Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOE orders”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

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

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 be 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.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

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

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 be 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.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Policy Perspective: Meeting the Challenge of the DOE Order 436.1 Departmental Sustainability - 12527

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)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Summary of the Special Analysis of Savannah River Depleted Uranium Trioxide Demonstrating the Before and After Impacts on the DOE Order 435.1 Performance Objective and the Peak Dose

This report summarizes the special analysis (SA) of the Savannah River Depleted Uranium Trioxide waste stream (SVRSURANIUM03, Revision 1) demonstrating the before and after impacts of the waste stream to the DOE Order 435.1 performance objective at the disposal facility, and the peak dose. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) requested this SA and asked the Nevada Site Office (NSO) to run the SA deterministically and assume that all the model conditions remain the same regardless of the length of time to the peak dose. Although the NDEP accepts that DOE Order 435.1 requires a compliance period of 1,000 years, it also requested to know what year, if any, the specific DOE performance objectives will be exceeded. Given the NDEP’s requested model conditions, the SA demonstrates the Rn-222 peak dose will occur in about 2 million years and will exceed the performance objective in about 6,000 years. The 0.25 mSv y-1 all-pathway performance objective was not exceeded for the resident scenario after reaching the 4 million year peak dose.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Using Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 To Find a Cost Effective Waste Management Option. - 12241

The Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Project in Portsmouth Ohio was faced with an interesting dilemma. During hot functional testing in August 2010, an upset condition caused gaseous depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF{sub 6}) to come in contact with the hydrofluoric acid (HF) vapor stream. Although the resulting uranium contamination found in the condensed aqueous hydrofluoric acid was very low, it exceeded the Department of Energy (DOE) authorized release limit. After evaluating several commercial options for treatment and disposal using the guidelines found in DOE Order 435.1, Waste Control Specialists LLC was selected for the treatment of the waste, with EnergySolutions' Clive facility selected for disposal of the treated residues. The waste was safely transported from Piketon, Ohio to Andrews, Texas, where it was treated to meet the land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), and was disposed in EnergySolutions operational mixed waste cell. The entire effort was interesting for several reasons. The waste was generated during the last year of the first Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride contractor. The waste became additional scope for the new contractor, adding time delays and introducing new personnel into the project. The effort was also unique because it demonstrated the process mandated by DOE Order 435.1 to evaluate all options, including commercial options, could reveal solutions to waste management problems that are currently available and more cost effective, but not well know within the DOE complex. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Comparative Analysis Between US NRC Requirements and US DOE Orders - 13402

Small modular reactor (SMR) is a nuclear reactor design approach that is expected to herald in a new era of clean energy in the U.S. These reactors are less than one-third the size of conventional large nuclear power reactors, and have factory-fabricated components that may be transported by rail or truck to a site selected to house a small nuclear reactor. To facilitate the licensing of these smaller nuclear reactor designs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in the process of developing a regulatory infrastructure to support licensing review of these unique reactor designs. As part of these activities, the NRC has been meeting with the Department of Energy (DOE) and with individual SMR designers to discuss potential policy, licensing, and key technical differences in SMR designs. It is anticipated by the NRC that such licensing interaction and guidance early in the design process will contribute towards minimizing complexity while adding stability and predictability in the licensing and subsequent regulation of new reactor designs such as SMRs. In conjunction with the current NRC initiative of developing the SMR licensing process, early communication and collaboration in the identification and resolution of any potential technical and licensing differences between NRC requirements and similar requirements applicable at DOE sites would help to expedite demonstration and implementation of SMR technology in the US. In order to foster such early communication, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) has begun taking the first steps in identifying and evaluating potential licensing gaps that may exist between NRC and DOE requirements in siting SMRs at DOE sites. A comparison between the existing NRC regulations for Early Site Permits and the DOE Orders was undertaken to establish the degree of correlation between NRC requirements and compliance methods in place at DOE sites. The ability to use existing data and information to expedite the development of the Environmental Report is being evaluated at the Savannah River Site as a case study for application across the DOE Complex. This paper will present areas of direct correlation as well as those where the need for site specific data for either DOE operations or NRC compliance warrant additional interaction between the agencies. Areas where further refinement of the SMR technologies may drive collaborative development of revised regulations through such means as industry consensus standards will also be highlighted. Both NRC and DOE have requirements that mandate public involvement in their processes. The importance and value of early engagement with the public as well as collaborating regulatory agencies is of critical importance when deploying new technologies. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

LLNL DOE Order 420.2 D Implementation Plan

This plan will serve as the basis for the ongoing implementation of DOE O 420.2D to contractor requirements applicable to the use of Radiation Generating Devices (RGDs) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2011

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Environmental Performance Report for 2009 (Annual Site Environmental Report per DOE Orders 231.1 and 5400.1)

This report presents a summary of NREL's environmental protection programs and activities for CY 2009. It is organized according to the different environmental media (e.g., air, waste, ground water, etc.), and includes a brief summary of how the program is managed in that area, any permitting or notification efforts that have been completed during the reporting period or are ongoing, andactivities that have occurred during the reporting period in that environmental area. A description of the environmental condition and features of NREL's sites is also included to provide a basis for the program overview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Annual Site Environmental Report Pantex Plant Calendar Year 2024

The 2024 Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes Pantex’s status, data, and efforts for the environmental compliance, protection, and restoration programs. It has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order (DOE O) 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting, and DOE O 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. These orders outline the requirements for environmental protection programs at DOE facilities to ensure that programs fully comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2011

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2010

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 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2011

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, 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Special Analysis of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site at the Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

This report describes the methods and results of a special analysis (SA) of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). The purpose of the SA is to determine if the approved performance assessment (PA) and composite analysis (CA) (Shott et al., 2001) remain valid. The Area 3 RWMS PA and CA were prepared as a single document and received conditional approval on October 6, 1999. A conditional Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) for the Area 3 RWMS was issued on October 20, 1999. Since preparation of the approved PA and CA, new information and additional environmental monitoring data have been used to update the PA and CA. At the same time, continual advancements in computer processors and software have allowed improvement to the PA and CA models. Annual reviews of the PA and CA required by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order DOE O 435.1 have documented multiple changes occurring since preparation of the PA and CA. Potentially important changes include: Development of a new and improved baseline PA and CA model implemented in the probabilistic GoldSim simulation platform. A significant increase in the waste inventory disposed at the site. Revision and updating of model parameters based on additional years of site monitoring data and new research and development results. Although changes have occurred, many important PA/CA issues remain unchanged, including the site conceptual model, important features, events, and processes, and the points of compliance. The SA is performed to document the current status of the PA/CA model and to quantitatively assess the impact of cumulative changes on the PA and CA results. The results of the SA are used to assess the validity of the approved PA/CA and make a determination if revision of the PA or CA is necessary. The SA was performed using the Area 3 RWMS, version 2.102, GoldSim model, the current baseline PA/CA model. Comparison of the maximum SA results with the PA performance objectives indicates that there continues to be a reasonable expectation of compliance. The resident exposure scenario was evaluated for compliance with the air pathway and all-pathways annual total effective dose (TED) performance objectives. The maximum mean air pathway TED, 7E-6 millisievert (mSv) at 1,000 years (y) has decreased relative to the approved PA and is significantly less than the 0.1 mSv limit. The maximum mean all-pathways annual TED, 7E-5 mSv at 1,000 y has increased but remains a small fraction of the 0.25 mSv limit. The SA maximum mean radon-222 (222Rn) flux density, 0.03 becquerel per square meter per second (Bq m-2 s-1), has increased relative to the PA results but is significantly less than the 0.74 Bq m-2 s-1 limit. The SA results continue to support a conclusion that the disposed waste inventory is protective of intruders and groundwater resources. The maximum mean intruder TED, 0.01 mSv for an acute construction scenario at the U-3ah/at disposal unit, was less than the 5 mSv performance measure. Site monitoring data and research results continue to support a conclusion that a groundwater pathway will not exist within the 1,000 y compliance period. Projected releases to the environment are a small fraction of the performance objectives. Cost-effective options for reducing releases further are unlikely to exist. Therefore, releases from the Area 3 RWMS are judged to be as low as reasonably achievable. Comparison of the maximum CA result with the 0.3 mSv CA dose constraint indicates that no action is required to reduce the dose from the Area 3 RWMS and all interacting sources of residual radioactive contamination. The SA maximum mean CA annual TED, 0.02 mSv at 1,000 y, has increased from the approved CA result but remains less than 10% of the dose constraint. The CA TED continues to be due predominantly to inhalation of plutonium-239 resuspended from soils contaminated by nuclear weapons tests conducted near the Area 3 RWMS. The SA results estimated with the Area 3 RWMS version 2.102 model indicate that changes to the PA and CA do not significantly alter the PA/CA results or conclusions. Although increases occur for the all-pathways annual TED, the 222Rn flux density, and the CA annual TED, all PA and CA results are a small fraction of the performance objectives or dose constraints. The same conclusion was reached for the approved PA and CA. The SA results continue to support a conclusion that there is a reasonable expectation of meeting all performance objectives and the CA dose constraint. There is no need to revise the DAS at this time. The SA results support a conclusion that the Area 3 RWMS PA and CA remain valid, and revision is not necessary at this time.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Advanced Post-Irradiation Examination Capabilities Alternatives Analysis Report

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: 1. No Action, 2. Modify Existing DOE Facilities – capabilities distributed among multiple locations, 3. Modify Existing DOE Facilities – capabilities consolidated at a few locations, 4. Construct New Facility, 5. Commercial Partnership, and 6. International Partnerships. Based on the alternatives analysis documented herein, it is recommended to DOE that the advanced post-irradiation examination capabilities be provided by a new facility constructed at the Materials and Fuels Complex at the Idaho National Laboratory.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2013

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2012

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 Field Office (NNSA/NFO) (formerly designated as the Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO]). The new field office designation occurred in March 2013. Published reports cited in this 2012 report, therefore, may bear the name or authorship of 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/NFO website at http://www.nv.energy.gov/library/publications/aser.aspx. 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/NFO 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 2012 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) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NFO is responsible for the oversight of these ER projects, and the Sandia Site Office of NNSA (NNSA/SSO) has oversight of all other TTR and NTTR activities. NNSA/SSO produces the TTR annual environmental report available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2014

This Nevada Nuclear 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 NNSA/NFO 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 2014 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) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NFO is responsible for the oversight of these ER projects, and the Sandia Field Office of NNSA (NNSA/SFO) has oversight of all other TTR and NTTR activities. NNSA/SFO produces the TTR annual environmental report, which is available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.Major Site Programs and Facilities NNSA/NFO directs the management and operation of the NNSS and six sites across the nation. 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 weapons experimentation and nuclear test readiness. 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 (known as the T-1 Site), Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗