Regulatory requirements closure

The implementation phase can be viewed as a period of actual closure operations, followed by facility closeout (postmortem). Here, too, there may be some overlap of the two activities. Finally, the facility site may undergo postclosure activities in accordance with agreed-upon regulatory requirements. 

Solution For each piece of equipment related to the safety instrumented function, one must ask if that equipment is needed to protect against the specified hazard. In this SIF, the hand-switch was added only to meet local regulatory requirements and is not part of the automatic protection so it is excluded. The pump is turned off to protect it from overload so it is not part of this SIF. The inlet valve for the other unit does not have to close to protect against this hazard so it is excluded. Although the need for the inlet valve closure is debatable, it does help reduce downstream pressure and was therefore included in the SIF. The SIF primary equipment is the LT-2025 level sensor, the VI-2002 Inlet Valve and the VI-2003 Outlet Valve. This is marked in the cause and effect diagram with an X. Other equipment is auxiliary. It is marked in the cause and effect diagram with an A. This information must be documented in the Safety Requirements Specification (SRS). 

Magnox reacts readily with water, producing hydrogen and a comparatively voluminous corrosion product, Mg(OH)2 Both the hydrogen gas and the corrosion product will tend to provide internal pressure on the wasteform. Although the wasteform is not required to retain its integrity for a defined time after disposal, early failure can prejudice post-closure performance and may not meet regulatory requirements. 

Upon closure, all regulatory and end-state requirements will have been met. 

TOCDF faces a particular challenge concerning the management of spent activated carbon wastes. The permit under which it operates stipulates that micronization is to be used to manage the activated carbon waste, the result of a requirement to use proven technologies that were available at the time the permit was issued. As discussed previously, however, micronization has not proven to be a viable treatment process. An alternative needs to be demonstrated to and accepted by the regulatory community at the earliest possible time in order to avoid an extended closure period and the attendant added costs. 

Complete information is important in order to assist in the initial selection of container closure components, design laboratory extraction studies for components, and to establish a linkage, or correlation, between potential leachables (i.e., extractables) and observed leachables in a particular drug product. Such a correlation is required by regulatory guidances for certain dosage forms. ... 

The CPSC was created by Congress in 1972 and assumed, as one of its roles, the enforcement of the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (16 C.F.R. 1700). " Since then, the regulatory breadth of CPSC has grown, but its impact on packaging still primarily pertains to the closures. The CPSC regulations can be found in 16 C.F.R. and specifically provide requirements for child-resistant and tamper-evident packaging systems. ... 

At times, a Catch-22 condition may arise in that regulators can require a finalized closure plan to approve a mine project s startup. However, company management tends to be reluctant to authorize detailed engineering of any facet of a project without prior regulatory approval. 

---