Report to Congress

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives 

to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks 

and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009

DOE/EM-0004

Office of Environmental Management

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

(202) 586-5000

E-mail: EM-40CustomerServiceDesk@em.doe.gov 
Fernald Site, near Cincinnati, Ohio, 1987 (top image)

The Fernald Closure Project (called the Fernald Site) is a former uranium processing facility. 

Fernald Preserve, 2006 (lower image)

Cleanup was successfully completed in 2006. 

On the cover:
 Executive Summary

January 2009 i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Fifty years of nuclear weapons production and energy research in the United States 

during the Cold War generated large amounts of radioactive wastes, spent nuclear fuel 

(SNF), excess plutonium and uranium, thousands of contaminated facilities, and 

contaminated soil and groundwater. During most of that half century, the Nation did 

not have the environmental regulatory structure or nuclear waste cleanup technologies 

that exist today. The result was a legacy of nuclear waste that was stored and disposed 

of in ways now considered unacceptable. Cleaning up and ultimately disposing of 

these wastes is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 

In 1989, DOE established the Office of Environmental Management (EM) to solve the 

large scale and technically challenging risks posed by the world’s largest nuclear 

cleanup. This required EM to build a new nuclear cleanup infrastructure, assemble and 

train a technically specialized workforce, and develop the technologies and tools 

required to safely decontaminate, disassemble, stabilize, disposition, and remediate 

unique radiation hazards. 

The sites where nuclear activities produced legacy waste and contamination include the 

original Manhattan Project sites – Los Alamos, New Mexico; Hanford, Washington; and 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee – as well as major Cold War sites, such as Savannah River Site, 

South Carolina; the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho; Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado; and 

Fernald, Ohio. Today EM has responsibility for nuclear cleanup activities at 21 sites 

covering more than two million acres in 13 states, and employs more than 30,000 

Federal and contractor employees, including scientists, engineers and hazardous waste 

technicians. This cleanup poses unique, technically complex problems, which must be 

solved under the most hazardous of conditions, and which will require billions of 

dollars a year for several more decades. 

The EM program focus during its first 10 years was on managing the most urgent risks 

and maintaining safety at each site while negotiating state and Federal environmental 

compliance agreements. The program also concentrated on characterizing waste and 

nuclear materials and assessing the magnitude and extent of environmental 

contamination. By the late 1990s, EM had made significant progress in identifying and 

characterizing the extent of contamination and cleanup required and began 

transitioning from primarily a characterization and stabilization program to an active 

cleanup and closure program. 

During that time, EM formulated multi-year cleanup and closure plans, which 

contributed to cleanup progress; however, reducing the overall environmental risk 

associated with the cleanup program remained a challenge. In response, the Secretary 

of Energy directed a review of the EM program be undertaken. The resulting “Top-to-
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction 

of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War 

January 2009 ii 

Bottom Review” re-directed the program focus from managing risks to accelerating the 

reduction of these risks. 

PROGRESS 

Taking a broader look at cleanup results across the program, EM has made substantial 

progress in nearly every area of nuclear waste cleanup, including stabilizing and 

consolidating special nuclear material (SNM). Progress also includes the near 

completion of transferring SNF from wet to dry storage and disposition of large 

quantities of transuranic (TRU) waste, low-level waste (LLW), and mixed low-level 

waste (MLLW). Much work remains but demonstrable progress has been made, 

specifically: 

• Stabilizing and consolidating SNM (plutonium and uranium) resulting in 

significant reduction of environmental, safety, and security risks. EM has 

eliminated all but two highly secure nuclear material storage locations and the 

associated costly security requirements; 

• Transferring nearly all of EM’s SNF inventory from wet to dry storage, a safer 

configuration for the long term. Previously, much of the SNF was stored in aging 

water pools. At Idaho National Laboratory, these pools were located over an 

important groundwater aquifer; Hanford’s pools were located within a quartermile of the Columbia River; 

• Stabilizing radioactive wastes stored in large, aging and leaking underground 

tanks. This was accomplished by transferring the radioactive liquid tank waste 

from single-shell tanks to more durable double-shelled tanks at Hanford and 

pursuing tank cleanout and closures at Hanford, Savannah River Site, and Idaho; 

• Disposing of both remote-handled (RH) and contact-handled (CH) TRU waste, 

LLW and MLLW – using safe and compliant processes, large volumes of waste 

have been disposed of successfully; 

• Remediating soil and groundwater contamination, thereby mitigating the further 

spread of these contaminants; 

• Deactivating and decommissioning (D&D) radioactively contaminated facilities 

at sites such as Rocky Flats, and replicating the skills learned there to D&D 

facilities at other EM sites. 

 

However, the biggest challenges EM faces are those that have few precedents and fewer 

off-the-shelf technologies and processes to address them. EM continues to move 

forward and clear hurdles in finalizing design, constructing, and operating three unique 

and complex tank waste processing plants to treat approximately 88 million gallons of 

radioactive tank waste for ultimate disposal. With a total cost estimate of $14.3 billion 
 Executive Summary

January 2009 iii 

to construct, these plants require extensive engineering, technology development and 

testing; vast quantities of concrete, steel, and other commodities; and a highly trained 

and specialized workforce. EM also faces the challenge of selecting and implementing 

disposition options needed to prepare certain types of SNM and SNF for ultimate 

disposal. Compounding the technical complexities are regulatory and national policy 

issues, which also must be resolved. 

While maintaining the momentum to develop and build these capabilities, EM will 

continue to seek ways to maximize reduction of environment, safety, and health risks in 

a safe, secure, compliant, and cost-effective manner. The current EM life-cycle cost 

estimate range, which covers the period of 1997 through completion, is $274 to $330 

billion. This includes $69 billion in actual costs from 1997 through 2007, and an 

additional estimate of $205 to $260 billion to complete EM’s remaining mission. EM is 

analyzing its cost and schedule project baselines to further optimize the program. This 

strategic planning effort will concentrate on the technical, programmatic, and 

performance challenges facing the cleanup projects. It is focused on footprint reduction 

and near-term completions to reduce monitoring and maintenance costs and on 

alternative approaches to dispositioning tank waste, excess SNM and SNF. 

The EM life-cycle cost estimate does not include the Department’s additional 

environmental liabilities primarily for the D&D of hundreds of excess (surplus) 

facilities, as well as the management of waste and materials from other DOE mission 

programs (i.e., National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Science, and Office 

of Nuclear Energy). The liabilities for other mission programs amount to $3.7 to $9.2 

billion to address the 340 excess facilities and materials. 

STRATEGIES 

EM’s overall goal is straightforward – to complete its cleanup mission in a safe, secure, 

and compliant manner and to do so within prescribed costs and schedules. However, 

because of the size, complexity, and uniqueness of this program, EM continues to 

develop and enhance management systems and cleanup and waste disposition 

approaches and technologies to build on the progress of the past 20 years. The 

following describe the strategies EM is taking and planning to take in its continuous 

pursuit to improve program effectiveness and build on past successes. 

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 

More than 90 percent of EM’s work is accomplished through 40 prime contracts having 

a total value of more than $40 billion. To ensure high-quality procurements, EM 

established a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Project Management 

to standardize the acquisition process; integrate acquisition, contract and project 

management; and achieve sustainable process improvement. EM continues to 

transition from management and operating (M&O) contracts to performance-based 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction 

of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War 

January 2009 iv 

contracts or, as appropriate, other contract types focused on discrete scopes of work. 

This approach provides enhanced flexibility, enables greater competition and allows 

more opportunities for small business. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, 

mandates a disciplined process be applied to the management of the Department’s 

construction projects. EM is also applying those same principles to its cleanup projects, 

which involve operational rather than construction activities. Currently, EM manages 

14 construction projects and 62 cleanup projects, many of which will require more than 

a decade to complete. Invoking the best practices of industry in project management 

ensures projects remain on schedule and within cost. A “technology readiness 

assessment and maturity plan” methodology is being incorporated into projects at 

various stages, along with DOE Standard 1189, which requires that safety be integrated 

early in the design phases of projects. EM has partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to identify the necessary enhancements in personnel capabilities and systems 

to further transform EM into a “best-in-class” project management organization. EM is 

also developing and implementing processes and procedures for improving quality 

assurance and for identifying and managing project risks. 

REGULATORY MILESTONES AND COMMITMENTS 

Most of EM’s cleanup is performed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) through Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) 

and under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) through various 

consent and compliance orders. EM’s overall record of meeting regulatory milestones 

exceeds 90 percent. However, at a number of sites, EM has missed or anticipates 

missing some enforceable milestones in the near future, due to continuing program 

challenges such as safety, contract administration, project management, regulatory, 

legal, technical, and economic influences. EM is committed to meeting its regulatory 

obligations and is taking a number of steps to expand and improve the tools used to 

monitor and track regulatory compliance. 

TANK WASTE 

DOE and its predecessor agencies generated radioactive waste as a by-product of 

processing SNF for the production of nuclear weapons. EM has taken actions to ensure 

safety in the storage of 88 million gallons of this tank waste in 230 underground tanks at 

Hanford, Savannah River Site (SRS) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Tank waste, 

by far, is DOE’s most significant environmental, safety and health threat, having 

significant regulatory, technical and policy issues. It also is EM’s largest cost element, 

with life-cycle costs estimated between $87 billion and $117 billion, which represent 36 

to 39 percent of the total program cost. During the next decade, projected costs to 
 Executive Summary

January 2009 v 

complete construction of three one-of-a-kind plants for processing this tank waste into 

stable, long-lasting glass or other solid waste forms for ultimate disposal are projected 

at $14.3 billion. Many tanks, particularly at Hanford, have exceeded their design lives 

and require significant annual costs for monitoring and maintenance. At Hanford and 

SRS, combined annual tank monitoring and maintenance costs alone are $500 million. 

Innovative technologies and processing options are being identified and developed to 

retrieve and more efficiently treat tank waste. 

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 

SNF was generated from research associated with nuclear power and production of 

nuclear materials for use in nuclear weapons, scientific research, and medicine. EM 

manages about 2,400 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of SNF. EM has solved many of 

the major technological challenges of moving SNF from aging wet storage pools into 

dry storage. Nearly all of EM’s SNF will be safely managed in dry storage containers by 

the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, awaiting ultimate disposition in a deep geologic 

repository. While SNF can be stored in this configuration for at least 50 years, 

availability and capacity of Yucca Mountain could jeopardize compliance milestones 

and require the construction of additional on-site storage facilities. 

SURPLUS SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS 

Storing surplus SNM, mainly isotopes of plutonium and uranium, requires extensive 

and expensive measures to reduce safety, health, and security risks. Sound 

management requires this material be consolidated into fewer locations. There were 

nine locations where SNM was stored. EM has eliminated all but two of these highly 

secure nuclear material storage locations, one at SRS and one at Hanford. The 

plutonium stored at Hanford will be consolidated at SRS by the end of FY 2009, thus 

reducing storage costs and enabling D&D of the plutonium processing complex at 

Hanford to proceed. Although current and planned facilities could accommodate the 

storage and disposition of surplus plutonium and uranium at SRS, EM continues to 

evaluate the most cost-effective means to ultimately disposition these materials. 

TRANSURANIC WASTE, LOW-LEVEL WASTE AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE 

EM is now routinely disposing of RH and CH TRU waste in the world’s only operating 

deep geologic repository for radioactive waste—the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 

near Carlsbad, New Mexico. In addition, EM routinely disposes of large quantities of 

LLW and MLLW at a combination of DOE and commercial facilities. 

EM also has in its inventory LLW and MLLW that does not have readily available 

disposal options. One of these waste streams is Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) LLW. 

DOE is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate 

disposal options for GTCC LLW. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction 

of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War 

January 2009 vi 

CLEANUP COMPLETION, CLOSURE, AND TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SITES 

EM is responsible for cleanup at 107 sites, with acreage equaling the areas of Delaware 

and Rhode Island combined. By the end of FY 2008, EM had projected completion of 

cleanup at 89 of these sites but completed 86. EM is implementing a planning approach 

that is national in scale and uses risk reduction as a major prioritization factor. Based 

on successes at Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Mound, EM continues to apply lessons 

learned at these sites, as it pursues small sites closures and the completion of discrete 

areas of larger sites. 

ACHIEVEMENTS AND INNOVATION IN TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING 

EM’s advancements in engineering and technology led to the design and operation of 

first-of-a-kind technologies to solve many problems that once seemed unsolvable. 

Significant challenges remain in some EM program areas such as, waste processing, 

SNF, and challenging materials. The EM Engineering and Technology program will 

address these risks and use applied research and engineering to improve technologies 

and processes at DOE sites across the Nation. 

CONCLUSION 

The EM program has solved environmental cleanup problems that at one time seemed 

unsolvable. EM will continue to make significant progress in solving the complex 

challenges still facing the program. EM is committed to pursuing solutions that enable 

it to meet its environmental stewardship responsibilities, while judiciously using the 

resources entrusted by the American people. 

 
 Table of Contents

January 2009 vii 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... I

1 EM PROGRESS ..................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................................1 

1.2 The Environmental Management Program Background............................................2 

1.3 Acquisition, Contract and Project Management............................................................7 

1.4 Regulatory Agreements ...................................................................................................... 21 

1.5 Interim Storage and Final Disposition of Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear 

Fuel............................................................................................................................................. 23 

1.6 Consolidation and Disposition of Surplus Special Nuclear Materials and 

Safeguards and Security Impacts...................................................................................... 41 

1.7 Cleanup Completion, Closure, and Transfer of Environmental 

Remediation Sites .................................................................................................................. 48 

1.8 Achievements and Innovation.......................................................................................... 59 

2 REGULATORY MILESTONES AND COMMITMENTS ........................................................................ 67 

2.1 Enforceable Milestones........................................................................................................ 67 

2.2 Milestone Challenges ........................................................................................................... 70 

3 EM PROGRAM LIFE CYCLE COST.................................................................................................. 75 

3.1 Evolution of EM Program Life-Cycle Cost....................................................................... 75 

3.2 Current EM Life-Cycle Cost Estimate................................................................................ 78 

3.3 Strategic Planning ................................................................................................................. 79 

3.3.1 Progress and Maintenance ........................................................................................... 80 

3.3.2 Footprint Reduction ........................................................................................................ 81 

3.3.3 Small Site Near-term Completions .............................................................................. 82 

4 EXCESS FACILITIES AND MATERIALS SCOPE TRANSFER ............................................................... 85 

APPENDIX A LIST OF ENFORCEABLE MILESTONES .................................................................................A-1 

APPENDIX B LIFE-CYCLE COSTS BY PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY........................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C FACILITIES PROPOSED FOR TRANSITION TO EM ...............................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D LIST OF ACRONYMS........................................................................................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... E-1
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 viii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 Corporate Metric Life-cycle Completion Chart .......................................................................... 5

Figure 1.2 SWPF Construction Progress and Conceptual Model...........................................................26

Figure 1.3 Waste Treatment Plant Construction Progress........................................................................26

Figure 1.4 Sodium Bearing Waste Facility Construction Progress.........................................................27

Figure 1.5 SRS Saltstone Facility.........................................................................................................................27

Figure 1.6 Paducah DUF6 Conversion Facility..............................................................................................45

Figure 1.7 Rocky Flats Before and After Cleanup Completion................................................................50

Figure 1.8 Fernald Before and After Cleanup Completion ......................................................................51

Figure 1.9 Savannah River T Area Before and After Cleanup Completion.........................................54

Figure 1.10 Hanford 300 Area Cleanup Progress Between 2005 and 2008.....................................55

Figure 1.11 Hanford F Reactor Under Construction (1944) and Cocooned (2008) .......................55

Figure 1.12 Hanford K-Basin Before and Now.............................................................................................56

Figure 1.13 Oak Ridge Melton Valley Before and After Cleanup Completion ..................................57

Figure 1.14 Paducah Scrap Metal and Material Storage Areas Before and After Cleanup 

Completion .......................................................................................................................................58

Figure 1.15 Engineering and Technology Innovation Highlights.........................................................60

Figure 1.16 EM Safety Performance — Total Recordable Cases..............................................................65

Figure 1.17 EM Safety Performance — Lost Work Days Cases ................................................................65

Figure 3.1 Hanford Footprint Reduction Scenario......................................................................................82

Figure 3.2 Sites with Active EM Programs as of 2008................................................................................83

Figure 3.3 Remaining Active EM Sites in 2015.............................................................................................83

 
 Table of Contents

January 2009 ix 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1 Cost and Schedule Savings of Accelerated Cleanup and Closure ........................................ 6

Table 1.2 Major Procurements in 2008...........................................................................................................12

Table 2.1 Types of Agreements and Orders..................................................................................................67

Table 2.2 List of Agreements, Orders, and the Number of Enforceable Milestones at Each 

Site..........................................................................................................................................................69

Table 2.3 Enforceable Milestones at Risk........................................................................................................71

Table 3.1 Evolution of Life Cycle Cost Estimates..........................................................................................77

Table 3.2 Estimated Remaining Life-Cycle Costs and Completion Dates by Site...............................79

Table 4.1 Summary of Facilities and Material Groups for Potential Transfer to EM .........................86

Table 4.2 Summarized List of Excess Inventory and Estimated Liability Cost.....................................87
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 x 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 1 

1 EM PROGRESS

This Report to Congress is prepared pursuant to section 3130 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 (NDAA), and summarizes the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE’s or the Department’s) Office of Environmental Management (EM) 

initiatives to accelerate the reduction of environmental risks and challenges posed by the 

legacy of the Cold War. 

1.1 OVERVIEW

The EM program was established in 1989 to address the Nation’s Cold War 

environmental legacy resulting from five decades of nuclear weapons production and 

government-sponsored nuclear energy research. While pursuing this mission, EM is 

committed to sound safety principles and will continue to maintain and demand the 

highest safety performance to protect workers and communities where EM cleanup 

activities occur. Through focused contract and project management, EM is remediating 

sites and reducing risks to current and future generations. 

This report, developed in accordance with section 3130 of the FY 2008 NDAA, 

addresses the following: 

• Section 1 delineates EM’s cleanup progress and discusses the status of initiatives 

undertaken to accelerate risk reduction after the 2002 Review of the Environmental 

Management Program, (commonly referred to as the Top-to-Bottom Review), a 2007 

report by the National Academy of Public Administration entitled Office of 

Environmental Management: Managing America’s Defense Nuclear Waste and other 

evaluations and reviews. Section 1 also discusses the progress, strategy and 

challenges in the following areas: 

o Acquisition, Contract and Project Management; 

o Regulatory Agreements; 

o Interim Storage and Final Disposition of Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel; 

o Consolidation and Disposition of Surplus Special Nuclear Materials and 

Safeguards and Security Impacts; 

o Closure and Transfer of Environmental Remediation Sites; and 

o Achievements and Innovation by Contractors in Accelerated Risk Reduction 

and Cleanup. 

• Section 2 describes EM’s current regulatory framework and site-specific 

commitments 

• Section 3 discusses EM’s life-cycle cost estimate 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 2 

• Section 4 provides an overview of excess facilities and cleanup scope expected to 

be transferred to EM. 

The report also includes the following appendices: 

• Appendix A: List of Enforceable Milestones 

• Appendix B: Life-cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary 

• Appendix C: Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

• Appendix D: List of Acronyms 

• Appendix E: List of References 

1.2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BACKGROUND

Fifty years of nuclear weapons production and energy research generated millions of 

gallons of liquid radioactive waste, millions of cubic meters of solid radioactive wastes, 

thousands of metric tons (MT) of spent nuclear fuel 

(SNF) and special nuclear material, thousands of 

contaminated facilities and huge quantities of 

contaminated soil and water. The EM program was 

established in 1989 to clean up this Cold War legacy. 

At the inception of the EM program the extent of 

contamination and associated risks were largely 

unknown; and many of the technologies and processes 

necessary to reduce these risks had not been developed. 

The EM program focus during its first ten years was on 

managing the most urgent risks while developing the 

technology and tools necessary to execute the world’s 

largest environmental cleanup. Initially the program 

focused on characterizing waste, assessing the 

magnitude of contamination, stabilizing material, and 

achieving compliance. Developing a cleanup program of 

unprecedented scope and complexity presented an 

enormous challenge, with many of the wastes and facilities requiring “first-of-a-kind” 

solutions. By 1995, EM had transitioned from primarily a characterization and 

stabilization program to a cleanup and closure program. 

During its early years, EM developed a series of documents to inform the public about 

the history of the nuclear weapons complex and the resulting required cleanup. These 

included: 

The Cleanup Challenge

EM Cleanup Scope included the 

remediation and processing of 

about: 

 13 MT of plutonium 

 108 MT of plutonium and 

uranium residues 

 88 million gallons of 

radioactive liquid tank waste 

 2,400 MTHM of spent 

nuclear fuel 

 158,000 cubic meters of 

transuranic waste 

 1.4 million cubic meters of 

low-level waste and mixed 

low-level waste 

 450 nuclear facilities, 3,600 

industrial facilities, and 900 

radiological facilities
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 3 

• Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR), the Department’s first topdown life-cycle estimate on the full scope and cost of the “Cold War Mortgage" 

(1995 & 1996); 

• Environmental Management Taking Stock: A Look at the Opportunities and Challenges 

Posed by Inventories of the Cold War Era, a report on the Materials in Inventory 

Initiative (1995); 

• Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom (1996); and 

• Linking Legacies Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to 

their Environmental Consequences (1997). 

Following the BEMR efforts, EM sites continued developing life-cycle cost and 

schedule estimates, which were eventually published in site Ten Year Plans. Sites were 

challenged to identify ways in which most of the cleanup could be completed within 

the subsequent ten years. These plans established near-term objectives for greatly 

accelerating the pace and reducing the cost of cleanup over previous projections. This 

planning process established the foundation for the successful acceleration of cleanup 

and closure of three former weapons production sites: Rocky Flats; Mound; and 

Fernald. 

In 1998, EM developed Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, a “projectized” approach to 

cleanup, which more fully defined the life-cycle scope and cost of the EM program. 

The report outlined the evolving EM cleanup program based on site-developed, projectby-project forecasts of the scope, schedule, and cost to complete cleanup. 

As a follow up to Paths to Closure, at the direction of the Secretary, the Assistant 

Secretary for EM conducted a Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM program and its 

management systems, with the goal of quickly and markedly improving program 

performance. The review, published in 2002, concluded EM’s focus was on managing 

worker, public and environmental risks, rather than actually reducing or eliminating 

those risks. The four major findings of the Top-to-Bottom Review were: 

• The manner in which EM developed, solicited, selected, and managed many 

contracts was not focused on accelerating risk reduction and applying innovative 

approaches to doing the work; 

• EM’s cleanup strategy was not based on comprehensive, coherent, technically 

supported risk prioritization; 

• EM’s internal business processes were not structured to support accelerated risk 

reduction or to address its current challenge of uncontrolled cost and schedule 

growth. DOE’s financial liability (estimated at the time of the report to be about 

$220 billion) would continue to grow in cost and schedule if significant changes 

to the program are not made; and 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 4 

• The current scope (at that time) of the EM program included activities not 

focused on, or supportive of, an accelerated, risk-based cleanup and closure 

mission. 

The Top-to-Bottom Review report provided a series of recommendations for improving 

performance. In 2002, EM launched a major initiative to implement those 

recommendations, focused on four major courses of action: 

• Improve DOE’s contract management; 

• Move EM to an accelerated, risk-based cleanup strategy; 

• Align DOE’s internal processes to support an accelerated, risk-based cleanup 

approach; and 

• Realign the EM program so its scope is consistent with an accelerated, risk-based 

cleanup and closure mission. 

Following the recommendations of the Top-to-Bottom Review, EM committed itself to 

extensive management reforms and re-focused programmatic objectives. Since that 

time, EM has continued to pursue many of the recommendations of the Top-to-Bottom 

Review and it has been the primary focus of EM leadership to build a Best-in-Class 

capability in EM for contract and project management. 

The aggressive innovations of EM leadership for improving EM’s performance were in 

initial stages of implementation when, in FY 2006, the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees requested in the FY 2006 appropriations bill that the 

National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) conduct a management review of 

the EM program. In April 2006, NAPA began this review, focusing on four areas: 

• Organization and Management; 

• Acquisition; 

• Project Management; and 

• Human Capital. 

Over 19 months, NAPA conducted its review in a highly interactive manner. During 

the course of the review, recommendations and proposals for improvement NAPA 

provided were consistent with the strategies and initiatives the Assistant Secretary was 

already undertaking to address contract and project management performance. NAPA 

identified the need to: 

• Focus management priority on human capital, budget and acquisition functions; 

• Advance the ongoing Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Project 

Management’s change management initiatives; and 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 5 

• Further advance project management capabilities and improve tools for 

managing and overseeing project performance. 

EM leadership strongly supported the proposals NAPA provided throughout the 

review and immediately began implementing them. EM has now implemented almost 

all of the panel recommendations and is aggressively working to complete the 

remaining few NAPA recommendations in early 2009. 

The performance of the EM program is measured against baselines of the scope, 

schedule and cost of each of the projects in the program. Sixteen corporate performance 

metrics are also used to assess and communicate the annual and life-cycle progress of 

the EM cleanup. Each metric is tracked against the projected life-cycle quantities 

necessary to complete cleanup at each site. Together, the baselines and the performance 

metrics clearly establish agreed-upon performance expectations. Both baselines and 

performance metrics are under configuration control. Figure 1.1 compares the status of 

the performance metrics in FY 2002 with the current status (as of the end FY 2008). 

Figure 1.1 Corporate Metric Life-cycle Completion Chart 

 

% of lifecycle total projected to be completed

10         20            30          40           50          60 70         80          90      100

EM Performance Metrics

Completed

Life‐Cycle

Total

Legend As of 2002 As of 2008

Plutonium packaged for long‐term

disposition

Enriched uranium packaged for

disposition

Pu and U residues packaged for

disposition

Depleted U and other U packaged

for disposition

Liquid waste eliminated

Transuranic (CH and RH)  waste

disposed

SNF packaged for final disposition

Low‐level/mixed low‐level waste

disposed

Material access areas (MAAs)

eliminated

Nuclear facility D&D completions

Radioactive facility D&D

completions

Industrial facility D&D completions

Site remediation complete

Geographic sites eliminated

Liquid waste tanks closed

High‐level waste packaged for final

disposition

5,089 containers

7,482 containers

107,828 kg

692,982

metric tons

88,000,000 gallons

239 tanks

22,464 containers

2,418 metric tons

157,664 cubic meters

1,380,370 cubic

meters

13 areas

454 facilities

902 facilities

3,619 facilities

10,547 sites

107 sites

% of lifecycle total projected to be completed

10         20            30          40           50          60 70         80          90      100

EM Performance Metrics

Completed

Life‐Cycle

Total

Legend As of 2002 As of 2008

Plutonium packaged for long‐term

disposition

Enriched uranium packaged for

disposition

Pu and U residues packaged for

disposition

Depleted U and other U packaged

for disposition

Liquid waste eliminated

Transuranic (CH and RH)  waste

disposed

SNF packaged for final disposition

Low‐level/mixed low‐level waste

disposed

Material access areas (MAAs)

eliminated

Nuclear facility D&D completions

Radioactive facility D&D

completions

Industrial facility D&D completions

Site remediation complete

Geographic sites eliminated

Liquid waste tanks closed

High‐level waste packaged for final

disposition

5,089 containers

7,482 containers

107,828 kg

692,982

metric tons

88,000,000 gallons

239 tanks

22,464 containers

2,418 metric tons

157,664 cubic meters

1,380,370 cubic

meters

13 areas

454 facilities

902 facilities

3,619 facilities

10,547 sites

107 sites
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 6 

Since 2002, EM has focused on and made substantial progress in stabilizing and 

consolidating special nuclear material, resulting in significant reduction of risk posed 

by these materials. As a result, EM has eliminated all but two Material Access Areas 

(MAAs), which has dramatically reduced not only risk, but costly compliance with 

security requirements. Progress also includes the near completion of transferring SNF 

from wet to dry storage and disposition of large quantities of transuranic (TRU) waste, 

low-level waste (LLW), and mixed-low level waste (MLLW). However, while the major 

portion of EM’s current budget is being devoted to building the capability for tank 

waste treatment and disposition, large investments are still needed to complete 

building the needed facilities and process the tank waste, which is one of the primary 

risk and cost drivers in the program. While much work remains, demonstrable 

progress has been made since 2002 to support EM’s overall objective of risk reduction 

and cleanup. 

For budget formulation, the EM program ranks 

cleanup activities with the greatest risk 

reduction benefit per radioactive content and 

overlays its regulatory-compliance 

commitments and best business practices to 

maximize cleanup progress. 

An important element of this process is the 

evaluation of options for completing cleanup 

work at small sites or in specific areas of larger 

sites, in order to reduce the ongoing costs of 

safety, surveillance, and maintenance. 

This approach has allowed the EM program 

to continue to reduce risk and also make 

significant progress in reducing the “footprint” of the EM program. 

The cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats site in Colorado in 2005, and the Fernald site 

in Ohio in 2006, are two clear examples of the benefit of balancing EM priorities. Work 

at both of these sites initially focused on the cleanup of high-risk nuclear materials, and 

then focused on the completion of lower-risk activities to enable the sites to be closed 

and re-dedicated to other beneficial use. By pursuing an early closure of the sites rather 

than maintaining them in a state that would have required continued surveillance and 

upkeep, EM estimates that nearly $21 billion was saved, as summarized in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1 Cost and Schedule Savings of Accelerated Cleanup and Closure 

Closure Site Original Baseline Cost 

and Completion Date 

Actual Cost and 

Completion Date 

Savings/Schedule 

Acceleration 

Rocky Flats $27 Billion, 2055 $6.5 Billion, 2005 $20.5 Billion, 50 Years

Fernald $3.4 Billion, 2030 $3.2 Billion, 2006 $ 0.2 Billion, 23 Years 

EM Priorities

 Essential activities to maintain a safe 

and secure posture in the EM complex 

 Radioactive tank waste stabilization, 

treatment, and disposal 

 Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt and 

disposition 

 Special nuclear material consolidation, 

processing, and disposition 

 High priority groundwater remediation 

 Transuranic and mixed/low level waste 

disposition 

 Soil and groundwater remediation 

 Excess facilities Deactivation & 

Decommissioning 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 7 

EM currently has 12 small sites and several area closures that are candidates for 

completion by 2015, and will continue to evaluate opportunities to pursue near-term 

completion and footprint reduction cleanup activities that would accelerate cleanup, 

ultimately reducing the life-cycle cost of the cleanup program. A discussion of related 

strategic planning is provided in Section 3. 

As well as being responsible for the cleanup of its current work scope, the Department 

has designated EM as the cleanup agent for excess facilities and materials currently 

owned by other Program Secretarial Offices (PSOs). However since 2001, EM has not 

accepted any new cleanup scope from other programs. This has created a backlog of 

excess facilities and materials requiring cleanup. In August 2006, the DOE Deputy 

Secretary directed EM to address these additional environmental liabilities, to execute 

the work, and to incorporate these liabilities into its program plans commensurate with 

the risk such activities posed. The additional liability identified to address the 340 

excess facilities and materials is in the range of $3.7 to $9.2 billion, which is discussed in 

detail in Section 4. 

1.3 ACQUISITION, CONTRACT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

More than 90 percent of EM’s work in reducing risk and completing cleanup is 

accomplished through the use of contracts. Currently, EM activities are being 

conducted through more than 40 prime contracts with a total value of more than 

$40 billion. These prime contracts generally are held by a limited liability company 

formed by individual companies and usually procure equipment and services from 

numerous subcontractors. The suite of contractors involves both large and small 

businesses with varying degrees of experience in DOE operations. Thus, one of the 

major focuses of the EM Federal workforce is to carry out an effective and efficient 

process for acquiring services for construction, deactivation and decommissioning 

(D&D), waste management, and environmental cleanup. In addition, EM must ensure 

contracts and project work scope are delivered to specifications within the negotiated 

costs and schedules. In order to facilitate this, EM established a new Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Acquisition and Project Management. 

1.3.1 ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 

The 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program, recognizing the importance of the 

acquisition process to EM’s success, highlighted the need for improvements in this vital 

business process. It specifically noted that the “manner in which EM develops, solicits, 

selects, and manages many contracts is not focused on accelerating risk reduction and 

applying innovative approaches to doing the work.” 

The Review provided numerous recommendations to address these findings. They 

included restructuring EM’s acquisition strategy to integrate project management, 

financial management, contract management, and oversight processes; improve the 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 8 

solicitation process to attract broader contractor participation; improve risk 

identification and management; and develop a more streamlined and predictable 

process for procurement and contract administration. In two subsequent reports, 

(Report to Congress Top-to-Bottom Review of the Environmental Management 

Program: Status of Implementation, October 2003, and Closure Planning Guidance, June 

2004), progress in taking the corrective actions necessary to address the Review 

recommendations and guidance on further corrective actions were described. 

The NAPA study, which began in April 2006, included acquisition as one of its focus 

areas. The NAPA Panel noted that its study was taking place coincident with 

significant ongoing acquisitions and in the wake of program modifications to the 

acquisition process. It provided additional proposals in these areas to further improve 

performance, all of which were accepted and are being implemented by EM. 

PROGRESS 

Ongoing acquisition management activities 

have been refined and enhanced while new 

ones have been developed and implemented. 

These initiatives include:

• Transitioning to Performance-Based 

Contracts; 

• Projectizing Contracts; 

• Contracting with Small Businesses; 

• Standardizing the Acquisition Process; 

and 

• Enhancing Personnel Capabilities. 

Transitioning to Performance-Based Contracts 

In 2002, EM had performance-based cost plus incentive fee contracts at three former 

nuclear weapons production sites that had no future DOE mission – Rocky Flats, 

Fernald, and Mound. With these “closure” contracts, the contractors agreed to a target 

cost and completion date; if the contractor was able to reduce the cost and accelerate the 

completion, additional fee would be earned. In each of these three contracts, the scope 

was completed ahead of the target schedules and below the target costs. Key success 

factors associated with these closure contracts were: the relatively short cleanup 

timeframe (e.g., 10 years); the pre-determined end-state and land use; identified off-site 

storage and disposal locations for special nuclear materials and radioactive waste, 

respectively; agreements with the regulators and communities as to the allowable 

amount of residual contamination remaining on site; and the use of earned value 

Acquisition and Contract 

Management Strategy 

 Acquisitions focused on accelerated risk 

reduction through performance-based 

contracts with well defined performance 

objectives 

 Centralized business processes and 

procedures 

 Single point of accountability for 

acquisition and contract management 

 Acquisitions aligned and integrated into 

project baselines 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 9 

measures on the cleanup baseline to measure progress in lieu of numerous regulatory 

milestones. 

In the months subsequent to the Top-to-Bottom Review, the performance-based incentives 

(PBIs) for all contracts were reviewed to determine their effectiveness in targeting 

contractor fee incentives to risk-reducing cleanup activities. In response, many PBIs 

were restructured. In addition, the transition from the traditional large, single site-wide 

management and operating (M&O) contracts to more aggressive, performance-based 

task oriented contracts was further emphasized. The goal was to structure contracts 

around defined performance objectives (scope, cost and schedule) and related at-risk 

financial incentives as a means to improve contractor performance, increase 

competition, and improve contractor cost efficiency. Where the key success factors 

noted above exist, contracts continue to be developed along these lines with 

enhancements incorporated from operating experience and recommendations of 

subsequent reviews such as those from the NAPA study. 

For other sites, particularly the larger cleanup sites, the approach has been to evaluate 

the work to be conducted during the base period of the contract, identify work scope to 

be accomplished within this timeframe, and establish appropriate PBIs to accomplish 

the specified work within cost and schedule. This approach is similar to the 

performance-based objectives and incentives included in the three major closure 

contracts. However, at the larger sites, key success factors are not always present, 

demonstrating the need for other flexible contracting strategies to support achievement 

of risk reduction and cleanup progress. 

Projectizing Contracts

One key strategy to drive mission success has been to re-procure historically large, site 

M&O contracts by breaking the work into discrete but still substantial projects. While 

performance-based contracts are preferred, the final procurement type is determined 

based on a range of factors such as the overall complexity of the work; extent of 

knowledge of existing conditions, such as type and amount of waste; and amount of 

project risk that can be borne by the contractor versus DOE. This strategy enables DOE 

to hire contractors having specific expertise to perform discrete scopes of work. It also 

focuses the contractor effort on accomplishing the work scope by using clear metrics 

and incentivizing attainment of the end results within cost and schedule. 

There are several examples where this strategy has been implemented and has 

demonstrated success. At the Hanford Site in eastern Washington State, remediation of 

contamination along the Columbia River was procured separately as the River Corridor 

Project. Remediation along the 50-mile stretch of this major Pacific Northwest river was 

of particular importance to the local and regional stakeholders. At the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL), cleanup of the site was procured separately from laboratory 

operations to enable contractors with the relevant experience to carry out these two 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 10 

highly disparate scopes. This strategy is continuing with the procurements at Savannah 

River Site (SRS) for the liquid waste system and one at the Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant. With the former, scope to manage and treat the radioactive liquid 

waste stored in large underground tanks is to be performed via a separate contract than 

the rest of site operations. At Portsmouth, a separate contract from those addressing 

site infrastructure and environmental remediation will be used to decontaminate, 

demolish, and dispose of the extremely large buildings and vast amounts of equipment 

used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons purposes. 

Contracting to Small Businesses 

Another advantage of contract projectizing is that it has allowed EM to define more 

discrete scopes of work for which small businesses are well qualified. Not only does 

this contribute to the growth of small businesses but it also further expands the pool of 

contractors with experience working at DOE sites. This is an important credential since 

EM’s work involves unique hazards associated with nuclear materials and radioactive 

contamination that are not encountered in other cleanup work. As a result, EM has 

become a leader within the DOE in identifying and awarding small business set-aside 

contracts. EM has provided more than $600 million directly to small businesses in 

FY 2007 and FY 2008, accounting for nearly 25 percent of the Department’s total small 

business prime contractor funding. EM also encourages large businesses to involve 

small businesses in their contracts in a mentor-protégé relationship, which further 

provides small businesses with important experience in addressing DOE hazards. 

EM has made extensive use of complex-wide multiple award contracts, in which firms 

have been selected to compete on tasks in such areas as environmental remediation, 

waste management, and facility deactivation and decommissioning. Because the 

companies are pre-qualified, the acquisition is much faster than traditional 

procurements. In 2004, EM awarded these contracts, known as indefinite 

delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to 22 companies, 14 of which are small 

businesses. IDIQ task orders have been used 17 times at 10 sites for a total dollar value 

of more than $400 million. These awards have been used for such projects as 

remediation of an uranium milling site near Moab, Utah; facility demolition and 

removal and soil and groundwater remediation at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory 

Separation Process Research Unit near Albany, New York; environmental remediation 

and closure of a former uranium processing facility in Ashtabula, Ohio; and soil and 

groundwater remediation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Menlo Park, 

California. 

Standardizing the Acquisition Process

EM has now built and is beginning to implement a standardized acquisition planning 

process to enable future cleanup acquisitions and contract transitions to flow more 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 11 

quickly and efficiently. This new EM Acquisition Center is co-located at DOE 

Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EM Consolidated Business Center (EMCBC) 

in Cincinnati, Ohio. The EMCBC was opened in early 2005 to provide business services 

to certain EM sites that, because of their small size, could not support such functions as 

procurement, contract management, finance, and legal services. In addition, EMCBC’s 

capabilities enable it to supplement these activities at larger sites throughout the EM 

complex. 

The primary objectives of the EM Acquisition Center are to establish and maintain: 

• A cadre of skilled, experienced acquisition professionals to support managers in 

the field, on a recurring basis, for major EM acquisition planning and 

procurement activities; 

• A central repository of DOE and EM-specific acquisition procedures, policies and 

templates and other information promoting common practices and work flows; 

• A well-defined system of governance, with clearly defined roles and 

responsibilities throughout the acquisition process; and 

• An integrated, centralized acquisition system supporting field offices in 

managing their major EM acquisitions efficiently and effectively through 

standardized and repeatable business processes. 

This is being accomplished through a standardized process with clearer delineation of 

roles and responsibilities, more focused contracting resources and expertise, clearer 

expectations, and improved guidance throughout the EM Program. EM continues to 

focus on reducing the time required for major procurements through better planning, 

integration, communication, tracking, and by having the necessary resources and 

expertise available when required. EM has developed metrics that provide for 

performance measurement and a long-range planning schedule for future programs 

enabling earlier requirements definition and resource planning. Such a streamlined 

process is expected to increase the number of bidders because of reduced bid and 

proposal costs. 

EM’s integration of its near-term contract cleanup scope with the longer-term cleanup 

missions is a continuous and complex process. In 2007, EM awarded seven new 

performance-based contracts, ranging from $25 million to $100 million. In 2008, four 

major performance-based contracts and one major M&O contract were solicited and 

awarded (Table 1.2). 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 12 

Table 1.2 Major Procurements in 2008 

A key responsibility in standardizing acquisitions is to ensure the process is carried out 

under a single authority in accordance with Government rules and regulations and 

DOE policy governing procurements. EM sought and received from DOE delegation of 

“Head of Contracting Activity” (HCA) for its Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Acquisition and Project Management. As EM’s senior contracting official, this position 

has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that contract awards and administration are 

fully compliant and for further ensuring the efficacy and integrity of the procurement 

process. This single line of authority within EM enhances consistency, standardization, 

and accountability. 

- Progress - 

Acquisition and Contract Management

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Decentralized individual site contract 

acquisition processes

 Large, site-wide performance-based 

contracts

 2.1% of dollars obligated to contracts 

awarded were small business contracts

 Standardized complex-wide business 

practices 

 Smaller, performance-based contracts 

Multiple contract strategies 

 Consolidated Business Center and EM 

Acquisition Center 

 6.1% of dollars obligated to contracts 

awarded in FY 2008 were small business 

contracts

Enhancing Personnel Capabilities

EM has focused on professional certification of acquisition personnel through the 

Acquisition and Career Management Program (ACMP). The ACMP is a career 

management program established to provide a formal, structured approach to career 

development for DOE’s acquisition workforce positions. The ACMP is designed to 

increase the proficiency of the acquisition workforce through competency-based 

training, education, experience, and Federal Acquisition Certification. EM is working to 

ensure all acquisition professionals, including formal designated contracting officers, 

receive the appropriate training and required certification under their appropriate 

career fields through the ACMP and the Office of Procurement and Assistance 

Management. 

Contract Period of Performance Value 

Hanford Mission Support 5-year base, plus 5-year option $3B 

Hanford Plateau Remediation 5-year base, plus 5-year option $4.5B 

Hanford Tank Operations 5-year base with two options (3-year and 2-year) $7B 

Savannah River Liquid Waste 6-year base, plus 2-year option $2.5B 

Savannah River M&O 5-year base, plus 5-year option $4B 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 13 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

EM must address the challenge of awarding 

contracts in a complex technical, regulatory and 

economic environment. This is further 

compounded by the shortage of highly skilled 

contracting professionals currently impacting 

the Federal Government. 

EM has established an objective to reduce acquisition lead times (currently upward of 

two years), achieve sustainable process improvement, and recruit and develop a highly 

qualified acquisition staff. As EM continues to move away from the M&O contract 

model to discrete performance-based contracts, both the number of planned 

acquisitions and the associated complexity will continue to increase. EM forecasts 

approximately 15 to 20 major procurement actions over the next three years, more than 

double the number in 2002, and anticipates the same level through FY 2018. With the 

establishment of the EM Acquisition Center, continuous process improvement, 

particularly from lessons learned, and continued recruitment and training, EM is poised 

to address these challenges as it moves towards implementing a centralized and 

standardized acquisition process. 

1.3.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

In FY 1999, DOE was directed by Congress to have an independent review conducted of 

its structure and process for managing projects. In response, DOE engaged the 

National Research Council. The resulting report identified several key weaknesses: lack 

of up-front planning; lack of a structure to manage projects; inconsistent planning and 

execution processes; and lack of a systematic program for recruiting and training 

professional project managers. The Department created the Office of Engineering and 

Construction Management (OECM), among other tasks, to address the weaknesses 

identified by the National Research Council. Over the next three years, National 

Research Council annually reviewed DOE’s progress in addressing these deficiencies 

and identified that DOE had made substantial improvements. 

In 2002, the Top-to-Bottom Review recognized that “without higher performance 

standards and breakthrough business processes, cost growth and schedule delays will 

continue to obstruct cleanup, and the risk to workers, the public, and the environment 

will not be reduced.” The Review went on to recommend that to raise performance 

standards, EM should apply project management principles presented in DOE Order 

413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to “all of its 

core work areas.” The principles of DOE Order 413.3 had applied only to construction 

projects. The Top-to-Bottom Review suggested that EM apply those same principles to its 

“cleanup” projects, the majority of which were operational (e.g., treating waste, 

Challenges 

• Managing performance-based contracts 

• Reducing acquisition lead time 

• 15-20 major procurement actions in 

next three years 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 14 

stabilizing nuclear materials, installing and operating groundwater treatment systems) 

rather than construction oriented in nature. 

One of the four study areas in NAPA’s review was devoted to project management. 

The NAPA Panel recommended project management improvements including 

standardization and integration of project performance management tools across the 

complex, implementation of “Best-In-Class” project management standards, use of 

project-specific success metrics, evaluation of the existing project contingency policy, 

and use of case studies as a training tool. 

PROGRESS 

Stemming from the observations and recommendations provided in the reviews noted 

above as well as the greater EM management emphasis on project management, the 

following activities have been undertaken: 

• “Projectizing” the EM Portfolio; 

• Applying Project Management Principles; 

• Monitoring Project Performance; 

• Integrating Contract Management with Project Management; 

• Attaining “Best-in-Class” Capabilities; 

• Enhancing Management Capabilities; and 

• Managing Risk. 

- Progress - 

Project Management

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Insufficient number of qualified project 

specialists 

 DOE Order 413.3 applied only to 

construction projects 

 No independently reviewed baselines

 Lack of Earned Value Management System 

(EVMS) certified contractors

 Increased number of qualified Federal and 

contractor project specialists 

 Application of DOE Order 413.3A to cleanup 

projects 

 External review of baselines 

 External certification of contractor EVMS 

systems

“Projectizing” the EM Portfolio

EM set out to apply the project management principles and processes outlined in the 

DOE Order 413.3 (revised in July 2006 as DOE Order 413.3A) to both construction and 

operating “cleanup” projects. This resulted in EM “projectizing” its work scope and 

establishing a project structure and control system. In essence, EM scope was 

organized into approximately 100 discrete projects by site and activity, for example the 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 15 

construction of the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant or the 

remediation of soil and water at Fernald. The former is a construction project while the 

latter was a cleanup project since it entails operation of equipment to move material 

and waste and to treat contaminated water. There are currently a total of 76 

construction and cleanup projects. These projects serve as the basis for EM’s 

management system; i.e., life-cycle project planning, multi-year budgeting, and 

execution are being done for each project, and site-wide and complex-wide integration 

is being done for the entire EM scope. 

Applying Project Management Principles

With the development of the project structure, 

EM began the process of defining cost and 

schedule baselines for each project. This 

entailed identifying the detailed activities 

needed to accomplish the end-point of the 

project (for example remediation of waste sites 

in the Melton Valley area of the Oak Ridge 

Reservation in accordance with regulatory 

agreements), determining the costs of each of 

the activities, and laying out a logical schedule to carry out the work. These initial 

baselines were a first step in bringing project management principles to the EM 

program’s cleanup project. A more intense effort was begun in late 2005 to infuse 

greater discipline and rigor into the project management system. EM, working with 

OECM, developed and published a new protocol for reviewing EM project cost and 

schedule baselines consistent with DOE Order 413.3. This protocol, now in place, 

requires application of advanced project management methodologies and processes to 

the planning and execution of EM cleanup activities. The methodologies include a 

thorough analysis of alternatives in determining the appropriate project approach, 

identification of project risks associated with the selected approach and strategies for 

managing those risks, and incorporation of cost contingency in case some of the risks 

come to pass. 

EM’s project portfolio currently consists of 14 construction projects and 62 cleanup 

projects. Many of the latter cleanup projects are very large and complex, requiring 

many years to complete. Accordingly, cleanup project life-cycle baselines are divided 

into three parts: 1) prior actual costs; 2) near-term “performance” baselines, generally a 

five-year period or the term of the incumbent contractor, whichever is longer; and 

3) long-term planning estimate ranges for projects extending beyond the performance 

baseline schedule through project completion. 

For EM cleanup projects that extend many years beyond the performance baseline, the 

long-term cost and schedule estimates have a larger degree of uncertainty than shorter 

term projects. This technical and programmatic uncertainty is defined to the extent 

Project Management Strategy 

 Independently reviewed project 

baselines 

 Certification contractors’ Earned Value 

Management System 

 Certified Federal Project Directors 

 Integrated Project Teams 

 Quarterly project reviews with 

Headquarters senior management 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 16 

possible and reflected in a somewhat wide estimate range of cost and schedule. As 

these projects progress, the near-term baselines and long-term planning estimate ranges 

against which cost and schedule performance are measured are updated as appropriate, 

generally every five years. On the other hand, construction projects generally have a 

lesser degree of uncertainty and thus their full scope can be defined by a performance 

baseline. 

To ensure the credibility of project costs and schedules, performance baselines for EM 

construction projects and the near-term performance baseline portion of cleanup 

projects are independently reviewed by OECM or EM’s Office of Project Management 

Oversight. The long-term planning estimate ranges for the cleanup projects are 

reviewed for “reasonableness” since the scope, cost, and schedule are not defined to the 

same level of detail as the near-term performance measurement baselines. 

In 2008, as part of an effort to implement project management reforms at a 

Departmental level, a detailed analysis of the 

root causes contributing to less than satisfactory 

project performance was conducted. 

From this effort, DOE developed a Corrective 

Action Plan (CAP). EM was an active 

participant in the CAP and is now developing 

and implementing corrective actions. 

Monitoring Project Performance

EM uses an industry standard system known as 

Earned Value Management System (EVMS) to 

compare actual project scope, cost, and schedule 

performance against planned performance as 

depicted in the baseline. In parallel, OECM 

independently certifies the EVMS of the 

Department’s contractors according to a 

nationwide industry consensus standard for 

EVMS, American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard748-1998, to ensure a standardized and adequate EVMS is being used in the 

management of EM projects. 

Furthermore, the Federal Project Directors (FPDs), who are EM’s on-site project 

managers, continuously monitor the contractors’ EVMS reports. They use this 

information to ensure their projects are on track and, if not or if trends are in a negative 

direction, to develop and implement corrective actions. Monthly status reports are 

provided by the FPDs to Headquarters for each ongoing project. Specific cost and 

schedule EVMS information is included in the monthly reports. Headquarters staff 

EM EVMS Certified Contractors

 Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC 

 Bechtel National, Inc. 

 Boeing 

 B&W Pantex 

 Brookhaven Science Associates 

 CH2M Hill 

 CH2M-WG Idaho 

 Fluor Hanford 

 LATA/Parallax Portsmouth, LLC (LPP) 

 Lockheed Martin 

 NSTec-National Security Technologies 

 Parsons Infrastructure and Technology 

Group 

 Stanford University 

 Stoller Navarro NV 

 Washington Closure Group 

 Washington Savannah River Company 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 17 

monitors and analyzes those reports and assists the FPDs on issue resolution. 

Additionally, EM’s senior-most executives review each project in face-to-face meetings 

with the FPDs on a quarterly basis. Typically, the senior official at the site (the Site 

Manager), the FPD, and other supporting staff present the performance of their projects 

in a standardized format to the EM Assistant Secretary and other Headquarters senior 

managers. The purpose of the review is to present performance, discuss safety and 

risks, and to identify and work jointly to resolve issues as needed. 

Integrating Contract Management with Project Management

Once a contract is placed, effective contract transition is critical to successful contract 

execution and the ability to appropriately manage the projects within the contracted 

scope of work. Effective contract transition for site contracts requires careful planning, 

integration, and coordination within DOE, with the incumbent contractor(s), and with 

the new contractor(s). To address this challenge, EM has developed guidance on 

contract management practices by implementing a system of measures to monitor and 

improve contract transition performance. 

Several steps are being taken to assure contract and project scope, cost, and schedule are 

aligned. The formal industry-standard process for requesting and implementing 

changes to baselines is being enhanced to create a closer tie between changes in the 

baseline and changes in the contracts. In addition, reporting systems have been 

established to monitor field contract execution against established project baselines. 

Comprehensive reviews of contract performance, fee payments, labor issues, small 

business performance, and pending or anticipated contract modifications are conducted 

quarterly to address progress and identify any needed corrective actions. 

Attaining “Best-in-Class” Capabilities

A central theme in the National Research 

Council and NAPA reviews was the need for 

the Department to enhance its human capital 

capabilities in project and contract 

management. Toward this end, EM partnered 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 

identify the necessary enhancements to 

transform the EM organization into a “best-inclass” project and contract management 

organization. Capabilities at each EM site, the 

EMCBC, and Headquarters were assessed to 

identify the systems and human resources 

(both numbers and skill mix) needed to achieve a best-in-class project and contract 

management organization. The assessment included project and contract execution and 

management functions and roles and responsibilities. Gaps in critical areas such as 

Best in Class

 Assessed Human Capital needed to meet 

Best in Class project and contract 

management 

à Acquisition Strategy 

à Configuration Control 

à Contract Administration 

à Cost Estimation 

à Project Controls 

à Schedule Management 

 Corporate Implementation Plan 

developed 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 18 

project controls, baseline management, cost estimation, change control, and schedule 

management were highlighted. 

During 2007, EM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a Corporate 

Implementation Plan as a roadmap to address the gaps in pursuit of best-in-class goals. 

The successful completion of the implementation plan will result in increased Federal 

ownership of EM projects, standardization of EM processes, clear communication of 

requirements and policy to EM personnel, and the identification and institutionalization 

of best practices across the EM complex. 

EM has undertaken an aggressive program of recruiting and retaining highly skilled 

individuals at its major sites, the EMCBC, and at Headquarters. Currently 30 percent of 

the personnel gaps identified have been filled by Federal employees, and plans are 

underway to recruit and hire the remaining personnel. In the meantime, EM is using 

contractors to bridge the gap identified by the skills analysis while Federal staff are 

being hired. 

Enhancing Management Capabilities

EM has a cadre of certified FPDs to manage EM projects. The FPDs are responsible for 

providing technical and programmatic oversight of the contractors performing the 

work and are the day-to-day governmental interface and manager for their respective 

projects. They serve on procurement evaluation teams, monitor contractors’ 

performance, analyze performance trends in cost and schedule, and take necessary 

contract actions to keep projects on cost and on schedule. A DOE-wide Project 

Management Career Development Program establishes competencies for FPD 

certification, as required by DOE Order 361.1B, Acquisition Career Development Program, 

and OECM’s Certification and Equivalency Guidelines. The competencies combine 

industry standard requirements, project management experience, and some of the 

Executive Core Qualifications required for members of the Federal Senior Executive 

Service. 

EM uses Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) to provide the necessary resources for 

successful implementation of its projects and to serve as a “pipeline” for the 

development of future FPDs. The FPDs lead the IPTs, which are the core unit 

responsible for project management implementation. The IPTs consist of Federal and 

contractor staff with project knowledge and subject matter expertise essential to the 

successful planning and execution of the project. They include such technical and 

management disciplines as safety, risk management, engineering, quality assurance, 

contracts administration, and project controls. EM has initiated a number of activities 

designed to improve the functioning of the IPTs. These include both self and 

independent assessments of IPT capabilities, improved training, and workshops 

targeted to lessons learned and best-in-class IPT models. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 19 

EM uses “lessons learned” to share experiences in all aspects of project planning and 

execution. The use of case studies has proven to be a valuable method in training EM 

managers. Case studies covering project, technical, and legal risks using EM projects as 

the examples are in use. These studies of actual project situations demonstrate the 

complex challenges and dilemmas often confronting EM projects. In addition, EM is 

partnering with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 

which is the U.S. Department of Defense’s education center for, among other 

disciplines, project management. The DAU faculty trains EM managers using case 

studies in project and contract management problem solving. 

Managing Risk

In another project management initiative, EM is incorporating a “technology readiness 

assessment and maturity plan” methodology into its projects at various stages. This 

tool was developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. Given the unique technologies needed to solve DOE’s 

cleanup challenges, it is important that technology assessments occur early in project 

planning and design. EM recently has adopted a standard tool to define technology 

maturity. It is proving useful in understanding and evaluating technology options, 

assessing vendor claims, and making appropriate decisions on which technologies to 

use. 

In addition to technology maturity, EM identifies and manages other risks including 

uncertainties regarding availability of nuclear material and waste disposition facilities, 

and future regulatory policies and requirements. In that regard, risk management plans 

are developed for every project. These plans use a prescribed process for identifying 

and mitigating risks, assigning roles and responsibilities for managing the risks, and 

determining contingency funds in the event the risks cannot be mitigated. The clear 

intent is to manage risks and to avoid or overcome them whenever possible. 

Nevertheless, standard industry practice dictates that cost and schedule contingency be 

developed because project risks cannot always be mitigated. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

The ultimate goal for EM is to ensure that its 

projects routinely are completed within baseline 

cost and schedule. To attain this goal, EM must 

continue to develop and implement all the 

project and contract management tools at its 

disposal and ensure its workforce is 

appropriately sized and trained. 

The Government Accountability Office 

Challenges 

• Management of ongoing and future 

construction projects 

• Development of a more refined 

contingency policy 

• Incorporation of safety and quality 

throughout a project’s life cycle 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 20 

similarly identified such challenges in its September 2008 report on EM project 

management. 

Lessons learned analyses have identified additional reasons for cost and schedule 

growth. The first is that not all requirements, including those related to safety, are 

defined sufficiently early in project design. EM is now aggressively implementing DOE 

Standard 1189, which requires safety-related documents and reviews be completed in 

the initial stages of the design process. EM expects that integrating safety analyses up 

front in project design will avoid costly changes later in the project. 

Second, numerous global factors have led to recent cost escalation in construction 

projects. Among these factors are fluctuating commodity prices due to worldwide 

demand for such consumables as steel; competition for nuclear-qualified workers and 

contractors; limited availability of materials; and insufficient domestic manufacturing 

infrastructure. The relative proportion of commodity usage in EM construction and 

cleanup projects strongly impacts the cost of a project. Historical cost indices and 

forecasted escalation indices will need to be continually evaluated to document and 

forecast changing costs. 

Third, EM currently funds its cleanup projects at the 50 percent probability of success 

level. This means that, based on statistical analysis and modeling, half of the projects in 

EM’s portfolio should be completed within the baseline cost and 50 percent should be 

completed at a higher cost than the baseline (EM construction projects are funded at the 

80 percent confidence level). When cleanup project risks cannot be mitigated by 

reallocating resources or adjusting priorities, EM’s only option is to delay work scope in 

order to conduct the work associated with the realized risk. EM also determines the 

costs and schedules associated with completing cleanup projects at an 80 percent 

probability of success. The potential costs associated with this greater confidence level 

are clearly higher. However, EM does not currently request in the budget process the 

funds required to support the higher confidence level. EM along with the Department 

at large is considering various options for determining the most applicable way of 

budgeting for and funding project risks. 

Finally, EM has found it beneficial to conduct some characterization to first identify site 

conditions or waste composition, thereby reducing project uncertainty, and then to 

begin remediation work as early as possible to immediately reduce environment, safety, 

and health risks. This “bias for action” is a more aggressive approach than spending 

significant time up front characterizing in order to reduce most uncertainties before 

field work is started. As cleanup work is conducted, emerging risks are addressed by 

initiating activities to mitigate them. The challenge is to balance up-front 

characterization with environment, safety, and health risk reduction. EM has been 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 21 

successful in implementing this strategy at sites like Rocky Flats and looks to apply it 

elsewhere as appropriate. 

1.4 REGULATORY AGREEMENTS

EM’s cleanup work at most sites is governed 

by one or more regulatory agreements or 

orders. These regulatory agreements and 

orders establish the scope of work to be 

performed at a given site and the dates by 

which specific cleanup milestones must be 

achieved. Compliance with these agreements 

and orders is the major cost driver for the EM 

program. 

A majority of EM sites are on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) 

National Priorities List, where work is being performed under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). EM has entered 

into Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) with its regulators pursuant to this law and its 

implementing regulations. Portions of the cleanup work also are subject to the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and performed pursuant to 

agreements negotiated as part of implementing the Federal Facility Compliance Act 

(FFCAct) Site Treatment Plans (STP). A number of smaller sites operate under 

alternative regulatory scenarios, such as Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) 

regulations, and state and local regulatory agency authority. 

When the states, DOE, and U.S. EPA entered into agreements to cleanup and close 

many DOE sites, the intent was to set target dates for future cleanup actions with the 

understanding that preliminary work was needed to characterize the extent of 

contamination. EM began to review potential cleanup options based on that 

information. Also, many of the waste and material management activities at DOE 

require close inter-site coordination; however, milestones developed at the sites did not 

always consider the effect of the schedules on other sites. Finally, some of the 

negotiated milestones assumed the technological challenges would be solved to support 

achievement of the milestone. In many cases, the technological challenges were 

significantly greater than thought, so DOE has a number of milestones at risk due to 

technological difficulties (see Section 2). 

As EM cleanup progressed and further characterization was completed, it became clear 

a cleanup prioritization solely focused on achieving compliance milestones would not 

necessarily support the greatest reduction of risk and the acceleration of cleanup in a 

cost-effective manner. In many cases, specific cleanup actions can be re-sequenced to 

Regulatory Strategy 

 Work with states and regulators to 

ensure agreements reflect the greatest 

opportunity to accelerate risk reduction 

and reduce life-cycle costs 

 Keep state governors informed regarding 

the effect of issues on state equity 

 Maintain close monitoring and tracking of 

regulatory compliance 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 22 

reduce risk more quickly. Therefore, EM has been reviewing its cleanup agreements 

with its regulators to identify actions that can accelerate risk reduction. 

DOE reviews cleanup agreements with all affected parties, assessing the opportunities 

to accelerate risk reduction and reduce the life-cycle costs of the following elements: 

• Agreement milestones; 

• RCRA permit requirements ; and 

• CERCLA Records of Decision. 

EM has successfully developed a close working relationship with Tribal Nations, state 

regulators and local citizens. EM has the largest Federal Advisory Committee Act 

chartered citizen advisory board in the Federal Government with boards at eight EM 

cleanup sites. EM also supports working groups with the National Governors’ 

Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the Energy Communities 

Alliance, which represents local government at EM sites, and the State and Tribal 

Government Working Groups. These cooperative relationships have paid great benefits 

in terms of conflict avoidance and a better understanding of issues and concerns on the 

part of all parties. 

In addition, independent oversight is provided by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board (“Board”) in the areas of nuclear safety for former weapons sites, facilities and 

materials, pursuant to its enabling legislation. The Board also is required to review the 

design of new defense nuclear facilities before construction begins, as well as 

modifications to older facilities, and to recommend changes necessary to protect health 

and safety. Review and advisory responsibilities of the Board continue throughout the 

full life-cycle of facilities, including shutdown and decommissioning phases. EM, with 

its priority on safety, maintains close and open communication with the Board to 

address all safety concerns in a timely and comprehensive manner. 

EM is committed to meeting its regulatory obligations and is taking a number of steps 

to expand and improve the tools used to monitor and track regulatory compliance. 

EM has entered all enforceable agreement commitments into its centralized database, 

allowing both Field sites and Headquarters offices to track commitments and to identify 

and report potential compliance issues as far in advance as possible. EM continuously 

monitors Field sites progress toward meeting the enforceable agreement commitments 

and provides regular status reports to EM senior managers. In addition, EM has 

renewed guidance requiring Field sites to notify and coordinate with EM Headquarters 

before entering into negotiations with regulators regarding new or modified 

enforceable commitments. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 23 

An example of successful coordination with regulators is EM’s recent resolution of a 

long-standing disagreement with the State of Idaho over the amount of buried 

transuranic (TRU) waste that must be retrieved and shipped out of state under the 

terms of a 1995 settlement agreement. EM and its regulators successfully negotiated an 

agreement to exhume about six acres of the 97-acre Subsurface Disposal Area. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

At a number of sites, EM has missed enforceable 

milestones or forecasts a risk of missing 

enforceable milestones in the near future for a 

number of program performance reasons, 

including safety, contract administration, project 

management, regulatory, legal, technical, and 

economic influences. To establish program 

priorities, EM ranks activities with the greatest risk reduction benefit per radioactive 

content and overlays its compliance commitments and best business practices to 

maximize cleanup progress. 

In some instances EM must re-prioritize cleanup actions, thereby delaying the 

accomplishment of enforceable milestones. More information on enforceable 

milestones is provided in Section 2. Also, strategic planning efforts are underway to 

evaluate alternatives for accelerating and re-sequencing work to achieve the greatest net 

benefits in terms of risk reduction, efficiency and compliance. More information on 

strategic planning is provided in Section 3. 

Moreover, EM has developed a Technology Roadmap to address significant, long-term 

technological gaps that may place upcoming milestones at risk. More information 

about the Technology Roadmap is provided in Section 1.8. EM will continue to work 

with Federal and state regulators to ensure enforceable milestones reflect an achievable, 

risk-based path forward. 

1.5 INTERIM STORAGE AND FINAL DISPOSITION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

1.5.1 TANK WASTE 

DOE and its predecessor agencies generated radioactive waste as a by-product of 

processing SNF for the production of nuclear weapons. These wastes were stored in 

large underground tanks at the Hanford Site (Hanford) in Washington State, SRS in 

South Carolina, INL in Idaho, and the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) in 

New York State. EM is now safely storing 88 million gallons of “tank waste” in 230 

underground tanks at three sites: 

• Hanford – 54 million gallons in 177 tanks 

Challenges 

• Ensuring agreements help accelerate 

the reduction of risk and reduce costs 

• Establishing program priorities that 

reduce risk and achieve compliance 

• Ensuring agreements are based on 

realistic assumptions 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 24 

• SRS – 33.1 million gallons in 49 tanks 

• INL – 0.9 million gallons in 4 tanks 

The tank waste at WVDP has been converted into a stable glass form, which is stored 

on-site. 

Tank waste is by far DOE’s most significant 

environmental, safety, and health threat. It is 

also the largest cost element of the cleanup 

program, with a life-cycle cost range estimated 

between $87 billion and $117 billion, which 

represents between 36 percent and 39 percent 

of the program’s total cost. Many of these 

underground tanks, particularly at Hanford, 

have exceeded their design lives. EM expends 

significant resources and attention in 

monitoring and maintaining the tanks to 

ensure their integrity is sound, they are not 

leaking, and that workers can safely perform 

the necessary tank maintenance and ongoing 

remediation activities. At Hanford and SRS, the combined annual tank monitoring and 

maintenance expenditures are approximately $500 million. Because of the unique and 

hazardous nature of this radioactive waste, innovative technologies for waste retrieval 

and disposition must be developed. This includes constructing treatment plants to 

convert liquid waste into a stable, long-lasting waste form such as glass, until it may be 

safely disposed in a geologic repository. These plants house highly complex chemical 

and physical treatment processes and must be very robust to operate safely over many 

years and to protect workers from radiation fields and contamination. Thus, they are 

expensive to construct and operate and require advanced engineering and technologies. 

PROGRESS 

Tank Waste Retrieval

The first step in mitigating the risks posed by the tanks is to remove the waste, 

particularly focusing on the older single-shell tanks (as opposed to an inner and outer 

double-shell tank with space in between for containing and monitoring any leakage). 

This was already accomplished at Hanford where nearly 3 million gallons of liquids 

that could physically and cost-effectively be removed from single-shell tanks were 

retrieved and moved into double-shell tanks. At other sites, tanks have been emptied to 

the maximum extent practicable and then backfilled with concrete or grout to stabilize 

the small amount of contamination remaining in the tanks. Since 2002, seven 300,000-

gallon underground storage tanks and four smaller 30,000-gallon ancillary tanks at the 

Tank Waste Strategy 

 Minimize volume of high-activity waste to 

be solidified 

 Store glass canisters on site until Federal 

repository is ready for permanent 

disposal 

 Solidify low activity fraction and dispose 

on site 

 Develop approaches to manage/treat/ 

dispose of some tank wastes as other 

than high-activity waste 

 Continue emptying and closing tanks per 

compliance agreements 

 Implement requirements of section 3116 

in closing tanks at SRS and INL 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 25 

INL have been emptied, cleaned, and filled with concrete. In addition, two 1.3 milliongallon SRS tanks were closed and grouted in 1997. 

- Progress - 

Tank Waste Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 1,125 canisters of solidified tank waste 

produced at SRS 

 Two tanks at SRS operationally closed and 

grouted

 Solidification of tank waste at West Valley 

complete (275 canisters)

 Stabilization of INL tank waste complete, 

except sodium bearing

 More than 1,400 canisters of solidified tank 

waste produced at SRS 

 Safely storing more than 2,800 canisters at 

SRS and WVDP 

 Grouted and closed 7 of 11 underground 

tanks at INL

 Safely storing 88 million gallons of tank 

waste in 230 underground tanks

 Design and construction of WTP at Hanford 

is about 50% complete

 Interim Salt Waste processing initiated at 

SRS in 2008

 Design of the Salt Waste Processing Facility 

at SRS is 90% complete

 SBW treatment facility at INL is 48% 

complete

Tank Waste Treatment

Once retrieved to the maximum extent practicable, EM’s strategy is to chemically and 

physically separate the waste into two fractions, the much higher volume portion that 

contains shorter-lived, less radioactive elements (“low-activity” waste or LAW) and a 

much smaller fraction that contains longer-lived, radioactive elements (“high-activity” 

waste). The two fractions are then separately treated into stable, solid forms. The LAW 

is proposed to be disposed on-site, and the high-activity waste is proposed to be 

disposed off-site in a geologic repository. 

The Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) and the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) are being constructed at SRS and Hanford, respectively, to treat and 

immobilize radioactive tank waste. After solving several major technical challenges, 

SRS is completing the design and construction of the SWPF (initially estimated at $900 

million with a current estimate of $1.3 billion with contingency at the 80% confidence 

level), and scheduled to begin operations in FY 2014. The SWPF (Figure 1.2) will 

separate the LAW and high-activity waste fractions, with the former being solidified in 

a grout form in the existing Saltstone facility and disposed on-site in large vaults. The 

high-activity waste fraction will be sent to the Defense Waste Processing Facility 

(DWPF), which has been in operation since 1996, where it will be converted to a stable 

glass form in a process known as vitrification. DWPF (construction cost of $4 billion) 

has vitrified high-activity waste into more than 2,600 canisters. The canisters are stored 

on-site in special purpose facilities awaiting ultimate disposal in a geologic repository. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 26 

Figure 1.2 SWPF Construction Progress and Conceptual Model 

In advance of the startup of SWPF, to maintain the compliance-driven schedule for 

closing SRS tanks and to address risk more quickly, SRS began operating two interim 

tank waste processing facilities (the Actinide Removal Process and the Modular Caustic 

Side Solvent Extraction Unit) to separate out LAW for on-site disposal. EM continues to 

pursue strategies to optimize the capacity of these facilities to complete treatment of the 

tank waste in a cost-effective manner. 

The WTP now under construction (estimated construction cost of $12.3 billion), 

(Figure 1.3), will separate the LAW and high-activity waste fractions of the Hanford 

tank waste. It will then vitrify the two waste fractions with the LAW disposed on-site 

and the high-activity waste disposed in a geologic repository. Operation of the WTP 

facility is scheduled to begin in 2019. 

Figure 1.3 Waste Treatment Plant Construction Progress 

There are 0.9 million gallons of tank waste remaining at INL, which is stored in four 

underground tanks. This waste will be treated at the Sodium Bearing Waste Facility, 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 27 

which is currently under construction (initial estimated cost of $462 million with 

operations beginning in FY 2010) (Figure 1.4). Currently, the cost estimate is $551 

million (with contingency at the 80% confidence level), and operations scheduled to 

begin in 2011. At West Valley, a vitrification plant (cost of construction of $430 million) 

was constructed and has converted the radioactive tank waste into 275 canisters of 

glass. 

Figure 1.4 Sodium Bearing Waste Facility Construction Progress 

Tank Waste Disposal

As noted above, until the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is available, 

EM will store canisters of solidified high-activity tank waste on-site. The stabilized 

product of LAW treatment at WTP and at Saltstone (Figure 1.5) will be disposed on-site 

at Hanford and SRS, respectively. These wastes contain only 1 to 10 percent of the 

radioactivity present in the tank waste. 

Figure 1.5 SRS Saltstone Facility 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 28 

Tanks at INL and several tanks at Hanford contain liquid wastes that are not 

radioactive wastes generated from the reprocessing of SNF. EM plans to pursue 

alternate but safe, compliant, and more cost-effective disposal paths for these wastes on 

a case-by-case basis. For example, some of the waste may meet the criteria for disposal 

at DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. 

The classification of tank waste and the manner in which it is managed and disposed is 

defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Because of some ambiguity in the 

definition of tank waste in the law, DOE worked with the Congress to provide better 

clarity. The result was section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Section 3116 allows EM to close tanks, after 

removing highly-radioactive radionuclides to the maximum extent practical, meeting 

U.S. NRC low-level waste performance objectives and other requirements, then filling 

the entire tank volume with grout. Section 3116 sets out requirements for the Secretary 

of Energy, in consultation with the U.S. NRC, to determine that the provisions of section 

3116 are met and the waste is not high-level waste, so that such waste may be disposed 

of as low-level waste. EM is actively working with the U.S. NRC to disposition residual 

waste that cannot be practicably retrieved (e.g., internal equipment and the tank shells) 

in accordance with the requirements of section 3116. These efforts will allow EM to 

meet the tank closure requirements and schedules of its compliance agreements at SRS 

and INL in a risk-commensurate and cost-effective manner. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Source-Based Definition of High-Level Waste. Tank waste is defined essentially as 

the radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing SNF that contains radioactive 

elements in high enough concentrations to require permanent isolation. If EM were to 

use a risk-based approach in managing some of its tank wastes, the volume of tank 

waste requiring treatment and geologic disposal could be reduced, thereby reducing 

overall cost of disposal without compromising public health and the environment. 

Tank Waste Management. Tank waste 

management activities keep the tanks in a safe 

operating mode and require significant 

resources, but do not contribute directly to the 

ultimate treatment and stabilization of the 

wastes. EM is continuously evaluating 

alternative methods of safely managing tank 

liquids to reduce operations and maintenance 

costs. The sooner these tanks are emptied and 

closed, the sooner these resources can be used to treat wastes or transfer waste from 

single-shell to double-shell tanks. 

Challenges 

• Source-based vs. risk-based definitions 

• Tank liquid management 

• LAW treatment capacity at Hanford 

• Tank closure at Hanford and West 

Valley 

• Federal repository capacity 

• Federal repository availability 

• Timely processing capability 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 29 

LAW Treatment Capacity at Hanford. WTP is designed to treat (vitrify) about half the 

total volume of the LAW. For the remaining LAW, the strategy has been to evaluate 

alternative treatment approaches. In August 2008, an independent review team 

evaluated the options for providing additional LAW treatment capacity. The review 

team concluded that, based on the WTP construction and start-up schedule, selection of 

an alternate technical approach is not expected to be needed until the 2015 to 2017 

timeframe. However, the review team determined that a second LAW treatment facility 

would provide the greatest flexibility, depending on the capabilities designed into the 

facility. The review team also recommended a number of priority actions to reduce 

program risk. 

Tank Closure at Hanford. Section 3116 currently only applies to the states of South 

Carolina and Idaho (i.e., SRS and INL). Therefore, EM plans to apply similar provisions 

in DOE Order 435.1 for dispositioning tank heels, internal equipment, and the tank 

shells at Hanford. Without additional clarification at Hanford, EM would potentially 

have to remove all equipment and piping inside the tanks as well as the tank shells. 

This hardware would have to be prepared and treated for disposal at the geologic 

repository. The potential impacts of this include a major increase in the total volume of 

material requiring disposal at the Federal repository as well as the need to develop new 

technical processes and regulations for acceptable repository waste forms. 

 

Federal Repository Capacity. DOE has been allocated by legislation 7,000 metric tons 

heavy metal (MTHM) of the Federal repository’s total capacity of 70,000 MTHM for 

both its SNF (Section 1.5.2) and tank waste; this is equivalent to approximately 9,200 

canisters. EM has about 2,400 MTHM of SNF and between 8,000 and 17,000 MTHM of 

tank waste. If more capacity does not become available, DOE will be required to store 

the balance. As repository planning and development progresses, DOE will continue to 

evaluate long-term disposition options: 

• Maintaining long-term storage for any high-activity tank waste canisters 

produced in excess of 9,200 units; 

• Working to raise the current allocation in the Federal repository; or 

• Seeking to build a second repository. 

Federal Repository Availability. EM has been producing high-activity waste glass 

canisters since 1996 and storing them on an interim basis. Based on the date the Federal 

repository is scheduled to open (2020) and its acceptance schedule, compliance 

agreements to remove all high-activity waste are in jeopardy. DOE could eventually be 

required to build additional on-site interim storage facilities while awaiting Federal 

repository availability and acceptance. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 30 

1.5.2 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 

DOE manages a diverse and significant inventory of SNF generated since the beginning 

of the nuclear era. Spent fuel is the by-product of research associated with nuclear 

power and production of nuclear materials for 

use in nuclear weapons, scientific research, and 

medicine. In all, EM manages about 2,400 

MTHM of SNF. Additional quantities continue 

to be generated from domestic research 

reactors (DRRs) and foreign research reactors 

(FRRs). DOE provided the feed fuel for these 

reactors to support research associated with 

peaceful uses of the atom. It is responsible for 

taking back the spent fuel and storing it. 

Ultimately, all DOE SNF will be disposed of in 

a geologic repository. 

Prior to 2002, nearly all of EM’s SNF, approximately 2,200 MTHM of the 2,400 MTHM 

total, was being stored in large, aging water-filled pools. Water provided shielding for 

the radioactivity and cooling for the heat of the fuel. At Hanford much of its 2,100 

MTHM of fuel was stored in K-East and K-West Basins which are located 

approximately 1⁄4-mile from the Columbia River, a major natural resource of the Pacific 

Northwest. At INL, the pools are located directly above the Snake River Plain Aquifer, 

a major drinking and irrigation water source for south-central Idaho. The possibility of 

these pools leaking and contaminated water seeping into ground and surface waters, as 

well as the fuel being exposed directly to the air were risks needed to be mitigated as 

quickly as possible. 

PROGRESS 

The facilities and equipment to safely store SNF in a dry configuration for up to 

50 years were readily constructed or procured by EM. However, the real challenge for 

the program was to safely retrieve the fuel from the pools and package it for transfer to 

the safer dry storage facilities. SNF had been stored in the pools for, in some cases, 

decades and had begun to corrode. In addition, fuel of suspect integrity had also been 

placed in the pools. With the development of safe retrieval processes, treatment units, 

and robust storage canisters, the EM program has moved all Hanford SNF to dry 

storage on a plateau away from the Columbia River. 

In addition to the fuel, sludge (corrosion products and sand) and debris (i.e., storage 

racks) had collected over the years in the bottom of the 25-foot deep K-East and K-West 

pools. Retrieval of this material was a major technical challenge that also required the 

development of specialized processes and equipment. All sludge, debris, and water 

SNF Strategy 

 Consolidate and process aluminum-clad 

SNF at SRS/H-Canyon Facility 

 Support DOE’s non-proliferation mission 

through receipt, storage, and processing 

of FRR and DRR SNF 

 EM is safely storing SNF at Hanford and 

INL and can continue to do so for at 

least 50 years 

 Design, construct, and operate a facility 

to repackage Idaho SNF for 

transportation to and disposal in the 

Federal repository when the repository’s 

design is finalized 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 31 

have been removed from the K-East Basin, significantly reducing the potential 

environmental and human health risks. Removal of concrete has been initiated to open 

the soil underneath K-East for remediation. At the remaining operating basin, K-West, 

the sludge from both basins is containerized and the debris is currently being removed. 

The remaining technical challenges to be solved reside with the sludge, then the water 

can be removed and the remaining basin can be removed. Transfer techniques are 

being examined as the sludge tends to consolidate over time becoming difficult to 

mobilize and stage in a uniform treatment feed. Also EM is evaluating alternatives for 

treatment of K-Basin sludge that may be needed for acceptance at WIPP. 

In addition to environmental risks, SNF can also present nuclear proliferation threats if 

it falls into unauthorized hands. For example, unlike other fuels which are selfprotecting with the radiation fields they emit, fuel from the Hanford Fast Flux Test 

Facility (FFTF), does not have this characteristic. The fuel from this reactor, which is 

being deactivated and decommissioned, has been transported to INL for appropriate 

storage and treatment. Removal of the fuel has reduced the safeguards risk. 

- Progress - 

Spent Nuclear Fuel Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Less than 10% of SNF in dry storage (209 

of ~2,400 MTHM)

 Hanford’s K-Basins are known to be leaking 

rad-contaminated water to the vadose 

zone

 EM preparing for transition of all SNF 

management activities to DOE Office of 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

(OCRWM)

 All SNF (except for SRS SNF) will be in dry 

storage by end of FY 2009

 All of Hanford SNF (over 2,100 MTHM) 

removed from K-Basins, and packaged for 

long-term dry storage

 EM now prepared to safely manage and 

store SNF for 50 years

 All sodium-bonded fuel from the Hanford 

FFTF transported to INL

 Suite of standard canisters designed and 

tested for interim storage, transportation, 

and disposal at the Federal repository

 SNF consolidated at four sites: Hanford, 

SRS, Idaho and Ft. St. Vrain

 Continued receipt of SNF from domestic and 

foreign research reactors

Nearly all the EM SNF managed by INL, located at the site and at Fort St. Vrain, 

Colorado, has been placed in dry storage. The remaining fuel in wet storage is in the 

process of being placed in dry storage. Transfer of all the SNF at INL to dry storage is 

expected to be completed in FY 2009. Eventually, the Department must construct and 

operate a packaging and storage facility in Idaho to place SNF into standard canisters to 

ensure they can be safely transported to and emplaced within the geologic repository. 

SRS currently has 30 MTHM SNF stored in water-filled pools. One major element of 

EM’s SNF strategy is to consolidate all aluminum-clad SNF (currently located at both 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 32 

INL and SRS) at SRS. This approach is being considered because SRS has the capability 

in the H-Canyon facility to manage this type of fuel in a manner that affords a more 

certain disposition path, results in recycling of material for use in commercial fuel, and 

preserves EM’s allotted capacity in the planned geologic repository. H-Canyon is a 

large chemical processing plant that can remove uranium from the SNF and convert it 

to a fuel that would then be used to generate commercial nuclear energy. This strategy 

allows the Department to end SNF storage at SRS by about 2020. Alternatively, EM is 

also evaluating moving the SNF into interim dry storage for ultimate disposal in the 

geologic repository. A cost-benefit analysis of these two options is underway. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

The major challenges of packaging all SNF into dry storage have been solved. Nearly 

2,400 MTHM of EM’s SNF will be safely managed in dry storage containers by the end 

of FY 2009, and can be maintained in these storage configurations for at least 50 years. 

However, disposition of the sludge in the Hanford Basins remains a challenge 

(discussed in Section 1.5.3). 

The ultimate disposal of EM’s SNF is dependent 

upon acceptance at the Federal repository or 

recycling by means of a processing alternative. 

DOE submitted a license application for the 

Yucca Mountain Federal repository for U.S. 

NRC review in June 2008. EM will assist in 

supporting a timely licensing process. 

While SNF can be stored for at least 50 years 

with no adverse environmental risk, DOE has a 

regulatory commitment to remove SNF from 

the State of Idaho by 2035. Additionally, SNF stored at Hanford must be removed prior 

to final site cleanup completion activities in accordance with its regulatory agreement. 

Challenges 

• Uncertainty of license application 

acceptance and final waste form 

requirements 

• Storage capacity may be insufficient, 

pending availability of Federal 

repository 

• Timing of SNF disposition is subject to 

compliance agreement and is not solely 

in the control of EM 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 33 

1.5.3 TRANSURANIC WASTE 

Transuranic (TRU) waste is a type of radioactive waste that contains elements with 

atomic numbers greater than uranium in the 

Periodic Table of Elements. For the most part 

this waste consists of clothing, tools, rags, 

residues, soil, debris, and other materials 

contaminated with plutonium. TRU waste 

may also be mixed with hazardous chemicals. 

There are two categories of TRU waste. 

Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste can be 

handled by workers under very controlled 

conditions with no shielding for radioactivity 

other than the container itself. Remotehandled (RH) TRU waste emits more 

penetrating radiation and thus must be handled and transported in lead-shielded 

containers and casks. CH TRU represents 96 percent of the total volume of TRU waste 

to be disposed of at WIPP, while RH TRU makes up the remaining 4 percent. 

Twenty-eight DOE sites were storing TRU waste in a variety of configurations, 

primarily below-grade to contain the radioactive elements while also being retrievable 

for eventual disposal in a geologic repository. In 1999, after nearly 20 years of testing, 

scientific research, engineering and design, and regulatory permitting, DOE’s WIPP 

began receiving CH TRU waste. The repository is located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, 

2,150 feet below ground in a 250 million-year old salt formation. It is the world’s only 

operating deep geologic repository. An estimated 150,000 cubic meters of CH TRU and 

7,000 cubic meters of RH TRU resulting from the Cold War legacy will ultimately be 

disposed at WIPP. 

PROGRESS 

In FY 2001, WIPP was receiving and disposing an average of seven shipments per week 

of CH TRU. Between FY 2002 and FY 2007, the TRU waste program accelerated 

shipments from the generator sites to a maximum of more than 30 per week. During 

the nearly 10 years of WIPP operations, experience has been gained and the regulatory 

framework has been streamlined. As a result, with each passing year, operations have 

become more efficient and routine. 

TRU Strategy 

 Characterize small quantity sites’ waste 

in Idaho for shipment to WIPP 

 Expand use of Central Characterization 

Project 

 Expert teams facilitate shipping sites in 

certifying waste for acceptance at WIPP 

 Expand number of sites certified for RH 

shipping 

 Deployment of Shielded Containers for 

shipping of RH TRU 

 Continue certification of TRUPACT-III 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 34 

- Progress (as of 9-30-2008) - 

TRU Waste Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 304 shipments / 2,254 m3 of TRU waste 

disposed at WIPP 

 Seven WIPP shipments/week (max) 

 28 Sites storing TRU waste 

 Two certified shipping sites (Rocky Flats & 

INL)

 An additional 6,600 shipments / 54,450 m3

TRU waste disposed at WIPP since 2002 

(6,903 Total shipments and 56,793 total m3

disposed at WIPP from March 1999 through 

September 2008)

 30 WIPP Shipments/week (max)

 14 Sites storing TRU waste

 Seven certified shipping sites

 Initiated RH Disposal at WIPP (177 RH 

Shipments through September 2008)

 Excellent transportation safety record since 

1999 (over 8 million loaded miles)

To date, EM has safely removed more than 56,000 cubic meters of CH TRUand RH TRU 

from generator sites throughout the country and disposed of the waste at WIPP, greatly 

reducing the environmental risk of continued long-term storage at the generator sites. 

More than one-third of the legacy inventory of TRU waste has been safely disposed of 

at WIPP. As a result: 1) INL and SRS have met compliance agreement milestones with 

the States of Idaho and South Carolina, respectively; 2) the accelerated closure schedule 

for the Rocky Flats site in Colorado was attained; and 3) and a significant amount of 

high-radioactive content TRU waste was removed from the area at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL) where TRU waste is stored (Area G). 

In 2003 and 2004, Congress directed DOE to work with the state regulator to streamline 

the regulatory framework for characterizing waste to be disposed of at WIPP. 

In response to these statutes, DOE submitted a regulatory permit modification request 

to the New Mexico Environment Department to streamline waste characterization 

processes. After extensive negotiations with the state and stakeholders, a final permit 

was issued authorizing disposal of RH TRU waste and implementing a streamlined but 

still fully protective regimen of pre-shipment characterization requirements for both CH 

and RH TRU waste. While difficult to quantify, it is estimated these streamlined 

requirements will save nearly $100 million over the life of disposal operations at WIPP. 

More importantly, these changes streamlined processes that resulted in the elimination 

of serious radiation exposure hazard to DOE workers. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 35 

Between FY 2002 and FY 2008, EM deinventoried all legacy TRU waste at 14 sites, 

thereby eliminating the cost of managing TRU 

waste at these sites and eliminating the 

environment, safety, and health risks. EM also 

removed TRU waste from the Nevada Test Site 

(NTS), Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL), and Argonne National 

Laboratory-East (ANL) to de-inventory facilities 

within those sites to support ongoing 

programmatic missions. 

In 2006, WIPP received final authorization to 

begin accepting RH TRU and the first shipment, 

from INL, arrived in January 2007. As of October 1, 2008, 177 RH TRU shipments have 

been completed from INL and ANL. All RH TRU currently in the EM inventory at INL 

will be removed from the site and disposed of in WIPP in FY 2009. 

EM has a clear strategy for building on past success to meet its TRU risk reduction 

goals. This strategy includes expanding the number of sites certified for RH TRU 

shipping. In FY 2009, RH TRU shipments are scheduled to start from Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee; General Electric–Vallecitos Nuclear Center, 

California; SRS, South Carolina; and LANL, New Mexico pending required regulatory 

approvals. 

To support and enhance this strategy, EM continues to develop shielded containers for 

RH TRU. These lead-lined drums would allow RH TRU waste to be handled, shipped, 

and potentially disposed of in a manner similar to CH TRU waste. Today, RH TRU 

waste is emplaced in boreholes along the walls of the WIPP repository and CH TRU 

waste is placed on the floors. Therefore, significant coordination is required for optimal 

and efficient emplacement of RH TRU and CH TRU waste. For the portion of RH TRU 

suitable for use of shielded containers, there would be no need to coordinate RH TRU 

and CH TRU disposal schedules since RH TRU and CH TRU could be placed on the 

floor together. EM is actively pursuing the necessary regulatory approvals needed to 

move forward with shipping and disposing of RH TRU waste in shielded containers at 

WIPP. 

Another key strategy in TRU waste risk reduction is the characterization of small 

quantity sites’ TRU waste in Idaho for shipment to WIPP. A Record of Decision (ROD) 

was approved in February 2008 allowing waste from small quantity sites to be sent to 

INL for treatment, characterization, and shipment to WIPP, assuming the waste meets 

INL’s waste acceptance criteria. This avoids the need to construct TRU waste treatment 

14 De-Inventoried Sites

 Rocky Flats 

 Fernald 

 Missouri Univ. Research Reactor 

 Energy Technology Engineering Center 

 Lovelace Respiratory Research Inst. 

 Mound 

 Battelle Columbus 

 Brookhaven 

 Teledyne-Brown 

 Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory-NFS 

 USAMC 

 Arco Medical Products 

 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

 Framatome (Areva) 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 36 

facilities at sites with small quantities of TRU waste, thereby avoiding significant costs. 

It also results in faster removal of TRU from these sites and a greater economy of scale 

for the TRU waste facility at INL. 

 

EM is also expanding the use of the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at large 

sites. The project uses a modular waste characterization system consisting of full 

disposal characterization equipment for both CH TRU and RH TRU waste and a mobile 

loading system used to place drums of TRU waste into shipping containers for 

transport to WIPP. CCP has proven successful in characterizing waste more cost 

effectively through the use of a standard suite of procedures, quality assurance 

documents, and equipment. 

Another strategy includes the use of TRU waste expert teams for assisting the generator 

sites in certification and characterization planning for more difficult waste streams, such 

as those requiring additional documentation, treatment, or packaging. These teams 

help to ensure all TRU waste gets characterized, shipped and disposed at WIPP. 

EM has designed a new cask, TRUPACT-III, for TRU waste packaged in large boxes 

that cannot be shipped in currently available transportation casks due to their size. 

Testing to meet U.S. NRC’s permitting requirements is ongoing. Current plans call for 

this testing to be complete in the spring 2009, with license approval estimated by the 

end of 2009. The strategy to ship and dispose of large size containers at WIPP also 

requires the development, deployment, and regulatory approval of equipment needed 

to determine the contents of large size containers. With this knowledge, the potentially 

dangerous and costly task of size reducing the large containers before shipment and 

disposal at WIPP can be avoided. These cutting-edge technologies are mobile, have 

been deployed, and are undergoing final testing. They will first be used at SRS and 

then, by the end of 2010, at Hanford. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Although TRU waste characterization, packaging, shipping, and disposal have become 

routine, one major challenge is to continue optimizing TRU waste disposition. Priorities 

at large sites such as Hanford and SRS may not result in legacy TRU waste shipment 

rates that take full advantage of WIPP’s current 

throughput capacity. This imbalance will 

become pronounced once the majority of the 

legacy TRU waste is disposed at WIPP. 

However, the DOE complex will continue to 

generate TRU waste through at least 2050 from 

ongoing missions as well as from deactivation 

and decommissioning of radioactive waste 

Challenges 

• Balancing generator site priorities with 

optimization of WIPP operations 

• Post FY 2020 TRU waste generated 

from deactivation of treatment facilities 

• Treatment of K-Basin sludge 

• WIPP defense origin limitations 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 37 

treatment facilities. EM is evaluating alternative strategies to sustain the most efficient 

operation of WIPP as TRU legacy waste disposal winds down after 2020. 

Sludges containerized at the Hanford K-Basin will need to be treated prior to disposal at 

WIPP. The challenge is how EM will stabilize the sludge for acceptance at WIPP. 

Currently, EM is evaluating alternatives for treatment of K-Basin sludge. 

In accordance with the legal requirements for WIPP operations, the Department cannot 

dispose of TRU wastes at WIPP unless it has been documented to be of “defense 

origin.” The Department estimates that there are up to 2,700 cubic meters of TRU waste 

that were generated by non-defense funded activities that have no disposition path. 

Also, the Department’s Off-Site Source Recovery Program collects sealed radioactive 

sources containing TRU isotopes that potentially pose a proliferation risk. The sources 

that are not of defense origin do not have a disposition path. 

1.5.4 LOW-LEVEL AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE 

Low-Level Waste (LLW) is radioactively contaminated material that is not high-level 

waste (HLW), SNF, TRU, by-product material, or naturally occurring radioactive 

material. Under the Atomic Energy Act, DOE 

is self-regulating with regard to LLW. Mixed 

low-level waste (MLLW) is LLW that also 

contains a hazardous chemical and is, 

therefore, subject to a dual regulatory 

framework, under the Atomic Energy Act, 

including DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste 

Management, as well as Federal or state 

hazardous waste requirements promulgated 

under RCRA. 

DOE produced the Final Waste Management 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for Management, Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal of Hazardous Waste in 1997. The associated complex-wide decisions for 

treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW were issued in 2000. These documents 

described the approach EM would use to eliminate the inventory of legacy LLW and 

MLLW, the latter in accordance with the applicable regulatory agreements. 

DOE has an estimated 1.4 million cubic meters of Cold War legacy LLW and MLLW, an 

amount that would cover a football field to a height of approximately 1,000 feet. 

LLW and MLLW Strategy 

 Continue to utilize combination of DOE 

on-site, DOE regional and commercial 

disposal facilities 

 Conduct EIS for commercial GTCC waste 

and issue ROD for GTCC disposal facility 

 Reuse/disposition of contaminated nickel 

 New on-site CERCLA cells 

 Continue to pursue treatment 

alternatives for wastes currently 

incinerated at TSCAI 

 Continue to develop disposition plans for 

remaining legacy MLLW and LLW, 

eliminating waste acceptance and/or 

transportation barriers 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 38 

PROGRESS 

DOE currently employs a combination of DOE and commercial facilities for disposal of 

LLW and MLLW. LLW and MLLW disposal facilities include: 

• On-site LLW disposal at INL, SRS, Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), and LANL; 

• Regional LLW and MLLW disposal at two DOE sites, Hanford and NTS; and 

• Commercial LLW and MLLW disposal facilities. DOE waste is also treated and 

disposed at commercial LLW and MLLW facilities when it is cost effective and in 

the best interest of the Federal Government. 

EM has disposed of about one million cubic meters of legacy process– and productionrelated LLW and MLLW in disposal facilities at NTS, Hanford, INL, LANL, ORR, and 

SRS. Three-quarters of all EM’s stored legacy waste has been disposed, leaving only the 

more difficult waste remaining in storage while disposition solutions are developed. 

An additional 400,000 cubic meters of LLW and MLLW are projected to be generated as 

part of EM’s life-cycle cleanup mission at Hanford, INL, ORR, SRS, Paducah, and 

West Valley. 

- Progress - 

Low Level and Mixed Low Level Waste Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Operating CERCLA (on site) disposal cells 

at Hanford (Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility) and Fernald 

 ~190,000 m3

 of LLW and ~40,000 m3 of 

MLLW disposed from non-CERCLA activities 

as of September 2001

 Disposed of about 9 million m3 of LLW and 

MLLW from CERCLA activities

 Disposed of an additional 770,000 m3 of 

MLLW and LLW disposed from non-CERCLA 

activities

 Life-cycle projections of non-CERCLA MLLW 

and LLW have decreased from 2.35 million 

to 1.4 million m3

 due to successful waste 

minimization efforts

 Approved path forward for disposal of 

Fernald silo material

 Technology was developed to treat/ 

decontaminate equipment sufficiently to 

allow the equipment to be disposed as 

MLLW or LLW (rather than as TRU waste)

In addition, EM has disposed of approximately 9 million cubic meters of LLW and 

MLLW associated with environmental restoration cleanup activities for CERCLA site 

remediation including: 

• 6 million cubic meters of waste at Fernald, Hanford, INL, and ORR in on-site 

DOE CERCLA cells specifically constructed for remediation waste; and 

• 3 million cubic meters at NTS and an off-site commercial facility. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 39 

While most LLW and MLLW treatment and disposal is now routine, EM also has in its 

inventory LLW and MLLW that have not had readily available disposition options. 

The program is focusing on developing pathways for this waste. One category of waste 

for which a disposal solution has been solved is referred to as “Silo Material” that was 

generated at the Fernald site in Ohio. This waste was a by-product of uranium 

processing and emitted large amounts of radon from the radium it contained. As a 

result, it was stored in heavily shielded concrete silos. Because of the nature of this 

material and the regulatory framework surrounding it, it required a specialized license. 

EM worked closely with a commercial disposal vendor in Texas and the Texas state 

regulators to allow storage of the Fernald Silo Material at a commercial facility in Texas. 

Removal of the silo material allowed DOE to close the Fernald Site on schedule in 2006 

and greatly reduce the environmental risk of continued storage of the material at the 

Fernald site. The storage vendor subsequently applied for a disposal license for this 

type of material and received the requested permit from Texas regulators in 2008. 

The disposition path for the Fernald silo material is now finalized and approved. 

To complete Rocky Flats cleanup, EM supported technology development to 

decontaminate the 1,500 gloveboxes sufficiently to allow the equipment to be disposed 

of as MLLW or LLW. Gloveboxes are sealed chambers in which workers handled 

plutonium using long rubber gloves that extend through portholes. They range in size 

and can be as large as a car or bus. Previous disposition plans called for the gloveboxes 

to be size reduced (cut into smaller pieces) and packaged, characterized, and certified 

for disposal at WIPP. This revised approach significantly reduced work exposure to 

contamination and workplace hazards and saved considerable funds. 

EM is the lead DOE office for developing the EIS for Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C 

(GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste. GTCC waste is LLW resulting from U.S. NRClicensed activities with radionuclides that would be dangerous to humans beyond 500 

years. This waste stream is comprised of materials such as radioactive sources that are 

commonly used to sterilize medical products, detect flaws and failures in pipelines and 

metal welds, and other industrial and medical purposes. They were generated, owned, 

or managed by commercial entities rather than DOE. However, the Low Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the Federal Government 

responsibility for the disposal of certain GTCC radioactive waste resulting from 

U.S. NRC-licensed activities. 

GTCC waste is the highest radiological activity waste with no planned disposition path. 

DOE is preparing an EIS to evaluate disposal options for commercial GTCC LLW as 

well as LLW similar in character to GTCC generated by DOE. DOE issued a Notice of 

Intent to prepare the EIS in July 2007 and expects the process to take about 2 years. By 

law, before DOE makes a final decision on the disposal alternative(s) to be 

implemented, the agency must submit a report to Congress on the disposal alternatives 

and await Congressional action before making a final disposal decision. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 40 

Contaminated nickel from the shutdown of gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) is a 

potentially valuable asset. EM is evaluating the viability of recovering the nickel for 

potential sale to an end user rather than disposing of it as LLW. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator (TSCAI) at Oak Ridge is DOE’s 

only Federal treatment alternative for radioactively contaminated polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCB) waste. It enables other DOE sites to meet their STP and FFCAct 

milestones. This facility is scheduled to close in 2009. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Off-Site LLW and MLLW Disposal at Hanford. As a result of a 2004 State of 

Washington challenge to the Hanford Solid Waste EIS, DOE voluntarily suspended all 

off-site waste shipments to Hanford. This suspension was later formalized by the U.S. 

District Court, and a Settlement Agreement was reached to resolve this case in January 

2006. Under the Settlement Agreement, DOE agreed to not ship LLW, MLLW, or TRU 

waste off-site to Hanford until a new EIS 

containing comprehensive groundwater 

analysis related to tank closures and waste 

disposal operations is completed. This EIS is 

expected to be completed in 2009. 

Nevada Test Site Land Withdrawal. The Nevada Attorney General sent a letter to 

DOE in August 2008 asserting that DOE’s proposed use of NTS for the disposal of 

certain radioactive waste would not comply with the law, or a prior settlement 

agreement. The Attorney General mentioned several other issues, including an alleged 

need for a site-wide EIS to be done at NTS. DOE is working with Nevada to address 

these issues. If not resolved, these issues could halt disposal of higher activity MLLW at 

NTS. This would seriously impact ongoing cleanup operations at several sites. 

Future MLLW Disposal Capacity. DOE has limited disposal capacity for higher 

activity MLLW disposal since it suspended off-site waste shipments to Hanford. DOE’s 

only other mixed waste disposal facility, the NTS Mixed Waste Disposal Unit, must 

close by December 2010, in accordance with its permit. If Hanford disposal facilities 

remain unavailable to off-site waste generators, alternatives for post-2010 disposal 

include the construction of a new RCRA-compliant facility at NTS or another DOE site 

or the proposed Federal Waste Disposal Facility planned by a commercial entity in 

Texas. Also, there are no other facilities, Federal or commercial that can accept higher 

activity DOE MLLW (affecting human health after more than 100 years). 

Continued Operation of the TSCA Incinerator. DOE had previously planned to close 

the TSCA Incinerator as early as the end of FY 2006. However, due to the continuing 

Challenges 

• Disposal of off-site wastes at Hanford 

• NTS Land Withdrawal 

• Future MLLW disposal 

• TSCA Incinerator 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 41 

generation of MLLW requiring treatment at TSCAI and the cleanup schedule at ORR, 

operations have continued and are now planned through FY2009. EM is working 

cooperatively with industry to access commercial capability to treat PCB wastes after 

the TSCA Incinerator is decommissioned. 

1.6 CONSOLIDATION AND DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS 

AND SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY IMPACTS

1.6.1 SURPLUS PLUTONIUM 

For many years, DOE facilities were operated to recover strategic isotopes such as 

plutonium-239 in support of the Nation's defense programs. In 1994, 52.5 MT of 

plutonium was declared excess to national defense needs, and in 2007 an additional 9 

MT of plutonium was also declared to be surplus by the Department. EM is responsible 

for disposition of about 13 MT of the surplus non-pit plutonium (that which comes from 

sources other than the triggers or pits of nuclear weapons), a weight comparable to 

eight automobiles. Excess plutonium in particular was stored at various EM sites: 

Rocky Flats, Hanford, and SRS. Because of its threats in terms of health and nuclear 

materials proliferation, plutonium requires expensive storage facilities and safeguards. 

As a result, this material needed to be consolidated into fewer locations. 

PROGRESS 

EM initiated consolidation of surplus non-pit plutonium in 2002, when the Department 

first physically transferred plutonium from Rocky Flats to SRS. Removal and transfer 

of the plutonium from the site, was essential to acceleration of deactivation and 

decommissioning (D&D) of the plutonium facilities located on site at Rocky Flats and 

was critical to the successful cleanup and closure of the site in 2005. 

- Progress - 

Surplus Plutonium Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Plutonium (Pu) stabilization proceeded at 

pace to support Rocky Flats closure and 

reduce the Pu Safeguards and Security 

(S&S) footprint 

 1,350 canisters of Pu metals and oxides 

stabilized and packaged (estimated lifecycle total in FY 2002 = 2,250 canisters)

 89 MT of Pu residues packaged for 

disposition (estimated life-cycle total in FY 

2002=112 MT)

 K-Area Materials Storage at SRS being 

upgraded to allow for storage of all surplus 

non-pit plutonium in the complex

 100% (5,089) canisters of Pu metals and 

oxides stabilized and packaged 

 100% of Pu residues packaged for 

disposition

 All Rocky Flats plutonium stabilized, 

packaged, and consolidated at SRS

 All Hanford Pu stabilized and packaged, 

shipments to SRS initiated in FY 2008

 Shipments of LLNL Pu to SRS initiated
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 42 

In 2006, the Department identified consolidation of surplus plutonium as one of the 

most important issues concerning nuclear materials consolidation across the complex. 

The Department evaluated the alternatives and prepared a Supplement Analysis and an 

Amended ROD supporting the decision to ship surplus plutonium from Hanford to 

SRS. The amended ROD also supported shipment of surplus plutonium from LANL to 

SRS. The Supplement Analysis and amended ROD were both signed in September 

2007. 

Transfer of surplus plutonium from Hanford to SRS for interim storage and disposition 

incrementally decreases security demand at the Hanford Site and avoids the 

expenditure of about $200 million for upgrades that would have been required at the 

Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) to comply with enhanced security requirements as 

well as tens of millions of dollars more each year for security and monitoring to 

continue storing the material at Hanford. Once the plutonium has been de-inventoried 

from the PFP the remainder of the PFP complex can be decommissioned and 

demolished, reducing the risk and saving the surveillance and maintenance costs 

associated with the facility. 

The Department is currently consolidating storage of 13 MT of surplus, non-pit, 

weapons-usable plutonium from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL at SRS. More than 90 

percent will come from Hanford; those shipments are to be completed by September 

2009. DOE will also transfer to SRS surplus 

plutonium in the form of unirradiated fuel 

assemblies and pins previously intended for 

the FFTF at Hanford. Shipments from LANL 

are expected in the foreseeable future. If 

adequate storage space is available, DOE will 

transfer other, lower-priority plutonium from 

LLNL and LANL to SRS. This would be done 

to provide operational flexibility at the 

laboratories in supporting ongoing nuclear 

weapons research. 

EM’s current disposition strategy for the 13 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium is to 

process the majority of this material through the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 

Facility (MFFF), currently under construction, and the balance through the existing 

H-Canyon facility. The maximum amount of non-pit plutonium that can technically be 

converted to MOX fuel for use in commercial reactors will be processed through MFFF. 

Proceeds from the sale of the MOX fuel will benefit the U.S. Treasury. EM is planning 

to develop capabilities to prepare and treat the plutonium so that it meets the feed 

specifications of the MFFF. The remaining plutonium that is not suitable as feed 

Surplus Pu Strategy 

 Continue consolidation of Pu at SRS, 

reducing the S&S footprint 

 Two-prong strategy to disposition Pu 

 Convert maximum technically 

achievable to Mixed Oxide (MOX) 

fuel for use in commercial reactors 

 Process remaining Pu in H-Canyon 

Complex for ultimate solidification in 

HLW canisters for disposal in the 

Federal repository 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 43 

material will be processed in the H-Canyon prior to vitrification at DWPF for disposal 

in the geologic repository. 

EM will continue to evaluate disposition alternatives and coordinate with DOE’s 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to ensure the most cost-effective 

approach for meeting Departmental plutonium disposition objectives. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

One of the major challenges to date has been the amount of surplus plutonium EM is 

required to disposition. The current approach assumes the timely start up of MFFF and 

that no additional declarations of surplus plutonium are made. EM will continue to 

evaluate alternatives for disposition of excess plutonium. 

Plutonium storage capacity at the SRS K-Area 

Material Storage (KAMS) facility may not be 

sufficient for all currently declared surplus nonpit plutonium. Storage capacity at KAMS may 

be increased; if not, some plutonium could be 

dispositioned through H-Canyon or MFFF 

before all the surplus plutonium at LANL and LLNL can be consolidated at SRS. 

1.6.2 SURPLUS URANIUM MATERIALS 

For decades, DOE facilities have been operated to provide and recover strategic 

isotopes, such as uranium-235, in support of the Nation's defense programs and the 

commercial nuclear power industry. Uranium-235 is a fissionable isotope and, 

therefore, is used as nuclear power fuel and in nuclear weapons. In 1995, about 174 MT 

highly enriched uranium (HEU) produced in the United States was declared surplus to 

defense needs, and in 2005, an additional 61 MT of HEU was declared surplus. EM is 

responsible for the disposition of about 21 MT of that HEU, which is comparable to the 

weight of 14 automobiles. 

PROGRESS 

A significant objective of EM’s surplus HEU strategy is the consolidation of HEU at SRS 

and down-blending of HEU to low enriched uranium (LEU) (less than 20 percent 

uranium-235) in H-Canyon. HEU is currently being processed in H-Canyon. 

Continued processing will enable additional consolidation that is critical to reducing the 

costs and security and health risks of maintaining the storage facilities and safeguarding 

the material. It also supports the NNSA Complex Transformation—a more modern, 

smaller and more efficient weapons complex. The currently planned on-site 

consolidation of nuclear material at the Oak Ridge Y-12 complex in two new facilities 

will not be able to occur without movement of some of the excess materials to SRS as 

part of the consolidation. 

Challenges 

• Potential increases in amounts of 

surplus Pu requiring disposition by EM 

• KAMS plutonium storage capacity 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 44 

- Progress - 

Surplus Uranium Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Majority of unprocessed HEU contained in 

SNF assemblies 

 Undefined EM mission for HEU disposition

 Contract Award for design and construction 

of two DUF6 conversion facilities

 98% of Enriched Uranium containers 

packaged for long-term storage (7,300 of 

7,500 containers)

 Processing plans for recovery or disposition 

of HEU have been approved and are being 

implemented

 Some HEU from Y-12 has already been 

shipped to SRS and is being processed in HCanyon

 Ownership of U-233 at ORNL transferred to 

EM – facility for down-blending for 

disposition is in design phase

 40 of 41 U-233 items from INL were 

disposed as LLW at NTS in 2008

 DUF6 Project 85% complete

The scope of the HEU disposition project at SRS consists of down-blending the 21 MT of 

surplus HEU materials in H-Canyon by 2019. This includes about 13.5 MT contained in 

19,500 aluminum-clad HEU spent fuel assemblies, primarily stored at SRS and INL, and 

about 7.5 MT of HEU materials, currently stored at the Oak Ridge Y-12 complex, LANL, 

LLNL, Sandia, INL, the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, and SRS. The uranium from 

processing the SNF and surplus HEU materials is planned to be blended down to LEU 

and sold to an end user, providing revenue for the U.S. Treasury. The strategy for 

processing SNF through H-Canyon is currently under review to evaluate other 

disposition alternatives. 

Uranium-233 is another type of surplus uranium managed by the Department. 

The majority of DOE’s uranium-233, which is not naturally occurring, is currently 

stored in building 3019 at ORNL. This surplus material will be down-blended with 

other uranium isotopes to remove safeguard and criticality concerns so that it can be 

safely disposed. Building 3019 will be modified for the down-blending operations, 

which are planned to start in 2012 and continue through 2015. Forty of 41 of the 

Department’s surplus uranium-233 items, which had been stored at INL, have been 

disposed as LLW at NTS. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 45 

Another significant activity in the execution of EM’s surplus uranium strategy is the 

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Conversion Project. DUF6 is a by-product of 

the enrichment of uranium that was conducted over several decades at the Portsmouth, 

Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee Gaseous Diffusion Plants. This 

project provides for the design, construction, and operation of two DUF6 treatment 

facilities, one in Portsmouth, Ohio and one in Paducah, Kentucky (See Figure 1.6). 

The project objective is to chemically process 

approximately 600,000 MT of DUF6 that is not 

economically viable for sale, conversion or 

down-blending. The Portsmouth DUF6

inventory, which includes the Oak Ridge 

material, is expected to be processed in 

approximately 18 years and Paducah’s larger 

inventory within 25 years. Construction and 

operation of these treatment plants was 

mandated by Congress. The initial total 

project cost for construction and 

commissioning of the plants was $430 million 

and is now estimated at $577 million with contingency at the 80% confidence level. 

Commissioning activities at Portsmouth are currently projected to be complete in 

October 2010, with Paducah projected for February 2011. 

Figure 1.6 Paducah DUF6 Conversion Facility 

EM is also responsible for about 4,461 MT of LEU, depleted uranium, and natural 

uranium in various forms originating from past DOE programs at Hanford, Fernald, 

and universities. This “off specification” uranium requires considerable processing 

and, therefore, is not readily available for use as commercial nuclear power reactor fuel. 

In August 2008, EM issued a request for proposals (RFP) to sell and dispose of these

uranium materials, which are presently stored at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant in Ohio. EM is also considering the direct sale of DUF6 or a contract to re-enrich it 

to natural uranium or LEU to realize the best value for the Government. The 

Department is currently performing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses before proceeding with a RFP for the DUF6 materials. 

Surplus Uranium Strategy 

 Consolidate HEU at SRS to reduce S&S 

cost and support the NNSA Complex 

Transformation initiative 

 Downblend surplus HEU materials in 

H-Canyon during the period 2008–2019 

and sell to an end user 

 Downblend U-233 in Building 3019 at 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory with 

depleted uranium 

 DUF6 Conversion Project 

 Uranium sales 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 46 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

H-Canyon has been in operation for over 

50 years, and EM's entire HEU disposition 

strategy relies on its continued operations 

through 2019 to process approximately 21 MT 

of surplus HEU, including the HEU contained 

in the aluminum-clad SNF. The Department 

has no other current facilities capable of 

dispositioning some of the HEU materials. EM 

will continue to evaluate alternative approaches for disposition of surplus HEU. 

Another major challenge is the contractor performance on the construction and 

commissioning of the two conversion plants. Performance to date has resulted in 

delays in design and construction and increased costs. The contractor has implemented 

management actions and personnel changes to respond to EM’s performance concerns. 

1.6.3 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY 

As noted in the prior two sections, the Department is maintaining an inventory of 

nuclear materials it no longer needs at several locations. These materials are highly 

desirable from a nuclear proliferation and threat perspective. Therefore, safeguarding 

these materials requires costly security measures to protect them. 

EM’s strategy is to reduce the number of sites and locations that must meet the costly 

security requirements associated with storage of this type of material. This is achieved 

through consolidation of materials to a smaller number of locations. By removing these 

materials, more cleanup work can be performed under an industrial security approach, 

which requires substantially less security and monitoring than under a nuclear 

materials approach. This reduction in security also allows the cleanup to be performed 

by uncleared workers, thereby avoiding another significant cost. Through 

consolidation, EM is also reducing the risk that these materials pose to the public and 

the environment. 

PROGRESS 

EM’s plan is to consolidate much of this material at SRS, which as noted previously has 

the capabilities to further process and disposition the nuclear materials. Substantial 

security upgrades have been completed at SRS to implement DOE's 2005 safeguards 

and security (design basis threat or DBT) requirements. These include enhancements to 

protective force response capabilities, facility hardening, and extended detection and 

exclusion zones. 

Challenges 

• Lack of other alternatives to process 

HEU (except H Canyon) 

• Commissioning of DUF6 conversion 

plants 

• Uranium sales 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 47 

- Progress - 

Safeguards and Security Activities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Six Material Access Areas (MAAs) 

eliminated

 Initiated transfer of plutonium from Rocky 

Flats Environmental Technology Site to 

Savannah River Site

 An additional five MAAs eliminated (11 total 

of 13 MAAs eliminated)

 Completing stabilization and packaging for 

all plutonium residues, metals, and oxides

 Consolidation of materials at the Savannah 

River Site on-going

Relocation of surplus plutonium from Hanford to SRS is expected to be complete by 

September 2009. As a result, DOE approved an exception to avoid fully implementing 

the 2005 DBT at Hanford. In the interim, some limited security enhancements at 

Hanford have been implemented to support the DBT exception and consolidation 

actions. These actions will avoid the 

expenditure of about $200 million for security 

upgrades and tens of millions of dollars more 

each year for security operations. As a result 

of the August 2008 Graded Security Protection 

policy, DOE will be re-evaluating the security 

measures for protecting SNM at SRS and 

Hanford. 

The safeguards and security program is currently reviewing several major 

Departmental security policies designed to protect DOE’s assets and information during 

cleanup operations. In addition to the issuance of the new Graded Security Protection 

policy which replaces the Design Basis Threat, DOE is reviewing the Graded Safeguards 

Table. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Implementation of the Graded Security 

Protection policy will alter the analytical 

process used to evaluate safeguards and 

security systems and design concepts. The 

objective is for the analyses to be more 

comprehensive and uniform across the DOE complex.

Safeguards and Security Strategy 

 Consolidation of surplus plutonium 

and special nuclear materials at SRS 

 Minimize security requirements for 

environmental cleanup work 

Challenges 

• Uncertain impacts from changes in 

security requirements 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 48 

1.7 CLEANUP COMPLETION, CLOSURE, AND TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

REMEDIATION SITES

EM is responsible for cleanup of 107 

geographic sites. These are either entire DOE 

sites with no future missions; DOE operating 

sites with legacy radioactive waste, surplus 

nuclear materials, or contaminated facilities 

and environmental media; or privately owned 

sites on which former DOE activities resulted 

in legacy radioactive waste or contaminated 

media. In total these sites equal the combined 

area of the states of Delaware and Rhode 

Island. 

Since FY 2002, EM has completed cleanup and 

closure of 12 geographic sites, including three 

former weapons production sites: Rocky Flats, 

Mound and Fernald. By the end of FY 2008, 

EM projected to have completed cleanup at 89 

of the 107 geographic sites; however, 86 sites 

were completed. EM’s cleanup responsibilities for a geographic site are considered 

finished when active remediation has been completed in accordance with the terms and 

conditions of regulatory compliance agreements. 

In accordance with regulatory cleanup decisions, environmental monitoring and 

maintenance and operations of remediation facilities, such as groundwater treatment 

systems, must be conducted after the completion of active remediation. Once EM has 

completed cleanup and the site has no future DOE mission, it is transferred to the DOE 

Office of Legacy Management (LM), which performs monitoring and maintenance. For 

sites that are operating entities of other DOE programs or privately owned, the owners 

perform the monitoring and maintenance. 

EM’s approach to environmental remediation is driven predominantly by two 

environmental statutes: CERCLA and RCRA. In general, the U.S. EPA is the lead 

regulator for CERCLA cleanup and the state environmental regulators are the lead for 

RCRA cleanup. At several sites, both laws apply. In these cases, three-party 

agreements between DOE, U.S. EPA, and the state are developed that define the roles 

and responsibilities of each party, applicable cleanup requirements, dispute resolution 

processes, and milestones to attain compliance. 

EM Geographic Site Cleanup 

and Closure Since 2002

Transferred to DOE Office of Legacy 

Management (LM) 

 Fernald 

 Mound 

 Rocky Flats 

 Maxey Flats 

 Salmon 

 Amchitka 

Transferred to Other DOE Offices 

 Kansas City Plant 

 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

 Laboratory for Energy Related Health 

 Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory–Main Site 

Transferred to Private Entities 

 Ashtabula 

 Battelle Columbus 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 49 

Using these requirements, EM has developed programmatic approaches to cleanup 

based on the size and complexity of the cleanup mission and the future use at each site. 

The Top-to-Bottom Review noted that the program had not been integrated but rather 

was a loose association of individual sites resulting in assignments of priorities on a 

local rather than national basis. The Review went on to recommend that the approach 

to closure should be based on the type of site being closed, considering such factors as 

the length of time required for completing cleanup and whether there were to be future 

DOE missions. EM has since developed a planning approach that is national in scale 

and uses risk reduction as a major prioritization factor. Thus differing approaches from 

a planning perspective have been taken for closure sites, small sites, and large sites. 

They are described in the following sections. 

1.7.1 CLOSURE PROJECTS 

In 1996, Congress took a bold step that fundamentally altered the course of the DOE 

cleanup program when it supported the accelerated closure of Rocky Flats. This was at 

a time when there was little reason and no demonstrated track record to believe that the 

Department could deliver on a challenge of this magnitude. Congress took further 

steps in 1999 when it created the Defense Facilities Closure Projects appropriation and 

challenged the Department of Energy to close five nuclear production sites with no 

future DOE mission by 2006. Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Mound were owned by DOE. 

Two were privately owned: Reactive Metals Incorporated, also known as Ashtabula, 

and Battelle Columbus, both in Ohio. This 

standalone appropriation was established to 

ensure these five sites would receive 

predictable funding throughout the entire 

cleanup. With predictable budgets and 

appropriate incentive fees, contractors were 

willing to assume more risk to accelerate 

cleanup. The vision and support that Congress 

provided planted the seeds of success in the 

cleanup program. 

As the Top-to-Bottom Review noted, a risk-based approach with a clear mission, a sense 

of urgency, and performance-based contracts, as was the case with Rocky Flats, could 

result in site cleanup well ahead of schedule and significantly under cost. It 

recommended that the near-term closure sites with no future mission be given priority 

in accelerating cleanup to a predetermined end state in accordance with regulatory 

agreements. 

PROGRESS 

Closure activities were completed at Rocky Flats in 2005 and at Fernald in 2006. 

EM completed the scheduled active remediation at the Mound site in 2006. 

Accelerated Cleanup Strategy 

 Completion and closure managed as a 

finite project 

 Performance-based contractor incentives 

 Regulator and community buy in 

 Stakeholder involvement in project 

planning 

 Worker participation in work planning 

 Timely delivery of Government furnished 

services and items 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 50 

At the direction of Congress, EM performed additional work at the Mound site at an onsite landfill (referred to as Operable Unit-1 or OU-1) beyond that required in the 

compliance agreement. 

The Rocky Flats cleanup was completed nearly 50 years earlier and for $20.5 billion less 

than original estimates. During this cleanup more than 800 structures, including six 

contaminated plutonium processing facilities, were decontaminated and demolished, 

more than 360 contaminated areas were cleaned up, and 6,505 cubic meters of TRU 

waste and nearly 255,000 cubic meters of LLW were removed from the site. 

This resulted in the removal of 25,413 acres of Rocky Flats from the U.S. EPA’s National 

Priorities List (NPL), a list of the major environmentally contaminated sites throughout 

the United States and its territories. There are 1,308 acres remaining on the NPL, which 

are under the control of DOE LM for long-term monitoring and maintenance. Much of 

the Rocky Flats site served as an undeveloped buffer area and thus is a unique habitat 

within the suburbanized Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. As a result the land has 

been transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is now a national wildlife 

refuge. Figure 1.7 shows photos of Rocky Flats before and after cleanup completion. 

Figure 1.7 Rocky Flats Before and After Cleanup Completion 

The Fernald cleanup was completed 23 years earlier and for $200 million less than 

original estimates. During this cleanup, more than 178 structures were decontaminated 

and demolished, 10 contaminated areas were cleaned up, and 168,250 cubic meters of 

LLW were removed from the site. Of the 1,050 acres comprising the site, all were 

certified as achieving the established cleanup standards, and 904 acres have been 

designated a nature preserve. The remaining 146 acres comprise an on-site engineered 

landfill in which remediation and demolition debris was disposed. Figure 1.8 shows 

photos of Fernald before and after cleanup. 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 51 

Figure 1.8 Fernald Before and After Cleanup Completion 

1987 2008

As a result of the Mound cleanup, 164 facilities have been decontaminated and 

demolished. To date, of the 306 acres comprising the site, all but a small area associated 

with the OU-1 has been remediated. Final waste volumes, cost savings and acceleration 

will not be calculated until all cleanup activities have been completed. 

At the 42-acre Ashtabula site, EM decontaminated and demolished facilities and 

remediated groundwater and soil. The cleanup was completed in 2006, and the 

privately owned site is now available for unrestricted use. More than 1.1 million MT of 

LLW, MLLW, and chemically hazardous waste were removed and disposed off site. 

EM also completed cleanup at another privately owned site in 2006, a 31-acre portion of 

Battelle Memorial Institute’s Columbus facility. Several radioactively contaminated 

buildings were demolished and approximately 1.7 million MT of LLW and MLLW were 

shipped off site for disposal. 

As a result of these successes, the Rocky Flats and Fernald Closure Projects were 

awarded the Project Management Institute’s Project of the Year in 2006 and 2007, 

respectively. The award represents the highest recognition given by this renowned 

world-wide organization of project management professionals. 

 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Institutionalizing a closure paradigm at larger sites is challenging given the long-term 

cleanup mission at these sites. In some instances, more focus on the ongoing 

management and operation of the site rather 

than completing actual cleanup has been 

observed. EM must continue to implement 

acquisition and contracting strategies that 

provide the necessary incentives to focus 

resources on risk-reduction rather than management and operations. Where possible, 

EM is awarding multiple contracts at sites, with each designed to appropriately address 

the identified scopes of work. 

Challenges 

• Retain focus on completion and closure 

Production Area 

Former 

Production 

Area 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 52 

1.7.2 SMALL SITE CLEANUP 

Success at small sites in the EM program remained elusive prior to 2002. Year after 

year, it continued to take longer and cost more 

to complete the cleanup. The Top-to-Bottom 

Review noted that if a consolidated 

management focus was placed on small sites, 

notably those at which remaining costs to 

complete were in the tens of million dollars or 

less, the risks they posed would be reduced 

more quickly and management attention and 

resources could be applied to longer-term 

cleanup. 

PROGRESS 

To more fully focus on small site cleanup, EM 

streamlined management to support its small 

site cleanup efforts. This has included the 

establishment of a small sites closure cadre, many members of which had worked at 

closure sites and thus, could apply lessons learned to the small sites. In addition, 

management of these sites, which were formerly under the auspices of several EM 

offices, was brought together under one EM 

office. Program planning for the small sites is 

also now integrated with all other EM sites. 

The development of independently reviewed 

project scope, schedule and cost baselines 

provides a sound basis for evaluating cleanup alternatives. The projects can then be 

factored into EM planning decisions. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Accelerating completion of the small sites 

would reduce EM’s footprint and costs 

associated with these sites. As has been 

mentioned earlier, the greatest risk reduction 

benefit is associated with tank waste 

management which is located at the largest three sites in EM. Thus, the small sites tend 

to not be as high a priority in EM’s complex-wide planning. 

Small Sites

 Argonne National Laboratory-East 

 Brookhaven National Laboratory 

 Energy Technology Engineering Center 

 General Electric – Vallecitos Nuclear 

Center 

 Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory 

 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

 Los Alamos National Laboratory 

 Moab 

 Nevada Test Site 

 Pantex 

 Sandia National Laboratory 

 Separation Process Research Unit 

 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 

 West Valley Demonstration Project 

Small Site Strategy 

 Streamlined management construct 

 Approved project baselines

Challenges 

• Investment in small sites strategy 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 53 

1.7.3 LARGE SITE CLEANUP 

EM’s large sites are classified as such because of the 

nature and extent of the contamination and the costs 

and time that will be required to clean them up. For 

example, at Hanford approximately 450 billion gallons 

of contaminated water was discharged to the ground. 

Much of the water was used to cool the nine reactors 

that were used to produce plutonium. This has 

resulted in approximately 80 square miles of 

groundwater being contaminated with radionuclides, 

metals, and organic chemicals above Government standards for drinking water. Some 

of the groundwater plumes are discharging to the Columbia River. SRS had a similar 

mission as Hanford to produce plutonium and other nuclear materials. Operations 

resulted in more than 500 areas where the surface or groundwater became 

contaminated and more than 1,000 surplus radioactively contaminated facilities. 

The GDPs at Oak Ridge, Paducah and Portsmouth were constructed to separate out 

uranium-235 for use in nuclear weapons, U.S. Navy ship reactors, and commercial 

nuclear power plants. The Oak Ridge and Portsmouth plants are no longer in use and 

are in the process of being decontaminated and ultimately demolished. These two 

plants are vast in size, occupying more than 200 acres under roof. They contained 

hundreds of thousands of tons of equipment that were used in the separation process. 

More than 50 nuclear reactors operated at INL as part of its nuclear energy research and 

development mission. Only one of these reactors is operating. Left behind were not 

only the reactors and their support facilities but also surface contamination and 

contamination of the aquifer underlying the site. INL also operated a waste disposal 

facility that processed not only its own radioactive waste, but also that from other sites, 

notably Rocky Flats. Much of this waste was TRU and also contained chemical waste. 

It resides in approximately 35 acres of unlined pits and trenches at the 97-acre 

subsurface disposal area. 

While much has been accomplished as noted below, the remaining soil and 

groundwater remediation and facility deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) scope 

at these six large sites is significant. 

PROGRESS

EM has had many successes in soil and groundwater remediation and facility D&D 

using new and proven technologies within a well-defined regulatory framework. 

Under this rubric, EM has been able to demonstrate, particularly in the D&D arena, that 

efficiencies can be realized through economies of scale, allowing completion of 

additional work at the same or lower cost. Ultimately, completion of these cleanup 

Large Sites 

 Hanford 

 Idaho National Laboratory 

 Oak Ridge Reservation 

 Savannah River 

 Paducah 

 Portsmouth 

 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 54 

activities will reduce the surveillance and maintenance cost associated with managing 

large tracks of land by consolidating and reducing the infrastructure necessary to 

maintain active cleanup at a site. 

The Idaho Cleanup Project has deactivated and 

decommissioned 112 buildings and structures 

for a total footprint reduction of more than 1.3 

million square feet since May 2005. Cleanup of 

four reactor areas—Test Area North (TAN), 

the Engineering Test Reactor complex, the Loss of Fluid Test reactor complex, and the 

Power Burst Facility—are complete. D&D of the Materials Test Reactor complex will 

also be completed in FY 2010. All of these projects were completed within cost and 

ahead of schedule. This is a result of efficiencies gained through the continual process 

improvements implemented by the work crews conducting the cleanup. The value of 

the D&D work conducted at Idaho translates into $1.60 of work being completed for 

every dollar spent. The acceleration of these D&D projects will save the surveillance 

and maintenance costs and escalation for these projects. 

In 2003, SRS signed an agreement with its regulators for an innovative process that 

integrates soil and groundwater cleanup with D&D activities to close entire areas of the 

site. In 2006, SRS closed T-Area, the first of 14 major areas identified under the Area 

Completion initiative (Figure 1.9). This Area Completion resulted in cost savings of 

more than $37 million and the cleanup was completed two years ahead of schedule. 

Other Area Completions at M-, P-, R- and D-Areas are presently underway and are 

expected to yield similar cost savings. 

Figure 1.9 Savannah River T Area Before and After Cleanup Completion 

Large Site Strategy 

 Legacy waste disposition 

 Soil and groundwater 

 Deactivation & Decommissioning 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 55 

One of the primary cleanup objectives at Hanford is cleanup of the River Corridor. 

This area is being given priority relative to other areas of contamination because it 

borders the Columbia River. EM projects that the River Corridor cleanup can be 

completed 20 years earlier and nearly $1 billion less than original estimates. 

By achieving this, Hanford will shrink its cleanup footprint from 586 square miles 

to 75 square miles. Figure 1.10 illustrates the cleanup progress made at the 300 Area. 

Figure 1.10 Hanford 300 Area Cleanup Progress Between 2005 and 2008 

To date, the River Corridor project has deactivated, decommissioned and demolished 

three nuclear facilities, 29 radiological facilities, and 79 industrial facilities. In addition, 

five of the nine reactors were placed into interim safe storage (ISS). The reactor support 

facilities have been demolished and the reactor blocks are being “cocooned” for interim 

storage. The cocooning process involves removing all of the reactor building except for 

the five-foot-thick shield walls surrounding the reactor core. Openings and 

penetrations are sealed with corrosion resistant materials and a 75-year roof is placed 

over the remaining structure. Nearly 4 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater 

have been treated and innovative technologies are being implemented to further reduce 

groundwater contamination. Figure 1.11 shows two photographs of the F Reactor, in 

1944, and in 2008 after cocooning. 

Figure 1.11 Hanford F Reactor Under Construction (1944) and Cocooned (2008) 

F Reactor in 

F Reactor ISS State 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 56 

Another example of cleanup progress in the River Corridor is the K-Basins project. 

As described in Section 1.3.2, all SNF was packaged and moved to dry storage in the 

center of the Hanford Site away from the Columbia River. Figure 1.12 illustrates the 

progress to date at the K-Basins project. The K-East superstructure removal was 

completed and substructure removal started. Following substructure removal, the next 

step will be to complete soil remediation under the K-East Basin. 

Figure 1.12 Hanford K-Basin Before and Now 

Oak Ridge cleanup has centered on D&D of the East Tennessee Technology Park 

(ETTP), formerly known as the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. There were 160 

areas of contamination spread over 2,200 acres that required remediation and 500 

facilities that required deactivation and decommissioning. In 2004, one of the largest 

decommissioning projects ever undertaken by DOE was completed when the K-29 

process building was demolished and the K-31 and K-33 process buildings were 

cleaned out and made ready for reuse. These three buildings had more than 100 acres 

of floor space and hundreds of tons of contaminated equipment. A little more than half 

of the facilities have now been decommissioned and half of the release sites have been 

remediated. 

In 2006, Oak Ridge completed the cleanup of a diverse legacy of contaminated soils, 

inactive facilities, and waste disposal areas in the Melton Valley watershed 

(Figure 1.13). This project remediated more than 1,000 acres, demolished 14 facilities, 

stabilized six linear miles of liquid waste lines, cleaned and grouted eight tanks with a 

total of 90,000 gallons of capacity, removed more than 200 concrete casks of TRU waste 

from 22 trenches, and installed engineered barriers over more than 140 acres of waste 

disposal sites. 

K-East Basin 

SNF Storage 

K-East Reactor 

Building 

K-East Reactor 

Building

K-East Basin SNF 

Storage Removed 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 57 

Figure 1.13 Oak Ridge Melton Valley Before and After Cleanup Completion 

The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, is the only operating 

uranium enrichment facility in the United States. Owned by DOE, it is leased and 

operated by the United States Enrichment Corporation. Although the gaseous diffusion 

plant is still operating, cleanup activities at Paducah have been, and will continue to be, 

focused on soil and groundwater remediation, D&D of inactive facilities, and cleanup of 

scrap metal and material storage areas. More than 30,500 tons of scrap metal, the 

largest collection of scrap metal in the DOE complex at the time, was shipped off site 

between FY 2004 and FY 2007, permanently removing the site’s largest source of off-site 

surface waste contamination (Figure 1.14). More than 2 billion gallons of groundwater 

contaminated with trichloroethylene and technetium-99 have been treated since 1997. 

Several facilities have been decontaminated and demolished on an accelerated schedule. 

The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant located in Piketon, Ohio, is currently 

shutdown. Two process buildings were cleaned out, including disassembly and 

cleanout of designated waste and centrifuge equipment and disposition of waste oils 

and recyclable materials. Corrective measures have been implemented at the five 

groundwater plumes. One of the plumes is migrating off the southern reservation 

boundary onto private property. In FY 2007 alone, the groundwater treatment facilities 

treated more than 27.2 million gallons of groundwater and removed more than 731 

pounds of trichloroethylene. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 58 

Figure 1.14 Paducah Scrap Metal and Material Storage Areas Before and After Cleanup 

Completion 

DOE is proceeding with plans for the D&D of this facility. It is currently developing an 

acquisition strategy for the D&D contract work scope, and intends to issue the RFP in 

2009. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

EM has had many successes in carrying out 

D&D activities as epitomized by the six 

plutonium facilities at Rocky Flats and the 

reactor complexes at INL. However, D&D 

projects can encounter unexpected problems. 

For example, the original D&D plan for ETTP did not adequately account for the unique 

size, complexity, contamination and condition of the buildings and equipment at the 

site. The rapid and extensive deterioration of buildings forced a significant change to 

the cleanup scope and cleanup approach, including to safety measures for protection of 

the workforce. All of these conditions have resulted in increased cost and schedule. 

EM is evaluating options to accelerate the demolition of the remaining large gaseous 

diffusion buildings (K-25 and K-27) and support facilities at the ETTP. This may be 

achieved through new procurement strategies focusing on achieving D&D efficiencies. 

Challenges 

• Deactivation and Decommissioning of 

deteriorating buildings 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 59 

To improve performance, lessons learned from D&D projects are being shared between 

sites. Lessons from the former Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant at ETTP are being 

used in the planning for the eventual D&D of the Portsmouth and Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants. This should result in significant cost savings when applied to these 

very large D&D projects. 

1.8 ACHIEVEMENTS AND INNOVATION

1.8.1 ACHIEVEMENTS AND INNOVATION IN TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING 

In its early years, EM’s internal business processes did not incentivize contractors to 

take innovative approaches to reducing risk. In fact, most contractors earned the 

majority of their fees by simply managing waste safely. Corporately, the EM Science 

and Technology program did not have a program-wide focus. Rather, science and 

technology was generally a collection of science research and technology projects rather 

than a single program designed to support the EM mission. 

PROGRESS 

EM’s new strategies have driven numerous technology and engineering innovations. 

By employing contracting strategies to challenge its contractors, EM has encouraged 

contractors to identify, develop and implement innovative approaches to advance risk 

reduction, to minimize cleanup costs and to maintain the highest safety standards. 

Engineering and technology investments have provided the engineering foundation, 

technical assistance, novel approaches, and one-of-a-kind technologies that contribute 

to the realized significant risk reductions. Several examples of these technologies are 

highlighted on the following pages. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 60 

Figure 1.15 Engineering and Technology Innovation Highlights 

- Engineering and Technology Innovation - 

Example of Innovation in the Cleanup Process Example of Innovation in Reducing Worker Risk 

Acceleration of 

Decontamination and 

Disposition. The contractor at 

Rocky Flats developed a process 

for decontaminating and 

disposing of gloveboxes that 

improved safety, accelerated 

cleanup and reduced costs. It 

was initially thought necessary 

to size reduce the gloveboxes, 

remove lead shielding, and 

prepare for shipping and 

disposal of the contaminated 

pieces as TRU waste. 

However, the contractor 

developed a process for decontaminating the boxes, using a 

series of chemical applications and wipe downs, such that 

the gloveboxes became LLW and could be shipped intact to 

LLW disposal cells and thereby reducing the time and cost 

to complete that phase of cleanup. 

Improving Worker 

Safety. The contractor 

at the Hanford Site 

reduced the risks to 

worker safety at an 

engineered trench by 

designing a robotic 

crawler to perform 

condition inspections. 

Concerns over the 

structural integrity of the 

roof of the Z-9 Crib, an 

engineered trench with an 

open area beneath a concrete slab, required investigation. 

To obviate the need for human entry, a fixed highresolution camera and robotic crawler were deployed into 

the crib to perform an inspection of the roof and the 

interior space. The robotic crawler and camera produced 

still photos that were merged to produce a 360-degree, 

high-resolution inspection video, which enabled 

assessment of the interior condition of the Crib structure. 

Examples of Innovation in Cleanup Technology 

Reduction of HLW Volume 

 Contractors at the Hanford 

Site and at the SRS have 

developed and tested a 

technology that will 

significantly reduce the 

volume of HLW to be 

solidified at WTP at the 

Hanford Site and the number 

of glass canisters to be 

disposed in an off-site 

HLW repository, accelerate 

WTP projected operations 

by 20 to 30 years and 

reduce life-cycle cost by more than $1 billion. Fractional 

crystallization has been demonstrated at laboratory and 

engineering-scale to effectively pre-treat HLW, removing 

large volumes of sodium nitrate salts as LAW, and thus 

helps to significantly reduce the quantity of HLW requiring 

treatment and disposal. The technology has been pilot 

tested in 2008 at the Savannah River National Laboratory 

(SRNL). The test involved a single-shell tank simulant to 

show effective crystallization of the major sodium salts in 

these tanks and when that was satisfied, non-radioactive 

cesium was added to the simulant to show effective 

separation of the cesium from the salt solutions.

Acceleration of HLW 

Treatment. The contractor 

at Savannah River Site has 

developed the Fluidized Bed 

Steam (FBSR) technology, 

which destroys organics in 

HLW and will help to 

accelerate the treatment of 

HLW. HLW typically contains 

significant quantities of 

organic compounds (e.g., 

240,000 gallons of HLW at SRS 

contain 22, 000 kilograms of 

organic compounds), which 

pose a flammability hazard to 

the treatment of HLW. After evaluating and testing 

several different technologies, FBSR was the only 

alternative to meet all test requirements for organic 

destruction. After more than 99.9% of the organics were 

destroyed during pilot testing, SRS selected FBSR as the 

baseline technology for destruction of organics in HLW. In 

addition, INL is currently constructing the Integrated 

Waste Treatment Unit based upon FBSR for treatment of 

their sodium-bearing waste. Hanford also is testing 

application of FBSR for supplemental treatment of LAW 

and the WTP recycle stream. 

Steam Reforming 

Pilot Testing at the 

Hazen Research 

Facility in Colorado

Z-9 Crib as Photographed 

New by Robotic Crawler 

Decontamination 

Process Minimizes 

TRU Waste 

Testing of Fractional 

Crystallization at the SRNL 

Pilot Test Facility
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 61 

Passive Neutron Assay Module 

at Savannah River Site 

Another example affecting our most challenging waste type represents a major step 

forward. In 2002, in a joint effort between Savannah River National Laboratory and 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, HLW glass formulations and process control 

strategies were developed that increased waste loading 30 to 50 percent depending on 

the composition of the waste being processed. To date with this improvement, 400 

fewer HLW canisters will be produced during the solidification of 2.6 million gallons of 

high level waste sludge. This improvement has already saved approximately $400 

million in operating costs and continues to save both operating dollars and the numbers 

of canisters that require long term disposal (another savings of more than $400 million). 

Complementing this breakthrough, EM has collaborated with other DOE programs, as 

well as other Federal agencies and international organizations, particularly regarding 

technologies with long-term and significant savings. 

- Engineering and Technology Innovation (continued) - 

Reduction of TRU Repackaging Needs. 

New Non-Destructive 

Assay (NDA) and 

Examination (NDE) 

Technologies 

developed by 

contractors have been 

developed and 

demonstrated to 

enable shipment of 

large TRU containers, 

primarily at Savannah 

River and Hanford, 

without repackaging, 

greatly reducing risks to the workers, saving $600 to $900 

million in shipping costs, and shortening their disposal 

schedule by eight to 12 years. The NDA is comprised of two 

modules: (1) the Gamma Assay Module, which directly 

determines the mass of gamma-emitting contaminants as 

well as the complete isotopic composition of the waste itself, 

and (2) the Passive Neutron Assay Module, which directly 

determines mass of spontaneously fissioning isotopes and 

radiological quantities. The NDE system consists of a 

robotic-controlled heavy material handling system for the 

synchronized examination of the waste containers capable 

of identifying noncompliant articles such as the presence of 

liquid and non-punctured aerosol containers within the 

waste package. 

Immobilization of Strontium. 

At the 100-N Area at the 

DOE Hanford Site, an 

innovative technology is 

being demonstrated to treat 

radioactive strontium in the 

subsurface, both above and 

below the water table. A 

permeable reactive barrier 

containing the mineral 

apatite, which has the 

ability to immobilize 

strontium, was installed in 

the aquifer near the 

Columbia River to 

demonstrate its ability to 

prevent further migration of strontium to the river. 

Further testing of this innovative technology is currently 

underway to enable its use in the unsaturated soils above 

the water table, where the source of the strontium first 

released to the subsurface still resides. If this source can 

be treated, the amount of strontium transported to the 

groundwater in the future will be significantly reduced. 

Treatment of both the source and the groundwater will 

ensure the most effective and efficient cleanup at this 

location.

Hanford 100-N Area, 

Apatite Injection 

Demonstration Location
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 62 

Continuing technology development 

and deployment is a key element of 

EM’s strategy to reduce the technical 

risk and uncertainty of EM projects. 

EM will continue to work with 

scientists and engineers from DOE’s 

national laboratories, private industry, 

and academia to exchange 

information and develop and 

demonstrate innovative technologies. 

EM is also conducting External 

Technical Reviews (ETR) to ensure the 

timely resolution of engineering and 

technology issues. ETRs provide independent reviews of issues such as technology 

development, systems integration, design, operations, maintenance, and nuclear safety. 

EM has completed several successful reviews over the last two years, and expects ETRs 

to become a mainstay of the EM program. 

 

Furthermore, in response to comments from the Government Accountability Office and 

Congress, EM has conducted Technology Readiness Assessments (TRA) of EM projects. 

In FY 2007, EM conducted eight pilot TRAs, and will continue to conduct these 

assessments to evaluate the maturity of critical technologies prior to incorporating them 

into cleanup projects. A TRA is an evaluation of a given technology relative to its 

Innovation through Technology Partnerships 

The contractor at the SRS currently is testing and designing a melter 

with new technology to accelerate solidification of HLW at the DWPF. 

The current melter, the Joule-heated melter, may not be able to solidify 

HLW to meet the STP completion date of 2028 because of higher 

volumes of sludge than originally predicted. The Cold Crucible Induction 

Melter (CCIM) has demonstrated that it can accommodate higher waste 

loading and throughput through testing completed on simulants 

representative of waste at Idaho, Hanford, and Savannah River. 

Working collaboratively with Russian scientists at the Radon Institute, 

SRS simulants have shown >50% waste loading, significantly higher 

than the 38% waste loading currently obtained at the DWPF. EM is also 

working with AREVA, based in France, on evaluating the potential 

benefits of the CCIM technology to treat radioactive waste at DOE sites. 

AREVA and CEA (France’s Atomic Energy Commission) are co-developers 

of the French CCIM technology. Additional benefits of the CCIM include 

longer melter life and higher tolerance for noble metals. Because of 

these encouraging results, SRS has completed pre-conceptual design for 

a DWPF retrofit with a CCIM melter. Further testing and engineering are continuing, as the CCIM may result in 

life-cycle cost and schedule reduction while meeting regulatory agreements and closure dates. Pilot-scale tests 

will be conducted at the CCIM facility in Marcoule, France.

Engineering and Technology Strategy 

 Reduce technical risk and uncertainty through 

Technology Development and Deployment, 

External Technical Reviews, and Technical 

Readiness Assessments 

 Establish Best-In-Class Engineering and Technology 

Organization 

 Collaborate with national laboratories, private 

sector, and universities for innovative technologies 

 Conduct technical workshops and exchanges 

 Improve identification, mitigation and 

communication of project technical risks 

 Implement Engineering and Technology Roadmap 

Initiatives 

Cold Crucible Induction Melter 

technology demonstration 

platform at Marcoule, France 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 63 

maturity in terms of development, demonstration, and implementation. It was 

originally developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and has 

been also adopted by the Department of Defense. 

EM is proactively pursuing a Best-in-Class 

Engineering and Technology Initiative, which 

capitalizes on EM’s previous successes, builds on 

its existing engineering and technology 

capabilities and resources and provides the 

opportunity for EM to remain a world-class 

technological organization. The vision underlying 

the Best-in-Class Engineering and Technology Initiative is as follows: 

The Environmental Management Program seeks to become a world-class technical 

organization—fully credible to and trusted by its customers and stakeholders—in order 

to reduce the technical risks and uncertainties of DOE’s cleanup programs and projects. 

It effectively anticipates and identifies those risks and deploys premier capabilities and 

resources of the Department, its national laboratories, and academia to mitigate the risks 

and provide independent evaluation. 

In an effort to realize this vision, EM will: 

• Develop new technologies to reduce project costs, reduce the time of project 

completion, and provide enhanced health, safety, and technical performance 

capabilities; 

• Ensure the technology readiness of EM cleanup technologies; and 

• Assure current technologies being applied in projects are meeting or exceeding 

safety, cost, schedule, and technical objectives. 

In March 2008, EM issued the Engineering and Technology Roadmap to guide the 

Engineering and Technology Program. The Roadmap identifies the technical risks and 

uncertainties that the program faces over the next ten years; the strategies EM will use 

to reduce those risks; and the planned outcomes of implementing those strategies. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

EM’s advancements in engineering and technology have led to the design and 

operation of first-of-a-kind technologies to solve problems that once seemed unsolvable. 

However, significant challenges still remain. In February 2008, the National Research 

Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued an interim report on its review of 

the Engineering and Technology Roadmap, and stated that “existing knowledge and 

technologies are inadequate for EM to meet all of its cleanup responsibilities in a safe, 

timely, and cost-effective way. Meeting current and future EM challenges will require 

the results of a significant, ongoing research and development program.” 

Best in Class

 World class technology organization 

 Reduce project cost 

 Accelerate project completion 

 Enhance health and safety 

 Ensure technology readiness 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 64 

Those challenges are identified in the 

Engineering and Technology Roadmap as 

technical risks and uncertainties that exist in six 

EM program areas: Waste Processing, 

Groundwater and Soil Remediation, D&D and 

Facility Engineering, Spent Nuclear Fuel, 

Challenging Materials, and Integration. 

The EM Engineering and Technology program 

will address these risks and will use applied 

research and engineering to improve 

technologies and processes at DOE sites across 

the Nation. 

1.8.2 ACHIEVEMENT AND INNOVATION IN SAFETY 

The EM workforce must perform highly 

technical work in a unique environment, not 

only facing hazards associated with a typical 

industrial work place (i.e., ladders, uneven 

working spaces/floors, dropped or falling objects, spilled liquids, material movement, 

heavy equipment, trucks, forklifts) but in addition dealing with hazardous chemicals 

(including asbestos, beryllium, lead, acids, and organics such as tetrachloroethylene and 

benzene), nuclear materials, and radioactive substances in a multitude of stable and 

unstable forms (i.e., solids, liquids and gases). A balanced, integrated approach in 

facility design, work planning, process controls, and equipment operability/reliability 

keeps the workers safe while efficiently completing work. 

PROGRESS 

Even when striving for innovation and productivity, EM’s highest priority is safety—

underscored by an outstanding safety record. As depicted in Figures 1.16 and 1.17 

below, DOE Total Recordable Case (TRC) and Days Away, Restricted or on Job Transfer 

(DART) (i.e. “lost time”) case rates are 

significantly better than Department of 

Labor reported performance for the 

comparable industry (construction and 

waste disposal), despite the hazardous 

nature of EM program work. In fact, the 

figures demonstrate improved EM TRC 

and DART case rates about 35 percent 

from 2004 to 2008, a remarkable 

achievement for any construction and remediation program. While these rates remain 

Challenges 

• Improving tank waste storage and 

retrieval technologies 

• Enhancing tank closure processes 

• Developing next-generation 

pretreatment solutions and enhanced 

waste stabilization technologies 

• Improving groundwater and soil 

sampling, characterization, prediction, 

and remediation methods 

• Adapting technologies for facility 

deactivation and decommissioning 

• Improving SNF storage, stabilization 

and disposal preparation 

• Enhancing storage, monitoring and 

stabilization systems for challenging 

materials 

• Enhancing long-term waste form 

performance and monitoring 

• Improving transportation packaging for 

some materials 

Safety Strategy 

 Safety excellence and breakthrough 

 Continuous improvement 

 Management commitment and worker 

participation 

 Increased safety oversight of new 

contractors 
 1.0 EM Progress

January 2009 65 

low, EM continues to look for innovative ideas to maintain an improving safety 

performance posture. 

Figure 1.16 EM Safety Performance — Total Recordable Cases 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2005 - 3 2005 - 4 2006 - 1 2006 - 2 2006 - 3 2006 - 4 2007 - 1 2007 - 2 2007 - 3 2007 - 4 2008 - 1 2008 - 2

Calendar Years & Quarters

Cases Per 200,000 work hours

TRC: Occupational Injury Safety – 

Total Recordable Case (TRC) rate 

per 200,000 w ork hours.

7.1

6.3

6.5

5.9

*This DOE data is collected in the 

Computerized Accident& Injury 

Reporting System (CAIRS).:

 Data Date: Aug 18, 2008

** Industry rates taken from NAICS 

code 23 and 562 of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2006 Industry Injury 

and Illness Data

.90

1.15

Waste Disposal Industry Annual TRC Rate

Construction Industry Annual TRC Rate

DOE TRC Trends

DOE EM TRC Rate Trends

Figure 1.17 EM Safety Performance — Lost Work Days Cases 

The EM complex has received 163 state, regional, or national level safety awards or 

recognition for sustained safety performance, excellence in safety program 

implementation, employee involvement in safety program activity, aviation safety, 

mine safety and rescue, and transportation safety since 2004. These awards include 

Standards - DART Case Comparisons

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2005 - 3 2005 - 4 2006 - 1 2006 - 2 2006 - 3 2006 - 4 2007 - 1 2007 - 2 2007 - 3 2007 - 4 2008 - 1 2008 - 2

Calendar Years & Quarters

Cases Per 200,000 work hours

DART Case: Lost Work Days 

Cases - Days Aw ay from w ork, 

Restricted or on job Transfer 

(DART) case rate per 200,000 

w ork hours.

4.7

3.4

3.9

3.2

*This DOE data is collected in the 

Computerized Accident& Injury 

Reporting System (CAIRS).:

 Data Date: Aug 18, 2008

** Industry rates taken from NAICS 

code 23 and 562 of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2006 Industry Injury 

and Illness Data

0.47

Waste Disposal Industry Annual DART Case Rate

Construction Industry Annual DART Case Rate

DOE DART Case Rate Trends

DOE EM DART Case Rate Trends 0.44
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 66 

numerous prestigious recognitions from the National Safety Council, the Mine Safety 

and Health Administration, and state governments. 

EM’s safety culture is further exemplified by its transportation accomplishments. 

For example, EM has implemented a robust transportation and packaging program that 

has received recognition from industry groups for its efforts. In May 2007, the Secretary 

of Energy accepted the TransCAER (Transportation Community Awareness and 

Emergency Response) Chairman's Award on behalf of the DOE. The award cites the 

EM Office of Packaging and Transportation for its exemplary outreach efforts in 

working with communities along DOE's shipping routes in planning and preparing for 

possible transportation emergencies through its Transportation Emergency 

Preparedness Program. 

In addition, in 2008, EM was awarded the U.S. Transport Council (USTC) Special 

Achievement Award during USTC’s National Transport Summit in Washington, D.C. 

USTC is a nonprofit organization with members including the leading transportation 

companies, customers and associated industries. The Award recognizes success in 

shipments to the WIPP and the cleanup of major sites such as Rocky Flats and Fernald. 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

EM’s approach to safety is not limited to achieving good safety statistics. A totally 

integrated approach to safety is required. A key factor in achieving an excellent level of 

safety performance is to identify opportunities and take actions to continuously 

improve workplace safety. Opportunities such as elimination of electrical safety 

violations, lockout/tagout deficiencies, tripping 

hazards, ladder mishaps, and transportation 

incidents with radiological/hazardous 

materials are some areas contemplated. EM 

will expand the integrated safety management 

(ISM) approach to go from “good” to “great” 

safety performance. EM Headquarters, Field 

elements, and contractors have started 

initiatives to further improve human performance, implement effective work planning 

and control, and provide constructive feedback to enable timely, continuous 

improvement. Integrated review of work packages will provide the opportunity to 

eliminate unnecessary or unsafe work elements by making it possible to develop and 

implement new and better approaches. Continuous implementation of ISM to enhance 

human performance, effect work planning and control, utilize constructive feedback, 

and apply lessons learned will result in a better safety culture throughout the 

workplace and breakthrough safety improvements. EM will enhance safety oversight 

of new contractors as they transition into working at EM sites. 

Challenges 

• Integrated work planning and control 

• Timely feedback and effective lessons 

learned 

• Sustaining safety culture through 

multiple contract transitions 
 2.0 Regulatory Milestones and Commitments

January 2009 67 

2 REGULATORY MILESTONES AND COMMITMENTS

The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) strongly believes setting priorities 

to attain the greatest risk reduction is the most effective use of taxpayer funds and has 

the greatest benefit, at the earliest possible time, to the largest number of people. The 

Department works closely with Federal and state regulators and seeks cooperation with 

these and other stakeholders to evaluate needs and focus work on the highest 

environmental priorities based on current knowledge. The Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) makes every effort to comply with all applicable environmental 

legal obligations, while also maintaining essential functions to protect human health, 

the environment, and national security. 

2.1 ENFORCEABLE MILESTONES

As described in Section 1.4, EM’s cleanup work at most sites is governed by one or more 

regulatory agreements or orders. Table 2.1 describes the types of agreements, orders, 

and decrees in effect. Most EM cleanup is being performed under Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) through Federal 

Facility Agreements (FFAs), as well as under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) through various Consent Orders, Compliance Orders, and Site Treatment Plans 

(STPs). In addition, virtually all sites operate under various environmental permits 

(e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), which contain both requirements and 

enforceability provisions. 

Table 2.1 Types of Agreements and Orders 

Agreement/ 

Order Description 

Federal Facility 

Agreement (FFA) 

A legal agreement between DOE, the Enviromental Protection Agengy (U.S. 

EPA), and sometimes the State. It sets forth schedules and processes for site 

cleanup under CERCLA, including enforcement provisions for non-compliance. 

FFAs that include the state as a party often incorporates RCRA compliance 

requirements, as well as state hazardous waste law requirements that flow from 

RCRA. These agreements are typically called FFAs and COs. A few also 

incorporate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requirements. 

Consent Order 

Or Consent 

Agreement 

Or Settlement 

Agreement 

A legal agreement between DOE and U.S. EPA or the State, documenting the 

settlement of a cleanup issue outside of court. COs, consent agreements, and 

settlement agreements are legally binding, so compliance disputes may 

ultimately be taken to court. Most COs, consent agreements, and settlement 

agreements address RCRA issues or state hazardous waste issues that flow from 

RCRA, although they can also address CERCLA issues. 

Consent Decree A court-issued enforceable order, generally reflecting an agreement between 

DOE and U.S. EPA or the State. Consent decrees can cover either CERCLA or 

RCRA, as well as state hazardous waste laws. 

Site Treatment 

Plan and 

Compliance Order 

A legal agreement and plan developed under the Federal Facility Compliance Act 

(FFCAct) and RCRA for DOE facilities that generate or store mixed wastes, 

setting schedules to treat all of the facilities’ mixed waste. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 68 

The list of agreements in place at DOE sites is provided in Table 2.2. For ease of listing 

the documents here, names of some specific agreements/orders have been modified to 

align with the above categories of documents (e.g., Los Alamos’ 2005 “Compliance 

Order on Consent” is shown below as a RCRA Consent Order). EM’s website 

(www.em.doe.gov/Pages/compagreements.aspx) provides each site’s compliance 

documents by name. 

The agreements and orders identify the specific cleanup actions and the associated 

milestone dates. There are two different types of milestones – enforceable milestones 

and “planned” milestones (also referred to as “rolling” or “target” milestones). 

An enforceable milestone has a fixed, mandatory due date. In some cases, the 

regulatory agreements or orders only establish enforceable milestones for the current 

fiscal year plus the next two fiscal years, meaning milestones due more than three years 

out remain subject to change before they “roll” over into enforceable milestones. Some 

regulatory agreements establish enforceable milestones for the entire lifecycle of the 

cleanup. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party 

Agreement), for example, establishes enforceable milestones for several decades out. 

The number of major enforceable milestones due from September 1, 2008, forward for 

each site is listed in Table 2.2. The individual milestones for each site are listed in 

Appendix A, List of Enforceable Milestones. Not all sites where EM is conducting 

cleanup activities are listed in Table 2.2 and Appendix A, since the regulatory 

framework for some cleanup sites do not include enforceable cleanup milestones. 

For example, Moab, where EM is removing uranium mill tailings and remediating 

contaminated groundwater is not subject to enforceable milestones nor is the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which is a disposal rather than a cleanup facility. 

In addition, the milestone counts in Table 2.2 and the milestone list in Appendix A are 

not exhaustive. Both are intended to provide a high-level summary of the compliance 

picture at individual EM sites. Some sites, such as National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) sites, may have additional regulatory agreements and 

associated enforceable milestones that are not part of EM’s work scope. Those 

agreements and milestones are not in this EM report. In addition, most routine, 

recurring and purely administrative enforceable milestones, which can number in the 

hundreds at some sites, have been omitted. Instead, EM has focused on those 

milestones that are related to making cleanup progress at our sites. (Examples of 

routine administrative milestones are those for monthly and quarterly progress and 

monitoring reports, which document the status of already in-place remedies, versus 

progress toward making cleanup decisions.) 

Finally, many enforceable milestones at the Savannah River Site (SRS) have been “rolled 

up” into a smaller number of “aggregate” milestones for reporting purposes to reflect 
 2.0 Regulatory Milestones and Commitments

January 2009 69 

the site’s area completion strategy. Under that strategy, SRS and its regulators have 

agreed that the site may submit one comprehensive remedial document, such as a 

corrective measures study or a work plan, to satisfy the requirements contained in 

multiple enforceable milestones related to a common area of the site. While this 

strategy allows SRS to realize substantial savings in terms of both cost and time, each of 

the “rolled up” milestones remains individually enforceable and potentially subject to 

separate fines and penalties if the comprehensive document is not submitted on time. 

Table 2.2 List of Agreements, Orders, and the Number of Enforceable Milestones at Each Site 

Site Agreement Type/Title and Date 

Number of 

Enforceable 

Milestones 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory • Federal Facility Agreement – 1992 1 

Energy Technology 

Engineering Center 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Compliance Order – 1995 

• RCRA Consent Order – 2007 14 

Idaho 

• Federal Facility Agreement – 1991 

• RCRA Consent Orders – 1992, 1999, 2000 and 2001 

• Batt Settlement Agreement – 1995 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Consent Order – 1995 

21 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory 

• RCRA Consent Agreement – 1993 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Compliance Order – 1995 

• Federal Facility Compliance Agreement – 2005 

• RCRA Consent Order – 2005 

42 

Nevada Test Site 

• RCRA Consent/Settlement Agreements – 1992, 1994 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Consent Order – 1996 

• Federal Facility Agreement – 1996 

25 

Oak Ridge 

• Federal Facility Agreement – 1992 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Compliance Order – 1995 

• TSCA Compliance Agreement – 1996 

65 

Paducah 

• Federal Facility Agreement on TSCA - 1992 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Compliance Order – 1997 

• Federal Facility Agreement – 1998 

10 

Portsmouth 

• RCRA/TSCA Consent Decree – 1989 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Compliance Agreement – 

1992, 1995 

• RCRA/CERCLA Consent Order – 1997 

• RCRA Compliance Order – 1998 

7 

Richland and River 

Protection 

• Federal Facility Agreement (Tri-Party Agreement) – 1989 

• Clean Air Act Compliance Agreement – 1994 

• TSCA Compliance Agreement – 1996 

• RCRA Consent Decree on Tank Interim Stabilization – 

2000 

• RCRA Consent Order on Tank Integrity – 2000 

• Settlement Agreement on National Environmental Policy 

Act and Waste Disposal – 2006 

116 

Sandia National 

Laboratories • RCRA Consent Order – 2004 2 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 70 

Site Agreement Type/Title and Date 

Number of 

Enforceable 

Milestones 

Savannah River 

• RCRA Consent Orders – 1985, 1999 (2) 

• RCRA Settlement Agreements – 1987 (2), 1988, 1989, 

1991 

• Federal Facility Agreement - 1993 

• FFCAct Site Treatment Plan/Consent Order – 1995 

• Clean Water Act Consent Order – 1999 

29 

Stanford Linear 

Accelerator Center 

• Compliance Order (Regional Water Quality Control Board) 

– 2005 13 

2.2 MILESTONE CHALLENGES

The Department has a history of meeting more than 90 percent of its milestones; 

however, EM recognizes that some enforceable milestones are potentially at risk. There 

are certain circumstances that explain the majority of at risk milestones. For some 

milestones, the associated agreements were negotiated many years ago, with 

incomplete knowledge by all of the parties regarding the technical complexity of 

meeting the milestones. Unexpected technical obstacles have often required additional 

work not anticipated at the time the agreements were established. For others, because 

of the dependencies between projects, the completion of milestones for a particular 

project may affect the scheduling and sequencing of other projects, each having their 

own enforceable milestones. On top of these occurrences, the full scope of the work to 

be completed was not necessarily known when agreements were originally established. 

Likewise, agreements were developed without the knowledge of the type and timing of 

contracts required to complete the work. 

The cleanup program continues to be impacted by various safety, contract 

administration, project management, regulatory, legal, technical, and economic 

challenges. Table 2.3 provides a list of the enforceable milestones at risk based on the 

program’s progress through 2008. 
 2.0 Regulatory Milestones and Commitments

January 2009 71 

Table 2.3 Enforceable Milestones at Risk 

Milestone Description Commitment Date 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

New Mexico Environment Department Consent Order 

Submit Investigation Report for Upper Los Alamos Canyon 

Aggregate Area 5/31/2009 

Submit Investigation Report for Canada del Buey Canyons 8/31/2009 

Richland Operations Office 

Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order ("TPA") 

Complete removal of the K Basins and their content 3/31/2009 

Initiate soil remediation at K West Basin 04/30/2009 

Complete treatment of K Basin Sludge 11/30/2009 

Complete interim remedial actions at Areas 100-B and C 12/31/2009 

Retrieve 12,200 cubic meters (cumulative) of contact handled 

retrievably stored waste 12/31/2009 

Complete treatment of all contact handled mixed low level 

waste 12/31/2009 

Treat 6,600 cubic meters of contact handled mixed TRU waste 

(cumulative) 12/31/2009 

Submit a revised Feasibility Study Report and proposed plan for 

the Area 200 BC cribs and trenches for the new 200-BC-1 

Operable Unit 

4/30/2010 

Submit 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Feasibility Study and proposed 

plan to U.S. EPA 10/31/2010 

Submit revised Feasibility Study Report and revised proposed 

plan for 200-CW-1 Operable Unit 11/30/2010 

Submit 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Combined Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study Report and proposed plan 11/30/2010 

Retrieve all contact handled retrievably stored waste within 

Burial Grounds 218-W-4C, 218-W-4B, 218-W3A and 218-E-12B 12/31/2010 

Treat 7,600 cubic meters contact handled mixed TRU waste 

(cumulative) 12/31/2010 

Submit a Feasibility Study Report and proposed plan for 200-

SC-1 Operable Unit 12/31/2010 

Submit the Feasibility Study Report and the revised 

recommended remedy(ies) for 200-PW-2 and 200-PW-4 

Operable Units 

12/31/2010 

Initiate full-scale retrieval of remote handled retrievably stored 

waste 01/01/2011 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 72 

Milestone Description Commitment Date 

Treat 300 cubic meters per year of remote handled mixed low 

level waste 6/30/2011 

Complete interim safe storage for 105-K Basin East and 105-K 

Basin West reactor 09/30/2011 

Complete the Combined Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility 

Study process for all Operable Units 12/31/2011 

Complete all Area 200 Non-Tank Farm Operable Unit Site 

Investigations 12/31/2011 

Complete the treatment or certification of contact handled 

mixed TRU waste regarding small containers of: (1) newly 

generated contact handled waste; (2) contact handled 

retrievably stored waste; and (3) contact handled waste 

currently in above-ground storage 

12/31/2011 

Treat 8,600 cubic meters of contact handled mixed TRU waste 

(cumulative) 12/31/2011 

Submit Area 200 Chemical Laboratory Waste Operable Units 

Feasibility Study 12/31/2011 

Submit a revised Feasibility Study Report and revised proposed 

plan for 200-TW-1 and 200-PW-5 Operable Units 12/31/2011 

Submit a revised Feasibility Study Report and a revised 

recommended remedy(ies) for 200-TW-2 Operable Unit 12/31/2011 

Complete acquisition of capabilities and/or facilities necessary 

for retrieval, designation, storage and treatment prior to 

disposal of post-1970 TRU/mixed TRU waste 

06/30/2012 

Treat 300 cubic meters per year of remote handled mixed low 

level waste 6/30/2012 

Begin treating remote handled mixed TRU waste and large 

containers of contact handled mixed TRU waste 6/30/2012 

Complete all interim response actions for Area 100 12/31/2012 

Complete interim response actions for Area 100 K 12/31/2012 

Complete disposition of Area 300 surplus facilities 09/30/2015 

Complete all interim remedial actions for Area 300 including the 

618-10 and 618-11 burial grounds 09/30/2018 

Complete remedial actions for all Non-Tank Farm Operable 

Units 9/30/2024 

Office of River Protection 

Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order ("TPA")

Start WTP cold commissioning (TPA and Washington 

Dangerous Waste Permit requirement) 2/28/2009 
 2.0 Regulatory Milestones and Commitments

January 2009 73 

Milestone Description Commitment Date 

Complete startup and turnover activities for waste retrieval and 

mobilization systems for selected initial high level waste feed 

tank 

3/31/2009 

Complete hot commissioning of WTP Balance of Facilities 1/31/2011 

Initiate negotiations of single shell tank waste retrieval and 

closure for remainder of the single shell tank program 10/31/2012 

Negotiations for retrieval and closure of remaining single shell 

tanks shall be complete within 120 days 2/28/2013 

Complete WTP pretreatment and vitrification of no less than 

10% of tank waste by mass and 25% by activity 2/28/2018 

Complete all work necessary in support of the acquisition and 

operation of high level waste treatment, storage and disposal 

facility 

2/28/2018 

Retrieve waste from all remaining single shell tanks 9/30/2018 

Close all single shell tank farms 9/30/2024 

Complete closure of all single shell tanks in accordance with 

approved closure/post closure plans 9/30/2024 

Complete pre-treatment processing and vitrification of Hanford 

high level waste and low activity waste tank wastes 12/31/2028 

Savannah River Site 

Memorandum of Agreement 

DOE must remove the Battelle remote handled-TRU waste from 

SRS 1/1/2009 

While Table 2.3 identifies enforceable milestones potentially at risk, EM will continue to 

make every effort to comply with all applicable environmental legal obligations, while 

also maintaining essential functions to protect human health, the environment, and 

national security. Identifying milestones as 

potentially at risk prompts innovative work 

resequencing. Sometimes the resequencing 

involves renegotiating milestone schedules, 

with the engagement of our regulators, and 

other times by re-sequencing non-compliancedriven work scope to allow existing milestones 

to be met. Thus, while this listing is an accurate reflection of EM's understanding of 

anticipated successes and current challenges, EM will continually revise its projections 

of milestones at risk as the program makes cleanup progress, identifies new 

challenges, and implements mitigation measures—with a goal of meeting its regulatory 

commitments. 

Milestone Compliance Strategy 

 Work closely with regulators to align 

agreements and reduction of highest 

risks 

 Central data base to track milestone 

performance 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 74 

Because EM is committed to meeting its regulatory obligations, the program is working 

with Federal and state regulators to ensure enforceable milestones reflect an achievable, 

risk-based path forward. Where new regulatory agreements embody different 

priorities (i.e., sequencing of activities) other than those in EM’s current baseline 

schedule, EM will make the appropriate baseline changes to reflect the shared vision 

and priorities that have been agreed to. 

EM is expanding and improving the tools used to monitor and track regulatory 

compliance. All enforceable agreement commitments are tracked in a centralized 

database. The database is used to identify and report potential issues in advance so 

corrective actions to mitigate or resolve the issues can be taken. 
 3.0 Life Cycle Cost

January 2009 75 

3 EM PROGRAM LIFE CYCLE COST

Since the mid-1990s, the Office of Environmental Management (EM) life-cycle cost has 

undergone several evolutions due to a variety of factors. With each succeeding 

estimate, EM further refined its life-cycle cost estimating abilities. 

3.1 EVOLUTION OF EM PROGRAM LIFE-CYCLE COST

The life-cycle cost of the EM program has been influenced by several factors, including: 

• Better characterization of the contamination has clarified the scope of required 

cleanup; 

• More fully defined end states through 

time have lead to more advanced cost 

estimates; 

• Cost estimating tools continue to 

become more detailed and accurate, 

particularly as they incorporate the 

results of actual costs of previous 

cleanup efforts; 

• The inventory of EM work has fluctuated over time as work scope was 

transferred in and out of the program.; and 

• Optimistic cost-saving assumptions based on changes to the existing regulatory 

framework were not realized. 

The first comprehensive estimates of EM’s projected scope, cost, and schedule were 

developed in the mid 1990s. These life-cycle cost estimates were based largely on 

program-wide estimates compiled at Headquarters using cost estimation models based 

on site-specific assumptions about future land use; treatment, storage, and disposal 

facility needs; regulatory requirements; and the technologies to be used at the site. 

By 1998, EM sites were instructed to group all of their cleanup work scope into projects. 

Project Baseline Summaries (PBS) were developed as a construct to capture 

programmatic information associated with individual projects having similar attributes 

such as geographic location, activity type, or common end state. This information 

included life-cycle cost, schedule and scope required to complete specific cleanup 

projects. 

 

In 2002, following publication of the Top-to-Bottom Review, sites began developing 

Performance Management Plans (PMPs) describing the work plans, priorities, and 

schedules for meeting the sites’ cleanup objectives. At sites with long-term Department 

of Energy (DOE) missions requiring major cleanup, the PMPs described the plan, 

Life-Cycle Cost Strategy

 Identify and schedule all known scope 

and estimate life-cycle costs 

 Conduct independent reviews to verify 

the reasonableness of the estimates 

 Baselines are based on realistic planning 

and funding assumptions
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 76 

schedule and estimated cost for EM to complete the cleanup and return the land and/or 

facilities to the lead 

Program Secretarial Office (PSO) for future 

use or transfer to other entities. Over time, 

some key assumptions underlying the PMPs 

were not realized at sites, including new 

approaches to accomplishing cleanup, new 

regulatory strategies, and restructuring of the 

program to move work scope out of the EM 

program. As PMP assumptions regarding 

alternative cleanup approaches and 

regulatory strategies did not materialize, 

project baselines were increased to include 

additional work scope. For example, PMPs 

assumed that some radioactive liquid tanks 

waste (containing lower levels of 

radioactivity) could be managed as low-level 

waste (LLW) and disposed or treated in place 

at a significantly lower cost. When this 

assumption did not materialize, the 

additional work scope and increased cost 

needed to manage tank waste were 

incorporated into project baselines. 

Table 3.1 shows the evolution of EM program 

life-cycle cost estimates and compares the 

key assumptions underlying each estimate. 

Unrealized Assumptions

 Low activity tank waste could be managed 

as LLW and disposed or treated in-situ at a 

significantly lower cost 

 H Canyon at Savannah River Site, which is 

the only nuclear chemical separations plant 

still in operation in the United States, 

would have completed EM work scope and 

would transfer to National Nuclear Security 

Administration in FY 2008 

 Deactivation and decommissioning of the 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plants was not 

the responsibility of EM 

 Management of the Spent Fuel Program 

would be transferred out of EM 

 No new scope would be accepted into the 

EM program. Instead, the following scope 

was added to the EM program: 

à More than 200 nuclear facilities and 5 

million square feet of space at the Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory and the Y12 nuclear weapons plant; 

à Treatment and disposal of U-233 in 

Building 3019 at Oak Ridge; and 

à Cleanup of the Moab Uranium Mill 

Tailings Remedial Action Project 

 Safeguards and Security requirements 

would not increase (i.e., no enhanced 

Design Basis Threat requirements) 
 3.0 Life Cycle Cost

January 2009 77 

Table 3.1 Evolution of Life Cycle Cost Estimates 

Life-Cycle Costs (in Billions of Dollars) 

Year Life-Cycle 

Total Significant Events Key Scope/Cost Assumptions 

2008 $274 to $330 

Baseline 

realignment 

completed 

2007 $204 to $263 

Baseline 

realignment 

initiated 

♦ Additional increase in Hanford Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP) cost due to scope refinement 

and changing requirements 

♦ More robust design criteria for the Savannah River Site 

(SRS) Salt Waste Processing Facility 

♦ Switch from in situ management to removal of Moab mill 

tailings pile 

♦ Increased Los Alamos National Laboratory D&D scope 

resulting from Consent Order 

♦ Includes Portsmouth & Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

(GDP) Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) 

♦ Assumed new scope: 

 Excess facilities from other mission programs 

 Treatment and disposal of U-233 in Building 3019 at 

Oak Ridge 

 Disposition of 13 metric tons (MT) of Surplus 

Plutonium (Pu) 

 D&D of multiple smaller facilities 

♦ Low activity tank waste removed from tanks and treated 

prior to disposition 

♦ Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) program remains in EM 

♦ Increased pension & benefit liabilities 

♦ Extended Pu storage at Hanford 

♦ Consolidation of Pu at SRS 

♦ Continued H Canyon operations needed to support 

stabilization and disposition of surplus Pu 

♦ Treatment of Idaho National Laboratory (INL) calcine waste 

2003 $163 

Development of 

Performance 

Management Plans

(PMPs) 

♦ Portsmouth & Paducah GDP D&D removed from scope 

♦ Office of Future Liabilities responsible for any new scope 

♦ Removal of Pu from Hanford 

♦ Low activity tank waste treated/disposed in situ 

♦ Transfer of spent fuel program to DOE Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

♦ Transfer of H canyon to National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) in FY2008 

♦ No treatment of INL calcine waste 

2001 $286 

Top-to-Bottom 

Review (TTB) 

issued (2002) 

♦ Top-to-Bottom Review concludes EM program is focused 

on managing risk not reducing risk 

♦ EM program should only focus on activities that directly 

result in cleanup 

♦ Increase in Hanford WTP cost 

1998 $269 Paths to Closure 

issued (1998)

♦ Stable funding 

♦ No new scope 

♦ Transfer of newly generated waste 

1996 $354 BEMR 

issued (1996) 

♦ One of the first life-cycle cost estimate of the EM program 

♦ Top down estimate 

♦ Unknown end states 

Life-cycle cost (LCC) totals shown in Table 3-1 reflect the environmental liability lifecycle estimates for those years except for the 1996 Baseline Environmental Management 

Report (BEMR) estimate which was calculated prior to the requirement to report 

environmental liabilities as part of the Department’s financial statement disclosure. 

LCC estimates reported in various documents (e.g. budget requests) for the years 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 78 

identified in Table 3.1 may vary due to reporting timeframes and pending scope 

changes. 

3.2 CURRENT EM LIFE-CYCLE COST ESTIMATE

EM’s project baselines were developed based on key programmatic assumptions and 

priorities. EM maintains a “Safety First” culture that integrates environment, safety and 

health requirements and controls into all work activities to ensure protection to the 

worker, public, and the environment. 

The current LCC estimate range for the EM program (1997 through completion), as 

documented in the independently reviewed baselines, is $274 to $330 billion (see 

Table 3.1). This estimate includes about $69 billion in actual costs from 1997 through 

2007, and an additional estimate of $205 to $260 billion to complete EM’s remaining 

mission. 

Given the uncertainty and risk inherent in 

the EM work scope, baselines have not been 

developed as single point estimates, but 

rather, costs and completion dates are 

presented as ranges, with a low estimate 

(generally at the 50 percent confidence level) 

and a high estimate (generally at the 

80 percent confidence level). EM budgets 

cleanup projects at the 50 percent confidence level and construction projects at the 

80 percent confidence level (or higher). 

Table 3-2 presents the estimated remaining LCC range (FY 2008 to completion) as 

detailed in the site baselines, along with each site’s anticipated completion date range. 

Only sites where there is remaining work scope in 2008 and beyond are included in the 

table. 

Unfunded Contingency Policy

 Long time frame for completion of cleanup 

projects 

 Limit carrying over project funds from one 

year to the next 

 Cost overruns within one part of a cleanup 

project offset by surpluses in another 
 3.0 Life Cycle Cost

January 2009 79 

Table 3.2 Estimated Remaining Life-Cycle Costs and Completion Dates by Site 

Site 

FY08 and 

Remaining Cost 

(low range, millions) 

FY08 and 

Remaining Cost 

(high range, millions) 

Planned Completion 

Date/Date Range 

Argonne National Laboratory-East $14 $14 2009 

Brookhaven National Laboratory $128 $169 2020 

Energy Technology Engineering 

Center $106 $152 2018 

Fernald $358 $358 20061

Hanford Site $49,722 $52,496 2050-2062 

Headquarters, TD, Completed Sites, 

Other $11,342 $11,342 2048 

Idaho National Laboratory $20,617 $27,530 2037 

Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory <$0.5 <$0.5 2008 

Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory Site 300 $9 $9 2008 

Los Alamos National Laboratory $1,635 $2,582 2015-2020 

Miamisburg Environmental 

Management Project $845 $845 2008 

Moab $939 $982 2028 

Nevada Test Site $1,616 $1,946 2027-2038 

Oak Ridge Reservation $4,835 $5,410 2021 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant $9,533 $16,432 2040 

Pantex Plant $26 $26 2008 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant $7,434 $14,428 2044 

River Protection $48,782 $66,713 2042 – 2050 

Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site $2,632 $2,632 20061

Sandia National Laboratory $9 $9 2009 

Savannah River Site $38,852 $49,688 2039-2040 

Separations Process Research Unit $197 $197 2014 

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center $23 $39 2011 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant $4,590 $5,184 2035 

West Valley Demonstration Project $1,187 $1,347 2012 

$205,432 $260,532 2050-2062 

1 These costs are associated with contract closeout activities. 

The life-cycle estimate does not include the Department’s liabilities for D&D of 

hundreds of excess (surplus) facilities, as well as the management of waste and 

materials, from other DOE mission programs (i.e., National Nuclear Security 

Administration, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear Energy). More 

information on the liabilities for other mission programs is provided in Section 4. 

3.3 STRATEGIC PLANNING

EM is analyzing its baselines to develop recommendations to further “optimize” 

implementation of cleanup projects. This directed strategic planning effort will 

concentrate on the technical and programmatic challenges facing the cleanup projects. 

The objective is to identify innovative solutions to drive cleanup outcomes and reduce 

risk faster. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 80 

These strategic analyses, coupled with more rigorous baseline data, will provide a 

credible basis for: 

• Budget formulation, execution and project management; 

• Quantification of liabilities from other mission programs and; 

• Department’s multi-year planning initiatives. 

EM’s strategic planning and analyses are focused on four crucial areas: 

• Footprint Reduction Opportunities and Near-Term completions; 

• Alternative approaches to dispositioning tank waste; 

• Alternative approaches to dispositioning excess nuclear materials and SNF; and 

• Alternative management approaches. 

3.3.1 PROGRESS AND MAINTENANCE 

EM has re-evaluated programmatic elements and priorities to support optimal resource 

allocation decisions. As part of this “re-evaluation,” EM analyzed program costs to 

determine the percent spent to achieve 

progress in completing cleanup and risk 

reduction and the percent spent to maintain 

existing facility status (i.e., costs that are 

generally accepted as fixed costs). The ability 

to understand the relationship between 

progress and maintenance costs helps gain a 

better understanding of how much of the 

program’s funding each year is focused on 

either maintaining a safe and secure posture 

or directed toward the actual completion of 

cleanup. Generally, the greater the resources 

directed at activities related to making 

cleanup progress, the shorter the duration of 

the costs associated with the related 

maintenance activities. 

Based on historical budgets, maintenance costs are estimated to be a little over 

50 percent of the total annual costs incurred by the program, which means that a little 

less than 50 percent of the spending support actual cleanup and risk reduction, an 

increase over previous years. At the time of the publication of the Top-to-Bottom Review

in February, 2002, only about 33 percent of the EM program budget was going towards 

actual cleanup and risk reduction work. EM will continue to evaluate opportunities 

that maximize cleanup and risk reduction results while reducing maintenance costs. 

Cost Types

 Progress Costs: Encompasses activities that 

advance the mission, generally measured 

by an increase in one or more associated 

metrics. The application of additional 

funds to a project should generally result in 

additional progress, not in continued 

maintenance 

 Maintenance Costs: Encompasses activities 

required to control existing material, waste, 

and facilities in a safe, stable condition; to 

maintain facilities in their current state of 

operational readiness; and to maintain site 

infrastructure and the overall current state 

of the site without advancing the mission 
 3.0 Life Cycle Cost

January 2009 81 

EM also evaluates its cost in terms of the time horizon required to complete different 

types of cleanup activities because ultimately this is the most effective way to reduce 

the LCC of the program. EM determined that about half of its program resources (both 

maintenance and progress) are required for management of tank waste, surplus special 

nuclear material (SNM), and spent nuclear fuel (SNF). These activities are associated 

with the larger sites and are fraught with technical, regulatory, and political 

uncertainties. While EM is pursuing alternative approaches to reduce the enormous 

LCC associated with management of tank waste and surplus nuclear materials, EM is 

also proactively pursuing near-term completion and footprint reduction opportunities 

to optimize cleanup progress. 

These near-term completion and footprint reduction opportunities are associated with 

environmental cleanup activities such as transuranic (TRU) waste and low-level waste 

(LLW) disposal, soil and groundwater remediation, and deactivation and 

decommissioning (D&D), for which EM has demonstrated successful performance 

using proven technologies within a well-defined regulatory framework. In order to 

leverage that success, EM directed its sites to identify footprint reduction and near-term 

completion opportunities. EM has worked collaboratively with its field sites to define 

aggressive, but achievable business case strategies for accelerating cleanup of distinct 

and discrete sites or portions of large sites. 

EM has recently undertaken an initiative to divide projects into their underlying 

discrete scope elements known as analytical building blocks. Developing standardized 

cost information at this level will enable EM to better understand, communicate, and 

evaluate costs associated with cleanup work scope and the time and cost associated 

with delay and/or acceleration. The objective is to understand how LCCs are affected 

under various scenarios and provide a basis to understand and evaluate the associated 

compliance and work force implications of alternative scenarios. 

3.3.2 FOOTPRINT REDUCTION 

At large sites, i.e., the Hanford Site (Hanford), Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL), Savannah River Site (SRS), Portsmouth, and Paducah, 

opportunities exist to reduce the site footprint by focusing cleanup on D&D, soil and 

groundwater remediation and solid waste disposition. EM’s success in these areas can 

be leveraged to maximize efficiencies and cleanup. Ultimately, completion of these 

types of cleanup activities reduces the surveillance and maintenance costs associated 

with managing large tracks of land. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 82 

Figure 3.1 Hanford Footprint Reduction Scenario 

For example, Hanford’s footprint reduction scenario to clean up the River Corridor and 

complete the D&D of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) by 2015 results in an 87 

percent reduction of the site footprint. This scenario reduces environmental risks with a 

large return on investment. 

3.3.3 SMALL SITE NEAR-TERM COMPLETIONS 

Small sites (Section 1.5.2) submitted near-term completion options that accelerate their 

remaining EM work scope. This footprint reduction would allow management to focus 

resources on large site cleanup. Under these scenarios, near-term completion of EM 

cleanup work would be completed by 2015 at three sites – Brookhaven and Separations 

Process Research Unit (SPRU) in New York and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 

(SLAC) in California. Three other sites could also be accelerated – Moab in Utah, 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) in California, and West Valley 

Demonstration Project (WVDP) in New York. 

In the case of Brookhaven in New York, the remaining EM cleanup mission, which 

primarily involves the decommissioning of two small nuclear research reactors, would 

be accelerated from 2020 to 2012. Completion of the remaining work at the SPRU 

located at the Department's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory could be accelerated by 

one year to 2013. This work involves the decommissioning of two nuclear processing 

facilities and remediation of a small area of soil contamination. In the case of SLAC in 

California, soil and groundwater remediation would be completed in 2011, one year 

earlier than now planned. 

For the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project in Moab, Utah, cleanup would 

be accelerated by 9 years, from 2028 to 2019. This project involves the remediation of 

the former uranium-ore processing facility. 
 3.0 Life Cycle Cost

January 2009 83 

Figure 3.2 Sites with Active EM Programs as of 2008 

At ETEC, the remaining work is 

focused on the D&D of nuclear 

and non-nuclear facilities, 

remediation of a few soil 

contamination areas, and one 

groundwater plume. This work 

would be completed in 2017 

instead of 2018. 

The WVDP is divided into two 

phases. The first phase involves 

the relocation of canisters of radioactive tank waste to a newly constructed on-site 

facility for temporary storage, the remediation of contaminated soil areas, and the 

decommissioning of several nuclear facilities including the original reprocessing plant 

and stabilization facility. Completion of this work would be accelerated to 2018. 

The second phase of work would be completed at a later date when a disposition 

alternative is selected for the high-level waste. 

Under the current baseline, cleanup will be complete at 10 of the remaining 21 sites by 

2015. If EM were to implement a near-term completion initiative to accelerate small site 

cleanup, EM would expect to accelerate cleanup at 5 sites—Brookhaven and WVDP in 

New York, Nevada Test Site (NTS) in Nevada, ETEC in California, and Moab in Utah. 

This will result in completion of two additional sites (Brookhaven and NTS) by 2015, 

and the other three shortly thereafter. This strategy delivers significant risk reduction 

during the 2008 to 2015 timeframe and results in a reduction of active EM work at 21 

sites in 13 states to 10 sites in 10 states (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3). 

Figure 3.3 Remaining Active EM Sites in 2015 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 84 

If EM were to successfully implement both the large site footprint reduction initiative 

and the small site near-term completion strategy, it would effectively reduce the overall 

EM footprint from approximately 900 square miles to approximately 135 square miles. 

This will result in a significant reduction in the EM Program life-cycle cost and 

schedule. More detailed information on life-cycle costs at the project level is provided 

in Appendix B.
 4.0 Overview of Excess Facilities and Cleanup Scope Expected to be Transferred to EM

January 2009 85 

4 EXCESS FACILITIES AND MATERIALS SCOPE TRANSFER

The Department of Energy (DOE or the 

Department) has hundreds of excess contaminated 

facilities and tons of materials and radioactive 

wastes that are not part of the Environmental 

Management (EM) program. The crucial 

management and control of these liabilities is vital to the Department given the 

potential risks to the health and safety of DOE workers, the public and the 

environment. 

For the first decade of the EM program, excess facilities and materials from other DOE 

Program Secretarial Offices (PSOs) were transferred to EM for cleanup and disposition. 

In fact, on occasion, whole sites were transferred to the EM program, e.g., Savannah 

River Site (SRS) and Hanford. At times, funding accompanied the transfer to support 

surveillance and maintenance activities prior to cleanup. 

In 2002, due to concerns about broadening scope creep, work activities beyond the core 

mission and established planning scenarios, the “facility pipeline” was turned off. 

- Progress - 

Excess Facilities

Status in FY 2002 Progress Since FY 2002

 Excess facility pipeline closed  Excess facility & material inventory 

identified

 Preliminary cost estimate defined

 Mission Need Statements for the 

deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) of 

excess facilities developed for approval or 

already approved

In 2006, EM was designated by the Deputy Secretary as the cleanup agent for excess 

facilities and materials for the Department. Commensurate with the risk these activities 

pose, and in accordance with appropriate DOE Orders and directives, EM is responsible 

for addressing environmental cleanup and waste management liabilities of other DOE 

programs, and will incorporate those liabilities into its plans. 

To understand the potential scope that the Department has identified, Table 4.1 

provides a summary of the 340 excess facilities and materials. The full list is provided 

in Appendix C. 

DOE Environmental Liabilities

 340 surplus facilities and materials 

 $3.7 to $9.2 billion estimated cleanup 

cost 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 86 

Table 4.1 Summary of Facilities and Material Groups for Potential Transfer to EM 

PSO Total by PSO/Site Cost Range 

($ in millions) 

Total Facility Square 

Footage 

(by site) 

Facilities Material 

SC 164 24 $1,624.4 - $3,634.2 3,144,903 

ANL 15 0 1,149,237 

BNL 8 3 160,252 

SLAC 0 20 

FNAL 0 1 

$285.1 - $611.2 

ORNL 124 0 $980.5 - $2,588.4 832,384 

Y-12 17 0 $358.8 - $424.6 1,003,030 

NNSA 102 0 $1,155.7 - $3,545.9 2,285,780 

LANL 11 0 92,000 

LLNL 4 0 155,000 

NTS 5 0 18,710 

SRS 3 0 

$63.1 - $135.2 

72,349 

Y-12 79 0 $1,092.6 - $3,410.7 1,947,721 

NE 40 10 $954.5 – $1,975.8 416,558

INL 38 10 $886.4 - $1,899.5 134,663 

ORNL 1 0 $34.5 - $40.6 26,239 

Y-12 1 0 $33.6 - $35.7 255,656 

Grand Totals 340 $3,734.6 – $9,145.9 5,847,241 

(Sq. Ft.) 

The transfer process is fairly 

straightforward and is initiated 

annually by EM’s request to other 

Departmental “owners” to identify 

what cleanup scope they propose for transfer to EM. Information is consolidated and 

formalized along with agreements on transfer period and budget responsibility. Upon 

agreement on transfer conditions, planning steps are initiated to incorporate the facility 

or material into EM’s scope. 

Table 4.2 displays the cost range and identifies the DOE site, the owner, and whether 

the range is for facilities, materials, or both. 

Excess Facilities and Materials Strategy 

• Identify excess facilities and materials 

• Assess condition of facilities and materials 
 4.0 Overview of Excess Facilities and Cleanup Scope Expected to be Transferred to EM

January 2009 87 

Table 4.2 Summarized List of Excess Inventory and Estimated Liability Cost 

Site & Owner 

Cost Range 

(+50% / -30%) 

Future Cost Liability 

(in Millions) 

Facilities and/or Materials/Wastes 

LANL / NNSA $13.9 – $29.8 Facilities 

LLNL / NNSA $26.2 - $56.2 Facilities 

NTS / NNSA $4.0 - $8.5 Facilities 

SRS / NNSA $19.0 - $40.7 Facilities 

Y-12 / NNSA $1,092.6 - $3,410.7 Both 

Subtotal NNSA $1,155.7 - $3,545.9 Both 

ANL / SC $209.7 - $449.4 Both 

BNL / SC $36.2 - $77.6 Both 

SLAC / SC $37.7 - $80.9 Materials/Wastes 

FNAL / SC $1.5 - $3.3 Materials/Wastes 

ORNL / SC $980.5 - $2,588.4 Both 

Y-12 / SC $358.8 - $424.6 Both 

Subtotal SC $1,624.4 - $3,624.2 Both 

INL / NE $886.4 - $1,899.5 Both 

ORNL / NE $34.5 - $40.6 Both 

Y-12 / NE $33.6 - $35.7 Both 

Subtotal NE $954.5 - $1,975.8 Both 

Total Potential New EM 

Liability $3,734.6 – $9,145.9 Both 

Based on EM’s current planning, the earliest EM could accommodate any of the new 

work without re-prioritization of its existing work scope is 2017. Integration of these 

liabilities into the existing EM program will require re-prioritization based on an 

overarching framework that accounts for health and safety, environmental stewardship, 

and regulatory compliance. 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 88 

ADDRESSING CHALLENGES 

Once EM accepts cleanup work scope from 

other DOE programs a strategic planning 

challenge arises. EM will need to integrate 

these liabilities into its existing cleanup 

activities focusing on safety, engaging our 

regulators and the community, and ensuring 

resources are used efficiently. Deferral of 

tackling these liabilities in a timely manner may 

impact ongoing mission work as well as plans to expand and accommodate new 

missions that are needed to meet energy and national security objectives. 

Challenges 

• Liabilities associated with excess 

facilities and materials from other DOE 

programs 

• Transfer ready condition 

• Ongoing missions 
 Appendix A. List of Enforceable Milestones

January 2009 A1 

APPENDIX A LIST OF ENFORCEABLE MILESTONES 

The following table is provided pursuant to section 3130(b)(5) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008. It lists, by site (alphabetically), major 

enforceable milestones with commitment dates from January 1, 2009 and beyond, their 

associated Agreement, and associated commitment date. 

As noted in Section 2.1 of the report, the list of milestones in this Appendix is not 

exhaustive. It is intended to provide a high-level summary of compliance at individual 

EM sites. Some sites, such as National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) sites, 

may have additional regulatory agreements and associated enforceable milestones that 

are not part of EM’s work scope. These agreements and milestones are not listed in this 

EM report. In addition, most routine, recurring and purely administrative enforceable 

milestones, which can number in the hundreds at some sites, have been omitted. 

Instead, EM focused on those milestones related to making cleanup progress at our 

sites. (Examples of routine administrative milestones are those for monthly/quarterly 

progress and monitoring reports that document the status of already in-place remedies, 

versus progress toward making cleanup decisions.) 

As also noted earlier in this report, many enforceable milestones at the Savannah River 

Site (SRS) have been “rolled up” into a smaller number of “aggregate” milestones for 

reporting purposes to reflect the site’s area completion strategy. Under that strategy, 

SRS and its regulators have agreed that the site may submit one comprehensive 

remedial document, such as a corrective measures study or a work plan, to satisfy the 

requirements contained in multiple enforceable milestones related to a common area of 

the site. While this strategy allows SRS to realize substantial savings in terms of both 

cost and time, each of the “rolled up” milestones remains individually enforceable and 

potentially subject to separate fines and penalties if the comprehensive document is not 

submitted on time. 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Submit Interagency Agreement Annual Update FFA Annual Requirement 

through 9/30/2020 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Site Treatment Plan (STP) Milestone Report (proposes milestones) STP Annually 2/15 

Annual STP Submittal (discuss new volumes added) STP Annually 10/30 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Groundwater Corrective Measures Study Workplan Consent Order 3/13/2009 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Surficial Media Corrective Measures Study Workplan Consent Order 4/9/2009 

Group 7 Surficial Media RCRA Facility Investigation Report Consent Order 6/15/2009 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Groundwater Operable Unit RCRA Facility Investigation Report Consent Order 9/24/2009 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 A2 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Site-wide Ecological Group RCRA Facility Investigation Report Consent Order 9/23/2010 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Surficial Media Corrective Measures Study Report Consent Order 12/6/2011 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Groundwater Corrective Measures Study Report Consent Order 5/14/2012 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory All Groups Corrective Measures Implementation Workplan Consent Order 1/21/2015 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Groundwater Corrective Measures Implementation Workplan Consent Order 2/20/2015 

All Groups (Soils) Corrective Measures Implementation Construction Complete Consent Order 6/23/2017 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Groundwater Corrective Measures Implementation 

Construction Complete Consent Order 6/26/2017 

All Groups Corrective Measures Implementation Report Consent Order 12/27/2017 

Idaho National Laboratory 

SFE-106 tank system closure certificate Consent Order 1/26/2009 

Evaluate status of purified waste solvent line, INTEC 601-3 facility Consent Order 3/31/2009 

Submit Closure Certificate for Site Tank 005, Tank System TRA-007 Consent Order 5/11/2009 

Approve Calcine Disposition Project Critical Decision-1 (or CD-1A) STP 9/30/2009 

Complete annual treatment volumes STP 9/30/2009 

Issue Record of Decision (ROD) for EIS for path forward to treat calcine waste Batt Settlement 

Agreement 12/31/2009 

Submit certification for fluorine disposition process cell components Consent Order 6/24/2010 

Integrated Waste Treatment Unit: Commence full-scale system performance testing STP 6/30/2010 

Submit draft Closure Plan for RCRA permit application for catch tanks, TRU Pipeline Consent Order 9/30/2010 

Submit Group 7 draft Remedial Action Report FFA 2/29/2012 

Submit draft Operable Unit 3-13 Waste Area Group 3 Phase II Remedial Action Report FFA 5/11/2012 

Inspect/Remove Test Area North "Brown Lines" Subunit #1 piping Consent Order 9/30/2012 

Submit RCRA Part B permit –retrieval and treatment (if required) of HLW calcine Batt Settlement 

Agreement and STP 12/1/2012 

Complete treatment of sodium bearing waste Batt Settlement 

Agreement 12/31/2012 

Cease use of tank farm Consent Order 12/31/2012 

Submit Zone 1 remediation draft Remedial Action Report FFA 9/30/2013 

Submit draft Operable Unit 10-04 Phase II Remedial Action Report for TNT/RDX 

(trinitrotoluene/royal demolition explosive) remediation FFA 11/30/2015 

Ship all TRU waste to WIPP Batt Settlement 

Agreement 12/31/2018 

Submit final Remedial Action Report for Operable Unit 10-04 Consent Order 9/28/2020 

Transfer all spent fuel from wet storage Batt Settlement 

Agreement 12/31/2023 

Complete treatment of all calcine waste Batt Settlement 

Agreement 12/31/2035 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Install regional groundwater monitoring well R-30 Consent Order 2/15/2009 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Lower Sandia Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 4/30/2009 
 Appendix A. List of Enforceable Milestones

January 2009 A3 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Portillo/Fence Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 4/30/2009 

Submit Investigation Report for North Canyons (Guaje/Barrancas/Rendija/Bayo) Consent Order 6/30/2009 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Lower Mortandad/Cedro Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 10/31/2009 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Chaquehui Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 11/30/2009 

Submit Material Disposal Area T Remedy Completion Report Consent Order 12/31/2009 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Two Mile Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 1/31/2010 

Submit general facility information Consent Order 3/31/2010 

Submit Investigation Report for Solid Waste Management Units 49-005(a), -006, Areas of 

Concern C-49-002, -005(b), -008(a-b)(Areas 5,6, and 10) Consent Order 5/31/2010 

Submit Investigation Report for Solid Waste Management Units 49-001(a-g), 49-003, Area of 

Concern C-49-008(d)(Material Disposal Area AB, Areas 1,3,4,11, and 12) Consent Order 5/31/2010 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Lower Pajarito Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 7/31/2010 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Upper Water Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 8/31/2010 

Submit S-Site Aggregate Area Investigation Report Consent Order 8/31/2010 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Unit 50-009 (Material 

Disposal Area C) Consent Order 9/5/2010 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Starmer/Upper Pajarito Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 9/30/2010 

Install regional monitoring well at Technical Area-53 Consent Order 9/30/2010 

Install groundwater monitoring well at Los Alamos watershed Consent Order 9/30/2010 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Frijoles Canyon Aggregate Area Consent Order 10/31/2010 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Unit 21-015 (Material 

Disposal Area B) Consent Order 12/31/2010 

Submit Investigation Report for Water Canyon/Canon de Valle Consent Order 12/31/2010 

Submit Investigation Report for Ancho/Chaquehui/Indio Canyons Consent Order 2/28/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Unit 21-014 (Material 

Disposal Area A) Consent Order 3/11/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Units 21-013(b,g), 21-

018(a,b) (Material Disposal Area V) Consent Order 6/2/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Material Disposal Area L Consent Order 7/9/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006 (Material 

Disposal Area L) Consent Order 7/9/2011 

Submit Investigation Report for Portillo/Fence Canyons Consent Order 8/31/2011 

Submit Los Alamos Pueblo Canyon Aggregate Areas Remedy Completion Reports Consent Order 8/31/2011 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Technical Area-57 Aggregate Area (Fenton Hill) Consent Order 10/31/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Units 21-017(a-c), 21-022(f) 

(Material Disposal Area U) Consent Order 11/6/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Units 21-001, 2-010(a-h), 21-

011(a,c-j), 21-016(a-c), and 21-028(a), and Areas of Concern C-21-009 and C-21-12 (Material 

Disposal Area T) 

Consent Order 12/19/2011 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Solid Waste Management Units 21-001, 21-010(a-h), 

21-011(a,c-j), 21-016(a-c), and 21-028(a), and Areas of Concern C-21-009 and C-21-012 

(Material Disposal Area T) 

Consent Order 12/19/2011 

Submit Canon de Valle Aggregate Area, Technical Area-16 Investigation Report Consent Order 1/15/2012 

Submit Investigation Report for Technical Area-14 subaggregate (Canon de Valle Aggregate 

Area) Consent Order 2/15/2012 

Submit Canon de Valle aggregate area, Technical Area-15 Investigation Report Consent Order 6/15/2012 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 A4 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for Lower Water/Indio Canyon aggregate area Consent Order 9/30/2012 

Submit Los Alamos/Pueblo Canyon aggregate areas Remedy Completion Reports Consent Order 11/30/2012 

Submit Los Alamos/Pueblo Canyon aggregate areas Remedy Completion Reports Consent Order 11/30/2012 

Submit Los Alamos/Pueblo Canyon aggregate areas Remedy Completion Reports Consent Order 11/30/2012 

Submit Investigation Work Plan for South Ancho Canyon aggregate area Consent Order 3/31/2013 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Material Disposal Area AB, Solid Waste Management 

Units 49-001(a-g), 49-003, and Area of Concern-49-008(d) Consent Order 1/31/2015 

Submit Remedy Completion Report for Material Disposal Area G Consent Order 12/6/2015 

Nevada Test Site 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 546 Corrective Action Decision Document FFA 1/7/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 370 Corrective Action Decision Document FFA 3/2/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 97 Phase I Source Term FFA 3/9/2009 

Begin Corrective Action Unit 101 Phase II drilling operations FFA 4/27/2009 

Begin Corrective Action Unit 102 Phase II drilling operations FFA 4/27/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 547 Streamlined Approach For Environmental Restoration Plan FFA 5/30/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 97 Phase I Flow Model FFA 6/29/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 134 Closure Report FFA 6/30/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 107 Closure Report FFA 7/10/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 98 Model Document for external peer review FFA 7/31/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 114 Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan FFA 8/17/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 139 Closure Report FFA 8/31/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 98 Model Verification Report FFA 9/4/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 166 Closure Report FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 116 Closure Report FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 106 Corrective Action Investigation Plan FFA 10/6/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 117 Closure Report FFA 11/30/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 546 Corrective Action Plan FFA 12/23/2009 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 130 Closure Report FFA 2/16/2010 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 99 Phase I Source Term FFA 2/19/2010 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 547 Closure Report FFA 5/30/2010 

Complete Corrective Action Unit 98 Monitoring Well Network Report FFA 7/23/2010 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 408 Closure Report FFA 9/30/2010 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 106 Corrective Action Decision Document FFA 10/6/2010 

Submit Corrective Action Unit 99 Closure Report FFA 3/20/2028 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

Submit ORNL Facilities Remedial Action Work Plan FFA 1/5/2009 

Start construction (Phase 1) – Treatability Studies FFA 2/23/2009 
 Appendix A. List of Enforceable Milestones

January 2009 A5 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Start demolition on the K-25 Building FFA 2/28/2009 

Initiate shipment of remote handled TRU waste to WIPP STP 2/28/2009 

Submit Water Resources Restoration Program Remediation Effectiveness Report FFA 3/30/2009 

Submit Environmental Management Waste Management Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria 

Attainment Capacity Assurance Report FFA 3/30/2009 

Submit Bethel Valley D&D Reactor Area Facilities Remedial Action Work Plan FFA 4/30/2009 

Submit Alpha 4 D&D Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis FFA 4/30/2009 

Complete processing of 35 cubic meters of remote handled waste inventory STP 4/30/2009 

Submit ORNL Small Facilities D&D Waste Handling Plan FFA 5/26/2009 

Submit Upper East Fork Poplar Creek West End Mercury Area Remediation Remedial Design 

Report/Remedial Action Work Plan FFA 6/25/2009 

Start construction on Powerhouse FFA 6/30/2009 

Submit Bethel Valley Chemical Development Lab Facilities Waste Handling Plan FFA 7/15/2009 

Submit Bethel Valley D&D Isotope Area Facilities Waste Handling Plan FFA 7/15/2009 

Submit Bethel Valley Isotopes (Bldg 3026 C&D) Final Waste Handling Plan FFA 8/15/2009 

Submit Bethel Valley Tank Area Facilities Waste Handling Plan FFA 8/15/2009 

Submit Alpha-4 D&D Document 1 Action Memorandum FFA 8/24/2009 

Start construction on ORNL soils and sediments FFA 9/30/2009 

Start construction on Bethel Valley Groundwater Engineering Studies FFA 9/30/2009 

Start construction on Corehole 8 FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Bethel Valley D&D Reactor Area Facilities Waste Handling Plan FFA 9/30/2009 

Start construction on East Tennessee Technology Park ponds FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit K-770 Completion Letter FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Exposure Units 9 & 11 Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Exposure Units 11, 12, 17, 18, 29, & 38 Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Soils Remediation - Soil Engineering Work Plan FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit Bear Creek Valley ROD Phase 2 (Burial Ground) ROD FFA 9/30/2009 

Submit the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Sediments (81-10 Area) Treatability Study Work 

Plan FFA 9/30/2009 

Complete processing of 280 cubic meters of contact handled waste for a project total of 587 

cubic meters STP 9/30/2009 

Complete processing of 96 cubic meters of remote handled waste for a project total of 131 

cubic meters STP 9/30/2009 

Submit the FY 2009 Earned Value Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 11/15/2009 

Submit Work Plan (Phase 2) - Field Studies/Field Implementation FFA 12/7/2009 

Contract mobilization for the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Flush & Fuel Salt Removal FFA 12/30/2009 

Submit the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Flush and Fuel Salt Removal Engineering 

Evaluation Report FFA 1/30/2010 

Submit Water Resources Restoration Program Remediation Effectiveness Report FFA 3/30/2010 

Submit Exposure Units 31, 32, and 36 Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 3/31/2010 

Submit Environmental Management Waste Management Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria 

Attainment Capacity Assurance Report FFA 4/1/2010 

Submit ETTP Ponds Removal Action Report FFA 5/9/2010 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 A6 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Submit Public Involvement Plan FFA 5/31/2010 

Submit Corehole 8 Removal Action Report FFA 6/30/2010 

Submit the Powerhouse Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 6/30/2010 

Submit K-1070-B Burial Ground Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 7/1/2010 

Start construction for the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek West End Mercury Area remediation FFA 7/1/2010 

Submit ETTP Zone 1 D1 Remedial Action Report FFA 8/1/2010 

Start construction (Phase 2) - Field studies/Field Implementation FFA 8/16/2010 

Submit the ORNL Soil & Sediments Phased Construction Completion Report (Phase I) FFA 9/30/2010 

Start construction on the Y-12 Salvage Yard, Scrap Removal FFA 9/30/2010 

Submit the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Soils Remediation Soil Engineering Report FFA 9/30/2010 

Submit the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Sediments (81-10 Area) Treatability Study Report FFA 9/30/2010 

Complete processing of 375 cubic meters of contact handled waste for a project total of 962 

cubic meters STP 9/30/2010 

Complete processing of 192 cubic meters of remote handled waste for a project total of 323 

cubic meters STP 9/30/2010 

Submit the K-25/K-27 FY 2010 Phased Construction Completion Report FFA 11/15/2010 

Submit the ETTP Sitewide ROD Treatability Study Report FFA 3/31/2011 

Submit the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment D&D Removal Action Report FFA 9/30/2016 

Submit the ETTP Sitewide Remedial Action Removal Action Report FFA 9/30/2016 

Submit the Alpha 4 Removal Action Report FFA 9/30/2016 

Submit the Bear Creek Valley S-3 Ponds Remedial Action Report FFA 9/30/2016 

Submit the ORNL Soil & Sediments Remedial Action Report FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit K-25/K-27 Removal Action Report for Approval FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit Remaining Facilities Removal Action Report FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit the Zone 2 Remedial Action Report FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Phase 1 ROD FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit the Y-12 Transition Facility Removal Action Report FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit the Bear Creek Valley White Wing Scrapyard Remedial Action Report FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit the Chestnut Ridge Remedial Action Report FFA 9/30/2017 

Office of River Protection (Hanford) 

Start Cold Commissioning – Waste Treatment Plant FFA (Tri-Party 

Agreement – TPA) 2/28/2009 

Complete startup and turnover activities for required transfer system upgrades to allow transfer 

of LAW feed. TPA 3/31/2009 

Annual assessment by WA Department of Ecology and DOE of the adequacy of information 

and need for additional interim compliance measures TPA 7/31/2009 

Submit biennial update to single shell tank retrieval sequence document TPA 3/1/2010 

DOE, U.S. EPA and Washington Department of Ecology shall meet to establish new 

milestones, if necessary, TPA 4/30/2010 

Complete negotiations of additional agreement requirements for work to support completion of 

treatment complex TPA 6/30/2010 

Annual assessment of the adequacy of information and need for additional interim measures TPA 7/31/2010 
 Appendix A. List of Enforceable Milestones

January 2009 A7 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Complete Canister Storage Facility construction TPA 8/31/2010 

Submit Phase 2 RCRA Feasibility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study TPA 12/31/2010 

Complete Hot Commissioning – Waste Treatment Plant TPA 1/31/2011 

Achieve interim completion of single shell tank S-112 waste retrieval and closure TPA 6/30/2011 

Achieve interim completion of single shell tank S-102 waste retrieval and closure TPA 6/30/2011 

Submit biennial update to single shell tank retrieval sequence document TPA 3/1/2012 

DOE, U.S. EPA and Washington Department of Ecology shall meet to establish new 

milestones , If necessary TPA 4/30/2012 

Submit Phase 2 Corrective Measures Implementation Work Plan for Waste Management Area 

C TPA 7/31/2012 

Initiate negotiations of single shell tank waste retrievals for remainder of single shell tanks TPA 10/31/2012 

Ecology and DOE shall complete negotiations for waste retrieval from remaining single shell 

tanks TPA 2/27/2013 

Submit Biennial Update to single shell tank retrieval sequence document TPA 3/1/2014 

DOE, U.S. EPA and Washington Department of Ecology shall meet to establish new 

milestones, if necessary. TPA 4/30/2014 

Submit Biennial Update to single shell tank retrieval sequence document TPA 3/1/2016 

DOE, U.S. EPA and Washington Department of Ecology shall meet to establish new 

milestones , if necessary TPA 4/30/2016 

Complete the pretreatment and vitrification of no less than 10% of Hanford Tank waste by 

mass and 25% by activity TPA 2/28/2018 

Complete work supporting acquisition/operation of Waste Treatment Plant TPA 2/28/2018 

Submit Biennial Update to single shell tank retrieval sequence document TPA 3/1/2018 

DOE, U.S. EPA and Washington Department of Ecology shall meet to establish new 

milestones, if necessary TPA 4/30/2018 

Retrieve waste from all remaining single shell tanks TPA 9/30/2018 

Complete closure of single shell tank farms with approved closure plans TPA 9/30/2024 

Complete closure of all single shell tank farms TPA 9/30/2024 

Complete vitrification of Hanford HLW TPA 12/31/2028 

Complete pretreatment and immobilization of Hanford LAW TPA 12/31/2028 

Complete pretreatment processing of Hanford tank waste TPA 12/31/2028 

Complete pretreatment processing and vitrification of Hanford HLW and LAW tank waste TPA 12/31/2028 

Provide additional double shell tank capacity TPA TBD 

Acquire/modify facilities for storage/disposal of immobilized HLW and immobilized LAW TPA TBD 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

Submit D1 Removal Action Work Plan for the Surface Water Operable Unit (On-Site) FFA 2/5/2009 

Submit D1 Remedial Investigation Work Plan for the Site-Wide Soils Operable Unit FFA 3/12/2009 

Issue D1 Burial Grounds Feasibility Study Report FFA 7/2/2009 

Submit version D1 Focused Feasibility Study for Southwest Plume, 90% Design FFA 7/28/2009 

Characterize all Priority C DOE Material Storage Areas Agreed Order 9/30/2009 

Submit D1 Remedial Action Completion Report for the Groundwater Operable Unit (C-400) FFA 4/26/2011 

Submit D1 Remedial Action Completion Report for the Site-Wide Soils Operable Unit 

Remediation FFA 9/30/2015 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 A8 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Submit D1 Removal Action Completion Report (C-410, C-340, and 15 inactive facilities) for the 

Decontamination and Decommissioning (17 Inactive Facilities) FFA 9/30/2017 

Submit D1 Response Action Completion Report for the Surface Water Operable Unit (Off-Site) FFA 12/13/2017 

Submit D1 Remedial Action Completion Report for the Burial Grounds Operable Unit FFA 9/30/2019 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

Submit Phase III Remedial Action Report for the remediation of X-701B Solid Waste 

Management Unit Consent Decree 6/1/2009 

Perform polychlorinated biphenyl activities in the process buildings to maintain compliance TSCA FFA 9/30/2009 

Perform polychlorinated biphenyl activities in process buildings to maintain compliance TSCA FFA 9/30/2010 

Submit Final Certification Report for the remediation of the X-701B Solid Waste Management 

Unit Consent Decree 12/31/2010 

Complete Site Treatment Plan milestone for future offsite incineration STP 3/31/2011 

Complete Site Treatment Plan milestone for commercial stabilization STP 3/31/2011 

Perform polychlorinated biphenyl activities in process buildings to maintain compliance TSCA FFA 9/30/2011 

Richland Operations Office (Hanford) 

Submit Evaluation of Tritium Treatment Technology TPA 3/31/2009 

Submit Revision of mixed TRU waste and MLLW Project Management Plan TPA 3/31/2009 

Complete negotiations on revising milestones consistent with Final Action Memoranda TPA 3/31/2009 

Submit an annual Hanford Land Disposal Restrictions Report TPA 4/30/2009 

Submit revised Feasibility Study Report and revised proposed plan for 200-CW-1 Operable 

Unit TPA 5/31/2009 

Treat a minimum of 300 cubic meters cumulative of large and/or remote handled MLLW FFA (“TPA”) 6/30/2009 

Initiate discussions annually to reaffirm selected wells TPA 6/30/2009 

Conclude negotiations and revise TPA milestone M-024-57 by August of each year. TPA 8/1/2009 

Complete transition and dismantlement of 241-Z Waste Treatment Facility TPA 9/30/2009 

Complete Removal of the K-East Basin structure TPA 9/30/2009 

Submit 200-MW-1 Operable Unit Feasibility Study and proposed plan TPA 9/30/2009 

Submit 105/109-N Reactor Interim Safe Storage Design Report TPA 9/30/2009 

Complete Fast Flux Test Facility sodium drain TPA 9/30/2009 

Submit report for remote handled waste & boxes of remote handled/contact handled waste TPA 9/30/2009 and annually 

through 9/30/2013 

Initiate soil remediation at K-East Basin (105-KE) TPA 10/31/2009 

Complete K Basins sludge treatment TPA 11/30/2009 

Submit a Remedial Investigation (RI) Phase II Report for the 200-PO-1 Groundwater Operable 

Unit TPA 12/30/2009 

Complete removal of 6/19 high priority facilities TPA 12/30/2009 

Retrieve suspect TRU from the burial ground (12,200 cubic meters) TPA 12/31/2009 

Designate all newly generated contact handled waste at the point of generation TPA 12/31/2009 

Complete treatment of all contact handled MLLW TPA 12/31/2009 

Treat/certify contact handled mixed TRU waste TPA 12/31/2009 

Treat mixed low level waste to meet Land Disposal Restriction requirements TPA 12/31/2009 
 Appendix A. List of Enforceable Milestones

January 2009 A9 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

DOE shall install a cumulative of 105 wells TPA 12/31/2009 

Complete interim remediation actions at Area 100-B/C TPA 12/31/2009 

Conduct biennial assessments of information and data access needs with U.S. EPA and 

Ecology TPA 3/31/2010 

Submit an annual Hanford Land Disposal Restrictions Report TPA 4/30/2010 

Submit Revised Feasibility Study Report and Proposed Plan for 200BC Cribs/Trenches for 

Operable Unit 200-BC-1 TPA 4/30/2010 

Treat 300 cubic meters per year remote handled MLLW & large container contact handled 

MLLW TPA 6/30/2010 

Submit Fast Flux Test Facility Surveillance and Maintenance Plan TPA 6/30/2010 

Complete transition and dismantlement of the 216-Z-9 Crib Complex TPA 9/30/2010 

Complete interim remedial actions for 6 specific wastes sites in the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit. TPA 9/30/2010 

Complete disposition of surplus facilities TPA 9/30/2010 

Closure of non-permitted mixed waste units in 324 Building Radiochemical Engineering Cells 

B&D TPA 9/30/2010 

Submit 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Feasibility Study and proposed plan TPA 10/31/2010 

Submit a 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Combined Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 

Report as well as a proposed plan TPA 11/30/2010 

Treat 7,600 cubic meters (cumulative) contact handled mixed TRU TPA 12/31/2010 

Complete retrieval of contact handled retrievably stored waste TPA 12/31/2010 

Submit the Feasibility Study Report and a revised recommended remedy(ies) for 200-PW-2 

and 200-PW-4 Operable Units TPA 12/31/2010 

Submit a feasibility study report and revised proposed plan for Operable Unit 200-SC-1 TPA 12/31/2010 

Initiate full scale retrieval of remote handled retrievably stored waste TPA 1/1/2011 

Complete Fast Flux Test Facility transition and initiate surveillance and maintenance phase TPA 2/28/2011 

Complete closure of the PFP 241-Z Treatment, Storage and/or Disposal Unit TPA 9/30/2011 

Complete transition and dismantlement of the 241-Z Waste Treatment Facility. TPA 9/30/2011 

Complete 105-KE and 105-KW Reactor interim safe storage. TPA 9/30/2011 

Treat/certify contact handled mixed TRU waste (8,600 cubic meters cumulative). TPA 12/31/2011 

Submit a revised Feasibility Study Report & revised proposed plan for 200-TW-1 and 200-PW5 Operable Units TPA 12/31/2011 

Submit a revised Feasibility Study Report and a revised recommended remedy(ies) for 200-

TW-2 Operable Unit TPA 12/31/2011 

Submit 200 Area Chemical Laboratory Waste Operable Units Feasibility Study TPA 12/31/2011 

Complete all 200 Area Non-Tank Farm Operable Unit pre-ROD site investigations under 

approved work plan schedules. TPA 12/31/2011 

Complete 200 Area Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Process for all Non-Tank Farm 

Operable Units TPA 12/31/2011 

Complete Removal of 12/19 high priority facilities TPA 12/31/2011 

Complete the interim remedial actions for Area 100 H TPA 12/31/2011 

Complete the interim remedial actions for Area 100 D TPA 12/31/2011 

Complete acquisition of capabilities and/or facilities necessary for retrieval, designation, 

storage and treatment prior to disposal of post-1970 TRU/mixed TRU waste TPA 6/30/2012 

Begin treating remote handled mixed TRU waste & boxes & large containers of contact 

handled mixed TRU waste TPA 6/30/2012 

Submit a Surveillance & Maintenance Plan TPA 6/30/2012 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 A10 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Complete 105-N Reactor interim safe storage TPA 9/30/2012 

Complete interim remediation for all Area 300 "Inside The Fence" waste sites TPA 9/30/2012 

Designate contact handled retrievably stored waste as mixed to meet applicable federal and 

state land disposal restriction standards TPA 12/31/2012 

Designate all remote handled TRU and boxes of contact handled TRU above ground TPA 12/31/2012 

Conduct biennial assessments of information and data access needs with U.S. EPA and 

Washington Department of Ecology TPA 12/31/2012 

Complete all interim response actions for all Area 100 areas TPA 12/31/2012 

Complete interim remedial actions for 300-FF-2 waste sites TPA 12/31/2012 

Complete the interim response actions for Area 100-N TPA 12/31/2012 

Complete the interim response actions for Area 100-K TPA 12/31/2012 

Submit revisions of Hanford Site TRU/mixed TRU waste Project Management Plan TPA 3/29/2013 

Treat remote handled mixed TRU waste & contact handled mixed TRU waste at minimum rate 

of 300 cubic meters per year TPA 6/30/2013 and annually through 6/30/2025 

Complete transition of the 242-Z and 236-Z buildings TPA 9/30/2013 

Complete removal of 15/19 high priority facilities TPA 9/30/2013 

Initiate substantial and continuous remediation on the 309 Facility Dedicated Radioactive Liquid 

Waste Sewer (300 RLWS) and the 300 Area Process Sewer (300-15) systems TPA 9/30/2013 

Submit evaluation of tritium treatment technology TPA 3/31/2014 

Complete retrieval of non-caisson remote handled retrievably stored waste TPA 12/31/2014 

Complete transition of the 234-5Z, 234-5ZA, 243-Z, 291-Z/291-Z-1 facilities TPA 9/30/2015 

Complete removal/transfer/initiate storage of Phase III 300 Area special waste TPA 9/30/2015 

Complete all interim 300 Area remedial actions (excluding 618- 10 and 11 burial grounds) TPA 9/30/2015 

Complete Plutonium Finishing Plant Facility transition & selected disposition activities TPA 9/30/2016 

Include cesium/strontium treatment and/or repackaging parameters in DOE Request for 

Proposals TPA 6/30/2017 

Complete all interim Area 300 remedial actions (including 618-10 and 11) TPA 9/28/2018 

Establish schedule and milestones for Sodium Disposition facilities TPA 9/30/2018 

Complete retrieval of the 200A Caisson remote handled retrievably stored waste in 218-W-4B 

Operable Unit TPA 12/31/2018 

Complete remedial actions for all non-tank farm operable units. TPA 9/30/2024 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Submit the Corrective Measure Evaluation (CME) Report for the Burn-Site Groundwater area Consent Order 9/30/2010 

Submit Corrective Measure Implementation (CMI) Report for the Mixed Waste Landfill Consent Order Due 180 days after 

completion of Soil Cover 

Savannah River Site 

Remove the Battelle remote handled TRU waste from SRS MOA 1/1/2009 

Submit Statement of Basis/Proposed Plan for P-Area OU (includes 9 subunits w/ 9 associated 

milestones) FFA 2/4/2009 

Issue third Five-Year Remedy Review FFA 2/12/2009 

Issue the Record of Decision (ROD) for M Area Operable Unit (includes 19 sub-units with 19 

associated milestones) FFA 3/30/2009 

Complete periodic monitoring and submit the Lower Three Runs Integrator Operable Unit 

Periodic Report #3 FFA 5/30/2009 
 Appendix A. List of Enforceable Milestones

January 2009 A11 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Start C-Area Burning/Rubble Pit and Old C-Area Burning/Rubble Pit remedial action FFA 6/18/2009 

Complete monitoring and submit the D-Area Groundwater Operable Unit Groundwater 

Monitoring Report FFA 7/31/2009 

Complete periodic monitoring and submit the Steel Creek Integrator Operable Unit Periodic 

Report #3 FFA 8/31/2009 

Initiate the Savannah River Floodplain Swamp Integrator Operable Unit Second Phase II field 

start FFA 9/2/2009 

Submit FFCAct Site Treatment Plan Annual Update STP 11/15/2009 and annually 

through 2027 

Submit workplan for C-Area Operable Unit (includes 6 sub-units with 6 associated milestones) FFA 12/31/2009 

Submit ROD for P-Area Operable Unit (includes 9 sub-units with 9 associated milestones) FFA 6/2/2010 

Initiate the field start for C-Area Operable Unit (includes 6 sub-units with 6 associated 

milestones) FFA 9/30/2010 

Complete bulk waste removal for 2 tanks FFA 9/30/2010 

Submit H-Tank Farm Performance Assessment FFA 3/31/2011 

Complete bulk waste removal for 1 tank FFA 9/30/2011 

Close High Level Waste Tanks 19 and 18 FFA 12/31/2012 

Complete bulk waste removal for 2 tanks FFA 9/30/2014 

Complete F/H Areas Hazardous Waste Management Facility and the Mixed Waste 

Management Facility semi-annual groundwater monitoring and submit Corrective Action Report FFA 10/30/2014 

Close 4 high level waste tanks FFA 9/30/2015 

Complete bulk waste removal for 2 tanks FFA 9/30/2016 

Complete bulk waste removal for 3 tanks FFA 9/30/2017 

Close 2 high level waste tanks FFA 9/30/2017 

Complete bulk waste removal for 6 tanks FFA 9/30/2018 

Complete bulk waste removal for 1 tank FFA 9/30/2019 

Close 2 high level waste tanks FFA 9/30/2019 

Close 5 high level waste tanks FFA 9/30/2021 

Close 7 high level waste tanks FFA 9/30/2022 

Maintain Defense Waste Processing Facility canister production sufficient to remove all HLW 

from tanks by 2028. STP 1/1/2028 

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) 

Submit West SLAC Risk Assessment Report Compliance Order 1/2/2009 

Submit Research Yard/Interaction Region-6 Remedial Investigation Report Compliance Order 3/19/2009 

Submit Groundwater/Volatile Organic Compounds Feasibility Study/Risk Assessment Plan Compliance Order 4/3/2009 

Submit Research Yard/Interaction Region-6 Risk Assessment Report Compliance Order 6/19/2009 

Submit West SLAC Feasibility Study/Risk Assessment Plan Compliance Order 10/19/2009 

Submit West SLAC Feasibility Study Report Compliance Order 12/3/2009 

Submit Groundwater Volatile Organic Compounds Feasibility Study Report Compliance Order 12/3/2009 

Submit Groundwater/Volatile Organic Compounds Implementation Report/Operation & 

Maintenance Plan Compliance Order 4/12/2010 

Submit West SLAC Risk Assessment Plan Report Compliance Order 5/5/2010 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 A12 

Enforceable Milestone Agreement Commitment 

Date 

Submit Groundwater Volatile Organic Compounds Risk Assessment Plan Report Compliance Order 5/5/2010 

Submit West SLAC Implementation Report/Operation & Maintenance Plan Compliance Order 7/9/2010 

Submit West SLAC Risk Management Plan Compliance Order 10/1/2012 

Submit Groundwater Volatile Organic Compounds Risk Management Plan Compliance Order 10/1/2012 
 Appendix B. Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary

January 2009 B1 

APPENDIX B LIFE-CYCLE COSTS BY PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Argonne National 

Laboratory-East 

CH-ANLE0030 

Soil and Water RemediationArgonne National LaboratoryEast 

$29 $1 $1 $30 $30 

Argonne National 

Laboratory-East 

CH-ANLE0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Argonne 

National Laboratory-East $35 $13 $13 $48 $48 

Argonne National 

Laboratory-East 

Total 

 $65 $14 $14 $78 $79 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory 

BRNL0030 Soil and Water RemediationBrookhaven National Laboratory $216 $50 $50 $266 $266 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory 

BRNL0040 

Nuclear Facility D&DBrookhaven Graphite Research 

Reactor 

$64 $46 $59 $110 $123 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory 

BRNL0041 Nuclear Facility D&D-High Flux 

Beam Reactor $19 $31 $59 $50 $78 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory 

BRNL0100 Brookhaven Community and 

Regulatory Support $3 $0 $0 $3 $3 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory Total $302 $128 $169 $429 $470 

Energy Technology 

Engineering Center 

CBCETEC0040 

Nuclear Facility D&D-Energy 

Technology Engineering Center $174 $106 $152 $280 $326 

Energy Technology 

Engineering Center 

Total 

 $174 $106 $152 $280 $326 

Fernald OH-FN0013 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-Fernald $1,627 $0 $0 $1,627 $1,627 

Fernald OH-FN0020 Safeguards and Security-Fernald $16 $0 $0 $16 $16 

Fernald OH-FN0030 

Soil and Water RemediationFernald $1,321 $70 $70 $1,391 $1,391 

Fernald OH-FN0050 

Non-Nuclear Facility D&DFernald $226 $0 $0 $226 $226 

Fernald OH-FN0100 

Fernald Post-Closure 

Administration $0 $288 $288 $288 $288 

Fernald OH-FN0101 

Fernald Community and 

Regulatory Support $14 $0 $0 $14 $14 

Fernald Total $3,202 $358 $358 $3,561 $3,561 

Hanford Site HQ-SNF0012X-RL 

SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-Storage Operations 

Awaiting Geologic Repository 

$3 $0 $0 $3 $3 

Hanford Site RL-0011 NM Stabilization and DispositionPFP $1,281 $2,173 $2,204 $3,454 $3,484 

Hanford Site RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition $2,018 $955 $983 $2,974 $3,002 

Hanford Site RL-0013B Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-200 Area-2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Hanford Site RL-0013C Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-200 Area- 2035 $1,472 $12,368 $13,676 $13,840 $15,148 

Hanford Site RL-0020 Safeguards and Security $353 $3,232 $3,232 $3,585 $3,585 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 B2 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Hanford Site RL-0030 Soil and Water RemediationGroundwater/Vadose Zone $532 $7,524 $7,711 $8,056 $8,243 

Hanford Site RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder 

of Hanford $973 $18,078 $19,073 $19,051 $20,046 

Hanford Site RL-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D-River 

Corridor Closure Project $1,563 $3,337 $3,496 $4,900 $5,059 

Hanford Site RL-0042 Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux 

Test Facility Project $261 $987 $1,055 $1,247 $1,317 

Hanford Site RL-0043 HAMMER Facility $7 $0 $0 $7 $7 

Hanford Site RL-0044 B-Reactor Museum $1 $0 $0 $1 $1 

Hanford Site RL-0080 Operate Waste Disposal Facility $67 $3 $3 $70 $70 

Hanford Site RL-0100 Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support $144 $1,064 $1,064 $1,208 $1,208 

Hanford Site RL-0900 Pre-2004 Completions $130 $0 $0 $130 $130 

Hanford Site Total $8,805 $49,722 $52,496 $58,527 $61,303 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC-CA0013B-N 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-California Sites-2012 

(Non-Defense) 

$6 $0 $0 $7 $7 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC-CA0100-N Community and Regulatory 

Support (Non-Defense) $2 $0 $0 $2 $2 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FOO0013B-N 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-Oakland Sites-2012 

(Non-Defense) 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FOO0100-N 

Oakland Community and 

Regulatory Support (NonDefense) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FOO0900-N Pre-2004 Completions (NonDefense) $21 $0 $0 $21 $21 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CH-OPS0900 Pre-2004 Completions $99 $0 $0 $99 $99 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-GA0012 SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-General Atomics $15 $0 $0 $15 $15 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

LEHR0040 

Nuclear Facility D&D-Laboratory 

for Energy-Related Health 

Research 

$40 $0 $0 $40 $40 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-LEHR0040 

Nuclear Facility D&D-Laboratory 

for Energy-Related Health 

Research 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBCLBNL0030 Soil and Water RemediationLawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 

$34 $0 $0 $34 $34 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-LBNL0030 

Soil and Water RemediationLawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 

$2 $0 $0 $2 $2 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

OH-OPS0900-N Pre-2004 Completions (NonDefense) $397 $0 $0 $397 $397 
 Appendix B. Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary

January 2009 B3 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CH-PPPL0030 Soil and Water RemediationPrinceton Site A/B $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBCSEFOR0040-N 

CBC - Non-Defense Post 

Closure Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

OH-AB0030 Soil and Water RemediationAshtabula $136 $0 $0 $136 $136 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

OH-CL0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-West 

Jefferson $171 $0 $0 $171 $171 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC0100-FN CBC Post Closure Administration 

- Fernald $31 $8 $8 $38 $38 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC0100-MD CBC Post Closure Administration 

- Mound $0 $8 $8 $8 $8 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC0100-RF CBC Post Closure Administration 

- Rocky Flats $0 $27 $27 $27 $27 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC-ND0100 CBC - Non-Defense Post 

Closure Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

CBC-UM0100 

CBC - Non-Defense Post 

Closure Administration - UMTRA 

Sites 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

OH-OPS0900-D Pre-2004 Completions $58 $0 $0 $58 $58 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

HQ-MS0100 Policy, Management, and 

Technical Support $628 $960 $960 $1,588 $1,588 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

HQ-OPS0900 Pre-2004 Completions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

HQ-UR0100 Reimbursements to 

Uranium/Thorium Licensees $432 $331 $331 $763 $763 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FOO0013B-D 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition Support-Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory 

$14 $2 $2 $15 $15 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FOO0100-D LLNL Community and Regulatory 

Support $5 $0 $0 $5 $5 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-KCP0030 Soil and Water RemediationKansas City Plant $30 $0 $0 $30 $30 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FAO0100-D Nuclear Material Stewardship 

(Defense) $109 $0 $0 $109 $109 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FAO0100-N Nuclear Material Stewardship 

(Non-Defense) $15 $0 $0 $15 $15 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FAO0900 Pre-2004 Completions $233 $0 $0 $233 $233 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

VL-FAO0101 Miscellaneous Programs and 

Agreements in Principle $83 $10 $10 $93 $93 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 B4 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

NV-0030 Soil and Water Remediation - Off 

sites $71 $0 $0 $71 $71 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

HQ-PD0100 Program Direction $3,266 $8,802 $8,802 $12,068 $12,068 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other 

HQ-TD0100 Technology Development $1,613 $1,194 $1,194 $2,807 $2,807 

Headquarters, TD, 

Completed Sites, 

Other Total 

 $7,508 $11,342 $11,342 $18,850 $18,850 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

CHANLW0030 Soil and Water RemediationArgonne National LaboratoryWest 

$8 $0 $0 $8 $8 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

HQ-SNF0012X 

SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-Storage Operations 

Awaiting Geologic Repository 

$60 $0 $0 $60 $60 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

HQ-SNF0012X-ID 

SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-Storage Operations 

Awaiting Geologic Repository 

$19 $0 $0 $19 $19 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

HQ-SNF0012Y 

SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-New/Upgraded 

Facilities Awaiting Geologic 

Repository 

$67 $0 $0 $67 $67 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0011 NM Stabilization and Disposition $14 $5 $30 $19 $43 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

ID-0012BD SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-2012 (Defense) $386 $136 $295 $522 $681 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

ID-0012BN SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-2012 (Non-Defense) $9 $0 $0 $9 $9 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0012C SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-2035 $46 $4,355 $5,312 $4,401 $5,358 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition $1,766 $1,451 $2,157 $3,217 $3,923 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0014B 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition2012 $1,245 $488 $855 $1,733 $2,102 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

ID-0014BT 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition2012 (T) $65 $0 $0 $65 $65 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0014C 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition2035 $35 $6,680 $9,451 $6,715 $9,486 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0030B Soil and Water Remediation2012 $1,005 $541 $614 $1,547 $1,635 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0030C Soil and Water Remediation2035 $7 $4,447 $6,111 $4,454 $6,118 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0040B Nuclear Facility D&D-2012 $295 $536 $542 $831 $837 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0040C Nuclear Facility D&D-2035 $0 $1,783 $1,968 $1,783 $1,968 
 Appendix B. Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary

January 2009 B5 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0050B Non-Nuclear Facility D&D-2012 $109 $38 $38 $147 $147 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0050C Non-Nuclear Facility D&D-2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0100 Idaho Community and 

Regulatory Support $55 $158 $158 $212 $212 

Idaho National 

Laboratory ID-0900 Pre-2004 Completions $310 $0 $0 $310 $310 

Idaho National 

Laboratory Total $5,501 $20,617 $27,530 $26,117 $33,049 

Inhalation Toxicology 

Laboratory 

CBC-ITL0030 Soil and Water RemediationInhalation Toxicology Laboratory $10 $0 $0 $10 $10 

Inhalation Toxicology 

Laboratory 

VL-ITL0030 Soil and Water RemediationInhalation Toxicology Laboratory $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Inhalation 

Toxicology 

Laboratory Total 

 $10 $0 $0 $10 $10 

Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

VL-LLNL0013 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

$72 $0 $0 $72 $72 

Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

VL-LLNL0030 

Soil and Water RemediationLawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory - Main Site 

$134 $0 $0 $134 $134 

Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

VL-LLNL0031 

Soil and Water RemediationLawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory - Site 300 

$114 $9 $9 $122 $122 

Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

Total 

 $319 $9 $9 $328 $328 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory 

VL-LANL0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-LANL Legacy $330 $471 $520 $801 $850 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory 

VL-LANL0030 Soil and Water RemediationLANL $679 $952 $1,810 $1,630 $2,489 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory 

VL-LANL0040-D Nuclear Facility D&D-LANL 

(Defense) $0 $198 $237 $198 $237 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory 

VL-LANL0040-N Nuclear Facility D&D-LANL 

(Non-Defense) $3 $14 $14 $17 $17 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory Total $1,011 $1,635 $2,582 $2,647 $3,593 

Miamisburg OH-MB0013 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-Miamisburg $265 $0 $0 $265 $265 

Miamisburg OH-MB0020 

Safeguards and SecurityMiamisburg $28 $0 $0 $28 $28 

Miamisburg OH-MB0030 

Soil and Water RemediationMiamisburg $208 $14 $14 $222 $222 

Miamisburg OH-MB0031 

Soil and Water Remediation - 

OU-1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Miamisburg OH-MB0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Miamisburg $505 $0 $0 $505 $505 

Miamisburg OH-MB0100 

Miamisburg Post-Closure 

Administration $23 $831 $831 $854 $854 

Miamisburg OH-MB0101 

Miamisburg Community and 

Regulatory Support $10 $0 $0 $10 $10 

Miamisburg Total $1,039 $845 $845 $1,884 $1,884 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 B6 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Moab 

CBCMOAB0031 

Soil and Water RemediationMoab $60 $939 $982 $999 $1,042 

Moab Total $60 $939 $982 $999 $1,042 

Nevada Test Site VL-NV0013 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-Nevada Test Site $79 $19 $30 $98 $109 

Nevada Test Site VL-NV0030 

Soil and Water RemediationNevada Test Site $654 $1,030 $1,321 $1,684 $1,979 

Nevada Test Site VL-NV0080 

Operate Waste Disposal FacilityNevada $62 $508 $535 $570 $597 

Nevada Test Site VL-NV0100 

Nevada Community and 

Regulatory Support $40 $60 $60 $100 $100 

Nevada Test Site VL-SV0100 South Valley Superfund $5 $0 $0 $5 $5 

Nevada Test Site 

Total $841 $1,616 $1,946 $2,457 $2,790 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0011Y 

NM Stabilization and DispositionETTP Uranium Facilities 

Management 

$52 $0 $0 $52 $52 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0020 Safeguards and Security $92 $191 $198 $283 $290 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-ETTP 

(D&D Fund) $1,546 $1,524 $1,704 $3,070 $3,250 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0043 Nuclear Facility D&D-ETTP 

(Defense) $85 $44 $46 $129 $131 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0102 ETTP Contract/Post-Closure 

Liabilities/Administration $128 $177 $184 $305 $312 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

HQ-SW0013X-OR 

Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-Science Current 

Generation 

$143 $0 $0 $143 $143 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0011Z Downblend of U-233 in Building 

3019 $46 $315 $339 $361 $385 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0042 Nuclear Facility D&D-Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory $266 $933 $1,056 $1,199 $1,323 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

OR-0900-

D Pre-2004 Completions (Defense) $17 $0 $0 $17 $17 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

OR-0900-

N 

Pre-2004 Completions (NonDefense) $617 $0 $0 $617 $617 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0013A Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-2006 $465 $0 $0 $465 $465 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0013B Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-2012 $851 $813 $905 $1,664 $1,757 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0030 Soil and Water RemediationMelton Valley $350 $0 $0 $350 $350 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0031 Soil and Water Remediation-Off 

sites $49 $13 $13 $62 $63 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0100 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

Community & Regulatory 

Support (Defense) 

$87 $59 $62 $146 $148 
 Appendix B. Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary

January 2009 B7 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0101 Oak Ridge Contract/PostClosure Liabilities/Administration $105 $0 $0 $105 $105 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0103 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

Community & Regulatory 

Support (D&D Fund) 

$44 $0 $0 $44 $44 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation OR-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D-Y-12 $282 $767 $903 $1,049 $1,184 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation Total $5,226 $4,835 $5,410 $10,061 $10,636 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0011 

NM Stabilization and DispositionPaducah Uranium Facilities 

Management 

$29 $31 $31 $60 $60 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0011X 

NM Stabilization and DispositionDepleted Uranium Hexafluoride 

Conversion 

$281 $1,144 $1,144 $1,425 $1,425 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition $203 $126 $208 $329 $411 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0020 Safeguards and Security $32 $866 $866 $898 $898 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Paducah $623 $1,442 $1,559 $2,065 $2,182 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant GDP D&D Nuclear Facility D&D-Paducah $0 $5,800 $12,500 $5,800 $12,500 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0100 

Paducah Community and 

Regulatory Support (NonDefense) $11 $0 $0 $11 $11 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0101 

Paducah Contract/Post-Closure 

Liabilities/Administration (NonDefense) -$2 $0 $0 -$2 -$2 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0102 

Paducah Contract/Post-Closure 

Liabilities/Administration (D&D 

Fund) 

$31 $14 $14 $45 $45 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PA-0103 Paducah Community and 

Regulatory Support (D&D Fund) $15 $111 $111 $126 $126 

Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant Total $1,223 $9,533 $16,432 $10,757 $17,656 

Pantex Plant VL-PX0030 

Soil and Water RemediationPantex $155 $26 $26 $181 $181 

Pantex Plant VL-PX0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Pantex $12 $0 $0 $12 $12 

Pantex Plant Total $166 $26 $26 $193 $193 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0011 

NM Stabilization and DispositionPortsmouth Uranium Facilities 

Management 

$82 $49 $49 $131 $131 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0011X 

NM Stabilization and DispositionDepleted Uranium Hexafluoride 

Conversion 

$188 $1,272 $1,272 $1,460 $1,460 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition $345 $151 $152 $496 $497 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 B8 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0020 Safeguards and Security $82 $657 $657 $739 $739 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Portsmouth $498 $5,250 $12,242 $5,747 $12,741 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D-Portsmouth 

GCEP $66 $0 $0 $66 $66 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0101 Portsmouth Cold Standby $379 $0 $0 $379 $379 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0103 

Portsmouth Contract/PostClosure Liabilities/Administration 

(D&D Fund) 

$4 $37 $37 $41 $41 

Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant PO-0104 Portsmouth Community and 

Regulatory Support (D&D Fund) $2 $18 $18 $19 $19 

Portsmouth 

Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant Total 

 $1,645 $7,434 $14,428 $9,079 $16,074 

River Protection HQ-HLW0014X-RV 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and DispositionStorage Operations Awaiting 

Geologic Rep 

$0 $122 $122 $122 $122 

River Protection ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition $3,780 $40,337 $58,267 $44,117 $62,053 

River Protection ORP0014-T 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (T) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

River Protection ORP-0060 Major Construction-Waste 

Treatment Plant $3,940 $8,323 $8,323 $12,263 $12,263 

River Protection ORP-0061 pre-Waste Treatment Plan, 

Transition Activity $433 $0 $0 $433 $433 

River Protection ORP-0100 

Office of River Protection 

Community and Regulatory 

Support 

$1 $0 $0 $1 $1 

River Protection 

Total $8,155 $48,782 $66,713 $56,937 $74,873 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0011 NM Stabilization and Disposition $471 $0 $0 $471 $471 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition $871 $0 $0 $871 $871 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0020 Safeguards and Security $298 $0 $0 $298 $298 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0030 Soil and Water Remediation $2,055 $0 $0 $2,055 $2,055 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-North Side 

Facility Closures $1,908 $0 $0 $1,908 $1,908 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D-South Side 

Facility Closures $748 $0 $0 $748 $748 
 Appendix B. Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary

January 2009 B9 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

CBC-RF0102 Rocky Flats Future Use $3 $0 $0 $3 $3 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0100 

Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site Contract 

Liabilities 

$92 $2,632 $2,632 $2,724 $2,724 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

RF-0101 Rocky Flats Community and 

Regulatory Support $37 $0 $0 $37 $37 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site 

Total 

 $6,484 $2,632 $2,632 $9,116 $9,116 

Sandia National 

Laboratory 

VL-SN0030 Soil and Water RemediationSandia $226 $9 $9 $235 $236 

Sandia National 

Laboratory Total $226 $9 $9 $235 $236 

Savannah River Site SR-0100 Non-Closure Mission Support $196 $155 $155 $351 $351 

Savannah River Site SR-0101 Savannah River Community and 

Regulatory Support $89 $233 $233 $321 $321 

Savannah River Site SR-0900 Pre-2004 Completions $198 $0 $0 $198 $198 

Savannah River Site HQ-HLW0014X-SR 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and DispositionStorage Operations Awaiting 

Geologic Rep 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Savannah River Site HQ-SNF0012X-SR 

SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-Storage Operations 

Awaiting Geologic Repository 

$68 $0 $0 $68 $68 

Savannah River Site SR-0011A NM Stabilization and Disposition2006 $134 $0 $0 $134 $134 

Savannah River Site SR-0011B NM Stabilization and Disposition2012 $3,663 $127 $127 $3,790 $3,790 

Savannah River Site SR-0011C NM Stabilization and Disposition2035 $694 $6,681 $7,311 $7,376 $8,006 

Savannah River Site SR-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition $259 $790 $812 $1,049 $1,071 

Savannah River Site SR-0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition $970 $3,312 $3,756 $4,281 $4,725 

Savannah River Site SR-0014B 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Savannah River Site SR-0014C 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition2035 $5,002 $16,893 $25,385 $21,896 $30,388 

Savannah River Site SR0014C-T 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition2035 (T) $138 $0 $0 $138 $138 

Savannah River Site SR-0020 Safeguards and Security $1,025 $2,576 $2,576 $3,601 $3,601 

Savannah River Site SR-0030 Soil and Water Remediation $1,109 $2,928 $3,415 $4,037 $4,524 

Savannah River Site SR-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D $482 $5,157 $5,918 $5,639 $6,400 

Savannah River Site SR-0040B Nuclear Facility D&D-2012 $1 $0 $0 $1 $1 

Savannah River Site 

Total $14,028 $38,852 $49,688 $52,880 $63,716 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 B10 

Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) 

Dollars in Millions

Site PBS PBS Name Prior Costs 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (low 

range) 

FY08 and 

Remaining 

Cost (high 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (low 

range) 

Lifecycle 

Cost (high 

range) 

Separations Process 

Unit 

VL-SPRU0040 

Nuclear Facility D&DSeparations Process Research 

Unit 

$25 $197 $197 $222 $222 

Separations Process 

Unit Total $25 $197 $197 $222 $222 

Stanford Linear 

Accelerator Center 

CBCSLAC0030 Soil and Water RemediationStanford Linear Accelerator 

Center 

$22 $23 $39 $46 $62 

Stanford Linear 

Accelerator Center 

Total 

 $22 $23 $39 $46 $62 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0020 Safeguards and Security $18 $174 $174 $192 $192 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0100 US/Mexico/Border/Material Partnership Initiative $11 $0 $0 $11 $11 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0900 Pre-2004 Completions $7 $0 $0 $7 $7 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0080 Operate Waste Disposal FacilityWIPP $1,693 $3,225 $3,671 $4,918 $5,363 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0081 Central Characterization Project $90 $411 $480 $500 $570 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0090 Transportation-WIPP $274 $670 $750 $944 $1,024 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant CB-0101 Economic Assistance to the 

State of New Mexico $149 $110 $110 $259 $259 

Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant Total $2,240 $4,590 $5,184 $6,830 $7,425 

West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

OH-WV0012 SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition-West Valley $32 $0 $0 $32 $32 

West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

OH-WV0013 Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition-West Valley $191 $158 $187 $349 $377 

West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

OH-WV0014 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and DispositionWest Valley High Level Waste 

Storage 

$0 $366 $407 $366 $407 

West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

OH-WV0020 Safeguards and Security-West 

Valley $14 $32 $32 $46 $46 

West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

OH-WV0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-West 

Valley $425 $630 $721 $1,056 $1,147 

West Valley 

Demonstration 

Project Total 

 $662 $1,187 $1,347 $1,849 $2,009 

Grand Total $68,939 $205,432 $260,532 $274,371 $329,471 
 Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM

January 2009 C1 

APPENDIX C FACILITIES PROPOSED FOR TRANSITION TO EM 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

ANL SC 1Alpha Gamma Hot Cells Clean-out and Decontamination

ANL SC 1Alpha Gamma Building Demolition

ANL SC 1WM Reactor Engineering Building D&D

ANL SC 1IPNS (Neutron Accelerator)

ANL SC 1Building 202 Demolition

ANL SC 1K Wing Hot Cell Cleanout

ANL SC 1Building 205 Demolition

ANL SC 1Waste Management Facility Building 306 Waste & Material Cleanout

ANL SC 1Building 200 M-Wing Excess Nuclear Material Cleanout

ANL SC 1Building 330 CP-5 Reactor Demolition

ANL SC 1Excess Nuclear Material and Waste Cleanout Building 205 (Multiple wings other than K)

ANL SC 1Shell Radioactive Building Demolition

ANL SC 1Waste Removal from Shell Radioactive Building

ANL SC 1Demolition of Waste Management Facility Building 306

ANL SC 1D&D of Building 200 M and K Wings, MB Hot Cell

BNL SC 1Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor

BNL SC 1BGRR Project Offices

BNL SC 1Reclamation Facility

BNL SC 1Liquid Waste Transfer

BNL SC 1Waste Concentration Facility

BNL SC 1Environmental Waste Tech Center

BNL SC 1Cyclotron Removal

BNL SC 1Tandem van de Graff

BNL SC 1Contaminated Media (Shotgun Range)

BNL SC 1Contaminated Media ( STP Sand filter beds )

BNL SC 1Contaminated Equipment/Material

FNAL SC 1206 Nevis Shield Blocks

INL NE 2Radiological/ Environmental Science Laboratory

INL NE 2WERF Incinerator Building

INL NE 2CITRC Control System Research Facility

INL NE 2CITRC Explosives Detection Research Center

INL NE 2EBR-II Reactor Facility & Ancillary Buildings, structures, and piping including ...

INL NE 2ZPPR Reactor Facility & Ancillary Buildings, structures, and piping including . . .

INL NE 2Alcohol Recovery Facility

INL NE 2Alcohol Recovery Facility

INL NE 2Legacy Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste Disposition

INL NE 2

Legacy Spent Nuclear Fuels Disposition

INL NE 2

Legacy Special Nuclear Material Disposition

INL NE 2

Legacy Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal

INL NE 2

Legacy Low-Level/Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposition

INL NE 2

Remote-Handled Waste Disposition Project
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 C2 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

INL NE 2

Advanced Test Reactor Irradiated Beryllium Blocks

INL NE 2

Voluntary Consent Order RCRA Closure Activities

INL NE 2

Excess Legacy Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Disposition

INL NE 2

INL CERCLA Long-Term Stewardship Activities

INL NE 2Retention Basin Sump Pump House Facility & ancillary structures and piping including...

INL NE 2Hot Waste Storage Pump House Facility & ancillary structures, tanks, and piping

INL NE 2Acid Caustic Pump House & Tanks including. . .

INL NE 2Gamma Building

INL NE 2Cold Storage Building 

INL NE 2Radioactive Waste Storage Building

INL NE 2Fuel Oil Tanks

INL NE 2Fuel Oil Tanks

INL NE 2Hot Cell Building

LANL NNSA 3Phermex Complex

LANL NNSA 3Ion Beam Facility

LANL NNSA 3TA-16-88 Machining Facility

LLNL NNSA 3Vacant

LLNL NNSA 3Heavy Element Facility 

LLNL NNSA 3Vacant

LLNL NNSA 3Vacant

NTS NNSA 3Cryogenic Lab

NTS NNSA 3Equipment Building

NTS NNSA 3Pump Shop

NTS NNSA 3Locomotive Storage Shed

NTS NNSA 3Motor Drive Building

SLAC SC 1High Resolution Spectrometer (HRS)

SLAC SC 1Mark II Detector

SLAC SC 1Ethane Tanks Disposal

SLAC SC 1SPER Magnets at Sector 0/1

SLAC SC 1Remedial System for Research Yard Storm Drain System & IR-6 Drainage Channel

SLAC SC 1Cleanup of historic vessels and debris site wide

SLAC SC 1SLAC Large Detector (SLD)

SLAC SC 1SLC Disassembly and D&D

SLAC SC 1PEP II Disassembly

SLAC SC 1PEP II Equipment & Impacted Soil

SLAC SC 1PEP II D&D

SLAC SC 1Barbar Detector disassembly

SLAC SC 

1

Barber Detector transportation & disposal of non-reusable components following 

disassembly

SLAC SC 1Magnet Storage Legacy Rad Materials

SLAC SC 1Radioactive Material Storage Yard Legacy Radio active Materials

SLAC SC 1Bone Yard Shielding Blocks

SLAC SC 1End Station B Shielding Blocks

SLAC SC 1Excess Lead Disposal 
 Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM

January 2009 C3 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

SLAC SC 1Final Focus Test Beam Shielding blocks

SLAC SC 1Soil & Groundwater Remediation 

SRS NNSA 3Manufacturing Building - 232-H

SRS NNSA 3Manufacturing Building - 232-H

SRS NNSA 3Manufacturing Building - 232-H

ORR SC 4

Solid State Annex/Quality Assurance/Ins2000

ORR SC 4

Information Center Complex

ORR SC 4

Solar Energy/Laser Laboratory

ORR SC 4

Quality Assurance & Inspect

ORR SC 4

Storage I-E

ORR SC 4

Emergency Generator for Bldg 2000

ORR SC 4

Storage

ORR SC 4

Calibration Laboratory

ORR SC 4

ORNL Whole Body Counter

ORR SC 4

Radioactive Materials Analytical Laboratory

ORR SC 4

2026 Cooling Tower (X185479)

ORR SC 4

Office Maintenance Shops & Storage (BETA 1)

ORR SC 4

Helium Compressor Building

ORR SC 4

Biology

ORR SC 4

9207 Annex

ORR SC 4

D Mammalian Genetics

ORR SC 4

BD Co-Carcinogenesis

ORR SC 4

BD Virus Control Laboratory

ORR SC 4

Cell Fractionation System

ORR SC 4

Steam House (Old Steam Plant Building)

ORR SC 4

Pigeon House

ORR SC 4

Utilities

ORR SC 4

Utilities (Fan House for 9207)

ORR SC 4

Lead-lined Source Shed (Radiation Source Building)

ORR SC 4

FRC Field Support Trailer

ORR SC 4

Cafeteria Warehouse

ORR SC 4

Electric & AC Service Center

ORR SC 4

East Research Service Shop

ORR SC 4

Elect & Air Cond Service Ctr

ORR SC 4

Smoke Stack

ORR SC 4

Source & Special Material Vault

ORR SC 4

Rolling Mill

ORR SC 4

West Complex Field Shop

ORR SC 4

Reactor Experiment Control Room - Super Conductivity Laboratory

ORR SC 4

Neutron Spectrometer Station 2

ORR SC 4

Reactor Area Equipment Building

ORR SC 4

West Complex Maintenance Shop

ORR SC 4

Sentry Post No 8b

ORR SC 4

Misc. Storage Building
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 C4 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

ORR SC 4

CMSD Office and ESTD Laboratory (FMIS lists as Solid State Office)

ORR SC 4

Personnel Monitoring Station

ORR SC 4

Emergency Generator for 3127, 3129, 3027 with Diesel Tank

ORR SC 4

Liquid Chiller

ORR SC 4

Bulk Shielding Reactor Support Facility

ORR SC 4

Solid State Accel Facility Graphite Reactor Fan House

ORR SC 4

Radioisotopes Services Building

ORR SC 4

Nuclear Materials Storage Vault

ORR SC 4

Isotope Area Storage and Services Bldg

ORR SC 4

Chemical Technology Offices

ORR SC 4

Solid State Research Facility - Ceramics & Thin Film Lab

ORR SC 4

West Weather Port

ORR SC 4

East Weather Port

ORR SC 4

Solid State Lab & Hot Cells (IMET)

ORR SC 4

IMET Facility Hot Cells & Solid State (CMSD Office & Lab Building)

ORR SC 4

Dispatch Center Emergency Generator

ORR SC 4

3047 Cooling Tower (X185557)

ORR SC 4

3047 Emergency Generator

ORR SC 4

High Radiation Level Chem Exam Lab - Irradiated Fuel Exam Lab

ORR SC 4

Cooling Tower (For 3525)

ORR SC 4

Cylinder Tank Storage Building 3525

ORR SC 4

Cask Tool Storage

ORR SC 4

Sewage Pumping Station

ORR SC 4

East Research Service Center

ORR SC 4

Container, Paint Storage

ORR SC 4

Mail Services Building

ORR SC 4

Storage Building

ORR SC 4

Tent, Spill Response Vehicle Shelter

ORR SC 4

High Radiation Level Chem Engr Lab

ORR SC 4

Geosciences Laboratory

ORR SC 4

Expensed Bench Stock Building

ORR SC 4

MSR Development Lab

ORR SC 4

CCSD Office Building

ORR SC 4

TSD Storage Building

ORR SC 4

Process Waste Treatment Complex - South - I&C Office Bldg

ORR SC 4

Building 3503 Storage Pad

ORR SC 4

Trailer, Van Type (Intercomparison SDL)

ORR SC 4

P&E Machine Shop Facility

ORR SC 4

General Machine Shop

ORR SC 4

Coal Research Lab

ORR SC 4

West Precipitator

ORR SC 4

East Precipitator

ORR SC 4

Steam Plant Scale House

ORR SC 4

Building 2528 Storage Tank
 Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM

January 2009 C5 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

ORR SC 4

Fire Station and Protective Services Headquarters

ORR SC 4

HR & Diversity Training / Programs

ORR SC 4

Facility and Operations Office

ORR SC 4

Decontamination Laundry

ORR SC 4

Emergency Generator for 2500, Includes Diesel Fuel Storage Tank

ORR SC 4

Waste Operations Support Shop

ORR SC 4

Fire Protection, Maint., & Storage

ORR SC 4

Decontamination Laundry Annex

ORR SC 4

2652A Office Trailer - HP dosimetry

ORR SC 4

2652B Office Trailer - ATLC

ORR SC 4

2642C Office Trailer

ORR SC 4

Radiochemistry Laboratory

ORR SC 4

Exper Eng

ORR SC 4

Transuranium Research Lab

ORR SC 4

Oak Ridge Electron Linear Accelerator (ORELA)

ORR SC 4

Hazardous Material Storage

ORR SC 4

7025 Local Air Monitor

ORR SC 4

Electrical Services

ORR SC 4

MSR Process Development Laboratory

ORR SC 4

Research Lab Annex

ORR SC 4

Coal Conversion Facility

ORR SC 4

Experimental Gas Cooled Reactor

ORR SC 4

EGCR Stack Monitoring Building

ORR SC 4

Energetic Systems Area Storage Building

ORR SC 4

Exhaust Stack

ORR SC 4

Health Physics Research Reactor

ORR SC 4

DOSAR

ORR SC 4

DOSAR Low Energy Accelerator

ORR SC 4

Rad Calibration Lab

ORR SC 4

HFIR Parts Storage

ORR SC 4

TSF 6,000 Gallon Steel Tank (Floor Drain Collection Tank)

ORR SC 4

7709 Fast Burst (HPRR) Reactor (X900045)

ORR SC 4

Sewage Treatment Plant, including Generator and Diesel Fuel Tank

ORR SC 4

Coal Sample Preparation Building, includes Sewage Sludge Holding Tank

ORR SC 4

Sludge Drying Facility

ORR SC 4

Chlorinator Building

ORR SC 4

Fire Training Facility

ORR SC 4

Sewage Treatment Plan Water Monitor Station

ORR SC 4

Sodium Metabisulfide Building

ORR SC 4

Sewage Treatment Aeration Basin

ORR SC 4

ORNL Sewage Treatment

ORR SC 4

ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant Filter System

ORR SC 4

Sewage Digester Building

ORR SC 4

Coal Yard Building
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 C6 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

ORR SC 4

ORNL Waste/Water Treatment Facility

ORR SC 4

Storage Building for 7856 Operations

ORR SC 4

Process Water Control Station

ORR SC 4

Interim Manipulator Repair Fac

ORR SC 4

Surface Science Laboratory

ORR SC 4

3019 Motor control Center

ORR SC 4

QSD Storage Building

ORR SC 4

QSD Storage Building

ORR SC 4

Fusion Energy Building (ALPHA 2)Fusion

ORR SC 4

Carpentry Shop

ORR SC 4

Switchgear Building

ORR NNSA 4

161 KV Steel Transformer

ORR NNSA 4

Office Building

ORR NNSA 4

Office Complex (ALPHA 3)

ORR NNSA 4

Utility Room (Painter Facility)

ORR NNSA 4

161 KV Steel Transformer

ORR NNSA 4

Storage

ORR NNSA 4

Utilities

ORR NNSA 4

Switchgear Building

ORR NNSA 4

Production (ALPHA 5)

ORR NNSA 4

Pumphouse

ORR NNSA 4

Demineralizer Facility

ORR NNSA 4

Laborer Shack

ORR NNSA 4

Cooling Tower

ORR NNSA 4

Utilities (management)

ORR NNSA 4

Fire Protection Valve House

ORR NNSA 4

Storm Drain Monitoring #6

ORR NNSA 4

Storm Drain Monitoring #16

ORR NNSA 4

Storm Drain Monitoring #5

ORR NNSA 4

Steam House (Inactive)

ORR NNSA 4

Chiller Building

ORR NNSA 4

Maintenance

ORR NNSA 4

Utilities

ORR NNSA 4

Change House

ORR NNSA 4

161 KV Steel

ORR NNSA 4

Laboratory & Storage

ORR NNSA 4

Depleted Uranium Forming, Quality, Evaluation and Storage Operations (BETA 4)

ORR NNSA 4

Storage Building (CAS Alarms)

ORR NNSA 4

Cooling Tower

ORR NNSA 4

161KV Steel

ORR NNSA 4

Warehouse Building

ORR NNSA 4

Storage Building

ORR NNSA 4

Steam Valve Room

ORR NNSA 4

Steam Valve Room
 Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM

January 2009 C7 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

ORR NNSA 4

Waste Oil Storage

ORR NNSA 4

Tanker Transfer Station

ORR NNSA 4

Office

ORR NNSA 4

Emergency Generator

ORR NNSA 4

Laboratory

ORR NNSA 4

Production

ORR NNSA 4

Butler/Storage Building

ORR NNSA 4

Utilities

ORR NNSA 4

Power House

ORR NNSA 4

Tank Farm

ORR NNSA 4

Production

ORR NNSA 4

Cooling Tower

ORR NNSA 4

Cooling Tower

ORR NNSA 4

Cooling Tower

ORR NNSA 4

Cooling Tower

ORR NNSA 4

Utilities (management)

ORR NNSA 4

Fire Protection Valve House

ORR NNSA 4

Utility Support for Cooling Tower (Water Treatment Valve House)

ORR NNSA 4

Valve House

ORR NNSA 4

Maintenance Shop (Material Storage Warehouse)

ORR NNSA 4

Office/Support Trailer

ORR NNSA 4

Changehouse/Offices

ORR NNSA 4

Chiller Building

ORR NNSA 4

Tanker Loading Station (Lean-To)

ORR NNSA 4

Abandoned Tanker Station (Tank Pit)

ORR NNSA 4

Material Recovery (Nitrate Facility)

ORR NNSA 4

Material Recovery (Acid Waste Neutralization)

ORR NNSA 4

Old Butler Building (Electrical Storage)

ORR NNSA 4

Dry Exhaust System (Bag Filter System)

ORR NNSA 4

Dry Exhaust System (Probe House)

ORR NNSA 4

Dry Exhaust System (Bag Filter House)

ORR NNSA 4

Cylinder Storage

ORR NNSA 4

Storage and Office (Physical Testing, X-Ray)

ORR NNSA 4

Vaults (Physical Testing, X-Ray)

ORR NNSA 4

Tooling Storage

ORR NNSA 4

Emergency Generator Room

ORR NNSA 4

Foam House for OD-9

ORR NNSA 4

Foam House for OD-10

ORR NNSA 4

Steam Plant

ORR NNSA 4

Unloading Station

ORR NNSA 4

Waste Water Treatment Facility

ORR NNSA 4

Dry Ash Handling Facility

ORR NNSA 4

Wet Ash Handling Facility

ORR NNSA 4

Monitoring Station
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 C8 

Appendix C. Facilities Proposed for Transition to EM 

Site PSO Facility Name/Description 

ORR NE 4

CTD - Isotope Separations (BETA 3)

ORR NE 4

Isotope Technology Building

NOTES 1 – The need for deactivation and decommissioning of these 47 Science facilities will be considered 

for approval by the Deputy Secretary in the first quarter of FY 2009. 

2 – The need for deactivation and decommissioning of these 27 Nuclear Energy facilities will be 

considered for approval by the Deputy Secretary in the first quarter of FY 2009. 

3 – The need for deactivation and decommissioning of these 15 NNSA facilities will be considered for 

approval by the Deputy Secretary in the first quarter of FY 2009. 

4 - The DOE Deputy Secretary approved the need for deactivation and decommissioning of these 

facilities on July 20, 2007. 

. 
 Appendix D. List of Acronyms

January 2009 D1 

APPENDIX D LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Acronym Definition 

ACMP Acquisition and Career Management Program 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory 

BEMR Baseline Environmental Management Report 

CAP Corrective Action Plan 

CCIM Cold Crucible Induction Melter 

CCP Central Characterization Project 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CIP Corporate Implementation Plan 

CH contact handled 

DART days away restricted or on job transfer 

DAU Defense Acquisition University 

DBT design basis threat 

D&D deactivation and decommissioning 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DRR domestic research reactor 

DU depleted uranium 

DUF6 depleted uranium hexafluoride 

DWPF Defense Waste Processing Facility 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EM Office of Environmental Management 

EMCBC Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center 

ETEC Energy Technology Engineering Center 

ETR External Technical Review 

ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park 

EVMS earned value management system 

FBSR Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming 

FFA Federal Facility Agreement 

FFCAct Federal Facility Compliance Act 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

FPD Federal Project Director 

FRR foreign research reactor 

FY Fiscal Year 

GDP Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

GTCC Greater-than-Class C 

HCA Head of Contracting Activity 

HEU highly enriched uranium 

HLW High-level waste 

IDIQ indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

IPT Integrated Project Team 

ISM integrated safety management 

ISS interim safe storage 

KAMS K-Area Material Storage 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LAW low activity waste 

LCC Life-cycle cost 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 D2 

Acronym Definition 

LEU low enriched uranium 

LLW low-level waste 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LM Office of Legacy Management 

M&O management and operating 

MAA material access area 

MFFF MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 

MLLW mixed low-level waste 

MOX mixed oxide 

MT metric tons 

MTHM metric tons of heavy metal 

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration 

NDA non-destructive assay 

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 

NDE non-destructive examination 

NE Office of Nuclear Energy 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration 

NPL National Priorities List 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

OCRWM Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

OECM Office of Engineering and Construction Management 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

ORR Oak Ridge Reservation 

PBI Performance-Based Incentive 

PBS Project Baseline Summary 

PCB polyclorinated biphenyl 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 

PMP Performance Management Plan 

PSO Program Secretarial Office 

Pu Plutonium 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RH remote handled 

ROD record of decision 

S&S Safeguards and Security 

SC [Office of] Science 

SNF spent nuclear fuel 

SPRU separations process research unit 

SRS Savannah River Site 

SRNL Savannah River National Laboratory 

STP site treatment plan 

SWPF Salt Waste Processing Facility 

TAN Test Area North 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

TRA Technology Readiness Assessment 

TRC total recordable case 

TRU transuranic waste 
 Appendix D. List of Acronyms

January 2009 D3 

Acronym Definition 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSCAI TSCA Incinerator 

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

USTC U.S. Transport Council 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

WVDP West Valley Demonstration Project 
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 D4 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix E. List of References

January 2009 E1 

APPENDIX E LIST OF REFERENCES

U. S. Department of Energy, February 2002. A Review of the Environmental Management 

Program. 

U.S. Department of Energy, October 2003. Report to Congress Top-to-Bottom Review of the 

Environmental Management Program: Status of Implementation. 

U.S. Department of Energy, June 2004. Closure Planning Guidance. 

National Academy of Public Administration, December 2007. Office of Environmental 

Management: Managing America’s Defense Nuclear Waste. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995 & 1996. Baseline Environmental Management Report. 

Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995, Environmental Management Taking Stock: A Look at the 

Opportunities and Challenges Posed by Inventories of the Cold War Era. Office of 

Environmental Management, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The 

Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the 

Department of Energy is Doing About It. Office of Environmental Management, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997. Linking Legacies Connecting the Cold War Nuclear 

Weapons Production Processes to their Environmental Consequences. Office of 

Environmental Management, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure. Office of 

Environmental Management, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Energy, July 2008. Root Cause Analysis Contract and Project 

Management Corrective Action Plan. 

U.S. Department of Energy, May 1997. Final Waste Management Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, 

D.C
Report to Congress - 

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of 

Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009 E2 

U.S. Department of Energy, September 2008. Report on Liabilities Associated with 

Department of Energy Excess Facilities. Office of Environmental Management, 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy, January 2008. DOE O 361.1B, Acquisition Career Development 

Program. 

U.S. Department of Energy, October 2000. Order 413.3, Project Management for the 

Acquisition of Capital Assets.

U.S. Department of Energy, July 2006. DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project 

Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets. 

U.S. Department of Energy. Order 430.lA, Life-Cycle Asset Management. 

U.S. Department of Energy, September 2003. Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset 

Management. 

U.S. Department of Energy, July 1999. Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. 
Report to Congress

Status of Environmental Management Initiatives 

to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks 

and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

January 2009

DOE/EM-0004

Office of Environmental Management

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

(202) 586-5000

E-mail: EM-40CustomerServiceDesk@em.doe.gov