ASO Revision Key Discussion Topics Session A and Session B Follow-up.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Course Material Overview of Process Safety Compliance with Standards
Advertisements

Department of Energy Quality Assurance Updates Frank Russo Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Corporate Performance Assessment Energy & Environmental.
Ensure Vendor/Engineer of Choice Product Quality
Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services.
US NRC Protective Action Recommendation Study National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference April 10, 2008 Las Vegas, NV Randy Sullivan, CHP.
Sandia is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear.
Session B – Key Discussion Topics Facilitator – E. Lessard DOE Accelerator Safety Workshop SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory to
Lindy Hughes Fleet Fire Protection Program Engineer Southern Nuclear Operating Company June 4, 2013 Fire Protection.
LCLS Transition to Science DOE Status Review of the LUSI MIE Project LCLS NEH ARR John Arthur LCLS Experimental Facilities Division August 11, 2009 Welcome.
David Schultz Accelerator Nov. 12, ‘08 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 1 Accelerator Readiness ARR scheduled for Dec.
Main Requirements on Different Stages of the Licensing Process for New Nuclear Facilities Module 4.7 Commissioning Geoff Vaughan University of Central.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Regulations Part II: Basic Concepts and Definitions Day 8 – Lecture 5(2)
Breakout Group 2: Software Quality Assurance Outcome 8/18/10 1.
Presented to TEPRSSC October 1, 2003 Security Products that Use Ionizing Radiation.
Rev: Section 6 Alternative Fall Protection.
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation,
Posting of Accelerator Enclosures Vashek Vylet and Keith Welch DOE Accelerator Workshop SLAC, August 17 – 19,
PROPOSALS THE REVIEW OF THE 1958 AGREEMENT AND THE INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL WHOLE VEHICLE TYPE APPROVAL (IWVTA) IWVTA Informal Group WP th Session.
Onsite Transportation At SRS Robert W. Watkins Manager Packaging & Transportation Services Contractors Transportation Management Association 2015 July.
ALPHA Project Safety Assessment Document Vladimir Anferov.
EHS Management System Elements
Module 3 Develop the Plan Planning for Emergencies – For Small Business –
Basics of OHSAS Occupational Health & Safety Management System
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Chemicals of Interest Anti-terrorism Standard.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Authorization Basis Plan Steven Hoey, ESH Manager NSLS-II Project Advisory Committee Meeting December 10 – 11, 2009.
Nov Readiness Review Course Implementation Plan - Mod 8 Screening or Scoping Meeting (ORR vs RA, Authorization Authority (AA) Defined, Startup Notification.
Quality Assurance Program National Enrichment Facility Warren Dorman September 19, National Energy and Environmental Conference.
QA Requirements for DOE Accelerator Safety System Software K. Mahoney Group Leader, Safety Systems TJNAF Presented at the 2008 DOE Accelerator Safety Workshop.
Carol L. Sohn Senior Nuclear Safety Advisor, Office of Science, SC-33 1 May 5, 2011 Review of Science Sites Hazard Categorization.
NIST Special Publication Revision 1
NHUG - Boston - 08/04/20101 Considerations for Operability of Chillers and Chilled Water Systems NHUG Summer Meeting August 4, 2010 Tim Mitchell Component.
October Training 8 HR Ref. Content Overhead Utilities Risk Assessments Task Safety Environmental Analysis Health and Safety Plan Components of a HASP Questions?
Organization and Implementation of a National Regulatory Program for the Control of Radiation Sources Inspection Part II.
Breakout Group 2: Software Quality Assurance Objectives and Goals 8/18/10 1.
Main Requirements on Different Stages of the Licensing Process for New Nuclear Facilities Module 4.1 Steps in the Licensing Process Geoff Vaughan University.
July LEReC Review July 2014 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Edward T. Lessard ESHQ.
1.  Mission: Improve and operate accelerators, support the experimental program, and design and construct new accelerator facilities in an environmentally.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH CHALLENGE GRANT APPLICATIONS Dan Hoyt Survey, Statistics, and Psychometrics(SSP) Core Facility March 11, 2009.
Sessions VI and VII Conclusions and summary Francois Besnus Session Chair Cape Town July 6, 2007.
Main Requirements on Different Stages of the Licensing Process for New Nuclear Facilities Module 4.5/1 Design Geoff Vaughan University of Central Lancashire,
ASO Revision Key Discussion Topics Session A. Key Topics Equivalencies/Exemptions Responsibilities Definitions –USI CRD content and structure.
Regulatory Framework for Uranium Production Facilities in the U.S.
Specific Safety Requirements on Safety Assessment and Safety Cases for Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste – GSR Part 5.
SAD/ASE Lessons Learned A Safety Re-Assessment at Jefferson Lab in Accordance with DOE-O-420.2B Phil Mutton August 13, 2008.
Software QA Safety Systems at SLAC Enzo Carrone Controls Department – Safety Systems SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
Fire Hazards Analysis the ORNL Approach Jeff Sipes Fire Protection Engineer April 17, 2007.
International Atomic Energy Agency Roles and responsibilities for development of disposal facilities Phil Metcalf Workshop on Strategy and Methodologies.
Update on Methane Regulations Affecting Landfills Pat Sullivan Senior Vice President SCS Engineers Nov. 10, 2015.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Methodology and Responsibilities for Periodic Safety Review for Research Reactors William Kennedy Research Reactor.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA Safety Standards for Research Reactors W. Kennedy Research Reactor Safety Section Division of Nuclear Installation.
International Atomic Energy Agency Regulatory Review of Safety Cases for Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities David G Bennett 7 April 2014.
Accelerator Safety Workshop SLAC John Blaikie Health Physics Program Manager – SC Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy Access Control and.
Management System Part II: Inventory of Radiation Sources – Regulatory Authority Information System (RAIS)
James C. Liu 1 and Lawrence S. Walker 2 1. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, CA, USA 2. Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY, USA 1. Introduction ANSI.
Accelerator Safety Order Revision Process Frank Kornegay, ORNL SNS Dennie Parzyck, DOE FSO.
Audits & DOE Walkthroughs ISO and OHSAS surveillance audits August 18 th – 20 th –CD, ESH&Q, and FESS organizations to be audited Software.
PIP-II Environment, Safety, Health & Quality Assurance Strategy John Anderson Jr. DOE Independent Project Review of PIP-II 16 June 2015.
Use and Conduct of Safety Analysis IAEA Training Course on Safety Assessment of NPPs to Assist Decission Making Workshop Information IAEA Workshop Lecturer.
Radiation Protection Standards for Prompt Radiation Don Cossairt, Radiation Protection Manager, ESH&Q Section October 1, 2013.
DOE Accelerator Safety Workshop 2017 Bob Lowrie
Safety Configuration Management Process at JLab
Planning for Succession
The ORR/RA and the Authorization Basis May 2005 Revision
OPERATIONAL READINESS PROCESS FOR OPERATIONS MANAGERS AND OSBs
Conduct of the Review May 2005 Revision
Regulations Part II: Basic Concepts and Definitions
(Additional materials)
LDV Real Driving Emissions: - Drafting of physical PEMS protocol –
TRTR Briefing September 2013
38th Nuclear Safety Standards Committee 37th Radiation Safety Standards Committee 38th Waste Safety Standards Committee Joint Session 26 – 27 November.
Presentation transcript:

ASO Revision Key Discussion Topics Session A and Session B Follow-up

Recap 37 individual contributors yesterday Good, constructive dialogue Which demonstrates broad ownership General consensus on the path No show stoppers Many direct improvements suggested to text Good ideas for the remaining issues

Equivalencies/Exemptions 835 –General acceptance of proposed expansion –Clean up coordination with NCRP/ANSI exclusions –Specific questions i.e. portable; singly <10 MeV, but together above Not trying to identify all cases; just provide better guidance 830 –Common interpretation and understanding of exemption –Need to address: Criticality

835/ASO Need better coordination 420.2C Non-complex facilities with local work area impacts only and managed under 10 CFR 835, for example: Radiation generating devices A room-sized accelerator with a single external/extractable beam, an active safety system, and a single point of entry into the room X-ray or neutron generators that are bench top in size and that have a single external/extractable beam and a single operator such as those identified in ANS43.3 and NCRP 72. Unmodified commercially available units that are designed for industrial applications, including but not limited to, electron microscopes, ion implant devices, and x-ray generators C Nonmedical x-ray devices with the capability of accelerating electrons to energies not greater than 10 MeV, which are operated in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N , General Radiation Safety Standard for Installations Using Non-Medical X-Ray and Sealed Gamma-Ray Sources, Energies Up to 10 MeV, or in accordance with another applicable consensus standard as directed by the cognizant DOE field manager. Low-voltage neutron generators, which are operated in accordance with National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report , Radiation Protection and Measurements for Low-Voltage Neutron Generators, or in accordance with another applicable consensus standard as directed by the cognizant DOE/NNSA field manager.

830 – ASO (I) Accelerators are not non-reactor nuclear facilities –Excluded from 830 requirements via this route However, may still be a reactor nuclear facility This is what drives language on criticality –If there is a “potential for criticality,” then the facility is no longer an accelerator and it becomes a reactor Other regulations must apply –How to properly define this threshold still needs work Definition or Exclusion? (Ceiling vs. floor) Configuration Beam induced Probability/Potential Linkage to 830 definition

830 – ASO (II) Accelerators are not non-reactor nuclear facilities –Excluded from 830 requirements via this route Cannot allow a gap between regulations/orders –How to make sure that proper analysis/controls are in place for accelerators with significant quantities of radiological material but below limit for nuclear material (less than criticality) Assert that: –SAD/ASE framework allows for (in fact directs) this –Contractual flexibility allows for application of other ‘directives’ –Can be accomplished on a facility-by-facility basis –No need or value with specifying language in Order Is language needed to ‘allow’ DOE to impose additional contractual requirements?

Responsibilities Clarify: –Exemptions/equivalencies at Field Office level –Start-ups after DOE-imposed shut-downs Linkage to requirements/definitions Threshold –Eliminate chemical threshold

Responsibilities (1)Oversee the safe operation of accelerator facilities…. (2) Approve items listed in 5.b.(2)(a) and (f) for accelerator facilities where site boundary consequences for credible postulated accident scenarios that potentially exceed 1 rem (0.01 Sv) and/or ERPG-2 (3) Grant equivalencies or exemptions from the requirements of this Order, unless otherwise specified in this DOE Directive (1)Ensure the safe operation of accelerator facilities…. (2)Except as provided in Section 5.a.(2), approves the following activities: a)ASE b)Start of commissioning activities after ensure that an appropriate ARR has been conducted c)Start of routine operations d)Restart of an accelerator facility after a DOE-ordered shutdown because of an unreviewed safety issue or ASE violation e)Decommissioning activities f)Equivalence/exemption requests Section 5 (a) PSOs Section 5 (b) Field elements

Definitions Accelerator Facility –Roads; need to consider ASE –Credited Control – OK Need to define –Readily verifiable; need to consider Identifiable, definitive, understood, etc.? Guide or Order? Criticality –Beam-induced to emphasize self-sustaining; emphasize configuration

USI the determination that there is a significant increase in the probability of or consequences from of a previously analyzed postulated accident or of a new, previously un-analyzed postulated accident that could result in a significant adverse consequence. This determination is part of a structured process to identify and evaluate whether planned or as-found conditions, equipment, or processes may exceed the bounds of an accelerator’s ASE. Activities that exceed the bounds of the ASE must not be performed until restart is approved by DOE. the determination that there is a significant increase in the probability of or consequences from 1) a previously analyzed postulated accident or condition or 2) a planned modification that creates a previously un-analyzed postulated accident or condition that could result in a significant adverse consequence.

Session B Summary - E. Lessard Key Points –Accelerators include all systems, components and activities that are bounded by the safety analysis and controls in the SAD and credited controls in the ASE –Accelerators are not a reactor unless capable of criticality due to configuration of materials (not theoretically possible criticality)

Session B Summary Terms defined in draft Order so that it can stand alone: –Accelerator –Accelerator Facility –Accelerator Operations –Accelerator Readiness Review –Accelerator Safety Envelope –Commissioning –Criticality –Hazard Analysis –Safety Assessment Document –Unreviewed Safety Issue

Session B Summary Terms not defined in draft Order but found in DOE G , Accelerator Facility Safety Implementation Guide –ASE Limit –Authorized Alternative –Credited Control –Credited Administrative Control –Credited Engineering Control –Maximum Credible Incident –Standard Industrial Hazard –Safety Analysis

Summary Session B Suggestions for Draft Order Definitions: –Commissioning should be defined clearly to indicate it is a two step process –Credited Control should be added to the draft Order –Hazard Analysis should be renamed Safety Analysis, which agrees with current Guide; need to rename it in definition of SAD too –Incorporate/add S. El-Safwany’s definition of Hazard Analysis –In USI definition, change “Activities that exceed the bounds…” to “Planned activities that exceed the bounds…

Summary Session B Suggestions for future revised Guide: –Consider adding and defining a term: Special Administrative Control –Reword Credited Engineering Control to indicate “necessary” safety function rather than “particular” safety function –Consider adding “Minimum Operable Equipment” term as defined by LANL –Consider elaborating on “essential” in revised Guide for: Credited Controls means controls determined through hazard evaluation to be essential for safe operation directly related to the protection of personnel or the environment

The End We like our terminology; its specific and aimed at unique accelerator hazards and controls We find the Accelerator Safety Order to be effective and practical Suggestions: –Document differences between accelerator and nuclear facilities in appendix to future Guide –Document “less than criticality” examples in future Guide