94 into the text as a requirement, instead of as a safe harbor cited in Table 2...

  16. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 415: Project 57 No. 1 Plutonium Dispersion (NTTR) Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada, Revision 0 with ROTC-1

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Cabble, Kevin J.; Boehlecke, Robert F.

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 415: Project 57 No. 1 Plutonium Dispersion, which is located on Range 4808A of the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. CAU 415 comprises one corrective action site (CAS): NAFR-23-02, Pu Contaminated Soil. The purpose of this CR is to provide justification and documentation supporting the recommendationmore » that no further corrective action is needed for CAU 415 based on the implementation of the corrective action of Closure in Place.« less

  17. Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1995-04-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to construct and maintain additional storage capacity at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for liquid low-level radioactive waste (LLLW). New capacity would be provided by a facility partitioned into six individual tank vaults containing one 100,000 gallon LLLW storage tank each. The storage tanks would be located within the existing Melton Valley Storage Tank (MVST) facility. This action would require the extension of a potable water line approximately one mile from the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) area to the proposed site to provide the necessary potable water for themore » facility including fire protection. Alternatives considered include no-action, cease generation, storage at other ORR storage facilities, source treatment, pretreatment, and storage at other DOE facilities.« less

  18. Pinellas County, Florida, Site Environmental Restoration Project Sitewide Environmental Monitoring Semiannual Progress Report for the Young - Rainey STAR Center June Through November 2016, January 2017

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Surovchak, Scott; Daniel, Joe

    The Young - Rainey STAR Center (Science, Technology, and Research Center) at the Pinellas County, Florida, Site is a former U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility constructed in the mid-1950s. The 96-acre STAR Center is located in Largo, Florida, and lies in the northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 30 South, Range 15 East (Figure 1). While it was owned by DOE, the purpose of the site was to develop and manufacture components for the nation’s nuclear weapons program. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Assessment (EPA 1988) at themore » site to gather information on potential releases of hazardous materials. In February of 1990, EPA issued a Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments permit to DOE, requiring DOE to investigate and perform remediation activities in those areas designated as solid-waste management units (SWMUs) contaminated by hazardous materials resulting from DOE operations. A total of 17 SWMUs were identified and investigated at the STAR Center. By 1997, 13 of the 17 SWMUs had been remediated or approved for no further action. More recently, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) executed Conditional Site Rehabilitation Completion Orders for the Northeast Site and the Wastewater Neutralization Area on July 27, 2016, stating that no further action is required for those SWMUs. The Building 100 Area (a combination of the Old Drum Storage Site and the Building 100-Industrial Drain Leaks SWMUs) comprises the only two active SWMUs at the STAR Center (Figure 2). This document serves as the semiannual progress report for the SWMUs by providing the results of recent monitoring activities and a summary of ongoing and projected work. The STAR Center is owned by the Pinellas County Industrial Development Authority, but DOE is responsible for remediation activities at the site. Additional background information for the site is contained in the Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Plan for the Pinellas Site (DOE 2016a). That document and other site-related documents can be accessed at this website: http://www.lm.doe.gov/Pinellas/Sites.aspx.« less

  19. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

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

    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, configurationmore » 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.« less

  20. Final report of the decontamination and decommission of Building 31 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Krabacher, J.E.

    1996-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the domestic uranium procurement program funded by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, also was the remedial actionmore » contractor. Radiological contamination was identified in Building 31 and the building was demolished in 1992. The soil area within the footprint of the building has been remediated in accordance with the identified standards and the area can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This area was addressed in the summary final report of the remediation of the exterior areas of the GJPO facility. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  1. Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility Management Plan

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Mather, James

    2016-04-01

    Mission and Vision Statements for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility Mission The ARM Climate Research Facility, a DOE scientific user facility, provides the climate research community with strategically located in situ and remote-sensing observatories designed to improve the understanding and representation, in climate and earth system models, of clouds and aerosols as well as their interactions and coupling with the Earth’s surface. Vision To provide a detailed and accurate description of the Earth atmosphere in diverse climate regimes to resolve the uncertainties in climate and Earth system models toward the development ofmore » sustainable solutions for the nation's energy and environmental challenges.« less

  2. Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2005. DOE Operations at The Boeing Company, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Area IV

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    None

    2006-09-30

    This annual report describes the environmental monitoring programs related to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) activities at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) facility located in Ventura County, California during 2005. Part of the SSFL facility, known as Area IV, had been used for DOE’s activities since the 1950s. A broad range of energy related research and development (R&D) projects, including nuclear technologies projects, was conducted at the site. All the nuclear R&D operations in Area IV ceased in 1988. Current efforts are directed toward decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the former nuclear facilities and closure of facilities used formore » liquid metal research.« less

  3. Frustration by competing interactions in the highly-distorted double perovskites La2NaRuO6 and La2NaOsO6

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Aczel, A. A.; Bugaris, D. E.; Li, L.; Yan, J.-Q.; de La Cruz, C.; Zur Loye, H.-C.; Nagler, S. E.

    2013-03-01

    The usual classical behavior of S = 3/2, B-site ordered double perovskites results in simple, commensurate magnetic ground states. In contrast, heat capacity and neutron powder diffraction measurements for the S = 3/2 systems La2NaB'O6 (B' = Ru, Os) reveal an incommensurate magnetic ground state for La2NaRuO6 and a drastically suppressed ordered moment for La2NaOsO6. This behavior is attributed to the large monoclinic structural distortions of these double perovskites. The distortions have the effect of weakening the nearest neighbor superexchange interactions, presumably to an energy scale that is comparable to the next nearest neighbor superexchange. The exotic ground states in these materials can then arise from a competition between these two types of antiferromagnetic interactions, providing a novel mechanism for achieving frustration in the double perovskite family. Work at ORNL is supported by the Division of Scientific User Facilities and the Materials Science and Engineering Division, DOE Basic Energy Sciences. Work at the University of South Carolina is supported by the Heterogeneous Functional Materials Research Center, funded by DOE under award number de-sc0001061.

  4. Pressure-induced collapsed-tetragonal phase in SrCo2As2 at ambient temperature

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Jayasekara, W. T.; Kaluarachchi, U. S.; Ueland, B. G.; Pandey, A.; Lee, Y. B.; Taufour, V.; Sapkota, A.; Kothapalli, K.; Sangeetha, N. S.; Bud'Ko, S. L.; Harmon, B. N.; Canfield, P. C.; Johnston, D. C.; Kreyssig, A.; Goldman, A. I.; Fabbris, G.; Feng, Y.; Veiga, L. S. I.; Dos Santos, A. M.

    Our recent high-energy (HE) high-pressure (HP) x-ray powder diffraction measurements on tetragonal (T) SrCo2As2 have revealed a first-order pressure-induced structural phase transition to a collapsed tetragonal (cT) phase with a reduction in c by -7.9% and the c / a ratio by -9.9%. The T and cT phases coexist for applied pressures 6 GPa to 18 GPa at 7 K. Resistance measurements up to 5.9 GPa and down to 1.8 K signatures likely associated with the cT phase above 5.5 GPa and found no evidence for superconductivity. Neutron diffraction data show no evidence of magnetic order up to 1.1 GPa. Here, we show that the T to cT transition occurs around 6.8 GPa at ambient temperature, and that the transition is nearly temperature-independent from 300 K down to 7 K, which indicates a steep p - T phase line. Work at Ames Lab. was supported by US DOE, BES, DMSE under DE-AC02-07CH11358. This research used resources at the APS and ORNL, US DOE, SC, User Facilities.

  5. Water Management Planning: A Case Study at Blue Grass Army Depot

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Solana, Amy E.; Mcmordie, Katherine

    2006-04-03

    Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, mandates an aggressive policy for reducing potable water consumption at federal facilities. Implementation guid¬ance from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) set a requirement for each federal agency to “reduce potable water usage by implementing life cycle, cost-effective water efficiency programs that include a water management plan, and not less than four Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Best Manage¬ment Practices (BMPs).” The objective of this plan is to gain full compliance with Executive Order 13123 and associated DOE implementation guidance on behalf of Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD), Richmond, Kentucky.more » In accordance with this plan, BGAD must: • Incorporate the plan as a component of the Installation energy conservation plan • Investigate the water savings potential and life-cycle cost effectiveness of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and retrofit/replacement options associated with the ten FEMP BMPs • Put into practice all applicable O&M options • Identify retrofit/replacement options appropriate for implementation (based upon calculation of the simple payback periods) • Establish a schedule for implementation of applicable and cost-effective retrofit/replacement options.« less

  6. SECONDARY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR HANFORD EARLY LOW ACTIVITY WASTE VITRIFICATION

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    UNTERREINER BJ

    2008-07-18

    More than 200 million liters (53 million gallons) of highly radioactive and hazardous waste is stored at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. The DOE's Hanford Site River Protection Project (RPP) mission includes tank waste retrieval, waste treatment, waste disposal, and tank farms closure activities. This mission will largely be accomplished by the construction and operation of three large treatment facilities at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP): (1) a Pretreatment (PT) facility intended to separate the tank waste into High Level Waste (HLW) and Low Activity Waste (LAW); (2) a HLW vitrification facilitymore » intended to immobilize the HLW for disposal at a geologic repository in Yucca Mountain; and (3) a LAW vitrification facility intended to immobilize the LAW for shallow land burial at Hanford's Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The LAW facility is on target to be completed in 2014, five years prior to the completion of the rest of the WTP. In order to gain experience in the operation of the LAW vitrification facility, accelerate retrieval from single-shell tank (SST) farms, and hasten the completion of the LAW immobilization, it has been proposed to begin treatment of the low-activity waste five years before the conclusion of the WTP's construction. A challenge with this strategy is that the stream containing the LAW vitrification facility off-gas treatment condensates will not have the option of recycling back to pretreatment, and will instead be treated by the Hanford Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). Here the off-gas condensates will be immobilized into a secondary waste form; ETF solid waste.« less

  7. Special Analysis: Disposal Plan for Pit 38 at Technical Area 54, Area G

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    French, Sean B.; Shuman, Rob

    2012-06-26

    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Operational waste is generated from a wide variety of research and development activities including nuclear weapons development, energy production, and medical research; environmental restoration (ER), and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) waste is generated as contaminated sites and facilities at LANL undergo cleanup or remediation. The majority of this waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and is disposed of at the Technical Area 54 (TA-54), Area G disposal facility. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 (DOE, 2001) requires that radioactive waste be managed in a mannermore » that protects public health and safety, and the environment. To comply with this order, DOE field sites must prepare site-specific radiological performance assessments for LLW disposal facilities that accept waste after September 26, 1988. Furthermore, sites are required to conduct composite analyses that account for the cumulative impacts of all waste that has been (or will be) disposed of at the facilities and other sources of radioactive material that may interact with the facilities. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 (LANL, 2008). These analyses estimate rates of radionuclide release from the waste disposed of at the facility, simulate the movement of radionuclides through the environment, and project potential radiation doses to humans for several on- and off-site exposure scenarios. The assessments are based on existing site and disposal facility data, and on assumptions about future rates and methods of waste disposal. The Area G disposal facility consists of Material Disposal Area (MDA) G and the Zone 4 expansion area. To date, disposal operations have been confined to MDA G and are scheduled to continue in that region until MDA G undergoes final closure at the end of 2013. Given its impending closure, efforts have been made to utilize the remaining disposal capacity within MDA G to the greatest extent possible. One approach for doing this has been to dispose of low-activity waste from cleanup operations at LANL in the headspace of selected disposal pits. Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for the material placed in the headspace of pits 15, 37, and 38 have been developed (LANL, 2010) and the impacts of placing waste in the headspace of these units has been evaluated (LANL, 2012a). The efforts to maximize disposal efficiency have taken on renewed importance because of the disposal demands placed on MDA G by the large volumes of waste that are being generated at LANL by cleanup efforts. For example, large quantities of waste were recently generated by the retrieval of waste formerly disposed of at TA-21, MDA B. A portion of this material has been disposed of in the headspace of pit 38 in compliance with the WAC developed for that disposal strategy; a large amount of waste has also been sent to off-site facilities for disposal. Nevertheless, large quantities of MDA B waste remain that require disposal. An extension of pit 38 was proposed to provide the disposal capacity that will be needed to dispose of institutional waste and MDA B waste through 2013. A special analysis was prepared to evaluate the impacts of the pit extension (LANL, 2012b). The analysis concluded that the disposal unit could be extended with modest increases in the exposures projected for the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis, as long as limits were placed on the radionuclide concentrations in the waste that is placed in the headspace of the pit. Based, in part, on the results of the special analysis, the extension of pit 38 was approved and excavation of the additional disposal capacity was started in May 2012. The special analysis presented here uses performance modeling to identify a disposal plan for the placement of waste in pit 38. The modeling uses a refined design of the disposal unit and updated radionuclide inventories to identify a disposal configuration that promotes efficient utilization of the pit and ensures continued compliance with DOE Order 435.1 performance objectives. Section 2 describes the methods used to conduct the analysis; the results of the evaluation are provided in Section 3. The disposal plan for pit 38 is provided in Section 4 and the conclusions of the investigation are provided in Section 5. Throughout the report, pit 38 is used to refer to the entire disposal unit, including the existing pit and the extension that is currently under construction. Where a distinction between the two portions of the pit is necessary, the existing unit is referred to as pit 38 proper and the new portion of the pit as the pit 38 extension or, more simply, the extension.« less

  8. DOE Asset Revitalization: Sustainability and Waste Management Aspects - 12120

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Robinson, Sharon M.

    2012-07-01

    In February 2011 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established a Task Force on Asset Revitalization to facilitate a discussion among the Department of Energy (DOE), communities around DOE sites, non-profits, tribal governments, the private sector, and other stakeholders to identify reuse approaches as environmental cleanup efforts at DOE sites reach completion. The Task Force was charged with exploring opportunities to reuse DOE site assets for beneficial purposes and making recommendations to the Under Secretaries of Energy, Science, and Nuclear Security on the formation of an Asset Revitalization Initiative (ARI). The ARI is a Department-wide effort to advance the beneficial reusemore » of the DOE's unique and diverse mix of assets including land, facilities, infrastructure, equipment, technologies, natural resources, and a highly skilled workforce. The ARI will encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors in order to achieve energy and environmental goals as well as to stimulate and diversify regional economies. The recommendations of the ARI Task Force are summarized below, focusing on the sustainability and waste management aspects. DOE's ongoing completion of cleanup efforts and modernization efforts is creating opportunities to transition under-used or excess assets to future beneficial use. The FY 2011 DOE ARI Task Force determined that DOE's assets could be reused for beneficial purposes such as clean energy production, industrial manufacturing, recreational and conversation use, and other economic development initiatives. Asset revitalization has the potential to both help achieve DOE's energy and environmental goals and diversify regional economies where the sites are located, including providing the support needed to implement large-scale projects that achieve green sustainability goals. Asset revitalization efforts could be accelerated by effectively incorporating future use plans into environmental management and remediation efforts. (authors)« less

  9. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, PUREX storage tunnels

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Haas, C. R.

    1997-09-08

    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).

  10. Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2016-06-24

    facilities and equipment; does not include physical assets for R&D such as R&D equipment and facilities or routine product testing, quality control...multiagency R&D initiative to advance understanding and control of matter at the nanoscale, where the physical , chemical, and biological properties of...nuclear programs that dated back to the Manhattan Project. Today, DOE conducts basic scientific research in areas ranging from nuclear physics to the

  11. The grand challenge of managing the petascale facility.

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Aiken, R. J.; Mathematics and Computer Science

    2007-02-28

    This report is the result of a study of networks and how they may need to evolve to support petascale leadership computing and science. As Dr. Ray Orbach, director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, says in the spring 2006 issue of SciDAC Review, 'One remarkable example of growth in unexpected directions has been in high-end computation'. In the same article Dr. Michael Strayer states, 'Moore's law suggests that before the end of the next cycle of SciDAC, we shall see petaflop computers'. Given the Office of Science's strong leadership and support for petascale computing and facilities, wemore » should expect to see petaflop computers in operation in support of science before the end of the decade, and DOE/SC Advanced Scientific Computing Research programs are focused on making this a reality. This study took its lead from this strong focus on petascale computing and the networks required to support such facilities, but it grew to include almost all aspects of the DOE/SC petascale computational and experimental science facilities, all of which will face daunting challenges in managing and analyzing the voluminous amounts of data expected. In addition, trends indicate the increased coupling of unique experimental facilities with computational facilities, along with the integration of multidisciplinary datasets and high-end computing with data-intensive computing; and we can expect these trends to continue at the petascale level and beyond. Coupled with recent technology trends, they clearly indicate the need for including capability petascale storage, networks, and experiments, as well as collaboration tools and programming environments, as integral components of the Office of Science's petascale capability metafacility. The objective of this report is to recommend a new cross-cutting program to support the management of petascale science and infrastructure. The appendices of the report document current and projected DOE computation facilities, science trends, and technology trends, whose combined impact can affect the manageability and stewardship of DOE's petascale facilities. This report is not meant to be all-inclusive. Rather, the facilities, science projects, and research topics presented are to be considered examples to clarify a point.« less

  12. Modeling the Office of Science Ten Year FacilitiesPlan: The PERI Architecture Tiger Team

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    de Supinski, B R; Alam, S R; Bailey, D H

    2009-05-27

    The Performance Engineering Institute (PERI) originally proposed a tiger team activity as a mechanism to target significant effort to the optimization of key Office of Science applications, a model that was successfully realized with the assistance of two JOULE metric teams. However, the Office of Science requested a new focus beginning in 2008: assistance in forming its ten year facilities plan. To meet this request, PERI formed the Architecture Tiger Team, which is modeling the performance of key science applications on future architectures, with S3D, FLASH and GTC chosen as the first application targets. In this activity, we have measuredmore » the performance of these applications on current systems in order to understand their baseline performance and to ensure that our modeling activity focuses on the right versions and inputs of the applications. We have applied a variety of modeling techniques to anticipate the performance of these applications on a range of anticipated systems. While our initial findings predict that Office of Science applications will continue to perform well on future machines from major hardware vendors, we have also encountered several areas in which we must extend our modeling techniques in order to fulfill our mission accurately and completely. In addition, we anticipate that models of a wider range of applications will reveal critical differences between expected future systems, thus providing guidance for future Office of Science procurement decisions, and will enable DOE applications to exploit machines in future facilities fully.« less

  13. Modeling the Office of Science Ten Year Facilities Plan: The PERI Architecture Tiger Team

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    de Supinski, Bronis R.; Alam, Sadaf; Bailey, David H.

    2009-06-26

    The Performance Engineering Institute (PERI) originally proposed a tiger team activity as a mechanism to target significant effort optimizing key Office of Science applications, a model that was successfully realized with the assistance of two JOULE metric teams. However, the Office of Science requested a new focus beginning in 2008: assistance in forming its ten year facilities plan. To meet this request, PERI formed the Architecture Tiger Team, which is modeling the performance of key science applications on future architectures, with S3D, FLASH and GTC chosen as the first application targets. In this activity, we have measured the performance ofmore » these applications on current systems in order to understand their baseline performance and to ensure that our modeling activity focuses on the right versions and inputs of the applications. We have applied a variety of modeling techniques to anticipate the performance of these applications on a range of anticipated systems. While our initial findings predict that Office of Science applications will continue to perform well on future machines from major hardware vendors, we have also encountered several areas in which we must extend our modeling techniques in order to fulfill our mission accurately and completely. In addition, we anticipate that models of a wider range of applications will reveal critical differences between expected future systems, thus providing guidance for future Office of Science procurement decisions, and will enable DOE applications to exploit machines in future facilities fully.« less

  14. Modeling the Office of Science Ten Year Facilities Plan: The PERI Architecture Team

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    de Supinski, Bronis R.; Alam, Sadaf R; Bailey, David

    2009-01-01

    The Performance Engineering Institute (PERI) originally proposed a tiger team activity as a mechanism to target significant effort optimizing key Office of Science applications, a model that was successfully realized with the assistance of two JOULE metric teams. However, the Office of Science requested a new focus beginning in 2008: assistance in forming its ten year facilities plan. To meet this request, PERI formed the Architecture Tiger Team, which is modeling the performance of key science applications on future architectures, with S3D, FLASH and GTC chosen as the first application targets. In this activity, we have measured the performance ofmore » these applications on current systems in order to understand their baseline performance and to ensure that our modeling activity focuses on the right versions and inputs of the applications. We have applied a variety of modeling techniques to anticipate the performance of these applications on a range of anticipated systems. While our initial findings predict that Office of Science applications will continue to perform well on future machines from major hardware vendors, we have also encountered several areas in which we must extend our modeling techniques in order to fulfilll our mission accurately and completely. In addition, we anticipate that models of a wider range of applications will reveal critical differences between expected future systems, thus providing guidance for future Office of Science procurement decisions, and will enable DOE applications to exploit machines in future facilities fully.« less

  15. Environment, Safety, and Health: Status of DOE’s Reorganization of it’s Safety Oversight Function

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1990-01-01

    facilities. After deliberation, the Congress in late 1988 directed that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board be established to provide...nuclear safety matters will be conducted by either the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety or the recently mandated Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety...the facilities under the statutory purview of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board once the board determines it is ready to assume independent

  16. Characterization of exposures to workers covered under the U.S. Energy Employees Compensation Act.

    PubMed

    Neton, James W

    2014-02-01

    Since the mid-1940s, hundreds of thousands of workers have been engaged in nuclear weapons-related activities for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies. In 2000, Congress promulgated the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), which provides monetary compensation and medical benefits to certain energy employees who have developed cancer. Under Part B of EEOICPA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is required to estimate radiation doses for those workers who have filed a claim, or whose survivors have filed a claim, under Part B of the Act. To date, over 39,000 dose reconstructions have been completed for workers from more than 200 facilities. These reconstructions have included assessment of both internal and external exposure at all major DOE facilities, as well as at a large number of private companies [known as Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities in the Act] that engaged in contract work for the DOE and its predecessor agencies. To complete these dose reconstructions, NIOSH has captured and reviewed thousands of historical documents related to site operations and worker/workplace monitoring practices at these facilities. Using the data collected and reviewed pursuant to NIOSH's role under EEOICPA, this presentation will characterize historical internal and external exposures received by workers at DOE and AWE facilities. To the extent possible, use will be made of facility specific coworker models to highlight changes in exposure patterns over time. In addition, the effects that these exposures have on compensation rates for workers are discussed.Introduction of Characterization of Exposures to Workers (Video 1:59, http://links.lww.com/HP/A3).

  17. 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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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.

  18. 10 CFR 1004.3 - Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. 1004.3 Section 1004.3 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION § 1004.3 Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. (a) The DOE Headquarters will maintain, in the public reading facilities, the...

  19. 10 CFR 1004.3 - Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. 1004.3 Section 1004.3 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION § 1004.3 Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. (a) The DOE Headquarters will maintain, in the public reading facilities, the...

  20. 10 CFR 1004.3 - Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. 1004.3 Section 1004.3 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION § 1004.3 Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. (a) The DOE Headquarters will maintain, in the public reading facilities, the...

  1. 10 CFR 1004.3 - Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. 1004.3 Section 1004.3 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION § 1004.3 Public reading facilities and policy on contractor records. (a) The DOE Headquarters will maintain, in the public reading facilities, the...

  2. Does High School Facility Quality Affect Student Achievement? A Two-Level Hierarchical Linear Model

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bowers, Alex J.; Urick, Angela

    2011-01-01

    The purpose of this study is to isolate the independent effects of high school facility quality on student achievement using a large, nationally representative U.S. database of student achievement and school facility quality. Prior research on linking school facility quality to student achievement has been mixed. Studies that relate overall…

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

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Austad, Stephanie Lee

    2015-09-01

    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.

  4. Final Design Report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Austad, S. L.

    2015-05-01

    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.

  5. Technology transfer package on seismic base isolation - Volume II

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1995-02-14

    This Technology Transfer Package provides some detailed information for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors about seismic base isolation. Intended users of this three-volume package are DOE Design and Safety Engineers as well as DOE Facility Managers who are responsible for reducing the effects of natural phenomena hazards (NPH), specifically earthquakes, on their facilities. The package was developed as part of DOE's efforts to study and implement techniques for protecting lives and property from the effects of natural phenomena and to support the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Volume II contains the proceedings for the Shortmore » Course on Seismic Base Isolation held in Berkeley, California, August 10-14, 1992.« less

  6. 45 CFR 605.22 - Existing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE... accessible to qualified handicapped persons. This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by qualified handicapped persons...

  7. 21 CFR 1.328 - What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... information and manufacturing instructions is not a recipe. Restaurant means a facility that prepares and sells food directly to consumers for immediate consumption. “Restaurant” does not include facilities..., are restaurants. (2) Pet shelters, kennels, and veterinary facilities in which food is directly...

  8. 75 FR 21605 - Sunshine Act Notice

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-26

    ... depth federal safety management and oversight policies being developed by DOE and NNSA for defense... DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities... in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities...

  9. 10 CFR 830.1 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Scope. 830.1 Section 830.1 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT § 830.1 Scope. This part governs the conduct of DOE contractors, DOE personnel... affect, the safety of DOE nuclear facilities. ...

  10. 10 CFR 830.1 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scope. 830.1 Section 830.1 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT § 830.1 Scope. This part governs the conduct of DOE contractors, DOE personnel... affect, the safety of DOE nuclear facilities. ...

  11. 10 CFR 830.1 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Scope. 830.1 Section 830.1 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT § 830.1 Scope. This part governs the conduct of DOE contractors, DOE personnel... affect, the safety of DOE nuclear facilities. ...

  12. Hanford Site radionuclide national emission standards for hazardous ari pollutants registered and and unregistered stack (powered exhaust) source assessment

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Davis, W.E.

    1995-12-01

    On February 3, 1993, US DOE Richland Operations Office received a Compliance Order and Information Request from the Director of the Air and Toxics Div. of US EPA, Region X. The compliance order requires the Richland Operations Office to evaluate all radionuclide emission points at the Hanford site to determine which are subject to the continuous emission measurement requirements in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, and to continuously measure radionuclide emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 61.93. The Information Request required The provision of a written compliance plan to meet the requirements of themore » compliance order. A compliance plan was submitted to EPA, Region X, on April 30, 1993. It set as one of the milestones, the complete assessment of the Hanford Site 84 stacks registered with the Washington State Department of Health, by December 17, 1993. This milestone was accomplished. The compliance plan also called for reaching a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement; this was reached on February 7, 1994, between DOE Richland Operations and EPA, Region X. The milestone to assess the unregistered stacks (powered exhaust) by August 31, 1994, was met. This update presents assessments for 72 registered and 22 unregistered stacks with potential emissions > 0.1 mrem/yr.« less

  13. 76 FR 29240 - Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-05-20

    ...-283-7681. EIS No. 20110150, Final EIS, DOE, ID, ADOPTION--Areva Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility... Uranium Enrichment Facility, Construction, Operation, and Decommission, License Issuance, Piketon, OH...

  14. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 6 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the domestic uranium procurement program funded by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, is also the remedial actionmore » contractor. Radiological contamination was identified in Building 6, and the building was demolished in 1992. The soil area within the footprint of the building has been remediated in accordance with the identified standards and the area can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  15. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 34 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7 acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the Grand Junction Projects Office Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, was also the remedialmore » action contractor. Building 34 was radiologically contaminated and the building was demolished in 1996. The soil area within the footprint of the building was analyzed and found to be not contaminated. The area can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual closeout report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  16. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 39 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, is also the remedial action contractor. The soilmore » beneath Building 39 was radiologically contaminated and the building was demolished in 1992. The soil area within the footprint of the building has been remediated in accordance with the identified standards and the area can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  17. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 44 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7 acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the Grand Junction Projects Office Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, is also the remedial actionmore » contractor. Building 44 was radiologically contaminated and the building was demolished in 1994. The soil area within the footprint of the building was not contaminated; it complies with the identified standards and the area can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  18. US Department of Energy Grand Junction Projects Office Remedial Action Project, final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 36 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, also is the remedial action contractor. Building 36more » was found to be radiologically contaminated and was demolished in 1996. The soil beneath the building was remediated in accordance with identified standards and can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  19. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 18 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, also is the remedial action contractor. The soilmore » beneath Building 18 was found to be radiologically contaminated; the building was not contaminated. The soil was remediated in accordance with identified standards. Building 18 and the underlying soil can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  20. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 1 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Widdop, M.R.

    1996-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, also is the remedial action contractor. Building 1more » was found to be radiologically contaminated and was demolished in 1996. The soil beneath and adjacent to the building was remediated in accordance with identified standards and can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  1. TAN HOT SHOP AND SUPPORT FACILITY UTILIZATION STUDY

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Phillips, Ken Crawforth

    2001-11-01

    Impacts to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex caused by early closure (prior to 2018) and Demolition and Dismantlement (D&D) of the Test Area North (TAN) hot shop and its support facilities are explored in this report. Various possible conditions, such as Standby, Safe Store and Lay-up, that the facility may be placed in prior to eventually being turned over to D&D are addressed. The requirements, impacts, and implications to the facility and to the DOE Complex are discussed for each condition presented in the report. Some details of the report reference the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratorymore » (INEEL) Spent Nuclear Fuel Life Cycle Baseline Plan, the INEEL 2000 Infrastructure Long Range Plan, and other internal INEEL reports.« less

  2. TAN Hot Shop and Support Facility Utilization Study

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Picker, B.A.

    2001-11-16

    Impacts to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex caused by early closure (prior to 2018) and Demolition and Dismantlement (D and D) of the Test Area North (TAN) hot shop and its support facilities are explored in this report. Various possible conditions, such as Standby, Safe Store and Lay-up, that the facility may be placed in prior to eventually being turned over to D and D are addressed. The requirements, impacts, and implications to the facility and to the DOE Complex are discussed for each condition presented in the report. Some details of the report reference the Idaho Nationalmore » Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Spent Nuclear Fuel Life Cycle Baseline Plan, the INEEL 2000 Infrastructure Long Range Plan, and other internal INEEL reports.« less

  3. 28 CFR 91.55 - Categorical exclusions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... disposal, or water facilities. (c) Expansion of support facilities. Projects for the expansion of bed space... Historic Places, or is eligible for listing on the register. (b) Limited expansion. Projects for the expansion of an existing facility or within an existing correctional complex, which does not add more than...

  4. 28 CFR 91.55 - Categorical exclusions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... disposal, or water facilities. (c) Expansion of support facilities. Projects for the expansion of bed space... Historic Places, or is eligible for listing on the register. (b) Limited expansion. Projects for the expansion of an existing facility or within an existing correctional complex, which does not add more than...

  5. 28 CFR 91.55 - Categorical exclusions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... disposal, or water facilities. (c) Expansion of support facilities. Projects for the expansion of bed space... Historic Places, or is eligible for listing on the register. (b) Limited expansion. Projects for the expansion of an existing facility or within an existing correctional complex, which does not add more than...

  6. DOE passive solar commercial buildings program: project summaries

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1982-01-01

    The 23 projects participating in this program comprise a wide range of building types including offices, retail establishments, educational facilities, public service facilities, community and visitor centers, and private specialized-use facilities, located throughout the United States. Summary data and drawings are presented for each project. (MHR)

  7. 36 CFR 1234.24 - How does NARA process a waiver request?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... ADMINISTRATION RECORDS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STANDARDS FOR RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES Handling Deviations From NARA... alternative offers at least equal protection to Federal records, NARA will consult the appropriate industry... actions and time frames for bringing the facility into compliance are reasonable. (2) If NARA questions...

  8. 36 CFR 1234.24 - How does NARA process a waiver request?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... ADMINISTRATION RECORDS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STANDARDS FOR RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES Handling Deviations From NARA... alternative offers at least equal protection to Federal records, NARA will consult the appropriate industry... actions and time frames for bringing the facility into compliance are reasonable. (2) If NARA questions...

  9. DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Mathematics, Volume 1

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-06-01

    The Mathematics Fundamentals Handbook was developed to assist nuclear facility operating contractors provide operators, maintenance personnel, and the technical staff with the necessary fundamentals training to ensure a basic understanding of mathematics and its application to facility operation. The handbook includes a review of introductory mathematics and the concepts and functional use of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. Word problems, equations, calculations, and practical exercises that require the use of each of the mathematical concepts are also presented. This information will provide personnel with a foundation for understanding and performing basic mathematical calculations that are associated with various DOE nuclearmore » facility operations.« less

  10. DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Mathematics, Volume 2

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1992-06-01

    The Mathematics Fundamentals Handbook was developed to assist nuclear facility operating contractors provide operators, maintenance personnel, and the technical staff with the necessary fundamentals training to ensure a basic understanding of mathematics and its application to facility operation. The handbook includes a review of introductory mathematics and the concepts and functional use of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. Word problems, equations, calculations, and practical exercises that require the use of each of the mathematical concepts are also presented. This information will provide personnel with a foundation for understanding and performing basic mathematical calculations that are associated with various DOE nuclearmore » facility operations.« less

  11. Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2016

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Wills

    This Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report (NNSSER) was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This NNSSERmore » summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2016 at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and its two Nevada-based support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory–Nellis (RSL-Nellis). It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). NNSA/NFO directs the management and operation of the NNSS and six sites across the nation. In addition to the NNSA itself, the six sites include two in Nevada (NLVF and RSL-Nellis) and four in other states (RSL-Andrews in Maryland, Livermore Operations in California, Los Alamos Operations in New Mexico, and Special Technologies Laboratory in California). Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories are the principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons programs at the NNSS. National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), is the current Management and Operating contractor accountable for the successful execution of work and ensuring that work is performed in compliance with environmental regulations. The six sites all provide support to enhance the NNSS as a location for its multiple missions. The three major NNSS missions include National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense. The major programs that support these missions are Stockpile Stewardship and Management, Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism, Nuclear Emergency Response, Strategic Partnership Projects, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Conservation and Renewable Energy, Other Research and Development, and Infrastructure. The major facilities that support the programs include the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), Device Assembly Facility, Dense Plasma Focus Facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex, Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC), Radiological/Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Exercise Site, the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS).« less

  12. 2011 Annual Ecological Survey: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Site

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Becker, James M.; Chamness, Michele A.

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) oversees and manages the DOE contract for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), a DOE Office of Science multi-program laboratory located in Richland, Washington. PNSO is responsible for ensuring that all activities conducted on the PNNL site comply with applicable laws, policies, and DOE Orders. The DOE Pacific Northwest Site Office Cultural and Biological Resources Management Plan (DOE/PNSO 2008) addresses the requirement for annual surveys and monitoring for species of concern and to identify and map invasive species. In addition to the requirement for an annual survey, proposed projectmore » activities must be reviewed to assess any potential environmental consequences of conducting the project. The assessment process requires a thorough understanding of the resources present, the potential impacts of a proposed action to those resources, and the ultimate consequences of those actions. The PNNL site is situated on the southeastern corner of the DOE Hanford Site, located at the north end of the city of Richland in south-central Washington. The site is bordered on the east by the Columbia River, on the west by Stevens Drive, and on the north by the Hanford Site 300 Area (Figure 1). The environmental setting of the PNNL site is described in Larson and Downs (2009). There are currently two facilities on the PNNL site: the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory and the Physical Sciences Facility. This report describes the annual survey of biological resources found on the undeveloped upland portions of the PNNL site. The annual survey is comprised of a series of individual field surveys conducted on various days in late May and throughout June 2011. A brief description of the methods PNNL ecologists used to conduct the baseline surveys and a summary of the results of the surveys are presented. Appendix A provides a list of plant and animal species identified in the upland areas of the PNNL site in 2011. Efforts in 2011 to control noxious weed populations (comprising plant species designated as Class B noxious weeds by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board) discovered in 2009 and initially treated with herbicides in 2010 are described in Appendix B.« less

  13. Department of Energy Order 440.2: Aviation

    DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

    1995-10-26

    Archival copy of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 440.2 regulating aviation safety of : aircraft used by DOE. Superseded by DOE O 440.2A dated March 8, 2002. For latest : listing of DOE directives and orders, users should consult DOE Directives, Regu...

  14. RIVER CORRIDOR BUILDINGS 324 & 327 CLEANUP

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    BAZZELL, K.D.; SMITH, B.A.

    2006-02-09

    A major challenge in the recently awarded River Corridor Closure (RCC) Contract at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site is decontaminating and demolishing (D&D) facilities in the 300 Area. Located along the banks of the Columbia River about one mile north of Richland, Washington, the 2.5 km{sup 2} (1 mi{sup 2})300 Area comprises only a small part of the 1517 km{sup 2} (586 mi{sup 2}) Hanford Site. However, with more than 300 facilities ranging from clean to highly contaminated, D&D of those facilities represents a major challenge for Washington Closure Hanford (WCH), which manages the new RCC Projectmore » for DOE's Richland Operations Office (RL). A complicating factor for this work is the continued use of nearly a dozen facilities by the DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Most of the buildings will not be released to WCH until at least 2009--four years into the seven-year, $1.9 billion RCC Contract. The challenge will be to deactivate, decommission, decontaminate and demolish (D4) highly contaminated buildings, such as 324 and 327, without interrupting PNNL's operations in adjacent facilities. This paper focuses on the challenges associated with the D4 of the 324 Building and the 327 Building.« less

  15. WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ANNUAL SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CALENDAR YEAR 2002

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    2003-09-12

    This annual environmental monitoring report for the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP or Project) is published to inform those with interest about environmental conditions at the WVDP. In accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 231.1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, the report summarizes calendar year (CY) 2002 environmental monitoring data so as to describe the performance of the WVDP's environmental management system, confirm compliance with standards and regulations, and highlight important programs. In 2002, the West Valley Demonstration Project, the site of a DOE environmental cleanup activity operated by West Valley Nuclear Services Co. (WVNSCO), was in themore » final stages of stabilizing high-level radioactive waste (HLW) that remained at the site after commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing had been discontinued in the early 1970s. The Project is located in western New York State, about 30 miles south of Buffalo, within the New York State-owned Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC). The WVDP is being conducted in cooperation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Ongoing work activities at the WVDP during 2002 included: (1) completing HLW solidification and melter shutdown; (2) shipping low-level radioactive waste off-site for disposal; (3) constructing a facility where large high-activity components can be safely packaged for disposal; (4) packaging and removing spent materials from the vitrification facility; (5) preparing environmental impact statements for future activities; (6) removing as much of the waste left behind in waste tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 as was reasonably possible; (7) removing storage racks, canisters, and debris from the fuel receiving and storage pool, decontaminating pool walls, and beginning shipment of debris for disposal; (8) ongoing decontamination in the general purpose cell and the process mechanical cell (also referred to as the head end cells); (9) planning for cleanup of waste in the plutonium purification cell (south) and extraction cell number 2 in the main plant; (10) ongoing characterization of facilities such as the waste tank farm and process cells; (11) monitoring the environment and managing contaminated areas within the Project facility premises; and (12) flushing and rinsing HLW solidification facilities.« less

  16. Towards a global network of gamma-ray detector calibration facilities

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Tijs, Marco; Koomans, Ronald; Limburg, Han

    2016-09-01

    Gamma-ray logging tools are applied worldwide. At various locations, calibration facilities are used to calibrate these gamma-ray logging systems. Several attempts have been made to cross-correlate well known calibration pits, but this cross-correlation does not include calibration facilities in Europe or private company calibration facilities. Our aim is to set-up a framework that gives the possibility to interlink all calibration facilities worldwide by using `tools of opportunity' - tools that have been calibrated in different calibration facilities, whether this usage was on a coordinated basis or by coincidence. To compare the measurement of different tools, it is important to understand the behaviour of the tools in the different calibration pits. Borehole properties, such as diameter, fluid, casing and probe diameter strongly influence the outcome of gamma-ray borehole logging. Logs need to be properly calibrated and compensated for these borehole properties in order to obtain in-situ grades or to do cross-hole correlation. Some tool providers provide tool-specific correction curves for this purpose. Others rely on reference measurements against sources of known radionuclide concentration and geometry. In this article, we present an attempt to set-up a framework for transferring `local' calibrations to be applied `globally'. This framework includes corrections for any geometry and detector size to give absolute concentrations of radionuclides from borehole measurements. This model is used to compare measurements in the calibration pits of Grand Junction, located in the USA; Adelaide (previously known as AMDEL), located in Adelaide Australia; and Stonehenge, located at Medusa Explorations BV in the Netherlands.

  17. Forgotten, excluded or included? Students with disabilities: A case study at the University of Mauritius

    PubMed Central

    Gunputh, Rajendra P.

    2017-01-01

    Background Students with disabilities in the tertiary education sector are more than a just a phenomenon, they are a reality. In general, little attention is devoted to their needs despite the fact that they need more care and attention. Objectives This paper, through a case study at the University of Mauritius, sought to answer some pertinent questions regarding students with disabilities. Does the University of Mauritius have sufficient facilities to support these students? Are students aware of existing facilities? What additional structures need to be put in place so that students with any form of disability are neither victimised, nor their education undermined? Are there any local laws about students with disabilities in higher education? Method To answer these questions and others, an online questionnaire was sent to 500 students and the responses were then analysed and discussed. The response rate was 24.4% which showed that students were not reticent to participate in this study. Results Our survey revealed that most students were not aware of existing facilities and were often neglected in terms of supporting structures and resources. ICT facilities were found to be the best support that is provided at the University of Mauritius. The right legal framework for tertiary education was also missing. Conclusion Ideally, students with disabilities should have access to special facilities to facilitate their learning experiences at tertiary institutions. Awareness about existing facilities must also be raised in order to offer equal opportunities to them and to enable a seamless inclusion. PMID:28936422

  18. 14 CFR 21.43 - Location of manufacturing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 1 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Location of manufacturing facilities. 21.43 Section 21.43 Aeronautics and Space FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRCRAFT.... Except as provided in § 21.29, the FAA does not issue a type certificate if the manufacturing facilities...

  19. 14 CFR 21.43 - Location of manufacturing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 1 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Location of manufacturing facilities. 21.43 Section 21.43 Aeronautics and Space FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRCRAFT.... Except as provided in § 21.29, the FAA does not issue a type certificate if the manufacturing facilities...

  20. 14 CFR 21.43 - Location of manufacturing facilities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 1 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Location of manufacturing facilities. 21.43 Section 21.43 Aeronautics and Space FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRCRAFT.... Except as provided in § 21.29, the FAA does not issue a type certificate if the manufacturing facilities...

  1. 10 CFR 770.1 - What is the purpose of this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC... or lease real property at closed or downsized defense nuclear facilities for economic development. (b... contaminant as a result of DOE activities at the defense nuclear facility. [65 FR 10689, Feb. 29, 2000, as...

  2. Does PDC Belong in Facilities Management?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  3. 34 CFR 222.19 - What other statutes and regulations apply to this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... for federally connected children with disabilities), 8007 (construction), and 8008 (school facilities...) or section 8008 (school facilities). (ii) Section 75.605 does not apply to payments under section... renovations or to construct new school facilities. (2) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department...

  4. 34 CFR 222.19 - What other statutes and regulations apply to this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... for federally connected children with disabilities), 8007 (construction), and 8008 (school facilities...) or section 8008 (school facilities). (ii) Section 75.605 does not apply to payments under section... renovations or to construct new school facilities. (2) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department...

  5. 34 CFR 222.19 - What other statutes and regulations apply to this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... for federally connected children with disabilities), 8007 (construction), and 8008 (school facilities...) or section 8008 (school facilities). (ii) Section 75.605 does not apply to payments under section... renovations or to construct new school facilities. (2) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department...

  6. 34 CFR 222.19 - What other statutes and regulations apply to this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... for federally connected children with disabilities), 8007 (construction), and 8008 (school facilities...) or section 8008 (school facilities). (ii) Section 75.605 does not apply to payments under section... renovations or to construct new school facilities. (2) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department...

  7. 78 FR 59366 - Multifamily, Healthcare Facilities, and Hospital Mortgage Insurance Premiums for Fiscal Year (FY...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-09-26

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5737-N-01] Multifamily, Healthcare... Administration (FHA) Multifamily, Healthcare Facilities, and Hospital mortgage insurance programs that have..., Healthcare Facilities, and Hospital mortgage insurance programs. This Notice does not apply to loans insured...

  8. 49 CFR 1572.109 - Mental capacity.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... health facility. (b) An applicant is adjudicated as lacking mental capacity if— (1) A court, board... committed to a mental health facility if he or she is formally committed to a mental health facility by a... lacking mental capacity, mental illness, and drug use. This does not include commitment to a mental health...

  9. 49 CFR 1572.109 - Mental capacity.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... health facility. (b) An applicant is adjudicated as lacking mental capacity if— (1) A court, board... committed to a mental health facility if he or she is formally committed to a mental health facility by a... lacking mental capacity, mental illness, and drug use. This does not include commitment to a mental health...

  10. 49 CFR 1572.109 - Mental capacity.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... health facility. (b) An applicant is adjudicated as lacking mental capacity if— (1) A court, board... committed to a mental health facility if he or she is formally committed to a mental health facility by a... lacking mental capacity, mental illness, and drug use. This does not include commitment to a mental health...

  11. 49 CFR 1572.109 - Mental capacity.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... health facility. (b) An applicant is adjudicated as lacking mental capacity if— (1) A court, board... committed to a mental health facility if he or she is formally committed to a mental health facility by a... lacking mental capacity, mental illness, and drug use. This does not include commitment to a mental health...

  12. 49 CFR 1572.109 - Mental capacity.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... health facility. (b) An applicant is adjudicated as lacking mental capacity if— (1) A court, board... committed to a mental health facility if he or she is formally committed to a mental health facility by a... lacking mental capacity, mental illness, and drug use. This does not include commitment to a mental health...

  13. 42 CFR 442.2 - Terms.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ..., harm, impairment, or death to an individual receiving care in a facility. New admission means the... discharged or had voluntarily left the facility. The term does not include the following: (a) Individuals who were in the facility before the effective date of denial of payment for new admissions, even if they...

  14. 42 CFR 442.2 - Terms.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ..., harm, impairment, or death to an individual receiving care in a facility. New admission means the... discharged or had voluntarily left the facility. The term does not include the following: (a) Individuals who were in the facility before the effective date of denial of payment for new admissions, even if they...

  15. Bioelectromagnetic effects of EMP: Preliminary findings

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Aldrich, T. E.; Easterly, C. E.; Gailey, P. C.; Hamilton, C. B.

    1988-06-01

    Facilities to simulate electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) are used to test military equipment and electrical communications devices for resistance to the effects of an EMP caused by an upper-atmospheric nuclear detonation. The rapid rise time and high field strengths (0.1 to 50 kV/m) of an EMP distinguish it from other electromagnetic phenomena. Certain types of EMP simulators also expose facility operators and members of the public to electromagnetic fields of varying intensity as do other natural sources such as the fields produced near a lightning bolt. Limited biological effects data have been collected to assess the potential EMP health hazards to humans. Evidence from the available database does not establish that EMPs represent either an occupational or a public health hazard. A critique is presented of the EMP research published to date in order to explore its limitations and similarities with related outcome experience from other electromagnetic field research. Laboratory research and multiple years of observations on workers in existing EMP manufacturing and simulation facilities suggest that there are no acute or short-term health effects. The occupational exposure guideline for EMP is 100 kV/m, which is far in excess of usual exposures with EMP simulators.

  16. 2013 R&D 100 Award: 'SHIELD' protects NIF optics from harmful pulses

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Chou, Jason

    In the past, it took as long as 12 hours to manually screen 48 critical checkpoints at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) for harmful laser pulses. The screening equipment had to be moved from point to point throughout a facility the size of three football fields. Now with a new technology, called Laser SHIELD (Screening at High-throughput to Identify Energetic Laser Distortion), and with the push of a button, the screening can be done in less than one second. Proper screening of pulses is critical for the operation of high-energy lasers to ensure that the laser does not exceed safemore » operating conditions for optics. The energetic beams of light are so powerful that, when left uncontrolled, they can shatter the extremely valuable glass inside the laser. If a harmful pulse is found, immediate adjustments can be made in order to protect the optics for the facility. Laser SHIELD is a custom-designed high-throughput screening system built from low-cost and commercially available components found in the telecommunications industry. Its all-fiber design makes it amenable to the unique needs of high-energy laser facilities, including routing to intricate pick-off locations, immunity to electromagnetic interference and low-loss transport (up to several kilometers). The technology offers several important benefits for NIF. First, the facility is able to fire more shots in less time-an efficiency that saves the facility millions of dollars each year. Second, high-energy lasers are more flexible to wavelength changes requested by target physicists. Third, by identifying harmful pulses before they damage the laser's optics, the facility potentially saves hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintenance costs each year.« less

  17. 2013 R&D 100 Award: 'SHIELD' protects NIF optics from harmful pulses

    ScienceCinema

    Chou, Jason

    2018-02-13

    In the past, it took as long as 12 hours to manually screen 48 critical checkpoints at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) for harmful laser pulses. The screening equipment had to be moved from point to point throughout a facility the size of three football fields. Now with a new technology, called Laser SHIELD (Screening at High-throughput to Identify Energetic Laser Distortion), and with the push of a button, the screening can be done in less than one second. Proper screening of pulses is critical for the operation of high-energy lasers to ensure that the laser does not exceed safe operating conditions for optics. The energetic beams of light are so powerful that, when left uncontrolled, they can shatter the extremely valuable glass inside the laser. If a harmful pulse is found, immediate adjustments can be made in order to protect the optics for the facility. Laser SHIELD is a custom-designed high-throughput screening system built from low-cost and commercially available components found in the telecommunications industry. Its all-fiber design makes it amenable to the unique needs of high-energy laser facilities, including routing to intricate pick-off locations, immunity to electromagnetic interference and low-loss transport (up to several kilometers). The technology offers several important benefits for NIF. First, the facility is able to fire more shots in less time-an efficiency that saves the facility millions of dollars each year. Second, high-energy lasers are more flexible to wavelength changes requested by target physicists. Third, by identifying harmful pulses before they damage the laser's optics, the facility potentially saves hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintenance costs each year.

  18. Regulatory Requirements and Technical Analysis for Department of Energy Regulated Performance Assessments of Shallow-Trench Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste at the Nevada Test Site

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Crowe, B.; Black, P.; Tauxe, J.; Yucel, V.; Rawlinson, S.; Colarusso, A.; DiSanza, F.

    2001-12-01

    The National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) operates and maintains two active facilities on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) that dispose Department of Energy (DOE) defense-generated low-level radioactive (LLW), mixed radioactive, and classified waste in shallow trenches, pits and large-diameter boreholes. The operation and maintenance of the LLW disposal sites are self-regulated under DOE Order 435.1, which requires review of a Performance Assessment for four performance objectives: 1) all pathways 25 mrem/yr limit; 2) atmospheric pathways 10 mrem/yr limit; 3) radon flux density of 20 pCi/m2/s; and 4) groundwater resource protection (Safe Drinking Water Act; 4 mrem/yr limit). The inadvertent human intruder is protected under a dual 500- and 100-mrem limit (acute and chronic exposure). In response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 92 2, a composite analysis is required that must examine all interacting sources for compliance against both 30 and 100 mrem/yr limits. A small component of classified transuranic waste is buried at intermediate depths in 3-meter diameter boreholes at the Area 5 LLW disposal facility and is assessed through DOE-agreement against the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s 40 CFR 191. The hazardous components of mixed LLW are assessed against RCRA requirements. The NTS LLW sites fall directly under three sets of federal regulations and the regulatory differences result not only in organizational challenges, but also in different decision objectives and technical paths to completion. The DOE regulations require deterministic analysis for a 1,000-year compliance assessment supplemented by probabilistic analysis under a long-term maintenance program. The EPA regulations for TRU waste are probabilistically based for a compliance interval of 10,000 years. Multiple steps in the assessments are strongly dependent on assumptions for long-term land use policies. Integrating the different requirements into coherent and consistent sets of conceptual models of the disposal setting, alternative scenarios, and system models of fate, transport and dose-based assessments is technically challenging. Environmental assessments for these sites must be broad-based and flexible to accommodate the multiple objectives.

  19. Results of the radiological survey of the Carpenter Steel Facility, Reading, Pennsylvania

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Cottrell, W.D.; Carrier, R.F.

    1990-07-01

    In 1944, experimental uranium-forming work was conducted by Carpenter Technology Corporation at the Carpenter Steel Facility in Reading, Pennsylvania, under contract to the Manhattan Engineer District (MED). The fabrication method, aimed at producing sounder uranium metal and improving the yields of rods from billets, was reportedly soon discarded as unsatisfactory. As part of the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to verify the closeout status of facilities under contract to agencies preceding DOE during early nuclear energy development, the site was included in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). At the request of DOE, the Measurement Applications and Developmentmore » Group of the Health and Safety Research Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory performed a radiological assessment survey in July and August 1988. The purpose of the survey was to determine if past operations had deposited radioactive residues in the facility, and whether those residuals were in significant quantities when compared to DOE guidelines. The survey included gamma scanning; direct measurements of alpha activity levels and beta-gamma dose rates; sampling for transferable alpha and beta-gamma residuals on selected surfaces; and sampling of soil, debris and currently used processing materials for radionuclide analysis. All survey results were within DOE FUSRAP guidelines derived to determine the eligibility of a site for remedial action. These guidelines are derived to ensure that unrestricted use of the property will not result in any measurable radiological hazard to the site occupants or the general public. 4 refs., 5 figs., 5 tabs.« less

  20. Not in whose backyard? Minority population concentrations and noxious facility sites

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nieves, L.A.

    1992-04-01

    The NIMBY (not in may backyard) syndrome has become the nemesis of facility siting efforts in the USA. Given people`s reluctance to live near noxious facilities, in whose backyard are such facilities located? This study employs US county-level data to examine relative concentrations of minorities living near noxious facilities. Facility types analyzed include electric generating plants, manufacturing plants, Superfund sites, and radioactive waste disposal sites. While this study does not address which cam first, the minority population concentration or the noxious facilities, it documents their current degree of association.

  1. Not in whose backyard Minority population concentrations and noxious facility sites

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nieves, L.A.

    1992-01-01

    The NIMBY (not in may backyard) syndrome has become the nemesis of facility siting efforts in the USA. Given people's reluctance to live near noxious facilities, in whose backyard are such facilities located This study employs US county-level data to examine relative concentrations of minorities living near noxious facilities. Facility types analyzed include electric generating plants, manufacturing plants, Superfund sites, and radioactive waste disposal sites. While this study does not address which cam first, the minority population concentration or the noxious facilities, it documents their current degree of association.

  2. Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2000. DOE Operations at The Boeing Company, Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Rutherford, Phil; Samuels, Sandy; Lee, Majelle

    2001-09-01

    This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) for 2000 describes the environmental conditions related to work performed for the Department of Energy (DOE) at Area IV of the Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). In the past, these operations included development, fabrication, and disassembly of nuclear reactors, reactor fuel, and other radioactive materials, under the former Atomics International (AI) Division. Other activities included the operation of large-scale liquid metal facilities for testing of liquid metal fast breeder components at the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), a government-owned company-operated, test facility within Area IV. All nuclear work was terminated in 1988, andmore » subsequently, all radiological work has been directed toward decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the previously used nuclear facilities and associated site areas. Large-scale D&D activities of the sodium test facilities began in 1996. Results of the radiological monitoring program for the calendar year of 2000 continue to indicate no significant releases of radioactive material from Rocketdyne sites. All potential exposure pathways are sampled and/or monitored, including air, soil, surface water, groundwater, direct radiation, transfer of property (land, structures, waste), and recycling. All radioactive wastes are processed for disposal at DOE disposal sites and other sites approved by DOE and licensed for radioactive waste. Liquid radioactive wastes are not released into the environment and do not constitute an exposure pathway.« less

  3. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NSTec Environmental Management

    The proposed Mixed Waste Storage Unit (MWSU) will be located within the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC). Existing facilities at the RWMC will be used to store low-level mixed waste (LLMW). Storage is required to accommodate offsite-generated LLMW shipped to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for disposal in the new Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (MWDU) currently in the design/build stage. LLMW generated at the NTS (onsite) is currently stored on the Transuranic (TRU) Pad (TP) in Area 5 under a Mutual Consent Agreement (MCA) with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Federal Facilities (NDEP/BFF). When themore » proposed MWSU is permitted, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will ask that NDEP revoke the MCA and onsite-generated LLMW will fall under the MWSU permit terms and conditions. The unit will also store polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste and friable and non-friable asbestos waste that meets the acceptance criteria in the Waste Analysis Plan (Exhibit 2) for disposal in the MWDU. In addition to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements, the proposed MWSU will also be subject to Department of Energy (DOE) orders and other applicable state and federal regulations. Table 1 provides the metric conversion factors used in this application. Table 2 provides a list of existing permits. Table 3 lists operational RCRA units at the NTS and their respective regulatory status.« less

  4. The DOE/DHHS memorandum of understanding: The DOE perspective

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    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 andmore » 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.« less

  5. Proceedings of the Department of Energy ALARA Workshop

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Dionne, B.J.; Baum, J.W.

    1992-01-01

    The report contains summaries of papers, discussions, and operational exercises presented at the first Department of Energy ALARA Workshop held at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York on April 21--22, 1992. The purpose of this workshop was to provide a forum for, and enhance communication among, ALARA personnel, as well as to inform DOE's field office and contractor personnel about the Office of Health's programs and expectations from the entire DOE complex efforts in the ALARA area.The two-day workshop consisted of one day dedicated to presentations on implementing various elements of a formal ALARA program at the DOE contractors' facilities,more » regulatory aspects of ALARA programs, and DOE Headquarters' ALARA expectations/initiatives. The second day was devoted to detailed discussions on ALARA improvements and problems, and operational exercises on cost-benefit analyses and on ALARA job/experiment reviews. At this workshop, 70 health physicists and radiation safety engineers from 5 DOE Headquarter Offices, 7 DOE operations/area offices, and 27 contractor facilities exchanged information, which is expected to stimulate further improvement in the DOE contractors' ALARA programs. Individual papers are indexed separately.« less

  6. 40 CFR 63.5799 - How do I calculate my facility's organic HAP emissions on a tpy basis for purposes of determining...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... Emissions Factors for Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting § 63.5799 How do I calculate my facility's... new facility that does not have any of the following operations: Open molding, centrifugal casting... existing facilities, do not include any organic HAP emissions where resin or gel coat is applied to an open...

  7. 40 CFR 63.5799 - How do I calculate my facility's organic HAP emissions on a tpy basis for purposes of determining...

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... Emissions Factors for Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting § 63.5799 How do I calculate my facility's... new facility that does not have any of the following operations: Open molding, centrifugal casting... existing facilities, do not include any organic HAP emissions where resin or gel coat is applied to an open...

  8. The role of institutions on the effectiveness of malaria treatment in the Ghanaian health sector.

    PubMed

    Amporfu, Eugenia; Nonvignon, Justice

    2015-04-19

    The Ghanaian health sector has undertaken several policies to help improve the quality of care received by patients. This includes the construction of several health facilities, the increase in the training of health workers, especially nurses, and the introduction of incentive packages (such as salary increase) to motivate health workers. The important question is to what extent does the institutional arrangement between the health facilities and the government as well as between health workers and public health facility administration affect the quality of care? The objective of this study is to find the effect of institutional factors on the quality of care. The institutional factors examined were mainly the extent of decentralization between government and health facilities, as well as between health workers and facility administration, the hiring procedure, and job satisfaction. The study used primary data on former patients from sixty six health facilities in three administrative regions of Ghana: the Northern, the Ashanti and the Greater Accra regions. The quality indicator used was effectiveness of treatment as determined by the patient. Ordered logit regression was run for the indicator with patient and health facility characteristics as well as institutional factors as independent variables. The sample size was 2248. The results showed that the patient's level of formal education had a strong influence on the effectiveness of treatment. In addition, effectiveness of treatment differed according to the administrative region in which the facility was located, and according to the extent of decentralization between health facility and government. The quality of instruments used for treatment, the working conditions for health workers, and job satisfaction had no effect on the effectiveness of treatment. Decentralization, the flow of information from government to health facilities and from health facility administrators to health workers are important in ensuring effectiveness. The study recommends further decentralization between health facilities as well as between health workers and administrators. In addition, the study recommends the involvement of health facilities in malaria programs to ensure the flow of information needed for effectiveness of treatment.

  9. Technology needs for environmental restoration remedial action

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Watson, J.S.

    1992-11-01

    This report summarizes the current view of the most important technology needs for the US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities operated by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. These facilities are the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The sources of information used in this assessment were a survey of selected representatives of the Environmental Restoration (ER) programs at each facility, results from a questionnaire distributed by Geotech CWM, Inc., for DOE, and associated discussions with individuals from each facility. This ismore » not a final assessment, but a brief look at an ongoing assessment; the needs will change as the plans for restoration change and, it is hoped, as some technical problems are solved through successful development programs.« less

  10. Preparation for Testing, Safe Packing and Shipping of Spent Nuclear Fuel from IFIN-HH, Bucharest-Magurele to Russian Federation

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Dragolici, C.A.; Zorliu, A.; Popa, V.

    2007-07-01

    The Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return (RRRFR) program is promoted by IAEA and DOE in order to repatriate of irradiated research reactor fuel originally supplied by Russia to facilities outside the country. Developed under the framework of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) the take-back program [1] common goal is to reduce both proliferation and security risks by eliminating or consolidating inventories of high-risk material. The main objective of this program is to support the return to Russian Federation of fresh or irradiated HEU and LEU fuel. Being part of this project, Romania is fulfilling its tasks by examining transportmore » and transfer cask options, assessment of transport routes, and providing cost estimates for required equipment and facility modifications. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) testing, handling, packing and shipping are the most common interests on which the National Institute of Research and Development for Physics and Nuclear Engineering 'Horia Hulubei' (IFIN-HH) is focusing at the moment. (authors)« less

  11. AMIE Gan Island Ancillary Disdrometer Field Campaign Report

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Oue, Mariko

    2016-04-01

    As part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility (ARM) Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) Investigation Experiment (AMIE), in January 2012 a disdrometer observation took place with the second ARM Mobile Facility (AMF2), the Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (SACR), the Texas A&M SMART-R C-band radar, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) dual wavelength S- and Ka-bands polarimetric (SPolKa) radar on Gan Island, Maldives. In order to measure raindrop size distributions, a disdrometer of Nagoya University, Japan, was set up close to the ARM Two-Dimensional (2D) Video Disdrometer (2DVD). The SMART-R and SPolKa radars performedmore » range-height-indicator scanning in the direction of the disdrometer site. Comparing the disdrometer data with 2DVD data, the raindrop size distribution data will be calibrated. Furthermore, the analysis of the raindrop size distribution and radar data will be expected to clarify the microphysics in tropical convective clouds.« less

  12. Telepsychiatry in the 21st Century: Transforming Healthcare with Technology

    PubMed Central

    Deslich, Stacie; Stec, Bruce; Tomblin, Shane; Coustasse, Alberto

    2013-01-01

    This article describes the benefits and constraints of telemedicine, focusing primarily on the field of psychiatry in the United States with the current system of healthcare. Telepsychiatry is believed to provide better access and higher-quality care to patients who need psychiatric care and cost savings to providers of such care. Telemedicine has been successfully integrated into psychiatric facilities reaching rural areas, prisons, and urban facilities. It has increased the volume of patients that physicians can reach and diagnose, as well as allowing them to treat patients with limitations in mobility. While telepsychiatry has been shown to be beneficial, this technology does have some limitations. Concerns about reimbursement, licensure, privacy, security, patient safety, and interoperability have been identified and present current challenges that providers using telepsychiatry must overcome in order to provide the most effective patient care. As more insurance companies start to reimburse for telepsychiatry treatments at the same rate as for face-to-face visits, this evolving medical field has the potential to grow exponentially. PMID:23861676

  13. Microscopic heavy-ion theory. Final Report. February 2014-June 2015

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Ernst, David J.; Oberacker, Volker E.; Umar, A. Sait

    The Vanderbilt nuclear theory group conducts research in the areas of low-energy nuclear reactions and in neutrino oscillations. Specically, we study dynamics of nuclear reactions microscopically, in particular for neutron-rich nuclei which will be accessible with current and future radioactive ion beam facilities. The neutrino work concentrates on constructing computational tools for analyzing neutrino oscillation data. The most important of these is the analysis of the Super K atmospheric data. Our research concentrates on the following topics which are part of the DOE Long-Range Plan: STUDIES OF LOW-ENERGY REACTIONS OF EXOTIC NUCLEI (Professors Umar and Oberacker), including sub-barrier fusion crossmore » sections, capture cross sections for superheavy element production, and nuclear astrophysics applications. Our theory project is strongly connected to experiments at RIB facilities around the world, including NSCL-FRIB (MSU) and ATLAS-CARIBU (Argonne). PHENOMENOLOGY OF NEUTRINO OSCILLATIONS (Prof. Ernst), extracting information from existing neutrino oscillation experiments and proposing possible future experiments in order to better understand the oscillation phenomenon.« less

  14. 48 CFR 926.7101 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ...), in instances where DOE has determined that a change in workforce at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is... SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS Implementation of Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year...

  15. 48 CFR 926.7101 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ...), in instances where DOE has determined that a change in workforce at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is... SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS Implementation of Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year...

  16. 48 CFR 926.7101 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ...), in instances where DOE has determined that a change in workforce at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is... SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS Implementation of Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year...

  17. 48 CFR 926.7101 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ...), in instances where DOE has determined that a change in workforce at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is... SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS Implementation of Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year...

  18. 48 CFR 926.7101 - Policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ...), in instances where DOE has determined that a change in workforce at a DOE Defense Nuclear Facility is... SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS Implementation of Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year...

  19. Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2011

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Cathy Wills, ed

    2012-09-12

    This report was prepared to meet the information needs of the public and the requirements and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for annual site environmental reports. It was prepared by National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). This and previous years reports, called Annual Site Environmental Reports (ASERs), Nevada Test Site Environmental Reports (NTSERs), and, beginning in 2010, Nevada National Security Site Environmental Reports (NNSSERs), are posted on the NNSA/NSO website at http://www.nv.energy.gov/library/publications/aser.aspx. This NNSSER was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, 'Environment,more » Safety and Health Reporting.' Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the NNSA/NSO Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This NNSSER summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2011 at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and its two support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory-Nellis (RSL-Nellis). It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NSO is responsible for the oversight of TTR ER projects, and the Sandia Site Office of NNSA (NNSA/SSO) has oversight of all other TTR activities. NNSA/SSO produces the TTR annual environmental report available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.« less

  20. ASCR Cybersecurity for Scientific Computing Integrity - Research Pathways and Ideas Workshop

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Peisert, Sean; Potok, Thomas E.; Jones, Todd

    At the request of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science (SC) Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program office, a workshop was held June 2-3, 2015, in Gaithersburg, MD, to identify potential long term (10 to +20 year) cybersecurity fundamental basic research and development challenges, strategies and roadmap facing future high performance computing (HPC), networks, data centers, and extreme-scale scientific user facilities. This workshop was a follow-on to the workshop held January 7-9, 2015, in Rockville, MD, that examined higher level ideas about scientific computing integrity specific to the mission of the DOE Office of Science. Issues includedmore » research computation and simulation that takes place on ASCR computing facilities and networks, as well as network-connected scientific instruments, such as those run by various DOE Office of Science programs. Workshop participants included researchers and operational staff from DOE national laboratories, as well as academic researchers and industry experts. Participants were selected based on the submission of abstracts relating to the topics discussed in the previous workshop report [1] and also from other ASCR reports, including "Abstract Machine Models and Proxy Architectures for Exascale Computing" [27], the DOE "Preliminary Conceptual Design for an Exascale Computing Initiative" [28], and the January 2015 machine learning workshop [29]. The workshop was also attended by several observers from DOE and other government agencies. The workshop was divided into three topic areas: (1) Trustworthy Supercomputing, (2) Extreme-Scale Data, Knowledge, and Analytics for Understanding and Improving Cybersecurity, and (3) Trust within High-end Networking and Data Centers. Participants were divided into three corresponding teams based on the category of their abstracts. The workshop began with a series of talks from the program manager and workshop chair, followed by the leaders for each of the three topics and a representative of each of the four major DOE Office of Science Advanced Scientific Computing Research Facilities: the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF), the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), and the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF). The rest of the workshop consisted of topical breakout discussions and focused writing periods that produced much of this report.« less

  1. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Voyles, Jimmy

    Individual datastreams from instrumentation at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility fixed and mobile research observatories (sites) are collected and routed to the ARM Data Center (ADC). The Data Management Facility (DMF), a component of the ADC, executes datastream processing in near-real time. Processed data are then delivered approximately daily to the ARM Data Archive, also a component of the ADC, where they are made freely available to the research community. For each instrument, ARM calculates the ratio of the actual number of processed data records received daily at the ARM Data Archivemore » to the expected number of data records. DOE requires national user facilities to report time-based operating data.« less

  2. 36 CFR 1234.30 - How does an agency request authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, phone number (301) 837-1867. The... authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities? 1234.30 Section 1234.30 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION RECORDS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STANDARDS FOR...

  3. 36 CFR 1234.30 - How does an agency request authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, phone number (301) 837-1867. The... authority to establish or relocate records storage facilities? 1234.30 Section 1234.30 Parks, Forests, and Public Property NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION RECORDS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STANDARDS FOR...

  4. 75 FR 19428 - Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-14

    ... of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant... (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR... (SSC) or change the way any SSC is operated. The proposed license condition does not involve operation...

  5. 49 CFR 193.2001 - Scope of part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CONTINUED) PIPELINE SAFETY LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES... laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and Part 192 of this chapter. (b) This part does not apply to: (1) LNG facilities used by ultimate consumers of LNG or natural gas. (2) LNG facilities used in the course of natural...

  6. 49 CFR 193.2001 - Scope of part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CONTINUED) PIPELINE SAFETY LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES... laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and Part 192 of this chapter. (b) This part does not apply to: (1) LNG facilities used by ultimate consumers of LNG or natural gas. (2) LNG facilities used in the course of natural...

  7. 49 CFR 193.2001 - Scope of part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CONTINUED) PIPELINE SAFETY LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES... laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and Part 192 of this chapter. (b) This part does not apply to: (1) LNG facilities used by ultimate consumers of LNG or natural gas. (2) LNG facilities used in the course of natural...

  8. Calibration and use of filter test facility orifice plates

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Fain, D. E.; Selby, T. W.

    1984-07-01

    There are three official DOE filter test facilities. These test facilities are used by the DOE, and others, to test nuclear grade HEPA filters to provide Quality Assurance that the filters meet the required specifications. The filters are tested for both filter efficiency and pressure drop. In the test equipment, standard orifice plates are used to set the specified flow rates for the tests. There has existed a need to calibrate the orifice plates from the three facilities with a common calibration source to assure that the facilities have comparable tests. A project has been undertaken to calibrate these orifice plates. In addition to reporting the results of the calibrations of the orifice plates, the means for using the calibration results will be discussed. A comparison of the orifice discharge coefficients for the orifice plates used at the seven facilities will be given. The pros and cons for the use of mass flow or volume flow rates for testing will be discussed. It is recommended that volume flow rates be used as a more practical and comparable means of testing filters. The rationale for this recommendation will be discussed.

  9. Does accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) ensure greater compliance with animal welfare laws?

    PubMed

    Goodman, Justin R; Chandna, Alka; Borch, Casey

    2015-01-01

    Accreditation of nonhuman animal research facilities by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) is widely considered the "gold standard" of commitment to the well being of nonhuman animals used in research. AAALAC-accredited facilities receive preferential treatment from funding agencies and are viewed favorably by the general public. Thus, it bears investigating how well these facilities comply with U.S. animal research regulations. In this study, the incidences of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) at AAALAC-accredited facilities were evaluated and compared to those at nonaccredited institutions during a period of 2 years. The analysis revealed that AAALAC-accredited facilities were frequently cited for AWA noncompliance items (NCIs). Controlling for the number of animals at each facility, AAALAC-accredited sites had significantly more AWA NCIs on average compared with nonaccredited sites. AAALAC-accredited sites also had more NCIs related to improper veterinary care, personnel qualifications, and animal husbandry. These results demonstrate that AAALAC accreditation does not improve compliance with regulations governing the treatment of animals in laboratories.

  10. NSRD-10: Leak Path Factor Guidance Using MELCOR

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Louie, David; Humphries, Larry L.

    Estimates of the source term from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facility requires that the analysts know how to apply the simulation tools used, such as the MELCOR code, particularly for a complicated facility that may include an air ventilation system and other active systems that can influence the environmental pathway of the materials released. DOE has designated MELCOR 1.8.5, an unsupported version, as a DOE ToolBox code in its Central Registry, which includes a leak-path-factor guidance report written in 2004 that did not include experimental validation data. To continue to use this MELCOR version requires additional verificationmore » and validations, which may not be feasible from a project cost standpoint. Instead, the recent MELCOR should be used. Without any developer support and lack of experimental data validation, it is difficult to convince regulators that the calculated source term from the DOE facility is accurate and defensible. This research replaces the obsolete version in the 2004 DOE leak path factor guidance report by using MELCOR 2.1 (the latest version of MELCOR with continuing modeling development and user support) and by including applicable experimental data from the reactor safety arena and from applicable experimental data used in the DOE-HDBK-3010. This research provides best practice values used in MELCOR 2.1 specifically for the leak path determination. With these enhancements, the revised leak-path-guidance report should provide confidence to the DOE safety analyst who would be using MELCOR as a source-term determination tool for mitigated accident evaluations.« less

  11. Proceedings of the Department of Energy ALARA Workshop

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Dionne, B.J.; Baum, J.W.

    1992-12-31

    The report contains summaries of papers, discussions, and operational exercises presented at the first Department of Energy ALARA Workshop held at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York on April 21--22, 1992. The purpose of this workshop was to provide a forum for, and enhance communication among, ALARA personnel, as well as to inform DOE`s field office and contractor personnel about the Office of Health`s programs and expectations from the entire DOE complex efforts in the ALARA area.The two-day workshop consisted of one day dedicated to presentations on implementing various elements of a formal ALARA program at the DOE contractors` facilities,more » regulatory aspects of ALARA programs, and DOE Headquarters` ALARA expectations/initiatives. The second day was devoted to detailed discussions on ALARA improvements and problems, and operational exercises on cost-benefit analyses and on ALARA job/experiment reviews. At this workshop, 70 health physicists and radiation safety engineers from 5 DOE Headquarter Offices, 7 DOE operations/area offices, and 27 contractor facilities exchanged information, which is expected to stimulate further improvement in the DOE contractors` ALARA programs. Individual papers are indexed separately.« less

  12. 10 CFR 850.10 - Development and approval of the CBDPP.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... DOE. (1) The responsible employer at a DOE facility must ensure that a CBDPP is prepared for the... approved or rejected by DOE earlier. (2) The responsible employer must furnish a copy of the approved CBDPP..., and affected workers or their designated representatives. (c) Update. The responsible employer must...

  13. 10 CFR 770.4 - What definitions are used in this part?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... United States Department of Energy. DOE Field Office means any of DOE's officially established organizations and components located outside the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. (See Field Office Manager... nuclear facilities. Field Office Manager means the head of the DOE Operations Offices or Field Offices...

  14. Field dependence of magnetic order and excitations in the Kitaev candidate alpha-RuCl3

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Banerjee, Arnab; Kelley, Paula; Winn, Barry; Aczel, Adam; Lumsden, Mark; Mandrus, David; Nagler, Stephen

    The search for new quantum states of matter has been one of the forefront endeavors of condensed matter physics. The two-dimensional Kitaev quantum spin liquid (QSL) is of special interest as an exactly solvable spin-liquid model exhibiting exotic fractionalized excitations. Recently, alpha-RuCl3 has been identified as a candidate system for exhibiting some aspects of Kitaev QSL physics. The spins in this material exhibit zig-zag order at low temperatures, and show both low energy spin wave excitation arising from the ordered state as well as a continuum excitation extending to higher energies that has been taken as evidence for QSL relate Majorana fermions. In this talk, we show that the application of an in-plane magnetic field suppresses the zig-zag order possibly resulting in a state devoid of long-range order. Field-dependent inelastic neutron scattering on single-crystal shows a remarkable effect on the excitation spectrum above the critical field. The work is supported by US-DOE, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences and User Facilities Divisions, and also the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation EPiQS Grant GBFM4416.

  15. Policy Perspective: Meeting the Challenge of the DOE Order 436.1 Departmental Sustainability - 12527

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    MacDonald, Jennifer C.

    2012-07-01

    DOE's Sustainability Performance Office is working to meet sustainability goals at DOE by implementing Executive Orders, Departmental policy, the DOE Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) and legislation related to sustainability. Through implementation of Executive Orders, Departmental policy, the SSPP, statutory requirements and regular reporting, analysis and communication, DOE's SPO is working to maintain and expand DOE's leadership in sustainability. (authors)

  16. DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Mulder, R. U.; Benneche, P. E.; Hosticka, B.

    The objective of the DOE supported Reactor Sharing Program is to increase the availability of university nuclear reactor facilities to non-reactor-owning educational institutions. The educational and research programs of these users institutions is enhanced by the use of the nuclear facilities.

  17. Resolving the problem of compliance with the ever increasing and changing regulations

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Leigh, Harley

    1992-01-01

    The most common problem identified at several U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites is regulatory compliance. Simply, the project viability depends on identifying regulatory requirements at the beginning of a specific project to avoid possible delays and cost overruns. The Radioisotope Power Systems Facility (RPSF) is using the Regulatory Compliance System (RCS) to deal with the problem that well over 1000 regulatory documents had to be reviewed for possible compliance requirements applicable to the facility. This overwhelming number of possible documents is not atypical of all DOE facilities thus far reviewed using the RCS system. The RCS was developed to provide control and tracking of all the regulatory and institutional requirements on a given project. WASTREN, Inc., developed the RCS through various DOE contracts and continues to enhance and update the system for existing and new contracts. The RCS provides the information to allow the technical expert to assimilate and manage accurate resource information, compile the necessary checklists, and document that the project or facility fulfills all of the appropriate regulatory requirements. The RCS provides on-line information, including status throughout the project life, thereby allowing more intelligent and proactive decision making. Also, consistency and traceability are provided for regulatory compliance documentation.

  18. US Department of Energy Grand Junction Projects Office Remedial Action Project. Final report of the decontamination and decommissioning of Building 52 at the Grand Junction Projects Office Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Krabacher, J.E.

    1996-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grand Junction Projects Office (GJPO) occupies a 61.7-acre facility along the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. This site was contaminated with uranium ore and mill tailings during uranium refining activities of the Manhattan Engineer District and during pilot milling experiments conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission`s domestic uranium procurement program. The DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning Program established the GJPO Remedial Action Project to clean up and restore the facility lands, improvements, and the underlying aquifer. The site contractor for the facility, Rust Geotech, also was the remedial action contractor. Building 52more » was found to be radiologically contaminated and was demolished in 1994. The soil area within the footprint of the building has been remediated in accordance with the identified standards and the area can be released for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. This document was prepared in response to a DOE request for an individual final report for each contaminated GJPO building.« less

  19. 78 FR 53737 - ConocoPhillips Company; Application for Blanket Authorization To Export Previously Imported...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-08-30

    ... application, FE applies the principles described in DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111 which states that... LNG Development, L.P., DOE/FE Order No. 3317 (July 19, 2013); ENI USA Gas Marketing LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3247 (March 5, 2013); Sempra LNG Marketing, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3231 (February 13, 2013...

  20. U.S. DOE’s Energy Treasure Hunt Exchange In-Plant Trainings – DOE Resources, Early Results and Lessons Learned

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Nimbalkar, Sachin U.; Brockway, Walter F.; Lung, Bruce

    The primary objective of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Treasure Hunt In-Plant Training (INPLT) is to train Better Plants partner employees to lead and conduct future energy efficiency Treasure Hunts within their facilities without DOE assistance. By taking a “learning-by-doing” approach, this INPLT, like other DOE INPLT trainings, has the added benefit of uncovering real energy and cost-saving opportunities. This INPLT leverages DOE and Better Plants technical staff, resources and tools and the EPA “Energy Treasure Hunt Guide: Simple Steps to Finding Energy Savings” process. While Treasure Hunts are a relatively well-known approach to identifying energy-savings in manufacturing plants,more » DOE is adding several additional elements in its Treasure Hunt Exchanges. The first element is technical assistance and methodology. DOE provides high-quality technical resources, such as energy efficiency calculators, fact sheets, source books etc., to facilitate the Treasure Hunt process and teaches four fundamentals: 1) how to profile equipment, 2) how to collect data, and 3), data & ROI calculation methodologies. Another element is the “train the trainer” approach wherein the training facilitator will train at least one partner employee to facilitate future treasure hunts. Another element is that DOE provides energy diagnostic equipment and teaches the participants how to use them. Finally, DOE also offers partners the opportunity to exchange teams of employees either within a partners’ enterprise or with other partners to conduct the treasure hunt in each other’s facilities. This exchange of teams is important because each team can bring different insights and uncover energy-saving opportunities that would otherwise be missed. This paper will discuss DOE methodology and the early results and lessons learned from DOE’S Energy Treasure Hunt In-Plant Trainings at Better Plants Partner facilities.« less

  1. Review of the Need for a Large-scale Test Facility for Research on the Effects of Extreme Winds on Structures

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    R. G. Little

    1999-03-01

    The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), through the US Department of Energy (DOE), has proposed that a large-scale wind test facility (LSWTF) be constructed to study, in full-scale, the behavior of low-rise structures under simulated extreme wind conditions. To determine the need for, and potential benefits of, such a facility, the Idaho Operations Office of the DOE requested that the National Research Council (NRC) perform an independent assessment of the role and potential value of an LSWTF in the overall context of wind engineering research. The NRC established the Committee to Review the Need for a Large-scale Testmore » Facility for Research on the Effects of Extreme Winds on Structures, under the auspices of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, to perform this assessment. This report conveys the results of the committee's deliberations as well as its findings and recommendations. Data developed at large-scale would enhanced the understanding of how structures, particularly light-frame structures, are affected by extreme winds (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, sever thunderstorms, and other events). With a large-scale wind test facility, full-sized structures, such as site-built or manufactured housing and small commercial or industrial buildings, could be tested under a range of wind conditions in a controlled, repeatable environment. At this time, the US has no facility specifically constructed for this purpose. During the course of this study, the committee was confronted by three difficult questions: (1) does the lack of a facility equate to a need for the facility? (2) is need alone sufficient justification for the construction of a facility? and (3) would the benefits derived from information produced in an LSWTF justify the costs of producing that information? The committee's evaluation of the need and justification for an LSWTF was shaped by these realities.« less

  2. CILogon-HA. Higher Assurance Federated Identities for DOE Science

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Basney, James

    The CILogon-HA project extended the existing open source CILogon service (initially developed with funding from the National Science Foundation) to provide credentials at multiple levels of assurance to users of DOE facilities for collaborative science. CILogon translates mechanism and policy across higher education and grid trust federations, bridging from the InCommon identity federation (which federates university and DOE lab identities) to the Interoperable Global Trust Federation (which defines standards across the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, the Open Science Grid, and other cyberinfrastructure). The CILogon-HA project expanded the CILogon service to support over 160 identity providers (including 6 DOE facilities) andmore » 3 internationally accredited certification authorities. To provide continuity of operations upon the end of the CILogon-HA project period, project staff transitioned the CILogon service to operation by XSEDE.« less

  3. LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - DECEMBER 2006

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    FOX, K.J.

    Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is a multidisciplinary laboratory that carries out basic and applied research in the physical, biomedical, and environmental sciences, and in selected energy technologies. It is managed by Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC, (BSA) under contract with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE). BNL's total annual budget has averaged about $460 million. There are about 2,500 employees, and another 4,500 guest scientists and students who come each year to use the Laboratory's facilities and work with the staff. The BNL Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program reports its status to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)more » annually in March, as required by DOE Order 413.2B, ''Laboratory Directed Research and Development,'' April 19, 2006, and the Roles, Responsibilities, and Guidelines for Laboratory Directed Research and Development at the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories dated June 13, 2006. In accordance this is our Annual Report in which we describe the Purpose, Approach, Technical Progress and Results, and Specific Accomplishments of all LDRD projects that received funding during Fiscal Year 2006.« less

  4. Radiation and Health Technology Laboratory Capabilities

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Bihl, Donald E.; Lynch, Timothy P.; Murphy, Mark K.

    2005-07-09

    The Radiological Standards and Calibrations Laboratory, a part of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)(a) performs calibrations and upholds reference standards necessary to maintain traceability to national standards. The facility supports U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs at the Hanford Site, programs sponsored by DOE Headquarters and other federal agencies, radiological protection programs at other DOE and commercial nuclear sites and research and characterization programs sponsored through the commercial sector. The laboratory is located in the 318 Building of the Hanford Site's 300 Area. The facility contains five major exposure rooms and several laboratories used for exposure work preparation, low-activity instrumentmore » calibrations, instrument performance evaluations, instrument maintenance, instrument design and fabrication work, thermoluminescent and radiochromic Dosimetry, and calibration of measurement and test equipment (M&TE). The major exposure facilities are a low-scatter room used for neutron and photon exposures, a source well room used for high-volume instrument calibration work, an x-ray facility used for energy response studies, a high-exposure facility used for high-rate photon calibration work, a beta standards laboratory used for beta energy response studies and beta reference calibrations and M&TE laboratories. Calibrations are routinely performed for personnel dosimeters, health physics instrumentation, photon and neutron transfer standards alpha, beta, and gamma field sources used throughout the Hanford Site, and a wide variety of M&TE. This report describes the standards and calibrations laboratory.« less

  5. Laboratory instrumentation modernization at the WPI Nuclear Reactor Facility

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1995-01-01

    With partial funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) University Reactor Instrumentation Program several laboratory instruments utilized by students and researchers at the WPI Nuclear Reactor Facility have been upgraded or replaced. Designed and built by General Electric in 1959, the open pool nuclear training reactor at WPI was one of the first such facilities in the nation located on a university campus. Devoted to undergraduate use, the reactor and its related facilities have been since used to train two generations of nuclear engineers and scientists for the nuclear industry. The low power output of the reactor and an ergonomicmore » facility design make it an ideal tool for undergraduate nuclear engineering education and other training. The reactor, its control system, and the associate laboratory equipment are all located in the same room. Over the years, several important milestones have taken place at the WPI reactor. In 1969, the reactor power level was upgraded from 1 kW to 10 kW. The reactor`s Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating license was renewed for 20 years in 1983. In 1988, under DOE Grant No. DE-FG07-86ER75271, the reactor was converted to low-enriched uranium fuel. In 1992, again with partial funding from DOE (Grant No. DE-FG02-90ER12982), the original control console was replaced.« less

  6. The highly successful safe remediation of the Fernald waste pits undertaken under the privatization model

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Cherry, Mark; Lojek, Dave; Murphy, Con

    2003-02-23

    Remediation of eight waste pits at the Department of Energy (DOE) Fernald site, located northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, involves excavating approximately one million tonnes in-situ of low-level waste which were placed in pits during Fernald's production era. This unique project, one of the largest in the history of CERCLA/Superfund, includes uranium and thorium contaminated waste, soils and sludges. These wet soils and sludges are thermally dried in a processing facility to meet Department of Transportation (DOT) transportation and disposal facility waste acceptance criteria, loaded into railcars and shipped to the Envirocare waste disposal facility at Clive, Utah. This project ismore » now approximately 60% complete with more than 415,000 tonnes (460,000 tons) of waste material safely shipped in 74 unit trains to Envirocare. Work is scheduled to be completed in early 2005. Success to date demonstrates that a major DOE site remediation project can be safely and successfully executed in partnership with private industry, utilizing proven commercial best practices, existing site labor resources and support of local stakeholders. In 1997 under the DOE's privatization initiative, Fluor Fernald, Inc. (Fluor Fernald) solicited the services of the remediation industry to design, engineer, procure, construct, own and operate a facility that would undertake the remediation of the waste pits. The resulting procurement was awarded to IT Corporation, currently Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. (Shaw). The contractor was required to finance the procurement and construction of its facilities and infrastructure. The contract was performance-based and payment would be made on the successful loadout of the waste from the facility on a per-ton basis meeting the Envirocare waste acceptance criteria. This paper details the performance to date, the challenges encountered, and the seamless partnering between DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fluor Fernald, Shaw, labor un ions, and the local community in creating and executing a successful project.« less

  7. Environmental cleanup: The challenge at the Hanford Site, Washington, USA

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Gray, Robert H.; Becker, C. Dale

    1993-07-01

    Numerous challenges face those involved with developing a coordinated and consistent approach to cleaning up the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site in southeastern Washington. These challenges are much greater than those encountered when the site was selected and the world’s first nuclear complex was developed almost 50 years ago. This article reviews Hanford’s history, operations, waste storage/disposal activities, environmental monitoring, and today’s approach to characterize and clean up Hanford under a Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, signed by DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington Sate Department of Ecology. Although cleanup of defense-related waste at Hanford holds many positive benefits, negative features include high costs to the US taxpayer, numerous uncertainties concerning the technologies to be employed and the risks involved, and the high probability that special interest groups and activists at large will never be completely satisfied. Issues concerning future use of the site, whether to protect and preserve its natural features or open it to public exploitation, remain to be resolved.

  8. Pairing Instability and Quasiparticle Properties of an Unconventional Superconductor with a Skyrmion Texture of Localized Spins

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Zhu, Jian-Xin; Tai, Yuan-Yen

    Majorana fermions are believed to perform better than regular fermions in keeping quantum coherence, which is an important factor for quantum computation. Recently there has been intensive interest in their realization in solid-state systems. Zero-energy quasiparticle modes in a superconductor serve as a promising candidate. We present a theoretical study on the influence of a two-dimensional (2D) skyrmion texture of localized spins on the pairing instability and quasiparticle properties in an unconventional superconductor. By solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations for an effective BCS model Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor pairing interaction on a 2D square lattice, we analyze the spatial dependence of superconducting order parameter for varying strength of spin-exchange interaction. The quasiparticle properties are studied by calculating local density of states and its spatial dependence. This work was supported by U.S. DOE NNSA through the LANL LDRD Program, and by Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, a U.S. DOE BES user facility.

  9. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant site environmental report, for calendar year 1995

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.1 General Environmental Protection Program, requires DOE facilities, that conduct environmental protection programs, to annually prepare a Site Environmental Report (SER). The purpose of the SER is to provide an abstract of environmental assessments conducted in order to characterize site environmental management performance, to confirm compliance with environmental standards and requirements, and to highlight significant programs and efforts of environmental merit. The content of this SER is not restricted to a synopsis of the required data, in addition, information pertaining to new and continued monitoring and compliance activities during the 1995 calendar yearmore » are also included. Data contained in this report are derived from those monitoring programs directed by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP). The EMP provides inclusive guidelines implemented to detect potential impacts to the environment and to establish baseline measurements for future environmental evaluations. Surface water, groundwater. air, soil, and biotic matrices are monitored for an array of radiological and nonradiological factors. The baseline radiological surveillance program encompasses a broader geographic area that includes nearby ranches, villages, and cities. Most elements of nonradiological assessments are conducted within the geographic vicinity of the WIPP site.« less

  10. High-resolution x-ray diffraction study of the heavy-fermion compound YbBiPt

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ueland, B. G.; Saunders, S. M.; Bud'Ko, S. L.; Schmiedeshoff, G. M.; Canfield, P. C.; Kreyssig, A.; Goldman, A. I.

    YbBiPt is a heavy-fermion compound possessing significant short-range antiferromagnetic correlations below T* = 0 . 7 K, fragile antiferromagnetic order below TN = 0 . 4 K, a Kondo temperature of TK ~ 1 K, and crystalline-electric-field splitting (CEF) on the order of E /kB = 1 - 10 K. Its lattice is face-centered cubic at ambient temperature, but certain data, particularly those from studies aimed at determining the CEF level scheme, suggest that the lattice distorts at lower temperature. Here, we present results from high-energy x-ray diffraction experiments which show that, within our experimental resolution of ~ 6 - 10 ×10-5 Å, no structural phase transition occurs between 1 . 5 and 50 K. Despite this result, we demonstrate that the compound's thermal expansion may be modeled using CEF level schemes appropriate for Yb3+ residing on a site with either cubic or less than cubic point symmetry. Work at the Ames Laboratory was supported by the US DOE, BES, DMSE, under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358. Work at Occidental College was supported by the NSF under DMR-1408598. This research used resources at the Advanced Photon Source a US DOE, Office of Science, User Facility.

  11. Environmental management assessment of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1994-08-01

    This report documents the results of the environmental management assessment of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER), located in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The assessment was conducted August 15-26, 1994, by the DOE Office of Environmental Audit (EH-24), located within the Office of Environment, Safety and Health. The assessment included reviews of documents and reports, as well as inspections and observations of selected facilities and operations. Further, the team conducted interviews with management and staff from the Bartlesville Project Office (BPO), the Office of Fossil Energy (FE), the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center (PETC), state and local regulatory agencies, andmore » BDM Oklahoma (BDM-OK), which is the management and operating (M&O) contractor for NIPER. Because of the transition from a cooperative agreement to an M&O contract in January 1994, the scope of the assessment was to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of BDM-OK management systems being developed and BPO systems in place and under development to address environmental requirements; (2) the status of compliance with DOE Orders, guidance, and directives; and (3) conformance with accepted industry management practices. An environmental management assessment was deemed appropriate at this time in order to identify any systems modifications that would provide enhanced effectiveness of the management systems currently under development.« less

  12. 46 CFR Section 1 - What this order does.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 46 Shipping 8 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false What this order does. Section 1 Section 1 Shipping MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A-NATIONAL SHIPPING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE TO BE... NSA ORDER NO. 47 Section 1 What this order does. This order prescribes procedures for the preparation...

  13. 46 CFR Section 1 - What this order does.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 46 Shipping 8 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false What this order does. Section 1 Section 1 Shipping MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A-NATIONAL SHIPPING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE TO BE... NSA ORDER NO. 47 Section 1 What this order does. This order prescribes procedures for the preparation...

  14. 46 CFR Section 1 - What this order does.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 46 Shipping 8 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false What this order does. Section 1 Section 1 Shipping MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A-NATIONAL SHIPPING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE TO BE... NSA ORDER NO. 47 Section 1 What this order does. This order prescribes procedures for the preparation...

  15. Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery (EMNR) Case Studies Review

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2009-05-01

    tubificid worms, and gastropods . Although recolonization includes a significant percentage of deposit feeding organisms, their activity does not appear...Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities.” National Research Council

  16. 24 CFR 891.505 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... reservation. Except for intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded and individuals with related conditions, this term does not include nursing homes, hospitals, intermediate care facilities, or... designed for the physically disabled, developmentally disabled, or chronically mentally ill depending upon...

  17. 24 CFR 891.505 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-04-01

    ... reservation. Except for intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded and individuals with related conditions, this term does not include nursing homes, hospitals, intermediate care facilities, or... designed for the physically disabled, developmentally disabled, or chronically mentally ill depending upon...

  18. 24 CFR 891.505 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-04-01

    ... reservation. Except for intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded and individuals with related conditions, this term does not include nursing homes, hospitals, intermediate care facilities, or... designed for the physically disabled, developmentally disabled, or chronically mentally ill depending upon...

  19. 24 CFR 891.505 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-04-01

    ... reservation. Except for intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded and individuals with related conditions, this term does not include nursing homes, hospitals, intermediate care facilities, or... designed for the physically disabled, developmentally disabled, or chronically mentally ill depending upon...

  20. 24 CFR 891.505 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-04-01

    ... reservation. Except for intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded and individuals with related conditions, this term does not include nursing homes, hospitals, intermediate care facilities, or... designed for the physically disabled, developmentally disabled, or chronically mentally ill depending upon...

  1. 40 CFR 257.3-7 - Air.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) SOLID WASTES CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities... residential, commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste. This requirement does not apply to...

  2. 40 CFR 257.3-7 - Air.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) SOLID WASTES CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities... residential, commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste. This requirement does not apply to...

  3. 10 CFR 770.2 - What real property does this part cover?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... sale or lease at defense nuclear facilities, for the purpose of permitting economic development. (b... permitting economic development. ....2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR ECONOMIC...

  4. Environmental Assessment for decommissioning the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Weeks Island Facility, Iberia Parish, Louisiana

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    NONE

    1995-12-01

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Weeks Island site is one of five underground salt dome crude oils storage facilities operated by the Department of Energy (DOE). It is located in Iberia Parish, Louisiana. The purpose of the proposed action is to decommission the Weeks Island crude oil storage after the oil inventory has been transferred to other SPR facilities. Water intrusion into the salt dome storage chambers and the development of two sinkholes located near the aboveground facilities has created uncertain geophysical conditions. This Environmental Assessment describes the proposed decommissioning operation, its alternatives, and potential environmental impacts. Based on thismore » analyses, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and has issued the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).« less

  5. Technology needs for environmental restoration remedial action. Environmental Restoration Program

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Watson, J.S.

    1992-11-01

    This report summarizes the current view of the most important technology needs for the US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities operated by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. These facilities are the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The sources of information used in this assessment were a survey of selected representatives of the Environmental Restoration (ER) programs at each facility, results from a questionnaire distributed by Geotech CWM, Inc., for DOE, and associated discussions with individuals from each facility. This ismore » not a final assessment, but a brief look at an ongoing assessment; the needs will change as the plans for restoration change and, it is hoped, as some technical problems are solved through successful development programs.« less

  6. 46 CFR 160.151-49 - Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... remote site, equipment needed for repair does not need to be available at that site. A facility must be... 46 Shipping 6 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites. 160.151-49 Section 160.151-49 Shipping COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (CONTINUED) EQUIPMENT...

  7. 42 CFR 482.66 - Special requirements for hospital providers of long-term care services (“swing-beds”).

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ..., based on the most recent census. (3) The hospital does not have in effect a 24-hour nursing waiver... within the two years previous to application. (b) Skilled nursing facility services. The facility is substantially in compliance with the following skilled nursing facility requirements contained in subpart B of...

  8. 42 CFR 482.66 - Special requirements for hospital providers of long-term care services (“swing-beds”).

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ..., based on the most recent census. (3) The hospital does not have in effect a 24-hour nursing waiver... within the two years previous to application. (b) Skilled nursing facility services. The facility is substantially in compliance with the following skilled nursing facility requirements contained in subpart B of...

  9. 42 CFR 482.66 - Special requirements for hospital providers of long-term care services (“swing-beds”).

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ..., based on the most recent census. (3) The hospital does not have in effect a 24-hour nursing waiver... within the two years previous to application. (b) Skilled nursing facility services. The facility is substantially in compliance with the following skilled nursing facility requirements contained in subpart B of...

  10. 42 CFR 482.66 - Special requirements for hospital providers of long-term care services (“swing-beds”).

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ..., based on the most recent census. (3) The hospital does not have in effect a 24-hour nursing waiver... within the two years previous to application. (b) Skilled nursing facility services. The facility is substantially in compliance with the following skilled nursing facility requirements contained in subpart B of...

  11. Illinois Educational Facilities Authority Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1996.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Illinois Educational Facilities Authority, Chicago.

    The Illinois Educational Facilities Authority (IEFA) is a public instrumentality created to provide assistance to not-for-profit, private institutions of higher education. It does so by furnishing the means for such institutions to finance or refinance the construction or acquisition of educational facilities throughout the state. The 1996 annual…

  12. 76 FR 37799 - DOE Final Decision in Response to Recommendation 2010-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-06-28

    ... the public, workers, and the environment. For example, the Board clarified that use of the term.... Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, as a safe harbor methodology..., our workers, and the environment at all of our facilities. We share your conviction that a clear set...

  13. 48 CFR 970.2702-6 - Notice of right to request patent waiver.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... AGENCY SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS Patents, Data, and Copyrights 970....5227-9 in all solicitations for contracts for the management and operation of DOE sites or facilities. ...

  14. 40 CFR 792.15 - Inspection of a testing facility.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ...) EPA will not consider reliable for purposes of showing that a chemical substance or mixture does not... be considered reliable does not, however, relieve the sponsor of a required test of any obligation...

  15. Site environmental report for calendar year 2002. DOE operations at the Boeing Company, Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    None

    2003-09-30

    This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) for 2002 describes the environmental conditions related to work performed for the Department of Energy (DOE) at Area IV of Boeing' s Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)). In the past, the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), a government-owned, company-operated test facility, was located in Area IV. The operations at ETEC included development, fabrication, and disassembly of nuclear reactors, reactor fuel, and other radioactive materials. Other activities at ETEC involved the operation of large-scale liquid metal facilities that were used for testing liquid metal fast breeder components. All nuclear work was terminated in 1988, and,more » subsequently, all radiological work has been directed toward decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the former nuclear facilities and their associated sites. Closure of the liquid metal test facilities began in 1996. Results of the radiological monitoring program for the calendar year 2002 continue to indicate that there are no significant releases of radioactive material from Area IV of SSFL. All potential exposure pathways are sampled and/or monitored, including air, soil, surface water, groundwater, direct radiation, transfer of property ( land, structures, waste), and recycling. All radioactive w astes are processed for disposal at DOE disposal sites and/or other licensed sites approved by DOE for radioactive waste disposal. No liquid radioactive wastes are released into the environment, and no structural debris from buildings w as transferred to municipal landfills or recycled in 2002.« less

  16. Semi-annual report on strategic special nuclear material inventory differences

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    1978-01-01

    This periodic report of Inventory Differences covers the period October 1, 1976, through March 31, 1977 for Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE contractor facilities possessing significant quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (SSNM). Included in this report are the low enriched uranium inventory differences for DOE's gaseous diffusion plant cascades. (LK)

  17. 40 CFR 63.5090 - Does this subpart apply to me?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 13 2013-07-01 2012-07-01 true Does this subpart apply to me? 63.5090 Section 63.5090 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) AIR PROGRAMS... Covers § 63.5090 Does this subpart apply to me? (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility...

  18. 40 CFR 267.10 - Does this subpart apply to me?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 28 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Does this subpart apply to me? 267.10 Section 267.10 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) SOLID WASTES... PERMIT General Facility Standards § 267.10 Does this subpart apply to me? This subpart applies to you if...

  19. 40 CFR 267.10 - Does this subpart apply to me?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 26 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Does this subpart apply to me? 267.10 Section 267.10 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) SOLID WASTES... PERMIT General Facility Standards § 267.10 Does this subpart apply to me? This subpart applies to you if...

  20. 40 CFR 63.5090 - Does this subpart apply to me?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 13 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Does this subpart apply to me? 63.5090 Section 63.5090 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) AIR PROGRAMS... Covers § 63.5090 Does this subpart apply to me? (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility...

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
Top