Search

This report describes the emissions of airborne radionuclides from operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for calendar year 2014, and the resulting off-site dose from these emissions. This document fulfills the requirements established by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H – Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities, commonly referred to as the Radionuclide NESHAP or Rad-NESHAP. Compliance with this regulation and preparation of this document is the responsibility of LANL’s RadNESHAP compliance program, which is part of the Environmental Protection Division. The information in this report is required under the Clean Air Act and is being submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) located on Battelle Land – Sequim.This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.'' The EDE to the MSL MEI due to routine operations in 2014 was 9E-05 mrem (9E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2014. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

This report provides a summary of the radionuclide releases from the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration facilities at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) during Calendar Year (CY) 2014, including the data, calculations, and supporting documentation for demonstrating compliance with 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 61, Subpart H--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADON FROM DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FACILITIES. A description is given of the sources and their contributions to the overall dose assessment. In addition, the maximally exposed individual (MEI) radiological dose calculation and the population dose to local and regional residents are discussed.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) located on Battelle Land – Sequim (Sequim). This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.” The EDE to the Sequim MEI due to routine operations in 2013 was 5E-05 mrem (5E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2013. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to a member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection Air Emissions. The dose to the PNNL Site MEI due to routine major and minor point source emissions in 2013 from PNNL Site sources is 2E-05 mrem (2E-07 mSv) EDE. The dose from fugitive emissions (i.e., unmonitored sources) is 2E-6 mrem (2E-8 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 1E-11 mrem (1E-13 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2013. The total radiological dose for 2013 to the MEI from all PNNL Site radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 2E-5 mrem (2E-7 mSv) EDE, or 100,000 times smaller than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, to which the PNNL Site is in compliance

This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities and ashington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection Air Emissions. This report meets the calendar year 2012 Sequim Site annual reporting requirement for its operations as a privately-owned facility as well as its federally-contracted status that began in October 2012. Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) with the 10 mrem/yr Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The MSL contains only sources classified as fugitive emissions. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The dose to the Sequim Site MEI due to routine operations in 2012 was 9E-06 mrem (9E-08 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2012. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

This report summarizes the approach that ORNL developed for screening a sample set of US Department of Defense (DOD) military base sites and DOE sites for possible powering with an SMR; the methodology employed, including spatial modeling; and initial results for several sample sites. The objective in conducting this type of siting evaluation is demonstrate the capability to characterize specific DOD and DOE sites to identify any particular issues associated with powering the sites with an SMR using OR-SAGE; it is not intended to be a definitive assessment per se as to the absolute suitability of any particular site.

This report documents the calendar year 2011 radionuclide air emissions and resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual member of the public from operations at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory Site. This report was prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, 'Protection of the Environment,' Part 61, 'National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,' Subpart H, 'National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.' The effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual member of the public was 4.58E-02 mrem per year, 0.46 percent of the 10 mrem standard.

This report documents the calendar Year 2010 radionuclide air emissions and resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual member of the public from operations at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory Site. This report was prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, 'Protection of the Environment,' Part 61, 'National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,' Subpart H, 'National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.'

The emissions of radionuclides from Department of Energy Facilities such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are regulated by the Amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1990, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61 Subpart H). These regulations established an annual dose limit of 10 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides. This document describes the emissions of radionuclides from LANL and the dose calculations resulting from these emissions for calendar year 2010. This report meets the reporting requirements established in the regulations.

The purpose of this report is to provide the basis and the documentation to demonstrate general compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities,” (the Standard) for outdoor linear accelerator operations at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Stand-off Experiments Range (SOX). The intent of this report is to inform and gain acceptance of this methodology from the governmental bodies regulating the INL.

The emissions of radionuclides from Department of Energy Facilities such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are regulated by the Amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1990, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61 Subpart H). These regulations established an annual dose limit of 10 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides. This document describes the emissions of radionuclides from LANL and the dose calculations resulting from these emissions for calendar year 2009. This report meets the reporting requirements established in the regulations.

This Technical Support Document describes the process and methodology for the development of the Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Hospitals and Healthcare Facilities.

The emissions of radionuclides from Department of Energy Facilities such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are regulated by the Amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1990, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61 Subpart H). These regulations established an annual dose limit of 10 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides. This document describes the emissions of radionuclides from LANL and the dose calculations resulting from these emissions for calendar year 2008. This report meets the reporting requirements established in the regulations.

Preparation of this Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis is consistent with the joint U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Policy on Decommissioning of Department of Energy Facilities Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which establishes the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA) process as an approach for decommissioning.

Amendments to the Clean Air Act, which added radionuclides to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), went into effect in 1990. Specifically, a subpart (H) of 40 CFR 61 established an annual limit on the impact to the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides from U.S. Department of Energy facilities, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). As part of the new NESHAP regulations, LANL must submit an annual report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters and the regional office in Dallas by June 30. This report includes results of monitoring at LANL and the dose calculations for the calendar year 2006.

Amendments to the Clean Air Act, which added radionuclides to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), went into effect in 1990. Specifically, a subpart (H) of 40 CFR 61 established an annual limit on the impact to the public attributable to emissions of radionuclides from U.S. Department of Energy facilities, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). As part of the new NESHAP regulations, LANL must submit an annual report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters and the regional office in Dallas by June 30. This report includes results of monitoring at LANL and the dose calculations for the calendar year 2004.

This research compared three wipe sampling techniques currently used to test for beryllium contamination on room and equipment surfaces in Department of Energy facilities. Efficiencies of removal of beryllium contamination from typical painted surfaces were tested by wipe sampling without a wetting agent, with water-moistened wipe materials, and by methanol-moistened wipes. Analysis indicated that methanol-moistened wipe sampling removed about twice as much beryllium/oil-film surface contamination as water-moistened wipes, which removed about twice as much residue as dry wipes. Criteria at 10 CFR 850.30 and .31 were established on unspecified wipe sampling method(s). The results of this study reveal a need to identify criteria-setting method and equivalency factors. As facilities change wipe sampling methods among the three compared in this study, these results may be useful for approximate correlations. Accurate decontamination decision-making depends on the selection of appropriate wetting agents for the types of residues and surfaces. Evidence for beryllium sensitization via skin exposure argues in favor of wipe sampling with wetting agents that provide enhanced removal efficiency such as methanol when surface contamination includes oil mist residue.

This research project was conducted at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant, operated by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies, in conjunction with the Safety Sciences Department of Central Missouri State University, to compare relative removal efficiencies of three wipe sampling techniques currently used at Department of Energy facilities. Efficiencies of removal of beryllium contamination from typical painted surfaces were tested by wipe sampling with dry Whatman 42 filter paper, with water-moistened (Ghost Wipe) materials, and by methanol-moistened wipes. Test plates were prepared using 100 mm X 15 mm Pyrex Petri dishes with interior surfaces spray painted with a bond coat primer. To achieve uniform deposition over the test plate surface, 10 ml aliquots of solution containing 1 beryllium and 0.1 ml of metal working fluid were transferred to the test plates and subsequently evaporated. Metal working fluid was added to simulate the slight oiliness common on surfaces in metal working shops where fugitive oil mist accumulates over time. Sixteen test plates for each wipe method (dry, water, and methanol) were processed and sampled using a modification of wiping patterns recommended by OSHA Method 125G. Laboratory and statistical analysis showed that methanol-moistened wipe sampling removed significantly more (about twice as much) beryllium/oil-film surface contamination as water-moistened wipes (p< 0.001), which removed significantly more (about twice as much) residue as dry wipes (p

This report develops recommendations for requirements on the Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility (WETF) performance during seismic events. These recommendations are based on fragility estimates of WETF structures, systems, and components that were developed by LANL experts during facility walkdowns. They follow DOE guidance as set forth in standards DOE-STD-1021-93, ''Natural Phenomena Hazards Performance Categorization Guidelines for Structures, Systems, and Components'' and DOE-STD-1020-94, ''Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities''. Major recommendations are that WETF institute a stringent combustible loading control program and that additional seismic bracing and anchoring be provided for gloveboxes and heavy equipment.

Uranium-233 (with concomitant {sup 232}U) is a man-made fissile isotope of uranium with unique nuclear characteristics which require high-integrity alpha containment biological shielding, and remote handling. The special handling considerations and the fact that much of the {sup 233}U processing and large-scale handling was performed over a decade ago underscore the importance of identifying the people within the DOE complex who are currently working with or have worked with {sup 233}U. The availability of these key personnel is important in ensuring safe interim storage, management and ultimate disposition of {sup 233}U at DOE facilities. Significant programs are ongoing at several DOE sites with actinides. The properties of these actinide materials require many of the same types of facilities and handling expertise as does {sup 233}U.

Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) is a research and development facility that generates many highly diverse, low-volume mixed waste streams. Under the Federal Facility Compliance Act, SNL/NM must treat its mixed waste in storage to meet the Land Disposal Restrictions treatment standards. Since 1989, approximately 70 cubic meters (2500 cubic feet) of heterogeneous, poorly characterized and inventoried mixed waste was placed in storage that could not be treated as specified in the SNL/NM Site Treatment Plan. A process was created to sort the legacy waste into sixteen well- defined, properly characterized, and precisely inventoried mixed waste streams (Treatability Groups) and two low-level waste streams ready for treatment or disposal. From June 1995 through September 1996, the entire volume of this stored mixed waste was sorted and inventoried through this process. This process was planned to meet the technical requirements of the sorting operation and to identify and address the hazards this operation presented. The operations were routinely adapted to safely and efficiently handle a variety of waste matrices, hazards, and radiological conditions. This flexibility was accomplished through administrative and physical controls integrated into the sorting operations. Many Department of Energy facilities are currently facing the prospect of sorting, characterizing, and treating a large inventory of mixed waste. The process described in this paper is a proven method for preparing a diverse, heterogeneous mixed waste volume into segregated, characterized, inventoried, and documented waste streams ready for treatment or disposal.

This paper summarizes the implementation of the seismic qualification of existing equipment using experience data techniques. The emphasis is on the economies of this approach compared with standard qualification methods of analysis and testing or replacement with qualified equipment. Seismic qualification of existing equipment using experience data is a technical necessity and is the most economically attractive of the options. Representative costs for seismic qualification at two facilities show costs are substantially lower than the costs for qualification using conventional methods. Because of the experience to date, the authors recommend that the Department of Energy continue to sponsor the Existing Facilities Program for applying qualification using experience data techniques at DOE facilities.

The Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology (ORCMT) and Environmental Systems Corporation (ESC) have collaborated on an effort to develop the optical system for an enhanced particulate emission monitor. The purpose of this effort was to assist a small East Tennessee company in perfecting an instrument that would meet or exceed the performance of competing foreign instruments and provide measurement capabilities necessary to assure compliance of Department of Energy facilities and other industrial facilities with expected EPA regulations. The two parties collaborated on design, assembly, and bench testing of the prototype instrument. The prototype system was targeted to have the capability for measuring micron size particles in concentrations as low as 10 micrograms per cubic meter and to have the added benefit of improving sampling statistics (i.e. measurements will be made over larger regions of the stack) over current instruments. Project deliverables were a prototype optical system and characterization data.

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 I contains the proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Base Isolation for Department of Energy Facilities held in Marina Del Rey, California, May 13-15, 1992.

Based on several key design criteria and site visits, we developed a Robot design and built a system which automatically strips the lagging and insulation from the pipes, and encapsulates them under complete vacuum operation. The system can operate on straight runs of piping in horizontal or vertical orientations. Currently we are limited to four-inch diameter piping without obstacles as well as a somewhat laborious emplacement and removal procedure. Experimental results indicated that the current robotic abatement process is sound yet needs to be further expanded and modified. One of the main discoveries was that a longitudinal cut to fully allow the paddles to dig in and compress the insulation off the pipe is essential. Furthermore, a different cutting method might be explored to alleviate the need for a deeper cut and to enable a combination of certain functions such as compression and cutting. Unfortunately due to a damaged mechanism caused by extensive testing, we were unable to perform vertical piping abatement experiments, but foresee no trouble in implementing them in the next proposed Phase. Other encouraging results have BOA removing asbestos at a rate of 4-5 ft./h compared to 3 ft./h for manual removal of asbestos with a 3-person crew. However, we feel confident that we can double the asbestos removal rate by improving cutting speed, and increasing the length of the BOA robot. The containment and vacuum system on BOA is able to achieve the regulatory requirement for airborne fiber emissions of 0.01 fibers/ccm/8-hr. shift. Currently, BOA weighs about 117 pounds which is more than a human is permitted to lift overhead under OSHA requirements (i.e., 25 pounds). We are considering designing the robot into two components (i.e., locomotor section and cutter/removal section) to aid human installation as well as incorporating composite materials. A more detailed list of all the technical modifications is given in this topical report.

This document evaluates the need for tritium sampling of the emissions from the 200 East Area Double Shell Tanks based on the requirements of {open_quotes}National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants{close_quotes} (NESHAP). The NESHAP requirements are specified in 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H; {open_quotes}National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities{close_quotes}.

The Other Generators category includes all greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC LLW) that is not generated or held by nuclear utilities or sealed sources licensees or that is not stored at Department of Energy facilities. To determine the amount of waste within this category, 90 LLW generators were contacted; 13 fit the Other Generators category. Based on information received from the 13 identified Other Generators, the GTCC LLW Management Program was able to (a) characterize the nature of industries in this category, (b) estimate the 1993 inventory of Other Generator waste for high, base, and low cases, and (c) project inventories to the year 2035 for high, base, and low cases. Assumptions were applied to each of the case estimates to account for generators who may not have been identified in this study.

This material was developed to assist engineers in incorporating pollution prevention into the design of new or modified facilities within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The material demonstrates how the design of a facility can affect the generation of waste throughout a facility`s entire life and it offers guidance on how to prevent the generation of waste during design. Contents include: Orientation to pollution prevention for facility design training course booklet; Pollution prevention design guideline; Orientation to pollution prevention for facility design lesson plan; Training participant survey and pretest; and Training facilitator`s guide and schedule.

The purpose of this report is to characterize, as far as possible, the solid waste generated by the 325 Radiochemistry Building since its construction in 1953. Solid waste as defined in this document is any containerized or self-contained material that has been declared waste. This characterization is of particular interest in the planning of transuranic (TRU) waste retrieval operations including the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility. Westinghouse Hanford Company (Westinghouse Hanford) and Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) activities at Building 325 have generated approximately 4.4% and 2.4%, respectively, of the total volume of TRU waste currently stored at the Hanford Site.

This report summarizes the current view of the most important decontamination and decommissioning (D & D) technology needs for the US Department of Energy facilities for which the D & D programs are the responsibility of Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. The source of information used in this assessment was a survey of the D & D program managers at each facility. A summary of needs presented in earlier surveys of site needs in approximate priority order was supplied to each site as a starting point to stimulate thinking. This document reflects a brief initial assessment of ongoing needs; these needs will change as plans for D & D are finalized, some of the technical problems are solved through successful development programs, and new ideas for D and D technologies appear. Thus, this assessment should be updated and upgraded periodically, perhaps, annually. This assessment differs from others that have been made in that it directly and solely reflects the perceived need for new technology by key personnel in the D & D programs at the various facilities and does not attempt to consider the likelihood that these technologies can be successfully developed. Thus, this list of technology needs also doesmore » not consider the cost, time, and effort required to develop the desired technologies. An R & D program must include studies that have a reasonable chance for success as well as those for which there is a high need. Other studies that considered the cost and probability of successful development as well as the need for new technology are documented. However, the need for new technology may be diluted in such studies; this document focuses only on the need for new technology as currently perceived by those actually charged with accomplishing D & D.« less

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 in 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 screeningmore » evaluation, DOE facilities may realize significant reduction in risk from NPH in the short term.« less

The Oak Ridge Reservation Hydrology and Geology Study (ORRHAGS) Groundwater Data Base has been compiled to consolidate groundwater data from the three US Department of Energy facilities located on the Oak Ridge Reservation: the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Each of these facilities maintains its own groundwater and well construction data bases. Data were extracted from the existing data bases, converted to a consistent format, and integrated into the ORRHAGS Groundwater Data Base structures. This data base dictionary describes the data contained in the ORRHAGS Groundwater Data Base and contains information on data base structure, conventions, contents, and use.

The System Design Study (SDS), part of the Waste Technology Development Department at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), examined techniques available for the remediation of hazardous and transuranic waste stored at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex`s Subsurface Disposal Area at the INEL. Using specific technologies, system concepts for treating the buried waste and the surrounding contaminated soil were evaluated. Evaluation included implementability, effectiveness, and cost. The SDS resulted in the development of technology requirements including demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities needed for implementing each concept. This volume of the Systems Design Study contain four Appendixes that were part of the study. Appendix A is an EG&G Idaho, Inc., report that represents a review and compilation of previous reports describing the wastes and quantities disposed in the Subsurface Disposal Area of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Appendix B contains the process flowsheets considered in this study, but not selected for detailed analysis. Appendix C is a historical tabulation of radioactive waste incinerators. Appendix D lists Department of Energy facilities where cementation stabilization systems have been used.

At the request of the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), an Organizational Survey (OS), identical to the one that has been used prior to Tiger Team Assessments at other Department Energy facilities, was administered at SPR independent of a Tiger Team Assessment. The OS measured employees` opinions on subjects such as organizational culture, communication, commitment, group cohesion, coordination, safety, environmental issues, and job satisfaction. The result of this work was a quantitative measure of these variables at the SPR site. SPR management intends to utilize these results in their self-assessment process in preparation for an upcoming Tiger Team Assessment. This report presents these results and discusses their interpretation.

At the request of the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), an Organizational Survey (OS), identical to the one that has been used prior to Tiger Team Assessments at other Department Energy facilities, was administered at SPR independent of a Tiger Team Assessment. The OS measured employees' opinions on subjects such as organizational culture, communication, commitment, group cohesion, coordination, safety, environmental issues, and job satisfaction. The result of this work was a quantitative measure of these variables at the SPR site. SPR management intends to utilize these results in their self-assessment process in preparation for an upcoming Tiger Team Assessment. This report presents these results and discusses their interpretation.

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 at 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:more » (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

New design and evaluation guidelines for department of energy facilities subjected to natural phenomena hazard, are being finalized. Although still in draft form at this time, the document describing those guidelines should be considered to be an update of previously available guidelines. The recommendations in the guidelines document mentioned above, and simply referred to as the guidelines'' thereafter, are based on the best information at the time of its development. In particular, the seismic hazard model for the Princeton site was based on a study performed in 1981 for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), which relied heavily on the results of the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program and was based on a methodology and data sets developed in 1977 and 1978. Considerable advances have been made in the last ten years in the domain of seismic hazard modeling. Thus, it is recommended to update the estimate of the seismic hazard at the DOE sites whenever possible. The major differences between previous estimates and the ones proposed in this study for the PPPL are in the modeling of the strong ground motion at the site, and the treatment of the total uncertainty in the estimates to include knowledge uncertainty, random uncertainty, andmore » expert opinion diversity as well. 28 refs.« less

This document has been prepared to suggest procedures and items for consideration in the review of safety analysis prepared on DOE fossil energy conversion and technology development projects. It is not intended to reflect official DOE policy. It does, however, provide a basis for consistency in conducting reviews, especially with regard to interpreting levels of risk. Since many of the persons assigned to review panels are not expected to be safety analysts but specialists in related fields such as industrial hygiene and environmental science, this document is intended to provide general terms of reference to facilitate review procedures.

This technical report presents A.F. Meyer and Associates, Inc.'s evaluation of alternative means of providing the independent safety analysis reviews required under DOE 5481.1. The relative merits of the following entities performing the reviews are discussed: DOE Headquarters Staff; DOE Operations Offices; DOE Energy Technology Centers; Contractors/Consultants; and Organizational Combinations. This report is intended to provide a basis for a policy decision to be made by DOE officials. Thus, although the pros and cons of each alternative are delineated herein, no recommended course of action is specified.

Calendar year 1978 was the first full year of operation of the Department of Energy. This report summarizes the fire and property damage experience of the Department and includes comparative and cumulative data for prior years for those former agencies that contributed the bulk of DOE facilities and property values. Property damage, from all causes, exceeded $17 million, of which fire losses accounted for nearly $13 million, or 74% of the total. Fire was also the leading cause of death in DOE operations. The fire loss ratio amounted to 2.76 cents/$100 of property values, a figure about equal to the best class of insured industrial properties. The loss ratio from all causes was 3.72 cents/$100, or well under the approximately 5 cents/$100 that is paid by the best class of industry for insurance. While the overall experience was good, the record suffers by comparison with the prior experience of the bulk of the facilities comprising DOE, and further analyses reveal a number of facilities and programs where considerable need for improvement is indicated. 10 figures, 11 tables.

Calendar year 1979 was the second full year of operation of the Department of Energy. This report summarizes the loss experience in overall terms and itemizes facility and program achievements in property protection. Planned projects for CY 1980 are included and several subjects of interest to loss-control specialists are discussed in detail. Property damage from all causes was $2.5 million, of which $0.65 million was due to fire, the major cause of losses in both the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies. Combined losses for the 2 full years of Department of Energy experience total over $20 million, of which over $13 million is due to fire. The fire loss ratio for 1979 was 0.13 cents for each $100 of property values at risk, more than an order-of-magnitude less than that expeienced by the better class of insured private property. Final decontamination and cleanup costs necessitated by a product spill at a solvent-refined coal pilot plant at the end of 1979 may exceed $2 million. Even including this estimate, the total loss from all causes (fire, explosion, mechanical or electrical damage, acts of nature, radioactive and non-radioactive contamination/cleanup costs, and a variety of miscellaneous causes), would yield a lossmore » ratio of about 1 cent for each $100 of property. This indicated the overall property protection program is exemplary.« less

This report considers the current state of the art of beta dosimetry practices and beta detection methods used by health physicists at US Department of Energy facilities. This information is based on a survey of DOE facilities. Beta measurements are technically difficult and innovative efforts must be expended to improve their accuracy. Perhaps the most pronounced problem is that beta dosimetry and instrumentation in use are highly energy and angular dependent. Many believe that beta exposures are adequately controlled because beta to photon ratios are assumed to be low. This assumption is not always valid as demonstrated by the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI). Significant beta doses exist where personnel are exposed to mixed fission products; for example, chemical reprocessing plants, reactor accidents, or where uranium metals are processed. This report is part of an effort to increase the DOE response to this technically difficult area of health protection. Problem areas are addressed and methods recommended to improve beta dosimetry through a cooperative effort among the various DOE contractors. 34 refs., 2 figs., 16 tabs.

t;t3L~6872~ UC~97e TID-4500-R66 TWO-WEEKLOANCOpy CE~Vt. D This is a Librar~Circulating' Cop~ which ma~be borrowedfor two weeks. for a personalretentioncop~,call Tech.Info.Diuision,Ext.9t6 cn/?,d--, f:\ ,~q~, '

This manual has been prepared for use by any DOE facility as an aid for conducting an internal environmental-protection audit. The manual is organized in modular format, with each module covering a separate area of environmental protection. The questions within each module were developed from existing DOE orders, executive orders, federal statutes, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations issued pursuant to specific environmental legislation. A bibliography of such legislation is included at the end of this section. Each module also includes questions about a facility's use of industrial standards of practice.

This review of literature concerning the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of public acceptance of energy leans toward issues of socio-economic and environmental impacts. The articles reviewed are divided into two groups. The first classification involves the distinction between attitude surveys and case studies. The second classification concerns whether the issues at hand are generic or site-specific in nature. For the attitude studies, the classification divides those surveys concerned with general issues of energy policy from those focusing upon the impacts of a particular technology upon a specific locale. For the case studies, this distinction separates the studies involving national intervenors from the reports on local resistance to siting decisions. The majority of the case studies and articles reviewed focus on nuclear and coal energy facility-siting decisions, because these are what much of the current debate concerns. A few studies are related to water resources development where many of the same siting issues arise. 32 references.