SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The successful landing of the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft on Mars allows the review of the process of selecting the landing site and assessing predictions made for the site based on Viking and Earth-based data. Selection of the landing site for Mars Pathfinder was a two-phase process. The first phase took place from October 1993 to June 1994 and involved: initial identification of engineering constraints, definition of environmental conditions at the site for spacecraft design, and evaluation of the scientific potential of different landing sites. This phase culminated with the first "Mars Pathfinder Landing Site Workshop", held at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas on April 18-19, 1994, in which suggested approaches and landing sites were solicited from the entire scientific community. A preliminary site was selected by the project for design purposes in June 1994. The second phase took place from July 1994 to March 1996 and involved: developing criteria for evaluating site safety using images and remote sensing data, testing of the spacecraft and landing subsystems (with design improvements) to establish quantitative engineering constraints on landing site characteristics, evaluating all potential landing sites on Mars, and certification of the site by the project. This phase included a second open workshop, "Mars Pathfinder Landing Site Workshop II: Characteristics of the Ares Vallis Region and Field Trips in the Channeled Scabland, Washington" held in Spokane and Moses Lake September 24-30, 1995 and formal acceptance of the site by NASA Headquarters. Engineering constraints on Pathfinder landing sites were developed from the initial design of the spacecraft and the entry, descent and landing scenario. The site must be within 5 degrees of the subsolar latitude at the time of landing (15N for maximum solar power and flexible communications with Earth. It also must be below 0 km elevation to enable enough time for the parachute to bring the lander to the proper terminal velocity for landing. The entire landing ellipse, which is 70 km by 200 km due to navigational, ephemeris and atmospheric uncertainties, must be free of steep slopes, scarps and obvious hazards in Viking orbiter images, have acceptable radar reflectivity, moderate rock abundances and have little or no dust. Scientific considerations of the Mars Pathfinder payload and mission indicate that analyses of "grab bag" samples at the mouths of outflow channels can offer a first order assessment of a variety of rock types on Mars. Highland sites offer the advantage of in situ analysis of ancient rocks on Mars that record crustal differentiation and the nature of the early environment. Dark gray sites offer the potential of analyzing unweathered and unoxidized materials. Following a general assessment of the safety of different sites, a preliminary selection of a "grab bag" site was made. This site, Ares Vallis, is near the mouth of an outflow channel that may contain ancient Noachian terrain, Hesperian ridged plains, and reworked channel materials. All potential landing sites on Mars that met basic safety criteria were analyzed in detail. Sites (100 by 200 km target ellipses) were considered safe if they were below 0 km elevation, were free of obvious hazards (high relief surface features) in high-resolution (< 50 m/pixel) Viking orbiter images and had acceptable reflectivity and roughness at radar wavelengths, high thermal inertia, moderate rock abundance, low red to violet ratio, and low albedo. Only 4 sites on Mars met all the above criteria, which included 1995 opposition 3.5 cm delay-Doppler radar data. Complete data were evaluated for 7 sites and the Viking landing sites for comparison for all the above criteria as well as crater abundance, hill and mesa abundance, slopes over meter to kilometer scales, low altitude winds (from global circulation models and slopes), the size-frequency distribution of large rocks, as well as rover trafficability and science potential. Discussion of potential hazards at Ares Vallis using a variety of data sets (including radar) at a second open workshop, indicated this site cannot be shown to be any more hazardous than the Viking landing sites. Field trips to the Channeled Scabland and the Ephrata Fan, analogs for Ares Vallis and the landing site, respectively, provided valuable insight into possible geologic processes and potential surface characteristics. Three sites met all the data requirements and safety criteria for landing Pathfinder. Ares Vallis was selected by the project because it appeared acceptably safe (although it appeared to have greater rock abundances than other sites, its elevation was likely the best known) and offered the prospect of analyzing a variety of rock types expected to be deposited by catastrophic floods, which would enable addressing first-order scientific questions such as differentiation of the crust, the development of weathering products, and the nature of the early martian environment and its subsequent evolution. The selection was reviewed by an external board at a number of meetings and accepted, and the site was approved by NASA Headquarters. Data gathered by the Pathfinder lander' and rover provides the opportunity to test the predictions made for the site in the selection process based on remote observations from Earth, orbit, and the surface. The discussion below is taken from Golombek et al. to which the reader is referred for a more complete discussion and a complete list of references, which are omitted here for brevity. Many characteristics of the landing site are consistent with its being shaped and deposited by the Ares and Tiu catastrophic floods. The rocky surface is consistent a depositional plain comprising semi-rounded pebbles, cobbles and tabular boulders (some of which appear imbricated and/or inclined in the direction of flow) that appear similar to depositional plains in terrestrial catastrophic floods. The Twin Peaks appear to be streamlined hills in lander images, which is consistent with interpretations of larger hills in Viking orbiter images of the region that suggest the lander is on the flank of a broad, gentle ridge trending northeast from Twin Peaks. This ridge, which is the rise to the north of the lander, is aligned in the downstream direction from the Ares and Tiu Valles floods, and may be a debris tail deposited in the wake of the Twin Peaks. Channels visible throughout the scene may be a result of late stage drainage. As predicted by delay-Doppler radar measurements and tracking results, the average elevation of the center of the site was about the same as Viking Lander I relative to the 6.1 mbar geoid. The Doppler tracking and two-way ranging estimate for the elevation of the spacecraft is only 45 in lower than the Viking I Lander and within 100 in of that expected, which is within the uncertainties of the measurements. After landing, surface pressures and winds (5-10 m/s) were found to be similar to expectations based on Viking data, although temperatures were about 10 K warmer. The temperature profile below 50 km was also roughly 20 K warmer. As a result, predicted densities were 5% higher near the surface and up to 40% lower at 50 km but within the entry, descent and landing design margins. The populations of craters and small hills and the slopes of the hills measured in high-resolution (38 m/pixel) Viking orbiter images and the radar derived slopes of the landing site are all consistent with observations of these properties in the lander images. A rocky surface was expected from Viking Infra-Red Thermal Mapper (IRTM) observations and comparisons with the Viking landing sites. The observed cumulative fraction of area covered by rocks with diameters greater than 3 cm and heights greater than 0.5 in (potentially hazardous to landing) at Ares is similar to that predicted by IRTM observations and models of Viking lander and Earth analog rock size-frequency distributions. The IRTM prediction postulated an effective thermal inertia of 30 (10(exp -3) cgs units - cal/cubic cm/s(exp 0.5)/K) for the rock population, but we obtain a slightly different effective thermal inertia for the actual rock population. The validity of interpretations of radar echoes prior to landing are supported by a simple radar echo model, an estimate of the reflectivity of the soil from its bulk density, and the fraction of area covered by rocks. In the calculations, the soil produces the quasi-specular echo and the rocks produce the diffuse echo. The derived quasispecular cross section is comparable to the cross-sections and reflectivities reported for 3.5-cm wavelength observations. The model yields a diffuse echo that is modestly larger than the polarized diffuse echo reported for 3.5-cm wavelength observations. At 12.5-cm wavelength, similar rock populations at Ares and the Viking I site were expected because the diffuse echoes are comparable, but the large normal reflectivities suggests that bulk densities of the soils at depth are greater than those at the surface. We also obtain a fine-component inertia near 8.4 which agrees with the fine-component inertia of 8.7 (in 10(exp -3) cgs units) estimated from thermal observations from orbit by the IRTM; for this estimate, we used a bulk thermal inertia of 10.4 for the landing site, an effective thermal inertia near 40 (10(exp -3) cgs units) for the rock population, and a graphical representation of Kieffer's model. Color and albedo data for Ares suggested surfaces of materials at Ares Vallis would be relatively dust free or unweathered prior to landing compared with the materials at the Viking landing sites. This suggestion is supported by the abundance of relatively dark-gray rocks at Ares and their relative rarity at the Viking landing sites, where rocks are commonly coated with bright red dust. Finally, the 40 km long Ephrata Fan of the Channeled Scabland in Washington state, which was deposited where c
The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) is responsible for the post-closure management of remediated DOE sites. LM's objective for Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) includes the long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTSM) of sites that have been remediated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). FUSRAP was initiated in 1974 by the US Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency of DOE. FUSRAP was managed by DOE from 1981 to 1997. Through a congressional act, the scope to remediate FUSRAP sites was transferred to USACE in 1997. By 1997, DOE had completed the cleanup of 25 of the 46 sites that were active within the program, and had begun cleanups at 13 additional sites. USACE assumed responsibility for the cleanup of the 21 remaining FUSRAP sites, and 8 additional sites that have been recommended for cleanup. Presently, LM provides long-term stewardship for 30 completed FUSRAP sites while USACE is actively remediating 23 sites. FUSRAP sites are typically privately-owned factories or research facilities. However, there are four DOE owned FUSRAP sites. These sites are Maywood and Middlesex in New Jersey, and Colonie and Niagara Falls in New York. In support of LM's Beneficial Reuse strategic mission, the site in Wayne, New Jersey has been transferred to a municipality and the site in New Brunswick, New Jersey has been sold. Historically, most sites in FUSRAP were remediated to 'unlimited exposure and unrestricted use' cleanup levels consistent with residential use. Some sites were remediated using supplemental limits due to inaccessible areas while remaining sites have been remediated to other-than residential standards based on site-specific long-term land use assumptions. Of the 31 completed FUSRAP sites under LM stewardship, one site requires land-use controls and no site requires groundwater monitoring. Over the next 10 years USACE plans to transfer 11 sites to LM. Several of these sites will have additional long-term monitoring requirements as per their Records of Decisions (RODs). These transitioning sites include the Colonie, New York site, the Maywood and Deepwater, New Jersey, sites and the St. Louis, Missouri site. The additional stewardship requirements will include groundwater monitoring, enforcement of institutional and engineered controls, and five-year reviews. In addition to these sites, more than 100 vicinity properties will also be transferred to LM for stewardship. Given the increase in long-term stewardship activities for these sites and their associated vicinity properties, initiatives are under way to incorporate the additional LTSM requirements into the program's out-year planning. LM will be evaluating several methods to customize LTSM cost and liability estimates for all of the completed FUSRAP sites, planning to address the sites not yet transferred and those that are in LM's custody. Where necessary, LM will use remedial process optimization techniques and evaluate monitored natural attenuation protocols to reduced long-term monitoring costs. Methods for identifying costs include the cost estimates provided in RODs, cost estimates refined during remediation, operation and maintenance costs provided by USACE prior to transition, and presumptive remedies using USACE and Environmental Management / LM historic costs at similar sites. On the basis of this evaluation, a strategy for estimating site-specific LTSM costs will be selected. (authors)
In this paper, a preliminary evaluation of removing used nuclear fuel (UNF) from 12 shutdown sites was conducted. Shutdown sites are defined as those commercial nuclear power reactor sites where the nuclear power reactors have been shut down and the site has been decommissioned or is undergoing decommissioning. The shutdown sites were Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, Zion, Crystal River, Kewaunee, and San Onofre. The evaluation was divided into four components: • characterization of the UNF and greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC waste) inventory • a description of the on-site infrastructure and conditions relevant to transportation activities • an evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and experience relevant to shipping transportation casks containing UNF from the shutdown sites, including gaps in information • an evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove UNF and GTCC waste from the shutdown sites. The primary sources for the inventory of UNF and GTCC waste are the DOE RW-859 used nuclear fuel inventory database, industry sources such as StoreFUEL and SpentFUEL, and government sources such as the NRC. The primary sources for the information on the site conditions and near-site transportation infrastructure and experience include site visits to the Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion sites; information provided by managers at the shutdown sites; Facility Interface Data Sheets compiled for DOE in 2005; Services Planning Documents prepared for DOE in 1993 and 1994; industry publications such as Radwaste Solutions; and Google Earth. State and Regional Group representatives, a Tribal representative, and a Federal Railroad Administration representative participated in six of the shutdown site visits. All sites were found to have at least one off-site transportation mode option for removing their UNF and GTCC waste, and some sites have two options. Large component removals during reactor decommissioning provided an important source of information in determining transportation mode options. Especially important in conducting the evaluation were site visits, through which information was obtained that would not have been available otherwise. Extensive photographs taken during the site visits proved to be particularly useful in documenting the current conditions at or near the sites. Additional conclusions from this evaluation include: • Although there are common aspects, each site has some unique features and/or conditions. • The 12 sites use designs from 4 different suppliers, including 9 different (horizontal and vertical) storage systems that would require 8 different transportation cask designs. • Although some regulatory actions will be required, all UNF at the initial 9 shutdown sites (Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion) is in licensed systems that can be transported, including a small amount of high-burnup fuel. • Each site indicated that 2-3 years of advanced time is required for preparations prior to pick-up. • Most sites have multiple transportation options, e.g., rail, barge, or heavy haul truck, as well as constraints and preferences. It is expected that additional site visits will be conducted to update the information used in the evaluation. Additional sites may be added to the evaluation if further site closures are announced.
One of the responsibilities of the federal government is to estimate sound and defensible life-cycle baseline costs for use in federal budget estimates and to meet federal financial reporting requirements. To accomplish this, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have partnered together to ensure that the liabilities documented in each Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site's life-cycle baseline are specifically tailored. FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970's to clean up radiological contamination resulting from the early development of nuclear weapons. DOE was responsible for FUSRAP until October 1997, when Congress transferred the administration and execution of FUSRAP site cleanups to USACE. By 1997, DOE had completed the cleanup of 25 of the 46 sites that were active within the program and had begun cleanup at 13 additional sites. USACE was assigned responsibility for the cleanup of the 21 remaining FUSRAP sites, and at 8 additional sites that had since been referred for cleanup. The LM mission for the FUSRAP sites is to perform long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Currently, LM provides long-term stewardship for 34 completed FUSRAP sites. Another 20 sites are under active remediation by USACE. Within the last 5 years, USACE has completed the cleanup at five FUSRAP sites and the LTS and M responsibility has been transferred to LM. By 2029, USACE will compete remediation at eight additional sites and LTS and M for those sites will transfer to LM. Because responsibilities for the FUSRAP sites transfer between USACE and LM upon completion of remedial actions, both agencies maintain life-cycle baselines for different stages of the project and both must have a strong understanding of the needs and requirements for each site. This understanding ensures that the life-cycle baselines form a complete and accurate picture of what is required for the site and for the FUSRAP program. LM focuses on several things when customizing the life-cycle baseline estimates for the FUSRAP sites, including (1) Understanding the unique requirements for each site. By reviewing site-specific documents prepared by USACE, such as Feasibility Studies and Records of Decision, and partnering with USACE to gain additional insight about site conditions and requirements for stewardship, as well as potential risks, LM can better develop the life-cycle baselines. (2) Developing site-specific labor breakdowns. This ensures the required labor mix is baselined for specific activities by comparing the labor mix required to perform activities at (a) other LM-managed FUSRAP sites and (b) non-FUSRAP LM sites and (c) by USACE at active FUSRAP sites. (3) Taking a tiered approach to life-cycle baseline planning. Estimates for sites transferring to LM in the near term (5 years) are more definitive than for sites transferring in the out-year period. Remedial actions at the near-term sites are at or near completion, providing LM a strong understanding of the LTS and M requirements and remaining liabilities. This in turn allows for site-specific customization of the baseline. (4) Using a robust risk management approach to ensure that liabilities specific to each site are identified, evaluated by probability and severity, and documented in relation to the impact to cost or schedule. To ensure the most accuracy within all the baselines, the FUSRAP life-cycle baselines are updated as needed to support program, project, and contract management needs. (authors)
DOE LM is responsible for maintaining remedies at more than 50 remediated sites that require active long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Institutional controls (ICs) were established to limit human and environmental exposures to residual contamination by controlling land use, restricting access to potential hazards, and making the public aware of potential dangers from the residual contamination. ICs for each site were developed based on current and foreseeable conditions; however, these controls should evolve to mitigate potential human health and other environmental risks from unanticipated changes in activities or site conditions. Activities conducted beyond the DOE long-term care boundaries by non-DOE parties may impact the effectiveness of ICs or even the long-term stability of disposal cells and groundwater remedies. Several sites that LM manages or that will transfer to LM for LTS and M are in active oil and gas production basins. The sites are associated with uranium ore milling or nuclear test sites and have been remediated or are in the process of remediation and have no ongoing DOE mission. Particularly since 2005, hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') combined with directional drilling has dramatically increased oil and natural gas (oil/gas) production in the United States, now making it the number one hydrocarbon-producing country. Fracking has allowed production from shale and other rocks of low natural permeability that were historically not considered viable oil/gas resources. Also, because wellbores can now be drilled as many as 5 kilometers or more horizontally, hydrocarbons can be recovered from zones without having access to the surface above them. Drilling activity near Rulison, Colorado, the location of an underground nuclear detonation managed by LM, has raised public concerns that remnant radioactivity in the detonation zone could migrate to producing wells and enter the natural gas distribution system. At sites like the Falls City, Texas, Disposal site, transitioned to LM with a split estate, increased production in the region has resulted in wellbores beneath the long-term care boundary of the site. While the DOE license for Falls City was approved by the NRC in 1997 without the acquisition of the subsurface rights, NRC has raised concerns on whether this activity impacts the integrity of the cell and/or groundwater remedies. In Wyoming, LM is anticipating receiving the license for the Bear Creek site and manages the Spook site, both locations of uranium mill tailings disposal cells. These Wyoming sites are in an active region of major oil and gas development. This change in surrounding land use will require LM to work collaboratively with NRC to address these concerns. At several DOE sites radioactive waste, and often intermixed nonradioactive constituents, is permanently isolated in engineered disposal cells. At other sites, residual contamination can be present in groundwater, blast cavities, and infinite amounts within soil. Areas targeted for oil and gas development at the Texas and Wyoming sites range from depths of 2440 to 3350 meters (8000-11000 feet) below ground surface. When most site remedies were designed, oil and gas development was not considered to be an issue within the site boundary. With the more recent uses of directional drilling, fracking, and associated wastewater injections, the evaluative criteria for incoming sites and ICs for managing long-term protectiveness and regulatory compliance are changing. Although DOE surface ownership was previously thought to be a robust IC to prevent surface and subsurface development, particularly at disposal sites, that may no longer be the case. Whereas the subsurface development at Texas and Wyoming sites is currently occurring at thousands of meters beneath the surface, shallower and direct onsite development would be more of a concern for LM. The energy introduced when a well is hydraulically fractured causes microseismic events (magnitude -2 to 1.0) as the fractures propagate but does not directly cause seismic events (earthquakes) of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures. Additionally, the extent of the hydraulic fractures is limited to the targeted depths, which are far below the surface. However, earthquakes of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures have been attributed to the injection of wastewater into disposal wells. States that have experienced these effects have enacted regulations that limit the rate and pressures that wastewater can be injected into disposal wells. Items LM may consider are the need for monitoring the volume of water injected into nearby disposal wells and possibly installing seismic stations at sites most susceptible to damage. While the need to demonstrate that no impact from oil and gas extraction activities on a site groundwater remedy or disposal cells will vary from site to site, LM is assessing risk criteria for this activity. Though LM has not experienced an issue yet at a uranium tailings disposal site, it cannot assume that there will be none, and must address NRC concerns. LM is building on past experiences at other sites and beginning to form new processes with the hope that these concepts can be applied for other future sites. (authors)
A preliminary evaluation of removing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from 13 shutdown nuclear power plant sites was performed. At these shutdown sites the nuclear power reactors have been permanently shut down and the sites have been decommissioned or are undergoing decommissioning. The shutdown sites were Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, Zion, Crystal River, Kewaunee, San Onofre, and Vermont Yankee. The evaluation was divided into four components: Characterization of the SNF and greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC waste) inventory A description of the on-site infrastructure at the shutdown sites An evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and transportation experience at the shutdown sites An evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove SNF and GTCC waste. The primary sources for the inventory of SNF and GTCC waste were the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) spent nuclear fuel inventory database, industry publications such as StoreFUEL, and government sources such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The primary sources for information on the conditions of on-site infrastructure and near-site transportation infrastructure and experience included information collected during site visits, information provided by managers at the shutdown sites, Facility Interface Data Sheets compiled for DOE in 2005, Services Planning Documents prepared for DOE in 1993 and 1994, industry publications such as Radwaste Solutions, and Google Earth. State staff, State Regional Group representatives, a Tribal representative, and a Federal Railroad Administration representative have participated in nine of the shutdown site visits. Every shutdown site was found to have at least one off-site transportation mode option for removing its SNF and GTCC waste; some have multiple options. Experience removing large components during reactor decommissioning provided an important source of information used to identify the transportation mode options for the sites. Especially important in conducting the evaluation were site visits, through which information was obtained that would not have been available otherwise. Extensive photographs taken during the site visits proved to be particularly useful in documenting the current conditions at or near the sites. Additional conclusions from this evaluation include: The 13 shutdown sites use designs from 4 different suppliers involving 11 different (horizontal and vertical) dry storage systems that would require the use of 9 different transportation cask designs to remove the SNF and GTCC waste from the shutdown sites. Although some changes to transportation certificates of compliance will be required, the SNF at the initial 9 shutdown sites (Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion) is in dual purpose dry storage canisters that can be transported, including a small amount of high-burnup fuel. Most sites indicated that 2-3 years of advance time would be required for its preparations before shipments could begin. Some sites could be ready in less time. As additional sites such as Fort Calhoun, Clinton, Quad Cities, Pilgrim, Oyster Creek, and Diablo Canyon shut down, these sites will be included in updates to the evaluation.
A preliminary evaluation of removing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from 14 shutdown nuclear power plant sites was performed. At these shutdown sites the nuclear power reactors have been permanently shut down and the sites have been decommissioned or are undergoing decommissioning. The shutdown sites were Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, Zion, Crystal River, Kewaunee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Fort Calhoun. The evaluation was divided into four components: (1) characterization of the SNF and greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC waste) inventory, (2) a description of the on-site infrastructure at the shutdown sites, (3) an evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and transportation experience at the shutdown sites, and (4) an evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove SNF and GTCC waste. The primary sources for the inventory of SNF and GTCC waste were the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) spent nuclear fuel inventory database, industry publications such as StoreFUEL, and government sources such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The primary sources for information on the conditions of on-site infrastructure and near-site transportation infrastructure and experience included information collected during site visits, information provided by managers at the shutdown sites, Facility Interface Data Sheets compiled for DOE in 2005, Services Planning Documents prepared for DOE in 1993 and 1994, industry publications such as Radwaste Solutions, and Google Earth. State representatives, State Regional Group representatives, Tribal representatives, and a Federal Railroad Administration representatives have participated in eleven of the shutdown site visits. Every shutdown site was found to have at least one off-site transportation mode option for removing its SNF and GTCC waste; some have multiple options. Experience removing large components during reactor decommissioning provided an important source of information used to identify the transportation mode options for the sites. Especially important in conducting the evaluation were site visits, through which information was obtained that would not have been available otherwise. Extensive photographs taken during the site visits proved to be particularly useful in documenting the current conditions at or near the sites. Additional conclusions from this evaluation include: The 14 shutdown sites use designs from 4 different suppliers involving 11 different (horizontal and vertical) dry storage systems that would require the use of 9 different transportation cask designs to remove the SNF and GTCC waste from the shutdown sites. Although some changes to transportation certificates of compliance will be required, the SNF at the initial 9 shutdown sites (Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion) is in dual purpose dry storage canisters that can be transported, including a small amount of high-burnup fuel. Most sites indicated that 2-3 years of advance time would be required for its preparations before shipments could begin. Some sites could be ready in less time. As additional sites such as Palisades, Pilgrim, Three Mile Island, Oyster Creek, Indian Point, and Diablo Canyon shut down, these sites will be included in updates to the evaluation.
This research explores the colocation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) with industrial applications. Three existing industrial sites were considered to demonstrate the siting process and illuminate technological gaps for future work. The three applications demonstrated for colocation here are a petroleum refinery, a methanol production plant, and a pulp and paper plant. This study uses a modified version of the EPRI siting criteria to explore the geological and demographic characteristics of the location of the current industrial site, as well as exploring external hazards from the industrial plant and its surrounding land use. Data was collected from public databases to estimate site characteristics. We then discuss how the site characteristics may impact the ability to colocate an NPP with an industrial application. The application site and 5 additional sites were explored for each application to give a general indication of the siting implications for an NPP in each area. The hazards for each industrial application was also explored to determine how colocation may impact reactor safety. The following gaps have been identified and should be explored in future research on colocation of NPPs with petroleum refineries, methanol plants, and pulp and paper plants: - There is a variety of industrial use, hazards, and pipelines in the surrounding area. A more thorough review of these hazards should be considered for colocation. - In general, the whole region around some applications seems to have softer soil, with implications for large site preparation costs. Further site investigations should prioritize looking into the geotechnical conditions. - Applications along coastlines are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. The benefits of colocation should be weighed against the potential design implications. - The benefits of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in place should be explored further. If heat supply from the NPP is not required or not feasible due to the distance between the NPP and the application, there may be an opportunity to supply hydrogen to the plant through an existing pipeline. - Because there are several collocated industrial plants in the regions for the refinery and methanol plant, the benefits of sharing resources from the NPP should be explored further. This may open up additional sites for colocation. The following knowledge gaps were identified for the colocation of NPPs with these three industries, and industrial applications in general. These gaps are: - While the STAND tool contains many important characteristics for the reactor siting process, it is not calibrated for the colocation of NPPs with industrial facilities. - There are aspects of both the NPP and industrial application that need to be quantified for a siting analysis. Particularly, we need to understand the water intake requirements for NPPs and each application. - Further work may focus on adapting the STAND site comparison methodology to comparison of sites for co-location. This will involve using the data documented in this report as a starting point and performing a comprehensive and quantitative comparison. - Without spending significant resources, it would be impossible to gather data for each site to evaluate all aspects of siting. One approach to finding data and understanding its implications to siting is looking at FSARs for existing plants. For example, most sites considered in this study have small Vs30 values, indicating soft soil. However, there are NPPs located in the vicinity of most of the sites (e.g., Waterford Steam Electric Station near New Orleans) and reviewing available site characteristics and geotechnical data for these NPPs, might provide further information for siting. - The siting analysis in this study indicates that colocation of the NPP with the industrial site could be difficult based on external hazards, cooling requirements, weather, or population. We need to determine the impact of distance between the two facilities on cost and quality of energy transport. - This study did not touch on socioeconomic impacts for NPP colocation with industrial facilities. The input-output analysis methodology could be applied to the communities referenced in this study to determine the socioeconomic impact of these projects. - Similarly, the impacts of colocation on emergency planning was not explored in this study. The impacts on emergency planning infrastructure are somewhat related to the socioeconomic impacts, and could be explored using a similar methodology. - This study also did not address physical and cybersecurity, which will be important aspects of co-location [ref] . Cybersecurity will be important, regardless of the distance, but physical security will be important if the facilities are located very closely. Physical security might also be important for the steam lines between the plants, unless they are determined to be non-safety significant. - In many site l
This research explores the colocation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) with industrial applications. Three existing industrial sites were considered to demonstrate the siting process and illuminate technological gaps for future work. The three applications demonstrated for colocation here are a petroleum refinery, a methanol production plant, and a pulp and paper plant. This study uses a modified version of the EPRI siting criteria to explore the geological and demographic characteristics of the location of the current industrial site, as well as exploring external hazards from the industrial plant and its surrounding land use. Data was collected from public databases to estimate site characteristics. We then discuss how the site characteristics may impact the ability to colocate an NPP with an industrial application. The application site and 5 additional sites were explored for each application to give a general indication of the siting implications for an NPP in each area. The hazards for each industrial application was also explored to determine how colocation may impact reactor safety. The following gaps have been identified and should be explored in future research on colocation of NPPs with petroleum refineries, methanol plants, and pulp and paper plants: - There is a variety of industrial use, hazards, and pipelines in the surrounding area. A more thorough review of these hazards should be considered for colocation. - In general, the whole region around some applications seems to have softer soil, with implications for large site preparation costs. Further site investigations should prioritize looking into the geotechnical conditions. - Applications along coastlines are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. The benefits of colocation should be weighed against the potential design implications. - The benefits of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in place should be explored further. If heat supply from the NPP is not required or not feasible due to the distance between the NPP and the application, there may be an opportunity to supply hydrogen to the plant through an existing pipeline. - Because there are several collocated industrial plants in the regions for the refinery and methanol plant, the benefits of sharing resources from the NPP should be explored further. This may open up additional sites for colocation. The following knowledge gaps were identified for the colocation of NPPs with these three industries, and industrial applications in general. These gaps are: - While the STAND tool contains many important characteristics for the reactor siting process, it is not calibrated for the colocation of NPPs with industrial facilities. - There are aspects of both the NPP and industrial application that need to be quantified for a siting analysis. Particularly, we need to understand the water intake requirements for NPPs and each application. - Further work may focus on adapting the STAND site comparison methodology to comparison of sites for co-location. This will involve using the data documented in this report as a starting point and performing a comprehensive and quantitative comparison. - Without spending significant resources, it would be impossible to gather data for each site to evaluate all aspects of siting. One approach to finding data and understanding its implications to siting is looking at FSARs for existing plants. For example, most sites considered in this study have small Vs30 values, indicating soft soil. However, there are NPPs located in the vicinity of most of the sites (e.g., Waterford Steam Electric Station near New Orleans) and reviewing available site characteristics and geotechnical data for these NPPs, might provide further information for siting. - The siting analysis in this study indicates that colocation of the NPP with the industrial site could be difficult based on external hazards, cooling requirements, weather, or population. We need to determine the impact of distance between the two facilities on cost and quality of energy transport. - This study did not touch on socioeconomic impacts for NPP colocation with industrial facilities. The input-output analysis methodology could be applied to the communities referenced in this study to determine the socioeconomic impact of these projects. - Similarly, the impacts of colocation on emergency planning was not explored in this study. The impacts on emergency planning infrastructure are somewhat related to the socioeconomic impacts, and could be explored using a similar methodology. - This study also did not address physical and cybersecurity, which will be important aspects of co-location [ref] . Cybersecurity will be important, regardless of the distance, but physical security will be important if the facilities are located very closely. Physical security might also be important for the steam lines between the plants, unless they are determined to be non-safety significant. - In many site l
Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) established that a government agency will provide perpetual care for closed uranium and thorium ore-processing sites that were operating under an NRC source material license in 1978 or were licensed thereafter. Commercial owners (licensees) operating under an NRC or agreement state specific license when UMTRCA was passed are responsible for conducting reclamation of any byproduct material remaining from uranium-ore processing operations in accordance with an NRC or agreement state approved reclamation plan. Reclamation includes both surface and groundwater remedies. Upon completion of reclamation and approval by NRC, the site is required to be transferred to either the host state or the DOE for long-term surveillance and maintenance. Since UMTRCA's enactment, six Title II sites have been transferred to DOE; an additional 24 Title II sites are anticipated to be transferred before 2050. DoE's role mandated under UMTRCA Title II as the long-term care custodian is to perform 'monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures necessary to protect the public health and safety.' UMTRCA requires that the licensee pay a long-term surveillance charge 'sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance.' However, at some sites such as the Bluewater, New Mexico, Disposal Site, this mandate has required additional effort and expense by DOE, beyond the originally anticipated and intended scope within UMTRCA, but within the authority of DOE under UMTRCA. In 1997, the Bluewater site became the second UMTRCA Title II site to be transferred to DOE. The site was the location of a uranium mill operated from 1953 until 1982. The specific licensee began site reclamation in 1991, and by 1995 all tailings and contaminated materials were encapsulated in two tailings disposal cells and other disposal areas. In addition to surface contamination, milling activities impacted groundwater in the two upper aquifers. In 1989, the specific licensee attempted active groundwater remediation; however, no significant reduction in contaminant concentrations was observed. As a result, the specific licensee applied to NRC for alternate concentration limits (ACLs) in 1990, which were approved in 1996 as being protective, after additional corrective actions were performed. Since transfer of the Bluewater site to DOE, unforeseen challenges have occurred, requiring additional actions. The first challenge is the occurrence of surface depressions located on the northern section of the main tailings disposal cell. The depressions were first observed during DoE's initial inspection in 1998; however, evidence of these can be observed on satellite images taken prior to transfer. Since being first observed, the depressions have continued to grow both in depth and areal extent. Due to the design of the main tailings disposal cell, the depressions impede storm water from being effectively shed off the 101- hectare (250-acre) top slope of the main tailings disposal cell. Instead, storm water accumulates in the depressions, forming a large ephemeral pond that has stored up to 16.3 x 10{sup 6} liters (4.3 million gallons) of stormwater. The ponding poses a potential risk to the integrity of the main tailings disposal cell in the case of a large storm event, with the potential to cause the pond to overtop and erode the cover material and underlying waste. DOE has taken a number of short-term actions to monitor, measure, and reduce the ponding and is currently working with the US Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a repair. Additional challenges are associated with groundwater at the Bluewater site. Nine wells were present on the 1335-hectare (3300-acre) site upon transfer. Groundwater compliance was called into question after the State of New Mexico reduced its uranium groundwater standard from 5.0 to 0.03 milligrams per liter in 2004, and when an ACL for uranium was exceeded in a site monitoring well in 2010. Acquiring historical groundwater data and subsequent evaluations as well as additional DOE groundwater monitoring led to installing 10 new monitoring wells and performing additional site hydrogeology recharacterization. DOE continues to evaluate groundwater conditions at the site and works with the NRC to determine regulatory requirements and a path forward. As a result of lessons learned at the Bluewater site and other Title II sites, improved processes have been implemented at a programmatic level to increase due diligence before site transfer and prevent similar issues from occurring at other UMTRCA Title II sites under long-term management. DoE's due diligence process is documented in the Process for Transition of UMTRCA Title II Disposal Sites to DOE for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance and is designed to ensure that DOE has no technical or compliance concerns with regulatory decisions that might compromise protectiveness following site transfer to DOE. Implementation of the due diligence process has increased DoE's role prior to site transfer and has been effective in identifying potential issues. Actions by NRC and specific licensees, in response to enhanced due diligence efforts by DOE, are expected to minimize, if not totally prevent, the need for unanticipated actions by DOE pertaining to the surface and groundwater remedies after site transfer. (authors)
This report presents a preliminary evaluation of removing used nuclear fuel (UNF) from 12 shutdown nuclear power plant sites. At these shutdown sites the nuclear power reactors have been permanently shut down and the sites have been decommissioned or are undergoing decommissioning. The shutdown sites are Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, Zion, Crystal River, Kewaunee, and San Onofre. The evaluation was divided into four components: characterization of the UNF and greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC waste) inventory; a description of the on-site infrastructure and conditions relevant to transportation of UNF and GTCC waste; an evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and experience relevant to shipping transportation casks containing UNF and GTCC waste, including identification of gaps in information; and, an evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove UNF and GTCC waste. The primary sources for the inventory of UNF and GTCC waste are the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) RW-859 used nuclear fuel inventory database, industry sources such as StoreFUEL and SpentFUEL, and government sources such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The primary sources for information on the conditions of site and near-site transportation infrastructure and experience included observations and information collected during visits to the Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion sites; information provided by managers at the shutdown sites; Facility Interface Data Sheets compiled for DOE in 2005; Services Planning Documents prepared for DOE in 1993 and 1994; industry publications such as Radwaste Solutions; and Google Earth. State and Regional Group representatives, a Tribal representative, and a Federal Railroad Administration representative participated in six of the shutdown site visits. Every site was found to have at least one off-site transportation mode option for removing its UNF and GTCC waste; some have multiple options. Experience removing large components during reactor decommissioning provided an important source of information used to identify the transportation mode options for the sites. Especially important in conducting the evaluation were site visits, through which information was obtained that would not have been available otherwise. Extensive photographs taken during the site visits proved to be particularly useful in documenting the current conditions at or near the sites. Additional conclusions from this evaluation include: The 12 shutdown sites use designs from 4 different suppliers involving 9 different (horizontal and vertical) dry storage systems that would require the use of 8 different transportation cask designs to remove the UNF and GTCC waste from the shutdown sites; Although there are common aspects, each site has some unique features and/or conditions; Although some regulatory actions will be required, all UNF at the initial 9 shutdown sites (Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion) is in licensed systems that can be transported, including a small amount of high-burnup fuel; Each site indicated that 2-3 years of advance time would be required for its preparations before shipments could begin; Most sites have more than one transportation option, e.g., rail, barge, or heavy haul truck, as well as constraints and preferences. It is expected that additional site visits will be conducted to add to the information presented in the evaluation.
This is a technical paper that does not take into account the contractual limitations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). Under the provisions of the Standard Contract, DOE does not consider spent nuclear fuel in multi-assembly canisters to be an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this paper conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract provisions prevail. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Integrated Waste Management (DOE-IWM) continues to conduct evaluations of removing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from shutdown nuclear power plant sites. The 14 shutdown sites included in the evaluation to date have nuclear power reactors that have been permanently shut down and the sites have been decommissioned or are undergoing decommissioning. The 14 shutdown sites are Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, Zion, Crystal River, Kewaunee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Fort Calhoun. The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ceased operations in September 2018 and will be included in future evaluations. The evaluations of the shutdown sites contain four components: - A characterization of the SNF and greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC waste) inventory; - A description of the on-site infrastructure at the shutdown sites; - An evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and experience at the shutdown sites - An evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove SNF and GTCC waste. The primary sources for the inventory of SNF were the DOE GC-859 and RW-859 spent nuclear fuel inventory databases. This inventory has been augmented with data obtained from the shutdown sites for SNF discharges that occurred after June 2013. The primary sources for information on the conditions of site and near-site transportation infrastructure and experience included field observations and information collected during visits to the 14 shutdown sites, information provided by managers and staff at the shutdown sites, and Google Earth imagery. Extensive photographs taken during the shutdown site visits have proven to be particularly useful in documenting the current conditions at and near the shutdown sites. Tribal and state representatives, State and Regional Group representatives, and Federal Railroad Administration representatives have participated in 11 of the shutdown site visits. In addition to visiting the shutdown site, site visits often include activities such as meeting with local railroads to discuss the near-site railroad infrastructure and meeting with community engagement panels. Oyster Creek permanently ceased power operations on September 17, 2018 and fuel was removed from the reactor vessel on September 25, 2018. Planning for the Oyster Creek site visit has begun and is conducted in three stages. In the first stage, data and documents that are applicable to Oyster Creek are collected. In the second stage, questions are developed based on the data and documents collected during the first stage. These questions are submitted to the Oyster Creek site approximately one month before the site visit. The third stage involves establishing specific schedules and participants. Participants will likely include tribal and state representatives, the Council of State Governments - Eastern Regional Conference, and the Federal Railroad Administration. State participation will likely include a representative of the State Rail Safety Participation Program, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and the New Jersey Bureau of Nuclear Engineering. The site visit is tentatively expected to occur in April or May of 2019. (authors)
The Caldas site is located in the Federal State of Minas Gerais in Brazil about 25 km from the city of Pocos de Caldas. While the city itself has 150,000 inhabitants there is a total population of around 0.5 million people living in an area that could potentially be influenced by the site. Uranium ore was mined and milled here between the years of 1982 and 1995, with ore extraction taking place from an open pit. Of the material removed, aside from that extracted for uranium, some was used on-site for road construction and building embankments while the remainder was disposed of onto two major rock piles. There are a number of potential historical and current environmental impacts to groundwater as a consequence of discharges into streams which then flow off site. The site is now undergoing a phase of decommissioning which includes the formulation and substantiation of a site remediation strategy. As part of a wider International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Cooperation Project aimed at providing practical guidance for implementing a decommissioning and remediation plan at the site, WSP E and E were invited to lead a mission in order to provide advice on the importance and merits of stakeholder engagement and how to ultimately build an engagement program. In November 2011, WSP E and E met with personnel from the site operators, the Brazilian regulatory bodies and representatives from the local stakeholder community and explained the principles of stakeholder engagement and how the process had internationally evolved principally from a decide-announce-defend approach to a more formal two way mechanism of engagement. Historically there had been insufficient liaison between the site operator, the nuclear regulator and the environmental regulator. All parties had recognized that greater interaction was necessary. There had also been very little engagement with local stakeholders about the various activities on the site and the potential implications of these activities on human health and the environment. The main concerns of the local stakeholders were in relation to potential environmental impacts on groundwater and surface water as well as their lack of knowledge about the site's activities and how it might evolve over time. There was a feeling that the site brought no real benefit to the local community as local labor was rarely utilized when work was being undertaken. WSP E and E were asked many questions about stakeholder engagement processes and had to address a number of concerns relating to being able to construct and control an engagement program. Advice was provided on how to construct a phased program in a manner that would allow the site operator to demonstrate increased transparency and allow as wide a range of stakeholders as possible the opportunity to become engaged. We provided an important message in that engagement often had to be culture and project specific and that what might work in one country could not necessarily purely be transposed to another. Since the WSP E and E mission there has been evidence of a number of positive steps in many of the areas of stakeholder engagement related to the Caldas site. The nuclear and environmental regulators work in a more open and transparent manner and continue to undertake joint inspections of the Caldas site. They have agreed to develop a written agreement that will enable them to jointly assess and discuss the issues on the site. Both regulatory bodies had previously accompanied the site operator on a visit to the Wismut uranium mining area in Germany and as well as providing useful learning had also allowed the regulators to discuss some common issues, thus bringing them closer together. A local stakeholder group under the auspices of the Water Commission had previously been set up but now they are starting to have more regular meetings with the site operator and nuclear regulator. They are now additionally considering the formation of a site specific advisory board (based on similar lines to those at US legacy sites) in order to gain some further technical focus within the stakeholder community. The site operator has started to present and explain the proposed environmental remediation plans to various towns and cities potentially influenced by the Caldas site. The successes to date can be attributed primarily to the willingness of the site operator to engage more openly with local community representatives in addition to the enthusiasm of the Water Commission itself. Providing stakeholder engagement advice to all the relevant parties in a manner which recognized their concerns, aspirations and country specific culture was extremely important for this positive progress to have been established. The process established and the subsequent successes could provide useful learning to those countries that face similar cultural engagement challenges. (authors)
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).