Lessons Learned from Shut-Down to Decommissioning Plan at the Army Pulse Radiation Facility
|
|
- Helen Hancock
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Lessons Learned from Shut-Down to Decommissioning Plan at the Army Pulse Radiation Facility Hans Honerlah US Army Corps of Engineers & Gurvis Davis US Army Development Test Command ABSTRACT The Army Pulse Radiation Facility (APRF) test and research reactor was established in 1967 to serve the needs of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), various U.S. Government agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the evaluation of problems involving neutron and gamma radiation. The Army ceased APRF reactor operations in December The Army is decommissioning the remaining buildings, reactor handling package, and other equipment at the former APRF at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland. The facility was used both in the irradiation of electronics with neutrons and gamma rays to ensure survivability, and as a source of radiation for air-over-ground radiation transport. The main working component of the APRF was a mobile fast-burst reactor (FBR). This portion of the facility was designed to produce neutron and gamma radiation in either a short burst ( pulsed ) or at lower power levels for steady state operations. The FBR was supplemented with a four megavolt flash X-ray machine, which was operated independently or in concert with the FBR. In addition to the major radiation generators associated with the Reactor Building, numerous gamma sealed sources, neutron sealed sources, and neutron generators were used during the course of routine operations. Two large fixed gamma radiation sources were maintained and used at a laboratory building located at the outer security fence. Small amounts of radioactive material were occasionally used in tests conducted at the facility. The APRF operated under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses, an Army Radioactive Material Authorization, and an Army Reactor Permit. The APRF team was tasked with performing an All Hazards Assessment (AHA) of the APRF to fulfill responsibilities of the Army Reactor Program. The AHA is intended to identify the chemical, radiological, and other hazards that exist at the APRF, and to identify means of reducing these hazards to the extent that will permit the facility to achieve the desired end state, which is the free release of the APRF from further regulatory control. 1
2 INTRODUCTION Army Regulation (AR) 50-7, Army Reactor Program (ARP) establishes Department of the Army (DA) policies, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the ARP. The purpose of the ARP is to ensure that Army reactors are operated in a safe, secure, and reliable manner from activation through decommissioning. In accordance with AR 50-7, the Headquarters US Army Developmental Test Command (DTC) was assigned APRF decommissioning program management oversight. Among other things, the regulation assigns the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the single point of contact at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) for nuclear reactor engineering and design, reactor construction, and decommissioning design and implementation. As part of its responsibilities under the Army Reactor Program, the USACE developed and implemented the approach to assess all hazards that remain at a deactivated reactor. The All Hazards Assessment (AHA) is intended to identify the chemical, radiological, and other hazards that exist at a deactivated reactor, and to identify means of reducing these hazards to the extent that will permit the facility to achieve the desired end state. This objective is planned to be achieved in a four-phased effort: Phase I Review historical design, operations, and surveillance related documents in order to prepare: Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for a hazards assessment/characterization survey of each facility; an activation analysis to estimate radionuclide concentrations; and a Historical Site Assessment (HSA) identifying those areas of a facility that are impacted by residual radioactive contamination and those that may contain other hazardous materials, and other information necessary to meet the desired end state. Phase II Conduct characterization surveys including radiological and nonradiological sampling and analysis, hazards assessment, disposal alternatives evaluation, and cost estimates for the decommissioning of a facility and associated waste disposal. Phase III Development of the decommissioning plan and design documents, execution of the designs, disposal of identified hazardous and radioactive waste, and the transfer of radioactive material. Phase IV Implement the Final Status Survey (FSS) and prepare all necessary correspondence to have the Army Reactor Office (ARO) Permit terminated. This phase will also ensure that any additional requirements for environmental compliance at facilities are complete. APRF BACKGROUND The APRF test and research reactor was established in 1967 to serve the needs of the U.S. Army, DoD, various U.S. Government agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the evaluation of problems involving neutron and gamma radiation. 2
3 The facility is located at APG and was an operational element under the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. The APRF utilized a large variety of radiation sources, with low to high intensities, producing alpha, beta-gamma, and neutron radiation. The source of radiation may have been sealed source radioisotopes or may have been produced by specialized equipment. Work associated with this facility supported radiological safety and protection for soldiers and radiation-effects testing on a variety of components and systems. The main working component of the APRF mobile fast-burst reactor was a bare unreflected and unmoderated cylindrical assembly of enriched uranium enclosed in an aluminum silo approximately 30 meters in diameter and 20 meters in height. This portion of the facility was designed to produce neutron radiation in either a short burst ( pulsed ), or at lower power levels for steady state operations. The reactor was suspended from a transporter device that allowed it to be moved to a number of experimental stations within the silo as well as being set up for external operations. For gamma radiation, the reactor was supplemented with a Four Megavolt flash X-ray machine, which was operated independently or in concert with the reactor. The APRF was operated within the ARP under permit from the Army Reactor Office (ARO). The APRF was not subject to regulation of the Atomic Energy Agency or Nuclear Regulatory Commission due to the provisions set forth in Sections 91(b) and 110(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which exempted the Department of Defense from requirements to license atomic weapons, utilization facilities, and special nuclear materials (SNM) related to these facilities used for military purposes. A nuclear reactor such as the APRF was a utilization facility because it used SNM for atomic energy in such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security. As a result, the APRF reactor itself, the SNM that fueled the reactor, and the facilities and materials that were or became radioactive due to exposure to neutron fields produced by the reactor, are regulated under permits by the ARO as 91(b) materials. In addition to the major radiation generators associated with the Reactor Building, numerous gamma sealed sources, neutron sealed sources, and neutron generators were used during the course of routine operations. Two large fixed radiation sources were maintained and used at a laboratory building located some distance from the main reactor complex. These minor sources were used either under a specific NRC License and/or an Army Radiation Authorization. Although the ARO administers all 91(b) permitted activities in a regulatory capacity, the regulations and policies enforced by the ARO are consistent with NRC regulations (10CFR20, etc.). The Department of the Army Safety Office implements the Army Safety Program in accordance with AR and publishes safety pamphlets (DA PAM series) that implement these regulations on all US Army sites. DA-PAM , The Army Radiation Safety Program, outlines radiation safety regulations and protocols that Army facilities implement and comply with. The Army s reference to guidance issued by the NRC ensures that any data collected to supports the termination of the Army Reactor Permit. can be used in the future to support the termination of any NRC license where radioactive material may have been used to support activities at the APRF complex. 3
4 APRF SITE DESCRIPTION The APRF is located on a tract of land near the center of APG and consists of three separate main buildings (Building 860, Reactor and Control Building 861, and Building 862), including one subsurface building (Control Building 861), and surrounding Outdoor Areas with a total area of approximately 4.95 million square meters (m2), or 1,200 acres. Three concentric security fences exist surrounding the APRF site. The outer fence runs along the perimeter of the APRF site, excluding Building 860, and is located approximately 1,372 m from the center of Reactor Building 861. The middle fence stands within the 1,372 m fence at approximately 411 m from the center of Reactor Building 861. The inner 100 meters is surrounded by a double fence with an approximate thirty-foot separation. These fences surround the perimeter of Buildings 861 and 862. Figure 1 depicts the APRF site. Figure 1 APRF Site with an expanded view of the inner 100 meter fence PHASE I ALL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT Deactivation and Source Term Removal In 2003, the U.S. Army determined that the operation of the APRF would cease. The U.S. Army Developmental Test Command (DTC) understood that a key element in the decommissioning process was to relocate the reactor fuel and other radioactive source term. The removal of these radioactive sources would be required prior to the implementation of any characterization activities at the APRF. The reactor fuel was originally supplied by and owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The U.S. 4
5 Army and DTC requested that the DOE make preparations for the retrieval of the fuel. The DTC identified additional radioactive source term and either relocated the material to other Army activities or staged certain materials for disposal during the decommissioning implementation. Historical Site Assessment As part of the All Hazards Assessment, the type and location of potential hazards at the facility and the surrounding environment was evaluated to determine potential impact to human health and the environment. Because of the nature of operations at the APRF, the greatest hazard potential is the presence of radioactive materials that remain at the facility either as source materials, fission products, or neutron induced radioactivity (activation). The HSA evaluated the past and current placement/use of radioactive and other hazardous materials at the APRF. It provided recommendations for characterization activities necessary to develop a decommissioning plan. The evaluation was performed in 2004, based on a review of written records pertaining to operation and maintenance of the facility, interviews with knowledgeable facility personnel, examination of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Army permits and licenses, building and exterior ground walkthroughs, and neutron activation analysis associated with potentially activated building materials and soils. The HSA evaluated the impact of APRF use of radioactive materials in numerous forms and quantities during operations. The Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) was the primary guidance document for conducting the studies leading to the decommissioning plan. In accordance with the MARSSIM, the HSA accomplished the following: 1. Determined which parts of the facility have been impacted (and non-impacted) by previous operations. 2. Identified current potential sources of radiological and hazardous contamination. 3. Assessed potential migration of contaminants. 4. Provided input into decisions to perform scoping and characterization surveys. 5. Determined if the site is a potential threat to human health and/or the environment. 6. Identified if there are additional potential radiation sites related to the site. Based on the HSA results, all of the buildings and all of the outdoor areas were impacted by operations. The information presented in the HSA was used to develop an initial conceptual site model which supports: 1. The assessment of the nature and extent of contamination. 2. The determination of areas and media to be sampled, and 3. The development of strategies for data collection. The information presented in the HSA also included initial classification of areas in accordance with the MARSSIM guidance. At this point in the process, the conceptual 5
6 site model should be considered a living document to be updated as additional information becomes available throughout the investigation process. Technical Project Planning The Technical Project Planning (TPP) process is a comprehensive and systematic process that involves four phases of planning activities. The TPP Process was developed for identifying project objectives and designing data collection programs for hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites. Use of the TPP Process is consistent with the philosophy of taking a graded approach to planning that will produce the type and quality of results needed for site-specific decision making. In general, the four phases are defined below; Phase I Identify Current Project Phase II Determine Data Needs Phase III Develop Data Collection Options Phase IV Finalize Data Collection Program The first phase of the TPP process was essentially eliminated because the APRF Decommissioning Project was identified by the Department of the Army s decision to close the facility. In July 2004, during the second phase of the TPP process, the APRF Decommissioning Project Managers brought together several phases of the TPP process into a multi-day meeting with technical personnel and decision makers/managers from all stakeholder organizations involved with the APRF Decommissioning. The meeting was held after completion of the Draft HSA (prior to finalization) and prior to the development of the characterization work plan. Day one of the meeting focused on each stakeholder organization s goals and objectives that would lead to project close out. Day two of the meeting was focused on the technical issues. Each specific area of concern was reviewed to identify project objectives for that area, radiological and chemical constituents of concern, media of interest, health and safety concerns, sampling and analysis methods, and the need for additional information. PHASE II ALL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT Characterization Planning The information from the TPP meeting was used to develop site specific data quality objectives and work plans for the characterization efforts at the APRF. During the TPP meeting, each stakeholder committed to providing review and comments to the draft documents. All comments were considered, responses provided, and characterization work plans were finalized with all parties intimately involved in the process. One key topic identified in the TPP meeting was the need for the 1,200 acres of real property that would be made available upon the closure and release of the APRF and the 6
7 additional mission requirements being placed on the APG due to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC). These additional mission requirements emphasized the need to release as much of the property for new usage, as soon as possible. With that in mind, the team designed an approach that would characterize the APRF with data that would be of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the more rigorous requirements of a MARSSIM Final Status Survey. This approach was only used for areas identified in the HSA to have low levels of residual radioactivity that could meet the NRC screening criteria for free release. A majority of the APRF property met these requirements, with the exception of the reactor building. Characterization Efforts The Characterization efforts were conducted from July to October 2005 in accordance with Site Work Plans, which consisted of the Field Sampling Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan, Accident Prevention Plan, and Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Avoidance Plan. The efforts were documented in a Characterization Survey Report. The report was used to support development of a Decommissioning Plan, in accordance with Army and NRC regulations and guidance. This Characterization Survey Report presented the nature and extent of site hazardous materials, focused especially on radiological contaminants. The APRF Conceptual Site Model was revised, based on the model originally presented in the HSA. The Characterization Survey gathered close to 10,000 pages of data that was finalized in a Characterization Report in July It would be used to prepare the decommissioning plan. Technical Project Planning The AHA is intended to identify the chemical, radiological, and other hazards that exist at the APRF, and to identify means of reducing these hazards to the extent that will permit the facility to achieve free release for unrestricted use. A second two day TPP meeting was held in May of 2007, with all stakeholders to review the data collected, identify any data gaps, and discuss the requirements to meet all needs for project closeout. Once again, both technical personnel and decision makers/managers were present to review the results of the characterization efforts, review the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation completed by the DTC and APG, and to be presented with information developed for a Draft Decommissioning Plan. This TPP meeting identified data gaps associated with the survey of the outdoor areas that would need to be addressed prior to the presentation of the Decommissioning Plan. During the meeting, there was a significant focus on the disposal options for the waste material that could be generated from the decommissioning activities. The majority of the waste was characterized as low activity activation products; which was generated from the activities operated under provisions set forth in Sections 91(b) and 110(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of This act exempted the Department of Defense from requirements to license atomic weapons, utilization facilities, and special nuclear materials (SNM) related to these facilities used for military purposes. Based on these findings, the USACE reviewed potential alternative disposal options. The options to be considered in the decommissioning planning were segregation and disposal of low 7
8 activity materials at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility, as well as, disposal of higher activity materials at a DOE facility. It also identified the preferred approach for the NEPA Environmental Assessment and Decommissioning Plan to address the release of areas that complied with the MARSSIM requirements for Final Status Survey. PHASE III ALL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT Decommissioning Planning The final NEPA Environmental Assessment was completed by DTC and APG in June The Decommissioning Plan was developed in accordance with guidance from NUREG 1757 Volume 2, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance and presented to the ARO and approved via the Decommissioning Permit APG on 31 May There were specific requirements set fourth in the Decommissioning Permit. Significant permit requirements are identified below: This permit applies to all property and buildings inside APRF s 100 meter fence, the adjoining parking lot, and Room 21 of Building 860. This permit denies any dual use of any ARO permitted property or buildings. ARC approval is required before restoration activities to ARO permitted property and buildings may occur. The APRF Final Characterization Report data satisfies the requirements of a MARSSIM final status survey and demonstrates that the unrestricted release criteria for areas beyond the 100 meter fence have been achieved. This permit releases all property outside the 100 meter fence and Building 860, except for the APRF parking lot immediately outside the 100 meter fence and Room 21 of Building 860 from ARO permit oversight. The submission of a Final Status Survey to the ARO is required for the release of Building 860, Room 21. DTC shall provide the ARC with a risk based analysis for any waste disposal decision that deviates from the disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. The risk based analysis and disposal plan shall be submitted to the ARC for review and approval. Decommissioning Implementation The DTC teamed with the USACE Baltimore District to select a contract award for the decommissioning of the APRF. The USACE Baltimore District had a multiple award radiological services contract with five preselected contractors that competed for the design and implementation of the APRF decommissioning. The contract was awarded in September 2008 for the decommissioning of the APRF and included the development of the design for the demolition of the APRF Reactor Building, development of alternative disposal approach, and restoration of the site. 8
9 PHASE IV ALL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT This phase consists of the implementation of the Final Status Survey (FSS) and preparation of all necessary correspondence to have the Army Reactor Office (ARO) Permit terminated. This phase will also ensure that any additional requirements for the environmental compliance at facilities are complete. LESSONS LEARNED Technical Project Planning Use of the TPP Process ensures effective and efficient progress to site closeout within all project constraints. Use of the TPP Process saves resources by reducing both the project duration and the project expenditures. Application of the TPP Process assisted in completing the EPA s 7-Step Data Quality Objective (DQO) Process. The key concepts of the TPP process are identified below. Site Closeout is achieving the walk away goal, or final condition of a site, as envisioned by the customer. The team develops an effective site closeout statement after considering future land use; the site s regulatory compliance status and issues; and the customer s preferences for the final condition of the site. Project Objectives must be satisfied or resolved in order to progress from the current site status and condition to site closeout. Phase I efforts to identify and clearly document project objectives ensure that site-specific regulatory issues and environmental conditions are successfully addressed. Basic, Optimum, and Excessive are very powerful terms used for classifying project objectives, grouping data needs, and presenting data collection options for a customer s consideration. Data Quality Objective (DQO) statements are prepared during Phase IV, include nine data quality requirements, and meet EPA s definition of a DQO. The TPP process was utilized at multiple phases during the APRF decommissioning process. The TPP process identified the data required to meet the regulators requirements for release of a large portion of the property early on in the decommissioning process by bringing the stakeholders into the process at the beginning of the project. The TPP process also identified the potential for the project to achieve significant cost savings with an alternative disposal approach for the waste generated from the decommissioning of the APRF. Characterization to Meet Release During the AHA Phase I TPP meeting, the APRF site was identified by several stakeholders as a potential property to be utilized by one of multiple agencies that were relocating to the APG as a part of the BRAC. With the understanding that the BRAC 9
10 implementation plan was more aggressive than that of the APRF decommissioning, the team agreed that the site characterization data would be utilized for not only the evaluation of site conditions, but would also be designed and utilized to demonstrate compliance with release criteria in accordance with MARSSIM Final Status Survey guidance. This approach was used for areas of the site where residual levels of radioactivity were expected to be low and compliance with applicable release criteria may be met without need for remediation. During the AHA Phase II TPP meeting, several data gaps were identified in areas that were being considered for release. An additional sampling event was conducted to address the identified data gaps. Upon review of the additional data collected, all areas where residual radioactivity was expected to meet the applicable release criteria were presented in the decommissioning plan and released by the Decommissioning Permit APG issued 31 May The permit released over 95% of the property for reuse by Army agencies relocating to APG under BRAC. Alternative Waste Disposal The USACE Baltimore District prepared an evaluation in support of alternate waste disposal procedures in accordance with provisions in 10 CFR The evaluation considers alternative disposal of soils, concrete, and metal debris contaminated with low levels of radioactive material at a RCRA permitted facility. The purpose of this evaluation is to support the DTC request of ARO approval for disposal of certain APRF contaminated materials at an authorized facility. The ARO reviewed DTC s request for alternate disposal and concluded that the exposure scenarios conservatively estimated the exposures to be less than 1 mrem total dose per year. The evaluation stated: 1. The permit holder adequately demonstrated that the alternative disposal approach meets the criteria established in DA PAM If this activity were a NRC regulated activity, it would meet the criteria for disposal under 10 CFR Furthermore, the alternative disposal analysis demonstrates that the material is exempt from further Atomic Energy Act or Army Permit requirements. The APRF team provided the evaluation to the RCRA facility regulators and received approval for disposal of the APRF waste stream. CONCLUSION The APRF decommissioning project used the TPP process, which is a critical component of USACE s quality management system that conforms to the American National Standard for planning the collection and evaluation of environmental data. The systematic TPP Process enables a project manager to achieve an appropriate balance of project execution styles within a team, accelerate progress to site closeout, and reduce expensive time and efforts. The efforts allowed for a significant portion of the APRF real property to be released for use by APG and agencies being relocated under the BRAC. Additionally, the APRF project realized significant cost savings through the identification 10
11 and approval of alternative waste disposal methods from the APRF decommissioning activities. REFERENCE AR 50-7, Army Regulation: Army Reactor Program, (March 2009) AR , Army Regulation: Army Safety Program, (September 2009) DA PAM , Department of the Army Pamphlet; Army Radiation Safety Program, (March 2009) EM , Engineering Manual: Technical Project Planning Process, (August 1998) NUREG-1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), EPA , (December 1997) NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria, (October 2006) 11
Two Approaches to Reactor Decommissioning: 10 CFR Part 50 License Termination and License Amendment, Lessons Learned from the Regulatory Perspective
Two Approaches to Reactor Decommissioning: 10 CFR Part 50 License Termination and License Amendment, Lessons Learned from the Regulatory Perspective B.A. Watson, J.T. Buckley, C.M. Craig U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Sturgis MH-1A Decommissioning Project Summary
Sturgis MH-1A Decommissioning Project Summary US Army Corps of Engineers Hans B. Honerlah, CHMM Program Manager Radiological Health Physics Regional Center of Expertise USACE Baltimore District US Army
Characterization Surveys and Early Site Investigations. Tom Hansen, CHP, PMP Ameriphysics, LLC
Characterization Surveys and Early Site Investigations Tom Hansen, CHP, PMP Ameriphysics, LLC tom@ameriphysics.com Outline Introduction to Characterization Overview of the RSSI Process Historical Site
Generic Overview of the Status of Characterization Surveys & Guidance for Decommissioning
Generic Overview of the Status of Characterization Surveys & Guidance for Decommissioning Rateb (Boby) Abu Eid, Ph. D. (boby.abu-eid@nrc.gov) Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection U.S.
WELCOME SM-1 DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT
WELCOME SM-1 DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT Schedule 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM Open House Meet and interact with USACE and Fort Belvoir personnel 7:30PM - 8:30 PM Formal Presentation Q/A Session Poster Availability Public
5 SURVEY PLANNING AND DESIGN
5 SURVEY PLANNING AND DESIGN 5.1 Introduction This chapter is intended to assist the user in planning a strategy for conducting a final status survey, with the ultimate objective being to demonstrate compliance
STURGIS Barge Decommissioning Project
STURGIS Barge Decommissioning Project U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nov. 17, 2014 US Army Corps of Engineers Today s Presentation History of the STURGIS Environmental Assessment Decommissioning Waste Segregation
U.S. Public Health Service, detailed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America
MULTIAGENCY RADIATION SURVEY AND SITE INVESTIGATION MANUAL (MARSSIM) OVERVIEW AND USE FOR FINAL STATUS (VERIFICATION) SURVEYS AT SEVERAL SITES IN THE UNITED STATES C.PETULLO XA9953168 U.S. Public Health
IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment. Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities
DS447 Date: 20 February 2015 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment STATUS: SPESS STEP 12 For submission to CSS Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Fuel Cycle
SURVEYING EXCESS DOE FACILITIES FOR TRANSFER TO DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING
SURVEYING EXCESS DOE FACILITIES FOR TRANSFER TO DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING C. A. Negin, Project Enhancement Corporation J. P. Hayfield, Jr., Polestar Applied Technology, Inc. A. P. Szilagyi, U. S.
STATUS OF NRC EFFORTS ON REGULATORY APPROACHES FOR CONTROL OF SOLID MATERIALS
STATUS OF NRC EFFORTS ON REGULATORY APPROACHES FOR CONTROL OF SOLID MATERIALS Anthony M. Huffert U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301-415-6416 ABSTRACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
DEACTIVATED NUCLEAR. Brenda Barber, P.E. Hans Honerlah, CHMM Baltimore District, CENAB-ENE. March 2018
1 DEACTIVATED NUCLEAR POWER 237 217 PLANT 200 PROGRAM 80 252 237 217 200 119 174 237 217 200 27.59 255 0 163 131 239 110 112 SM-1, 255 0 FT 163 BELVOIR, 132 65 135 VA 92 255 0 163 122 53 120 56 62 102
DRAFT IMPLEMENTING DECREE. of 2016
1. ------IND- 2016 0202 CZ- EN- ------ 20160523 --- --- PROJET II. DRAFT IMPLEMENTING DECREE of 2016 on the requirements for the safe management of radioactive waste and on the decommissioning of nuclear
DOE ORDER "RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT" SRS & DOE COMPLEX IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND COSTS. W.T. Goldston Westinghouse Savannah River Company
ABSTRACT DOE ORDER 435.1 "RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT" SRS & DOE COMPLEX IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND COSTS W.T. Goldston Westinghouse Savannah River Company The Department of Energy (DOE) plans to issue
Linde FUSRAP Site Tonawanda, New York
Linde FUSRAP Site Tonawanda, New York U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building Strong Buffalo District February 2016 FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FREE RELEASE CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS. Jas Devgun Sargent & Lundy 55 E. Monroe St.
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FREE RELEASE CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS Jas Devgun Sargent & Lundy 55 E. Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60603 ABSTRACT Robert Wills, and Mark Lesinski Consumers Energy Big Rock
Remediation and Decommissioning Technology
Remediation and Decommissioning Technology Program Description Program Overview Nuclear power plant operations can lead to releases of radionuclides into the site soil and groundwater that may need to
Future Challenges in Decommissioning of NPPs Worldwide
Future Challenges in Decommissioning of NPPs Worldwide Dr. Ivan Rehak, Dr. Michael Siemann Radiological Protection and Radioactive Waste Management OECD/NEA 1 Future in Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Principles on Radiological Characterization of the Unit 1 at Ignalina NPP for Decommissioning Purposes 8096
Principles on Radiological Characterization of the Unit 1 at Ignalina NPP for Decommissioning Purposes 8096 P. Poskas, R. Zujus, G. Drumstas, R. Poskas, V. Simonis Lithuanian Energy Institute 3 Breslaujos
DECOMMISSIONING STRATEGIES AND PLANS. By: Elna Fourie Necsa South Africa Manager: Decommissioning Services
DECOMMISSIONING STRATEGIES AND PLANS By: Elna Fourie Necsa South Africa Manager: Decommissioning Services 2011 SELECTION OF A DECOMMISSIONING STRATEGY The two most common decommissioning strategies are
Using the Conceptual Site Model Approach to Characterize Groundwater Quality
WM 07 Conference, February 25-March 1, 2007, Tucson, AZ Using the Conceptual Site Model Approach to Characterize Groundwater Quality ABSTRACT E. Shephard, N. Glucksberg, N. Walter MACTEC, Inc. P.O. Box
Environmental ALARA Program Plan
Environmental ALARA Program Plan Prepared by Environment, Health and Safety Division Environmental Services Group March 8, 2013 Revision 6 PP5001 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley,
Upcoming Decommissioning Activities at the Buffalo Materials Research Center. Dave Vasbinder B.M.R.C. Director
Upcoming Decommissioning Activities at the Buffalo Materials Research Center Dave Vasbinder B.M.R.C. Director BMRC History Designed by AMF Atomics Built by J. Fructbaum Engineering, John W. Cowper General
Regulatory Challenges and Solutions High-Enriched to Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel Conversion
Regulatory Challenges and Solutions High-Enriched to Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel Conversion Alexander Adams Jr. Senior Project Manager Research and Test Reactor Program Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Overview of US NRC Decommissioning Surveys, Surface and Subsurface, Release Criteria and Records
Overview of US NRC Decommissioning Surveys, Surface and Subsurface, Release Criteria and Records R2D2P Workshop on Release of Buildlings and Sites/Final Survey Research Reactors Eureka, CA September 28
STANDARD OPERATING PROTOCOLS FOR DECOMMISSIONING
STANDARD OPERATING PROTOCOLS FOR DECOMMISSIONING D. L. Foss and J. L. Stevens Kaiser-Hill L.L.C. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site 10808 Highway 93, Unit B, Golden, CO 80403-8200 ABSTRACT F. W.
MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE - THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY S LAST BASTION OF SELF-REGULATORY AUTHORITY UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT - WHERE ARE WE?
MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE - THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY S LAST BASTION OF SELF-REGULATORY AUTHORITY UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT - WHERE ARE WE? Martin Letourneau US Department of Energy Brenda Flory Girod
NUREG-1549: Decision Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply With Radiological Criteria for License Termination
NUREG-1549: Decision Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply With Radiological Criteria for License Termination Abstract This draft NUREG-series report describes a methodology for calculating doses to demonstrate
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities - Regulatory Requirements -
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities - Regulatory Requirements - Ernst Warnecke; NSRW R²D²Project: Basics of Decommissioning of Research Reactors / Manila; 16-20 October 2006 1 International Atomic Energy
CHAPTER 14 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 14 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Environmental Requirements January 2017 revised I. Purpose: the purpose of this document is to summarize the environmental requirements for the Louisville District
Draft. Task Specific Plan IR Site 3, Ninth Street Landfill Scoping Survey. April 2014
Draft Task Specific Plan, Ninth Street Landfill Scoping Survey Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove Horsham, Pennsylvania April 2014 Prepared for: Department of the Navy Base Realignment and
WM2014 Conference, March 2 6, 2014, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Nuclear Fuel Site Decommissioning and License Termination 14378 ABSTRACT Heath Downey *, Nelson Walter * * AMEC A former nuclear fuel manufacturing site has achieved license termination under the Nuclear
New Swedish Regulations for Clearance of Materials, Rooms, Buildings and Land Efraimsson, Henrik Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, SWEDEN
New Swedish Regulations for Clearance of Materials, Rooms, Buildings and Land Efraimsson, Henrik Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, SWEDEN Abstract The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) has developed
Session of 2007 No AN ACT
RADIATION PROTECTION ACT - LICENSING AND REGISTRATION FEES, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD POWERS, NUCLEAR FACILITY AND TRANSPORT FEES, CREATION OF SPECIAL FUNDS, RESPONSE PROGRAM AND TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE
INTEGRATING MARSSIM AND TRIAD TO ACHEIVE RADIOLOGICAL SITE CLEANUP AND CLOSURE
INTEGRATING MARSSIM AND TRIAD TO ACHEIVE RADIOLOGICAL SITE CLEANUP AND CLOSURE R. L. Johnson, L. A. Durham Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60430 J. Hummel, C. R. Rieman
WM 07 Conference, February 25 March 1, 2007, Tucson, Arizona. Reaching Site Closure For Groundwater Under Multiple Regulatory Agencies
ABSTRACT Reaching Site Closure For Groundwater Under Multiple Regulatory Agencies N. Glucksberg, C.G., LEP MACTEC, Inc. P.O. Box 7050, Portland, ME 04112 USA B. Couture, P.E. Connecticut Yankee Atomic
TIMELINE/SCHEDULE. * Pertains to Original Schedule. US Army Corps of Engineers
TIMELINE/SCHEDULE 2014 2015 2016 2017 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2018 J F M A M J J A S O N D 3/27/14 - Contract Award Environmental
A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE WEST VALLEY SITE
A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE WEST VALLEY SITE DR. ABE ZEITOUN PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER SC&A, INC. 2200 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VA 22201 October 25, 2017 Presentation Outline
DOE Environmental Management
DOE Environmental Management Mary Neu Chief Scientist, DOE-EM NAS Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board Meeting May 30, 2012 www.em.doe.gov 1 EM Chief Scientist, EM-1.1 Background Position Duties Position
Joint ICTP-IAEA School on Nuclear Energy Management. 15 July - 3 August, Lecture Notes. I. Mele IAEA, Vienna, Austria
2473-9 Joint ICTP-IAEA School on Nuclear Energy Management 15 July - 3 August, 2013 Lecture Notes I. Mele IAEA, Vienna, Austria The IAEA Nuclear Energy Management School ICTP, Trieste, 15-2 August 2013
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Copies of this plan will be made available to all members of the campus community with the potential to generate radioactive waste. Contents I. Purpose II. Regulatory
DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE
Purpose U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION December 2011 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Division 4 DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-4014 (Proposed New Regulatory Guide) Contact:
Supporting DOE EM 4.31, Office of Regulatory Compliance
SUMMER INTERNSHIP TECHNICAL REPORT Supporting DOE EM 4.31, Office of Regulatory Compliance DOE-FIU SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Date submitted: October 13, 2017 Principal Investigators:
University of Maryland Baltimore. Radiation Safety Procedure
University of Maryland Baltimore Procedure Number: 2.1 Radiation Safety Procedure Title: Ordering, Receiving, Opening, And Transferring Packages Containing Revision Number: 0 Technical Review and Approval:
Applicability of EPRI Decommissioning Pre-Planning Manual to International Decommissioning Projects
Applicability of EPRI Decommissioning Pre-Planning Manual to International Decommissioning Projects Leo Lessard Manager, Commercial Decommissioning Operations, AREVA Inc. 16th February 2016 International
Division of Spent Fuel Management Interim Staff Guidance 2, Revision 2. Fuel Retrievability in Spent Fuel Storage Applications
Division of Spent Fuel Management Interim Staff Guidance 2, Revision 2 Issue: Fuel Retrievability in Spent Fuel Storage Applications Introduction: This Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) provides guidance to
Proposed Record of Decision Amendment
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG Proposed Record of Decision Amendment Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA) Parks Township, Pennsylvania Authorized under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Legislative Framework for the Regulation of Decommissioning at Egypt. Prof. Dr. Farouk M. A. Rahman
Legislative Framework for the Regulation of Decommissioning at Egypt Prof. Dr. Farouk M. A. Rahman Egypt Framework for Decommissioning Legal Decree of the president of the United Arab Republic, law 59
US Army Corps of Engineers. Parks Township Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA) Site. PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION 8 May 2002
Parks Township Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA) Site PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) History and Background FUSRAP established by the Department of
NRC Use of Consensus Codes and Standards
NRC Use of Consensus Codes and Standards July 7-10, 2014 Kenneth J. Karwoski, Senior Level Advisor Division of Engineering NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1 Who are We? The Energy Reorganization
Operational Challenges of Extended Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 12550
Operational Challenges of Extended Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 12550 M. Nichol Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington DC ABSTRACT As a result of the termination of the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository
Dounreay. A Guide to Closure. Artist s rendition of the IES. Issue 1
A Guide to Closure Artist s rendition of the IES 2014 Issue 1 This document provides an overview of the site closure process, which is facilitated by the Environmental Restoration Programme Plan (ERPP).
WM2014 Conference, March 2 6, 2014, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Denis Fedorov *, Dmitry Adamovich ** * FSUE "RADON" ** FSUE RADON
Economic Issues of Radwaste Management Law Implementation in Russian Federation 14020 Denis Fedorov *, Dmitry Adamovich ** * FSUE "RADON" ** FSUE RADON ABSTRACT In 2011 the Federal Law #190 of Radwaste
Excellence in Control of Radiation Exposures
Excellence in Control of Radiation Exposures Kenneth W. Crase Abstract Savannah River Site (SRS) operating contractors have continuously maintained excellence in the control of radiation exposures to both
Environmental Radiological Monitoring for Nuclear Power Reactors (Nuclear Facility)
Environmental Radiological Monitoring for Nuclear Power Reactors (Nuclear Facility) Dr. Faraj Ghanbari RMCC Project Leader Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Sixth Annual Radiation Measurements Cross
The Concept of the. International Working Forum on. Regulatory Supervision of Legacy Sites RSLS
The Concept of the International Working Forum on Regulatory Supervision of Legacy Sites RSLS Malgorzata K. Sneve Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority IAEA, 11 15 October 2010 Nuclear Legacy Types
Site Closeout Report for the Ashland 1 (Including Seaway Area D), Ashland 2 and Rattlesnake Creek FUSRAP Sites. Tonawanda, New York
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District Office 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York, 14207 Site Closeout Report for the Ashland 1 (Including Seaway Area D), Tonawanda, New York - Formerly Utilized
NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY (2014-XX) REPORTING OF H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129 ON THE UNIFORM WASTE MANIFEST
ADDRESSEES UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION OFFICE OF NEW REACTORS OFFICE OF FEDERAL AND STATE MATERIALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OFFICE OF
IPR-R1 TRIGA RESEARCH REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING: PRELIMINARY PLAN
2007 International Nuclear Atlantic Conference - INAC 2007 Santos, SP, Brazil, September 30 to October 5, 2007 ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR - ABEN ISBN: 978-85-99141-02-1 IPR-R1 TRIGA RESEARCH
Michael Boyd U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Member of ICRP Committee 4. Third International ICRP Symposium Seoul, Korea 20 October 2015
Michael Boyd U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Member of ICRP Committee 4 Third International ICRP Symposium Seoul, Korea 20 October 2015 This presentation represents the author s views and opinions.
Radiological Surveys Performed in Support of the Demolition and Bulk Disposal Decommissioning Method
Radiological Surveys Performed in Support of the Demolition and Bulk Disposal Decommissioning Method R.F. Yetter Babcock Services, Inc. 1840 Terminal Drive, Richland, WA 99352 USA C.T. Newson Connecticut
RSP-2 Page 1 of 12. Environmental Health and Safety Radiation Protection Committee
Radiation Safety Manual Title: Number: Radiation Safety Program Administrative Structure and Permit Process Page 1 of 12 Issued by: Approved by: Environmental Health and Safety Radiation Protection Committee
VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences. Vinča Institute. Dragana Nikolić. Centre for Nuclear Technologies and Research 'NTI' Belgrade, Serbia
INN Vinča VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences Decommissioning of the RA Reactor at the Vinča Institute Dragana Nikolić Centre for Nuclear Technologies and Research 'NTI' Belgrade, Serbia R2D2P: Workshop
Prepared by: U.S. Army Garrison Fort Detrick, Maryland. With Technical Assistance from: BSA Environmental Services, Inc. Beachwood, OH 44122
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE DIAMOND ORDNANCE RADIATION FACILITY AT THE FOREST GLEN ANNEX OF FORT DETRICK IN SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND Prepared by: U.S. Army Garrison Fort Detrick,
OF CONTENTS. FUSRAP Site
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CECW-B U.S Army Corps of Engineers CEMP-R Washington D.C 20314-1000 CECC-E Regulation No 200-1-4 30 August 2003 Environmental Quality FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Overview of Philippine Nuclear Regulations. Eulinia M. Valdezco Nuclear Regulations, Licensing and Safeguards Division
Overview of Philippine Nuclear Regulations Eulinia M. Valdezco Nuclear Regulations, Licensing and Safeguards Division Legal Framework Three (3) Laws exist but not covering decommissioning RA 2067 (The
Safety Related Documentation and Regulatory Review for PRR-1 1 Decommissioning Project
Safety Related Documentation and Regulatory Review for PRR-1 1 Decommissioning Project Eulinia M. Valdezco Nuclear Regulations, Licensing and Safeguards Division (NRLSD) Philippine Nuclear Research Institute
Nevada National Security Site Industrial Sites Project Closeout 12498
Nevada National Security Site Industrial Sites Project Closeout 12498 Kevin Cabble*, Mark Krauss, and Pat Matthews * U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office,
Purpose Of Characterization Surveys. Professional Training Programs
Purpose Of Characterization Surveys Professional Training Programs PURPOSE OF CHARACTERIZATION SURVEYS: General 2 General Scope of Characterization Surveys Generally the most comprehensive of all survey
WM 04 Conference, February 29- March 4, 2004, Tucson, AZ RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON CHEMICAL WASTE REMEDIATION (OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?
RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON CHEMICAL WASTE REMEDIATION (OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?) R. C. Woodard TLG Services, Inc. J. F. Conant, E. M. Hammick, R. K. Knauerhause ABB Business Services ABSTRACT A 600-acre
FINAL DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE IMPACT AREA, PARCEL 136Q-X FORT McCLELLAN, CALHOUN COUNTY, ALABAMA ISSUED BY : U. S.
FINAL DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE IMPACT AREA, PARCEL 136Q-X FORT McCLELLAN, CALHOUN COUNTY, ALABAMA ISSUED BY : U. S. ARMY MARCH 2003 U.S. ARMY ANNOUNCES DECISION DOCUMENT This Decision Document presents
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. PORTS D&D Project Update Piketon High School January 24, 2017
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PORTS D&D Project Update Piketon High School January 24, 2017 1 AGENDA Portsmouth Site Background and DOE Missions Joel Bradburne, Site Lead, U.S. Department of Energy Decontamination
Vertical Extraction Process Implemented at the 118-K-1 Burial Ground for Removal of Irradiated Reactor Debris from Silo Structures 12431
Vertical Extraction Process Implemented at the 118-K-1 Burial Ground for Removal of Irradiated Reactor Debris from Silo Structures 12431 Douglas B. Teachout*, Clinton J. Adamson**, Ames Zacharias** *Vista
Newport Chemical Depot Slides
Newport Chemical Depot Slides DCN: 9987 Presentation for Army Basing Study Group Newport Chemical Depot History 1941 Est. Wabash River Ordnance Works 1943-46 Manufacture RDX Explosive 1943-44 Constructed
TAB 4 TAB 5 TAB 6 Santa Susana Field Laboratory The Boeing Company Radiological Release Process Process for the Release of Land and Facilities for (Radiologically) Unrestricted Use Phil Rutherford
Niagara Falls Storage Site
Niagara Falls Storage Site Lewiston, New York Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum Overview: Waste Disposal Options and Fernald Lessons Learned U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building Strong Buffalo District
Ageing Management and Development of a Programme for Long Term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
DS485 17 July 2017 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment STEP 13: Establishment by the Publications Committee Reviewed in NSOC (Asfaw) Ageing Management and Development of a Programme
Washington, DC 20555, USA. 2 Environmental Measurements Laboratory, Department of Homeland Security,
MARSSIM (Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual) PLUS: Measurement Methods for Clean-up, Materials and Equipment, and Subsurface Radioactivity Robert A. Meck 1, George Powers 1, Carl
Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Management Program
ABSTRACT Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Management Program G. M. Lopez-Escobedo, K. M. Hargis, C. R. Douglass Los Alamos National Laboratory PO Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Los Alamos National
IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment. Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities
DS447 Date: September 2014 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment STATUS: SPESS STEP 11 MS comments incorporated Review Committee Member comments due 31 Oct Predisposal Management
IMPACT OF LACK OF CONSISTENT FREE RELEASE STANDARDS ON DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS AND COSTS
ABSTRACT IMPACT OF LACK OF CONSISTENT FREE RELEASE STANDARDS ON DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS AND COSTS Jas S. Devgun, Ph.D. Senior Project Engineer/Program Manager Sargent & Lundy LLC 55 E. Monroe St. Chicago,
ifl \O Sq FUSRAP sites in the area Exposure pathways are not necessarily confined to site boundaries U.S Army Corps of Engineers
\O Sq UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION ifl 290 BROADWAY NEW YORK NY 10007-1866 po1 AUU 302000 Deputy for Programs and Project Management U.S Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District
VIA to: and
January 29, 2018 Todd Shrader and Anthony Stone Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, NM VIA EMAIL to: WIPP.EA@WIPP.ws and todd.shrader@cbfo.doe.gov RE: Draft Environmental Assessment - EA 2064: ABOVE GROUND
DRAFT FINAL FINDING OF SUITABILITY TO TRANSFER (FOST) FORT MCPHERSON, GEORGIA AMENDMENT #1 FORT MCPHERSON
DRAFT FINAL FINDING OF SUITABILITY TO TRANSFER (FOST) FORT MCPHERSON, GEORGIA AMENDMENT #1 FORT MCPHERSON MCPHERSON IMPLEMENTING LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROPERTY Prepared by BASE REALIGNMENT AND
MAINE YANKEE PREFACE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS - A NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
MAINE YANKEE PREFACE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS - A NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Page P-i TABLE OF CONTENTS P.0 LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS - A NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY...P-1 P.1 Introduction...P-1
STATE NUCLEAR POWER SAFETY INSPECTORATE Of THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (VATESI) REGULATIONS
1 Translation from Russian STATE NUCLEAR POWER SAFETY INSPECTORATE Of THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (VATESI) REGULATIONS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EVENT REPORTING SYSTEM AT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT VD-E-04-98
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCEDURES
DocrD: 3619151 @'pproved for Release bv NSA on 04-14-2010, FOIA Case # 6098E] NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCEDURES Chapter 1 Purpose and Scope 1-1. Purpose This regulation implements the Council
U.S. EPA RADIATION REGULATIONS UPDATE. Tom Peake Radiation Protection Division ISCORS November 9, 2010
U.S. EPA RADIATION REGULATIONS UPDATE Tom Peake Radiation Protection Division ISCORS November 9, 2010 Purpose of Presentation & Outline Purpose: Provide background on radiation regulatory actions underway
Document Preparation Profile (DPP)
khspe t Document Preparation Profile (DPP) 1. IDENTIFICATION Document Category: Working ID: Proposed Title: Proposed Action: Review Committees: Technical Officers: Generic Safety Guide DS468 Remediation
LESSONS LEARNED THE DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT STEAM GENERATOR DISPOSAL PROJECT. W. T. MacRae American Electric Power
LESSONS LEARNED THE DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT STEAM GENERATOR DISPOSAL PROJECT W. T. MacRae American Electric Power ABSTRACT The disposal of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant s Unit 1 Steam Generators
Regulatory Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors
01-179.html at www.nrc.gov Page 1 of 11 January 1999 Regulatory 1.179 Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors Publication Information A. INTRODUCTION (Draft
Implementation of the Best in Class Project Management and Contract Management Initiative at the U.S. Department of Energy s Office of Environmental
Implementation of the Best in Class Project Management and Contract Management Initiative at the U.S. Department of Energy s Office of Environmental Management How It Can Work For You NDIA - E2S2 Conference
FUSRAP COST TO COMPLETE. Kate Peterson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HTRW CX, Omaha District Omaha, NE 68144
FUSRAP COST TO COMPLETE Kate Peterson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HTRW CX, Omaha District Omaha, NE 68144 Rick Osborn U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HTRW CX, Omaha District Omaha, NE 68144 ABSTRACT The
Site Closure Project Plan
Site Closure Project Plan Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site Closure Project Yankee Nuclear Power Station Rowe, Massachusetts December 2, 2004 Revision 3 Site Closure Project Plan Yankee Nuclear Power Station
SIXTH Meeting of the Arab Regulatory Bodies
SIXTH Meeting of the Arab Regulatory Bodies Tunis, Tunisia, Hammamet March 2 to 4 2015 Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission Amro OBEID Radiation Safety Inspector Authorization, Inspection and Regulation Department
Government Decree (736/2008) on the safety of disposal of nuclear waste
Government Decree (736/2008) on the safety of disposal of nuclear waste Issued in Helsinki 27 November 2008 According to the Government decision made on the submission by the Ministry of Employment and
Triad Case Study: Rattlesnake Creek. Robert L. Johnson, Lisa A. Durham Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439
This is a preprint of an article published in Remediation: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 69-77. The published reprint is available through http://www.interscience.wiley.com/.
21 November 1995 No.170-FZ RUSSIAN FEDERATION FEDERAL LAW ON ATOMIC ENERGY USE
21 November 1995 No.170-FZ RUSSIAN FEDERATION FEDERAL LAW ON ATOMIC ENERGY USE Approved by the State Duma on October 20, 1995 (in version of Federal Laws of 10.02.1997 N 28-FZ, of 10.07.2001 N 94-FZ, of
Safety Considerations in the Transition from Operation to Decommissioning of Research Reactors
Safety Considerations in the Transition from Operation to Decommissioning of Research Reactors Research Reactor Safety Section Division of Nuclear Installation Safety - EBP Workshop on the Transition Period
-LESSONS LEARNED- GENERAL ATOMICS HOT CELL FACILITY DECONTAMINATION & DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT R. CUMMINGS J. DAVIS USDOE G. BRAMBLETT GENERAL ATOMICS
-LESSONS LEARNED- GENERAL ATOMICS HOT CELL FACILITY DECONTAMINATION & DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT R. CUMMINGS J. DAVIS USDOE G. BRAMBLETT GENERAL ATOMICS ABSTRACT: The General Atomics site is a privately owned