Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “REMEDIAL ACTION”

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

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

194 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Hanford Site Revegetation Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 2025

Revegetation of remediated and disturbed areas on the Hanford Site is performed to support U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office’s goal of meeting cleanup and revegetation requirements mandated in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Revegetation and monitoring activities are conducted in accordance with DOE/RL-2011-116, Hanford Site Revegetation Manual , area-specific revegetation plans, mitigation action plans, and memorandums of agreement.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Achieving Economy-wide Net-Zero Emissions: Is it an impossible goal?

Meeting growing energy demands while eliminating emissions, maintaining affordability, and ensuring energy justice is one of the most significant grand challenges of our time. Governments and private industry around the world have established aggressive goals to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century. In the U.S., this equates to a net-zero electricity sector by 2035 and across all energy use sectors—including electricity, industry, and transportation—by 2050. The key question then becomes: Can we get there from here? Meeting these aggressive goals demands immediate action, and they require us to think more holistically about our clean energy options. Currently, almost 85% of global energy demands are met by unabated fossil fuels. That means we have a lot of work to do, and we need to consider all of the non-emitting generation options available in each region—including fossil with carbon capture, renewables, and nuclear. And we need to reach our goal while establishing energy justice, which refers to the goal of achieving equity in social and economic participation in the energy system, while remediating past social, economic, and health burdens on communities that have been brought about by our energy system. This presentation will describe U.S. and global efforts focused on novel energy system solutions that strive to maximize use of all clean energy generation options to meet our energy demands, while ensuring sustainability, customer affordability, and a just energy system.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

The role of peer review and science for advancing public understanding

We live in a time of rapid change. The Covid-19 pandemic has united the world to understand and develop solutions to protect the health and wellbeing of society. At the same time, access to information on the internet and social media has exploded. People are exposed to information with many claims. Some of the information is relevant and accurate. A significant fraction may be inaccurate, biased, and potentially dangerous. With Covid-19, the information might point to cures that are toxic or risks that are not relevant. The scientific community has developed a process to develop and convey knowledge. The validation of results and their interpretation is critical to advancing knowledge. The core of the scientific process is based on developing a hypothesis-driven concept, designing and executing an experimental approach to prove or disprove the hypothesis, conducting a statistical analysis of the results to confirm their validity, and interpreting their meaning and impact. When their work is completed the scientist prepares to publish the work. Publication requires peer review. Hypotheses, experimental approaches, results, and interpretation of results are independently and anonymously reviewed by a scientific peer. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field. The peer review process is essential for the integrity of the scientific process. Without a robust scientific process, society cannot discriminate between validated results and interpretations and biased, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous conjecture. With inaccurate science society and policy makers may make poor decisions that could hurt people and the world around them. While scientists should not censor information available to the public, scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. We must articulate what the scientific process is and why it is essential when considering the validity of information. Scientist are responsible for pointing out when public information has not been vetted through a scientific process and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Scientists are responsible for highlighting information that has been generated and vetted with the scientific process. Over time, our goal is for the public to value the scientific process based on peer review. The public could become enlightened to the necessity for peer review to support decisions and action. Scientists need to contribute to advancing public knowledge. When invited to serve as a peer reviewer, scientists have a responsibility to contribute to the process. We all are extremely busy making peer review a distraction. While peer review does not directly benefit our own work and career, it benefits our chosen field of science. This is very important for the research area that our journal, Water-Energy Nexus, is focusing on. We cover the convergence of science and technology integrating across large spatial ranges (micro to global) in environmental pollution and the balance of remediation issues with energy use. Water-Energy Nexus wants to provide scientists with a platform for scientific debate and discussion on this rich and complicated topic. With the manuscripts submitted to WEN cover integrated research topics across a broad range of subjects from environment sciences through energy engineering, the role of peer review is essential. Peer review on a new submission to WEN should not be biased towards a specific science field. It should be done considering the complex nature of issues in the water-energy nexus. Scientists need to contribute to the public dialog. To accomplish these goals, we need to be honest, accurate, articulate, and use understandable language. The impact of WEN is very diverse affecting society in many ways. The scientific audience for WEN is diverse and readers may not fully understand the content of the papers outside their research expertise. Therefore, scientists, especially those who want to contribute to WEN, should work with communications specialists to convey message to benefit society. The audience includes the general public and researchers outside the author’s core specialty. While the peer-reviewed journal article is the cornerstone of our careers and critical for advancing scientific knowledge, a general interest story could benefit society even more. The author cannot lose sight that our work has two audiences, the science community, and more importantly, our family, friends, neighbors, and policy makers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Big Data Analytic for Cascading Failure Analysis

With the challenges of increased grid dynamics and more variability of power generation from renewable energy sources, rapidly increasing complexity in the grid model, and abundant data from measurements and simulations, the requirements for computational analysis have also increased dramatically. Power system operators and engineers need to analyze more scenarios, extract meaningful information from a larger set of data, and respond more quickly when faced with these new challenges for large-scale applications, such as contingency analysis. This paper proposes a novel big data analysis approach for power system cascading analysis, prevention, and remediation. The developed techniques will be capable of cascading analysis, better assessment of the system’s vulnerability level, as well as proposing potential remediation. Case studies using IEEE 118-bus system and a 500-bus system, with a comparison against a commercial tool, validate the advantages of the developed big data approach: accurate prediction, and more importantly, faster and effective correction actions.The developed techniques could be further used for other power system applications.

big data, cascading analysis, corrective action, m↗
DOE OSTI2023

Sensitivity Analysis of Effectiveness of FLEX Strategies Using a CDF-Based Importance Measure Under Accident Conditions

One of the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident is strengthening the station blackout (SBO) mitigation capabilities by enhancing defense in depth for all existing and new NPPs. One of the possible remedies is diverse and flexible coping strategies (FLEX). The objective of this study is to address the benefits of FLEX in various accident scenarios in terms of both risk and cost. FLEX was originally devised against SBO accidents. In this research, we investigate the fundamental plant responses against accidents considering two fundamentally different cases: accidents that lead to high pressure on the primary side and accidents that lead to low pressure on the primary side. Several uncertainties are associated with the characteristics of the FLEX portable equipment. Specifically, the time for FLEX deployment may depend on several factors such as type of accident, point of injection, availability of safety systems, battery backup timings, and human actions. This study utilizes a dynamic risk assessment framework to analyze accident scenarios and suggests a novel importance measure, which is a cumulative distribution function– based importance metric that characterizes the influence of input distribution on complete output distribution. The importance of the existing and newly developed FLEX strategy based on risk significance is illustrated with examples. The suggested measure provides clear insight into how FLEX affects risk of the whole system and additional risk margins thanks to new safety systems.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Humate Amendment Injection Viability Testing – Supplementary Batch Mixture and Soil Column Studies

Groundwater in the Lost Lake Aquifer Zone (LLAZ) in the Southern Sector of the M-Area Hazardous Waste management Facility (HWMF) is contaminated with chlorinated ethenes, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Treatment of contaminated groundwater with humic acid is being evaluated as a potential corrective action for these volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the LLAZ in Southern Sector (SRNS, 2019). Pilot scale injections of Huma-K brand humic acid for groundwater treatment were previously performed in M-Area between 2017 and 2020 (Amidon, 2023). Groundwater was extracted from the Lost Lake Aquifer Zone (LLAZ), then a solution of humate was mixed with recovered groundwater and subsequently re-injected into the same aquifer unit. Operations of the historical humate pilot testing were discontinued in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions, low injection rates, and recirculation fluid spillage. No further field scale or laboratory research to investigate humate amended groundwater injection was performed at the SRS until 2024. At the request of Area Completion Projects (ACP), the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) performed supplementary testing to help determine the viability of further injection of humate as a remedial option for VOCs within the LLAZ in the Southern Sector of the M-Area HWMF.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Embracing the Intersections of Environmental Science, Engineering, and Geosciences to Solve Grand Challenges of the 21st Century

The U.S. National Academies report on Environmental Engineering for the 21st Century identified five grand challenges of sustainably supplying food, water, and energy; curbing climate change and adapting to its impacts; designing a future without pollution and waste; creating efficient, healthy, resilient cities; and fostering informed decisions and actions. (1) Addressing many of the grand challenges will require embracing the intersections of environmental science, engineering, and geosciences. These three fields are inherently interdisciplinary, and they naturally intersect with each other (Figure 1). Geosciences, or Earth sciences, study the dynamics of different spheres of Earth. One of its missions is to detect the availability of mineral, water, and fuel resources, for sustainable development, and new research opportunities were identified in “coevolution of life, environment, and climate” and “biogeochemical and water cycles in terrestrial environments and impacts of global change” by the U.S. National Research Council. (2) Environmental science and engineering focus on the spheres that intersect with human activities. Environmental science puts an emphasis on understanding the migration of naturally occurring and anthropogenic contaminants in the environment and their impact on ecosystem and human health, and environmental engineering centers on developing technologies for water supply, mineral exploration, and environmental remediation to mitigate adverse impacts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Investigation of Radiological Contamination at Parks in the Gateway National Recreation Area - 20350

In 2005, the National Park Service was notified that elevated radiation levels were detected at Great Kills Park during a baseline radiological mapping effort conducted by the Counter Terrorism Bureau of the New York City Police Department and the United States Department of Energy. Great Kills Park is in the Staten Island Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area. A records search determined that approximately 280 acres of the park was established over an area in which the New York City Department of Sanitation placed approximately 15.1 million cubic yards of waste fill from 1944 to 1948. Since 2005, a series of response actions and investigations were conducted on behalf of the National Park Service to mitigate risk to human health and the environment and to determine the nature of radiological contamination at Great Kills Park. The findings support that radiological contamination is related to certain components of waste fill, including incinerator residue from both on and offsite incinerators, coal ash from the historical use of coal-fired boilers for heating, and incidental radiological artifacts in the waste fill due to their historical use and subsequent disposal. A majority of the radiological artifacts were determined to contain radium-226 and included radioluminescent markers, radium impregnated switch board buttons, radium paint containers, and brachytherapy devices. The National Park Service has several other Parks in the Gateway National Recreation Area that were established in areas with a similar history to Great Kills Park, and overlie waste fill historically placed during landfilling operations, including Spring Creek Park and Dead Horse Bay. Over the last year, the National Park Service has performed additional radiological investigations at Great Kills Park as part of the ongoing Remedial Investigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. In addition, preliminary radiological investigations were performed at Spring Creek Park and Dead Horse Bay Park in the Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area. These investigation activities identified gamma radiation levels above the ambient level, several of which were attributable to radiological artifacts similar in nature to those recovered at Great Kills Park. Ongoing investigations at Parks in the Gateway National Recreation Area support an association between radiological contamination and historical landfilling practices that were common prior to the regulation and control of radioactive materials. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Annual Status Report (FY 2020): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds

This annual review provides the projected dose estimates of radionuclide inventories disposed in the 200 East Area Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds (LLBGs) since September 26, 1988. These estimates are calculated using the original dose methodology developed in the performance assessment (PA) analysis (WHC-SD-WM-TI-730). The estimates are compared with requirements of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and performance objectives defined in companion documents DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1and DOE-STD-5002-2017). All performance objectives are currently satisfied, and operational waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063) and waste acceptance practices continue to be sufficient to maintain compliance with performance objectives. Inventory estimates and associated dose estimates from future waste disposal actions are unchanged from previous years’ evaluations that indicate potential impacts well below performance objectives; therefore, future compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is expected. A new PA study was initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2019 for evaluation of active disposal sites within the 200 East and 200 West Areas (Trench 94 in 200 East; Trenches 31 and 34 in 200 West) due to extended time elapsing between the current annual status report and the original PA for the active disposal sites. The new PA for the active disposal sites is expected to be completed in FY 2021. Within the active burial grounds in the 200 East Area, low-level waste and mixed low-level waste will continue to be disposed of in the dedicated U.S. Navy reactor compartment trench at the 218-E-12B Burial Ground (Trench 94). During this reporting period (FY 2020, from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), two reactor compartments were disposed in Trench 94. Results from sorption experiments are summarized for this reporting period to quantify the efficacy of concrete waste forms in retaining key radionuclides (e.g., technetium-99 and iodine-129). The test durations ranged from 1 to 3 months. Continued groundwater monitoring of the 200 East Area LLBGs indicates no groundwater contamination due to LLBG waste. Current assumptions about future land use at the Hanford Site are consistent with PA analysis1 assumptions of a post-closure facility that will not be degraded by human activity. The LLBGs are located in an area identified for waste management and containment of residual contamination. This area will remain after final environmental remediation and the proposed shrinkage of Hanford Site boundaries to small sections within the 200 East and 200 West Areas in the Central Plateau (DOE/EIS-0391). The current closure plan for the LLBGs (DOE/RL-2000-707) estimates that the 200 East LLBGs will be closed in the 2050 timeframe. The Disposal Authorization Statement, other technical basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis are of continued adequacy to meet the performance objectives of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions nor the PA analysis conclusion; therefore, compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and the Disposal Authorization Statement is maintained.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Distribution Grid Impact Study in Highland Park, Michigan: Understanding Rooftop Solar, Behind-the-Meter Energy Storage, Electric Vehicle Charging, and Building Electrification [Slides]

Through the Communities LEAP (Local Energy Action Program) Pilot, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) engaged the Highland Park Stakeholder Coalition to scope four technical assistance work areas to address their energy needs and goals. This slide deck addresses the highlighted tasks under work area "B" related to policy analysis, due diligence, and case studies for removing barriers and providing best practices for local clean energy development. Highland Park community members face frequent, long-duration power interruptions due largely to the aging distribution system serving the area and the legacy design standards used in its construction. While degrading physical infrastructure such as poles, crossarms, and transformers can result in this substandard reliability, another notable characteristic of this legacy system is the lower, 4.8 kV, voltage class. This is a legacy construction standard which many utilities, DTE included, are phasing out in favor of higher, 15 or 25 kV, voltage classes instead. The existing 4.8 kV distribution system serving Highland Park may limit significant adoptions of clean-energy technologies like high percentages of building electrification or electric vehicle adoption. The following analysis seeks to quantify these limitations under a variety of clean-energy technology adoption scenarios. It compares the overall system risks of the present system to those of a hypothetical, upgraded 13.2 kV system, using NREL-developed risk metrics and offers upgrade cost considerations. The legacy 4.8 kV voltage class serving Highland park is not, as we have modeled it, a major limitation to the widespread adoption of cost-optimal rooftop solar and/or behind-the-meter energy storage. Within our modeling framework, these technologies namely impact secondary, low-voltage assets, which may be remedied without the need for a system-wide upgrade to a 13.2 kV voltage class. Our model of the current 4.8kV system indicates it is not capable of supporting community-wide electrification efforts. Widespread building electrification, and the resulting large increase in wintertime load, dramatically increases the prevalence of voltage violations and thermal overloading on the current 4.8 kV distribution system. These impacts illustrate the need for system-wide upgrades to a 13.2 kV voltage class to accommodate these technologies. Low to Moderate DER adoption does not adversely impact the grid but does improve undervoltage and asset overloading issues. However, these benefits are insufficient to defer grid upgrades. Higher DER penetration is shown to increase overvoltage and asset overloading in future electrification scenarios.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

JUST-R metrics for considering energy justice in early-stage energy research

We report achieving sustainable decarbonization of the energy sector requires implementing and improving energy technologies while simultaneously managing sources of social inequity in the energy system. Centering energy justice, which has "the goal of achieving equity in both the social and economic participation in the energy system, while also remediating social, economic, and health burdens on those historically harmed by the energy system," in the transition to clean energy has become an increasingly urgent priority for social scientists, policymakers, and community activists alike. However, late-stage consideration of social impacts of energy technologies may result in identifying inequities only after substantial time, money, and effort have been expended on research and development (R&D). This issue is exemplified by concerns over environmental and human health impacts related to cobalt in lithium-ion batteries, which has spurred research into alternatives only after decades of R&D and the establishment of supply chains, infrastructure, and markets for cobalt-containing chemistries. Other examples include issues with land use and resource consumption related to first-generation biofuel feedstocks as well as occupational hazards and pollution associated with photovoltaics manufacturing. In all these cases, subsequent R&D to improve technologies or processes cannot undo the effects already experienced. Incorporating energy justice from the earliest stage of R&D will enable more just technology implementation, but integrating justice considerations into early-stage research is a challenge due to a lack of tools to assess and manage them. To fill this gap, we center early-stage research to develop the Justice Underpinning Science and Technology Research (JUST-R) metrics framework - energy justice metrics specifically targeted at early-stage researchers to assess their work on an immediate timescale. By applying these metrics to a case study focused on materials for next-generation photovoltaics, we highlight potential benefits and barriers to implementing this framework in early-stage research and discuss necessary institutional and individual actions needed for researchers to effectively leverage the tool to incorporate justice-focused criteria into R&D decision making.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) Recovery Guidance: After Action Report from Pilots - Responding to Feedback from Pilots Reviewing RDD Recovery Guidance

The goal of this After Action report is to utilize feedback from the pilot participants to improve the guidance for responding to radiological dispersal device (RDD) events, which can include deliberate acts to release radioactive materials into the environment using explosives or other means or accidental releases (e.g., release from a medical isotope source). This longer-term recovery guidance is an extension of the initial response guidance that was released in a 2017 interagency report called RDD Response Guidance: Planning for the First 100 Minutes. Recovery teams reviewed the longer-term recovery guidance during pilot sessions that were held in Harris County, Texas (March 8-10, 2022) and Seattle, Washington (May 2-3, 2022). The pilot teams reviewed the RDD Recovery Guidance Presentation, which contains a summary of the more detailed RDD Recovery Guidance draft document. The feedback from both pilots was grouped and binned into unique themes (e.g., “checkpoint challenges”) that align with the recovery missions and tactics that they reviewed. PNNL authors of the recovery guidance then prepared responses that describe how they recommend addressing the feedback for each theme. The responses typically included recommendation plans for improving the guidance document, but also described when no changes are needed because the guidance already contains the suggested improvement. These pilot recommendations will be brought to the interagency team to finalize plans for updating and improving recovery guidance materials.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Update of Erosion Conditions and Assessment of Mitigation Options for the L-Bar Site

The L-Bar former uranium milling site was remediated and closed per regulations and is now under the long-term stewardship of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE/LM). Since assuming stewardship in 2004, DOE/LM has observed erosion and sedimentation processes at the L-Bar Site that will challenge meeting the design closure criteria in the long term, and therefore erosion control structures were installed in several areas. Portions of these structures were subsequently damaged by summer convective storm events and they are being redesigned. At the request of DOE/LM, Desert Research Institute (DRI) reviewed the proposed redesign plans of the erosion control structures. The purpose of this review is to support DOE/LM decisions regarding mitigation of ongoing erosion processes, including assessing possible repair of the existing erosion control structures, as well as plan for effective long-term site management. This design review is performed in reference to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) standards contained in 40 CFR 192.02 that require containment of residual radioactive material be effective for up to 1,000 years (if achievable, but certainly for 200 years), limit radon release, protect groundwater, and minimize future maintenance. The erosion control structures under review are not subject to the UMTRCA standard directly, but they contribute to the performance of the overall containment system by virtue of their relationship with the large diversion channels bounding the disposal cell. The 11 design drawings included in “Erosion Control Alternatives Analysis, L-Bar, New Mexico, Disposal Site, LTS-111-0043-08-002,” dated January 11, 2019, and listed in Appendix A, and supporting calculations in Weston (2019) are the focus of the review. Additionally, DOE/LM provided supporting data such as a 2018 photogrammetry-based digital elevation model of the site, precipitation records collected from an on-site weather station, and sedimentation records collected at an on-site basin. This assessment includes review of the proposed design to mitigate current site conditions but also addresses site changes between the initial erosion assessment report (Miller et al., 2012) and current conditions. The analysis is at a predesign engineering level and does not include development of hydraulic or sediment transport models. Site precipitation data are included in Miller et al. (2012). The natural conditions of the site, the design of site diversion systems, observed erosion at the site, and predesign engineering analysis are used to develop a holistic view of the challenges to L-Bar Site stability and possible responsive actions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Hanford Site Central Plateau (FY 2020) (Rev. 2)

This document provides an updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA). A Hanford Site CA was prepared and issued in 1998 (PNNL-11800) with an addendum provided in 2002 (PNNL-11800 Addendum 1). The CA was approved in 2002 (Frei, 2002) and has been maintained (DOE/RL-2000-29 and subsequent revisions) to support low-level waste disposal performance assessments (PAs) and disposal authorizations for facilities at the Hanford Site, including the following: Continued operation of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) and the 200 East and 200 West Low-Level Burial Grounds; Construction of the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF); Forthcoming closure of tank residual waste systems such as Waste Management Area (WMA) C. The CA maintenance program resulted in a determination in 2015 (DOE/RL-2015-66) that the Hanford Site CA needed an update for the following reasons: While the initial Hanford Site CA has been maintained since 2001, the accumulation of basis changes reported in the annual summary reports over the succeeding 14 years merit evaluation in an updated analysis; The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Headquarters requested in a memorandum in 2015 (Gilbertson and Marcinowski, 2015) that “as soon as the relevant PAs are complete, the CA will be revised to account for all of the new information.” This updated Hanford Site CA accounts for the following new information: 1. Inclusion of a detailed Hanford Site baseline disposition that projects remedial activities through site closure. There have been significant changes through decision making in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process that were not available when the original CA was produced; 2. Inclusion of an updated inventory basis, new modeling capabilities, and new decisions reached in the associated record of decision (ROD) that was provided by issuance of DOE/EIS-0391 in fiscal year (FY) 2013. Development of a Hanford Site groundwater model from the baseline provided in a technical transfer of models for the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0391) commenced in FY 2014 and resulted in the plateau-to-river (P2R) groundwater flow model that is used in this updated Hanford Site CA; 3. Accounting for pump and treat systems, which were not evaluated in the initial CA. Pump and treat systems have had significant impact on groundwater flow system behavior, contaminant transport, and contaminant removal from Hanford Site groundwater. This process is accounted for in the use of the P2R model for this updated Hanford Site CA; 4. Inclusion of water-level data collected since the initial CA was completed. Data collected as the unconfined aquifer water levels continue to recede since the cessation of large liquid discharges in the late 1990s have led to marked improvement in understanding of the flow system for future conditions, particularly regarding northward flow potential in the critical Gable Gap area. The calibration in the latest version of the P2R model accounts for this information; 5. Inclusion of results from the revised ERDF PA completed in 2013 (WCH-5209) that account for updated inventory and expansion of the ERDF facility to about twice the size that was evaluated in the original CA; 6. Use of updated geoframeworks to provide the structural basis for numerical fate and transport models in the groundwater pathway of this updated CA. The geologic basis for groundwater models has continued to improve with additional data collection and interpretation with the creation and maintenance of the Hanford South Geoframework and the Central Plateau Vadose Zone Geoframework tools; 7. Incorporation of updated tank residual inventory estimates. Tank residual inventory estimates have improved with the incorporation of tank retrieval inventory data for those tanks that have completed retrieval. The CA inventory data package includes this updated information; 8. Incorporation of WMA C PA results. Two additional PAs for tank farm closure decisions are in preparation during the period required to prepare an updated Hanford Site CA: WMA C (FY 2016) and WMA A-AX (in preparation). The WMA C PA results are incorporated into the updated Hanford Site CA, and its grouted residuals model is used as the basis for a release model to account for the other tank farm systems modeling in this updated CA; 9. An update to the IDF PA was submitted in FY 2017 and has been reviewed and approved. The results of the IDF PA are incorporated into this updated CA; 10. Updated risk assessment scenarios. The risk assessment scenarios currently in use for Hanford Site CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) analyses differ from those evaluated in the initial Hanford Site CA. The representative person exposure scenario evaluated in this updated Hanford Site CA is consistent with recent PAs and CERCLA and RCRA analyses as the Hanford Site. This updated Hanford Site CA provides the following: A comparison of the updated Hanford Site CA all-pathway dose results with the performance measures during the compliance period, which is assumed to begin with site closure in calendar 2070 with the last scheduled disposal action and continue for 1,000 years postclosure (to calendar year 3069); A comparison of Hanford Site CA all-pathway dose results with the performance measures during the postcompliance period to address potential peaks beyond the compliance period. This is accomplished by evaluating dose in the period for 9,000 years following the compliance period (i.e., from calendar year 3070 to 12070).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗