DOE/RL-2018-45

Revision 0

2019 HANFORD LIFECYCLE 

SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST 

REPORT

Date Published

January 2019

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

P.O. Box 550, MS A7-75

Richland, Washington 99352

Release Approval

Approved for Public Release

Further Dissemination Unlimited
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

DISCLAIMER

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or 

service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not 

necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 

favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its 

contractors or subcontractors. 

This report has been reproduced from the best available copy. 

Printed in the United States of America
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

P-1

PREFACE

The 2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report [LCR]) summarizes the 

remaining work scope, schedule and cost estimates for Hanford Site cleanup. The report is prepared and 

submitted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in accordance with milestone, M-036-01, 

requiring the annual submittal of a LCR by January 31.

The LCR provides both a low-range and a high-range cost estimate associated with the Hanford cleanup 

work scope, which includes the estimated cost to complete cleanup within the River Corridor, Central 

Plateau, tank waste, and mission support components as well as allowances for cost and schedule 

uncertainties. The low-range cost estimate of approximately $323.2 billion reflects the baseline planning 

case with allowances for schedule and cost estimate uncertainty. The high-range cost estimate of 

approximately $677 billion fully incorporates the realization of risks associated with uncertainty in discrete 

elements of work. The likelihood, and schedule and cost consequences, of risk events occurring have been 

quantified to provide cost impacts. These cost impacts are fully reflected in the high-range cost estimates.

As noted in this analysis, the largest component to risk and thus increase to the high-range cost estimate 

is completion of the tank waste cleanup mission. 

The inclusion of high-range cost estimates herein represents an enhancement in projecting the future 

Hanford Site cleanup costs. These costs, as presented in Table ES-1, reflect and account for the high degree 

of technical complexity and uncertainty associated with the large volume of work to be completed. A 

summary of the assumptions, risks, and uncertainties associated with each project baseline summary (PBS)

is contained in the individual PBS sections discussed herein.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

P-2

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

This Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report [LCR]) describes the scope, 

schedule and cost estimates for Hanford Site cleanup. This LCR reflects all cleanup work that is to be 

completed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL), and Office of River 

Protection (ORP).

The LCR is prepared and submitted by DOE to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) annually by January 31, in time to support DOE’s 

annual budget process and to help inform decision makers about schedule and work prioritization.

The LCR serves as an agreed-on foundation for preparing budget requests and for informational briefings 

to affected Tribal Nations, the State of Oregon, and Hanford stakeholders. The LCR supports continued 

discussions with EPA and Ecology on how and when RL and ORP will complete cleanup and how 

milestone changes and adjustments will affect lifecycle scope, schedule, and cost.

While it is important to understand what this report is, it is equally important to understand what it is not. 

The LCR is not a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(42 USC 9601) or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901) document. The report 

is not a decision document that substitutes for, or preempts, the cleanup decision processes as set forth in 

the following:

 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order1(Tri-Party Agreement or TPA)

 The Consent Decree in State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No 08-5085-RMP

(E.D. Wa. October 25, 2010) (DOE and Ecology 2010) and the Amended Consent Decree 

(DOE and Ecology 2016).

 Other legal requirements.

BACKGROUND

On October 25, 20102, DOE, EPA, and Ecology (Tri-Party agencies) agreed to modify the TPA to 

incorporate a new milestone, M-036-01, requiring annual submittal of a LCR. The LCR reflects all actions 

necessary for DOE to meet all applicable environmental obligations.

The 2019 LCR is the seventh edition and reflects scope, schedule, and cost status that is current as of 

August 31, 2018. Significant changes to cleanup obligations and related costs that have occurred after this

date are noted in section 1.4 and will be incorporated into future reports.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

The Tri-Party agencies encourage and support public participation, and believe it is essential to the cleanup 

process, as stated in Hanford Public Involvement Plan (Ecology et al. 2012). The 2019 LCR will be 

available to all interested parties on the DOE website at www.hanford.gov. Feedback regarding the 

2019 LCR will be considered as future reports are developed. Feedback can be emailed to lcssc@rl.gov.

 

1Ecology et al. 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended.

2M-036-01 was negotiated as part of broader negotiations that occurred between the parties, culminating in the Consent Decree 

and a package of TPA modifications, all of which became effective when the Consent Decree was signed and entered into 

Federal District Court on October 25, 2010.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-2

SUMMARY OF LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE, AND COST

Hanford Site cleanup has three major components: River Corridor cleanup, Central Plateau cleanup, and 

tank waste cleanup. The tank waste cleanup area is located geographically on the Central Plateau. 

The cleanup also includes mission support activities that provide essential infrastructure and services to

support the Hanford Site cleanup. 

Hanford’s remaining active cleanup schedule covers activities for cleanup and waste management, leading 

to transition of portions of the Hanford Site to long-term stewardship (LTS). The active cleanup schedule, 

using the baseline planning case, is from fiscal year (FY) 2019 to FY 2078, and LTS extends through FY

2095. Although the time period evaluated in this report ends at 2095, LTS actually extends longer because 

some waste sites and disposal facilities will have institutional controls requiring stewardship activities

beyond that date. The Federal Government plans to have a presence at the Hanford Site well beyond FY

2095.

This LCR presents the RL and ORP planning cases encompassing a low- and high-range estimate. The ORP 

planning horizon represented in the low-range estimate is predicated on the baseline case of the River 

Protection Project System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. 8 [System Plan 8]). System Plan 8 is a computer 

modeling exercise that evaluated a set of 11 technical scenarios and provided rough cost and schedule 

estimates for completing the Site’s River Protection Project (RPP) mission. While the baseline case reflects 

a theoretically achievable technical approach for completing the RPP mission based on conditions, 

constraints, assumptions, and direction existing at the time the System Plan 8 modeling effort began in early 

2016, it does not account for delays associated with addressing tank vapors-related issues and makes other 

technical assumptions that have not been proven to be implementable. In contrast, the high-range estimate 

accounts for the impact of these and other technical challenges across all PBSs, and is intended to ensure 

transparency among all Hanford stakeholders of the inherent risks in achieving the agreed upon cleanup 

goals (i.e., milestones).

The baseline case (low-range estimate) identifies estimated tank waste retrieval and treatment completion 

dates that incorporate the revised milestones contained in the 2016 Amended Consent Decree. Under the 

baseline technical approach, System Plan 8 forecasts a significant increase in lifecycle cost and schedule 

for completing the RPP mission. The high-range cost estimate presented for each PBS incorporates an 

unconstrained estimate for identified risks and increases the confidence of completion at or below this 

estimate. It should be noted that the high-range estimate is intended to ensure transparency among all 

stakeholders involved in the Hanford cleanup program of the inherent risks associated with achieving the 

agreed upon cleanup goals.

The remaining estimated cleanup costs3for Hanford include a low-range estimate of approximately 

$323.2 billion (Figure ES-1) and a high-range estimate of approximately $677.0 billion (Figure ES-2). 

This includes the estimated cost to complete cleanup within the River Corridor, Central Plateau, tank waste, 

and mission support components, as well as allowances for cost and schedule uncertainties. The largest 

contributor to the high-range estimate is comprised of the estimated cost, the likely risks that could be 

realized, and the uncertainties associated with the tank waste cleanup mission, including the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) (estimate of $548.4 billion). Table ES-1 summarizes total lowrange and high-range estimated costs by PBS.

Remaining estimated cleanup costs do not include upper bound cost estimates prepared for selected future 

cleanup actions in prior LCRs. These future actions to be analyzed are identified in Appendix B, Table B-5.

 

3The expression “cleanup costs” is used to represent the costs for those remaining actions that are necessary for DOE to fully

meet all applicable environmental obligations and complete the Hanford Site cleanup mission.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-3

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES FOR SELECTED CLEANUP ACTIONS

The Tri-Party agencies considered the remaining cleanup actions to be analyzed (Appendix B, Table B-6) 

and agreed that the 2019 LCR would not include an alternatives analysis.

Figure ES-1. Hanford Site Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs (Low-Range) by Fiscal Year

(includes both RL and ORP).

Figure ES-2. Hanford Site Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs (High-Range) by Fiscal Year

(includes both RL and ORP).

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074 2079 2084 2089 2094

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C for cost and schedule data.

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

201920242029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074 2079 2084 2089 2094 2099 2104 2109 2114 2119 2124

Costs (Billions $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D for risk methodology and results.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-4

Table ES-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimated Ranges by PBS.

Project Work Scope

Estimated 

Cleanup Costs

1

(Billion $)

NM Stabilization and Disposition - PFP (PBS RL-0011) $02

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $03

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $11.5 - $15.1

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $10.1 - $23.9

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $9.6 - $10.5

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $20.6 - $26.8

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.8 - $2.0

Nuclear Facility D&D - Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) $1.0 - $1.1

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) $1.1 - $1.7

Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201) $20.4 - $32.8

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $221.4 - $518.1

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $18.5 - $30.3

Waste Treatment Plant Operations (PBS ORP-0070) $04

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $316.1 - $662.4

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS)5 $5.2 - $12.7

Final Reactor Disposition5 $1.9

DOE-Office of Environmental Management Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $323.2 - $677.0

1Cost ranges are shown in this table to reflect cost and schedule uncertainty; the lower number is used throughout this 

report. Values are rounded; see Appendix C for the low-range details and Appendix D for the high-range details.

2

Includes $46.2 million in FY 2019 only.

3

Includes $18.9 million in FY 2019 and FY 2020 only.

4

Includes $30 million in FY 2019 and FY 2020 only. WTP operational costs are currently within ORP-0014 and will be 

shown in ORP-0070 in future reports.

5Shown separately to align with DOE-Headquarters fund source accounting.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

NM = nuclear materials.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

i

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LIFECYCLE REPORT ..................................................................1-1

1.2 HANFORD CLEANUP OVERVIEW ............................................................................1-1

1.2.1 Hanford Cleanup Goals ......................................................................................1-3

1.2.2 Hanford Cleanup and Management Areas..........................................................1-4

1.3 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES.........................................................1-6

1.4 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT .....................................................................1-8

1.4.1 Incorporated Changes.........................................................................................1-8

1.4.2 Future Report Changes .......................................................................................1-9

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE...............................1-9

1.6 PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OVERVIEW .......................................................1-10

1.6.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process................................................................1-10

1.6.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation Process ................................1-11

1.7 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST FOR HANFORD CLEANUP...............................1-12

2.0 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SUMMARY.......................................................................................2-1

2.1 HANFORD SITE LIFECYCLE SCOPE.........................................................................2-1

2.2 HANFORD CLEANUP SCHEDULE.............................................................................2-2

2.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COSTS ....................................................2-3

3.0 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP .................................................................................................3-1

3.1 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012)......................................3-2

3.2 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT

(PBS RL-0041) ................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION ................................................................................3-5

3.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES..............3-6

4.0 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP .............................................................................................4-1

4.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011)..............................4-3

4.2 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C)..............................................................................................................4-3

4.3 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) ................................................................................................................4-7

4.4 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD (PBS RL-0040) .........4-11

4.5 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) ..............................................................................................................4-13

4.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES........4-16

5.0 TANK WASTE CLEANUP .........................................................................................................5-1

5.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 

DISPOSITION (PBS ORP-0014)....................................................................................5-5

5.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT AND 

IMMOBILIZATION PLANT (PBS ORP-0060).............................................................5-8

5.3 WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS (PBS ORP-0070)............................5-11

5.4 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ...................5-11

6.0 MISSION SUPPORT....................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020).......................................................6-1

6.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) ........6-2

6.3 HANFORD SITEWIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0201) ....................................................6-3

6.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS)............................................................6-6
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ii

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................7-1

7.1 SCHEDULE AND COST LIMITATIONS .....................................................................7-1

7.2 OTHER LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................7-1

8.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................8-1

APPENDICES

A HANFORD SITE EXISTING CLEANUP DECISIONS.......................................................A-i

B FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES............................B-i

C HANFORD ESTIMATED SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS ..........................................C-i

D HANFORD QUANTITATIVE CONTINGENCY RESULTS..............................................D-i

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Hanford Site Map Showing Principal Areas Designated for Cleanup. ..................................1-3

Figure 1-2. Relationship Between DOE Budget Planning and LCR Schedule.......................................1-10

Figure 2-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule...........................................................................2-3

Figure 2-2. Hanford Site Estimated Cleanup Cost Distribution by DOE Field Office.............................2-4

Figure 2-3. Hanford Site Low-Range Remaining Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.....................................2-4

Figure 2-4. Hanford Site Low-Range Remaining Cleanup Costs by Project Baseline Summary. ...........2-5

Figure 2-5. Hanford Site High-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year

(includes both RL and ORP) ..................................................................................................2-5

Figure 3-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe Storage..................................................................................3-2

Figure 3-2. C Reactor in Interim Safe Storage..........................................................................................3-2

Figure 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ........................................3-4

Figure 3-4. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ...................................3-4

Figure 3-5. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year...................3-6

Figure 4-1. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year .........................................4-6

Figure 4-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ...................................4-6

Figure 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ......................................4-10

Figure 4-4. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .................................4-10

Figure 4-5. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Low-Range Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year..............................................................................4-12

Figure 4-6. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Low-Range Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................4-13

Figure 4-7. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year......................................................4-15
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

iii

Figure 4-8. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. ...............................................4-15

Figure 5-1. Simplified Process Diagram for Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal

Based on SP8 Baseline Case. .................................................................................................5-3

Figure 5-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ........................................5-7

Figure 5-3. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ...................................5-8

Figure 5-4. Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year......................................................5-10

Figure 5-5. Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. ...............................................5-10

Figure 6-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL 0020) Low-Range Remaining Estimated 

Costs by Fiscal Year...............................................................................................................6-1

Figure 6-2. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL 0100) Low-Range Remaining 

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year..............................................................................................6-3

Figure 6-3. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL 0201) Low-Range Remaining Estimated 

Costs by Fiscal Year...............................................................................................................6-6

Figure 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Low-Range Remaining Estimated 

Costs by Fiscal Year...............................................................................................................6-7

TABLES

Table 1-1. Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-036-01..............................................................................1-2

Table 1-2. Cleanup Goals Identified for the Hanford Site. .......................................................................1-4

Table 1-3. Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made. .......................................1-7

Table 1-4. Hanford Site Cleanup Project Baseline Summary.................................................................1-12

Table 1-5. Example Cleanup Project Baseline Summary and Work Breakdown to Level 3..................1-13

Table 1-6. Example of a Level 6 Work Breakdown Structure................................................................1-13

Table 2-1. Hanford Project Baseline Summaries (PBS) – RL and ORP Contracts. ................................2-1

Table 2-2. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimated Ranges by PBS.........................................2-6

Table 3-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri Party Agreement Milestones. ..............................................3-1

Table 3-2. Reactor Status..........................................................................................................................3-3

Table 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .........................................................................................................3-3

Table 4-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri Party Agreement Milestones. ............................................4-2

Table 4-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .........................................................................................................4-4

Table 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary ..........................................................................................................4-8

Table 4-4. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................................................................................................4-12
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

iv

Table 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................................................................................................4-14

Table 5-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. .................5-4

Table 5-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP 0014) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .........................................................................................................5-6

Table 5-3. Major Construction–Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP 0060) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .........................................................................................................5-9

Table 6-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL 0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................................6-1

Table 6-2. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL 0100) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .........................................................................................................6-2

Table 6-3. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL 0201) Level 2 Scope Summary. ...................................6-5

Table 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.........................................6-7
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

v

TERMS

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled

CSB Canister Storage Building

CWC Central Waste Complex

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DFLAW direct feed of low-activity waste

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EIS environmental impact statement

EM U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management

EMF Effluent Management Facility

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

HAB Hanford Advisory Board

HAMMER Volpentest HAMMER Federal Training Center

HFFACO Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

HSF Hanford Shipping Facility

HLW high-level waste

HQ U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters

HWMA Hazardous Waste Management Act (Washington State)

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IHLW immobilized high-level waste

IHS Interim Hanford Storage

ISS interim safe storage

Lab WTP Analytical Laboratory

LAW low-activity waste

LAWPS Low-Activity Waste Pretreatment System

LBL LAW Facility, Balance of Facilities, and Lab

LCR Lifecycle Report

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LM U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management

LTS long-term stewardship

MLLW mixed low-level waste

MSC Mission Support Contract

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NM nuclear materials

NRDAR Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORP U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection

OU operable unit

PBS project baseline summary

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PJM Pulse Jet Mixer

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

vi

PRC Plateau Remediation Contract

PT pretreatment

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)

RH remote-handled

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office

ROD record of decision

RPP River Protection Project

RTD remove, treat and dispose of

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SALDS State-Approved Land Disposal Site

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SST single-shell tank

TBD to be determined

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility 

TOC Tank Operations Contract

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

Tri-Party agencies U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

Washington State Department of Ecology

Tri-Party Agreement Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

TRIDEC Tri-City Development Council

TRU transuranic

TRUM transuranic mixed (waste)

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

TWCS Tank Waste Characterization and Staging

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

WBS work breakdown structure

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

WTPC Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Contract
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In October 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Tri-Party agencies) added a new milestone to 

the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), commonly referred to 

as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). TPA M-036-01 requires that DOE submit a Hanford Lifecycle Scope, 

Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report [LCR]) to EPA and Ecology each year.

The 2019 LCR reflects the Hanford scope, schedule, and cost estimate information from fiscal years (FY)

2019 to 2095. The 2019 LCR information reflects scope, schedule, and costs that are current as of August 

31, 2018. Significant changes that have occurred after this date are noted in section 1.4 and will be 

incorporated into future reports. The costs shown have been escalated for inflation and include ranges for 

discrete scopes of work to account for the technical and estimate uncertainty associated with completing 

the cleanup actions.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LIFECYCLE REPORT

To plan for the future and make the best use of each year’s funding, the Tri-Party agencies work together 

and share information about the scope, schedule, and cost of cleaning up the Hanford Site. 

TPA M-036-01 states that the LCR should serve:

...as an agreed upon foundation for preparing budget requests and for informational 

briefings of affected Tribal Governments and Hanford stakeholders.

...as the basis for annual discussions among USDOE, EPA, and Ecology on how and 

when the USDOE will complete cleanup, how Congressional appropriations for the 

Hanford Site for that year may affect assumptions presented in the report, and how 

milestone changes and adjustments will affect lifecycle scope, schedule and cost.

TPA M-036-01 includes a number of requirements for the LCR. Table 1-1 provides the full text of the 

approved TPA M-036-01.

Detail regarding logic used by the Tri-Party agencies to meet the intent of the milestone can be found in 

section 1.5 of the 2013 LCR (DOE/RL-2012-13).

1.2 HANFORD CLEANUP OVERVIEW

The 580-square-mile Hanford Site4is located along the Columbia River in south-central Washington 

State (Figure 1-1). Beginning in the 1940s with the Manhattan Project, Hanford played a pivotal role in 

the nation’s defense, eventually producing approximately 74 tons of plutonium — nearly two-thirds of all 

the plutonium recovered for government purposes in the United States. Today, the Hanford Site includes 

numerous former nuclear material production areas, active and closed research facilities, waste storage 

and disposal sites, and large areas of natural habitat and buffer zones all underlain by groundwater.

Under the direction of DOE, the Hanford workforce is now engaged in the environmental cleanup of 

contaminated facilities, groundwater, and soil. Hanford cleanup is further described in Hanford Site 

Cleanup Completion Framework (DOE/RL-2009-10).

 

4This area accounts for the September 2015 land transfer from DOE to the Tri-City Development Council (TRIDEC).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-2

Table 1-1. Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-036-01.

M-036-01A (Subsequent Annual Milestones to be Lettered B, C, D, etc.)

Due date to submit the report to be January 31 and annually thereafter, except that the first report to be due no 

sooner than 9 months after incorporation of this milestone in TPA.

The USDOE shall prepare and submit to EPA and Ecology a report setting out the lifecycle scope, schedule and 

cost for completion of the Hanford Site cleanup mission. The report shall reflect all of those actions necessary for 

the USDOE to fully meet all applicable environmental obligations including those under the HFFACO, the consent 

decree in State of Washington V. Chu, Case No. 08-5085-FVS, and the Hanford RCRA/HWMA Permit. The report 

shall include scope, schedule and cost for completing work at each of the operable units and RCRA TSD 

groups/units that are listed in Appendixes B and C of the HFFACO, in the consent decree in State of Washington 

V. Chu, Case No. 08-5085-FVS (DOE and Ecology 2010) and in the Hanford RCRA/HWMA Permit, including the 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. The report will include all other cleanup and monitoring 

activities (including post-closure activities) and all related actions necessary to complete the cleanup mission to 

provide a complete understanding of the resources necessary for the Hanford cleanup mission.

This report shall take into account circumstances existing as of the end of the fiscal year preceding the month of 

the report, including funds appropriated by Congress for the Hanford cleanup, but shall not assume any limitation 

on funding for future years. However, the report will take into consideration critical resource availability not 

based upon assumed future funding limitations and the practical limits of project acceleration when developing an 

executable plan. USDOE may also include costs other than those directly related to environmental obligations 

(such as security costs) but shall clearly distinguish expenditures for environmental obligations from other 

expenditures. Costs shall be displayed by program baseline summary. Additional levels of detail will appear in 

appendixes to the report. Cost information will provide sufficient detail to validate consistency with the scope and 

schedule for individual cleanup projects. Reporting in the appendixes will typically be one level below the PBS for 

the lifecycle, and at levels below that for the next two to five years beyond the execution year (usually at the 

activity level within the budget assigned to a specific project, e.g., RL-0011, WBS element 011.04.01, Nuclear 

Material Stabilization and Disposition – PFP, Disposition PFP, Transition 234 5Z). EPA and Ecology project 

managers may request additional levels of detail be provided by their DOE counterparts.

In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the report shall be based upon the 

reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives or may set forth a range of alternative costs 

including such a reasonable upper bound. In making assumptions for the purpose of preparing the initial report, 

USDOE shall take into account the views of EPA and Ecology and shall also take into account the values 

expressed by the affected Tribal Governments and Hanford stakeholders regarding work scope, priorities and 

schedule. The report shall include the scope, schedule and cost for each such PBS level two element and shall set 

forth the bases and assumptions for each cleanup activity.

After USDOE submits the report, the USDOE will revise the report based upon EPA and Ecology comments to 

reflect a common vision of the scope, schedule and budget for the remainder of the cleanup mission. If the 

agencies are unable to reach resolution on specific aspects of the scope of cleanup actions, the revised document 

will present a range of potential actions with the associated schedule and budget, thereby completing the 

milestone. DOE, EPA and Ecology shall attempt to reach agreement on the report so it can serve as an agreed 

upon foundation for preparing budget requests and for informational briefings of affected Tribal Governments and 

Hanford stakeholders. The report shall also serve as the basis for annual discussions among USDOE, EPA and 

Ecology on how and when the USDOE will complete cleanup, how Congressional appropriations for the Hanford 

Site for that year may affect assumptions presented in the report, and how milestone changes and adjustments will 

affect lifecycle scope, schedule and cost.

Without limiting any DOE obligation under any other provisions of this agreement, and without limiting any DOE 

obligation to disclose information that is otherwise publicly available, nothing in this milestone shall be construed, 

either alone or in combination with any other provision of the HFFACO, to require disclosures related to internal 

federal budget deliberations.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-3

Figure 1-1. Hanford Site Map Showing Principal Areas Designated for Cleanup.

1.2.1 Hanford Cleanup Goals

The overarching cleanup goals are noted in Table 1-2. These goals embody more than 20 years of 

dialogue among the Tri-Party agencies, Tribal Nations, State of Oregon, stakeholders, and the public. 

The goals carry forward key values captured in earlier forums such as the Hanford Future Site Uses

Working Group, the Tank Waste Task Force, Hanford summits, and Hanford Advisory Board (HAB)

Exposure Scenario Workshops, as well as approximately 300 advice letters issued by the HAB 

(http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab). These goals help guide all aspects of cleanup and help set 

priorities to apply resources and sequence cleanup efforts for the greatest benefit. Cleanup activities at 

various areas of the Site support the achievement of one or more of these goals.

The cleanup goals reflect DOE’s recognition that the Columbia River is a critical resource for the people 

and ecology of the Pacific Northwest. The 50-mile stretch of the river that flows through the Hanford 

Site, known as the Hanford Reach, is the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River in the 

United States. As one of the largest rivers in North America, the Columbia’s waters support a multitude 

of uses that are vital to the economic and environmental wellbeing of the region; it is particularly 

important in sustaining the culture of Native Americans.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-4

Table 1-2. Cleanup Goals Identified for the Hanford Site.1

Goals for Cleanup

Goal 1: Protect the Columbia River.

Goal 2: Restore groundwater to its beneficial use to protect human health, the environment, and the Columbia 

River.

Goal 3:

Clean up River Corridor waste sites and facilities to

• Protect groundwater and the Columbia River

• Shrink the active cleanup footprint to the Central Plateau

• Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 4:

Clean up Central Plateau waste sites and facilities to

• Protect groundwater and the Columbia River

• Minimize the footprint of areas requiring long-term waste management activities

• Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 5:

• Safely mitigate and remove the threat of Hanford’s tank waste

• Safely store tank waste until it is retrieved for treatment

• Safely and effectively immobilize tank waste

• Close tank farms and mitigate the impacts from past releases of tank waste to the ground.

Goal 6: Safely manage and transfer legacy materials scheduled for offsite disposition, including special nuclear 

material (including plutonium), spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, and immobilized high-level waste.

Goal 7: Consolidate waste treatment, storage, and disposal operations on the Central Plateau.

Goal 8:

Develop and implement institutional controls and long-term stewardship activities that protect human 

health, the environment, and Hanford’s unique cultural, historical, and ecological resources after 

cleanup activities are completed.

1DOE/RL-2009-10, 2013, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

1.2.2 Hanford Cleanup and Management Areas

Hanford cleanup is overseen at DOE Headquarters (HQ) by the Office of Environmental Management 

(EM), and is directed and implemented locally by two DOE field offices: the Richland Operations Office 

(RL) and the Office of River Protection (ORP).5 RL manages cleanup of most of the Hanford Site and 

provides human resource, administration, and security services, as well as physical infrastructure 

necessary to perform the cleanup. ORP was established in response to section 3139 of the Strom 

Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 to manage the River Protection 

Project (RPP). The RPP is responsible for the safe storage, retrieval, and transfer of tank waste currently 

stored in the 200 Area tank farms; construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP)

to process and immobilize the tank waste in a process known as vitrification; and associated tank farm 

operation, maintenance, engineering, and construction activities.

Hanford cleanup focuses on two broad geographic areas: The River Corridor and the Central Plateau. 

Tank waste cleanup is a separate cleanup component located in the Central Plateau. The River Corridor 

includes approximately 220 square miles of the Hanford Site, encompassing the 100 and 300 Areas along 

the south shore of the Columbia River, portions of the 400 and 600 Areas, and the contiguous lands that 

extend to the Central Plateau boundaries. This includes a considerable land area not directly affected by 

production operations (non-operational areas). The 100 Area contains nine retired plutonium production 

reactors, numerous support facilities, and solid and liquid waste disposal sites that have contaminated soil 

and groundwater. The 300 Area, located north of the city of Richland, includes former fuel fabrication 

facilities, nuclear research and development facilities, and associated solid and liquid waste disposal sites 

that have contaminated soil and groundwater. The non-operational areas include substantial land area 

 

5

In addition to the ongoing cleanup mission, numerous research and environmental support activities are conducted at Hanford by 

the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is overseen by DOE’s Office of Science, Pacific Northwest Site Office.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-5

adjacent to the 100 and 300 Areas and extending to the Central Plateau that was never used for 

production operations.

For sites in the River Corridor, the goal of remedial action is to restore groundwater to drinking water 

standards wherever practicable and to achieve ambient water quality standards in the groundwater before

it discharges into the Columbia River. In those instances where remedial action objectives are not 

achievable in a reasonable time frame, or are determined to be technically impracticable, programs will be 

implemented to limit contaminant migration and prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater. 

River Corridor Cleanup work also removes sources of contamination close to the Columbia River to the 

Central Plateau for final disposal. The intent is to shrink the footprint of active cleanup to within the 

Central Plateau by removing excess facilities and remediating waste sites. Cleanup actions will support 

anticipated future land uses consistent with the Hanford Reach National Monument, where applicable, 

and the Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement

(DOE/EIS-0222-F).

The River Corridor has been divided into six geographic areas to obtain and implement source and 

groundwater cleanup remedies. These decisions will provide comprehensive coverage for all areas within 

the River Corridor and will incorporate ongoing interim action cleanup activities. Cleanup levels will be 

achieved that support the anticipated land uses of conservation and preservation for most of this area and 

industrial use for the 300 Area. At the conclusion of cleanup actions, the Federal Government will retain 

ownership of most land in the River Corridor and will implement LTS activities to ensure protection of 

human health and the environment.

The Central Plateau consists of about 75 square miles in the central portion of the Hanford Site and

includes an Inner Area (about 10 square miles) and Outer Area (about 65 square miles). The Inner Area 

contains major nuclear fuel processing, waste management, and disposal facilities. The Inner Area will be 

dedicated to long-term waste management and containment of residual contamination. The Outer Area is 

that portion of the Central Plateau outside the boundary of the Inner Area. The Outer Area will be 

remediated to be protective of human health, the environment, and groundwater. Cleanup levels will 

support future reasonably anticipated land uses. Completing cleanup of the Outer Area will shrink the 

footprint of the active cleanup area by an additional 65 square miles leaving just the Inner Area.

Cleanup of the Central Plateau is highly complex because of the large number of waste sites, surplus 

facilities, active treatment and disposal facilities, and areas of deep soil contamination. Past discharges of 

more than 450 billion gallons of liquid waste and cooling water to the soil have resulted in about 

65 square miles of contaminated groundwater across the Site (DOE/RL-2017-66, Hanford Site 

Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2017). Today, some plumes extend far beyond the plateau.

Containing and remediating these plumes remains a high priority. For areas of groundwater contamination 

in the Central Plateau, the goal is to restore the aquifer to achieve drinking water standards. In those 

instances where remediation goals are not achievable in a reasonable time frame, programs will be 

implemented to contain the plumes, prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater, and evaluate further 

risk reduction opportunities as new technologies become available. Near-term actions will be taken to 

control plume migration until remediation goals are achieved.

At the completion of cleanup efforts, some residual hazardous and radioactive contamination will remain, 

both in surface disposal facilities and in subsurface media within portions of the Inner Area. DOE’s goal 

is to limit the area used for long-term waste management activities that require institutional controls to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Tank waste cleanup focuses on retrieving and treating Hanford’s tank waste, and closing or remediating 

the tank farms. The tank farms comprise 18 distinct waste storage units that include 177 underground 

storage tanks (149 single-shell tanks [SST] and 28 double-shell tanks [DST]) located in the Inner Area of 

the Central Plateau. The storage tanks range in capacity from about 55,000 to 1,250,000 gallons and, in 

total, contain approximately 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste from past processing 

operations. Sixty-seven of the SSTs are confirmed or presumed to have collectively leaked up to 1 million
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-6

gallons. In some areas, releases from some SST farms have reached groundwater. DOE expects these 

impacts to groundwater could increase in the future unless near-term actions are taken.

Today, actions are being taken to slow the movement of contaminants that were previously released. 

DOE also is containing and recovering those contaminants once they reach groundwater. A key step in 

reducing the risk that tank waste poses to human health and the environment is retrieval, treatment and 

disposition/disposal of the tank waste. A number of associated tank waste facilities, waste transfer lines, 

the 242-A Evaporator, and the WTP (under construction) are associated with the tank waste cleanup

component. This component is one of Hanford’s most challenging legacies.

Significant portions of the Hanford Site have been designated and preserved as part of the Hanford Reach 

National Monument (Figure 1-1). Much cleanup work has been accomplished within the designated 

monument area, and remaining work is expected to be completed within the next few years either as part 

of the River Corridor or Central Plateau cleanup project. DOE is coordinating with the U.S. Department 

of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies to provide care and maintenance of the 

Hanford Reach National Monument lands. The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) authorized the Manhattan Project 

National Historical Park. The B Reactor, the world’s first production reactor, is a signature facility of the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

DOE leases Hanford Site land to several non-DOE entities, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational 

Wave Observatory and the State of Washington, which in turn leases land to US Ecology, Inc., a private 

firm that operates burial grounds for commercial radioactive low-level waste. DOE leases land to Energy 

Northwest (a consortium of public utility companies), which operates Washington’s only operating 

commercial nuclear power reactor, the Columbia Generating Station. These operations are not part of 

cleanup at Hanford and are not included in the LCR.

1.3 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES

Cleanup is achieved through an ongoing process for making and then implementing cleanup decisions in 

accordance with approved work plans and procedures, which are the bases for performing 

cleanup actions. When making cleanup decisions, the Tri-Party agencies ensure compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations, compare various cleanup alternatives, consider the interests of the public 

and other affected parties, consult with Tribal Nations, and document selected cleanup actions in legally 

binding agreements. 

In portions of the cleanup, the Tri-Party agencies have agreed to schedule final cleanup decisions until a 

time when more information and experience has been gained, or after certain facilities are no 

longer needed. For example, decisions on cleaning up the T Plant Canyon Building in the Central Plateau 

will not be made until the Tri-Party agencies have determined when T Plant will not be needed to support 

Hanford cleanup.

The LCR is required to include scope, schedule, and cost information for the entire Hanford Site 

regardless of whether final cleanup decisions have been made. Where cleanup decisions are not known 

(i.e., there are alternatives being considered) or are only partially defined (i.e., not final), the LCR base 

case (low-range estimate) assumes the options representing the reasonable upper cost bound for the range 

of plausible alternatives are implemented. The low-range estimate, as presented in the LCR, is predicated 

on the selected scope within the framework of the assumptions and constraints established for the 

lifecycle analysis. These bases introduce several concepts that are not fully defined in TPA M-036-01:

 Cleanup decisions. How are cleanup decisions made and when are they considered to be final 

decisions?

 Alternatives. How are alternatives considered when making cleanup decisions and determining 

what cleanup actions should be performed?
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-7

 Reasonable upper bound. How is a reasonable upper bound defined for a range of alternatives 

and how are an upper bound cost and schedule calculated?

Appendix A describes the multiple kinds of cleanup decisions made at Hanford and identifies decisions 

that are considered to be final for the Site. Appendix B describes future actions required to complete 

Hanford cleanup and presents information on plausible alternatives for future cleanup actions. Table 1-3

lists the cleanup actions for which final cleanup decisions have not yet been made.

Table 1-3. Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made.

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

• Disposition N Reactor

• Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

• Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

• Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use 

• Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by PNNL

• Disposition 100 Area former Orchard 

Contaminated Soil Sites (100-OL-1 OU)

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

• Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 OU)

• Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil 

Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, 200-CW-3 OUs)

• Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium 

Finishing Plant

• Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CB-1 OU)

• Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU)

• Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 OU)

• Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CR-1 OU)

• Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites

• Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

• Remediate Solid Waste Landfill and Non-Radioactive 

Dangerous Waste Landfill (200-SW-1 OU)

• Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal 

Facilities

• Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, 

and Disposal Facilities

• Remediate Pipelines, Pits, Diversion Boxes and 

Associated Tanks (200-IS-1 OU)

• Remediate Land Disposal Units (200-SW-2 OU)

• Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 OU)

• Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 OU)

• Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and 

Facilities

• Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone 

(200-DV-1 OU)

• Restore 200 West Groundwater (200-UP-1 OU) to 

Beneficial Use

• Restore 200 East Groundwater 

(200-PO-1/200-BP-5 OUs) to Beneficial Use

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

• Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

• Tank Waste Treatment

• Secondary Waste Treatment

• Double-Shell Tank Closure

• Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

Closure

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

OU = operable unit.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

The LCR includes many assumptions about future cleanup actions and decisions, considers the ranges of 

plausible alternatives for specific cleanup actions, and what would be reasonable upper bounds for the 

ranges of alternatives. Alternatives and upper bounds for future cleanup actions contemplate potential 

decisions, events, contingencies, and cost and/or schedule uncertainties, and take into account the views 

and values of regulators, Tribal Nations, and stakeholders.

The Tri-Party agencies have agreed the LCR should consider developing in-depth information about some 

of the future cleanup actions for which final decisions have not been made. The Tri-Party agencies 

identified approximately 33 cleanup actions for which final cleanup decisions are still needed (Table 1-3), 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-8

and Appendix B (Table B-6) proposes a schedule for preparing cost estimate alternative analyses for these 

cleanup actions. The Tri-Party agencies considered the remaining cleanup actions to be analyzed and 

agreed that the 2019 LCR would not include an alternatives analysis.

1.4 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

1.4.1 Incorporated Changes

Written feedback related to prior LCRs was considered when preparing this report. Feedback received on 

the previous LCRs is available on the DOE website at www.hanford.gov.

Significant changes made in the 2019 LCR include the following:

 Updated cost and schedule planning basis for each project baseline summary (PBS) to incorporate 

updated scope, regulatory changes, and contract changes so this information reflects the RL and 

ORP planning cases that are current as of August 31, 2018.

– RL-0011 [Nuclear Materials] NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP - Cleanup and 

demolition to slab-on-grade of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) complex is expected 

to be completed in FY 2019 using funds carried over from prior years plus $46.2 million 

in the FY 2019 budget. Future subsurface investigation and cleanup will be done under

Nuclear Facility [Decontamination and Decommissioning] D&D-Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040).

– RL-0012 [Spent Nuclear Fuel] SNF Stabilization and Disposition – Cleanup and 

stabilization of the SNF sludge from the K West Reactor Fuel Storage Basin is scheduled 

to be completed in FY 2019 using funds carried over from FY 2018 plus $13.9 million in 

the FY 2019 budget. Approximately $5 million is included in FY 2020 due to cost and/or 

schedule uncertainty. The subsequent105-KW Basin deactivation and removal work 

scope will be performed under Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project 

(PBS RL-0041) and the subsequent sludge disposition work scope will be performed 

under Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C).

– RL-0100 Richland Community and Regulatory Support – Support for Washington State 

Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Health included in this PBS 

in previous LCRs is now included in Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201).

– PBS RL-0201 Hanford Sitewide Services – This new PBS was established in FY 2017 

and consolidates costs that were allocated to several RL PBSs in previous LCRs.

– PBS ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition – The ORP 

planning case includes the baseline case of the River Protection Project System Plan

(ORP-11242, Rev. 8 [System Plan 8]). System Plan 8 is a computer modeling exercise, 

which evaluated a set of 11 technical scenarios and provided rough cost and schedule 

estimates for completing the RPP mission at the Hanford Site. While the baseline case 

reflects a theoretically achievable technical approach for completing the RPP mission 

based on conditions, constraints, assumptions, and direction existing at the time the 

System Plan 8 modeling effort began in early 2016, it does not account for delays 

associated with addressing tank vapors-related issues and makes other technical 

assumptions that have not been proven to be implementable. The baseline case identifies 

estimated tank waste retrieval and treatment completion dates that incorporate the revised 

milestones contained in the Amended Consent Decree (DOE and Ecology 2016). Under 

the baseline technical approach System Plan 8 forecasts a significant increase in lifecycle 

cost and schedule for completing the RPP mission.

– PBS ORP-0060 Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – The 

ORP planning case consists of an approved baseline change to implement the capability 

for Direct Feed Low Activity Waste (DFLAW) to the WTP’s Low-Activity Waste 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-9

(LAW) Facility and parametric evaluations performed by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to estimate the costs for completing construction of the High-Level 

Waste Facility (HLW) and Pretreatment Facility (PT).

– PBS ORP-0070 Waste Treatment Plant Operations – This PBS includes activities 

required to support the treatment of tank wastes in the plant including the implementation 

of the strategy of the DFLAW approach. The lifecycle costs for this project are currently

within ORP-0014 and will be shown in ORP-0070 in future reports.

 Addition of a high-range cost estimate for each PBS incorporating an unconstrained estimate for 

identified risks and the resulting cost impact toward achieving the cleanup goals. It should be 

noted that the high-range estimate is intended to ensure transparency among all stakeholders 

involved in the Hanford cleanup program of the inherent risks associated with achieving the 

agreed upon cleanup goals (i.e., milestones). The risk analysis methodologies and results are 

provided in Appendix D.

1.4.2 Future Report Changes

The scope, schedule, and cost information presented in this LCR is current as of August 31, 2018. 

This section summarizes regulatory decisions and other changes that may have occurred or been 

completed after that date. Other pending changes that are not reflected in this LCR but will be 

incorporated in future reports also are noted.

Because several complex technical issues arose during design and construction activities that adversely 

affected ORP’s ability to meet negotiated milestones in the 2010 Consent Decree, these milestone dates 

were extended in an Amended Consent Decree issued by the court on March 11, 2016 with a Second 

Amended Consent Decree issued on April 12, 2016. As a result of that litigation, the Court extended the 

start of initial operations milestone date for the WTP to December 31, 2036, thus necessitating changes to 

the TPA end dates for completing all remaining SST retrievals and completing all tank waste treatment 

commitments; these milestone dates were predicated on the WTP start of initial operations by December 

31, 2022, as negotiated in the 2010 Consent Decree. These and related TPA milestones were the subject 

of formal negotiations between ORP, EPA, and Ecology in 2018. The outcome of those negotiations and 

any resulting TPA milestone changes will be incorporated in a future LCR.

The LCR only provides a snapshot of a complex, ongoing planning process, and the RL and ORP 

planning cases in this report have only been partially aligned. Continued alignment and refinement will be 

incorporated in future LCRs.

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE

In developing the LCR milestone, the Tri-Party agencies sought to align submittal of the report with the 

annual Federal budget planning process. For most FYs, Federal planning begins about 2 years before the 

funded work is executed (Figure 1-2). The cycle begins when DOE field offices receive FY budget 

planning guidance from the President of the United States, DOE HQ, and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). During the next 12 to 15 months, the DOE field offices develop their budgets, submit 

them to HQ and OMB for review, and then the President submits his budget proposals annually to 

Congress. Approximately 8 months later (under normal circumstances), before the start of the new 

Federal FY (October 1), Congress approves a budget, funding is made available, and DOE begins 

executing work to the approved budget.

As shown in Figure 1-2, the Tri-Party agencies scheduled the LCR to be completed in time to support the 

field offices’ budget planning process each year. Each LCR will have the latest information available 

when planning begins for the next 2-year budget cycle. The period of time for developing the LCR each 

year overlaps with the funding approval process for the current budget execution year and with the HQ 

and OMB review of funding requests for the next FY.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-10

Figure 1-2. Relationship Between DOE Budget Planning and LCR Schedule.

1.6 PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OVERVIEW

This section introduces the Federal budget formulation process and DOE’s overall planning and budget 

development practices. A general understanding of common terms and methodology will be useful later 

in this LCR, particularly where information about project costs is presented.

1.6.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process

Each year, DOE formulates budget requests as part of the Congressional appropriations process. The

planning cycle begins during December and January, nearly 2 years before the start of a budgeted fiscal 

year. The process begins with budget formulation where funding requirements are analyzed, prioritized, 

requested, and received. Budget requests are submitted by the DOE field offices to HQ in early spring and

continue with post-formulation monitoring and responding to questions to estimate impacts of actual or 

potential changes to budget requests. The process ends with receipt of Congressional appropriations. 

DOE’s budget process occurs in four distinct phases:

1. Field Budget Process. This is the first phase of DOE’s annual budget formulation process. RL and 

ORP submit field budget data to HQ for use in the corporate review budget process.

2. HQ Corporate Review Budget Process. The HQ organizations use field budget data and spring 

planning decisions to develop initial organizational budget requests that are jointly evaluated and 

considered in DOE’s internal budget review.

3. OMB Budget Review Process. This process is the principal mechanism for preparing DOE’s annual 

budget submission to the OMB, which is responsible for assembling the President’s annual budget 

request to Congress.

4. Congressional Budget Review Process. This process determines DOE’s final appropriations for the 

next Federal fiscal year based on policy determinations in conjunction with Federal budget 

deliberations by Congress.

Annual appropriations from Congress are allocated to the responsible DOE projects. Congressional 

budgets commonly provide different allocations, include additional requirements, or provide other 

directions that can affect project planning. If adjustments are required, DOE goes through a scheduling 

and resource-leveling process to adjust plans and accommodate the authorized budget. Sometimes this 

can result in cost and schedule changes to reconfigure activities resulting from budget or other constraints. 

DOE must determine the appropriations that will be used to fund each task to comply with applicable 

budget direction. Based on final Congressional appropriations, budget formulation, project planning, and 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-11

replanning are intertwined and involve iterative processes with similar steps. DOE’s process for defining 

and managing projects and their baseline summaries are described in section 1.6.2.

1.6.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation Process

DOE follows a structured approach that organizes all EM activities into discrete projects. The following 

summarizes key components of DOE’s cleanup project management approach.

Project Baseline Summary (PBS). EM projects that have common attributes, such as geographic 

location or activity type, typically are grouped as a PBS. Congressional funding authorizations typically

are also allocated by PBS. Each PBS contains a logical grouping of work activities organized in discrete 

projects or activities by establishing technical scope, schedule, and cost baselines; defining performance 

metrics; and providing financial history, budget request justification, as well as other information

(e.g., programmatic risk and compliance drivers). DOE may define a cleanup project as the entire PBS, or 

a project may be a portion of a single or multiple PBSs. A PBS or project may include operations and 

facility support activities such as surveillance and maintenance (S&M).

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The work scope associated with each PBS is further organized into 

discrete WBS elements. The WBS provides a product-/activities-oriented system to arrange, define, and 

depict all work in a structured framework. This step is essential to developing comprehensive bases for 

planning and managing project-specific scope, schedule, and cost. Whether the government or a 

contractor performs the elements, the structure must be compatible with cost estimating and 

scheduling requirements.

Resource Allocation. The next step is to define the resources necessary to execute each WBS element. 

Resources include labor, materials, and equipment. These resources are a part of work packages, which 

define the work for each WBS element. Planning packages are used when the work has not been 

completely defined. Budget is assigned to planning packages based on a mature estimate until such time 

as a work package can be developed.

Project Master Schedule. With a solid WBS and well-developed work packages in place, DOE can 

develop a master schedule that contains a reliable estimate of the total time required to accomplish each 

task and the sequence of execution. The master schedule should reveal tasks that must be completed or 

partially completed before other tasks begin. These interrelationships help define the project’s critical 

path (the sequence of activities that must be completed on schedule for the entire project to be completed 

on schedule). Task schedules evolve by balancing the work to be done against the required completion 

date to achieve project milestones.

Resource Leveling. All resources are finite and not all work can be accomplished simultaneously, so 

work must be organized to ensure existing resources are not overtaxed or underutilized; e.g., an 

engineering or craft labor individual cannot be scheduled to accomplish more than one work package 

simultaneously and the same piece of equipment cannot be operated in more than one location at a time. 

The sequencing of tasks, therefore, addresses not only the order of things to be accomplished, but the 

availability and optimal use of resources. Resource leveling may result in the need to revise or update a 

project’s master schedule.

Uncertainty and Project Risk. Risk management is essential for project management. Cost and schedule 

uncertainty are included in the development of Total Project Cost and the approved DOE planning case 

and are reserved to accommodate additional work scope related to risk events that may occur from 

conditions and events that were not known during project planning and other unanticipated changes

or uncertainties. This includes estimates for cost and schedule uncertainty based on risk analysis methods 

that comply with DOE guidelines and orders. These estimates are identified as “cost and/or schedule 

uncertainty” in the Appendix C tables. The risk analysis results supporting the high-range estimate are 

documented in Appendix D.

Uncertainty addresses cost-based and schedule-based impacts on a project. Cost uncertainty is the portion 

of the project budget that is available for risk uncertainty related to the project, but is held outside the 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-12

contract budget and is part of the government’s planning case estimate. Schedule uncertainty is the 

risk-based, quantitatively derived portion of the overall project schedule duration that is estimated to 

allow for time-related risk impacts and other project uncertainties.

Cost and schedule uncertainty is established to manage or cover the cost of unexpected events 

(e.g., changed conditions discovered by environmental sampling and characterization as cleanup 

proceeds). Money and time that have been reserved to address risks may be used to account for their 

effects or the handling actions necessary to mitigate or avoid risk events, but may not be used for work 

that is outside the scope of the planning case. Uncertainty is calculated based on DOE risks that are 

contained in a centralized risk register for each project. The risks are derived from various sources 

including project team members, project documentation and review teams. These risks are documented 

and are used in calculating cost uncertainty. To identify the required amount of uncertainty, a quantitative 

risk analysis (using a Monte Carlo methodology) is performed using the project schedule, complete with 

the costs of each work activity, and applying risks and uncertainty to the schedule. Stochastic modeling is 

used to develop a probability distribution and to calculate project cost and schedule uncertainty.

Escalation. In a budget request, cost is represented in escalated dollars. Escalation is the provision in a 

cost estimate for increases in cost of such resources as equipment, material, and labor to account for 

continuing price changes over time. Escalation is used to estimate the future cost of a project or to bring 

historical costs to the present. Most cost estimating is done in “current” dollars and then escalated to the 

time when the project will be accomplished. An escalation rate of between 2 and 4 percent per year 

is used.

1.7 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST FOR HANFORD CLEANUP

RL and ORP have organized their work into PBSs. These PBSs include detailed work breakdowns to 

describe in greater context the scope of DOE’s projects and operations at Hanford. Hanford cleanup 

encompasses 14 PBSs; eleven managed by RL and three managed by ORP, as shown in Table 1-4 and

discussed further in other chapters of this LCR.

Table 1-4. Hanford Site Cleanup Project Baseline Summary.

PBS Title

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and Dispostion-PFP

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Dispostion

RL-0013C Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area

RL-0020 Safeguards and Security

RL-0030 Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford

RL-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project

RL-0042 Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project

RL-0100 Richland Community and Regulatory Support

RL-0201 Hanford Sitewide Services

RL-LTS Long-Term Stewardship

TBD Final Reactor Disposition

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

ORP-0060 Major Construction–Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

ORP-0070 Waste Treatment Plant Operations

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TBD = to be determined.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-13

Table 1-5 shows Level 2 and Level 3 work breakdown associated with a single PBS. This presents a 

typical EM cleanup project down to a third tier of planning detail. Most work at Hanford is similarly 

broken down to at least Level 3.

Table 1-5. Example Cleanup Project Baseline Summary and Work Breakdown to Level 3.

PBS (Level 1) RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford

Level 2 RL-0040.02 Remediation of Geographic Areas

Level 3

RL-0040.02.30 PFP Implementation Area

RL-0040.02.31 U Plant Implementation Area

RL-0040.02.36 B Plant Implementation Area

RL-0040.02.39 PUREX Implementation Area

RL-0040.02.40 T Plant Implementation Area

RL-0040.02.41 REDOX Implementation Area

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

Depending on the complexity of such factors as work scope, project maturity, contract period of 

performance, DOE’s contractors typically plan their near-term work down to Level 6 and further to 

manage and schedule designs, approvals, and resources needed for their projects. This scope, schedule,

and cost information rolls up and is included in the upper tier planning information. Table 1-6 is an 

example of work planning to Level 6 and how it incorporates Levels 1 through 5.

Table 1-6. Example of a Level 6 Work Breakdown Structure.

PBS (Level 1) RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D– Remainder of Hanford

Level 2 0040.50 Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste Sites

Level 3 0040.50.02 Central Plateau Nuclear Facilities Min-Safe

Level 4 0040.50.02.02 U Plant Min-Safe

Level 5 0040.50.02.02.02 U Plant Min-Safe Maintenance

Level 6 0040.50.02.02.02.13 U Plant Min-Safe Corrective Maintenance

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

For the years beyond the contractor’s near-term work, DOE maintains “out-year” planning estimates for 

the remaining cleanup. Out-year planning estimates are not as well developed as near-term planning 

(typically no further than Level 3 or Level 4).

Cost information will be updated each year to reflect work completion, recent decisions, and other 

changes affecting the lifecycle scope (e.g., upgrades or infrastructure modernization to support major 

projects). Chapters 3.0 through 6.0 summarize information at PBS Level 2, including work breakdown for 

each PBS, and descriptions of the lifecycle work scope and associated work elements. Each chapter 

provides estimated cleanup costs for corresponding work elements.

Appendix C provides more cost detail at Level 3 for near-term work and at Level 2 for all Hanford 

cleanup supporting the low-range estimate. Appendix D provides the detail for the high-range estimate.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-14

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-1

2.0 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SUMMARY

This chapter presents the overall Hanford cleanup scope, schedule, and cost. Chapters 3.0 through 6.0, as 

well as Appendix C and Appendix D, present additional details on the PBSs that cover the lifecycle 

cleanup work scope in the three major scope components and mission support.

2.1 HANFORD SITE LIFECYCLE SCOPE

Cleanup consists of three major scope components: River Corridor, Central Plateau, and tank waste (the 

tank waste component is contained geographically within the Central Plateau). Cleanup also includes 

mission support activities that provide key infrastructure and services for Hanford. Cleanup is a complex 

task that involves multiple contractors performing discrete, yet interdependent, scopes of work. The scope 

of cleanup work is broken down into a series of PBSs. The prime contract related to each PBS is noted in 

Table 2-1, which describes the general scope of each PBS and the chapter/section where it is addressed.

Table 2-1. Hanford Project Baseline Summaries (PBS) – RL and ORP Contracts. (2 pages)

LCR 

Section PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope Prime Contract

CHAPTER 3.0 – RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

River 

Corridor 

(Section 3.1)

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization 

and Disposition

K Basins Closure 

Project

Removal of the K Basin sludge, 

found SNF and fuel scrap. 

PRC

River 

Corridor 

(Section 3.2)

RL-0041 Nuclear Facility 

D&D–River Corridor 

Closure Project

None Cleanup of the River Corridor 

waste sites and facilities, including 

placing the reactors in interim safe 

storage (this scope excludes 

groundwater remediation, which is 

addressed through PBS RL-0030). 

PRC

Includes 105-KW SNF Basin 

deactivation and removal work 

scope that was transferred from 

RL-0012 in FY 2012.

River 

Corridor 

(Section 3.3)

TBD TBD Final Reactor 

Disposition

Disposition of 100 Area 

production reactors (excluding 

B Reactor).

TBD

CHAPTER 4.0 – CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.1)

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and 

Disposition–PFP

PFP Closure Project Demolition of aboveground 

facilities and structures at PFP.

PRC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.2)

RL-0013C Solid Waste 

Stabilization and 

Disposition–

200 Area

Solid and Liquid 

Waste Disposition 

Project

Waste management operations 

including treatment, storage, and 

disposal of Hanford Site waste 

streams and offsite wastes1.

PRC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.3)

RL-0030 Soil and Water 

Remediation–

Groundwater/ 

Vadose Zone

Groundwater Project Decision-making process for 

groundwater and waste sites and 

Hanford Sitewide groundwater 

remediation.

PRC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.4) 

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility 

D&D–Remainder of 

Hanford

Central Plateau 

Remediation

Cleanup of the Central Plateau 

waste sites and facilities, including 

canyon facilities.

PRC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.5)

RL-0042 Nuclear Facility 

D&D–Fast Flux Test 

Facility Project

None Demolition of the Fast Flux Test 

Facility and associated waste sites 

and structures.

PRC
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-2

Table 2-1. Hanford Project Baseline Summaries (PBS) – RL and ORP Contracts. (2 pages)

LCR 

Section PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope Prime Contract

CHAPTER 5.0 – TANK WASTE CLEANUP

Tank Waste 

Cleanup 

(Section 5.1)

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid 

Tank Waste 

Stabilization and 

Disposition

None Operations, retrieval, treatment, 

and closure of the single-shell and 

double-shell tanks.

TOC

Tank Waste 

Cleanup 

(Section 5.2)

ORP-0060 Major Construction–

Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant

None Construction of the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant.

WTPC

Tank Waste 

Cleanup 

(Section 5.2)

ORP-0070 Waste Treatment 

Plant Operations

None Activities required to support the 

treatment of tank wastes in the 

WTP including implementation of 

the DFLAW strategy.

TOC

CHAPTER 6.0 – MISSION SUPPORT

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.1)

RL-0020 Safeguards and 

Security

None Protection of the Hanford Site, 

special materials, resources, and 

workers.

MSC

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.2)

RL-0100 Richland Community 

and Regulatory

Support

None Support for community 

interaction, including Hanford 

Advisory Board, Oregon 

Department of Energy and other 

entities.

Various 

grants

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.3)

RL-0201 Hanford Sitewide 

Services

None Management, repair, and capital 

upgrades to infrastructure and 

other Sitewide services.

MSC

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.4)

RL-LTS Long-Term 

Stewardship (LTS)

Post-cleanup LTS 2Infrastructure support, surveillance 

and maintenance, community 

support, and management 

activities following completion of 

cleanup activities.

TBD

1Waste from other sites will not be received until the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant is operational.

2See section 6.3 for the current ongoing LTS program.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

LCR = Lifecycle Report.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

NM = nuclear materials.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TBD = to be determined

TOC = Tank Operations Contract.

WTPC = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Contract.

2.2 HANFORD CLEANUP SCHEDULE

The remaining cleanup schedule covers activities for waste cleanup and waste management, leading to 

transition of portions of the Hanford Site to LTS. Chapters 3.0 through 6.0, as well as Appendix C and 

Appendix D, present additional schedule details for the River Corridor, Central Plateau, tank waste, and 

mission support activities.

To support cleanup, RL has responsibility for mission support activities related to safeguards and 

security, community and regulatory support, and Hanford Sitewide Services. These activities align with 

the cleanup through FY 2078, as represented in the baseline planning case (low-range estimate). RL has 

planned for an LTS period that runs from FY 2079 through FY 2095 as part of mission support.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-3

Figure 2-1 shows River Corridor cleanup complete by FY 2041, final reactor disposition complete by 

FY 2068, tank waste cleanup complete by FY 2069, and Central Plateau cleanup complete by FY 2078 

(including schedule uncertainty).

Figure 2-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule.

2.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COSTS

The low-range of the remaining cleanup costs6are estimated to be about $323.2 billion to complete the 

scope for the River Corridor, final reactor disposition, Central Plateau, tank waste, and mission support 

activities, and LTS. RL’s scope accounts for about $83.3 billion of the total costs and ORP’s scope 

accounts for about $239.9 billion. These estimates include cost uncertainty because many of the final 

cleanup decisions have not been made. Once these decisions are made, estimates will be revised. The 

high-range of the remaining cleanup costs are estimated at approximately $677.0 billion. ORP’s scope 

accounts for about $548.4 billion of the total high-range cost while the RL scope accounts for 

approximately $128.6 billion.

Figure 2-2 summarizes the estimated remaining cleanup cost for RL and ORP for both the low- and highranges. Figure 2-3 shows the low-range remaining cleanup costs by year for RL and ORP. Figure 2-4

summarizes the low-range estimated cleanup costs by RL and ORP PBSs. Figure 2-5 shows the Hanford 

high-range remaining cleanup costs by year. Table 2-2 summarizes the total estimated cleanup costs for 

each PBS, incorporating both the low- and high-ranges. The methodology for risk analysis and the 

detailed results are discussed in Appendix D.

 

6 The expression “cleanup costs” is used to represent the costs for those remaining actions that are necessary for DOE to fully 

meet all applicable environmental obligations and complete the Hanford Site cleanup mission.

FY2010 FY2020 FY2030 FY2040 FY2050 FY2060 FY2070 FY2080 FY2090 FY2100

Tank Waste Cleanup

Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule

The cleanup effort at the Hanford Site focuses on three major components with Mission Support activities 

that provide key infrastructure and services to the cleanup mission. The remaining schedule progresses 

from obtaining regulatory decisions, through designing cleanup remedies, to implementing those 

remedies, and finally, to the transition to long-term stewardship.

Central Plateau Cleanup

Mission Support

River Corridor Cleanup

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Final Reactor Disposition

Long-Term 

Stewardship
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-4

Figure 2-2. Hanford Site Estimated Cleanup Cost Distribution

by DOE Field Office.

Figure 2-3. Hanford Site Low-Range Remaining Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$83.3 

billion

$239.9 

billion

Low Range

($323.2 billion)

DOE-RL

DOE-ORP

$128.6 

billion

$548.4 

billion

High Range

($677.0 billion)

DOE-RL

DOE-ORP

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074 2079 2084 2089 2094

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

DOE-RL DOE-ORP

See Appendix C for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-5

Figure 2-4. Hanford Site Low-Range Remaining Cleanup Costs by Project Baseline Summary.

Figure 2-5. Hanford Site High-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year

(includes both RL and ORP).

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C for cost and schedule data.

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

201920242029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074 2079 2084 2089 2094 2099 2104 2109 2114 2119 2124

Costs (Billions $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D for risk methodology and results.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-6

Table 2-2. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimated Ranges by PBS.

Project Work Scope

Estimated Cleanup 

Costs

1

(Billion $)

RL Total Remaining Estimated Costs $83.3 - $128.6

NM Stabilization and Disposition - PFP (PBS RL 0011) $02

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL 0012) $03

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $11.5 - $15.1

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $10.1 - $23.9

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $9.6 - $10.5

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $20.6 - $26.8

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.8 - $2.0

Nuclear Facility D&D - Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) $1.0 - $1.1

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) $1.1 - $1.7

Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201) $20.4 - $32.8

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) $5.2 - $12.7

Final Reactor Disposition $1.9

ORP Total Remaining Estimated Costs $239.9 - $548.4

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $221.4 - $518.1

Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $18.5 - $30.3

Waste Treatment Plant Operations (PBS ORP-0070) $04

Total Remaining Estimated Costs $323.2 - $677.0

NOTE: The remaining estimated cleanup cost does not include the upper bound cost estimates prepared for selected future 

cleanup actions. These are summarized in Appendix B, Table B-5.

1Cost ranges have been shown in this table to reflect cost and schedule uncertainty; the lower number is used throughout this 

report. Values are rounded; see Appendix C for the low-range details and Appendix D for the high-range details.

2

Includes $46.2 million in FY 2019 only.

3

Includes $18.9 million in FY 2019 and FY 2020 only.

4

Includes $30 million in FY 2019 and FY 2020 only. WTP operational costs are currently within ORP-0014 and will be 

shown in ORP-0070 in future reports.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-1

3.0 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

The River Corridor, the area of the Hanford Site along the Columbia River, includes four production and 

operations areas:

 100 Area. Location of nine former production reactors, associated support facilities, and related 

waste sites.

 300 Area. Location of research and development facilities, former fuel fabrication facilities, and 

related waste sites.

 400 Area. Buildings and waste sites other than operating facilities, Fuels and Materials 

Examination Facility, and the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF).

 600 Area. Location of a major burial ground (618-11) with some additional soil and debris sites.

DOE manages the remaining River Corridor cleanup through the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor 

Closure Project (PBS RL-0041). PBS RL-0041 addresses cleanup of waste sites, burial grounds, and 

facilities in the 100, 300, 400, and 600 Areas and the interim safe storage (ISS) of the C, D, DR, F, H, 

KE, KW, and N Reactors. Section 3.2 discusses the scope of this project.

Although currently not considered to be a project, final reactor disposition will address cleanup of the 

100 Area surplus production reactors. Section 3.3 discusses the scope of this activity.

Groundwater cleanup is ongoing in the River Corridor. RL manages the groundwater cleanup through 

Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), which covers groundwater 

remediation for the entire Hanford Site. Groundwater associated with the River Corridor is discussed with

Central Plateau cleanup in section 4.3.

Cleanup is performed in accordance with interim and final RODs and action memoranda as listed in 

Appendix A and with key TPA milestones listed in Table 3-1. These TPA milestones provide the 

structure that the Tri-Party agencies have agreed to for Hanford priorities and scope sequencing.

Table 3-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones.

Milestone Title Compliance 

Date

Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041)

M-016-85A Complete remote excavation of 300-296 waste site. 9/30/2019

M-016-178 Initiate Deactivation of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/2019

M-016-85 Complete remedial actions for 300-296 waste site and disposition for 324 Building and 

ancillary buildings.

9/30/2021

M-016-86 Complete remedial actions for 618-11 Burial Ground in accordance with DOE/RL2014-13-ADD1.9/30/2021

M-016-181 Complete Deactivation, Demolition and Removal of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 9/30/2023

M-016-186 Initiate Soil Remediation Under 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/2023

M‐016‐00C Complete all response actions for the 100-K Area. 9/30/2024

M‐016‐143 Complete the interim response actions for the 100-K Area within the perimeter 

boundary and to the river for Phase 2 actions.

9/30/2024

M‐093‐27 Complete 105-KE and KW Reactor ISS. 9/30/2024

M‐089‐00 Complete closure of mixed waste units in 324 Building Cells B and D. TBD

M‐093‐00 Complete final disposal of 100 Areas surplus production reactor buildings. TBD

D&D = decontamination and 

decommissioning.

ISS = interim safe storage.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TBD = to be determined.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-2

3.1 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012)

Cleanup and stabilization of the SNF sludge from the K West Reactor Fuel Storage Basin is scheduled to 

be completed in FY 2019 using funds carried over from FY 2018 plus $13.9 million in the FY 2019 

budget. Approximately $5 million is included in FY 2020 due to cost and/or schedule uncertainty. The 

subsequent 105-KW Basin deactivation and removal work scope will be performed under PBS RL-0041

(see section 3.2). The subsequent sludge disposition work scope will be performed under PBS RL-0013C, 

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (see section 4.2).

3.2 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041)

The Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) will clean up the areas of 

Hanford located in the River Corridor in accordance with existing records of decision (ROD) and action 

memoranda (see Appendix A). Anticipated land uses for the River Corridor are described in 

DOE/EIS-0222-F and in the pursuant ROD. The River Corridor Closure Project established the following 

cleanup objectives:

 Remediate waste sites.

 Deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition (D4) of facilities.

 Place eight plutonium production reactors into ISS. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 depict C Reactor before 

and after the ISS process. Table 3-1 provides the status of the reactors. (Note B Reactor’s status 

as part of the newly established Manhattan Project National Historical Park.)

 Complete substantive remediation to allow the 100 and 300 Areas to be deleted from the National 

Priorities List.

 The River Corridor Closure Project includes remediation of the 618-11 Burial Ground.

Figure 3-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe Storage. Figure 3-2. C Reactor in Interim Safe Storage.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-3

Table 3-2. Reactor Status.

Reactor Status Remaining Activity

B

Named National Historic Landmark by 

U.S. Department of Interior in 2008. Reactor 

open for escorted public tours.

Operation, maintenance and management of B Reactor as a 

facility of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

C Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

D Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

DR Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

F Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

H Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

KE

Fuel storage basin demolished; continued 

deactivation, decommissioning, and 

demolition activities in preparation for 

emplacement of safe storage enclosure.

Reactor ISS began in 2011 and is scheduled for completion 

by 2021; final disposition of reactor block.

KW

Sludge removed; proceed with demolition of 

adjacent buildings and installation of safe 

storage enclosure to complete ISS activities.

ISS is scheduled for completion by 2024; final disposition 

of reactor block.

N Reactor placed in ISS. Final end state of the reactor has not been determined.

ISS = interim safe storage.

Table 3-3 summarizes the scope for the Level 2 work elements.

Table 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

River Corridor Cleanup

Includes work remaining to complete 100-K Area and 100-N Area remediation, including 

project management, demolition of K West Basin, disposition of K East and K West 

Reactors, remediation of the 618-11 burial ground and waste site 300-296 (contaminated 

soil below the 324 Building B Hot Cell), D4 of support structures, waste site closeout 

sampling and documentation, and waste site backfill and revegetation.

River Corridor 

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant Facilities

and Waste Sites

Includes radiation surveys, surface contamination treatment, sign replacement, 

tumbleweed collection and spraying, inactive waste sites min safe support, min safe for 

nuclear facilities (K West Basin and 324 Building), and min safe for general purpose 

facilities.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

Figure 3-3 presents the low-range remaining cleanup costs for PBS RL-0041 by FY, and Figure 3-4

presents the low-range remaining estimated costs by work element. The gap between FY 2029 and FY 

2031 is primarily caused by the anticipated schedule to obtain a final ROD to continue waste site 

remediation in the 100-K area.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-4

Figure 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 3-4. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-13 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-5

3.3 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION

Final reactor disposition will address cleanup of the 100 Area surplus production reactors in accordance 

with TPA M-093-00. Disposition of the 100 Area reactors (except for B Reactor, which is being 

preserved as a national historic landmark and is part of the newly established Manhattan Project National 

Historical Park) was one of the cost estimate alternative analyses evaluated in the 2011 LCR 

(DOE/RL-2010-25). See summary in Appendix B, Table B-5, River Corridor - Disposition 

100 Area Reactors.

Six reactors (C, D, DR, F, H, and N) have been placed in ISS configuration (see Table 3-2). KE Reactor 

has completed interim ISS and is in a minimum safe state; KE Reactor and KW Reactor are scheduled to 

complete ISS by FY 2024. After being placed in ISS, the reactors will undergo surveillance, monitoring, 

and maintenance for up to 75 years to allow radionuclides to decay. Following this period, the reactor 

blocks will be removed from their current locations and transported to the Central Plateau Inner Area 

for disposal.

The 2011 LCR identified the most plausible alternative for the reactors as safe storage followed by 

deferred one-piece removal. This alternative was developed and evaluated in a final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0119F, Final Environmental Impact Statement Decommissioning of Eight 

Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington) and in a subsequent engineering 

evaluation (DOE/RL-2005-45, Surplus Reactor Final Disposition Engineering Evaluation). DOE issued 

58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” in September 1993, which implements the recommendation for 

safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal of the surplus reactors. N Reactor was not included 

in the EIS because it was not available for decommissioning at the time of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) EIS and ISS was approved through the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process. Final disposition of N Reactor 

will be determined by a subsequent NEPA or CERCLA decision process. In the planning case presented 

in this report, N Reactor is assumed to undergo safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal.

Figure 3-5 presents the remaining estimated costs by fiscal year. The schedule is based on a 14-year 

implementation period for one-piece removal and completion of reactor removal by FY 2068 based on the 

ROD issue date of 1993 with a maximum 75-year storage period, so reactor removal would start by 

FY 2054. The estimated $1.9 billion to complete final reactor disposition by FY 2068 is the escalated 

$676 million removal cost (in 2010 constant dollars) presented in Table 4-5 of the 2011 LCR.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-6

Figure 3-5. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

3.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND 

UNCERTAINTIES

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, uncertainties are analyzed to estimate potential scope, schedule 

and cost changes. The following assumptions were identified for Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor 

Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) low-range estimate:

 Regulatory changes will not require additional activities (e.g., document revisions, additional 

sampling) that would significantly impact costs or schedules.

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operating facilities will need to be available to 

support Office of Science missions. After PBS RL-0041 is completed, the facility D&D/waste site 

cleanup work will transfer to PBS RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D – Remainder of Hanford.

 The Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council activities, including studies and Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) process will not significantly affect cost or schedule.

 Remaining costs for completion of the NRDAR process range from $5 million to $10 million with 

completion of the injury assessment and Restoration Compensation Plan by 2024.

 Any significant settlement funds for the NRDAR case would be obtained through the U.S. 

Department of Justice and the U.S. Judgement Settlement Fund.

Factors (risk and/or uncertainty) considered in determining the high-range estimate associated with the 

Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project work scope include, but are not limited, to:

 Contamination spread associated with the 618-11 burial ground

 Remediation is more extensive than planned

 Building/system degradation and failures during S&M mode

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-25 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-7

 Total volume of high-dose 300-296 material exceeds available hot cell space

 K-West Basin residual TRU waste discovered that must be remote handled

These uncertainties and others are accounted for in the schedule and estimate uncertainty for Nuclear 

Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-8

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-1

4.0 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

The Central Plateau is a 75-square-mile area located near the center of the Hanford Site, that contains 

about 900 excess facilities, including five massive chemical processing facilities called canyons and 

roughly 800 non-tank farm waste sites. The Central Plateau is home to ongoing waste management 

operations, such as the Mixed Waste Low-Level Burial Grounds, liquid waste facilities, and the Waste 

Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility. Infrastructure services (e.g., power, water, and 

telecommunication lines), either existing or planned, in the Central Plateau are needed to support cleanup. 

These facilities, waste sites, canyons, and ongoing waste management operations and infrastructure are

spread across the Central Plateau. The tank waste and WTP facilities on the Central Plateau are discussed 

in Chapter 5.0 as part of ORP’s scope.

During Site operations, 450 billion gallons of liquid waste and cooling water were discharged to the 

ground; most within the Central Plateau (TRAC-0151-VA, Historical Perspective of Radioactively 

Contaminated Liquid and Solid Wastes Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford). These past 

releases have created extensive plumes of groundwater contamination that exceed drinking water 

standards with a combined area of approximately 65 square miles (DOE/RL-2017-66). A significant 

amount of contamination remains in the soil column above the water table and poses a potential threat 

to groundwater.

Interim and final groundwater treatment are in place for contaminant plumes in the 200 West Area and in 

several locations in the 100 Areas. The Central Plateau cleanup is organized into the following three 

principal components (DOE/RL-2009-10):

 Inner Area. The footprint of the Central Plateau that will be dedicated to long-term waste 

management and containment of residual contamination and will remain under Federal ownership 

and control as long as a potential hazard exists. The Inner Area contains the majority of 

Hanford’s active waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, including hundreds of waste

sites, surplus facilities, miles of buried pipelines, tank farms, and large canyon facilities. 

Cleanup of the Inner Area will make this footprint as small as practical.

 Outer Area. All areas of the Central Plateau beyond the boundary of the Inner Area. It is DOE’s 

intent to clean up the Outer Area to a level comparable to the River Corridor (i.e., suitable for 

unrestricted surface use under continued Federal ownership and control and consistent with 

DOE’s anticipated future land use of conservation/mining). Contaminated soil and debris 

removed as part of Outer Area cleanup will be placed within the Inner Area for final disposal. 

Completion of cleanup for the approximately 65-square-mile Outer Area will shrink the active 

footprint of cleanup for the Central Plateau to the Inner Area.

 Groundwater and Deep Vadose Zone Remediation. DOE’s goal is to restore groundwater to 

its beneficial uses (Table 1-2, Goal 2), unless restoration is determined to be technically 

impracticable. An important element of groundwater protection and remediation is to develop and 

implement ways to protect groundwater from continuing influx of contaminants from the deep 

vadose zone.

The cleanup work scope in the Central Plateau is managed through four projects:

 Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area, PBS RL-0013C (Inner Area).

 Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030 (entire Hanford Site, 

including Inner and Outer Areas and the River Corridor).

 Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040 (geographical cleanup of waste 

sites and facilities in the Inner and Outer Areas, including the remaining canyon facilities).

 Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042 (includes FFTF located in 

the River Corridor).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-2

Cleanup is being performed in accordance with RODs and action memoranda as listed in Appendix A and 

with key TPA milestones listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area, PBS RL-0013C

M‐091‐44T Submit a change package for annual milestones to treat or certify and ship 

large container CH TRUM waste and RH TRUM waste (in aboveground 

storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable storage) to complete the 

disposition of this waste.

9/30/2020

M-092-20 Submit to Ecology a disposition pathways evaluation for the cesium and 

strontium capsules

3/31/2022

M-016-173 Select K Basin sludge treatment and packaging technology and propose new 

interim sludge treatment and packaging milestones.

9/30/2022

M-091-49 Complete retrieval and designation of RH and CH retrievably-stored waste. 9/30/2028

M-091-48 Complete the offsite shipment of all TRUM waste (in above ground storage 

as of June 30, 2009, and in retrievable storage).

9/30/2030

M‐091‐00 Complete the treatment to LDR treatment standards for all Hanford Site 

RCRA MLLW and RCRA TRUM waste. DOE may choose to complete 

certification and shipment of TRUM waste for disposal at the WIPP in lieu of 

LDR treatment if, as of the time of shipment, such waste is exempt from LDR 

treatment standards when disposed at WIPP.

Date to be 

established 

pursuant 

to M‐091‐44T

Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030

M‐015‐92B Submit RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study and RI/FS 

report and proposed corrective action decision/proposed plan (PP) for the 

200‐EA‐1 OU (Central Plateau 200 East Inner Area) to Ecology.

11/30/2022

M‐015‐93B Submit RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study and RI/FS 

report and proposed corrective action decision/proposed plan for the 

200‐SW‐2 OU to Ecology.

1/31/2023

M-015-92C Submit RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study and RI/FS 

report and proposed corrective action decision/proposed plan for the 200-IS-1 

OU to Ecology.

3/31/2023

M-015-38B Submit a feasibility study report and proposed plan(s) for the 200-CW-1, 200-

CW-3, and 200-OA-1 OUs for waste sites in the Outer Area of the Central 

Plateau to EPA.

7/31/2023

M-015-91B Submit feasibility study report(s) and proposed plan(s) for the 200-BC-1 and 

200-WA-1 OUs (200 West Inner Area) to EPA.

7/31/2023

M-015-110B Submit corrective measures study & feasibility study report and proposed 

plan/proposed corrective action decision for the 200-DV-1 OU to Ecology.

9/30/2023

M‐015‐00 Complete the RI/FS (or RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures 

study and RI/FS) process for all non‐tank farm OUs except for 

canyon/associated past practice waste site OUs covered in M‐085‐00.

6/30/2026

M‐024‐00O Complete required well installations in accordance with the RCRA and 

CERCLA groundwater requirements.

TBD

Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040

M-037-10 Complete unit-specific closure requirements according to the closure plan(s) 

for six (6) TSD units: 207-A South Retention Basin, 216-A-29 Ditch, 216-A36B Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, 216-B-63 Trench, Hexone Storage and Treatment 

Facility (276-S-141/142). 

9/30/2020

M-037-13 Complete unit-specific closure requirements according to the closure plan for 

the 241-CX Tank System (241-CX-70/71/72).

9/30/2022

M-016-200A Complete U Plant Canyon (221-U Facility) demolition in accordance with the 

remedial design/remedial action work plan.

9/30/2024

M-037-11 Complete unit-specific closure requirements for two (2) TSD units: 216-B-3 

Main Pond system and 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch.

9/30/2024
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-3

Table 4-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-085-76 Initiate response actions for B Plant remedial/removal action work plan. 9/30/2025

M-085-84 Initiate response actions for PUREX in accordance with the schedule in the 

approved remedial/removal action work plan.

9/30/2025

M-085-01 Submit a change package to establish a date for major milestone M-085-00. 6/30/2026

M-016-200B Complete U Plant Canyon (221-U Facility) barrier construction in accordance 

with the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

9/30/2027

M-016-00 Complete remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon OUs. 9/30/2042

M-085-00 Complete response actions for the canyon facilities/associated past practice 

waste sites, other Tier 1 Central Plateau facilities not covered by existing 

milestones, and Tier 2 Central Plateau facilities. This includes B Plant, 

PUREX, and REDOX canyons and associated past practice waste sites in 

200-CB-1, 200-CP-1, and 200-CR-1 OUs.

TBD

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

CH = contact-handled.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

LDR = Land Disposal Restrictions.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

RH = remote-handled.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

TBD = to be determined.

TRUM = transuranic mixed (waste).

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

4.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011)

Cleanup and demolition to slab-on-grade of the PFP complex is expected to be completed in FY 2019 

using funds carried over from prior years plus $46.2 million in the FY 2019 budget. Future subsurface 

investigation and cleanup will be done under Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL0040) (see section 4.4).

4.2 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND 

DISPOSITION–200 AREA (PBS RL-0013C)

The scope of the Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) project is to 

provide waste treatment and disposal services for Hanford facilities and operations. The major mission 

objectives are to:

 Operate waste treatment facilities, including T Plant and the WRAP Facility.

 Provide base waste management operations at the Canister Storage Building (CSB) and 200 Area 

Interim Storage Area, Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF), Waste Encapsulation and Storage 

Facility (WESF) for cesium/strontium capsule storage, and Low-Level Burial Grounds and mixed 

waste disposal trenches.

 Operate Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) to provide solid waste treatment 

and disposal services in support of Hanford cleanup.

Additional objectives are as follows:

 Retrieve and ship transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

or other permitted facility.

 Develop alternative methods for treatment and disposal of orphan waste. This could include 

seeking land disposal restrictions variance approvals, expanding commercial treatment facilities 

permit limits, and constructing and operating additional onsite treatment capabilities.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-4

 Obtain processing capabilities to repackage large and remote-handled (RH) contaminated waste 

containers.

The Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) project includes completing 

the following activities:

 Cesium and strontium capsules will be transferred to dry storage and/or permanent disposal.

 Irradiated nuclear fuels will be removed off Site to a national repository for final disposition.

 Stored underground TRU waste will be retrieved and disposed.

 Mixed low-level waste and low-level waste will be treated as necessary and disposed of.

 Waste management facilities will be deactivated at the end of their useful lives and will be 

transferred to Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition.

 Low-Level Burial Grounds (including the mixed waste trenches) will be closed and transferred to 

Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition and 

remedial action.

 IDF will be closed according to the closure plan requirements in the Dangerous Waste Permit 

(WA7890008967). Closure will follow completion of tank waste vitrification.

Table 4-2 summarizes each scope element. As waste management facilities are no longer needed to 

support Hanford cleanup, they will be transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040) for final disposition.

Table 4-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Project Management Provides for the overall project management, coordination, direction, and 

customer interface to ensure the proper conduct of operation for this project.

Waste Encapsulation Storage 

Facility (WESF)

Addresses operation of the WESF pool cells and includes life extension 

upgrades to ensure safe and compliant operations, retrieval, and disposition of 

cesium/strontium capsules, and transition of WESF for final D&D.

Canister Storage Building (CSB)

Includes safe storage of SNF while awaiting final disposition at a geologic 

repository, repackaging SNF for shipment, and coordination with the offsite 

repository for evaluations and information.

Mixed Low Level Waste (MLLW) 

Trenches

Includes operation of the mixed waste disposal trenches and the design, 

construction, and other activities necessary to add operational layers in the 

trenches to maintain their ready-to-serve status and to place temporary caps on 

the trenches.

Transuranic (TRU) Waste Retrieval Consists of the retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD facility of both 

CH and RH solid TRU waste stored underground.

TRU Repackaging

Provides funding for WIPP production, TRU repacking operations at T Plant 

and WRAP (or a commercial facility), TRU program support for repackaging, 

and RH/large packaging capabilities.

Waste Receiving and Processing 

(WRAP) Facility

Provides base and minimum safe operations at the WRAP to support 

processing of TRU wastes to WIPP and includes transition to final D&D.

T Plant

Addresses the operation and maintenance of the T Plant Complex for waste 

processing operations, including necessary upgrades and transition to final 

D&D of the canyon.

Central Waste Complex (CWC)

Includes operation and maintenance of the CWC, including upgrades to 

maintain needed capability and transition to final D&D. The scope includes 

provision of an alternate capability (other than WRAP) to load CH TRU waste 

into shipping containers for shipment to WIPP.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-5

Table 4-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility (ERDF)

Addresses the operation of the ERDF through the end of Hanford cleanup, 

including cell expansion and ERDF interim cover construction.

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF)

Provides for the preparation, startup, and operation of the IDF to receive and 

store low-level waste and MLLW in accordance with applicable waste 

acceptance criteria. The scope includes provisions for IDF expansion.

TRU Disposition

Provides funding and resources for the TRU Program’s coordination with the 

Central Characterization Project to certify TRU waste according to the WIPP 

Waste Acceptance Criteria. This work element also provides funding to 

perform Hanford WIPP closeout activities, TRU waste characterization 

activities at the direction or guidance of the Central Characterization Project

and to establish shipping capabilities for RH TRU waste and additional CH 

TRU waste shipping capabilities.

SNF Disposition

Includes design and construction of a Fuel Preparation Facility, turnover of 

the facility to operations, and level-of-effort support to activities sponsored by 

the cognizant DOE office and/or programs that have responsibility for 

management and disposition of spent nuclear fuel.

Low Level Waste Burial Grounds

Includes supervision, work control, surveillance, radiation protection, 

maintenance, engineering, training, quality assurance, environmental 

compliance, waste management enhancements, and other support.

Sludge Treatment Phase 2

Includes activities to stabilize and package the sludge from the 105-KW Basin 

for final disposition to WIPP or other disposal facilities, including Phase 2 

treatment and packaging, shutdown and deactivation of needed equipment, 

and management and support.

Management of Cesium and 

Strontium Capsules (MCSC)

Includes retrieval of capsules from their current storage location in the WESF 

pool cells, packaging into a cask storage system at WESF, transfer to a new 

onsite capsule storage area, and interim storage configuration pending final 

disposition.

Capsule Interim Storage Operations

Includes design of the cask storage system, identification and development of 

required transportation safety documentation based on selected cask storage 

technology, and preparation of transportation safety documentation necessary 

to support capsule transfer operations.

General Debris and Excess Cleanup Includes a disposition decision, cleanup and disposal of general debris and 

excess material on the Hanford Site.

CH = contact-handled.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote-handled.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

Figure 4-1 shows the low-range remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) by fiscal year; Figure 4-2 shows the low-range remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-6

Figure 4-1. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 4-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049

2054

2059

2064

2069

2074

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-2 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-7

4.3 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–

GROUNDWATER/VADOSE ZONE (PBS RL-0030)

Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), also known as the Groundwater 

Project, includes the following:

 Regulatory decision-making process for all groundwater operable units (OU) on the Hanford Site.

 Remediation of all groundwater on the Hanford Site in accordance with the groundwater 

OU decisions.

 Regulatory decision-making process for Central Plateau waste sites (remediation of waste sites is 

part of the Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford [PBS RL-0040] project scope).

 Regulatory decision-making process and remediation for contamination in the Central Plateau 

deep vadose zone.

The project includes soil and groundwater characterization, groundwater monitoring, groundwater 

treatment, well drilling, treatability testing, evaluation of remediation options, and preparing the 

regulatory documentation necessary to obtain final RODs on remedial actions for soil waste sites and 

groundwater, including the River Corridor and Central Plateau.

Much of the contamination remains in the vadose zone soil column above the water table; however, at 

waste sites where large volumes of liquid were released, the more mobile contaminants have 

reached groundwater. The tritium groundwater contaminant plume from the Central Plateau has reached 

the Columbia River. Additional groundwater contaminant plumes such as chromium, strontium-90, and 

uranium originating in the 100 or 300 Areas also have reached the Columbia River.

The major chemical contaminants present in the groundwater include carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent 

chromium, nitrate, and trichloroethene. Major radioactive contaminants include iodine-129, strontium-90, 

technetium-99, tritium, and uranium. Other groundwater contaminants that exceed drinking water 

standards in several Hanford Site areas, but are of limited extent, include a volatile organic compound 

(cis-1,2-dichloroethene), petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel) and a radioactive contaminant (carbon-14) 

(DOE/RL-2017-66). The Groundwater Project (DOE/RL-2002-59, Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy 

Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation) has three major objectives:

 Take actions necessary to prevent degradation of the groundwater

 Remediate groundwater to restore it to beneficial use where practicable and protect the river

 Monitor groundwater to identify emerging problems and guide the remediation process.

To be successful, the Groundwater Project needs to obtain sufficient characterization data, evaluate 

performance of early actions, and develop remedial action objectives. Hanford is divided into 10

groundwater OUs; 6 in the River Corridor (100-BC-5, 100-KR-4, 100-NR-2, 100-HR-3, 100-FR-3, 

300-FF-5) and 4 in the Central Plateau (200-ZP-1, 200-UP-1, 200-BP-5, 200-PO-1). Groundwater 

monitoring activities also are required by the Atomic Energy Act, CERCLA, and the Hanford Facility 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste (WA7890008967). Table 4-3 provides additional 

details on the scope of work for each of the work elements.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-8

Table 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Groundwater 

Program 

Management

Includes program management oversight, integrated field work, training, well access roads, 

strategic integration, groundwater management plan, technical support and evaluations, project 

control, performance assessment, remediation decision support, sample management and reporting,

environmental databases, and CERCLA 5-Year review.

Groundwater 

Monitoring

Includes:

• Geophysical borehole logging.

• Groundwater laboratory analysis and sample data management.

• Groundwater sample collection, purgewater truck and operation and maintenance of the 

Hanford Geotechnical Sample Library (the repository for historical sediment, core, and other 

soil and sediment samples used for scientific studies including laboratory studies, bench tests, 

conceptual model development, and fate and transport evaluations for contaminant migration).

• Groundwater data evaluation and reporting including the annual CERCLA, RCRA, and pumpand-treat operations reports.

• Well maintenance, monitoring, and reporting.

• RCRA well drilling per TPA M-024 milestones.

• Miscellaneous well decommissioning.

• Operation, maintenance, sampling, and dismantlement of the Modutanks used for disposal of 

groundwater from onsite well sampling and maintenance, characterization, and remediation 

activities.

200-WA-1 OU

For the 200 West Area waste sites, includes implementing the RI/FS process through field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to a 

final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

200-EA-1 OU

For the 200 East Area waste sites, includes implementing the CERCLA/RCRA process through 

field investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

200-OA-1 OU

For the Outer Area waste sites, includes implementing the RI/FS process through field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to a 

final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

200-IS-1 OU

For the 200 Area pipelines, includes implementing the CERCLA/RCRA process through field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to a 

final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

200-SW-2 OU

For the 200 Area land disposal units, includes implementing the CERCLA/RCRA process through 

field investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

100-BC-5 OU

For 100-BC groundwater, includes completing the CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then implementing and monitoring the remedial action 

to completion, including final reporting and well decommissioning.

100-KR-4 OU

For 100-KR groundwater, includes completing the CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then implementing and monitoring the remedial action 

to completion, including well drilling and decommissioning, pump-and-treat operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring, final reporting and remedy D&D.

100-NR-2 OU

For 100-NR groundwater, includes completing the CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then implementing and monitoring the remedial action 

to completion, including final reporting, well drilling and decommissioning and remedy D&D.

100-HR-3 OU

For 100-HR groundwater, includes implementing and monitoring the remedial action to 

completion, including well drilling and decommissioning, pump-and-treat operations, maintenance, 

and monitoring, final reporting and remedy D&D.

100-FR-3 OU For 100-FR groundwater, includes implementing and monitoring the remedial action to 

completion, including final reporting, well drilling and decommissioning.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-9

Table 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

200-BP-5 OU

For 200-BP groundwater, includes completing the CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents (including for 200-PO-1 OU) leading to a final ROD, then implementing and 

monitoring the remedial action to completion, including final reporting and well drilling and 

decommissioning.

200-PO-1 OU For 200-PO groundwater, includes implementing and monitoring the remedial action to 

completion, including final reporting and well drilling and decommissioning.

200-UP-1 OU

For 200-UP groundwater, includes implementing and monitoring the remedial action to 

completion, including treatability testing, tracer study, well drilling and decommissioning, pumpand-treat operations, maintenance, and monitoring, final reporting, and remedy D&D.

200-ZP-1 OU

For 200-ZP groundwater, includes implementing and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including well drilling and decommissioning, pump-and-treat operations, maintenance, and 

monitoring, final reporting, and remedy D&D.

200-CB-1 OU

For the B Plant Canyon and waste sites, includes implementing the RI/FS process through field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to a 

final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

200-CP-1 OU

For the PUREX Canyon and waste sites (including the PUREX Tunnels), includes implementing 

the RI/FS process through field investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial 

action work plan.

200-CR-1 OU

For the REDOX Canyon and waste sites, includes implementing the RI/FS process through field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory decision documents leading to a 

final ROD, then preparation of the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

300-FF-5 OU For 300-FF groundwater, includes implementing and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including final reporting, well drilling and decommissioning.

200-DV-1 OU

For the Deep Vadose Zone, includes completing the CERCLA/RCRA process and preparing 

regulatory decision documents leading to a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

ROD = record of decision.

Figure 4-3 presents the low-range remaining estimated cleanup costs for Soil and Water Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) by fiscal year; Figure 4-4 presents the low-range remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-10

Figure 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 4-4. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

Costs (Million$)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-7 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-11

4.4 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF 

HANFORD (PBS RL-0040)

Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) is the geographically based cleanup and 

closure of the Central Plateau and remaining scope in the other Hanford Site areas. It is also known (and 

referred to in the rest of this section) as the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040). 

The Central Plateau Remediation Project scope includes the demolition and remediation scope that is 

organized into 25 geographical areas referred to as implementation areas.

Following completion of assessment activities through decision documentation (e.g., ROD or closure 

plan) under Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), completion of the 

remedial design/remedial action work plan and waste site/facility remediation and/or closure will be 

addressed under the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040). The Central Plateau 

Remediation Project scope includes implementing the decisions through the physical cleanup of canyon 

facilities, buildings and structures, waste sites, pipelines, and miscellaneous sites (e.g., debris piles), and 

utilities to ensure appropriate protection has been provided for the cleanup.

To accomplish the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040), the following major objectives 

have been established:

 Perform S&M of facilities and waste sites pending remediation

 Integrate planning and execution activities with other Central Plateau projects

 Remediate waste sites and pipelines

 D&D canyons

 D&D excess facilities

 Transition the Central Plateau Inner Area to LTS.

The project will be complete when the following endpoint criteria have been reached:

 Canyons and surplus facilities are removed or dispositioned and ready for transition to LTS

 Central Plateau waste sites and pipelines are remediated in accordance with approved decisions

 Final disposition of Cold War legacy wastes is complete

 Institutional controls are implemented

 Post-remediation operations and maintenance requirements are implemented.

The work scope for the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) is organized into the work 

elements described in Table 4-4, which provides additional details on the scope of work for each 

work element.

The duration, in part, depends on transition of the tank farms to the project for final disposition after 

closure activities are completed by ORP (see Chapter 5.0). It also depends on transition of waste 

management facilities that are no longer needed to support Hanford cleanup from Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) to the project for final disposition (see 

section 4.2).

Figure 4-5 presents the low-range remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Central Plateau Remediation 

Project (PBS RL-0040) by FY; Figure 4-6 presents the low-range remaining estimated cleanup costs by 

work element.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-12

Table 4-4. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Regulatory Decisions and 

Closure Integration

Includes program and project management, engineering studies, emergency response 

tasks necessary to address aging facility or waste site conditions that are above and 

beyond anticipated operational and maintenance plans, steam line removal, and 

preparation of the CERCLA 5-Year review documents.

Remediation of Geographic 

Areas

Includes geographic remediation of implementation areas in the Central Plateau and 

River Corridor. Each area has a variety of cleanup features that can include waste 

sites, facilities, canyons, pipelines, and remedial barriers.

Actions to be taken for cleaning up each waste site, including pipelines, will be 

determined through the regulatory decision processes under Soil and Water 

Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030, and as part of remedial 

definition activities. Potential remedial actions for waste sites range from monitored 

natural attenuation to capping or removal, depending on waste site conditions. 

Contamination levels, risks, proximity to facilities, and other considerations are 

factored into the selection. Existing structures (other than the canyon facilities) are 

expected to be demolished and the debris disposed at ERDF.

Central Plateau Maintain 

Safe and Compliant 

Facilities and Waste Sites

Includes min safe oversight and support, radiation surveillances, tumbleweed 

collection, surface contamination treatment, sign replacement, surveillance, Canyon 

and nuclear facilities min safe, and general-purpose facilities min safe.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 4-5. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049 2052 2055 2058 2061 2064 2067 2070 2073 2076

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-13

Figure 4-6. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

4.5 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX 

TEST FACILITY PROJECT (PBS RL-0042)

The FFTF is a deactivated, 400-megawatt (thermal) liquid-metal (sodium)-cooled, research and test 

reactor located in the 400 Area. The facility was used to develop and test advanced fuels and materials for 

the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program and to serve as a prototype facility for future Liquid 

Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program facilities. DOE issued a shutdown order for FFTF in December 1993 

because the Liquid Breeder Reactor Program had been cancelled.

The scope of Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) is to provide for safe 

D&D, secure storage, and stabilization of hazardous/radioactive materials, interim maintenance of 

facilities, demolition, and disposal of the waste. In the ROD (78 FR 75913), DOE decided to implement 

FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment. This scope consists of the following:

 RH special components will have the sodium residuals removed by treatment at the Idaho 

National Laboratory and then be returned to Hanford for disposal in the IDF.

 Bulk sodium inventories located at Hanford will be converted to caustic sodium hydroxide in an 

onsite sodium reaction facility then stored for ultimate use in the WTP.

 All structures in the 400 Area Protected Area, except for reactor containment, will be demolished 

to at least 3 feet below grade followed by backfill and revegetation; decommissioning waste 

would be disposed of at appropriate disposal facilities.

 The above-grade containment dome will be removed and dispositioned.

 The below-grade portion of the reactor containment building and the reactor vessel will 

be grouted.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-10 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-14

 A RCRA-compliant engineered barrier will be installed over the grouted area.

 Post-closure care would include long-term monitoring of air, groundwater, and the vadose zone.

Waste sites in the 400 Area are included as part of the 300-FF-2 OU, which is being remediated under the 

Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041). Table 4-5 summarizes the 

work scope.

Table 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

FFTF Program 

Management

Annual project management and closure services.

FFTF Cleanup

Includes D4 of the FFTF Reactor and facilities in accordance with the record of 

decision (78 FR 759131), confirmatory radiation surveys, site monitoring plan, 

monitoring wells, final documentation and project management for these activities. 

FFTF Sodium Includes management, disposition and removal of sodium residuals in FFTF equipment, 

maintain sodium storage facility operations, and waste transportation and disposal.

Sodium Reaction Facility Includes design, construction, operational testing and readiness review of a facility to 

convert the FFTF sodium to caustic sodium hydroxide.

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant FFTF Complex

Includes preventative and scheduled maintenance, corrective maintenance, supervision, 

work control and training for the FFTF Complex and 400 Area Potable/Fire Water 

System.

178 FR 75913, 2013, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington,” Record of Decision, Federal Register, Vol 78, No. 240, pp 75913, December 13, 2013.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

Figure 4-7 presents the low-range remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast

Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) by FY; Figure 4-8 shows the low-range remaining estimated 

cleanup costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-15

Figure 4-7. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 4-8. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-16 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-16

4.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS 

AND UNCERTAINTIES

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, uncertainties are considered regarding estimated scope, 

schedule, and cost. While a number of assumptions are made to support lifecycle development, the 

assumptions presented here are major assumptions that drive costs.

For the Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) low-range estimate, the 

following assumptions were identified:

 New treatment facilities are not required to support longer WTP operations

 T Plant will be available for modification to be the facility necessary for retrieval, storage, and 

treatment/processing of all Hanford RCRA transuranic mixed (TRUM) waste as required by 

TPA M-091-01

 WIPP will remain operational through the end of Hanford cleanup operations that have the 

potential to generate TRU waste. Current planning has processing and shipping of TRU waste to 

WIPP until FY 2037.

For the Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) high-range estimate, the 

following assumptions include, but are not limited, to:

 Receipt of non-compliant waste from other projects.

 Spent fuel found in alpha caissons.

 Delays in receiving regulatory approvals (CH retrieval, alpha caisson retrieval and processing).

Discrete risks have been identified and assessed for the above mentioned uncertainties, as well as others, 

and are representative of the operational challenges associated with this work area. The uncertain timing 

of waste generation forecasts and waste volumes increase risk and uncertainty over the assumed 

operational life of the various facilities. This may lead to increased durations for ready-to-serve 

operations awaiting waste inputs, as well as extended durations of base operations. For example, 

construction of the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) is complete, maintaining minimum safe conditions 

pending waste receipt of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW). Operations of the Central Waste 

Complex and the Interim Storage Area are also subject to similar uncertainties.

For Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) low-range estimate, the 

following assumptions were identified:

 Planned characterization of the vadose zone below the HLW tanks will be sufficient to evaluate 

remedies for protection of groundwater

 No substantial new requirements will be added to meet the state’s implementation of RCRA.

There is also a high degree of uncertainty with Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone 

work that includes the following assumptions for the high-range estimate:

 RCRA/CERCLA issues delay records of decision. 

 Significant contamination is interpreted or discovered that requires further investigation and/or 

remediation.

 Pump and treat operations require extended duration.

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) low-range estimate, the following 

assumptions were identified:

 An industrial worker scenario will be used to define the exposure scenarios and the threshold 

cleanup levels for waste sites located in the Inner Area. Cleanup levels for waste sites in the Outer 

Area will support the reasonably anticipated future land use of conservation/mining.

 The Central Plateau area will remain under Federal control for the foreseeable future.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-17

 All low-level legacy waste will be managed and treated on Hanford via remove, treat, and dispose 

of (RTD) to approved onsite disposal facilities.

 Planning assumes that geographic aggregate barriers will be utilized. The aggregate barriers are 

assumed to cover canyons or other large facilities and adjacent waste sites or to cover multiple 

adjacent waste sites

 Removal excavations are assumed to be 15 feet below grade for planning and estimating 

purposes. Decision documents will identify the actual removal excavation criteria (soil cleanup 

level or excavation depth) for waste sites.

There also remains significant uncertainty associated with Nuclear Facility D&D – Remainder of Hanford 

work that includes, but is not limited to, the following assumptions for the high-range estimate:

 Records of decisions for implementation areas are not consistent with planned assumptions.

 New waste sites are discovered in implementation areas after records of decisions are issued.

 Radioactive material is considered to be contaminated waste that must be removed (rather than 

hold-up material).

 The nature and extent of contamination is substantially greater than the baseline assumptions for 

implementation areas.

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) low-range estimate, the 

following assumption was identified: FFTF funding to accomplish the scope can be carried over from 

year to year.

The remaining uncertainty associated with Nuclear Facility D&D – Fast Flux Test Facility includes the 

following assumptions for the high-range estimate:

 Major equipment failure or structural deterioration while in the S&M mode.

 No path to disposition highly radioactive components.

 WTP will not use FFTF bulk sodium.

 ETF may not be available to disposition liquid waste.

 ERDF is not available for demolition waste.

 System piping requires modification to treat residual sodium.

 Technical validation for entombment/residual sodium not defined.

The uncertainties associated with the Central Plateau Cleanup work scope have been assessed and 

accounted for in the high-range estimates for each of the respective PBSs.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-18

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-1

5.0 TANK WASTE CLEANUP

The RPP tank waste cleanup is managed by ORP as required by the Strom Thurmond National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, and augmented by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2019. This chapter describes the RPP mission, scope, schedule and cost as presented in the 

baseline case of ORP-11242, Rev. 8. The baseline case reflects how the RPP mission will proceed to meet 

the Amended Consent Decree (DOE and Ecology 2016), support near-term operational needs, and reduce 

RPP technical and programmatic risks and challenges given current conditions, constraints, and 

assumptions. 

The RPP mission is to safeguard the nuclear waste stored in 177 underground tanks and to manage the 

waste safely and responsibly until it can be treated in the WTP before final disposition. ORP is 

responsible for the storage, retrieval, treatment, and disposal of approximately 56 million gallons of 

radioactive waste contained in the Hanford Site waste tanks and closure of all the tanks and 

associated equipment. The RPP mission involves two parallel efforts, both aimed at reducing the threat 

posed to the Columbia River by the Hanford tank waste:

 Retrieve waste from 149 SSTs to DSTs where it can be safely stored awaiting treatment.

 Treat the tank waste, producing a stable waste form that can be permanently disposed.

These efforts must be performed in parallel because the DST system does not have the capacity to hold all 

of the waste currently in the SSTs at one time.

The RPP comprises the tank farms and WTP systems – nearly 200 interrelated waste storage, transfer, 

treatment, transportation, and disposal facilities. These systems are in varying stages of design, 

construction, operation, or future planning, and are briefly described in the following paragraphs. 

The underground waste storage tanks were built in groups of 2 to 18 tanks, with each group identified as a 

tank farm. Seven tank farms (comprising 86 tanks) are located in the 200 West Area and 11 tank farms 

(comprising 91 tanks) are located in the 200 East Area. The tanks were constructed in below-grade 

excavations to take advantage of the earth’s natural radiation shielding. The 177 underground storage 

tanks are of two basic design types: 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs. The smallest SSTs have about 55,000 gallons 

of capacity, while the largest DSTs hold up to about 1,250,000 gallons. One DST is out of service 

because of a confirmed leak from its primary shell to its annulus.

When Hanford was in production mode, irradiated fuel from the reactors was transported to six 

separations facilities for isolating the desirable radionuclides from other reactor products. From 1944 to 

1989, the separations processes yielded millions of gallons of highly radioactive and chemically 

hazardous waste, which was pumped through underground transfer lines and subsequently stored in the 

underground storage tanks. Although the reactors and separations facilities have long since ceased 

operations, the underground waste tanks and their contents remain. The radioactive and chemical liquid 

waste was transferred from the separations facilities as slurry (liquid with suspended solids). Over time, 

the solids settled to the bottom of the tanks, creating a layer known as sludge, and leaving a clarified 

liquid known as supernate above the sludge.

To reduce the total quantity of waste to be stored, the supernate is periodically decanted and transferred 

out of waste tanks to a waste evaporation process. The evaporation process separates the heated waste 

slurry into a steam condensate fraction, which is relatively clean, for further treatment at the Effluent 

Treatment Facility (ETF) and safe onsite disposal, and a waste slurry fraction, which becomes more 

concentrated and is returned to the DSTs for eventual treatment in the WTP complex followed by 

disposal.

More information regarding the RPP system and its current state can be found in ORP-11242, sections 3.0 

and 4.0.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-2

The baseline case in System Plan 8 strategy for completing the RPP mission involves a number of 

interrelated activities and facilities. The ORP’s objective is to reduce risk to the environment posed by 

tank wastes by

 Retrieving the waste from SSTs, transferring it to DSTs, and delivering the waste to the WTP

 Constructing and operating the WTP, which includes the Pretreatment (PT) Facility, LAW 

Facility, HLW Facility, Analytical Laboratory, and the Balance of Facilities

 Incorporating DFLAW to the LAW Facility as part of a phased startup, which includes a Tank 

Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) and/or LAW Pretreatment System (LAWPS) and WTP Effluent 

Management Facility (EMF)

 Developing and deploying supplemental treatment capability to safely treat the remainder of the 

low-activity waste not immobilized by the LAW Facility

 Developing and deploying supplemental capability for separating solids, particle size reduction, if 

required, and removal of soluble cesium as needed (i.e., Tank Waste Characterization and Staging 

[TWCS] Facility)

 Developing and deploying treatment and packaging capability for potential transuranic tank 

waste, followed by interim storage at the Central Waste Complex (CWC) pending determination 

of the final disposal pathway

 Deploying interim storage capacity for the immobilized HLW pending determination of the final 

disposal pathway

 Disposing of packaged immobilized LAW onsite at the IDF

 Closing the SST and DST farms, ancillary facilities, and associated waste management and 

treatment facilities

 Sequencing the RPP mission around resolution of technical and programmatic uncertainties

 Upgrading the tank farms to provide a steady, well-balanced feed to the WTP

 Investigating trade-offs of the required amount and type of supplemental treatment and 

pretreatment and the amount of immobilized HLW and immobilized LAW.

Figure 5-1 illustrates the simplified process for retrieving the waste from the tanks, treatment to reduce 

hazards, and disposition based on the System Plan 8 baseline case. During the initial phase of DFLAW, 

liquid tank waste will be staged in DSTs and delivered to a temporary TSCR system to filter large solids 

and remove the radioactive cesium, producing a LAW feed stream to the LAW Facility where it will be

immobilized for disposal at IDF. The TSCR system is expected to operate for five years, and experience 

obtained from TSCR operations will inform the final design and configuration of the subsequent

pretreatment approach (e.g., permanent LAWPS, multiple TSCRs, etc.). Potential contact-handled 

transuranic (CH-TRU) tank waste from the 200 West and 200 East SSTs will be retrieved and treated on

Site at a proposed supplemental TRU waste treatment facility and then interim stored at the CWC pending 

determination of the final disposal pathway. All other waste in the SSTs will be retrieved into the DST 

system, and waste in the 200 West DSTs will be transferred to the 200 East DSTs.

After 10 years of DFLAW operations, the PT Facility and HLW Facility will begin operation. Slurries 

from the DST system will be staged and sampled in the TWCS Facility tanks and then fed to the PT 

Facility. Supernate will be fed from the DSTs to the PT Facility instead of the LAWPS. The waste 

slurries and supernate will be combined, and the solids will then be filtered, size reduced, washed, and 

leached, as required, to ensure an acceptable feed to the HLW Facility. Cesium will be removed from the 

remaining liquid, and the cesium-depleted LAW will be concentrated. The cesium product will be

combined with the treated solids. The pretreated slurry from the PT Facility will be sent to the HLW 

Facility, and the pretreated supernate will be sent to either the LAW Facility or a LAW supplemental 

treatment facility. When the supplemental treatment facility starts operations, the LAWPS will be

restarted and will provide an additional source of feed to the facility.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-3

Figure 5-1. Simplified Process Diagram for Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal Based on SP8 Baseline Case.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-4

The Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) will receive process condensate and other dilute liquid 

waste streams from the 242-A Evaporator, PT Facility, LAW Facility, and WTP EMF. Dilute waste sent 

to the LERF will be treated by the ETF and then disposed of, either as liquids at the State-Approved Land 

Disposal Site (SALDS) or as a solidified waste form at the IDF. Immobilized waste from the LAW 

Facility and LAW supplemental treatment facility will also be disposed of at the IDF. Immobilized waste 

from the HLW Facility will be transported to the Interim Hanford Storage/Hanford Shipping Facility 

(IHS/HSF), and then to a permanent offsite geologic repository, when available. The LAW Facility is 

planned to operate for 40 years, and the PT Facility and HLW Facility for 30 years.

DFLAW, in various forms (e.g., TSCR and LAWPS), which is the first step in the phased startup of the 

WTP, is planned to operate for 10 years beginning in December 2023 and completing in December 2033, 

at which time the WTP is required to initiate hot commissioning. The overall schedule objective is to 

complete retrieval, treatment, and closure activities by the end of FY 2071.

In part, because several complex technical issues arose during design and construction activities that 

adversely affected ORP’s ability to meet negotiated milestones in the 2010 Consent Decree, these 

milestone dates were extended in an Amended Consent Decree issued March 11, 2016. The Court 

extended the start of initial operations milestone date for the WTP to December 31, 2036, thus 

necessitating changes to the TPA end dates for completing all remaining SST retrievals and completing 

all tank waste treatment commitments. These previous milestone dates were predicated on the WTP start 

of initial operations by December 31, 2022, as negotiated in the 2010 Consent Decree. These and related 

TPA milestones were the subject of formal negotiations between ORP, EPA, and Ecology in 2018. The 

outcome of those negotiations and any resulting TPA milestone changes will be incorporated in a future 

LCR. Key TPA and Amended Consent Decree milestones are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-062-40H Submit a system plan to Ecology describing the disposition of all tank 

waste managed by the Office of River Protection.

10/31/2020

D-00A-071 LAW facility construction substantially complete. 12/31/2020

D-16B-031 Of the 12 SSTs referred to in B-1 and B-2, complete retrieval of tank 

wastes in at least 5.

M-045-85 Complete negotiations of HFFACO2

interim milestones for closure of the 

remaining WMAs (including a schedule for 200 West Area closures, the 

submittal of closure plans and risk assessments, and final closure dates for 

each WMA).

1/31/2022

M-062‐34-T01 Complete hot commissioning (startup and readiness prior to full operations) 

of Supplemental Treatment Vitrification Facility and/or WTP 

Enhancements.

12/30/2022

D-00A-091 LAW Facility Hot Commissioning Complete 12/31/2023

D-16B-021 Complete retrieval of tank wastes from the following SSTs in Tank Farms 

A and AX: A-101, A-102, A-104, A-105, A-106, AX-101, AX-102, AX103, and AX-104. Subject to the requirements of Section IV-B-3, DOE 

may substitute any of the identified 9 SSTs and advise Ecology 

accordingly.

D-00A-141 Pretreatment facility construction substantially complete. 12/31/2031

D‐00A‐171 Hot start of WTP. 12/31/2033

D‐00A‐011 Achieve initial plant operations for the WTP. 12/31/2036

M-045-70 Complete waste retrieval from all remaining SSTs. Retrieval standards and 

completion definitions are provided in M-045-00.

12/31/2040
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-5

Table 5-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-045-00 Complete the closure of all SST farms. 1/31/2043

M-062-00 Complete pretreatment processing and vitrification of Hanford high-level 

waste and low-activity waste tank wastes.

12/31/2047

M‐42-00A Complete the closure of all DST farms. 9/30/2052

M-062‐45 Every six years, within six months of the issuance of the last revision of the 

System Plan, the parties will negotiate the following: 1. Commencing as 

target milestones in 2015 and enforceable milestones in 2021 and each 

negotiation thereafter, tank waste retrieval sequencing and milestones, and 

milestones for installation of infrastructure to feed tank waste from the 

DST system to the tank waste treatment system, for the next eight years.

TBD

M-047-00 Complete work necessary to provide facilities for management of 

secondary waste from the WTP.

TBD

1Milestones from amended Consent Decree (DOE and Ecology, 2016).

2Ecology, EPA and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, as amended.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology.

HFFACO = Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and 

Consent Order.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

SST = single-shell tank.

WMA = waste management area.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

The RPP scope is conducted under PBS ORP-0014, Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition, PBS ORP-0060, Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant, and PBS ORP-0070, Waste

Treatment Plant Operations. Scope, schedule, and cost information for the baseline case scenario for these 

work activities are summarized in sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, respectively. Once closure activities are 

completed, the tank farms will be transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040) for final disposition or LTS (see section 4.4).

5.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 

DISPOSITION (PBS ORP-0014)

This project includes activities required to manage and stabilize approximately 56,000,000 gallons of 

radioactive and chemical waste stored underground in 177 tanks, including retrieval, treatment, and 

disposal. 

The PBS ORP-0014 scope includes planning, design, construction, and operation of new facilities and 

equipment necessary for waste feed delivery from tank farms to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant to meet the December 31, 2023, Low-Activity Waste Facility startup milestone from the 2016 

Amended Consent Decree. It also includes required operations, maintenance, and upgrades and retrievals 

of the tank farms, the 242-A Evaporator, the Effluent Treatment Facility, and the 222-S Laboratory to 

manage the waste and support safe nuclear and environmentally compliant operations at Hanford and 

enable Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant operations. The first phase of the Low-Activity Waste 

Pretreatment System project will consist of a tank-side cesium removal system to remove solids and 

cesium to produce the low-activity waste feed stream for the Low-Activity Waste Facility.

Additional scope information for these work elements is provided in Table 5-2.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-6

Table 5-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Base Operations Provides for safe storage of waste, reduces the volume of waste through evaporation, 

provides laboratory support, and includes necessary support activities.

Retrieve and Close 

SSTs

Includes retrieval of waste from the SSTs and transfer to interim storage in DSTs. 

SSTs will then undergo closure in accordance with regulatory requirements, as will 

other associated sites in the tank farms.

Waste Feed 

Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST

Retrieval/Closure

Covers modeling of waste characteristics and volumes; transfer, treatment and 

preparation of the wastes to meet the requirements for safe retrieval of the DST wastes; 

successful operation of the WTP; and closure of the DSTs to protect the environment 

and the community. This work element also includes treatment of secondary wastes 

generated during handling and processing of tank wastes.

Supplemental 

Treatment

Includes planning and analysis for supplemental low-activity waste treatment and 

contact-handled TRU handling, up to and including design and construction.

Treat Waste Includes preparation for hot commissioning, operation of WTP, closure planning, and 

final closure activities.

Facility Closures

Includes closure and monitoring of buildings and structures in the tank farms areas, but 

not covered elsewhere. Closure within this scope occurs mostly in the out-years and 

includes mobile facilities, office buildings, and support facilities (e.g., 200 East and 

West evaporators).

DST = double-shell tank.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 5-2 presents the low-range remaining estimated cleanup costs for Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) by FY; Figure 5-3 presents the low-range remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-7

Figure 5-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

$5.5

$6.0

$6.5

$7.0

$7.5

2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-8

Figure 5-3. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

5.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION PLANT 

(PBS ORP-0060)

The scope of Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060) is 

critical to the completion of the Hanford tank waste program; it will provide the primary treatment 

capability to immobilize the radioactive and chemical tank waste at the Hanford Site. As evaluated in the 

baseline change request and the USACE report, the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) 

includes construction of five major facility complexes:

 Pretreatment (PT)

 Low-Activity Waste (LAW)

 High-Level Waste (HLW)

 Balance of Facilities (BOF)

 Analytical Laboratory (Lab).

The WTP is being designed to operate under two scenarios. In the baseline configuration, DST waste will 

be processed first through the WTP PT Facility then sent on for vitrification at the LAW or HLW 

Facilities. Alternatively, under a direct-feed operating scenario, waste will be pretreated at a TSCR, then 

sent to the LAW Facility for immobilization.

The WTP will commence initial operations by processing waste under a direct feed option (i.e.,

DFLAW). In this configuration, the LAW Facility, BOF and Lab (e.g., LBL/DFLAW) will be 

commissioned to operate while the PT Facility and HLW Facility construction is completed. The

DFLAW operations will support processing of Hanford tank waste into glass by 2023.

Upon the completion of construction and successful commissioning of the PT and HLW Facilities, the 

WTP will switch to the baseline configuration. The portion of DST waste not subject to direct feed 

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

Costs (Billions $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-26 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-9

processing (i.e., not pretreated or conditioned before transfer to WTP) will be treated in the baseline 

configuration with PT, LAW, and HLW Facilities. These configurations are independent of one another 

and will not occur in parallel. However, the LAWPS portion of DFLAW is planned to restart to provide 

additional feed in support of Supplemental LAW operations. Additional scope information on these work 

elements is provided in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. Major Construction–Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060) 

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

LBL/DFLAW

Includes design, construction, and commissioning of the LAW Facility, as well as modifications 

to support DFLAW. When finished, the LAW will go into a melter preparation vessel where silica 

and other glass-forming materials are added and the mixture will be fed into one of two melters. 

The mixture will be heated to 2,100 °F using Joule heating. The molten mixture will be poured 

into large stainless steel canisters that are then welded shut.

Includes design, construction and commissioning of the balance of facilities. When finished, the 

dedicated facilities and utilities will support the WTP.

Includes design, construction, and commissioning of the Analytical Laboratory. When finished, 

samples will be analyzed to ensure the glass product meets requirements.

High-Level 

Waste (HLW)

Includes design, construction, and commissioning of the HLW Facility. Similar to the LAW, when 

finished the HLW will be mixed with glass-forming materials, heated to molten, and poured into 

stainless steel canisters.

Pretreatment 

(PT)

Includes design, construction, and commissioning of the Pretreatment Facility. When finished, 

pretreatment will physically and chemically condition the waste feed stream, separating the lowactivity radioactive waste from the high-level radioactive waste. 

DFLAW = Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste.

LBL = Low-Activity Waste Facility, Balance of Facilities

and WTP Analytical Laboratory.

PBS = project baseline summary.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 5-4 presents the low-range remaining estimated costs for Major Construction – Waste Treatment 

and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060) by FY; Figure 5-5 presents the low-range remaining 

estimated costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-10

Figure 5-4. Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 5-5. Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS ORP-0060)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-28 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-11

5.3 WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS (PBS ORP-0070)

Waste Treatment Plant Operations (PBS ORP-0070) will support the treatment of tank wastes in the WTP

including the implementation of the strategy of the DFLAW approach. This includes the operational 

scope for the Low-Activity Waste Facility, the Analytical Laboratory, and the Balance of Facilities 

starting with hot commissioning but after project completion (Critical Decision 4) for those facilities. The 

WTP operational costs for this project are currently included within PBS ORP-0014 and will be shown in 

ORP-0070 in furture reports. The FY 2019 and FY2020 budget for this project is $30 million.

5.4 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

The scope of the baseline case (low-range estimate) is underpinned by a hierarchy of assumptions, which 

are detailed in ORP-11242, Appendix A. These assumptions include the following:

 Treatment facility start dates and processing rates align with the Amended Consent Decree (DOE 

and Ecology 2016).

 DFLAW operates before the PT Facility and HLW Facility startup.

 Timely approval is assumed to be received to support full closure of each SST tank farm after all 

tanks in that farm are closed.

 The DSTs will remain fully operational for the duration of the waste treatment mission, except for

DST AY-102, which will remain out of service after completion of waste retrieval.

 The retrieval of the SSTs will be sequenced using a staggered, overlapping farm-by-farm 

approach with the goal to minimize the waste treatment mission duration.

 The 242-A Evaporator will be available, as needed, to support the SST retrievals.

 The LAWPS will be the only long-term source of LAW feed to the LAW Facility until the PT 

Facility begins operation (DFLAW will be achieved during the first five years using the 

temporary TSCR system, which will subsequently be replaced by LAWPS for long-term 

operations); then it will serve as an auxiliary source of LAW feed for the LAW supplemental 

treatment facility for the remainder of the mission.

 The TWCS capability consists of six 500,000-gallon tanks used to stage HLW feed for delivery to 

the PT Facility.

 The WTP is assumed to be operable for as long as required. Upgrades are assumed to be 

performed as necessary to maintain operability, potentially beyond the 40-year design life.

 One HLW melter and one LAW meter are assumed to be replaced every 2.5 years on average. 

The LAW spent melters7 will be managed and disposed of at the IDF as mixed low-level 

waste (MLLW).

 The WTP EMF will operate only during DFLAW. When the PT Facility begins operations, the 

WTP EMF will be shut down.

 LAW supplemental treatment capacity is assumed to be provided by a LAW supplemental 

treatment facility, located adjacent to the WTP, although no particular treatment technology

is assumed.

 The supplemental waste treatment and packaging system for tanks containing non-high-level 

radioactive waste consistent with TRU waste will first be located near B tank farm then moved to 

 

7No final disposal location has been selected for the spent and failed HLW melters. The alternatives discussed in the TC & WM 

EIS assume that these spent HLW melters will be packaged in an overpack and stored at IHS until the melters can be removed for 

disposition and final disposal. For planning purposes, the final disposition of HLW melters is assumed to be at the IDF. Plans will 

be updated, as needed, after a ROD that addresses HLW melter disposal is published. Appendix E of the TC & WM EIS provides

additional information (DOE/EIS-0391).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-12

T tank farm. The drummed waste will be stored onsite at the CWC until final disposition of the 

waste has been determined.

 The capacities and capability of the ETF, LERF, SALDS, and 200 Area Treated Effluent 

Disposal Facility (TEDF) will be driven by the needs of the waste treatment mission and are 

assumed to be available when needed.

 The IHS Facility will receive and temporarily store canisters of immobilized HLW, pending the 

availability of a final disposal alternative. It will provide interim storage for a minimum of 

4,000 IHLW canisters and will be expandable in increments of 2,000 canisters up to a maximum 

of 16,000 canisters, if needed, to mitigate the risk associated with the availability of offsite 

geologic storage.

 Before the third IHS module is needed, a decision is assumed to be made either to continue to 

build additional canister storage modules or to construct the HSF, which will provide the 

capability for shipping HLW canisters to a potential national repository.

 The final disposal alternative for HLW glass canisters will be at an unidentified offsite 

national repository. The final disposal alternative is assumed to have the same waste acceptance 

criteria as the Yucca Mountain national repository waste acceptance criteria, so that the HLW 

canisters will meet the waste acceptance criteria of the final disposal alternative.

 The IDF is assumed to be operational when needed and will provide permanent disposal for the 

immobilized LAW, other MLLW, and low-level waste, and can be expanded as needed.

 The cesium and strontium capsules are assumed to be dispositioned outside of the WTP and tank 

farm facilities by DOE-RL.

 Permitting and operational requirements to accept the Hanford non-high-level radioactive waste 

consistent with TRU waste that is planned to be disposed of at the WIPP will not affect the 

schedule’s critical path.

 The activities described for the RPP are assumed to be consistent with, and encompassed by, the 

outcome of the NEPA process.

There are substantial uncertainties associated with the high-range estimate for Radioactive Liquid 

Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition including, but not limited to, the following:

 Mission Extension Results in Need for Facility Replacements and Major Upgrades – Partial or 

full replacement of TWCS and the WTP HLW Facility are considered very likely. WTP LAW, 

HLW, and PT facilities have 40-year design lives. Each facility is planned to operate between 35 

and 40 years. Life extension programs can effectively extend their safe operation for an additional 

20 years, potentially. However, if the mission extends beyond this timeframe owing to issues 

such as funding constraints, lower operating efficiency, increased maintenance requirements, 

and/or lower waste oxide loading, these facilities may have to be completely replaced at 

significant cost.

 WTP LAW Facility Throughput Rate Does Not Meet Plan – There is a high likelihood that the 

throughput rate in the WTP LAW Facility will not meet the planned 70% operating efficiency, 

thereby extending the mission duration.

 WTP PT Facility Throughput Rate Does Not Meet Plan – There is also a high likelihood that the 

WTP PT process will not operate at the 70% operating efficiency, thereby extending the mission 

duration.

 WTP PT Facility is Rendered Inoperable due to Major Black Cell System Failures – If the WTP 

PT Facility cannot sustain operations due to irreparable system failure, then a replacement facility 

may be needed. The WTP PT Facility includes technically complex systems (e.g., Pulse Jet Mixer 

[PJM] tanks) in black cells and supporting ancillary systems that cannot be replaced. If solids 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-13

build up or major component failure occurs, the facility may have to be completely replaced to 

complete the mission.

 WTP HLW Facility Throughput Rate Does Not Meet Plan – It is considered highly likely that the 

WTP HLW Facility will not operate at the 70% operating efficiency.

 SST Retrieval Systems Performance Does Not Meet Requirements Due to Unexpected 

Conditions – It is considered highly likely that the waste retrieval rates needed to meet the 

baseline case cannot be met owing to resource limitations, equipment downtime, and 

administrative hold points related to safety basis re-analysis.

 DST Availability to Perform Mission Functions – Additional DSTs could leak, which could have 

impacts on the retrieval mission.

 242-A Evaporator Availability – It is highly likely that the 242-A Evaporator Facility will fail and 

will have to be replaced at some point over the RPP mission.

 Facilities and Equipment Become Obsolete -– The RPP mission may last for several decades 

beyond the design life of RPP mission facilities and equipment.

 WTP PT Facility Radioactive Secondary Solid Waste Not Able to be Treated or Disposed as 

Planned – It is considered highly likely that the PT Facility will generate remote-handled or TRU 

waste that currently has no path to disposal. Costs will include the storage, treatment and disposal 

of such secondary wastes.

 WTP PT Hot Commissioning is Delayed – There is a high likelihood that PT will be delayed. The 

uncertainty is how long it will be delayed, as well as the actual PT configuration and capabilities 

required. Direct feed HLW could delay the start of PT even further.

Other risks identified with less potential impacts to the Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition mission costs and schedule include: LAWPS hot commissioning is delayed; 222-S laboratory 

availability is less than adequate; cross-site transfer system startup is delayed; the waste feed delivery 

(WFD) system does not meet the WTP PT Facility waste acceptance criteria (WAC); availability of 

Hanford Site infrastructure, utilities and services (inside the waste management areas) is less than 

adequate; and WTP LAW radioactive solid secondary waste is not able to be treated or disposed as 

planned.

In addition to an assessment of the potential risk impacts, the high-range estimate also reflects an 

assessment of inherent cost estimate uncertainty. An allowance for cost estimate uncertainty is included 

by assigning an expected cost estimate accuracy range, based on accepted industry guidelines, to the 

various cost elements that comprise the Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

mission. Those ranges were then used as inputs to a Monte Carlo analysis and the resultant additional 

allowance is based on an 80% probability that actual costs will be less than the total estimated cost 

including that allowance.

These risks and their associated cost and schedule impacts, in addition to estimate uncertainty, comprise 

the high-range estimate.

For the WTP planning case (low-range estimate), the assumptions include the following:

 The Amended Consent Decree milestone dates are theoretically achievable at the cost profile 

presented in this report, assuming the project can support the aggressive schedule.

 Percent complete for HLW and PT facilities was reduced because of strategic change and project 

revision.

 The HLW and PT engineering percent complete performance will not gain at a rate higher than 

the rate sustained by the LAW Facility for the remaining engineering effort.

 Resources are available or easily accessible for deployment to the WTP project.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-14

 The costs for the BOF and Lab modifications to support HLW and PT work are included.

The risks associated with completion and commissioning of the full LBL/DFLAW portions of the 

WTP are well understood and are actively being mitigated. There are still some remaining technical 

uncertainties, but these are generally addressed. However, both the HLW and PT facilities still 

represent significant technical risk. These projects have been in standby since 2012 while the 

technical issues were being addressed. Although significant modeling, analysis, and testing have been 

conducted, recognized technical risk still exists with these facilities. The combined effects of both 

technical and programmatic challenges could significantly delay full completion and startup of the 

WTP complex. The uncertainty with HLW and PT facilities comprise the high-range cost estimate 

associated with WTP construction.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-1

6.0 MISSION SUPPORT

The mission support function is service oriented and provides key infrastructure, utility, resource, and 

other Hanford Sitewide cleanup support. DOE has responsibilities to protect personnel, nuclear material,

and physical property on the Hanford Site. These activities are performed under Safeguards and Security

(PBS RL-0020). DOE works closely with the regulatory agencies and community to support Hanford 

cleanup through Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100).

A number of infrastructure-related mission support activities are in place to support cleanup of the 

Hanford Site. These mission support activities are managed under Hanford Sitewide Services

(PBS RL-0201). Following cleanup efforts at the Hanford Site, DOE will have ongoing activities to 

maintain the protectiveness of the cleanup actions and support transition to future land uses. This period is 

referred to as LTS and is covered by PBS RL-LTS.

6.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020)

The scope of this PBS includes one primary work element: Safeguards and Security. Table 6-1 describes 

the work scope. Safeguards and Security will be required until cleanup is complete, then protection of 

human health and the environment transfers to PBS RL-LTS.

Table 6-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Safeguards and 

Security

This work element includes management, training, and equipment for staff; physical 

protective systems, such as intrusion protection, Hanford Site access, and badging; 

information and cyber security; personnel security; material control and accountability; 

and security program management.

PBS = project baseline summary. RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

Figure 6-1 presents the low-range remaining estimated costs for Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020)

by FY.

Figure 6-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-2

The operational tempo and associated costs represented in the low-range estimate (baseline/planning case)

for PBS RL-0020 are to a certain extent dependent upon the success in advancing the cleanup mission. 

For instance, removal of material at risk may result in a lowering of the site security posture with a 

corresponding reduction in yearly operational costs. An example of this is illustrated in Figure 6-1,which 

depicts a step change decrease in annual safeguards and security expenditures beginning in 2054. This 

reduction is predicated on the enabling assumption that the national repository is available to accept spent 

nuclear fuel shipments from Hanford beginning in approximately 2048.

Another area of uncertainty relates to a potential extension to the tank waste cleanup mission. Under this 

scenario, the site would be required to sustain the requisite level of safeguards and security beyond that 

assumed in the baseline planning case. Similar to the availability of the national repository, this 

uncertainty is also reflected in the high-range estimate.

6.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY

SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

This PBS covers support to community activities and various agencies and boards. The scope of work is 

summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Richland Community 

and Regulatory

Support

Includes RL support to community activities and various boards, such as the Hanford 

Advisory Board, the Oregon Department of Energy and other entities through grants and 

fees. Includes studies for Natural Resource Damage Assessment but does not include 

significant restoration of natural resources to resolve any liability of the United States for 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration.

PBS = project baseline summary. RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

Figure 6-2 presents the low-range remaining estimated costs for Richland Community and Regulatory 

Support (PBS RL-0100) by FY.

The scope of work for Richland Community and Regulatory Support does not include any additional 

measurable costs for estimate uncertainty nor are there any discrete event risks. The Richland Community 

and Regulatory Support estimates are estimated with a high degree of certainty. The area of greatest 

uncertainty is the impact of extended WTP operations. The longer WTP operates, the longer support to 

community activities and various boards will be required. The high-range estimate accounts for the 

potential of WTP operations being extended.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-3

Figure 6-2. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

6.3 HANFORD SITEWIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0201)

Hanford Sitewide Services plays a key role in completing the cleanup mission. In previous LCRs these

costs were allocated to several RL PBSs, but in this report these costs are consolidated and presented as 

PBS RL-0201, Hanford Sitewide Services.

Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201) provides essential services ranging from the basic to highly

specialized services that reflect the complexity and scale of the environmental cleanup mission.

This project provides direct operations support to RL, ORP, and their contractors with cost-effective 

infrastructure and Site services integral and necessary to accomplish the environmental cleanup mission. 

The scope consists of five primary functions: safety, security, and environment; Site infrastructure and 

services; Site business management; information resources and content management; and 

portfolio management.

Under the safety, security, and environment function, Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) is funded 

as a separate project. Other PBS RL-201 work elements under this function consist of fire and emergency 

response services, emergency operations, Site safety standards, the Radiological Assistance Program,

environmental regulatory management, public safety and resource protection, and radiological site 

services.

The work elements under the Site infrastructure and services function consists of biological control,

facility services, transportation, railroad services, roads and grounds, utilities (water, electricity), sewer 

systems, and sanitary waste management and disposal.

The work elements under the Site business management function consists of real property asset 

management; property systems/acquisition and materials management; sponsorship, management, and 

administration of employee pension and other benefits plans; Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act (Silver and Wilson 2005)/workers compensation; external affairs and other 

interactions; mail services; and reproduction, correspondence control, and multi-media.

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049 2052 2055 2058 2061 2064 2067 2070 2073 2076

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-4

As part of real property asset management, RL has established the LTS program to provide planning and 

interim execution of LTS for portions of the Hanford Site as they are cleaned up and before they are 

transferred to the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM). The current LTS program is part of PBS 

RL-0201 until it is transferred to LM. This future LTS program under LM is referred to as PBS RL-LTS 

in this report. The scope of the current and future LTS program is described in section 6.4.

The work elements under the information resources and content management function consist of strategic 

planning and program management, telecommunications, information systems, and content 

(records) management.

The work elements under the portfolio management function consist of Hanford portfolio planning, 

analysis and performance assessment; project acquisition and support; and independent analysis 

and assessments.

Other work elements include management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, including 

planning, directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and preserve the B Reactor 

facility in a safe condition, and operations and maintenance activities at the Volpentest HAMMER 

Federal Training Center in support of the Hanford Site and other training programs.

Infrastructure work elements consist of reliability projects to repair and replace infrastructure systems and 

provide capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. Also included are 

construction and capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements for biological control, 

crane and rigging, electrical system, facilities, Hanford Fire Department, network and 

telecommunications, studies and estimates, transportation, water and sewer utilities, and other 

infrastructure reliability projects.

This PBS also consists of a variety of support contracts, grants, permits and fees including those for 

electrical power (Bonneville Power Administration), building services and rent, cleanup baseline, contract 

audit and closeout, information technology, land transfers, laundry services, janitorial services, legal, 

Natural Resource Trustee Council, occupational medicine, steam systems, Tribal Nation support, Ecology 

and Washington State Department of Health.

The scope description for these work elements is provided in Table 6-3.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-5

Table 6-3. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Hanford

Sitewide 

Services

Covers costs for Site services and infrastructure. This work element consists of emergency 

services (fire and emergency response, emergency management), environmental integration 

services (Sitewide safety standards, environmental integration, public safety and resource 

protection, radiological site services, and offsite laboratory sample analysis), information 

management (information management planning and controls, information systems, content 

and records management, infrastructure/cyber security, information resources/content 

management, and information support services), Site infrastructure and utilities/logistics and 

transportation (roads and grounds, biological services, electrical services, water/sewer 

services, facility services, transportation, mail, property systems/acquisitions, railroad 

services, technical services, energy management, work management, land and facilities 

management), support functions (business operations, human resources, safety, health and 

quality), and portfolio management (portfolio planning, analysis and performance, project 

acquisition and support, and independent assessment and analysis).

• Covers contracted technical services in key areas such as audit, regulatory analysis, 

cost and risk analysis and estimating. Also covers mission-critical support services to 

DOE and its contractors in key areas such as occupational medicine, information and 

telecommunications, janitorial, laundry services, electrical power, steam service and 

facilities rentals; critical independent legal counsel and litigation services in support 

of DOE and its contractors; and other mission-critical support services to DOE and 

its contractors in key areas such as land transfers, acquisition and contract closeout, 

energy conservation and management, natural resource trusteeship, Tribal Nation 

support, Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health, and other small 

contracts, permits, and payment of fees

• Covers management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, including 

planning, directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and 

preserve the B Reactor facility in a safe condition

• Covers operations and maintenance activities at the HAMMER facility in support of 

the Hanford Site and other training programs

• Covers reliability projects to repair and replace infrastructure systems and provides 

capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. 

Also covers construction and capital equipment expenditures associated with 

replacements for biological control, crane and rigging, electrical system, facilities, 

Hanford Fire Department, network and telecommunications, studies and estimates, 

transportation, water and sewer utilities and other infrastructure reliability projects.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

HAMMER = Volpentest HAMMER Federal Training Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.

Figure 6-3 presents the low-range remaining estimated costs for Hanford Sitewide Services 

(PBS RL-0201) by FY.

The Hanford Sitewide Services work scope includes the continued delivery of mission critical programs 

and services to ensure a safe, secure, and compliant work environment for DOE and its contractors. While 

not a determination of importance, the range of services represented in this PBS are primarily level of 

effort driven by the mission duration. Any scenario that results in an extension in the mission will 

increase expenses within this PBS. This uncertainty is accounted for in the high-range estimate.

Similarly, an extension in the mission duration could impact the serviceability of the utility infrastructure. 

Despite the fact the low-range estimate includes expenses to accommodate infrastructure reliability 

projects in the future, the amount estimated may be insufficient to overcome a catastrophic failure in a 

key utility system, particularly considering (1) the age of the infrastructure; and (2) the time-scale of the 

cleanup mission. This uncertainty is also reflected in the high-range estimate.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-6

Figure 6-3. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201)

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

6.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS)

Following the completion of Hanford cleanup actions, the disposal facilities and their areas will require 

long-term management. Administration of the institutional controls activities will be required for portions 

of the Hanford Site to ensure protection of human health and the environment. As portions of the Site are 

cleaned up, they are managed in accordance with the Hanford Site Long-Term Stewardship Program, as 

described in DOE/RL-2010-35, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, under PBS RL-0201

Hanford Sitewide Services. When all the cleanup actions defined by decision documents are completed, 

the Hanford Site will be turned over to DOE LM. This PBS element pertains to the LM activities at the 

Hanford Site.

LTS refers to all activities necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment following 

completion of cleanup, disposal, or stabilization at a site or a portion of a site. LTS includes engineered 

and institutional controls designed to contain or to prevent exposures to residual contamination and waste, 

such as surveillance activities, recordkeeping activities, inspections, groundwater monitoring, ongoing 

pump-and-treat activities, cap repair, maintenance of entombed buildings or facilities, maintenance of 

other barriers and containment structures, access control, and posting signs. LTS begins when cleanup is 

completed and the selected remedy cleanup objectives and goals are met, as defined by the applicable 

CERCLA or RCRA decision documents, or when long-term remediation systems are constructed and 

operating as intended (e.g., groundwater pump-and-treat systems).

The current Hanford Site LTS Program manages the geographic areas for which cleanup has been 

completed in accordance with the post-cleanup requirements specified in the associated 

decision documents. These decisions include, but are not limited to, the CERCLA RODs and RCRA postclosure plans. In addition to managing the post-cleanup completion obligations, the LTS Program 

manages Hanford’s natural and cultural resources through the framework of DOE/EIS-0222-F and 

64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (HCP EIS),” and in accordance with Federal laws, executive orders, Tribal Nation treaties, 

DOE directives, and Hanford Site procedures. The planning basis for the Hanford Site LTS Program

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049 2052 2055 2058 2061 2064 2067 2070 2073 2076

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-7

scope integrates stewardship and institutional controls elements into the program from present day 

to 2078.

The scope, schedule and costs of LTS and institutional controls, to the extent predictable, have been 

included in this LCR for the period from 2079 to 2095. The Federal Government will have a presence at 

Hanford well beyond 2095 – especially in the Inner Area of the Central Plateau – to ensure that the 

cleanup remedies remain protective of people and the environment. As cleanup decisions are made and 

LTS requirements and institutional controls are refined, more specific information will be included in

the LCR.

Table 6-4 provides a summary of the scope. Figure 6-4 shows low-range remaining estimated costs for 

PBS RL-LTS by FY.

Table 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Long-Term Stewardship

Covers operation and maintenance of Hanford Site infrastructure following cleanup 

activities, environmental monitoring of groundwater, soil, vadose zone, and 

monitoring for public safety and resource protection, planning, land management, 

and surveillance and maintenance activities to ensure environmental compliance 

and protection, payment in lieu of taxes, and management and administration.

Figure 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) 

Low-Range Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-8

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-1

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

7.1 SCHEDULE AND COST LIMITATIONS

The LCR is based on an annual compilation of estimated scope, schedule, and cost information. To finish 

preparing the LCR, it is necessary to select a deadline each year when the scope, schedule, and cost 

information used to prepare the report will be “locked down.”

For the 2019 LCR, August 31, 2018, serves as the cutoff date. Unless noted otherwise, changes in the 

TPA and other applicable requirements, budget requests, appropriations, program funding allocations, and 

other scope, schedule, and cost changes after the cutoff date are not reflected in the 2019 LCR.

7.2 OTHER LIMITATIONS

Some of the activities described in the LCR are subject to the analysis and decision-making requirements 

of CERCLA, RCRA, or other applicable statutes and regulations. The information included in the LCR is 

for planning purposes only, not for regulatory decision making, which will be conducted following the 

applicable statutory and regulatory programs.

The LCR does not include resources that may be required to accomplish significant restoration of natural 

resources related to any liability of the United States for NRDAR.

Several non-DOE entities operate and manage property on the Hanford Site, typically under lease 

agreements with DOE, for example:

 Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utility companies that oversees the Columbia Generating 

Station nuclear power reactor.

 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, operated by a consortium of the California 

Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 Washington State, which in turn leases land to US Ecology, Inc., a private firm that operates burial 

grounds for commercial low-level radioactive waste.

Operation, maintenance, and any subsequent future cleanup associated with activities at these facilities 

are subject to the terms and conditions of the leases (and/or other agreements) in place between the 

operating entities and DOE. Potential environmental liabilities for these and similar non-DOE operations 

are not currently considered to be part of the Hanford Site cleanup, and so are not included in the 

DOE EM program. Consequently, lifecycle scope, schedule, and cost for these non-DOE operations are 

not included in the LCR.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-2

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

8-1

8.0 REFERENCES

58 FR 48509, 1993, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, Vol 58, No. 178, pp 48509. 

September 16, 1993.

64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, Vol 64, No. 218, pp 61615, November 12, 1999. 

78 FR 75913, 2013, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Record of Decision, Federal Register, Vol 78, No. 240, 

pp 75913, December 13, 2013.

Atomic Energy Act, 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 

Public Law 113-291.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

DOE and Ecology, 2010, Consent Decree in State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case 

No. 08-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. October 25, 2010).

DOE and Ecology, 2016, Amended Consent Decree between Department of Energy and State of 

Washington, Case No. 2:08-cv-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. March 11, 2016).

DOE/EIS-0119F, 1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C.

DOE/EIS-0222-F, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE/RL-2002-59, 2004, Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-45, 2005, Surplus Reactor Final Disposition Engineering Evaluation, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-10, 2013, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-25, 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-35, 2012, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2012-13, 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2017-66, 2018, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2017, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended. 

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 2012, Hanford Public Involvement Plan, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington, as amended.

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, 

114 Stat. 1654A-38.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

8-2

John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Public Law 115-232.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Public Law 91-190, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

ORP-11242, 2017, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 8, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

River Protection, Richland, Washington.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

Silver, K. and B. Wilson, 2005, The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. 

Fedl. Fac. Environ. J., 16: 89–104. doi: 10.1002/ffej.20065.

Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261, 112 

Stat. 1921.

TRAC-0151-VA, 1991, Historical Perspective of Radioactively Contaminated Liquid and Solid Wastes 

Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, 

Washington.

WA7890008967, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, 

September 30.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-i

APPENDIX A

HANFORD SITE EXISTING CLEANUP DECISIONS
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-iii

CONTENTS

A.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD CLEANUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES.....................1

A.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD CLEANUP............................................3

A.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS.....................3

A.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY 

PROGRAM APPROVALS .....................................................................................3

A.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS .............................................................4

A.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS ....................................................4

A.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND NOT YET 

FINAL..................................................................................................................................4

A.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................27

TABLES

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)........................... 5

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages) ................................................................. 14

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions 

Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. (3 pages)............................................................... 21

Table A-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Cleanup. ................................... 23

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup. (5 pages).................................................................................................... 23
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-iv

TERMS

AM Action Memorandum

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

bgs below ground surface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CCN correspondence control number

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERA expedited response action

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESD explanation of significant differences

HCP IES Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement

HLW high-level waste

IC institutional controls

INL Idaho National Laboratory

ISRM in situ redox manipulation

ISS interim safe storage

LCR Lifecycle Report

MCL maximum contaminant level

NPL National Priorities List

NTCRA non-time-critical removal action

OU operable unit

P&T pump-and-treat

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PRG preliminary remediation goal

PRZ prewetted zone

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

RDR/RAWP remedial design report/remedial action work plan

ROD record of decision

RTD remove, treat, and dispose of

SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel

SST single-shell tank

TCRA time critical removal action

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

Tri-Party agencies U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

Washington State Department of Ecology, 

TRU transuranic

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

WIDS Waste Information Data System

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-1

APPENDIX A

HANFORD SITE EXISTING CLEANUP DECISIONS

Pursuant to the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), commonly 

referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), Milestone M-036-01 requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to prepare an annual Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report [LCR]). 

The LCR is expected to reflect all actions necessary for DOE to meet all applicable environmental 

obligations as it completes the Hanford cleanup mission. These environmental obligations are established 

in accordance with various decision-making processes that DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Tri-Party agencies), and other 

agencies conduct under Federal and State regulatory programs.

Many decisions regarding the Hanford cleanup have been made since the TPA was signed in 1989, and 

actions implementing these decisions have been completed, are underway, or will soon be initiated. Many 

other decisions, however, cannot be made yet, are in preliminary planning stages, or are under development. 

The absence of final decisions is addressed in TPA M-036-01:

In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the report 

shall be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives 

or may set forth a range of alternative costs including such a reasonable upper bound.

This appendix provides current information about decisions that affect cleanup and when these decisions 

might become final for LCR purposes. 

 Section A.1 provides a general overview of the principal processes employed at the Hanford Site 

to reach decisions about future cleanup actions.

 Section A.2 describes in more detail the Federal and State decisions that can affect Hanford 

cleanup, the legal and/or regulatory authorities on which the decision making is based, and the 

types of documents used to embody and formalize these decisions.

 Section A.3 summarizes current decisions that, for purposes of this LCR, are considered to be 

cleanup decisions and which cleanup decisions can be identified as final cleanup decisions.

This appendix will be updated to reflect new and changed final cleanup decisions.

A.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD CLEANUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

To implement the cleanup mission, the Tri-Party agencies reach decisions about what actions need to be 

performed to protect the public,workers, and the environment. Cleanup decisions are based on a variety of 

legal and regulatory authorities such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 USC 9601) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

(RCRA) (42 USC 6901) that require the consideration of various alternatives before decisions are made. In 

some cases, the agencies develop interim or partial decisions that enable cleanup work to proceed pending 

final decisions.

The TPA is the primary legal framework that DOE, EPA and Ecology use to achieve Hanford cleanup. 

Cleanup decisions made under the TPA integrate the following regulatory processes:

 CERCLA processes support remedial decision making for most past-practice waste sites, 

canyon facilities, and structures that contain radioactive contamination or other hazardous

substances. The TPA identifies a subset of waste sites as RCRA past-practice sites. Consistent 

with EPA directives and guidance, the TPA establishes the expectation that either a RCRA 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-2

corrective action or a CERCLA remedial action will lead to an equivalent cleanup result. 

In practice, this expectation becomes complicated when radioactive materials are present 

because RCRA authority does not extend to radionuclides. 

 RCRA closure processes are generally used to reach final decisions for the closure of active RCRA 

treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. RCRA corrective action processes also are 

applicable when RCRA wastes from past hazardous waste practices must be cleaned up. EPA has 

delegated implementation of the RCRA program to Washington State. Ecology implements the 

program via RCRA-equivalent state regulations and through facility-specific permits. RCRA 

closure and post-closure requirements are contained in the Hanford Site RCRA Permit 

(WA7890008967, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste).

The clear intent of the TPA is to minimize duplication and overlap of regulatory authorities while ensuring 

compliance with applicable requirements. As already noted, RCRA authority does not extend to the cleanup 

of radionuclides. The TPA states that the cleanup process selected for a RCRA operable unit (OU) will be 

sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy the technical requirements of both RCRA and CERCLA.

In addition to RCRA and CERCLA, DOE is responsible for regulating the radioactive materials that it 

manages, including setting standards that affect cleanup decisions for radionuclides. DOE Order 435.1, 

Radioactive Waste Management, establishes additional requirements and processes that apply to cleaning 

up radioactive facilities and media. DOE develops and implements cleanup decisions under this order. 

Land use also is an important factor in making cleanup decisions because remedial action objectives must

support reasonably anticipated future land uses. These future land-use assumptions allow risk assessments 

and feasibility studies to focus on developing practical and cost-effective remedial alternatives. DOE is 

responsible for designating land uses on the Hanford Site and for identifying future land uses that will guide 

risk assessments and cleanup decisions. Pursuant to a record of decision (ROD) published on November 2, 

1999 (64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (HCP EIS)”) and an amended ROD published on September 26, 2008 (73 FR 55824, “Amended 

Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement”), 

DOE has established a comprehensive land-use plan for the Hanford Site. As DOE stated in the first ROD:

The purpose of this land-use plan and its implementing policies and procedures is to 

facilitate decision making about the site’s uses and facilities over at least the next 50 years. 

The Department’s decision seeks to balance the Department’s continuing land-use needs 

at Hanford with its desire to preserve important ecological and cultural values of the site 

and allow for economic development in the area. (64 FR 61615 - 61616)

To cleanup an area as large and complex as the Hanford Site requires an extraordinary number of regulatory 

decisions. While many cleanup decisions have been made, only some of these decisions are considered to 

be final; many are either interim decisions or decisions that laid the groundwork for future final decisions. 

The rest of this appendix provides a more extensive discussion of the decisions that have been made. It also 

includes several tables that summarize the effects of these decisions.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-3

A.2 CLEANUP DECISIONS

A.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND 

LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS

CERCLA, as modified by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 1986 (42 USC 103),

established the Federal program to cleanup uncontrolled or abandoned waste sites as well as accidents, 

spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Under 

40 CFR 300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,” DOE is the lead 

agency with lead responsibilities by the National Contingency Plan and Executive Order 12580, Superfund 

Implementation. EPA is the lead regulatory agency under the TPA and oversees the cleanup activities 

conducted under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300, “National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.” EPA also has certain oversight authorities granted through 

CERCLA and the TPA. The most common documentation used to implement cleanup decisions under 

CERCLA includes:

 CERCLA ROD. The CERCLA ROD is a public document, developed from information generated 

during the remedial investigation/feasibility study that explains which remediation alternatives will 

be used to clean up a site. A ROD contains information about the site’s history, description, and

characteristics; community participation; enforcement activities; past and present activities;

contaminated media; the contaminants present; scope and role of response action; and the remedy 

selected for cleanup. RODs can be final or interim; interim RODs allow cleanup actions to proceed 

until a final decision can be reached.

 Explanation of Significant Differences and ROD Amendment. Documents used to modify or 

clarify an existing ROD. The explanation of significant difference is used when changes to a 

component of a remedy do not fundamentally alter the overall cleanup approach. The amendment 

is used when there are fundamental changes, or a number of significant changes, that together have 

the effect of a fundamental change to the remedy selected in the ROD.

 Action Memorandum. A public document used to exercise the CERCLA removal authority and 

enable cleanup action to proceed where a site presents a relatively time-sensitive, non-complex 

problem that can and should be readily addressed.

Several CERCLA documents have been completed that have resulted in cleanup decisions. These CERCLA 

documents and summaries of the relevant cleanup decisions are listed in Section A.3.

A.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER REGULATORY PROGRAM APPROVALS

RCRA, as modified by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, gave EPA authority to control 

the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The amendments expanded the 

scope of RCRA to require corrective actions for certain releases of hazardous constituents to the 

environment from RCRA facilities (similar to CERCLA remedial actions). Unlike CERCLA, EPA may 

delegate authority for implementing RCRA to the states, and in Washington State, Ecology has lead 

authority for most elements of RCRA. Principal documents used to implement Hanford cleanup decisions 

under RCRA include:

 Final Status Permit. A final status permit includes explicit descriptions of the conditions and 

requirements that must be met by a facility that manages hazardous waste (or “dangerous waste”

in Washington State). A TSD facility may receive a final status permit even though it is closed and 

not operating, if ongoing caretaking activities must be maintained after closure (i.e., during the 

post-closure care period). At Hanford, a single final status permit covers the entire Site, but is being 

issued in phases because of the number of TSD facilities. The final status permit includes decisions 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-4

about how Federal and State statutes, regulations, and guidance have been interpreted and applied 

to specific activities conducted at each TSD facility.

 Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Some TSD facilities have closed or may close before they are covered 

under the final status permit. In such cases, a closure plan must be prepared to describe the activities 

necessary to close the TSD facility and address any remaining dangerous wastes. If dangerous 

waste will remain after closure, a post-closure plan is required to address residual contamination. 

Ecology must approve closure/post-closure plans before they are implemented and, in the process,

decisions will be made and included in the closure/post-closure plans about how to close the TSD

facility and, where required, conduct post-closure care.

 Corrective Action. Corrective actions to cleanup releases from RCRA TSD facilities may be 

required before a final status permit is issued. Decisions about degree/methods for cleanup will be 

made and implemented through a corrective action plan approved by Ecology.

In addition to RCRA, several other programs authorized under existing Federal and State statutes require 

permits, licenses, and other approvals that can affect cleanup at Hanford. These other decision documents 

establish, among other conditions, limits on emissions of radionuclides and other hazardous constituents to 

the air, water, and ground. Section A.3 lists the various permits, licenses, and other types of approvals 

authorized under applicable regulatory and statutory programs that include or have resulted in decisions 

affecting Hanford cleanup.

A.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS

Among other functions, the TPA helps define how CERCLA and RCRA programs will be implemented 

when they have overlapping authorities. The TPA is used to determine which decision-making process 

(e.g., CERCLA ROD, RCRA permit) will be used to establish cleanup decisions for the waste sites and 

facilities at Hanford. These may include TPA provisions that set specific waste retrieval objectives and 

technology performance standards for certain types of cleanup actions. These TPA-based decisions are 

listed in Section A.3.

A.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS

A variety of other decisions are embodied in executive, legislative, and judicial documents that can affect 

cleanup at Hanford. Section A.3 lists executive orders, presidential proclamations, federal statutes, and 

judicial decisions that may affect cleanup.

A.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND NOT 

YET FINAL 

The statutory and regulatory authorities discussed in Section A.2 resulted in a multitude of decisions across 

numerous projects and programs. Some of these decisions establish environmental obligations that affect 

the cleanup mission and are summarized in this section. 

While some decisions more clearly affect Hanford than others, care has been taken to include decisions that 

have indirect effects on cleanup. Examples of such indirect decisions include those that define national 

standards for risk-based exposure limits, enable offsite activities that contribute contaminants to Hanford 

environmental media, or constrain the ability to disposition materials or wastes at or from the Hanford Site.

As stated earlier, the LCR is required to consider cleanup alternatives “where final cleanup decisions have 

not yet been made” (TPA M-036-01, third paragraph). Some cleanup decisions may appear to be final but 

are not.

 They may be “interim” remedies until a final cleanup decision can be made.

 They may be “partial” actions within a much larger cleanup effort. 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-5

Even where final decisions have been made, legal mandates require periodic reviews to ensure that selected 

remedies continue to be effective; new decisions may be needed depending on how well cleanup actions 

are working. For purposes of this LCR, a cleanup decision is deemed to be final if either of the following 

is true.

 The decision is embodied in a statutory orregulatory document that is titled final (e.g., final permit, 

final ROD).

 The decision is explicitly represented as final in a document, and such representation is consistent 

with the statutory or regulatory authority on which it is based.

Hanford cleanup decisions summarized in the following tables indicate whether the decision is considered 

to be final by placing the word FINAL after the decision title. In addition to decisions that have been made, 

whether final or not, many cleanup decisions are yet to be made. By definition, the absence of a decision 

means a final cleanup decision has not been made. It would be very difficult to develop an exhaustive list 

of all the decisions that still need to be made to complete Hanford cleanup. However, as these decisions are 

reached, they will be incorporated into this section of the LCR.

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area (EPA/ROD/R10-93/063) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 1100

Date Approved: Sep-93

Initial Decision: Cap Horn Rapids Landfill; offsite disposal of PCB-contaminated soils; offsite incineration of 

bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate contaminated soils; monitored natural attenuation of groundwater contamination.

The 1100 Area was deleted from the National Priorities List on September 30, 1996 (61 FR 51019).

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the Record of Decision for the USDOE 

Hanford 1100 Area Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2010a)

ESD Sep-10 Documents significant differences to the 

selected remedies in the ROD. This ESD 

clarifies the IC requirements for the Horn 

Rapids Landfill.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

(EPA/ROD/R10-95/100) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Jan-95

Initial Decision: Initial construction of two cells; maximum size of 1.6 mi2; landfill construction in accordance 

with RCRA; capped at completion.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

USDOE Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, Explanation of 

Significant Difference (ESD)

(EPA/ESD/R10-96/145)

ESD Jul-96 Allow disposal of investigation-derived waste 

and RCRA past-practice waste to ERDF; allow 

disposal of nonprocess inactive TSD waste to 

ERDF; allow use of ERDF leachate for dust 

suppression/compaction activities at ERDF.

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary, 

(EPA/AMD/R10-97/101)

Amended

ROD

Sep-97 Authorizes two additional disposal cells and the 

option of treating waste as needed by 

containerization and encapsulation at ERDF 

instead of at the OU.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-6

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary, 

(EPA/AMD/R10-99/038)

Amended

ROD

Mar-99 Establishes conditional approval for delisting of 

the ERDF leachate.

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary,

(EPA/AMD/R10-02/030)

Amended

ROD

Jan-02 Authorizes four additional disposal cells and 

the option of staging waste at ERDF pending 

treatment and/or disposal.

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site-200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary (EPA 2007)

Amended

ROD

May-07 Allows specific waste (e.g., waste associated 

with surveillance and maintenance of Hanford 

facilities, environmental research/development 

activities, sample analyses, liquid effluent 

waste treatment, infrastructure support, and 

environmental monitoring programs) to be 

disposed at ERDF; identifies a plug-in 

approach for ERDF disposal of additional 

similar Hanford cleanup waste generated in 

support of RCRA/CERCLA cleanup actions.

Declaration: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site - 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington (09-AMRC-0179)

Amended

ROD and 

ESD

Aug-09 Allows for ERDF expansion of an area equal to 

4 cells or 2 super cells; updates cell design to 

allow super cell concept and allows for ERDF 

expansion via EPA approval and fact sheets 

rather than ROD amendments.

Explanation of Significant Differences

For the U.S. Department of Energy

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility Hanford Site - 200 Area

Benton County, Washington (EPA 2015)

ESD Oct-15 Allows the onsite 200 West Area Pump-andTreat Facility to be used as an option for the 

treatment of ERDF leachate. This change 

would allow either the ETF or the 200 West 

Area Pump-and-Treat Facility to be used for 

treatment of ERDF leachate, depending upon 

availability.

Declaration of the Amendment to Record 

of Decision for the USDOE Hanford 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility (Ecology 2015)

Amended 

ROD

Dec-15 Waives the 40 CFR 268.45(a) and

WAC 173-303-140(2)(a) prohibition on placing 

hazardous waste in a land disposal unit before 

completing required land disposal restriction 

treatment for certain long, large and/or heavy 

hazardous waste items.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit (EPA/ROD/R10-95/114)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-ZP-1 OU

Date Approved: May-95

Initial Decision: P&T to address carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and trichloroethylene; treatment with air 

stripping and vapor-phase activated carbon; interim action to continue until final action instituted; reinjection of 

treated water.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-7

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit Superfund Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2008) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-ZP-1 OU

Date Approved: Sep-08

Initial Decision: P&T to address carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, chromium, trichloroethylene, I-129, Tc-99, and 

tritium; monitored natural attenuation; flow-path control through injection of treated water; and ICs.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-95/126)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100; 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 OUs

Date Approved: Sep-95

Initial Decision: Remove contaminated soil, structures and debris using observational approach; treatment, by 

thermal desorption to remove organics and/or soil washing for volume reduction, or as needed to meet waste 

disposal criteria; disposal of contaminated materials at ERDF; backfill excavated areas followed by revegetation.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Amendment to the Interim Action Record 

of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, 

and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington 

(EPA/AMD/R10-97/044)

Amended

ROD

Apr-97 Incorporates 34 additional waste sites into the 

ROD; refines remedial cost estimate for 

original 37 sites and additional 34 sites based 

on actual data, streamlining, and lessons 

learned; eliminates the soil washing treatment

option before disposal.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/151) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 100; 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 OUs

Date Approved: Feb-96

Initial Decision: No action.

Partial deletion of the 100 Area (specifically the 100-IU-1 and 100-IU-3 OU waste areas) from the National 

Priorities List was published on July 8, 1998 (63 FR 36861).

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, and 

100-HR-3 Operable Units, Benton County, Washington (EPA and DOE, 2018) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 100; 100-D, 100-H

Date Approved: Jul-18

Initial Decision: Supersedes the cleanup levels selected in Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-

IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (100 Area Remaining Sites)

(EPA/ROD/R10-99/039) and Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units Interim 

Remedial Actions, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/134). Selected remedies for 

waste sites are no action, removal, treatment (as needed) and disposal, pipeline end-capping, backfill, contouring, 

revegetation and institutional controls. Selected remedies for groundwater are expansion and optimization of the 

interim pump and treat remedy, ion exchange to remove hexavalent chromium, reinject treated effluent, monitored 

natural attenuation for nitrate and strontium-90, and institutional controls until cleanup levels are achieved.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-8

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/134)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100; 100-H, 100-K

Date Approved: Mar-96

Initial Decision: Interim action to remove hexavalent chromium from groundwater; 30 extraction wells; ion 

exchange treatment; reinject treated effluent; monitor; institute ICs.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site 

– 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, 

Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary

(EPA/AMD/R10-00/122)

Amended

ROD

Oct-99 Implements In Situ Redox Manipulation

(ISRM) barrier for second chromium plume in 

100-HR-3 OU; existing P&Ts remain in 

operation.

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision (EPA/ESD/R10-03/606)

ESD Apr-03 Provides justification for increased 

schedule/cost from the 1999 Amendment 

associated with a greater number of wells and 

aquifer thickness that affected implementation 

of the ISRM barrier.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable 

Units Interim Action Record of Decision, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington 

(EPA 2009a)

ESD Aug-09 Provides justification for increased cost and 

location of reinjection wells from the 1999 

Amendment associated with operation beyond 

initial 5-year estimate and need to control 

plume migration.

Non-Significant Change for the 100-HR-3 

and 100-KR-4 Operable Units Interim 

Action Record of Decision 

(11-AMCP-0002)

Nonsignificant 

change

Oct-10 Indicates that the ISRM barrier would no 

longer be actively maintained; this shifted the 

groundwater remedy at the ISRM barrier to the 

P&T system.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, (EPA/ROD/R10-96/143)

Note: The ROD is only FINAL for the 300-FF-1 OU; it is an interim action for 300-FF-5 OU.

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 OUs

Date Approved: Jul-96

Initial Decision: 300-FF-1: Remove contaminated soil and debris; dispose at ERDF; backfill and recontouring; 

ICs. 300-FF-5: Monitoring and ICs for groundwater.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington Explanation of 

Significant Difference (ESD) 

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/505)

ESD Jan-00 Provides a site-specific land disposal restriction 

treatability variance for lead contamination 

found in the 628-4 waste site (Landfill 1D).

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 300-FF-5 Record of Decision 

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/524)

ESD Jun-00 Expanded scope of 300-FF-5 ROD to include 

groundwater in 300 Area, including 300-FF-2 

sites and any sites plugged into 300-FF-1 ROD.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit (EPA/ROD/R10-01/119)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-2 OU

Date Approved: Apr-01

Initial Decision: Remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris; treat as needed; dispose at ERDF, WIPP, or 

other; backfill and revegetate; establish ICs; continued groundwater monitoring; and define plug-in approach.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-9

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision (EPA 2004b)

ESD May-04 Modified uranium soil cleanup level from 350 

to 267 pCi/g based on engineering study to 

ensure protectiveness of the groundwater and 

river; modified land-use assumption for 8 

outlying waste sites from industrial to 

unrestricted, changed cleanup levels for these 

sites to those consistent with 100 Area cleanup.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA 2009a)

ESD Aug-09 Incorporates 14 plug-in sites into the ROD and 

subsequent ESDs; incorporates 2 newly 

discovered sites into the ROD and subsequent 

ESDs; allows future newly discovered sites to 

be incorporated into the ROD and ESDs as long 

as cost impacts are within specified limits.

TPA Fact Sheet: “300-FF-2 “Plug-In” 

Waste Sites for Fiscal 2010.” (DOE, EPA 

and Ecology 2010)

- Oct-10 The 2010 list of waste sites plugged into the 

RTD remedy in the 2001 interim action

ROD for the 300-FF-2 OU.

Explanation of Significant Differences, 

Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-2 Operable 

Unit, 618-10 Burial Ground (EPA 2011a)

ESD Aug-11 Modified remedy to allow necessary treatment 

of liquid waste in bottles, up to 1 gal/bottle, to 

occur in trays within the excavation area in 

accordance with an approved work plan.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision for 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5, and Record of Decision Amendment for 300-FF-1 Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA and DOE 2013) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-1, 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5

Date Approved: Nov-13

Initial Decision: This ROD selects a remedy for the waste sites in 300-FF-2, a remedy for the groundwater in 

300-FF-5 and amends the remedy for three 300-FF-1 waste sites. The interim action remedy for 300-FF-5, selected 

in 1996 and the interim action remedy for 300-FF-2 selected in 2001 are replaced with this final action remedy. 

The remedy for 300-FF-1 selected in 1996 is amended for additional remedial action of uranium from three sites. 

Contaminated buildings are being removed in accordance with CERCLA action memoranda and are not part of the 

OUs addressed by this ROD.

The major components of the selected remedy for the 300-FF-2 OU are the following:

 Remove, treat and dispose of (RTD) at waste sites 

 Erect temporary surface barriers and fill pipeline voids

 Enhanced attenuation of uranium using sequestration in the vadose zone, periodically rewetted zone (PRZ)

and top of the aquifer 

 ICs, including the requirement that DOE prevent the development and use of property that does not meet 

residential cleanup levels at the 300 Area Industrial Complex and 618-11 for other than industrial uses, 

including use of property for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, childcare facilities, and 

playgrounds. 

The major components of the selected remedy for the 300-FF-5 OU are the following: 

 Monitored natural attenuation 

 Groundwater monitoring 

 Enhanced attenuation of uranium at the top of the aquifer 

 ICs. 

The major component of the amended remedy for 300-FF-1 is enhanced attenuation of uranium using sequestration 

in the vadose zone, PRZ and top of the aquifer.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-10

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences 

for the Hanford Site 300 Area Record of 

Decision for the 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5 

Operable Units, and Record of Decision 

Amendment for the 300-FF-1 Operable 

Unit (15-AMRP-0259)

ESD and 

Amended 

ROD

Sep-15 Adds two 300-FF-2 OU wastes sites. 

The remedy for waste site 600-393 is RTD and 

no additional action is needed for waste site 

600-386.

Explanation of Significant Differences 

#2 for the Hanford Site 300 Area Record 

of Decision for the 300-FF-2 and 300-

FF-5 Operable Units, and Record of 

Decision Amendment for the 300-FF-1 

Operable Unit (16-AMRP-0097)

ESD Apr-16 Adds one waste site to the 300-FF-2 OU and 

modifies the remedy for another waste site. 

The remedy for waste site 600-403 is RTD and 

the remedy for waste site 300-288:2 is RTD 

without backfill, to allow its use as a borrow 

pit.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 and 200-PW-6 

Operable Units Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA 2011b) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 East and 200 West

Date Approved: Sep-11

Initial Decision: RTD of soil and debris to specified depths or cleanup levels for plutonium-contaminated soils 

and subsurface structures/debris. Soil vapor extraction at three 200-PW-1 waste sites will continue until vadose 

zone cleanup levels are met. Soil covers will be used to a depth of at least 15 ft over cesium-contaminated soils. 

Removal of sludge followed by tank stabilization for two tanks. No action for two waste sites. ICs and long-term 

monitoring for waste sites where contamination is left in place and an unrestricted land use is precluded. 

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-97/048)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-UP-1 OU

Date Approved: Feb-97

Initial Decision: Extract groundwater from high concentration zone of uranium and Tc-99 plumes and treat at 

Effluent Treatment Facility.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the Interim Action Record of Decision for 

the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable 

Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2009b)

ESD Feb-09 Adds National MCL of 30 μg/L for uranium as 

ARAR for treating extracted water; replaces 

190 gal/min pumping with a pumping 

requirement from existing and new wells 

consistent with approved RDR/RAWP until 

uranium and Tc-99 concentrations are less than 

10 times the MCL for 4 consecutive quarters; 

adds sampling requirements and updates cost 

estimates and IC requirements.

Record of Decision for Interim Remedial 

Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 

200-UP-1 Operable Unit (EPA 2012)

Interim 

Action 

ROD

Sep-12 Supersedes previous interim action ROD (Feb97) and ESD (Feb-09). Includes groundwater 

extraction/treatment (with flow path control

through injection of treated water) in 

combination with monitored natural attenuation 

for Tc-99, uranium, chromium (total and 

hexavalent), nitrate, carbon tetrachloride, and 

tritium; hydraulic containment and further 

treatment technology evaluation for I-129; 

remedy performance monitoring and ICs.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-11

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 

100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/039)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100, 200 North

Date Approved: Jul-99

Initial Decision: Requires RTD for 46 sites; adds the plug-in approach for the RTD remedy for remaining 100 

Area and 200 North sites and for newly identified 100 Area sites added by ESD; disposal of debris from B, D, H, 

and K reactors to ERDF; provides decision framework for leaving waste in place, generally below 15-ft depth.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100 Area Remaining Sites ROD, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington 

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/045)

ESD Jun-00 Plugs in 600-23 and JA Jones #1 waste sites to 

the Remaining Sites ROD.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision 

(EPA 2004b)

ESD Feb-04 Adds 28 sites to ROD; adds 10 CFR 1022 and 

40 CFR 6, Appendix A as ARARs to ROD; 

revises annual ICs report date to be coincident 

with the due date for the Sitewide ICs Plan for 

Hanford CERCLA Response Actions.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington

(EPA 2009c)

ESD Aug-09 Authorizes adding 200-CW-3 OU wastes sites, 

99 newly discovered waste sites, and 87 

candidate sites using the plug-in approach in 

the ROD and any newly discovered waste sites 

that will be documented in the Administrative 

Record and in an annual fact sheet.

TPA Fact Sheet: 100 Area “Plug-In” and 

Candidate Waste Sites For Fiscal Year 

2010 (DOE, EPA and Ecology 2011)

- Mar-11 The annual listing of candidate waste sites for 

confirmatory sampling and waste sites plugged 

into the RTD remedy in the 1999 interim action 

ROD for the 100 Area Remaining Sites.

TPA Fact Sheet: 100 Area “Plug-In” and 

Candidate Waste Sites For Calendar Year 

2012 (DOE, EPA and Ecology 2013)

- Jan-13 The annual listing of candidate waste sites for 

confirmatory sampling and waste sites plugged 

into the RTD remedy in the 1999 interim action 

ROD for the 100 Area Remaining Sites.

TPA Fact Sheet: 100 Area “Plug-In” 

Waste Sites For Calendar Year 2017 

(DOE, EPA and Ecology 2018)

- Mar-18 The annual listing of waste sites plugged into 

the RTD remedy in the 1999 interim action 

ROD for the 100 Area Remaining Sites.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-FR-3, 100-IU-2, and 

100-IU-6 Operable Units (EPA 2014) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 100 Area

Date Approved: Sep-14

Initial Decision: RTD at 91 waste sites, ICs at 15 waste sites, no additional action due to interim remedial actions 

completed at 198 waste sites, monitored natural attenuation to address nitrate, hexavalent chromium, 

trichloroethene, and strontium-90 in 100-FR-3 groundwater and ICs.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/059)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100-K
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-12

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Date Approved: Sep-99

Initial Decision: Remove spent nuclear fuel from basins; remove sludge from basins; treat and remove water from 

the basins; remove debris from the basins; deactivate the basins; and institute ICs.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision 

Amendment, U.S. Department of Energy; 

100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 

Area, Benton County, Washington (EPA 

2005a)

Amended 

ROD

Jun-05 Modifies remedy for sludge by including 

sludge treatment prior to interim storage and 

shipment to a national repository; modifies 

remedy for debris by including grouting in 

place some of the basin debris followed by 

removal along with the removal of the basins. 

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the Hanford Site 100 K Area K Basins 

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision 

(16-AMRP-0173)

ESD May-16 Modifies the amended ROD by removing

the requirement that sludge be treated prior to 

interim storage, provided the sludge is stored at 

T Plant in Cells 3L, 8R, 9L, 10L, 13L 14R, and 

15L. The sludge remains subject to the

requirement that it be treated and packaged for 

disposal, and shipped off-Hanford to a national

repository.

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/112)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100-N

Date Approved: Sep-99

Initial Decision: ICs for shoreline site; in situ and RTD with ex situ bioremediation for petroleum sites; RTD for 

remainder of sites in 100-NR-1; maintain ERA P&T for 100-NR-2.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Interim Action 

Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-

NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action 

Record of Decision 

(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605)

ESD May-03 Removes July 31 annual ICs reporting 

requirements, consolidates reporting with the 

site-wide IC annual report; eliminates 

requirement to evaluate applying 30 in. of 

irrigation water to determine if remaining 

contaminants will impact groundwater; 

identifies need for additional ICs to preclude 

access to contaminated groundwater for 116-N1 which will be incorporated into site-wide IC 

document.

U.S. Department of Energy, 100-NR-1 

and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site -

100 Area, Benton County, Washington, 

Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary 

(EPA 2010b)

Amended 

ROD

Sep-10 Deploys the apatite sequestration technology 

for remediating Sr-90 in the 100-NR-2 OU by 

extending existing apatite permeable reactive 

barrier to ~2,500 ft, allows for deployment of 

the apatite sequestration technology elsewhere 

in the 100-NR-2 OU in accordance with an 

Ecology approved work plan, and includes 

decommissioning the treatment components of 

the existing P&T system.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable 

Units Interim Remedial Action Record of 

Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2011a)

ESD Mar-11 Adds 45 additional waste sites in the 100-NR-1 

OU for remediation by RTD (characterized per 

the 100-N Area sampling and analysis plan)

and increases the total cost 38% to 

$67,510,386.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-13

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable 

Units Interim Remedial Action Record of 

Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2013)

ESD Aug-13 Adds 2 additional waste sites in the 100-NR-1 

OU for remediation by RTD and increases the 

total cost by $401,500.

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Declaration, U.S. Department of Energy 100 Area, 100-NR-1 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-00/120)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD for 2 RCRA TSDs and an associated site

Area: 100-N

Date Approved: Jan-00

Initial Decision: RTD of 116-N-1 and 116-N-3 Cribs with ERDF disposal; backfill and revegetate; any pipelines 

will be removed or sampled and left in place based on sample results.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Interim Action 

Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-

NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action 

Record of Decision

(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605)

ESD May-03 Removes July 31 annual ICs requirement and 

consolidates reporting with the site-wide IC 

annual report; eliminates requirement to 

evaluate applying 30 in. of irrigation water to 

determine if remaining contaminants will 

impact groundwater; identifies need for 

additional ICs to preclude access to 

contaminated groundwater for 116-N-1 which 

will be incorporated into site-wide IC 

document.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 

100-HR-2 and the 100-KR-2 Operable Units (EPA/ROD/R10-00/121)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100 Area Burial Grounds

Date Approved: Sep-00

Initial Decision: Remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris; treat as needed; dispose at ERDF; backfill and 

revegetate. Applies to 45 burial grounds in 100 Area.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the Interim Action Record of Decision for 

the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 

100-KR-2 Operable Units (100 Area 

Burial Grounds) (08-AMRC-0033)

ESD Nov-07 Established limit of RTD excavation at the 118-

B-1 Burial Ground considering the balancing 

factors in the ROD and required additional ICs 

for protection of groundwater and the Columbia 

River.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative), Hanford Site, Washington (EPA 2005b) 

FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Oct-05

Initial Decision: Remove waste from vessels and equipment in the facility with levels of transuranic isotopes 

greater than 100 nCi/g and eventual disposal at WIPP; removal of liquids from the facility or treatment to remove 

liquids; partial removal of contaminated equipment and piping from the gallery side of the facility and dispose at 

ERDF; demolition and subsequent stabilization of the railroad tunnel, 271-U, 276-U, 291-U, and 292-U structures 

and 291-U-1 and 296-U-10 stacks and dispose at ERDF; construct an engineered barrier; planting semiarid-adapted 

vegetation on the barrier; ICs; post-closure care; and ongoing barrier performance and groundwater monitoring.

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirement. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat. 

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

PRZ = Periodically Rewetted Zone.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-14

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (9 pages)

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ERA = expedited response action.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant difference.

IC = institutional controls.

ISRM = in situ redox manipulation.

MCL = maximum contaminant limit.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

RD/RAWP = remedial design/remedial action work plan.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Unless otherwise noted in Table A-2, decisions made through action memoranda (AM) are considered 

final and are available in the TPA Administrative Record (http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/). These decisions 

focus mainly on the deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition (D4) of buildings

and generally are considered final actions because buildings are demolished and the waste disposed of at

approved facilities; or remove, treat, and dispose of (RTD) contaminated soil from waste sites, which are 

generally considered final actions for individual waste sites. Slabs and contaminated soils underlying the 

buildings may require additional decision making as part of appropriate source OUs. Similarly, waste 

sites that undergo RTD as a removal action will likely have a final ROD covering the decision, even 

though no additional cleanup activities are anticipated.

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“618-9 Burial Ground 

Project Plan” (91-ERB-039)

Feb-91 TCRA Provides for trench excavation and removal of drummed liquid 

wastes from 618-9 Burial Ground. Treatment and/or disposal of 

liquids and contaminated soils (if present) is considered part of 

the Phase 2 activities and is not considered time critical.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: 316-5 Process 

Trenches, USDOE Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA”

(CCN 9103432) 

Jul-91 ERA Provides for excavation of soil from the 316-5 process trenches 

and interim stabilization pending further remedial action as part 

of the 300-FF-1 OU. This AM initially was not a final action; 

however, the ROD for 300-FF-1 OU, which covers these 

trenches, is a final CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal for 200 West Area 

Carbon Tetrachloride 

Plume” (CCN 9200423)

Jan-92 ERA Identifies installing a soil vapor extraction system with granular 

activated carbon recovery and offsite granular activated carbon 

regeneration at 216-Z-1A followed by systems at 216-Z-18 and 

216-Z-9. While this ERA is not a final decision; a final decision 

has been made through the CERCLA remedial process for the 

200-PW-1 OU.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: Sodium 

Dichromate Barrel Landfill, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” 

(CCN 9307470)

Mar-93 ERA Identifies excavation and disposal of drums and homestead 

debris from the landfill and sampling any other wastes 

encountered during excavation; the expedited response would 

result in cleanup of the landfill to unrestricted levels.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; Riverland Site, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” 

(CCN 9305567)

Jun-93 ERA Provides for cleanup of the Riverland Site, part of the 100-IU-1 

OU, through excavation to address pesticide and hydrocarbon 

contamination, ordnance survey and removal, and sandblasting 

to decontaminate concrete.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-15

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum: 

North Slope (Wahluke 

Slope) Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (Ecology 

and EPA 1994a)

Mar-94 ERA Provides for mitigation of physical hazards, excavation of the 

worst-case landfill, characterization of other landfills, and, if 

needed, excavation of other landfills based on characterization 

results; includes investigation and as needed, mitigation of 

ordinance burial pits. As stated in the AM, the intent is to 

provide for the final removal action taken at the 100-IU-3 OU

(the Wahluke Slope).

“Action Memorandum; 

N Springs Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (Ecology 

and EPA 1994b)

Sep-94 ERA Identifies a P&T system combined with a vertical barrier for 

implementation at N Springs. These systems are a component of 

overall cleanup of N Springs but were also intended to provide 

additional information to the ongoing CERCLA and RCRA 

processes. This ERA is not a final decision.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; 100-BC-1 

Demonstration Project; 

USDOE Hanford Site; 

Richland, Washington”

(EPA and Ecology 1995)

Jun-95 ERA Allows contaminated soil from 116-B-4, 116-B-5, and 116-C-1 

to be excavated and temporarily stored pending start of ERDF 

operations; actions under this AM would provide additional 

information to support remedial design, including cost 

information, for 100-BC-1 OU. The ERA was not intended as a 

final decision; 100-BC-1 OU has been incorporated into an 

interim ROD and is undergoing a final ROD process.

“Action Memorandum, 

183-H Solar Evaporation 

Basin Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 040739)

Nov-96 ERA Identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 183-H solar 

evaporation basin waste generated through cleanup activities. 

“Action Memorandum, N 

Area Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 038546)

Nov-96 ERA Identifies ERDF as the disposal location for contaminated 

sediment and debris from the emergency dump basin, facility 

deactivation waste, and environmental investigation waste from 

the 100-N Area.

“Action Memorandum; 

100-B/C Area Ancillary 

Facilities and the 

108-F Building Removal 

Action, USDOE Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA” (EPA 

1997)

Jan-97 NTCRA Identifies D4 with ERDF disposal for facilities in 100-B and 

100-F Areas: 111-B, 115-B, 118-C-4, 119-B, 105-C reactor 

waste, and 108-F building. The B Reactor and ISS of 

105-C Reactor are not included in the AM. This action is 

considered final for ancillary facilities and demolished portions 

of the reactor. Additional decisions are expected on the reactor 

core that is in ISS.

“Action Memorandum: 

Removal Action at the 233-S 

Plutonium Concentration 

Facility, USDOE Hanford 

Site, Benton County, WA”

(DOE and EPA 1997)

Mar-97 NTCRA Identifies D&D as the preferred alternative for 233-S and 

233-SA buildings, including subsurface systems and structures 

to a depth of 3 ft (further actions beyond the 3-ft depth would be 

deferred to the associated source OU). Waste meeting the criteria 

would be disposed of at ERDF; other waste would be disposed 

of as appropriate.

“Action Memorandum, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

NPL, 100-IU-3 Operable 

Unit (Wahluke Slope), 

Hanford Site, Adams, Grant, 

and Franklin Counties, WA” 

(Ecology and DOE, 1997)

Jul-97 TCRA Addresses contaminated soils/drums at the 2,4-D burial ground 

in 100-IU-3 OU. Removal action includes excavating 

dioxin-contaminated soil for offsite disposal; bioremediation of 

2,4-D contaminated soil; and excavating, cleaning, and disposing 

of drums at ERDF. In the 1994 AM for Wahluke Slope, only 

2,4-D burial ground was identified for sampling. Subsequently, 

additional contamination was found, prompting another AM. 

Completing this AM action allows continuation of the process of 

deleting the OU from the NPL.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-16

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum:

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 

105-F and 105-DR Reactor 

Buildings and Ancillary 

Facilities, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA”

(CCN 059689)

Jul-98 NTCRA Identifies ISS for 105-F and 105-DR reactor cores and D&D for 

reactor components up to the cores and for 116-D, 116-DR, 

117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary facilities. Demolition will extend 

generally to 3 ft bgs; however, substructures and/or soil beneath 

the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be excavated. 

This action is considered final for the ancillary facilities and 

demolished portions of reactors. Additional decisions are 

expected on the reactor cores in ISS.

“Action Memorandum:

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 

100-N Area Ancillary 

Facilities; Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA” (DOE

et al. 1998)

Dec-98 NTCRA Provides for D&D of the inactive contaminated ancillary 

facilities in 100-N Area, facilities in the buffer zone, Hanford 

Generating Plant, and solid waste management units inside 

Hanford Generating Plant support facilities (D&D of 105-N and 

109-N are excluded from the AM). Contaminated soils under the 

facilities would be addressed through 100-N Area decision 

documents for waste sites.

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE, Hanford 300 Area 

National Priorities List 

(NPL), 331-A Virology 

Laboratory Building, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

EPA 2000)

Feb-00 NTCRA Per the AM, the walls and floors of the 331-A building would be 

demolished and the concrete slab would be scraped to remove 

physical hazards; wastes would be disposed of at ERDF. 

The concrete slab and underlying soils would remain in place.

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List 

(NPL); 105-D and 105-H 

Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities; Hanford 

Site; Benton County, WA”

(DOE and Ecology 2000)

Dec-00 NTCRA Identifies D&D for a portion of the 105-D and 105-H Reactor 

facilities and D&D for the 103-D unirradiated fuel element 

storage building, the 190-DR process water pumphouse, the 

1713-H warehouse, and the 1720-HA arsenal. Subsurface 

structures and contaminated soil would be characterized and 

evaluated at the time of D&D. Soils and subsurface structures 

that exceed cleanup levels would be excavated with waste 

disposal primarily at ERDF and those meeting cleanup levels 

would be left in place and covered with 1 m of clean fill. 

The reactor cores would be placed in ISS for up to 75 years. 

This action is considered final for the ancillary facilities and 

demolished portions of the reactors. Additional decisions are 

expected on the reactors cores in ISS.

“Action Memorandum; 

USDOE, Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 

105-B Reactor Facility, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

EPA 2001)

Dec-01 NTCRA Identifies appropriate actions at B Reactor to mitigate the threat 

to site workers, public health or welfare or the environment by 

removing hazardous substances from the facility; these actions 

are consistent with increased public access to the reactor 

building; surveillance and maintenance activities would 

continue. Any wastes generated during the mitigation activities 

would be disposed at ERDF.

“Action Memorandum; 200 

West Area, Central Waste 

Complex, 183-H Solar 

Evaporation Basin Waste, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE et al. 

2003)

Jun-03 NTCRA Allows for the treatment and disposal to ERDF of wastes 

generated during the RCRA closure of 183-H basin.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-17

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum; 

USDOE, 200 Area, Burial 

Ground 218-W-4C Waste 

Retrieval, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA” (DOE

et al. 2004)

Apr-04 TCRA Provides for the treatment and disposal of low-level and mixed 

low-level waste at ERDF from the M-091 TRU retrieval 

activities at the 218-W-4C burial ground. TRU is excluded from 

the AM.

“Action Memorandum: 

Request for Time Critical 

Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 

105-K East North Loadout 

Pit, USDOE Hanford Site” 

(DOE and EPA 2004)

Jun-04 TCRA Requires treatment of 105-K East North Loadout Pit waste prior 

to temporary storage at Hanford and ultimate disposal at WIPP. 

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 224-

B Plutonium Concentration 

Facility” (DOE/RL-2004-36)

Jun-04 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from the 224-B facility, removing 

equipment and associated piping, decontaminating structure and 

stabilizing contamination, demolishing structure to slab, 

disposing of waste generated, and stabilizing area. Samples will 

be used to determine the need for additional cleanup of the 

remaining slab and any subsurface soils. These cleanup actions 

are not included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.

“Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability 

Act Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action 

Memorandum for Removal 

of the 232-Z Contaminated 

Waste Recovery Process 

Facility from the Plutonium 

Finishing Plant”

(CCN 0093881)

Nov-04 NTCRA Provides for the remaining contaminated equipment to be 

removed and the building decontaminated, stabilized, and 

dismantled leaving the building slab, which will be addressed 

under a future CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the U 

Plant Ancillary Facilities”

(DOE/RL-2004-67)

Dec-04 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from U Plant ancillary facilities, removing 

equipment/associated piping, decontaminating structures and 

stabilizing contamination, demolishing structures to slab, 

disposing the waste generated, and stabilizing the area around 

U Plant. The AM includes the specific facilities. Slabs and 

underlying soils will be addressed as needed through future 

CERCLA actions.

“Action Memorandum #1 

for the 300 Area Facilities”

(DOE and EPA 2005a)

Jan-05 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 72 buildings/structures in the northern part of 

the 300 Area, disposing D4 waste at ERDF. An additional 

10 buildings/structures were included in the EE/CA that supports 

the AM; however, those buildings/structures were demolished 

and had no hazardous materials prior to the AM.

“Action Memorandum; 

USDOE, 100 Area, 105-N 

Reactor Facility and 109-N 

Heat Exchanger Building, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

Ecology 2005)

Mar-05 NTCRA Provides for D&D of portions of 105-N and 109-N facilities and 

constructing a protective cover over the 105-N Reactor block,

109-N steam generator cells and pipe gallery, placing them into 

ISS, and waste generally disposed of at ERDF. Final D&D of 

these facilities would be done in the future to allow decay of 

radionuclides in the reactor block. Identifies ISS as 64 years. 

This action is considered final for demolished portions of the 

reactor and heat exchange building. Additional decisions are 

expected on the reactor core and buildings in ISS.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-18

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

the Plutonium Finishing 

Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures Non-TimeCritical Removal Action”

(DOE/RL-2005-13)

May-05 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from PFP above-grade structures, 

removing equipment/associated piping, decontaminating 

structures and stabilizing contamination, demolishing structures 

to slab, disposing the waste generated, and stabilizing and 

covering the area around PFP. Lists the specific structures.

Slabs and underlying soils would be addressed as needed 

through future CERCLA actions.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical

Removal Action for the 

100-K Area Ancillary 

Facilities” (DOE and EPA 

2005b)

Jun-05 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 27 buildings/structures in northern part of 

100-K Area with D4 waste going to ERDF. In general, slabs and 

subsurface structures would be removed with about 1 m of 

surrounding soil; however, on a case-by-case basis, the slabs,

below-grade structures and soils can be deferred to CERCLA 

actions associated with 100-KR-1 and 100-KR-2 source OUs.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

224-T Plutonium 

Concentration Facility”

(DOE/RL-2004-68)

Jun-05 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from the 224-T Facility, removing 

equipment/associated piping, decontaminating structure and 

stabilizing contamination, demolishing structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the area. 

Samples will determine the need for additional cleanup of the 

remaining slab and any subsurface soils. These cleanup actions 

are not included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Time-Critical Removal 

Action for Support Activities 

to 200-UW-1 Operable 

Unit” (DOE/RL-2005-71)

Sep-05 TCRA Provides activities to support U Plant canyon barrier 

construction, including removing part of the 200-W-42 pipeline, 

rerouting Treated Effluent Disposal Facility line and 

stabilizing/removing wastewater line; complete or partial 

removal of concrete slab; remove and seal three vent risers; and 

relocate various markers/utilities. The TCRA accelerated work 

consistent with weather conditions and to take advantage of 

available specialized resources. The action is not considered 

final; the decision process is ongoing for U Plant waste sites. 

The U Plant barrier ROD is considered final.

“Action Memorandum #2 

for the 300 Area Facilities” 

(DOE and EPA 2006a)

May-06 NTCRA Provides for D4 of the 324 and 327 buildings and ancillary 

facilities in the 300 Area with D4 waste going to ERDF. 

The AM provides a list of the ancillary facilities. In general, 

slabs and subsurface structures would be removed along with 

about 1 m of surrounding soil; however, on a case-by-case basis, 

the slabs and/or below-grade structures and soils can be deferred 

to CERCLA actions associated with the 300-FF-2 OU.

“Action Memorandum #3 

for the 300 Area Facilities”

(DOE and EPA 2006b)

Nov-06 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 110 buildings/structures in southern part of 

the 300 Area with D4 waste going to ERDF. An additional 

30 buildings/structures were included in the EE/CA that supports 

the AM; however, those buildings/structures are not included in 

the AM because DOE identified alternative uses for them.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2007)

Jan-07 NTCRA Identifies ISS for 105-KE and 105-KW reactor cores, D&D of

reactor components up to the cores and for remaining buildings

and structures in 100-K Area. Subsurface structures will be 

removed 3 ft bgs; substructures and soil beneath facilities that 

exceed cleanup levels will be evaluated through source OU 

cleanup activities that are considered final for the ancillary 

facilities and demolished portions of the reactors. 

Further decisions are expected on reactor cores in ISS.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-19

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

Northern Part of the BC 

Controlled Area 

(UPR-200-E-83) 

“(DOE/RL-2008-21)

May-08 NTCRA Provides removal, treatment as needed, and disposal, generally 

to ERDF, of UPR-200-E-83 Zone A soils to a depth of 6 in., or 

until PRGs are met, and Zone B soils in areas of elevated 

radioactivity above PRGs. Excavation activities must consider 

old growth vegetation, avoiding destruction of existing plant life.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

212-N, -P and -R Facilities”

(DOE/RL-2008-80)

May-09 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from 212-N, -P, and -R facilities 

equipment and associated piping; decontaminating structures,

stabilizing contamination, demolishing basins and underlying 

soils to 1 m depth, disposing of waste generated, and stabilizing 

surrounding area. Samples will be collected from underlying 

soils to evaluate the need for additional cleanup activities.

“Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit”

(DOE/RL-2009-48)

Jul-09 NTCRA Provides for cleanup of 11 waste sites in the 100-MG-1 OU 

using either a confirmatory sampling/no further action 

alternative (8 sites) or RTD alternative (3 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. If

confirmatory sites do not meet cleanup levels, they will be 

addressed by the RTD alternative. 

“Investigation-Derived 

Waste Purgewater

Management Action 

Memorandum”

(DOE/RL-2009-39)

Aug-09 NTCRA Provides for additional purge water management capacity by 

relining an existing unit and installing up to 3 new units, each 

with leak-detection systems. The purge water management units 

will be operated according to requirements, monitored during 

operations, and disassembled and dispositioned to appropriate 

requirements following the operational period. 

“Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 200-MG-2 

Operable Unit”

(DOE/RL-2009-37)

Oct-09 NTCRA Provides for cleanup of 34 waste sites in the 200-MG-2 OU 

using a confirmatory sampling/no further action alternative 

(16 sites) or an RTD alternative (18 sites). If the confirmatory 

sites do not meet cleanup levels, they will be addressed by the 

RTD alternative. The remaining 200-MG-2 OU sites are not 

included because contamination may extend beyond 15 ft bgs; 

they will be addressed through the CERCLA remedial process. 

“Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable 

Unit” (DOE/RL-2009-86)

Apr-10 NTCRA Provides for cleanup of 37 waste sites in 100-MG-1 OU using a 

confirmatory sampling/no further action alternative (21 sites) or 

RTD alternative (16 sites). Cleanup levels will be consistent with 

existing 100 Area cleanup levels. If confirmatory sites do not 

meet cleanup levels, they will be addressed by the 

RTD alternative. Remaining 200-MG-1 OU sites are not 

included because contamination may extend beyond 15 ft bgs; 

they will be addressed through the CERCLA remedial process.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R 

Facilities, Addendum 1: 

Disposition of Railcars”

(DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1)

Dec-10 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 16 railcars located in 200 North Area with 

disposal to ERDF and includes an option to evaluate some of the 

cars for movement to the B Reactor for preservation. The AM 

identifies a pathway for addressing contaminated soils either by 

removal at the time of D4 or transfer to another OU for 

continued CERCLA action.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-20

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

Decontamination, 

Deactivation, 

Decommissioning, and 

Demolition (D4) Activities 

for 200 East Tier 2 

Buildings/Structures”

(DOE/RL-2010-102)

Feb-11 NTCRA Established D4 to slab-on-grade for 57 Tier 2 buildings/

structures in 200 East Area; plug or grout below-grade piping 

and drains; remove equipment; remove and fill below-grade 

voids; send waste to ERDF or other approved facility for 

treatment and disposal; characterize nature and extent of 

remaining hazardous substances for future decisions; initiate 

waste site evaluation through WIDS for sites that may require 

further work; stabilize area as needed.

“Action Memorandum for 

General Hanford Site 

Decommissioning 

Activities”

(DOE/RL-2010-22)

Jul-13 NTCRA Establishes D4 for excess industrial buildings/structures and 

cleanup of various debris; provides for removing contaminated 

soil or evaluating contaminated soils for inclusion as a waste site 

through WIDS; identifies ERDF as the preferred location for 

wastes meeting ERDF disposal criteria; allows the possibility of 

using certain wastes in other remedial actions, such as fill 

material under barriers; and for incorporating additional, similar 

buildings and structures in the AM.

“Action Memorandum for 

200-DV-1 Operable Unit

Perched Water Pumping / 

Pore Water Extraction” 

(DOE/RL-2014-34)

Dec-14 NTCRA Provides for extraction of perched water from the 200-DV-1 OU

(B tank farm complex in the 200 East Area) and transfer of the 

water by tanker truck or pipeline to the 200 West P&T, where it 

is treated and injected into the aquifer below the 200 West Area.

“Action Memorandum for 

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 

Groundwater Extraction” 

(DOE/RL-2016-41)

Nov-16 NTCRA Provides for extraction of groundwater with elevated uranium 

and technetium-99 concentrations from the B Complex area of 

the 200-BP-5 OU, conveyance of the water by pipeline to the 

200 West P&T, where it is treated and injected into the aquifer 

below the 200 West Area.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

AM = Action Memorandum.

bgs = below ground surface.

CCN = correspondence control number.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

EE/CA = engineering evaluation/cost analysis.

ERA = expedited response action.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

NTCRA = non-time-critical removal action.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRG = preliminary remediation goal.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TCRA = time critical removal action.

TRU = transuranic.

WIDS = Waste Information Data System.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-21

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting 

Hanford Site Cleanup. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Hanford Facility Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, 

for the Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal of Dangerous Waste

(WA7890008967).

FINAL

Ecology issued a Draft Hanford Facility 

Dangerous Waste Permit, Rev. 9, for 

public review and comment from 

May 1, 2012, through October 22, 2012. 

Until Ecology reaches a final decision, 

Rev. 8C Permit remains in effect.

This dangerous waste permit for the TSD of dangerous waste at the 

Hanford Site is the RCRA Permit for the Hanford Facility. The permit 

allows a step-wise permitting process to ensure the proper 

implementation of the TPA. To accomplish this, the permit has six parts:

 Part I, Standard Conditions

 Part II, General Facility Conditions 

 Part III, Unit-Specific Conditions for Final Status Operations

 Part IV, Unit-Specific Conditions for Corrective Action 

 Part V, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units Undergoing Closure

 Part VI, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units in Post-Closure.

Hanford Site Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permit

(Permit PSD-X80-14), issued to RL by 

the EPA, Region 10.

FINAL

Covers emission of NOx to the atmosphere from the Plutonium Uranium 

Extraction Plant and the Uranium-Trioxide Plant. No expiration date.

“Record of Decision: 

Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford 

Site, Richland, Washington”

(58 FR 48509) 

FINAL

In December 1992, DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, WA (DOE/EIS-0119F). The final EIS 

analyzed alternatives for decommissioning 8 water-cooled, graphitemoderated plutonium-production reactors located along the Columbia 

River. The 8 reactors (B, C, D, DR, F, H, KE and KW) operated between 

1944 and 1971 and are retired from service. The alternatives analyzed in

the EIS included no action, immediate one-piece removal, safe storage 

followed by deferred one-piece removal, safe storage followed by 

deferred dismantlement, and in situ decommissioning alternatives.

The ROD was signed September 10, 1993 (58 FR 48509). The ROD 

documented the DOE decision for safe storage followed by deferred onepiece removal of the 8 surplus reactors. DOE prepared a supplemental 

analysis to the EIS in July 2010 (Supplement Analysis, Decommissioning 

of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington [DOE/EIS-0119F-SA-01]) to broaden the possible

decommissioning approach, retaining the one-piece removal option and 

including the option for immediate dismantlement. DOE determined that 

the proposed action is not a substantial change to the alternatives 

previously analyzed in the EIS so a supplement to DOE/EIS-0119F or

new EIS is not needed.

“Record of Decision: Final Tank 

Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington”

(78 FR 75913) 

FINAL

In December 2013, DOE issued the first in a series of RODs pursuant to 

the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC&WM EIS,

DOE/EIS–0391, December 2012). In this ROD DOE announced several 

decisions, including: to implement Tank Closure Alternative 2B, 

‘‘Expanded WTP Vitrification and Landfill Closure,’’ without 

supplemental treatment at WTP and without technetium-99 removal in 

the WTP Pretreatment facility; to implement FFTF Alternative 2 

Entombment; and to implement Waste Management Alternative 2.

“Amended Record of Decision for the

Management of Cesium and Strontium

Capsules at the Hanford Site, Richland,

Washington” (83 FR 23270)

FINAL

This amendment to DOE’s ROD for the TC&WM EIS issued in 

December 2013 announced DOE’s decision to move the cesium and 

strontium capsules from wet storage at the Waste Encapsulation

and Storage Facility (WESF) to a new dry storage facility. It does not 

include any decisions on treatment or final disposition of the capsules.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-22

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting 

Hanford Site Cleanup. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Hanford Site Air Operating Permit 

00-05-006, Renewal 2, Rev. A

FINAL

Covers operations on the Hanford Site having a potential to emit airborne 

emissions. The permit provides a compilation of applicable Clean Air 

Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401) requirements for radioactive and 

nonradioactive emissions at Hanford. It will be implemented through 

Federal and State programs. Effective May 1, 2014, through 

March 31, 2018.

 Attachment 1 contains Ecology’s permit terms and conditions.

 Attachment 2 contains the State of Washington Department of 

Health Radioactive Air Emissions License (FF-01) as permit terms 

and conditions.

 Attachment 3 contains the Benton Clean Air Agency permit terms 

and conditions applicable to the regulations of open burning 

and asbestos.

Permit WA-002591-7, Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit

FINAL

Authorizes discharge of water from 100 Area facilities to the Columbia 

River from Outfall 004 in accordance with discharge point, effluent 

limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions. Effective 

December 1, 2009 through July 31, 2014.

Permit WAR10B90F, Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System General Permit

FINAL

Authorizes storm water discharges associated with construction activities 

from the Hanford Site to the Columbia River in accordance with a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan. No expiration date is specified; the 

estimated project completion date identified in the most recent Notice of 

Intent is May 27, 2014.

Permit CR-IU005, City of Richland 

Industrial Wastewater Discharge 

Permit

FINAL

Allows wastewater from the Environmental Molecular Sciences 

Laboratory to be discharged to the city of Richland’s wastewater 

treatment facility.

Permit ST-0004500, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows treated wastewater from the Effluent Treatment Facility to be 

discharged to the State-Approved Land Disposal Site. Effective January 

1, 2015 through December 31, 2019.

Permit ST-0004502, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows treated effluent from the 200 East and 200 West Areas to be 

discharged to the 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. This 

permit revised and replaced Permit ST-4502 and will remain in effect 

from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017.

Permit ST-0004511, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

This Categorical State Waste Discharge Permit authorizes the discharge 

of wastewater from maintenance, construction, and hydrotesting 

activities and allows for cooling water, condensate, and industrial storm 

water discharges at the Hanford Site. Effective January 1, 2014 through 

December 31, 2019.

Permit ST0045514, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows domestic wastewater to be treated in a non-discharging, lined 

evaporative lagoon located northeast of the 200 West Area. Effective 

July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017.

Permit WAG-50-5180, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Sand and Gravel General Permit

FINAL

Permit for wastewater discharges associated with handling sand and 

gravel for the Concrete Batch Plant in the 200 East Area. Effective 

October 1, 2010 through October 1, 2015.

Permit WAG-50-5181, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Sand and Gravel General Permit

FINAL

Permit for wastewater discharges associated with Pit 30 Quarry 

operations in the 200 East Area. Effective October 1, 2010 through 

October 1, 2015.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-23

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting 

Hanford Site Cleanup. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Large Onsite Sewage Systems (LOSS) 

“Permit to Operate” HAN099

FINAL

Lists systems in the various areas.

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Wells

Hanford has a number of UIC wells – storm water, non-storm water and 

septic systems. The Mission Support Contractor maintains the inventory 

and locations of active and inactive wells.

Table A-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Cleanup.

TPA Documentation Summary of Decision

 M-045-00

 Appendix I

Closure will follow retrieval of as much tank waste as technically possible, with 

tank waste residues not to exceed 360 ft3in each of the 100-series tanks, 30 ft3in 

each of the 200-series tanks, or the limit of waste retrieval technology capability, 

whichever is less.

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. 

(5 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Executive Order 11514, 

Protection and Enhancement 

of Environmental Quality, as 

amended by Executive 

Order 11991

This order requires Federal agencies to continually monitor and control their 

activities to protect and enhance the quality of the environment and develop 

procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely public information 

and understanding of Federal plans and programs that may have potential 

environmental impacts so that interested parties can submit their views. DOE issued 

regulations 10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures” and DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance 

Program, for compliance with this order.

Executive Order 12088, 

Federal Compliance with 

Pollution Control Standards

This order directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable administrative and 

procedural pollution control standards established by, but not limited to Clean Air 

Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401); Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901); Clean Water 

Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251); Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 USC 300); Toxic 

Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 USC 2601); and RCRA (42 USC 6901).

Executive Order 12580, 

Superfund Implementation

This order delegates a number of Federal departments and agencies, including the 

Department of Energy, the authority and responsibility to implement certain 

provisions of CERCLA as lead agency under the National Contingency Plan. 

Policies and procedures for implementing these responsibilities (e.g., response 

actions and fulfilling natural resource trusteeship responsibilities) are provided in the 

National Contingency Plan.

Federal Facilities 

Compliance Act of 1992.

FINAL

This act amended RCRA, Section 6961, and other sections and requires DOE to 

prepare plans that develop treatment capacity for mixed waste stored or generated at 

each facility, except for those facilities subject to a permit that establishes a schedule 

for treatment of such waste or an existing agreement or order governing the treatment 

of such waste to which the State is a party. The host state and/or EPA must approve 

each plan. Washington State, EPA, and DOE had the TPA, which addressed

compliance with the storage prohibition for mixed waste at the time this law was 

enacted and was not required to develop a new plan.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-24

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. 

(5 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982 (42 USC 10101). 

FINAL

This act directed DOE to characterize and evaluate the Yucca Mountain site for 

suitability as a potential repository for disposal of commercial SNF and HLW. 

The act directed the President to evaluate the need for a separate repository for HLW 

resulting from atomic energy defense activities. On April 30, 1985, President Reagan 

completed this evaluation. The result was that HLW from atomic energy defense 

activities may be disposed of in the proposed repository along with SNF. 

After passage by the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, on July 23, 

2002, President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87 approving the site at Yucca 

Mountain for developing a repository for disposal of HLW and SNF, pursuant to the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

As indicated in the Obama administration’s FY2010 budget request, the 

administration intended to terminate the Yucca Mountain program while developing 

nuclear waste disposal alternatives. Notwithstanding the decision to terminate the 

Yucca Mountain program, DOE remains committed to meeting its obligations to 

manage and dispose of HLW and SNF. The Obama administration directed 

establishing the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 

(Commission) to evaluate alternative approaches for meeting these obligations. The 

Commission submitted its final report to the Secretary of Energy in January 2012. 

The Commission did not evaluate Yucca Mountain or any other location and 

recommended an 8-element waste management approach to resolve the current 

impasse:

 A new consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste 

management facilities.

 A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management 

program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.

 Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of 

nuclear waste management.

 Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.

 Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.

 Prompt efforts to prepare for eventual large-scale transport of SNF and HLW to 

consolidated storage/disposal facilities when such facilities become available.

 Support continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and workforce 

development.

 Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste 

management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

In January 2013, DOE responded to the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report in 

the Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Radioactive Waste (DOE 2013). This policy document proposes a framework for 

moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of 

transporting, storing, and disposing of SNF and HLW from civilian nuclear power 

generation, defense, national security, and other activities. The Strategy endorses a 

waste management system containing a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an 

initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; a larger, 

full-scale interim storage facility by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide 

flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough 

used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and the siting and 

characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic 

repository by 2048. 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-25

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. 

(5 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

U.S. Department of Interior 

Announcement, National 

Historic Landmark,

August 19, 2008 .

Hanford’s B Reactor was designated a National Historic Landmark by the 

U.S. Department of Interior. Since then, efforts have continued to include B Reactor 

in a new National Historical Park. 

Carl Levin and Howard P. 

“Buck” McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015, Public 

Law 113-291.

President Obama signed the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act into law on 

December 19, 2014, authorizing the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

B Reactor as the world’s first production reactor is a signature facility of the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Land Withdrawal Act

(Public Law 102-579). 

FINAL

The act withdrew land from the public domain for purposes of creating and operating 

WIPP, the geologic repository in New Mexico designated as the national disposal 

site for defense TRU waste. In addition to establishing the location for the facility, 

the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act defines the characteristics and amount of waste that 

will be disposed of at the facility. Amendments to the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act 

exempt waste designated by the Secretary of Energy for disposal at WIPP from the 

RCRA land disposal restrictions. However, these amendments do not exempt mixed 

TRU waste from other RCRA requirements. WIPP does have a RCRA permit and 

can accept mixed TRU waste. On May 15, 2003, EPA Region 6 approved DOE’s 

request to dispose of TRU and mixed TRU waste containing PCBs at WIPP subject 

to certain “conditions of approval.”

Spent Fuel Settlement 

Agreement (No. CV-91-

0035-S-EJL and No. CV-91-

0054-S-EJL), October 17, 

1995

This agreement allows INL to receive SNF and mixed waste from offsite and 

establishes schedules for the treatment of existing HLW, TRU waste, mixed waste, 

and removal of SNF from the State. 

Consent Decree for 

Stabilization of SSTs at 

Hanford Site between U.S. 

Department of Energy and 

Washington State 

Department of Ecology (No.

CT-99-5076-EFS) 

September 29, 1999.

FINAL

This consent decree established a court-enforceable, technically sound schedule for 

pumping liquid nuclear waste from the remaining 29 unstabilized SSTs. The 

following were the key elements of the consent decree: 

 Pumping the tanks that pose the greatest environmental risk first, thus providing 

additional protection for the Columbia River and public health.

 Accelerating the schedule for pumping so that 98% of approximately 6.2 million 

gallons of remaining pumpable liquid is removed by September 30, 2003, with 

the final 2% scheduled to be removed by September 30, 2004 (this was 

completed).

 Increasing DOE funding to a level that supports successful execution of the new 

schedule for tank stabilization.

 Work under the consent decree has been completed and the court has terminated 

the consent decree.

Presidential Proclamation 

7319, Establishment of the 

Hanford Reach National 

Monument (June 9, 2000).

FINAL

This proclamation set apart and reserved the Hanford Reach National Monument to 

protect all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the U.S. Government 

within the boundaries of the monument area. The lands reserved consist of 

approximately 195,000 acres, and are appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of 

entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or other disposition under the public land 

laws. The monument is to be managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

existing agreements with DOE. DOE retains its responsibilities under applicable 

environmental laws, including the remediation of hazardous substances or the 

restoration of natural resources at the Hanford Site.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-26

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. 

(5 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments

(November 6, 2000).

FINAL

This order supplements “Government-to-Government Relations with Native 

American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and states that each executive 

department and agency shall consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the 

extent permitted by law, with Tribal Nations prior to taking actions that affect 

Federally recognized tribal governments. This order also states that each executive 

department and agency shall assess the impact of Federal government plans, projects, 

programs, and activities on tribal trust resources and ensure that tribal government 

rights and concerns are considered during the development of such plans, projects, 

programs, and activities.

Memorandum of Agreement 

Between the U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

and the U.S. Department of 

Energy for the Manhattan 

Project National Historical 

Park (November 10, 2015)

(DOI and DOE 2015)

The Memorandum of Agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of the two 

agencies in managing the Manhattan Project National Historical Park which includes

facilities at all three of the original Manhattan Project locations – Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee; Los Alamos, New Mexico; and the Hanford Site. At the Hanford Site, the 

B Reactor National Historic Landmark, the Bruggemann Warehouse, the 1908 

Hanford Irrigation District Pump House, the White Bluffs Bank, and the Hanford 

High School from the Town of Hanford and Hanford Construction Camp historic 

district are included in the Park.

Consent Decree in State of 

Washington v. Department 

of Energy, 

Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS

(E.D. Wa. October 25, 2010)

The Consent Decree imposes milestones for the construction and initial operation of 

the WTP, as well as retrieval of waste from certain SSTs. The Consent Decree also 

covers reporting requirements for waste retrievals from SSTs, regulatory 

coordination, and a process to resolve disputes between the agencies.

Amended Consent Decree 

Between Department of 

Energy and State of

Washington, Case No. 

2:08-CV-5085-RMP (E.D. 

Wa. March 11, 2016)

The Amended Consent Decree generally continued the existing milestones from the 

2010 Consent Decree but extended the milestone dates and added additional 

reporting requirements. One new milestone of note is B-3, which requires DOE 

retrieve at least 5 of the Consent Decree SSTs by December 31, 2020.

Second Amended Consent 

Decree Between Department 

of Energy and State of

Washington, Case No. 2:08-

CV-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. 

April 12, 2016)

Parties agreed-to modifications of the Amended Consent Decree concerning the 

purchase and availability of a spare reboiler for the 242-A Evaporator, and associated 

reporting requirements.

Third Amended Consent 

Decree Between Department 

of Energy and State of

Washington, Case No. 2:08-

CV-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. 

Oct. 12, 2018)

The court extended the B-2 and B-3 tank retrieval milestones. The B-2 milestone was 

extended by two-and-a-half years (i.e., from March 31, 2024, to September 30, 

2026), and the B-3 milestone was extended by six months (i.e., from December 31, 

2020, to June 30, 2021).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-27

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. 

(5 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Settlement Agreement 

between the State of 

Washington and the U.S. 

Department of Energy 

(No. 2:03CV-05018-AAM

January 6, 2006). 

FINAL

Prior to the issuance of the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) 

Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington (HSW EIS) 

(DOE/EIS-0286F) and record of decision (69 FR 39449, “Record of Decision for the 

Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, WA: Storage and Treatment of LowLevel Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 

Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste 

for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant”), the State initiated litigation on 

issues related to the importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and 

hazardous waste generated off the Hanford Site as a result of nuclear defense and 

research activities. The court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU waste to Hanford for 

processing and storage pending shipment to WIPP located near Carlsbad, 

New Mexico. DOE, Washington State, and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a 

Settlement Agreement ending the litigation on January 6, 2006. The agreement is 

intended to resolve the State’s concerns about HSW EIS (DOE/EIS-0286F) 

groundwater and other analyses. The agreement specifies that when the Draft Tank 

Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford 

Site, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0391) is complete, it will supersede the 

HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for 

decision-making and will not import offsite waste to Hanford with certain limited 

exemptions as specified in the agreement. The Tank Closure –Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement is now complete. DOE continues to prohibit the 

importation of waste from off the Hanford Site at least until the Waste Treatment 

Plant is operating.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

HLW = high-level waste.

HSW EIS = Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 

Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental 

Impact Statement, Richland, Washington.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

SST = single-shell tank.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

TRU = transuranic.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

A.4 REFERENCES

00-05-006, 2012, Radioactive Air Emissions License for the Department of Energy Richland Office 

Hanford Site, Radioactive air emissions License Number: FF-01, Washington State Department of 

Health, Olympia, Washington.

08-AMRC-0033, Explanation of Significant Difference for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 100-KR-2 Operable Units 

(100 Area Burial Grounds), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

09-AMRC-0179, Declaration: U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site - 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal 

Regulations.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-28

10 CFR 1022, “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,” Code of 

Federal Regulations.

11-AMCP-0002, 2010, Non-Significant Change for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Letter from R.A. Holten, U.S. Department of Energy to J.A. Hedges, 

Washington State Department of Ecology and D.A. Faulk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

October 26.

15-AMRP-0259, 2015, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Hanford Site 300 Area Record of 

Decision for 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5, and Record of Decision Amendment for 300-FF-1, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

16-AMRP-0097, 2016, Explanation of Significant Differences #2 for the Hanford Site 300 Area Record of 

Decision for the 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units, and Record of Decision Amendment for the 

300-FF-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington, April.

16-AMRP-0173, 2016, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Hanford Site 100 K Area K Basins 

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington, May.

40 CFR 6, “Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the 

Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,” Code of Federal Regulations. 

40 CFR 300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,” Code of Federal 

Regulations.

58 FR 48509, 1993, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Federal Register, December 16. 

59 FR 22951, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,”

Federal Register, May 4.

61 FR 51019, 1996, “Notice of Deletion of the Hanford 1100-Area (USDOE) from the National Priorities 

List,” Federal Register, September 30.

63 FR 36861, 1998, “Notice of Partial Deletion of the Hanford 100-Area (USDOE) Superfund site from 

the National Priorities List,” Federal Register, July 8. 

64 FR 61615, 1999, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, November 12.

69 FR 39449, 2004, “Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, WA: 

Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level 

Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste 

for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,” Federal Register, June 30. 

73 FR 55824, 2008, “Amended Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement,” Federal Register, September 26.

78 FR 75913, 2013, “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, December 13.

83 FR 23270, 2018, “Amended Record of Decision for the Management of Cesium and Strontium 

Capsules at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, May 18.

91-ERB-039, 1991, “618-9 Burial Ground Project Plan,” letter to P.T. Day , U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and T.L. Nord, Washington State Department of Ecology, dated February 13, 

1991, S.H. Wisness, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-29

Amended Consent Decree, State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No. 2:08-CV-5085-RMP

(E.D. Wa. March 11, 2016)

CCN 038546, 1996, “Action Memorandum, N Area Waste Expedited Response Action Cleanup Plan” (letter to 

R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of 

Ecology from L.L. Piper), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

November 7.

CCN 040739, 1996, “Action Memorandum, 183-H Solar Evaporation Basin Waste Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan” (letter to R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, 

Washington State Department of Ecology from L.L. Piper, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

November 26.

CCN 059689, 1998, “Action Memorandum: USDOE Hanford 100 Area National Priorities List (NPL); 

105-F and 105-DR Reactor Buildings and Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; Benton County, 

Washington,” Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, July 14.

91-ERB-039, 1991, “618-9 Burial Ground Expedited Response Action, Phase I Project Plan, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, February 13.

Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 

Public Law 113-291.

CCN 9103432, 1991, “Action Memorandum Approval: 316-5 Process Trenches, U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to W. Bixby, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from C.E. Findley and R. Stanley), Washington State Department of 

Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, July 15. 

CCN 9200423, 1992, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal for 200 West Area 

Carbon Tetrachloride Plume” (letter to R.D. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, January 21.

CCN 9305567, 1993, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal; Riverland Site, 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to L.E. Little, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington, June 23.

CCN 9307470, 1993, “Action Memorandum Approval: Sodium Dichromate Barrel Landfill, U.S. 

Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.E. Little, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, March 8.

CCN 0093881, 2004, “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Non-Time Critical Removal Action Memorandum for Removal of the 

232-Z Contaminated Waste Recovery Process Facility from the Plutonium Finishing Plant” (letter to 

M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology from K.A. Klein), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, November 5.

Clean Air Act of 1977, 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC 1251, et seq.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

Consent Decree, State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No. 08-5085-FVS (E.D. Wa. 

October 25, 2010).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-30

Consent Decree for Stabilization of Single-shell Tanks at Hanford Site between U.S. Department of 

Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology, order signed September 29, 1999, in State of 

Washington v. United States Department of Energy, Eastern District of Washington, Civil Action No. 

CT-99-5076-EFS.

CR-IU005, City of Richland Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit, City of Richland, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE, 2013, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Radioactive Waste, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE and Ecology, 2000, “Action Memorandum: United States Department of Energy Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL); 105-D and 105-H Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities; Hanford 

Site; Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, December 8.

DOE and Ecology, 2005, “Action Memorandum; United States Department of Energy, 100 Area, 105-N 

Reactor Facility and 109-N Heat Exchanger Building, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, March 10.

DOE and EPA, 1997, “Action Memorandum: Removal Action at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration 

Facility, United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, March 24. 

DOE and EPA, 2000, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 300 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 331-A Virology Laboratory Building, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, February 15. 

DOE and EPA, 2001, “Action Memorandum; U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL) 105-B Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, December 27.

DOE and EPA, 2004, “Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, June 4.

DOE and EPA, 2005a, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, January 20.

DOE and EPA, 2005b, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 100-K 

Area Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 7.

DOE and EPA, 2006a, “Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE and EPA, 2006b, “Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, DOE/RL-2005-87” Letter 

Number 07-AMRC-0046, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, November 30.

DOE and EPA, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 105-KE 

and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-31

100-K Area Cleanup Project Manager and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington, January 4.

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 1998, “Action Memorandum; USDOE Hanford 100 Area National Priorities 

List, 100-N Area Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, December 17. 

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 2003, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 West Area, 

Central Waste Complex, 183-H Solar Evaporation Basin Waste, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, June 25.

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 2004, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Area, Burial 

Ground 218-W-4C Waste Retrieval, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, April 19.

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 2010, TPA Fact Sheet: “300-FF-2 “Plug-In” Waste Sites for Fiscal 2010,” U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, October.

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 2011, TPA Fact Sheet: 100 Area “Plug-In” and Candidate Waste Sites For 

Fiscal Year 2010, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, March.

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 2013, TPA Fact Sheet: 100 Area “Plug-In” and Candidate Waste Sites For 

Calendar Year 2012, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, January.

DOE, EPA and Ecology, 2018, TPA Fact Sheet: 100 Area “Plug-In” Waste Sites For Calendar Year 

2017, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, March.

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, Chg. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program, Chg. 3, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE/EIS-0119F, 1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C.

DOE/EIS-0119F-SA-01, 2010, Supplemental Analysis, Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 

Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0286F, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program 

Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tank Closure and Waste Management for 

the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office,

Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Environmental Impact Statement Tank Closure and Waste Management for 

the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-32

DOE/RL-2004-36, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 224-B 

Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2004-67, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE/RL-2004-68, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 224-T 

Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures Non-time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-71, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Time-Critical Removal Action for Support 

Activities to 200-UW-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-21, 2008, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

Northern Part of the BC Controlled Area (UPR-200-E-83), Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-80, 2009, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, -P and –R Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-39, 2009, Investigation-Derived Waste Purgewater Management Action Memorandum, 

Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites 

in 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites 

in the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, 

Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-102, 2011, Action Memorandum for Decontamination, Deactivation, Decommissioning, 

and Demolition (D4) Activities for 200 East Tier 2 Buildings/Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping/ 

Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE/RL-2016-41, 2016, Action Memorandum for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, 

Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-33

DOI and DOE, 2015, Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the 

U.S. Department of Energy for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, U.S. Department of 

the Interior and U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Ecology, 2015, Declaration of the Amendment to Record of Decision for the USDOE Hanford 

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 2 vols., as 

amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

Ecology and DOE, 1997, “Action Memorandum, USDOE Hanford 100 Area NPL, 100-IU-3 Operable 

Unit (Wahluke Slope), Hanford Site, Adams, Grant, and Franklin Counties, Washington,” (signed by 

M. Wilson and L. Piper), Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland, Washington, July 29.

Ecology and EPA 1994a, “Action Memorandum: North Slope (Wahluke Slope) Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. Butler, Washington State 

Department of Ecology and R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Kennewick, Washington, March 17. 

Ecology and EPA 1994b, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup Plan, 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

D. Butler, Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, September 23.

EPA and Ecology 1995, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal; 100-BC-1 

Demonstration Project; U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site; Richland, Washington” (letter to 

L.K. McClain, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration from R.F. Smith, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 27.

EPA 1997, “Action Memorandum; 100-B/C Area Ancillary Facilities and the 108-F Building Removal 

Action, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to J.M. Bruggeman, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. Faulk), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10 Hanford Project Office, Richland, Washington, January 29.

EPA, 2004b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2004a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record of Decision, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2005a, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, U.S. Department of Energy, 

100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2005b, Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative), Hanford Site, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2007, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site - 200 

Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-34

Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit Superfund Site, Benton 

County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units 

Interim Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2009b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 09-AMCP-0082, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Interim Action 

Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA 2010a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Record of Decision for the USDOE Hanford 

1100 Area Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2010b, U.S. Department of Energy, 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site - 100 Area, 

Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness 

Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2011a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units 

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2011b, Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 

and 200-PW-6 Operable Units Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 200-UP-1 

Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2013, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2014, Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-FR-3, 

100-IU-2, and 100-IU-6 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Seattle, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-35

EPA, 2015, Explanation of Significant Differences For the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental 

Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, EPA ID: 

WA1890090078, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA and DOE, 2013, Record of Decision for 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5, and Record of Decision 

Amendment for 300-FF-1 Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

EPA and DOE, 2018, Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 

100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, and 100-HR-3 Operable Units, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-97/101, 1997, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-99/038, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-00/122, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton County, 

Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-02/030, 2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-96/145, 1996, USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington, Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining Sites 

ROD, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/524, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 300-FF-5 Record of Decision, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 

Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-36

EPA/ESD/R10-03/606, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 

Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-93/063, 1993, Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/100, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 200-ZP-1 Operable 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 

100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/151, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 

100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 200 Area, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, 

and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-00/120, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Declaration, U.S. Department 

of Energy 100 Area, 100-NR-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-37

EPA/ROD/R10-00/121, 2000, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 

100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2 and the 100-KR-2 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 Operable 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

Executive Order 11514, 1970, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, Richard M. Nixon, 

March 5. Sec. 2 amended by Executive Order 11991 of May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26967, 3 CFR, 1977 

Comp., p. 123.

Executive Order 11991, 1977, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, 

James E. Carter, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26967.

Executive Order 12088, 1978, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, James E. Carter, 

October 13. Sec. 1-8 amended by Executive Order 12580 of Jan. 23, 1987, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 

Comp., p. 193.

Executive Order 12580, 1987, Superfund Implementation, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Executive Order 13175, 2000, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

William J. Clinton, November 6.

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, Public Law 102-386, October 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1505.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-616, November 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3221.

Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC 4901, et seq.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 USC 10101, et seq.

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, 

William J. Clinton, June 9.

PSD-X80-14, 1980, Hanford Site Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 USC 300, et seq.

Second Amended Consent Decree, State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No. 2:08-CV5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. April 12, 2016).

Settlement Agreement between the State of Washington and the U.S. Department of Energy, order signed 

January 6, 2006, in State of Washington v. Bodman, Civil Action No. 2: 03CV-05018-AAM.

Spent Fuel Settlement Agreement between the State of Idaho and U.S. Department of Energy, order 

signed October 16, 1995, in Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Batt (CV-91-0035-S-EJL) and United 

States V. Batt (CV-91-0054-S-EJL).

ST-0004500, State Wastewater Permit

ST-0004502, State Wastewater Permit

ST-0004511, State Wastewater Permit

ST-0004514, State Wastewater Permit

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 USC 103, et seq.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 USC 2601, et seq.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-38

Third Amended Consent Decree, State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No. 2:08-CV-5085-

RMP (E.D. Wa. October 12, 2018)

WA-0025910-7, 2009, Clean Water Act of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Permit, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington.

WA7890008967, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, 

September 30.

WAG-50-5180,

WAG-50-5181, 

WAR10B90F, 2014, Clean Water Act of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

General Permit, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, 1992, Public Law 102-579, October 30, 106 Stat.4777.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-i

APPENDIX B

FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-iii

CONTENTS

B.1 IDENTIFYING FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE........................... 1

B.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYZING 

ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS............................................................. 3

B.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 3

B.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND 

DESCRIBING THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND.................................................. 19

B.3 RATIONALE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION OF FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS TO 

BE ANALYZED............................................................................................................................ 20

B.4 COMPLETED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 20

B.5 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 25

TABLES

Table B-1. Future Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made. ..............................2

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. 

(5 pages) ..................................................................................................................................4

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. 

(9 pages) ..................................................................................................................................9

Table B-4. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. 

(2 pages) ................................................................................................................................18

Table B-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives. (2 pages)...........................................20

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. 

(3 pages) ................................................................................................................................22
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-iv

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-v

TERMS

2013 LCR DOE/RL-2012-13, 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ABAR aggregate barrier

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CSNA confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup action

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

DWMU dangerous waste management unit

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESD explanation of significant differences

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FBSR fluidized bed steam reforming

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

HLW high-level waste

IBAR individual barrier

IC institutional controls

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IHLW immobilized high-level waste

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste

INL Idaho National Laboratory

ISS interim safe storage

LAW low-activity waste

LCR Lifecycle Report

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LTS long-term stewardship

MESC maintain existing soil cover

MNA monitored natural attenuation

N/A not applicable

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NRDWL Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill

OU operable unit

P&T pump-and-treat

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

PRB permeable reactive barrier

RAO remedial action objective

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

ROD record of decision

RTD remove, treat, and dispose

SALDS State-Approved Land Disposal Site
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-vi

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SSE safe storage enclosure

SST single-shell tank

STAD standardized transportation, aging, and disposal (canister system)

SWL solid waste landfill

TBD to be determined

TC&WM EIS Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement

TI technical impractibility

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TPH-D total petroleum hydrocarbon-diesel

Tri-Party Agencies U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

Washington State Department of Ecology

Tri-Party Agreement Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

TRU transuranic

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing Plant

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-1

APPENDIX B

FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES

In accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), 

commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Milestone M-036-01 requires that where final 

cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

(Lifecycle Report [LCR]) may consider ranges of alternatives and present a reasonable upper bound:

“In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the report shall 

be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives or may 

set forth a range of alternative costs including such a reasonable upper bound.”

The TPA milestone specifies that when making assumptions (e.g., about alternative cleanup actions), the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to take into account the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as well as the values expressed by 

affected Tribal Governments and Hanford stakeholders.

Cleanup decisions are made so that DOE can implement future cleanup actions at the Hanford Site.

As discussed in Section B.1, the LCR has grouped remaining Hanford Site cleanup work into approximately 

33 separate cleanup actions.

Because final cleanup decisions have not yet been made for many of the remaining Hanford cleanup actions, 

the LCR may consider the range of plausible alternatives (or alternative costs) and present a reasonable 

upper bound. DOE has decided that information about the range of plausible alternatives, rather than just a 

range of alternative costs, would be most useful for the LCR. DOE also believes that, in most cases, cost 

estimates include allowances for uncertainties in current planning that encompass a wide range of potential 

alternatives. Section B.2 includes information about the range of plausible alternatives for each future 

cleanup action.

Because many final decisions remain to be made, a reasonable upper bound will need to be defined, along 

with schedule and costs, for a number of remaining cleanup actions. To give each action a sufficient level 

of analysis and detail, DOE has decided to take a methodical and planned approach to developing in-depth 

analyses of cleanup action alternatives, including definition of reasonable upper bound schedules and costs.

Section B.3 proposes a rationale and schedule for when different cleanup actions may undergo in-depth 

alternatives analyses in the LCR.

Information provided in this appendix has been developed for the sole purpose of preparing the LCR and 

fulfilling the requirements of TPA M-036-01; the LCR is not a decision-making document. Cleanup actions 

and decisions discussed in this appendix are still undergoing formal development, review, and eventual 

approval pursuant to procedures established in the TPA and applicable Federal and State requirements.

Information in this appendix does not presume nor is it intended to prejudice the outcome of the 

requirements that must be followed by the Tri-Party agencies (DOE, Ecology, and EPA). Any errors or 

discrepancies in this appendix will be superseded by the results of the legally applicable decision-making

processes.

B.1 IDENTIFYING FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE

The term “cleanup action” is used to conceptually describe work that enables cleanup to proceed for 

common or related contaminants that occur in a relatively well-defined environmental medium (or waste 

management system) within a generally contiguous geographic area.

This cleanup action concept is consistent with the operable unit (OU) cleanup approach taken in the TPA 

and enables future cleanup actions and alternatives to be addressed in a manner consistent with the way 

cleanup decisions are being made for Hanford. This approach also provides a reasonable middle ground for 

looking at cleanup work performed on Site.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-2

The Tri-Party agencies developed a set of cleanup actions for the LCR. Table B-1 lists the future cleanup 

actions for which final cleanup decisions do not yet exist.

Table B-1. Future Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made.

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

• Disposition N Reactor

• Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

• Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

• Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

• Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• Disposition 100 Area former Orchard Contaminated Soil Sites (100-OL-1 OU)

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

• Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and Facilities (200-OA-1 OU)

• Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 OUs)

• Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium Finishing Plant

• Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 OU)

• Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU)

• Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 OU)

• Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 OU)

• Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites

• Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

• Remediate Solid Waste Landfill and Non-Radioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (200-SW-1 OU)

• Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities 

• Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 

• Remediate Pipelines, Pits, Diversion Boxes and Associated Tanks (200-IS-1 OU)

• Remediate Land Disposal Units (200-SW-2 OU)

• Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 OU)

• Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 OU)

• Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

• Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 OU)

• Restore 200 West Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-UP-1 OU)

• Restore 200 East Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-PO-1 and 200-BP-5 OUs)

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

• Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

• Tank Waste Treatment 

• Secondary Waste Treatment

• Double-Shell Tank Closure

• Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Closure

OU = operable unit.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-3

Cleanup work at Hanford can be complex and extend over long periods. Frequently, interim decisions are 

made and incremental cleanup steps are taken, followed by improved decisions as more is learned and other, 

better alternatives become available. Even relatively simple cleanup actions can encompass many 

sequenced activities and a substantial amount of work lasting several years. Thus, many of the cleanup 

actions discussed in the LCR will evolve over time and may have a different scope in future reports as 

progress is made in completing Hanford cleanup.

B.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYZING 

ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS

The LCR provides information about ranges of plausible alternatives for future cleanup actions.

Alternatives are included based on current understandings among the Tri-Party agencies, the status of 

existing and forthcoming cleanup decisions, and whether current planning adequately encompasses the 

range of plausible alternatives. The Tri-Party agencies developed and maintain the range of plausible 

alternatives presented in Section B.2.1.

As discussed further in Section B.2.2, a more in-depth analyses of the alternatives for individual future 

cleanup actions will be performed to describe a reasonable upper bound for the scope and costs of a specific 

cleanup action. The Tri-Party agencies have agreed to take a graded approach and to consider analyzing

alternatives and develop a reasonable upper bound scope and cost estimate as a sensitivity analysis for a 

limited set of future cleanup actions in each annual LCR. The main reasons for this approach include the 

following:

 Developing and analyzing alternatives for every separate cleanup action in every annual edition of 

the LCR would be resource intensive and inefficient

 Final cleanup decisions are expected soon for a number of cleanup actions, and the decision process 

will produce thorough and detailed analyses of potential alternatives

 Many interim cleanup actions are under way, the results of which will improve the ability to analyze 

alternatives in future LCRs.

In lieu of analyzing alternatives for all cleanup actions every year, the LCR proposes a schedule and 

rationale for when different cleanup actions may be considered to undergo in-depth analyses. Section B.3 

provides this information.

B.2.1 Range of Plausible Alternatives

The range of plausible alternatives for each future cleanup action was originally developed through a 

series of working sessions involving the Tri-Party agencies’ subject matter experts applying their 

knowledge of Hanford Site cleanup work and best professional judgment. Each range of plausible 

alternatives, in the opinion of the agency experts, has alternatives that include a maximum cleanup effort 

(e.g., a likely upper bound) for that cleanup action. In addition, the ranges of plausible alternatives 

exclude alternatives that could not be part of a reasonable upper bound (e.g., no action). Determining the 

range of plausible alternatives and likely upper bounding cleanup effort took into account, among other 

factors, current requirements under the TPA and other environmental obligations, and the status of 

alternatives being considered under existing and forthcoming cleanup decisions. The range of plausible 

alternatives for each cleanup action was intended to encompass the most current planning assumptions 

with respect to that cleanup action. The Tri-Party agencies update this list in each LCR.

Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4 list and are organized by the identified future cleanup actions for the River 

Corridor, Central Plateau, and tank waste. These tables include the following information for each 

cleanup action:

 A summary of the current cleanup decisions that have been made pursuant to the TPA and other 

environmental obligations with a list of relevant cleanup decision documents

 A list that encompasses the likely range of plausible alternatives.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-4

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-1a1 River Corridor – Disposition N Reactor

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

In September 1993, DOE issued 58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” which implements the recommendation for safe storage 

followed by deferred one-piece removal of the surplus reactors. N Reactor was not included in the EIS because the 

reactor was not available for decommissioning at the time of the NEPA EIS and ISS was approved through the 

CERCLA removal action process (DOE and Ecology 2005). Final disposition of N Reactor will be determined by a 

subsequent NEPA or CERCLA decision process.

• DOE and Ecology 2005, “Action Memorandum; United States Department of Energy, 100 Area, 105-N 

Reactor Facility and 109-N Heat Exchanger Building, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, March 10.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Demolish the reactor block in ISS and transport the reactor block intact on a tractor transporter from the 

present 100 Area location to the 200 West Area for disposal.

 Safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance; at the end of the safe 

storage period, demolition of the reactor block and transport of the reactor block intact on a tractor transporter 

from the present 100 Area location to the 200 West Area for disposal.

 Safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance; at the end of the safe 

storage period, demolition of the reactor buildings and piece-by-piece dismantlement of the reactor core and 

transport of radioactive waste to the 200 West Area for burial. Demolition of the reactor buildings and SSE 

and filling voids beneath and around the reactor block; covering the reactor block, adjacent shield walls, and 

the spent fuel storage basin together with the contained radioactivity, gravel, and grout to a depth of at least 

5 meters with a mound containing earth and gravel.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-2 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ROD amendment, and action memorandum are in place for the removal, treatment, and interim 

onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 DOE and EPA, 2004, Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and Disposal 

of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 4.

 EPA, 2005, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove, treat, and transfer sludge for interim storage at T Plant; transfer fuel scrap for interim storage at 

Canister Storage Building; D4 K West Basin and ancillary structures; remediate below-grade portions 

consistent with 100 Area contaminated soil sites.*

*May require removing K Reactors to access below-grade contaminated soils. K East Basin was demolished 

in 2009.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-5

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-3 River Corridor – Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Interim RODs, ROD amendments, ESDs, and annual fact sheets (100 Area “Plug-In” and Candidate Waste Sites 

for fiscal year [FY] 2010) are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, debris, and burial grounds using the 

observational and plug-in approaches with onsite disposal at ERDF.

 EPA, 2004, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 08-AMRC-0033, Explanation of Significant Difference for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 100-KR-2 Operable Units (100 Area 

Burial Grounds), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2011, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2013, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

 EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 

100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 

200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining Sites ROD, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-00/120, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit 

Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-00/121, 2000, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-2 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, (42 USC 6901), et seq.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-6

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs* and applicable closure performance standards**; backfill, 

contour, and revegetate excavations. 

Note: The 100 Area interim RODs for waste sites will be covered by the final RODs for the River Corridor 

currently being worked through the RI/FS process.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* In accordance with applicable interim action RODs.

** Closure of several 100-N facilities will be according to approved RCRA closure plans.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.1 River Corridor – Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Although no cleanup decisions have been made for this OU the initial draft of the Proposed Plan was submitted in 

November 2016. Groundwater monitoring and annual reporting continue to track groundwater contamination in 

this OU.

 DOE/RL-2016-43, 2016, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, and 100-BC-5 Operable 

Units, Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code,

Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Natural attenuation with institutional controls (IC), RTD, and no action for waste sites; and monitored natural 

attenuation (MNA) with ICs for groundwater.

• Natural attenuation with ICs, RTD, and no action for waste sites; and P&T and MNA with ICs 

for groundwater.

• Natural attenuation with ICs, aggressive RTD, and no action for waste sites; and P&T and MNA with ICs for 

groundwater.

• Natural attenuation with ICs, RTD, and no action for waste sites; and hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) source 

treatment with P&T, and MNA with ICs for groundwater.

• Natural attenuation with ICs, aggressive RTD, and no action for waste sites; and Cr(VI) source treatment with 

P&T, and MNA with ICs for groundwater

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.2 River Corridor – Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD and ESD are in place to clean up hexavalent chromium in the groundwater using P&T.

 EPA, 2009b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Expand the P&T system in 100-KR-4; transition to S&M for post-treatment groundwater monitoring.

• Continue operation of P&T system with incorporation of bioremediation for chromium.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-7

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.3 River Corridor – Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum, interim ROD, ROD amendment and ESD are in place to clean up strontium-90 in the 

groundwater using P&T and physical barriers. An in situ apatite permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is being 

evaluated for use in the cleanup of strontium-90 in groundwater. The initial draft of the Proposed Plan was 

submitted in June 2013.

 DOE/RL-2012-68, 2013, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units, 

Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 EPA, 2010, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary U.S. Department 

of Energy 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit 

Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 Ecology and EPA, 1994, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup U.S. 

Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and D. Butler, Washington State 

Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, September 23.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD at waste sites, apatite PRB for near-shore strontium-90, technical impractibility (TI) waiver for upland

strontium-90, bioventing for total petroleum hydrocarbon-diesel (TPH-D) in vadose zone, MNA for TPH-D in 

groundwater, groundwater monitoring, and ICs.

• RTD at waste sites, apatite PRB for near-shore strontium-90, TI waiver for upland strontium-90, bioventing 

and biosparging for TPH-D, groundwater monitoring, and ICs.

• RTD at waste sites, apatite PRB for near-shore strontium-90, TI waiver for upland strontium-90, bioventing 

and biosparging for TPH-D, in situ biological treatment for nitrate, groundwater monitoring, and ICs.

• RTD at waste sites, apatite PRB for near-shore strontium-90, apatite treatment and TI waiver for upland 

strontium-90; bioventing and biosparging for TPH-D, in situ biological treatment for nitrate, groundwater 

monitoring, and ICs.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-8

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-5 River Corridor – Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained By PNNL

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Action memoranda are in place for the remaining 300 Area buildings and facilities, and DOE anticipates extending 

those cleanup decisions to include the PNNL-retained facilities once their operations end. DOE considers D&D of 

buildings and other structures to be final cleanup decisions if the facility is removed in accordance with an 

applicable action memorandum. The removal action work plan will need to be modified to address PNNL-retained 

facilities once PNNL declares the facilities as surplus. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D 

has been completed. Decision documents for D&D of 300 Area buildings and facilities that may have future 

application for the PNNL-retained facilities are listed here.

 DOE and EPA, 2005, Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, January 20.

 DOE and EPA, 2006a, Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, May 16.

 DOE and EPA, 2006b, Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, November 30.

 16-PNSO-0057, 2015, Need for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Occupied/Operated 300 

Area Environmental Management (EM) Facilities Anticipated to Extend Through 2045, Memorandum from 

R.E. Snyder, U.S Department of Energy Pacific Northwest Site Office to S.L. Charboneau, U.S Department of 

Energy Richland Operations Office, November 25.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Following end of PNNL facilities’ operational period (no earlier than 2045), D4 all buildings and facilities; 

remediate consistent with 300 Area contaminated soil sites if needed.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

RC-6 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area former Orchard Contaminated Soil Sites

(100-OL-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the 100 Area former Orchard Contaminated Soil Sites (100-OL-1 OU).

 TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD contaminated soil sites from residual lead arsenate pesticide to achieve RAOs, backfill, contour, and 

revegetate excavations.

• Cover contaminated soil sites with clean soil (depth TBD) and establish institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and 

demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

EIS = environmental impact statement.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant differences.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

SSE = safe storage enclosure.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code.

1 RC-1 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area Reactors (Except B Reactor) was removed from the LCR in response to comments that the 1993 

National Environmental Policy Act ROD is considered a final action (see Appendix A, Table A-3)
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-9

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Cleanup 

Action: CP-1 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and Facilities

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Action memoranda are in place to D4 buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade and evaluate below-grade portions 

for contamination. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and facilities will be included in decision 

documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). DOE considers D&D of buildings and other structures to be final 

cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in accordance with an applicable 

action memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D has been completed.

 DOE/RL-2008-80, 2009, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 212-N, -P 

and –R Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, Rev. 1, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with Central Plateau Outer Area contaminated soil sites.

Cleanup

Action:

CP-2 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 OUs)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ESD, and action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris with 

disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining soil sites will be included in decision documents (e.g., 

action memoranda, RODs).

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 

200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in the 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs comparable to 100 Areas; backfill, contour, and revegetate 

excavations.

• RTD all sites except ponds; allow monitored natural attenuation for large pond sites with presence of existing 

vegetated soil covers.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed for all sites with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-10

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-3 Central Plateau – Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium Finishing Plant

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

A non-time critical action memorandum is in place, associated TPA milestone decision documents are approved, 

and D4 activities are being implemented for above-grade structures of PFP*. Final decisions and cleanup actions 

have not been made for below-grade structures/contaminated areas and are not identified in the action 

memorandum.

 DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade Structures 

Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

*Below-grade rooms (e.g., basements, tunnels, vaults) of above-grade structures are included but sub-grade items 

(e.g., buried piping) are excluded.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; leave remaining below-grade structures and 

contaminated areas in place and transition to LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

• RTD all PFP below-grade structures and contaminated areas; backfill and revegetate.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-4 Central Plateau – Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CB-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The draft EE/CA for B Plant was submitted in June 2016. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and 

waste sites will be included in decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2016-14, 2016, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the B Plant Complex, Draft A, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove all contents and D4 B Plant canyon building, including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites, and contaminated soils to achieve RAOs; dispose of all waste 

and debris at approved facility.

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose of at approved facility; partially 

demolish building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain 

institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in B Plant canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-5 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CP-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum includes one waste site (UPR-200-E-17) that was moved into this OU. Future cleanup 

decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in decision documents (e.g., action 

memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-11

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove all contents and D4 PUREX canyon building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soils to achieve RAOs; dispose of all waste 

and debris at approved facility.

• Condition contents to place in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove contaminated 

wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose of at approved facility; partially demolish building to 

canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain institutional controls and 

perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in PUREX canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting disposition of the PUREX canyon building/associated waste sites and disposition 

of PUREX storage tunnels should be aligned and cleanup actions should be coordinated and integrated as much as 

practical.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-6 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Although no cleanup decisions have been made for the PUREX storage tunnels, following the discovery of 

subsidence at PUREX Tunnel #1 on May 9, 2017, DOE took actions to stabilize and void-fill this tunnel with 

engineered grout by November 11, 2017. Because a structural integrity evaluation identified a potential high risk of 

localized collapse of PUREX Tunnel #2, DOE intends to stabilize and void-fill this tunnel with engineered grout.

 17-AMRP-0174, “15-Day Report for the May 9, 2017, Discovery of Subsidence at PUREX Tunnel #1,” letter 

from D. Shoop, U.S. Department of Energy to A. Smith, Washington State Department of Ecology, May 23, 

2017.

• 17-AMRP-0180, “Continued Response Actions to Partial Collapse of PUREX Tunnel 1,” letter from 

D. Shoop, U.S. Department of Energy to A. Smith, Washington State Department of Ecology, May 31, 2017.

• 18-AMRP-0023, “Continued Response Actions at the PUREX Storage Tunnels – Completion of Tunnel 1 

Stabilization and Path Forward for Tunnel 2,” letter from D. Shoop, U.S. Department of Energy to A. Smith, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, December 5, 2017.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Maintain grout fill placed as part of the interim stabilization measures of both tunnels, install surface barrier 

that meets RCRA landfill cover requirements, and conduct post-closure monitoring.

• Railcars and grout in both tunnels could be remotely retrieved after excavation of the tunnel by cutting and 

removal using water jets, wire saws, excavation equipment, or other technologies. Waste material could be 

moved from the tunnels to the PUREX Plant canyon deck area or an alternate plant location for disposal within 

the plant. Waste such as empty railcars that could not be placed in the PUREX Plant for disposal 

(e.g., insufficient space) could be removed for final disposition at other approved disposal facilities.

• In addition to moving waste materials from the tunnels to the PUREX Plant, characterize, size-reduce, and 

package waste materials as needed. Size reduction could be performed through various technologies that 

include but are not limited to flame cutting, water jet cutting, and sawing. Final disposition of the processed 

waste material could be either on or off Site.

• Construct a new facility that is either mobile or stationary to remove and treat waste material stored in 

the tunnels. The facility could be constructed in a manner consistent with the retrieval and handling 

requirements for large, contaminated waste material. Retrieval of the waste and grout from the tunnels could 

involve cutting and removal using water jets, wire saws, excavation equipment, or other technologies.

Final disposition of the processed waste material could be either onsite or offsite.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-12

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting disposition of PUREX storage tunnels and disposition of PUREX canyon 

building/associated waste sites should be aligned and cleanup actions should be coordinated and integrated as much 

as practical.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-7 Central Plateau – Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CR-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The EE/CA for REDOX was submitted in November 2016 and the draft action memorandum for REDOX was 

submitted in June 2018. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2016-52, 2018, Action Memorandum for the Reduction-Oxidation Facility Complex, Draft C, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2016-16, 2016, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the REDOX Complex, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove all contents and D4 REDOX canyon building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites, and contaminated soil to achieve RAOs; dispose of all waste 

and debris at approved facility.

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated waste and soil from associated waste sites and dispose of at approved facility; partially demolish 

building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain institutional 

controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soil and debris, and place in REDOX canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-8 Central Plateau – Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the T Plant canyon building and associated waste sites. 

Current expectations are that T Plant will continue to be used to support other remediation and waste management 

work beyond 2030.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Continue ongoing operations until no longer needed; transition to D4; fulfill hazardous waste facility closure 

obligations consistent with RCRA permit.

• Remove all contents and D4 T Plant canyon building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soil to achieve RAOs; dispose of all waste 

and debris at approved facility.

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose of at approved facility; partially 

demolish building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain 

institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soil and debris, and place in T Plant canyon for 

entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the canyon 

building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-13

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of waste 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-9 Central Plateau – Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for final disposition of the cesium/strontium capsules. DOE amended the 

ROD for the TC&WM EIS and has proposed updating the Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit to construct and 

operate a proposed capsule storage area that would provide interim dry storage of the cesium and strontium 

capsules until a final capsule disposal decision is made.

• 83 FR 23270, 2018, “Amended Record of Decision for the Management of Cesium and Strontium Capsules at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, May 18.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Package and transport capsules from WESF to dry storage; store capsules pending final disposition; direct 

dispose of capsules at a geologic repository.

• Package capsules in standardized transportation, aging, and disposal (STAD) canister systems; store at 

Hanford Site pending development of a national interim fuel storage facility; transport and store at an interim 

fuel storage facility pending transport and disposal at a geologic repository.

• Incorporate capsules into immobilized high-level waste glass at WTP.

• Store capsules at Hanford Site for 300 years (approximately 10 half-lives); after natural decay, direct dispose 

of capsules as mixed low-level radioactive waste.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-10 Central Plateau – Remediate Solid Waste Landfill and Non-Radioactive Dangerous 

Waste Landfill (200-SW-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Although a closure/postclosure plan was submitted in July 2010, no cleanup decisions have been made for the 

200-SW-1 OU.

• DOE/RL-90-17, 2010, Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill/Solid Waste Landfill Closure/Postclosure 

Plan, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

The following alternatives are being considered as part of DOE/EA-1707D, Environmental Assessment Closure of 

Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL); these alternatives are not 

intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing environmental assessment process:

• Install an evapotranspiration barrier over both landfills; upgrade monitoring and infrastructure systems; 

perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

• Partial RTD with removal of waste material from both landfills and impacted soil as deep as 10 feet below the 

waste material; backfill and revegetate; if necessary (e.g., contaminated residues remain), perform post-closure 

monitoring and caretaking.

• Remove all waste material from both landfills; excavate and RTD all contaminated soil to groundwater, if 

necessary; backfill and revegetate.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-11 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities*

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the remaining liquid waste disposal facilities.

TBD – No decision documents currently available.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-14

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans.

• If needed, may remediate contaminated soil under zone closure; may include partial RTD with various capping 

alternatives; monitoring and institutional controls after closure may be required.

• RTD all contaminated soil; backfill and revegetate.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* Includes state-approved land disposal site; state waste discharge permit sites; 100-N Sewage Lagoon; onsite 

sewage systems; national pollutant discharge elimination system outfalls; and underground injection control 

well sites.

Cleanup

Action:

CP-12 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities*

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the remaining waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans (e.g., RCRA closure 

plans); consequently, cleanup actions will be determined and accomplished in accordance with applicable 

regulatory and permit/license requirements. No other alternatives are being considered.

* Includes LERF/ETF, WESF, WRAP, 222-S Laboratory, IDF, and Inert Waste Landfill/Pit 9.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-13 Central Plateau – Remediate Pipelines, Pits, Diversion Boxes and Associated Tanks 

200-IS-1 OU

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The 200-IS-1 OU waste sites include tanks (except those in the tank farms), pipelines, pits, diversion boxes, and 

associated ancillary equipment. Several pipelines are being addressed (in part) by 200-MG-1 removal actions; final 

remediation decisions will be addressed in RODs; TSD ancillary equipment will be addressed in future RCRA 

closure plans; other media may be addressed via CERCLA process.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD all contaminated equipment, materials, debris, and soil to a depth determined by the Tri-Party agencies to 

be protective of human health and ecological resources (depth TBD); backfill and revegetate.

• RTD all contaminated equipment, materials, debris, and soil; backfill and revegetate.

• Stabilize select equipment in place using technologies yet to be determined.

• Leave everything in place; maintain under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-14 Central Plateau – Remediate Land Disposal Units (200-SW-2 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made to remediate the 200-SW-2 OU. (Note that this OU is not a single 

contaminated site, but comprises a large number of land disposal units.)

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of all waste from within individual landfills.

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of waste from selected sections of individual landfills 

followed by capping of remaining waste; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

 Capping of individual landfills; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

 In situ treatment/stabilization (e.g., vitrification or grouting) of portions of individual landfills followed by 

capping; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-15

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-15 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-WA-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from 200 West Inner 

Area soil sites with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in the 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD approximately half of waste sites and cap remainder.

• RTD all waste sites; backfill and revegetate.

• Cap and maintain under LTS with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-16 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-EA-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from 200 East Inner 

Area soil sites with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in the 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD approximately half of waste sites and cap remainder.

• RTD all waste sites; backfill and revegetate.

• Cap and maintain under LTS with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-191 Central Plateau –Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Cleanup decisions have been made for D&D of some of the remaining Inner Area buildings and facilities, and the 

applicable action memorandum is expected to cover future D&D activities. DOE considers D&D of buildings and 

other structures to be final cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in accordance with 

an applicable action memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D has been 

completed. (Note that cleanup decisions have been or will be made for the canyon buildings and associated waste 

sites; see separate cleanup actions for these facilities.)

 DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, Rev. 1, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2010-102, 2011, Action Memorandum for Decontamination, Deactivation, Decommissioning, and 

Demolition (D4) Activities for 200 East Tier 2 Buildings/Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with contiguous contaminated soil sites.

• Leave structures in place and transition to LTS with appropriate institutional controls.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-16

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-20 CENTRAL PLATEAU – REMEDIATE CONTAMINATED DEEP VADOSE ZONE 

(200-DV-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum provides for extraction of perched water from the 200-DV-1 OU (B tank farm complex in 

the 200 East Area) and transfer of the water by tanker truck or pipeline to the 200 West pump and treat, where it is 

treated and injected into the aquifer below the 200 West Area. Future cleanup decisions for other deep vadose zone 

areas will be included in decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

• DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping/Pore 

Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Implement results of treatability testing in accordance with CERCLA and/or RCRA final decisions.

• RTD all contaminated soils to groundwater if necessary and technically practical; backfill and revegetate.

• In place treatment to destroy, immobilize, or capture, treat and dispose of contaminants.

• Soil flushing with P&T or pore water removal.

• Install surface barriers.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

Cleanup 

Action: CP-21 Central Plateau – Restore 200 West Groundwater To Beneficial Use (200-UP-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD for 200-UP-1 OU was issued in September 2012 that superseded the previous remedy decisions 

for this OU and a final ROD is in place for the adjacent 200-ZP-1 OU to address all contaminants.

 EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 200-UP-1 

Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Expand 200-ZP-1 extraction, treatment and injection capacity; install extraction and transfer system for 

200-UP-1; operate P&T system to achieve RAOs; continue monitoring.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

• Hydraulic containment of the iodine-129 groundwater plume.

• Groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.

Cleanup 

Action:

CP-22 Central Plateau – Restore 200 East Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-PO-1 and 

200-BP-5 OUs)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum provides for extraction of groundwater with elevated uranium and technetium-99 

concentrations from the B complex area of the 200-BP-5 OU, conveyance of the water by pipeline to the 200 West 

P&T, where it is treated and injected into the aquifer below the 200 West Area. No other cleanup decisions have 

been made for 200 East groundwater.

• DOE/RL-2016-41, 2016, Action Memorandum for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-17

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Install P&T system for 200-BP-5 OU; implement monitored natural attenuation for 200-PO-1 OU; perform 

well support and maintenance activities.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

• Install P&T system for 200-BP-5 and selective P&T for 200-PO-1 hot spots.

Note: 400 Area groundwater cleanup actions are included as part of 200-PO-1 OU.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.

WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

EE/CA = engineering evaluation/cost analysis.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant difference.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

IHLW = immobilized high-level waste.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NRDWL = Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

SWL = solid waste landfill.

TBD = to be determined.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

1CP-17 Central Plateau – Disposition Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) Complex and CP-18 Central Plateau – Disposition 

Remaining Buildings and Facilities in FFTF Complex were removed since the “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure 

and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (78 FR 75913) is 

a final decision for these cleanup actions.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-18

Table B-4. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 pages)

Cleanup 

Action:

TW-1 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve and treat tank waste (62 FR 8693). DOE’s 

preferred alternative of those evaluated in the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) was published in the 

December 13, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 75913).

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• DOE has decided to implement Tank Closure Alternative 2B, “Expanded WTP Vitrification and Landfill

Closure,” without supplemental treatment at WTP and without technetium-99 removal in the WTP

Pretreatment Facility, including the following major activities: retrieval of 99% of the tank waste by volume; 

use of liquid-based retrieval systems; leak detection monitoring and routine maintenance; new waste receiver 

facilities, as needed; additional storage facilities for canisters; operations and necessary maintenance, waste 

transfers and associated operations such as use of the ‘‘hose-in-hose’’ transfer lines or installation of new 

transfer lines, where needed; and upgrades to existing DST and SST systems, including piping and other 

ancillary equipment as needs are identified. Tank waste treatment includes pretreatment of all tank waste, with 

separation into LAW and HLW. New evaporation capacity, upgrades to the ETF, new transfer lines and

processing of both vitrified LAW and secondary waste for disposal are included in this decision. 

Disposal activities include disposal of LAW on Site and construction of enough IHLW interim storage 

modules to store all the IHLW generated by WTP treatment prior to disposal. SST closure operations include 

filling the tanks and ancillary equipment with grout to immobilize the residual waste. Disposal of contaminated 

equipment and soil will occur on Site. The tanks will be grouted and contaminated soil may be removed.

The SSTs will be landfill-closed, which means they will be stabilized and an engineered modified RCRA 

Subtitle C barrier put in place followed by postclosure care.

• As stated in the March 11, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 15358), DOE prefers to retrieve, treat, package, 

characterize and certify the tank wastes that are properly and legally classified as mixed TRU waste for 

disposal at WIPP. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Cleanup 

Action:

TW-2 Tank Waste – Tank Waste Treatment

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve, separate, vitrify, and dispose of the tank waste 

(62 FR 8693). The ILAW would be prepared for onsite disposal and the vitrified HLW would be placed in interim 

storage pending future disposal at a national geologic repository. DOE’s preferred alternative of those evaluated in 

the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) was published in the December 13, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 75913).

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• See discussion of DOE’s preferred alternative under cleanup action TW-1 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and 

Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure.

Cleanup 

Action:

TW-3 Tank Waste – Secondary Waste Treatment

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made. See Chapter 7 and Appendix M of the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) for 

discussion, sensitivity analysis, and potential mitigation strategies for the treatment and disposal of the 

secondary waste. Decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Recycle liquid waste streams in WTP; manage residual liquid waste at LERF/ETF/SALDS; treat solid waste 

from WTP and ETF and dispose at IDF; manage and disposition other secondary waste (e.g., failed melters).

Other plausible alternatives will be determined at a later date.

Note: Any radioactive HLW will be stored and eventually shipped to a geologic repository.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-19

Table B-4. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 pages)

Cleanup

Action: TW-4 Tank Waste – Double-Shell Tank Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made. Decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Retrieve DST wastes consistent with TPA and the RCRA permit; achieve designated retrieval objectives or 

limits of technology, remediate structures and soil and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards,

maintain post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA permit.

Other plausible alternatives will be determined at a later date.

Cleanup 

Action:

TW-5 Tank Waste – WTP Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The RCRA Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit, Operable Unit-10, Chapter 11 states “Clean closure is the goal for 

the WTP permitted DWMUs.” The closure plan will be revised if efforts to achieve the clean closure standards for 

the WTP structures or soil are unsuccessful. The “modified closure” approach may be followed if feasible, as 

provided in Condition II.K.3 of the Hanford RCRA Permit. It also may be closed as a landfill, as provided in 

Condition II.K.4 of the Hanford RCRA Permit, if the clean closure standards are not technically or economically 

feasible. The revised closure plan will be accompanied by a written request for modification of the permit. 

Further decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

• WA7890008967, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste 

Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, September 30.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Demolish ancillary facilities/structures to the primary containment structure, seal containment structure and 

construct a soil-based environmental barrier over the containment structure, remediate structures and soils,

maintain post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit.

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions.

• Perform clean closure of WTP and all ancillary facilities/structures.

• Leave structures in place and transition to LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

DWMU = dangerous waste management unit

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

HLW = high-level waste.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

SALDS = State-Approved Land Disposal Site.

SST = single-shell tank.

TBD = to be determined.

TC&WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

B.2.2 DOE’s Approach for Analyzing Alternatives and Describing the Reasonable Upper Bound

TPA M-036-01 refers to a “reasonable upper bound” with respect to presenting information about cleanup 

alternatives, but the milestone does not include a ready definition for “reasonable upper bound.” To ensure 

the LCR provides information that meets the requirement and intent of the milestone, DOE has relied on a

conceptual framework as described in DOE/RL-2012-13, 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost 

Report (2013 LCR), Appendix A, section A.2.2.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-20

B.3 RATIONALE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION OF FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS TO BE 

ANALYZED

DOE will consider recommendations from EPA and Ecology, government-to-government consultations 

(e.g., Tribal Nations, State of Oregon), Hanford Advisory Board advice, input from Hanford stakeholders, 

and public comments received on previous LCRs when selecting the future cleanup actions to be analyzed 

in the LCR. The 2013 LCR, Appendix A, section A.3, contains additional details about the rationale used 

to select these cleanup actions.

B.4 COMPLETED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The cleanup actions that have been analyzed in-depth in LCRs are summarized in Table B-5. For details 

about the cost estimate alternative analysis of any of these cleanup actions, see the specific LCR cited in 

Table B-5.

Table B-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives. (2 pages)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis 

(Million $) Final Decision Reference

2011 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2010-25)

River Corridor–Disposition 

100 Area Reactors

Reactors Remain in Place - $0

Remove Reactors - $676

Record of Decision; 

Decommissioning of Eight

Surplus Production Reactors 

at the Hanford Site, Richland, 

WA (58 FR 48509)

Central Plateau–Remediate 

200-SW-2 OU

Barriers - $823

Remove, Treat, Dispose of Waste - $16,614

TBD

2012 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2011-93)

Tank Waste Cleanup Action–Tank 

Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank 

Farm Closure

1 – Baseline Case - $59,900

2 – TRU Waste to WTP - $61,600

3 – FBSR for supplemental treatment -

$58,100

4 – WTP delay with +10% vitrification 

capacity - $66,000

5 – 2020 Vision One System - $58,000

6 – WTP delay with new DST farm - $68,700

7 – Enhanced tank waste strategy - $57,300

8 – Accelerated SST retrievals - $62,800

9 – Early U Farm closure - $59,600

10 – Slow SST retrievals - $60,800

TBD

Tank Waste Cleanup Action–Tank 

Waste Treatment

TBD

Tank Waste Cleanup Action–

Secondary Waste Treatment

TBD

2013 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2012-13)

Central Plateau-Remediate 

Remaining Outer Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 OUs)

The DOE planning-case cleanup remedies for 

the 190 waste sites evaluated includes

RTD - $98.3

CSNA - $4.9

MESC/MNA/IC - $3.2

IBAR - $19.2

ABAR - $19.8

Total - $145.4

TBD

Central Plateau-Remediate 

Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-WA-1 OU)

TBD

2014 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2013-02)

None selected for 2014 N/A N/A
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-21

Table B-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives. (2 pages)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis 

(Million $) Final Decision Reference

2015 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2014-11)

None selected for 2015 N/A N/A

2016 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2015-10)

None selected for 2016 N/A N/A

2019 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2018-45)

1

None selected for 2019 N/A N/A

1There were no LCRs for 2017 and 2018 in accordance with TPA Change Control Forms M-36-16-02 and M-36-17-01. 

ABAR = aggregate barrier.

CSNA = confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup 

action.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reformer.

IBAR = individual barrier.

IC = institutional controls.

MESC = maintain existing soil cover.

MNA = monitored natural attenuation.

N/A = not applicable.

OU = operable unit.

RTD = remove, treat and dispose.

SST = single-shell tank.

TBD = to be determined.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Considering the criteria described earlier and cleanup actions analyzed in previous LCRs, DOE developed 

an anticipated schedule for performing in-depth analyses of plausible alternatives for each remaining future 

cleanup action. Table B-6 presents this schedule and explains the rationale for analyzing alternatives in the 

recommended LCR year.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-22

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. 

(3 pages)

Cleanup Action Alternative

• Central Plateau–Disposition B Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CB-1 OU)

• Central Plateau–Disposition PUREX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CP-1 OU)

• Central Plateau–Remediate Contaminated 

Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 OU)

The RI/FS work plan is due for 200-CB-1 by September 30, 

2019, (TPA M-085-70) and for 200-CP-1 by September 30, 2020,

(TPA M-085-80). The corrective measures study and feasibility 

study report and proposed plan/proposed corrective action 

decision for 200-DV-1 are due by September 30, 2023 

(TPA M-015-110B). It may be reasonable to develop alternatives 

after 2021 that could benefit future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau–Restore 200 East 

Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-PO-1

and 200-BP-5 OUs)

TPA M-015-21A requires a feasibility study report and proposed 

plan by March 31, 2019. Analysis of alternatives is not likely to 

contribute useful information because the CERCLA decision 

process will inform future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau– Remediate Pipelines, Pits, 

Diversion Boxes and Associated Tanks 

(200-IS-1 OU)

• Central Plateau–Remediate Remaining 

200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-EA-1 OU)

The RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study and 

remedial investigation/feasibility study report and proposed 

corrective action decision/proposed plan are due for 200-IS-1 by 

March 31, 2023, (TPA M-015-92C) and for 200-EA-1 by 

November 30, 2022 (TPA M-015-92B). It may be reasonable to 

develop alternatives after 2021 that could benefit future planning 

and budget requests.

• Central Plateau–Disposition Below-Grade 

Portions of PFP

• Central Plateau–Remediate Solid Waste 

Landfill and Non-Radioactive Dangerous 

Waste Landfill (200-SW-1 OU)

The remedial investigation of PFP-related waste sites is due by 

December 31, 2019 (TPA M-015-99). A closure/ postclosure plan 

was submitted in July 2010 for 200-SW-1. It may be reasonable 

to develop alternatives for the PFP waste sites after 2021 that 

could benefit future planning and budget requests. However, 

analysis of alternatives for 200-SW-1 is not likely to contribute 

useful information that could benefit future planning and budget 

requests.

• River Corridor–Disposition 100 Area former 

orchard contaminated soil sites

(100-OL-1 OU)

The RI report (Draft A) was submitted September 7, 2017 

(TPA M-015-96). It may be reasonable to develop alternatives 

after 2020 (depending on the date for completing the FS) that 

could benefit future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau–Disposition REDOX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CR-1 OU)

The RI/FS work plan is due for 200-CR-1 by September 30, 2021

(TPA M-085-90). It may be reasonable to develop alternatives 

after 2023 that could benefit future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau–Disposition

Cesium/Strontium Capsules

TPA M-092-20 requires DOE to determine a disposition 

pathways evaluation for the cesium/strontium capsules by 

March 31, 2022, and every 4 years thereafter. DOE has proposed 

updating the Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit to construct and 

operate a proposed capsule storage area that would provide 

interim dry storage of the cesium and strontium capsules until a 

final capsule disposal decision is made. Analysis of alternatives is 

not likely to contribute useful information for out-year budget 

planning.

• Central Plateau–Restore 200 West

Groundwater to Beneficial Use 

(200-UP-1 OU)

An interim action ROD was issued in September 2012 that 

superseded the previous 200-UP-1 OU decisions. It may be 

reasonable to develop alternatives after 2020 that could benefit 

future planning and budget requests.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-23

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. 

(3 pages)

Cleanup Action Alternative

• River Corridor–Disposition 300 Area 

Facilities Retained by PNNL

Facilities in the 300 Area will be maintained operational by 

PNNL through 2045. Earlier analysis of alternatives would be 

premature and not needed for out-year budget planning.

• Central Plateau (Outer Area)–Disposition 

Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 OU)

Over 200 active facilities are not covered by existing decisions, 

including TEDF, purge water ponds, ETF/LERF, laydown yards, 

warehouses, mobile offices, pump-and-treat facilities, WSCF, 

shops and the CWC complex. These facility operations are 

integral to the long-term cleanup mission and will continue well 

after 2020. Cleanup actions can be implemented by modifying 

existing action memoranda. Analysis of alternatives is not likely 

to contribute useful information for out-year budget planning.

• Central Plateau–Disposition PUREX Storage 

Tunnels (200-CP-1 OU)

DOE took actions to stabilize and void-fill PUREX Tunnel #1 

with engineered grout by November 11, 2017, and intends to 

stabilize and void-fill PUREX Tunnel #2 with engineered grout 

beginning by the end of FY 2018. The RI/FS work plan is due for 

200-CP-1 by September 30, 2020 (TPA M-085-80). It may be 

reasonable to develop alternatives after 2022 that could benefit 

future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau–Disposition T Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites

• Central Plateau–Disposition Remaining 

Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities

• Central Plateau–Disposition Remaining 

Waste Treatment, Storage and 

Disposal Facilities

These facility operations are integral to the long-term cleanup 

mission and will continue well after 2020. Any likely cleanup 

actions are not expected for at least 20+ years in the future so 

earlier analyses would be premature and not needed for out-year 

budget planning.

• Central Plateau–Disposition Any Remaining 

Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

Over 150 active and inactive facilities are not covered by other 

cleanup actions or decisions, including laydown yards, storage, 

mobile offices and facilities, pump-and-treat facilities, CSB, 

222S lab, telecommunications, sirens and electrical facilities. 

The active facilities are integral to the long-term cleanup mission 

and will continue well after 2020. Cleanup actions can be 

implemented by modifying existing action memoranda. 

Analysis of alternatives is not likely to contribute useful 

information for out-year budget planning.

• Tank Waste–Double-Shell Tank Closure 

• Tank Waste–WTP Closure

DST closure is not expected to begin before 2063 and WTP 

closure before 2066. Earlier analyses would be premature and not 

needed for out-year budget planning.

CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR WHICH ALTERNATIVES WOULD NOT BE ANALYZED

River Corridor–B Reactor Preservation - B Reactor is designated a National Historic Landmark and is a 

signature facility of the newly established Manhattan Project National Historical Park so no cleanup actions are 

anticipated. Minor conditioning/maintenance activities will be performed consistent with National Park Service 

decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321) and/or National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 USC 470).

River Corridor-Disposition Remaining 100 Area Buildings/Facilities and Disposition Remaining 300 Area

Buildings/Facilities (except facilities retained for use by PNNL) - Although cleanup actions are mostly 

completed for these buildings/facilities, excess buildings/facilities in the 100 and 300 Areas are expected to 

undergo D&D according to applicable action memoranda. DOE considers D&D of buildings/structures to be final 

cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants are removed in accordance with an action memorandum so 

alternatives do not need to be analyzed.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-24

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. 

(3 pages)

Cleanup Action Alternative

River Corridor–Remediate Remaining Contaminated Sites Within Hanford Reach National 

Monument - National Monument remediation is being implemented to fulfill obligations under a presidential 

proclamation that establishes a de facto final decision. RTD and decontamination in the Monument areas were 

substantially completed in 2012 (some residual cleanup in the 100 Area portions of the Monument is expected to 

be complete within the next few years as part of the River Corridor or Central Plateau cleanup projects).

River Corridor - Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

River Corridor - Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

River Corridor - Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use 

The Tri-Party agencies agreed that for cleanup actions close to having final decisions there would be little value in 

presenting a cost estimate alternatives analysis in the LCR. Because K West Basin cleanup action was limited to 

only one alternative (see Table B-2), the agencies agreed to remove it from the alternatives analysis in the LCR.

Central Plateau–Disposition U Plant (Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites) - U Plant remediation was

approved according to a CERCLA Final ROD. If performed, further analysis of alternatives should be done as part 

of the process under which the current final cleanup decisions were made.

Central Plateau–Manage ERDF - ERDF was approved according to a CERCLA Final ROD and closure and 

post-closure care are part of the operating documentation. Alternatives need not be analyzed, unless future 

decisions are made that modify the current final ERDF decisions.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

FS = feasibility study.

LCR = Lifecycle Report.

OU = operable unit.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-25

B.5 REFERENCES

08-AMRC-0033, 2007, Explanation of Significant Difference for the Interim Action Record of Decision 

for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 100-KR-2 Operable 

Units (100 Area Burial Grounds), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

16-PNSO-0057, 2015, “Need for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Occupied/Operated 

300 Area Environmental Management (EM) Facilities Anticipated to Extend Through 2045,”

Memorandum from R.E. Snyder, U.S Department of Energy Pacific Northwest Site Office to 

S.L. Charboneau, U.S Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, November 25.

17-AMRP-0174, 2017, “15-Day Report for the May 9, 2017, Discovery of Subsidence at PUREX Tunnel 

#1,” Letter from D. Shoop, U.S. Department of Energy to A. Smith, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, May 23, 2017.

17-AMRP-0180, 2017, “Continued Response Actions to Partial Collapse of PUREX Tunnel 1,” Letter 

from D. Shoop, U.S. Department of Energy to A. Smith, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

May 31, 2017.

18-AMRP-0023, 2017, “Continued Response Actions at the PUREX Storage Tunnels – Completion of 

Tunnel 1 Stabilization and Path Forward for Tunnel 2,” Letter from D. Shoop, U.S. Department of 

Energy to A. Smith, Washington State Department of Ecology, December 5, 2017.

58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision; Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” Federal Register (September 16, 1993).

62 FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, 

WA,” Federal Register (February 26, 1997).

78 FR 15358, 2013, “DOE’s Preferred Alternative for Certain Tanks Evaluated in the Final Tank Closure 

and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington,” Federal Register (March 11, 2013).

78 FR 75913, 2013, “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register

(December 13, 2013).

83 FR 23270, 2018, “Amended Record of Decision for the Management of Cesium and Strontium 

Capsules at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register (May 18, 2018).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

DOE and Ecology, 2005, “Action Memorandum; United States Department of Energy, 100 Area, 

105-N Reactor Facility and 109-N Heat Exchanger Building, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, March 10.

DOE and EPA, 2004, Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, May 25.

DOE and EPA, 2005, Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

January 20.

DOE and EPA, 2006a, Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

May 16.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-26

DOE and EPA, 2006b, Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, November.

DOE/EA-1707D, 2011, Environmental Assessment Closure of Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill 

(NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Revised Predecisional Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-90-17, 2010, Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill/Solid Waste Landfill 

Closure/Postclosure Plan, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures, Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-80, 2009, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, -P and –R Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington

DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites 

in 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites 

in the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, 

Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-25, 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-102, 2011, Action Memorandum for Decontamination, Deactivation, Decommissioning, 

and Demolition (D4) Activities for 200 East Tier 2 Buildings/Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2011-93, 2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2012-13, 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2012-68, 2013, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units, 

Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2013-02, 2014, 2014 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 1, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-27

DOE/RL-2014-11, 2014, 2015 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2015-10, 2015, 2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, 

U.S Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water 

Pumping/Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2016-14, 2016, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the B Plant Complex, Draft A, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2016-16, 2016, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the REDOX Complex, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2016-41, 2016, Action Memorandum for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, 

Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2016-43, 2016, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, and 100-BC-5 

Operable Units, Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2016-52, 2018, Action Memorandum for the Reduction-Oxidation Facility Complex, Draft C, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Ecology and EPA, 1994, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

D. Butler, Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, September 23.

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 2 vols., as 

amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2004, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2005, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units 

Interim Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2010, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary U.S. 

Department of Energy 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton County, 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-28

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2011, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units 

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 200-UP-1 

Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2013, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining Sites 

ROD, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-00/120, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 Operable 

Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-00/121, 2000, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 

100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-2 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 

Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 

100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, 

and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-29

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

WA7890008967, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, 

September 30.

WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington.

WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington.

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-i

APPENDIX C

HANFORD ESTIMATED SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-iii

CONTENTS

C.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 1

C.1.1 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS .................................................... 2

C.1.2 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) SCHEDULE AND COST 

DETAILS.......................................................................................................................... 13

C.1.3 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS..................................................... 15

C.1.4 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD (PBS RL-0040) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ............................................................................... 26

C.1.5 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS..................................................... 31

C.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS..................................................... 34

C.1.7 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ............................................................................... 37

C.1.8 HANFORD SITEWIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0201) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS............................................................................................................... 39

C.1.9 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND COST 

DETAILS.......................................................................................................................... 41

C.1.10 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..................... 43

C.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................... 43

TABLES

Table C 1. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL 0013C) 

Level 3 Scope Summary............................................................................................................ 2

Table C 2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL 0013C) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated)........... 5

Table C 3. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL 0013C) 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)........................ 10

Table C 4. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL 0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. ..................................... 13

Table C 5. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL 0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated)............................................................................. 14

Table C 6. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL 0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary.......................................................................................................... 15

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)........ 18

Table C 8. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)........................ 23
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-iv

Table C 9. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL 0040) 

Level 3 Scope Summary........................................................................................................ 26

Table C 10. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL 0040) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..... 28

Table C 11. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL 0040) 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..................... 30

Table C 12. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL 0041) 

Level 3 Scope Summary........................................................................................................ 31

Table C 13. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..... 32

Table C 14. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041)

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..................... 33

Table C 15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL 0042) 

Level 3 Scope Summary........................................................................................................ 34

Table C 16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL 0042) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..... 35

Table C 17. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..................... 36

Table C 18. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL 0100) 

Level 2 Scope Summary........................................................................................................ 37

Table C 19. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL 0100) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). ...... 38

Table C 20. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL 0201) Level 3 Scope Summary. .................................. 39

Table C 21. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL 0201) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). .......................................................................... 40

Table C 22. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ...................................... 41

Table C 23. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ......................................................................... 42

Table C 24. Final Reactor Disposition Level 2 Scope Summary............................................................... 43

Table C 25. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ....................................................................................... 43

Table C 26. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP 0014) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..... 44

Table C 27. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP 0014), 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..................... 46

Table C 28. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP 0060) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ..... 48
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-v

TERMS

ACRW alpha caisson waste retrieval

BOF Balance of Facilities

CCP Central Characterization Project

CENRTC capital equipment not related to construction

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled

CSB Canister Storage Building

CWC Central Waste Complex

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESH&Q environmental safety, health and quality

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

GRP Groundwater Remediation Project

HAMMER Volpentest HAMMER Federal Training Center

HLW high-level waste

IA implementation area

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IFW Integrated Field Work

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System

LAW low-activity waste

LAWPS LAW Pretreatment System

LCR Lifecycle Report

LDR land disposal restriction

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LLBG low-level (waste) burial ground

LLW low-level waste

LOE level of effort

LTS Long-Term Stewardship

MCSC management of cesium and strontium capsules 

MLLW mixed low-level waste

O&M operations and maintenance

ORP U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection

OU operable unit

PBS project baseline summary

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PRC Plateau Remediation Contract

PT pretreatment

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

RH remote-handled

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-vi

ROD record of decision

RTD remove, treat, and dispose

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SST single-shell tank

TOC Tank Operations Contract

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TRU transuranic

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

TWCSF Tank Waste Characterization and Staging Facility

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-1

APPENDIX C

HANFORD ESTIMATED SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS

As directed in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), also 

referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)

1

, M-036-01, additional schedule and cost details are 

provided in this appendix. The schedules and costs are provided by project baseline summary (PBS) and 

reflect the scope discussed in Chapters 3.0 through 6.0 of this Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and 

Cost Report (LCR), additional scope information at Level 3 is provided, if available.

The schedules and costs provided in this appendix present the low-range estimate of the baseline planning 

case with allowances for schedule and cost uncertainty. The schedules and costs provided in this appendix 

are reported to Level 2 for the entire PBS lifecycle and to Level 3 for the execution year (fiscal year [FY]

2019) and a period of approximately 5 more years. Because of the complexity of the Level 3 schedules, 

the information is reported in table format with costs by year. The start and finish of each Level 3 work

element is reflected by the initial and final years that include costs. Information for each PBS is provided 

in the following subsections as a series of tables:

 A scope table that summarizes the Level 3 work elements. In some instances, the scope descriptions 

have been developed only to Level 2. In these cases, the information has been presented in the main 

chapters of the report and is not repeated here.

 A cost and schedule table for the remaining lifecycle is presented at Level 2 by fiscal year. The costs 

are escalated and include cost and/or schedule uncertainty. Costs are presented from FY2019 through 

the final year of the lifecycle for all PBSs. PBS RL-LTS extends from FY 2079 through FY 2095. 

 A near-term cost and schedule table at Level 3 by fiscal year that extends for about 5 years. 

Risk management is an essential function of project management. Cost and schedule uncertainty are 

included in the development of the total project cost and the approved U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

planning case. Information provided in this LCR includes estimates for both cost and schedule uncertainty 

based on risk analysis methods that comply with DOE guidelines and orders. These estimates are 

identified as “cost and/or schedule uncertainty” in the tables. Additional information about uncertainty 

and project risk is included in section 1.6.2.

C.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT

BASELINE SUMMARY INFORMATION

The DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) manages their assigned cleanup mission through the 

following PBSs (at Level 1):

 Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area, PBS RL-0013C

 Safeguards and Security, PBS RL-0020

 Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030

 Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040

 Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Cleanup Project, PBS RL-0041

 Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042

 Richland Community and Regulatory Support, PBS RL-0100

 Hanford Sitewide Services, PBS RL-0201

 Long-Term Stewardship, PBS RL-LTS

 Final Reactor Disposition.

 

1 Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended. 
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-2

C.1.1 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA (PBS RL-0013C) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-1. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Project 

Management

Solid Waste 

Program

Management

Provides overall management function in support of the waste management 

mission, including waste program support, safety documentation, radiation 

protection, regulatory and environmental compliance, occupational and industrial 

safety, and beryllium program management.

Waste 

Encapsulation 

Storage Facility 

(WESF)

WESF Upgrades Includes activities to safely store cesium/strontium capsules in the WESF pool 

cells; operate and maintain WESF facilities and associated waste sites, structures, 

operating systems and equipment, and monitoring systems within the 

authorization envelope; prepare and package waste streams for disposition as 

required, dispose of as appropriate; and maintain systems necessary for 

environmental compliance, radiological control, personnel safety, and capsule 

integrity; and transition of WESF for final D&D.

WESF Transition

WESF Min Safe

WESF During 

Transition Min 

Safe

Canister Storage 

Building (CSB)

Canister Storage 

Building

Includes activities to safely store SNF (primarily from K Basins) while awaiting 

final disposition at a national repository. Includes operation and maintenance of 

CSB facilities and associated structures, operating systems and equipment, and 

monitoring systems. Also includes various corrective maintenance tasks, facility 

modifications, or capital projects necessary to continue safe, cost-effective, and 

compliant operations throughout the operating life of the facility.

Canister Storage 

Building Min Safe

Mixed Low-Level 

Waste (MLLW) 

Trenches

MLLW Ready-toServeProvides for operation of the mixed waste disposal trenches in a safe, compliant, 

and cost-effective manner, including emergency preparedness, assessments and 

surveillances, environmental monitoring and sampling, fire protection,

engineering, training, receipt and disposal of compliant MLLW packages, design, 

construction and other activities necessary to add operational layers and for 

placing temporary caps on the trenches before turnover to PBS RL-0040 for 

final closure.

MLLW Upgrades

MLLW Leachate 

Management

MLLW Min Safe

Transuranic 

(TRU) Waste 

Retrieval

CH Waste 

Retrieval 

Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD facility of CH suspect 

TRU waste from LLBGs 218-W-3A, 218-W-4B, 218-W-4C, and 218-E-12B.

Alpha Caisson 

Waste Retrieval 

Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD facility of RH suspect 

TRU waste from LLBGs 218-W-3A, 218-W-4B, 218-W-4C, and 218-E-12B.

TRU Repackaging TRU Repackaging

Provides for WIPP production, TRU repacking operations at T Plant and WRAP, 

TRU program support for repack, TRUM processing, and RH/large packaging 

capabilities. It includes staffing, contracts, and consumables directly related to 

operations.

Waste Receiving 

and Processing 

Facility (WRAP)

WRAP Ready-toServeProvides for operations and maintenance of the WRAP facility to support 

shipping and receiving activities associated with WIPP shipments. 

WRAP Transition Following operations, WRAP will be transitioned to a condition ready for D&D.

WRAP Min Safe

Provides for operation of the WRAP facility in a safe, compliant, and costeffective manner, including activities such as emergency preparedness, 

assessments and surveillances, environmental monitoring and sampling, 

engineering, and training.

T Plant

T Plant Ready-toServeProvides for services necessary to maintain the T Plant Complex in a ready-toserve status for waste processing operations.

T Plant Upgrades Provides for upgrades to waste processing equipment, systems components, and 

computer interface equipment, including physical upgrades to T Plant facility. 

T Plant Transition Following operations, T Plant will be transitioned to a condition ready for D&D.

T Plant Min Safe

Provides for operation of the T Plant facility in a safe, compliant, and costeffective manner, including activities such as emergency preparedness, 

assessments and surveillances, environmental monitoring and sampling, 

engineering and training.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-3

Table C-1. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Central Waste 

Complex (CWC)

CWC Ready-toServe

Provides for services necessary to maintain CWC in a ready-to-serve status (base 

operations) for interim storage of LLW, MLLW, TRU waste and waste receipts 

from RL approved generators.

CWC Upgrades Provides for upgrades to waste processing equipment, systems components, and 

computer interface equipment, including physical upgrades to the CWC.

CWC CENRTC Provides for upgrades and replacement of capital equipment not related to 

construction (CENTRC).

CWC Transition Following operations, CWC will be transitioned to a condition ready for D&D.

CWC Min Safe

Provides for operation of the CWC in a safe, compliant, and cost-effective 

manner, including emergency preparedness, assessments and surveillances, 

environmental monitoring and sampling, engineering, and training.

Environmental 

Restoration 

Disposal Facility 

(ERDF)

ERDF Cell 

Expansion

Provides for expansion of ERDF by one supercell (two normal cells) to support 

Site cleanup efforts, including relocation of groundwater monitoring wells.

ERDF Ready-toServeIncludes ERDF operations-related activities such as leachate management, waste 

receipt and disposal, waste transport to ERDF, equipment and road maintenance,

air monitoring, and groundwater well sampling and analysis.

ERDF Interim 

Cover

Provides for placement of interim covers over ERDF cells as they are filled. 

Integrated 

Disposal Facility 

(IDF)

IDF Startup and 

Testing

Includes staff ramp-up, operational readiness review, and regulatory 

documentation.

IDF Ready-toServe

Provides for operation of the IDF in a safe, compliant, and cost-effective manner, 

including emergency preparedness, assessments and surveillances, environmental 

monitoring and sampling, fire protection, engineering, training, and receipt and 

disposal of ILAW and other solid waste from the WTP.

IDF Upgrades Includes upgrades to trailers, parking, utilities, and other infrastructure needed for 

IDF occupancy as well as upgrades to the waste receiving interface area.

TRU Disposition TRU Disposition

Provides for resources to develop and maintain an interface with Hanford Site 

generators and CCP to perform TRU certification activities. Includes support for 

generators of TRU waste to define CH and RH waste volumes and packaging 

requirements and resources to perform WIPP closeout activities to the current 

Hanford WIPP Program. Provides for TRU CH shipping capabilities and 

establishing RH shipping capabilities, including all capital funded activities.

Spent Nuclear 

Fuel (SNF) 

Disposition

Fuel Prep Facility

Includes design, construction, and turnover to operations of a fuel preparation 

facility to repackage fuel stored at the 200 Area interim storage area into DOE 

standard canisters that satisfy repository acceptance requirements. The facility 

will include a shielded hot cell and remote welding capabilities. 

Offsite SNF 

Disposition

Includes activities to facilitate final disposition of Hanford SNF inventories at a 

national repository, including compliance document review, technical and 

programmatic interface with the cognizant DOE office and/or programs that have 

responsibility for management and disposition of SNF, SNF data package 

compliance, and planning for SNF disposition.

Low Level Waste 

Burial Grounds

Low Level Waste 

Burial Grounds 

Min Safe

Provides for operation of the Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds in a safe, 

compliant and cost-effective manner, including surveillance, maintenance, 

environmental monitoring and sampling, engineering, training, work control, and 

radiation protection.

Sludge Treatment 

Phase 2

Sludge Treatment

Phase 2 Design 

and Construction

Includes documentation for project approval, development and approval of 

conceptual, preliminary and final designs, project management, procurement, 

construction and operational readiness completion needed to stabilize and 

package sludge from 105-KW Basin for final disposition to WIPP or another 

disposal facility.

Sludge Treatment 

Phase 2 Operation

Includes operations needed to package and ship the treated sludge to WIPP and 

deactivation of process systems.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-4

Table C-1. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Sludge Treatment 

Phase 2 Project 

Closeout

Includes shutdown of process systems, management, and support.

Management of 

Cesium and 

Strontium 

Capsules (MCSC)

MCSC Other 

Project Costs

Provides for construction of WESF modifications and the capsule storage area 

(CSA), management and other project costs. 

Capsule Interim 

Storage 

Operations

Capsule Transfer 

Startup and 

Operations

Provides for design and fabrication of the Cask Storage System (CSS), retrieval 

of cesium/strontium capsules from the WESF pool cells and packaging, 

transportation, and placement of the CSS into dry storage at the CSA.

General Debris 

and Excess 

Cleanup

Disposition 

Decision and 

Disposal

Includes a disposition decision, cleanup and disposal of general debris and excess 

material on the Hanford Site.

NOTE: See Tables C-2 and C-3 for schedule and budget information.

CCP = Central Characterization Project.

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction.

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

LDR = land disposal restriction.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LLBG = Low-Level Burial Grounds.

LLW = low-level waste.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote-handled.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TRU = transuranic.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-5

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Project Management 11,100 11,400 11,600 11,800 12,100 12,400 12,300 12,700

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 9,300 9,500 9,700 9,800 9,300 18,600 19,100 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 6,300 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,900 7,100 7,300 7,500

MLLW Trenches 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,700 1,700 2,000 1,800 2,100

TRU Waste Retrieval 10,500 60,400 62,200 63,500 64,300 65,900 67,800 69,800

TRU Repackaging 11,300 71,700 68,800 73,600 80,700 61,000 62,800 64,600

WRAP 10,200 10,600 9,700 13,300 16,600 17,000 17,500 18,000

T Plant 33,200 56,500 66,100 67,400 186,900 193,400 222,800 100,800

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 16,500 16,300 17,700 17,300 17,500 18,400 10,500 12,200

ERDF 11,100 31,200 34,600 32,300 33,000 34,000 35,000 37,400

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 2,800 16,500 10,000 13,000 7,000 7,200 7,400 7,600

TRU Disposition 8,200 8,400 8,600 8,700 17,200 23,300 24,000 24,700

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 3,500 3,600 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 7,000 7,200

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,700 1,800 1,800

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 0 92,600 42,500 58,700 44,700 26,000 27,600 23,900

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 18,400 12,200 5,200 600 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 28,100 29,300 7,700 7,800 5,200 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 700 700 700 700 700 700 800

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 6,100 39,700 55,400 49,100 78,200 59,500 66,600 43,400

Level 2 Total 161,000 478,600 445,000 441,200 590,100 557,300 592,000 434,500

Fiscal Year 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Project Management 12,800 13,100 13,600 14,100 14,300 14,800 15,100 15,200

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 10,300 10,500 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 7,600 7,800 8,100 8,400 8,600 8,800 9,000 9,100

MLLW Trenches 2,100 2,100 2,200 2,300 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,500

TRU Waste Retrieval 45,800 45,400 42,800 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 66,400 67,600 69,400 67,900 62,600 63,700 65,600 66,900

WRAP 18,300 18,800 19,600 20,200 8,200 0 0 0

T Plant 39,800 40,700 42,600 43,800 16,500 16,900 17,200 17,300

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 11,800 12,400 12,600 13,300 10,300 10,200 10,400 10,400

ERDF 60,300 61,500 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-6

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). (6 pages)

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 7,700 7,900 8,300 8,500 8,700 8,900 9,100 9,200

TRU Disposition 25,100 25,700 26,900 27,800 28,200 29,100 29,700 29,900

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 7,300 7,500 7,800 8,100 8,200 8,400 0 0

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,200 2,200

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 29,000 39,500 28,100 14,400 38,600 41,800 42,600 41,300

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 800 800 800 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 97,900 85,800 71,100 78,500 85,400 89,300 56,700 43,100

Level 2 Total 444,800 449,000 355,900 309,300 293,100 295,400 259,100 246,100

Fiscal Year 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Project Management 15,400 16,200 16,500 17,200 17,500 18,200 19,000 19,000

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 9,200 9,600 9,900 10,300 10,500 10,900 11,400 11,300

MLLW Trenches 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,800 1,800

TRU Waste Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 67,400 68,600 71,800 50,200 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,700 0

T Plant 17,700 41,300 42,200 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 11,100 11,100 11,400 11,800 12,100 12,500 13,100 13,100

ERDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 19,700 9,800 10,000 10,400 10,600 11,000 11,500 11,500

TRU Disposition 30,400 31,800 28,600 13,300 13,500 14,100 400 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,500 2,600 2,800 2,700

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 41,800 11,600 1,500 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,800

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 42,300 39,500 48,500 52,600 64,300 76,000 79,000 61,200

Level 2 Total 258,700 243,400 244,400 171,400 134,300 148,700 168,400 122,400
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-7

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Project Management 19,400 20,100 20,500 21,000 22,000 23,000 23,600 24,000

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 11,600 12,000 12,200 12,600 13,100 13,700 14,100 14,400

MLLW Trenches 1,900 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,300

TRU Waste Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 13,400 13,800 14,100 14,500 15,100 15,800 16,300 16,600

ERDF 0 0 0 0 0 5,200 5,200 0

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 11,800 12,100 12,400 12,700 13,300 13,900 14,300 14,600

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 100 35,900 54,200 55,500 7,600 26,500 27,200 27,800

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,000 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 1,800 1,800 1,900 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,200

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 46,900 38,700 24,500 26,800 23,200 16,700 10,100 17,100

Level 2 Total 109,700 139,200 144,800 150,100 101,600 122,400 118,600 122,500

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058

Project Management 24,500 25,400 26,000 23,700 25,000 26,200 26,700 27,300

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 14,600 16,300 22,400 16,400 0 0 0 0

MLLW Trenches 2,400 2,400 2,600 1,700 0 0 0 0

TRU Waste Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 17,000 17,500 18,000 19,200 20,200 21,100 21,700 22,000

ERDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 15,000 15,400 15,800 16,900 17,800 18,600 19,100 19,400
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-8

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). (6 pages)

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 28,300 29,300 29,900 0 0 0 0 0

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 3,500 3,700 3,800 4,000 0 0 0 0

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 2,200 2,300 2,300 2,400 2,700 2,800 2,800 2,900

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 17,900 15,400 15,300 13,100 21,900 17,700 17,200 14,500

Level 2 Total 125,400 127,700 136,100 97,400 87,600 86,400 87,500 86,100

Fiscal Year 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066

Project Management 28,300 33,400 34,200 35,000 35,800 36,600 37,500 38,300

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MLLW Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Waste Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 22,800 23,100 23,600 24,200 24,700 25,300 25,900 26,500

ERDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 20,100 20,300 20,800 21,300 21,700 22,200 22,800 23,300

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 3,000 400 0 0 0 0 0 0

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 11,500 13,600 27,400 24,400 23,000 20,400 18,800 18,200

Level 2 Total 85,700 90,800 106,000 104,900 105,200 104,500 105,000 106,300

Fiscal Year 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074

Project Management 39,300 40,100 41,000 42,000 41,900 42,500 44,200 47,000

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-9

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). (6 pages)

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MLLW Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Waste Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 27,100 27,700 28,300 29,000 28,900 38,800 0 0

ERDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 23,900 24,400 24,900 25,500 25,500 0 0 0

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 15,100 15,500 14,600 13,900 13,000 7,900 8,200 6,900

Level 2 Total 105,400 107,700 108,800 110,400 109,300 89,200 52,400 53,900

Fiscal Year 2075 2076 2077 2078 Total

Project Management 47,100 47,300 50,400 52,300 1,540,000

Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 0 0 0 0 106,100

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 378,800

MLLW Trenches 0 0 0 0 66,300

TRU Waste Retrieval 0 0 0 0 598,400

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 1,282,600

WRAP 0 0 0 0 225,700

T Plant 0 0 0 0 1,263,100

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 0 0 0 0 966,200

ERDF 0 0 0 0 380,800

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 0 0 0 0 774,100

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 477,600

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 0 0 0 0 405,900

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 0 0 0 0 89,700
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-10

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-2. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated). (6 pages)

Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 0 0 0 0 694,000

Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 0 0 0 0 36,400

Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 0 0 0 78,100

General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 0 0 0 7,400

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 5,800 5,300 4,400 4,600 2,078,700

Level 2 Total 52,900 52,600 54,800 56,900 11,449,900

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TRU = transuranic.

WRAP= Waste Receiving and Processing Facility.

Table C-3. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

1 Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition – 200 Area 161,000 478,600 445,000 441,200 590,100 557,300 2,673,200

2 Project Management 11,100 11,400 11,600 11,800 12,100 12,400 70,400

3 Solid Waste Program Management 11,100 11,400 11,600 11,800 12,100 12,400 70,400

2 Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) 9,300 9,500 9,700 9,800 9,300 18,600 66,200

3 Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility Upgrades 700 700 700 700 0 0 2,800

3 Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility Transition 0 0 0 0 0 9,000 9,000

3 Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility Min Safe 8,600 8,800 9,000 9,100 9,300 9,600 54,400

2 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 6,300 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,900 7,100 40,100

3 Canister Storage Building Min Safe 6,300 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,900 7,100 40,100

2 MLLW Trenches 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,700 1,700 2,000 8,600

3 Mixed Low Level Waste Trenches Ready-to-Serve 0 0 0 600 600 600 1,800

3 Mixed Low Level Waste Upgrades 0 0 0 0 0 300 300

3 Mixed Low Level Waste Leachate Management 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400

3 Mixed Low Level Waste Trenches Min Safe 600 700 700 700 700 700 4,100

2 TRU Waste Retrieval 10,500 60,400 62,200 63,500 64,300 65,900 326,800

3 Trench Retrieval (CH and RH) 10,500 22,900 23,600 24,100 24,400 25,000 130,500

3 Alpha Caisson Waste Retrieval (ACWR) 0 37,500 38,600 39,400 39,900 40,900 196,300

2 TRU Repackaging 11,300 71,700 68,800 73,600 80,700 61,000 367,100

3 TRU Repackaging 11,300 71,700 68,800 73,600 80,700 61,000 367,100

2 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 10,200 10,600 9,700 13,300 16,600 17,000 77,400
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-11

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-3. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

3 WRAP Ready-to-Serve 4,200 4,400 3,400 6,900 10,000 10,200 39,100

3 WRAP Min Safe 6,000 6,200 6,300 6,400 6,600 6,800 38,300

2 T Plant 33,200 56,500 66,100 67,400 186,900 193,400 603,500

3 T Plant Ready-to-Serve 22,300 45,300 54,600 55,800 175,000 181,100 534,100

3 T Plant Min Safe 10,900 11,200 11,500 11,600 11,900 12,300 69,400

2 Central Waste Complex (CWC) 16,500 16,300 17,700 17,300 17,500 18,400 103,700

3 Central Waste Complex Ready-to-Serve 8,500 8,100 9,100 8,900 8,900 9,500 53,000

3 Central Waste Complex Upgrades 700 700 700 700 700 800 4,300

3 CWC CENRTC 0 0 300 0 0 0 300

3 CWC Min Safe 7,300 7,500 7,600 7,700 7,900 8,100 46,100

2 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 11,100 31,200 34,600 32,300 33,000 34,000 176,200

3 ERDF Ready-to-Serve 11,100 31,200 31,800 32,300 33,000 34,000 173,400

3 ERDF Interim Cover 0 0 2,800 0 0 0 2,800

2 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 2,800 16,500 10,000 13,000 7,000 7,200 56,500

3 IDF Startup and Testing 2,800 16,500 10,000 11,800 0 0 41,100

3 IDF Ready-to-Serve 0 0 0 1,200 7,000 7,200 15,400

2 TRU Disposition 8,200 8,400 8,600 8,700 17,200 23,300 74,400

3 TRU Disposition 8,200 8,400 8,600 8,700 17,200 23,300 74,400

2 Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 3,500 3,600 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 22,100

3 Offsite SNF Disposition 3,500 3,600 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 22,100

2 Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,700 9,700

3 Low Level Waste Burial Grounds Min Safe 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,700 9,700

2 Sludge Treatment, Phase 2 0 92,600 42,500 58,700 44,700 26,000 264,500

3 Sludge Treatment Phase Two Design and Construction 0 11,700 14,600 56,700 44,500 25,800 153,300

3 Sludge Treatment Phase Two Operation 0 80,800 20,000 1,100 0 0 101,900

3 Sludge Treatment Phase Two Project Closeout 0 100 7,900 900 200 200 9,300

2 Management of Cesium/Strontium Capsules (MCSC) 18,400 12,200 5,200 600 0 0 36,400

3 Management of Cs/Sr Capsules, Other Project Costs 18,400 12,200 5,200 600 0 0 36,400

2 Capsule Interim Storage Operations 0 28,100 29,300 7,700 7,800 5,200 78,100

3 Capsule Transfer Startup and Operations 0 28,100 29,300 7,700 7,800 5,200 78,100

2 General Debris and Excess Cleanup 0 700 700 700 700 700 3,500

3 Disposition Decision and Disposal 0 700 700 700 700 700 3,500
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-12

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-3. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 6,100 39,700 55,400 49,100 78,200 59,500 288,000

Total 161,000 478,600 445,000 441,200 590,100 557,300 2,673,200

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote-handled.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TRU = transuranic.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-13

C.1.2 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020)

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Scope information for Safeguards and Security, PBS RL-0020, is presented in Table C-4. This PBS is not 

broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented.

Table C-4. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Safeguards and 

Security

Includes management, training, and equipment for staff; physical protective systems, such as 

intrusion protection, Hanford Site access, and badging; information and cyber security; 

personnel security; material control and accountability; and security program management.

NOTE: See Table C-5 for schedule and budget information.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-14

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-5. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Safeguards and Security 86,700 92,900 97,900 102,600 123,300 130,300 118,200 121,600 123,800

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Safeguards and Security 126,700 131,900 135,900 138,500 142,400 145,300 146,800 149,500 155,800

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Safeguards and Security 159,500 165,200 168,600 175,000 182,100 182,400 184,700 190,400 194,900

Fiscal Year 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054

Safeguards and Security 199,700 208,200 216,500 222,000 226,600 231,200 238,700 244,700 112,700

Fiscal Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063

Safeguards and Security 117,400 121,600 124,300 127,100 131,000 159,600 163,300 167,200 170,800

Fiscal Year 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072

Safeguards and Security 174,600 178,900 183,100 187,400 191,500 195,800 200,600 199,900 202,900

Fiscal Year 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 Total

Safeguards and Security 210,900 224,200 225,000 226,000 240,600 249,600 10,146,500

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-15

C.1.3 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-6. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Groundwater 

Program 

Management

Groundwater Program Management

Includes program management oversight, 

integrated field work, training, well access roads, 

strategic integration, groundwater management 

plan, technical support and evaluations, project 

control, performance assessment, remediation 

decision support, sample management and 

reporting, environmental databases, and CERCLA 

5-year review.

Integration and Assessments

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Geophysical Sciences and Logging Includes geophysical borehole logging;

groundwater laboratory analysis and sample data 

management; groundwater sample collection;

purgewater truck and operation and maintenance 

of the Hanford Geotechnical Sample Library;

groundwater data evaluation and reporting 

including the annual CERCLA, RCRA, and pumpand-treat operations reports; well maintenance, 

monitoring, and reporting; RCRA well drilling per 

TPA2 M-024 milestones; miscellaneous well 

decommissioning and operation; maintenance, 

sampling; and dismantlement of the Modutanks.

Groundwater Lab Analysis and Data 

Management

Groundwater Sample Collection

Groundwater Data Evaluation and Reporting

Well Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting

RCRA Well Drilling (M-024)

Miscellaneous Well Decommissioning

Modutanks

200-WA-1 

Operable Unit 200-WA-1 Decision Documents

For the 200 West Area waste sites, includes 

implementing the RI/FS process though field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

200-EA-1 

Operable Unit 200-EA-1 Decision Documents

For the 200 East Area waste sites, includes 

implementing the CERCLA/RCRA process though 

field investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

200-OA-1 

Operable Unit 200-OA-1 Decision Documents

For the Outer Area waste sites, includes 

implementing the RI/FS process though field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparation of the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

200-IS-1 

Operable Unit 200-IS-1 Decision Documents

For the 200 Area pipelines, includes implementing 

the CERCLA/RCRA process though field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparing the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

200-SW-2 

Operable Unit 200-SW-2 Decision Documents

For the 200 Area land disposal units, includes 

implementing the CERCLA/RCRA process though 

field investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparing the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-16

Table C-6. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

100-BC-5

Operable Unit

100-BC-5 Project Management For 100-BC groundwater, includes completing the 

CERCLA1 process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then 

implementing and monitoring the remedial action 

to completion, including final reporting and well 

decommissioning.

100-BC-5 Decision Documents

100-BC-5 Remedial/Removal Action

Implementation

100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting

100-KR-4 

Operable Unit

100-KR-4 Project Management For 100-KR groundwater, includes completing the 

CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then 

implementing and monitoring the remedial action 

to completion, including well drilling and 

decommissioning, pump-and-treat operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring, final reporting and 

remedy D&D.

100-KR-4 Decision Documents

100-KR-4 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting

100-NR-2 

Operable Unit

100-NR-2 Project Management For 100-NR groundwater, includes completing the 

CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then 

implementing and monitoring the remedial action 

to completion, including final reporting, well 

drilling and decommissioning, and remedy D&D.

100-NR-2 Decision Documents

100-NR-2 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting

100-HR-3 

Operable Unit

100-HR-3 Project Management For 100-HR groundwater, includes implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including well drilling and decommissioning, 

pump-and-treat operations, maintenance and 

monitoring, final reporting, and remedy D&D.

100-HR-3 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting

100-FR-3 

Operable Unit

100-FR-3 Project Management For 100-FR groundwater, includes implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including final reporting and well drilling and 

decommissioning.

100-FR-3 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting

200-BP-5 

Operable Unit

200-BP-5 Project Management For 200-BP groundwater, includes completing the 

CERCLA process and preparing regulatory 

decision documents (including for the 200-PO-1

OU) leading to a final ROD, then implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including final reporting and well drilling and 

decommissioning.

200-BP-5 Decision Documents

200-BP-5 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

200-BP-5 Monitoring and Reporting

200-PO-1 

Operable Unit

200-PO-1 Project Management For 200-PO groundwater, includes implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including final reporting and well drilling and 

decommissioning.

200-PO-1 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

200-PO-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-UP-1 

Operable Unit

200-UP-1 Project Management For 200-UP groundwater, includes implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including treatability testing, tracer study, well 

drilling and decommissioning, pump-and-treat 

operations, maintenance, and monitoring, final 

reporting, and remedy D&D.

200-UP-1 Decision Documents

200-UP-1 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-ZP-1 

Operable Unit

200-ZP-1 Project Management For 200-ZP groundwater, includes implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including well drilling and decommissioning, 

pump-and-treat operations, maintenance and 

monitoring, final reporting, and remedy D&D.

200-ZP-1 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-17

Table C-6. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

200-CB-1 

Operable Unit 200-CB-1 Decision Documents

For the B Plant canyon and waste sites, includes 

implementing the RI/FS process though field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparing the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

200-CP-1 

Operable Unit 200-CP-1 Decision Documents

For the PUREX canyon and waste sites (including 

the PUREX tunnels), includes implementing the 

RI/FS process though field investigations, 

sampling and analysis, and preparing regulatory 

decision documents leading to a final ROD, then 

preparing the remedial design/remedial action 

work plan.

200-CR-1 

Operable Unit 200-CR-1 Decision Documents

For the REDOX canyon and waste sites, includes 

implementing the RI/FS process though field 

investigations, sampling and analysis, and 

preparing regulatory decision documents leading to 

a final ROD, then preparing the remedial 

design/remedial action work plan.

300-FF-5 

Operable Unit

300-FF-5 Project Management For 300-FF groundwater, includes implementing 

and monitoring the remedial action to completion, 

including final reporting, and well drilling and 

decommissioning.

300-FF-5 Remedial/Removal Action 

Implementation

300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting

200-DV-1 

Operable Unit

200-DV-1 Project Management

For the deep vadose zone, includes completing the 

CERCLA/RCRA2 process and preparing 

regulatory decision documents leading to a final 

ROD, then preparing the remedial design/remedial 

action work plan.

200-DV-1 Decision Documents

NOTE: See Tables C-7 and C-8 for schedule and budget information.

1Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

2Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 2 vols., as amended, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

3Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

CENRTC= capital equipment not related to construction.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = deactivation and decommissioning.

GRP = Groundwater Remediation Project.

IFW = Integrated Field Work.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-18

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Groundwater Program Management 27,600 55,800 55,700 43,200 38,000 38,500 40,000 38,600 39,500 34,900

Groundwater Monitoring 22,200 31,100 29,500 29,900 19,800 31,600 32,300 33,400 33,700 23,400

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 1,200 9,300 10,800 6,000 700 800 600 1,800 0

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 22,700 10,700 1,500 1,500 500 800 1,900 0 0

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 2,000 9,800 4,500 1,100 1,100 500 1,800 0 0

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 31,800 32,700 18,300 3,000 3,000 3,100 500 2,500 0

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 6,400 6,600 6,900 3,400 1,400 1,400 1,800 1,100 1,200

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 2,100 1,900 900 900 900 200 200 200 200 200

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 11,700 22,100 19,100 8,100 7,600 6,700 6,500 6,700 6,800 5,800

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 4,500 3,100 4,800 6,000 5,500 7,200 3,100 700 200 1,700

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 10,600 18,000 20,500 7,200 8,200 9,200 8,200 8,600 8,700 7,700

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 500 500 400 400 900 400 400 400 400 2,600

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 14,700 3,700 3,700 4,800 2,400 200 300 200 200 2,100

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 1,100 2,200 3,700 3,000 4,700 0 0 0 0 2,000

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 4,000 21,500 23,200 5,100 4,400 2,200 2,400 2,400 2,500 4,600

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 30,500 82,200 80,000 32,500 35,400 34,200 40,200 36,300 36,900 40,200

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 1,400 14,400 14,500 14,700 15,100 16,500 2,100 2,200 900

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 700 700 13,500 13,500 13,800 14,300 15,200 1,200 1,200

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 700 700 9,500 9,600 9,900 10,200 10,500 10,600 11,900

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 1,900 1,400 400 400 1,000 400 500 500 500 1,200

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,800 2,300 600 500 500

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty -300 54,300 63,500 67,200 75,500 53,200 48,000 58,800 41,900 35,100

Level 2 Total 132,400 366,000 391,600 289,500 258,400 231,300 232,000 221,800 191,400 177,200

Fiscal Year 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Groundwater Program Management 36,500 38,000 28,400 29,500 29,800 30,000 31,100 29,600 30,400 31,500

Groundwater Monitoring 39,000 30,900 33,800 31,100 27,100 26,100 25,200 26,400 27,000 21,900

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-19

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 2,700 2,800 2,800 2,900 4,500 3,500 3,600 300 300 2,100

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 200 200 200 200 1,700 200 200 100 100 1,900

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,100 4,700 4,400 4,600 300 300 2,000

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 500 500 500 500 1,200 500 500 500 500 1,400

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 200 200 3,600 3,700 6,000 3,800 3,800 4,100 300 2,800

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 2,300 0 0 3,400 3,500 6,200

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 2,600 2,700 2,700 2,800 5,200 2,800 3,000 3,100 2,000 3,600

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 39,500 46,400 41,500 42,800 46,400 43,900 50,900 46,800 46,400 9,000

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 2,200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 1,300 1,300 1,000 2,400 200 0 0 0 0 0

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 2,300 2,400 1,000 2,400 100 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 500 500 600 700 1,400 700 700 700 700 1,200

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 500 500 500 500 500 500 600 600 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 47,800 48,300 46,300 35,100 27,500 27,400 23,500 20,700 24,000 39,600

Level 2 Total 178,900 178,100 166,200 157,900 158,800 144,000 147,900 136,800 135,700 123,400

Fiscal Year 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048

Groundwater Program Management 32,100 34,000 35,000 34,800 34,500 35,400 36,800 37,100 38,000 39,700

Groundwater Monitoring 28,900 26,800 27,900 27,800 22,200 29,400 29,600 30,200 31,800 25,900

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 300 300 300 300 2,400 400 400 400 400 2,800

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 200 200 200 200 2,100 200 200 200 200 2,500

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 300 300 300 300 2,200 400 400 400 400 2,700

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 600 600 600 600 1,600 600 700 700 700 1,800

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 300 300 300 300 3,100 300 300 300 300 3,700

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 3,700 3,800 4,000 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,500

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 6,500 500 6,300 6,300 6,200 9,500 400 400 400 400

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 5,900 6,800 6,300 6,300 18,700 15,500 4,700 4,800 5,100 9,600
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-20

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 400 400 500 500 1,500 500 500 500 500 1,600

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 44,800 37,900 38,900 35,000 31,300 22,400 22,900 17,600 21,000 17,800

Level 2 Total 124,200 112,100 120,800 112,600 129,000 114,800 97,100 92,800 99,000 112,200

Fiscal Year 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058

Groundwater Program Management 40,700 41,500 42,300 43,900 45,000 47,900 50,600 52,800 53,900 55,200

Groundwater Monitoring 35,100 34,500 39,100 36,400 34,800 45,800 49,500 51,700 52,800 36,800

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 200 200 200 200 200 300 300 300 400 400

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 400 400 400 400 3,200 500 500 500 500 4,000

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 200 200 200 200 2,800 200 300 300 300 3,500

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 400 400 400 500 3,100 500 500 500 600 3,800

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 700 700 900 900 2,100 900 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,600

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 400 400 400 400 4,200 400 500 500 500 5,200

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,900

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 4,100 400 400 400 400 4,900 500 500 500 500

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 5,400 5,600 1,000 1,000 5,900 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,200 7,300

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 500 600 3,800 3,900 5,300 600 700 700 700 2,300

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 17,800 11,000 13,200 9,200 10,100 8,500 4,600 5,200 4,200 5,100

Level 2 Total 105,900 95,900 102,300 97,400 121,100 111,600 110,200 115,200 116,600 131,600
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-21

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068

Groundwater Program Management 57,200 57,700 59,100 60,500 61,800 63,200 64,700 66,200 67,800 69,300

Groundwater Monitoring 48,600 49,100 50,200 51,400 41,300 53,700 55,100 56,300 57,700 46,300

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 800 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 1,000 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 700

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 1,000 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 700 700

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 1,500 1,100 1,100 1,200 2,900 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,300 3,300

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 900 500 500 500 600 600 600 600 600 600

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 5,500 0 0 0 0 6,200

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 6,200 600 600 600 700 6,400 700 700 700 700

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 1,800 1,300 1,400 1,400 8,100 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 9,100

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 1,200 800 800 800 2,600 800 800 900 900 2,900

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 6,500 31,300 53,900 51,200 45,800 43,200 34,400 29,800 26,100 23,300

Level 2 Total 127,400 144,000 169,200 169,200 170,900 172,300 160,800 159,100 158,500 163,500

Fiscal Year 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078

Groundwater Program Management 70,800 72,600 72,300 73,400 76,300 81,100 81,400 81,800 87,000 90,300

Groundwater Monitoring 60,200 61,700 61,500 62,400 51,000 69,000 69,200 69,500 74,000 60,400

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-22

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 400 400 400 400 500 500 500 500 500 600

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 700 700 700 700 800 800 800 800 900 900

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 700 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 900 900

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 3,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 4,300

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 600 700 600 700 700 700 700 700 800 800

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 6,800 0 0 0 0 8,100

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 7,200 800 800 800 800 8,200 900 900 900 1,000

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 1,600 1,700 1,700 1,700 10,000 1,900 1,900 1,900 2,000 11,900

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 900 900 900 1,000 3,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,800

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 20,500 18,900 16,900 18,400 15,000 12,700 16,800 10,300 10,600 11,200

Level 2 Total 165,000 160,600 158,000 161,700 169,500 178,400 175,700 169,900 180,400 194,200

Fiscal Year Total

Groundwater Program Management 2,972,300

Groundwater Monitoring 2,421,000

200-WA-1 Operable Unit 31,200

200-EA-1 Operable Unit 39,600

200-OA-1 Operable Unit 20,800

200-IS-1 Operable Unit 94,900

200-SW-2 Operable Unit 30,200

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 23,500

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 160,000

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 56,900

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 168,700

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 69,900

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 95,900

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 85,600

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 192,500

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 1,042,100
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-23

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-7. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

200-CB-1 Decision Documents 84,200

200-CP-1 Decision Documents 80,300

200-CR-1 Decision Documents 81,800

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 69,500

200-DV-1 Operable Unit 16,400

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 1,712,700

Level 2 Total 9,550,000

Table C-8. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

1 Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone 132,400 366,000 391,600 289,500 258,400 231,300 1,669,200

2 Groundwater Program Management 27,600 55,800 55,700 43,200 38,000 38,500 258,800

3 Groundwater Program Management 8,800 25,400 26,000 22,100 22,700 23,300 128,300

3 Integration and Assessments 18,800 30,400 29,700 21,100 15,300 15,200 130,500

2 Groundwater Monitoring 22,200 31,100 29,500 29,900 19,800 31,600 164,100

3 Geophysical Sciences and Logging 1,300 700 700 700 700 800 4,900

3 Groundwater Lab Analysis and Data Management 4,300 4,400 4,500 4,500 4,700 4,800 27,200

3 Groundwater Sample Collection 6,000 6,100 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,900 38,800

3 Groundwater Data Evaluation and Reporting 4,200 4,300 4,400 4,500 4,600 4,700 26,700

3 Well Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting 0 4,900 2,500 2,500 2,600 2,600 15,100

3 RCRA Well Drilling (M-024) 5,900 10,200 10,400 10,600 0 11,200 48,300

3 Modutanks 500 500 500 500 500 600 3,100

2 200-WA-1 Operable Unit 0 1,200 9,300 10,800 6,000 700 28,000

3 200-WA-1 Decision Documents 0 1,200 9,300 10,800 6,000 700 28,000

2 200-EA-1 Operable Unit 0 22,700 10,700 1,500 1,500 500 36,900

3 200-EA-1 Decision Documents 0 22,700 10,700 1,500 1,500 500 36,900

2 200-OA-1 Operable Unit 0 2,000 9,800 4,500 1,100 1,100 18,500

3 200-OA-1 Decision Documents 0 2,000 9,800 4,500 1,100 1,100 18,500
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-24

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

2 200-IS-1 Operable Unit 0 31,800 32,700 18,300 3,000 3,000 88,800

3 200-IS-1 Decision Documents 0 31,800 32,700 18,300 3,000 3,000 88,800

2 200-SW-2 Operable Unit 0 6,400 6,600 6,900 3,400 1,400 24,700

3 200-SW-2 Decision Documents 0 6,400 6,600 6,900 3,400 1,400 24,700

2 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 2,100 1,900 900 900 900 200 6,900

3 100-BC-5 Project Management 100 100 100 100 100 100 600

3 100-BC-5 Decision Documents 500 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,500

3 100-BC-5 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 1,400 700 700 700 700 0 4,200

3 100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting 100 100 100 100 100 100 600

2 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 11,700 22,100 19,100 8,100 7,600 6,700 75,300

3 100-KR-4 Project Management 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400

3 100-KR-4 Decision Documents 1,700 2,000 100 0 0 0 3,800

3 100-KR-4 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 9,300 19,400 18,600 7,700 7,200 6,300 68,500

3 100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting 300 300 0 0 0 0 600

2 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 4,500 3,100 4,800 6,000 5,500 7,200 31,100

3 100-NR-2 Project Management 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,200

3 100-NR-2 Decision Documents 1,600 100 400 1,500 0 0 3,600

3 100-NR-2 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 2,600 2,700 4,100 4,200 4,200 7,000 24,800

3 100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting 100 100 100 100 1,100 0 1,500

2 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 10,600 18,000 20,500 7,200 8,200 9,200 73,700

3 100-HR-3 Project Management 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400

3 100-HR-3 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 9,700 17,100 20,100 6,800 7,800 8,800 70,300

3 100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 500 500 0 0 0 0 1,000

2 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 500 500 400 400 900 400 3,100

3 100-FR-3 Project Management 400 400 300 300 300 300 2,000

3 100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 100 100 100 100 600 100 1,100

2 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 14,700 3,700 3,700 4,800 2,400 200 29,500

3 200-BP-5 Project Management 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,200

3 200-BP-5 Decision Documents 300 200 400 1,900 100 0 2,900

3 200-BP-5 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 14,200 3,300 1,700 0 0 0 19,200

3 200-BP-5 Monitoring and Reporting 0 0 1,400 2,700 2,100 0 6,200
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-25

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

2 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 1,100 2,200 3,700 3,000 4,700 0 14,700

3 200-PO-1 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 0 0 1,500 1,600 200 0 3,300

3 200-PO-1 Monitoring and Reporting 1,100 2,200 2,200 1,400 4,500 0 11,400

2 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 4,000 21,500 23,200 5,100 4,400 2,200 60,400

3 200-UP-1 Project Management 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800

3 200-UP-1 Decision Documents 800 2,000 1,100 800 200 0 4,900

3 200-UP-1 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 1,700 19,000 19,400 1,800 1,900 1,900 45,700

3 200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 1,200 200 2,400 2,200 2,000 0 8,000

2 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 30,500 82,200 80,000 32,500 35,400 34,200 294,800

3 200-ZP-1 Project Management 800 900 900 900 900 900 5,300

3 200-ZP-1 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 29,500 80,900 78,900 31,400 32,100 33,100 285,900

3 200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 200 400 200 200 2,400 200 3,600

2 200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 1,400 14,400 14,500 14,700 15,100 60,100

3 200-CB-1 Decision Documents 0 1,400 14,400 14,500 14,700 15,100 60,100

2 200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 700 700 13,500 13,500 13,800 42,200

3 200-CP-1 Decision Documents 0 700 700 13,500 13,500 13,800 42,200

2 200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 700 700 9,500 9,600 9,900 30,400

3 200-CR-1 Decision Documents 0 700 700 9,500 9,600 9,900 30,400

2 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 1,900 1,400 400 400 1,000 400 5,500

3 300-FF-5 Project Management 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400

3 300-FF-5 Remedial/Removal Action Implementation 1,500 1,000 0 0 0 0 2,500

3 300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting 0 0 0 0 600 0 600

2 200-DV-1 Operable Unit 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,800 8,300

3 200-DV-1 Project Management 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400

3 200-DV-1 Decision Documents 900 900 900 900 900 1,400 5,900

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty -300 54,300 63,500 67,200 75,500 53,200 313,400

Total 132,400 366,000 391,600 289,500 258,400 231,300 1,669,200

PBS = performance baseline summary. RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-26

C.1.4 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD

(PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-9. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Regulatory 

Decisions and 

Closure

Integration

Central Plateau Project 

Management

Provides for overall management function in support of the nuclear 

facility D&D mission on the Central Plateau.

Central Plateau 

Engineering Studies

Provides for crosscutting engineering and technical studies and trade-off 

evaluations necessary to optimize design and execution for Central 

Plateau facility and waste site remediation/restoration with consideration 

of groundwater and vadose zone remediation and ongoing operations.

Emergency Response 

for Facility/Waste Site 

ESH&Q or 

Remediation

Includes the tasks necessary to address aging facility or waste site 

conditions that are above and beyond anticipated operational and 

maintenance plans. Activities may include hazard removal, RTD, 

stabilization, or increased S&M of waste sites; or D&D or increased 

S&M of buildings. Activities are focused on unplanned or unforeseen 

facility or waste site conditions affecting safety, human health, or 

environment (e.g., major equipment failure, spread of contamination, 

structural failure) and steam line removal.

CERCLA 

Documentation

Covers the preparation of the CERCLA1 5-year review documents to 

evaluate the implementation and performance of each remedy to 

determine whether the remedy is or will be protective of human health 

and the environment.

Remediation of 

Geographic Areas

For each implementation area, provides remediation definition, remediation of pipelines, 

installation of barriers, utility relocations, post-ROD confirmatory sampling, S&M/O&M of 

installed barriers, and area closure activities. Potential waste site remediation range includes no 

action, in situ treatment (e.g., grouting), monitored natural attenuation, capping, RTD, or 

combinations of these techniques. Buildings and structures are assumed to undergo D4 activities, 

including demolition to slab-on-grade. Below-grade portions will be addressed through the waste 

site cleanup process. Actual remedial actions will be determined through the appropriate decision 

process and applied through a geographical implementation strategy. The remediation and 

demolition scope has been organized into the following 25 Implementation Areas (each is a Level 

3 work element):

 100 Area

 600 Area

 300 Area

 400 Area

 Outer Area

 PFP Implementation Area

 U Plant Implementation Area

 200 East Landfills 3 Implementation Area

 Balance of West Implementation Area

 Balance of East Implementation Area

 200 East Landfills 1 Implementation Area

 B Plant Implementation Area

 200 East Landfills 2 Implementation Area

 200 West Landfills Implementation 

Area

 PUREX Implementation Area

 T Plant Implementation Area

 REDOX Implementation Area

 C Farm Implementation Area

 U Farm Implementation Area

 A Farm Implementation Area

 B Farm Implementation Area

 T Farm Implementation Area

 S Farm Implementation Area

 ERDF Implementation Area

 WTP Implementation Area
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-27

Table C-9. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Central Plateau 

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant 

Facilities and 

Waste Sites

Central Plateau Waste 

Sites Min Safe

Includes minimum safe oversight and support, radiation surveillances, 

tumbleweed collection, surface contamination treatment, sign 

replacement, surveillance, canyon, and nuclear facilities minimum safe, 

and general-purpose facilities minimum safe.

Central Plateau 

Nuclear Facilities Min 

Safe

Central Plateau 

General Purpose 

Facilities Min Safe

ORP Support to PRC 

Inactive Waste Sites

Includes surveillance and maintenance by ORP at inactive waste sites 

located within ORP occupied areas, but that contractually belong to the 

Plateau Remediation Contract.

NOTE: See Tables C-10 and C-11 for schedule and budget information.

1Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decommissioning, 

decontamination, and demolition.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ESH&Q = Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality.

IA = implementation area.

ISMS = Integrated Safety Management System.

O&M = operation and maintenance.

ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River 

Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant).

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, dispose.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-28

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-10. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated) (2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 18,100 19,000 15,700 15,200 15,600 16,600 17,300 17,900 17,300

Remediation of Geographic Areas 52,200 48,000 170,800 326,800 286,600 251,300 174,700 201,900 374,900

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 14,200 14,000 14,300 14,500 17,600 15,200 14,800 17,000 15,600

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 5,200 334,900 259,900 97,400 68,300 43,600 65,200 65,100 228,100

Level 2 Total 89,700 415,900 460,700 453,900 388,100 326,700 272,000 301,900 635,900

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 17,700 19,000 20,000 20,300 20,000 20,400 21,200 21,900 23,000

Remediation of Geographic Areas 374,000 182,200 156,900 197,100 156,900 166,300 172,500 160,400 239,900

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 19,300 16,700 17,300 17,600 18,100 22,400 18,700 19,000 21,900

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 131,700 84,800 26,400 24,000 30,300 37,100 32,300 75,000 87,000

Level 2 Total 542,700 302,700 220,600 259,000 225,300 246,200 244,700 276,300 371,800

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 22,300 23,300 24,400 25,800 27,200 25,800 26,400 28,000 29,100

Remediation of Geographic Areas 247,300 304,300 407,100 282,300 166,800 400,100 414,500 360,500 322,000

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 19,600 24,900 20,700 21,500 22,300 21,800 25,700 20,900 21,500

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 86,200 119,200 169,300 163,300 206,000 268,200 368,900 261,000 312,800

Level 2 Total 375,400 471,700 621,500 492,900 422,300 715,900 835,500 670,400 685,400

Fiscal Year 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 30,000 29,900 31,100 32,800 34,200 34,800 34,400 35,300 38,700

Remediation of Geographic Areas 322,500 268,400 153,700 150,600 186,900 181,200 165,700 132,100 167,700

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 24,600 23,000 30,000 24,500 24,400 41,600 41,400 42,200 44,900

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 413,400 174,600 122,700 150,100 266,600 343,000 246,900 174,700 105,200

Level 2 Total 790,500 495,900 337,500 358,000 512,100 600,600 488,400 384,300 356,500

Fiscal Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 41,500 43,500 42,400 43,300 46,200 47,500 48,600 47,500 48,500

Remediation of Geographic Areas 98,400 43,800 42,400 45,900 40,200 14,500 14,700 15,100 15,500

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 47,400 49,500 50,600 51,700 33,600 22,800 23,300 23,900 24,400

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 111,900 67,100 38,600 45,100 62,200 130,200 136,800 160,700 164,000
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-29

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-10. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated) (2 pages)

Level 2 Total 299,200 203,900 174,000 186,000 182,200 215,000 223,400 247,200 252,400

Fiscal Year 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 51,000 53,300 54,500 53,200 54,400 57,200 59,700 59,500 57,600

Remediation of Geographic Areas 16,000 16,300 16,700 17,000 17,400 17,700 18,200 151,900 201,000

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 24,900 25,500 26,100 26,800 27,300 28,000 28,600 28,900

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 114,300 58,800 40,500 22,100 13,000 7,900 6,800 4,800 6,900

Level 2 Total 206,200 153,900 137,800 119,100 112,100 110,800 113,300 216,200 294,400

Fiscal Year 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 Total

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 59,900 65,500 67,000 67,300 68,300 70,900 2,178,000

Remediation of Geographic Areas 191,200 92,700 194,700 295,700 168,600 138,800 10,211,500

Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities and Waste 

Sites 27,600 300 0 0 0 0 1,374,900

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 6,900 5,300 5,500 5,600 5,500 5,700 6,874,600

Level 2 Total 285,600 163,800 267,200 368,600 242,400 215,400 20,639,000

PBS = project baseline summary.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-30

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-11. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Schedule 

Level Scope

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Total

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford 89,700 415,900 460,700 453,900 388,100 326,700 2,135,000

2 Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 18,100 19,000 15,700 15,200 15,600 16,600 100,200

3 Central Plateau Project Management 7,400 7,600 7,700 7,800 8,000 8,300 46,800

3 Central Plateau Engineering Studies 0 100 100 100 100 100 500

3 Emergency Response for Facility/Waste Site ESH&Q 

or Remediation - FY 2014 - FY 2048 10,300 10,600 7,200 7,300 7,500 7,700 50,600

3 CERCLA Documentation 400 700 700 0 0 500 2,300

2 Remediation of Geographic Areas 52,200 48,000 170,800 326,800 286,600 251,300 1,135,700

3 600 Area Implementation Area 0 0 0 900 1,000 2,900 4,800

3 Outer Area Implementation Area 10,300 19,300 79,700 84,000 21,400 1,200 215,900

3 PFP Implementation Area 3,300 7,200 45,600 194,500 221,700 223,100 695,400

3 U Plant Implementation Area 5,500 1,100 29,800 38,800 38,900 21,100 135,200

3 Balance of West Implementation Area 300 0 0 0 0 0 300

3 Balance of East Implementation Area 2,600 15,200 15,700 8,600 3,600 1,100 46,800

3 B Plant Implementation Area 600 600 0 0 0 0 1,200

3 PUREX Implementation Area 29,100 1,200 0 0 0 1,900 32,200

3 T Plant Implementation Area 100 100 0 0 0 0 200

3 REDOX Implementation Area 400 3,300 0 0 0 0 3,700

2 Central Plateau Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities 

and Waste Sites 14,200 14,000 14,300 14,500 17,600 15,200 89,800

3 Central Plateau Waste Sites Min Safe 3,200 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,400 3,500 20,000

3 Central Plateau Nuclear Facilities Min Safe 9,000 9,300 9,500 9,600 12,700 10,100 60,200

3 Central Plateau General Purpose Facilities Min Safe 1,800 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400 8,400

3 ORP Support to PRC Inactive Waste Sites 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,200

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 5,200 334,900 259,900 97,400 68,300 43,600 809,300

Total 89,700 415,900 460,700 453,900 388,100 326,700 2,135,000

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ESH&Q = environment, safety, health, and quality.

FY = fiscal year.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant.).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant).
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-31

C.1.5 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT

(PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-12. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

River Corridor 

Cleanup

100 Area 

Implementation Area

Includes work remaining to complete 100-K Area and 100-N Area remediation, 

including project management, demolition of K East and K West Basins, 

disposition of K East and K West Reactors, remediation of the 618-11 burial 

ground and waste site 300-296 (the contaminated soil below the 324 building 

B hot cell), D4 of support structures, waste site closeout sampling and 

documentation, and waste site backfill and revegetation.

600 Area 

Implementation Area

300 Area 

Implementation Area

River Corridor 

Maintain Safe 

and Compliant 

Facilities and 

Waste Sites

River Corridor 

Inactive Waste Sites 

Min Safe

Includes radiation surveys, surface contamination treatment, sign replacement, 

tumbleweed collection and spraying, inactive waste sites min safe support, min 

safe for nuclear facilities (K West Basin and 324 Building), and min safe for 

general purpose facilities. River Corridor 

Nuclear Facilities 

Min Safe

River Corridor 

General Purpose 

Facilities Min Safe

NOTE: See Tables C-13 and C-14 for schedule and budget information.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-32

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-13. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

River Corridor Cleanup 64,300 127,400 126,500 186,100 52,400 24,000 200 0 0 0

River Corridor Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities &

Waste Sites 39,600 47,000 7,400 7,400 7,600 7,900 8,100 8,600 8,500 8,700

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 43,100 24,900 22,800 24,600 12,200 3,700 300 300 400

Level 2 Total 103,900 217,500 158,800 216,300 84,600 44,100 12,000 8,900 8,800 9,100

Fiscal Year 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

River Corridor Cleanup 0 0 0 27,700 28,100 206,000 329,100 50,400 25,300 15,400

River Corridor Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities &

Waste Sites

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 0 0 2,100 3,900 51,800 66,200 28,100 37,700 17,100

Level 2 Total 0 0 0 29,800 32,000 257,800 395,300 78,500 63,000 32,500

Fiscal Year 2039 2040 2041 Total

River Corridor Cleanup 0 0 0 1,262,900

River Corridor Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities &

Waste Sites

0 0 0 150,800

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 21,900 6,700 200 368,000

Level 2 Total 21,900 6,700 200 1,781,700

PBS = project baseline summary.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-33

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-14. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Schedule 

Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project 103,900 217,500 158,800 216,300 84,600 44,100 825,200

2 River Corridor Cleanup 64,300 127,400 126,500 186,100 52,400 24,000 580,700

3 100 Area Implementation Area 14,100 63,100 56,800 115,300 47,800 24,000 321,100

3 300 Area Implementation Area 50,200 64,300 69,700 70,800 4,600 0 259,600

2 River Corridor Maintain Safe and Compliant Facilities & Waste Sites 39,600 47,000 7,400 7,400 7,600 7,900 116,900

3 River Corridor Inactive Waste Sites Min Safe 2,800 3,800 3,900 3,900 4,000 4,200 22,600

3 River Corridor Nuclear Facilities Min Safe 33,500 39,800 0 0 0 0 73,300

3 River Corridor General Purpose Facilities Min Safe 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,500 3,600 3,700 21,000

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 43,100 24,900 22,800 24,600 12,200 127,600

Total 103,900 217,500 158,800 216,300 84,600 44,100 825,200

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-34

C.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT (PBS RL-0042) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042)

Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

FFTF Program 

Management

FFTF Program 

Management Annual project management and closure services.

FFTF Cleanup

400 Area 

Implementation 

Area

The ROD for closure of the FFTF (78 FR 759131) published in December 

2013 includes the following:

- Demolition of all structures within the 400 Area Protected Area, except for 

reactor containment, to at least 3 feet below grade followed by backfill and 

revegetation; decommissioning waste would be disposed of at appropriate 

disposal facilities

- Removal and disposition of the above-grade containment dome

- Grouting of the below-grade portion of the reactor containment building and 

the reactor vessel

- Installing a RCRA2-compliant engineered barrier over the grouted area

- Post-closure care would include long-term monitoring of air, groundwater,

and the vadose zone.

FFTF Sodium

Manage and 

Disposition FFTF 

Sodium

Includes management, disposition, and removal of sodium residuals in FFTF 

equipment, maintain sodium storage facility operations, and waste 

transportation and disposal.

Sodium Reaction 

Facility

Design and 

Construct Sodium 

Reaction 

Capability

Provide design, construction, and turnover to operations of a new facility in the 

Hanford 400 Area to convert FFTF sodium for use as caustic feed to the Waste 

Treatment Plant.

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant FFTF 

Complex

FFTF Min Safe 

Operations

Includes preventative and scheduled maintenance, corrective maintenance, 

supervision, work control and training for the FFTF Complex.

400 Area 

Potable/Fire 

Water System

Includes preventative and scheduled maintenance, corrective maintenance, 

supervision, work control and training for the 400 Area Potable/Fire Water 

System.

NOTE: See Tables C-16 and C-17 for schedule and budget information.

178 FR 75913, 2013, “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register (December 13, 2013).

2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-35

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

FFTF Program Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FFTF Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FFTF Sodium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sodium Reaction Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 2,200 2,300 2,400 3,100 2,600 2,600 3,400 2,700 2,800

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 100 100 00 200 100 0 200 100

Level 2 Total 2,200 2,400 2,500 3,100 2,800 2,700 3,400 2,900 2,900

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

FFTF Program Management 0 0 0 8,400 8,600 8,800 8,900 9,000 9,500

FFTF Cleanup 0 0 0 13,000 13,700 13,700 28,500 15,600 27,500

FFTF Sodium 0 0 0 29,300 37,400 39,800 36,900 26,900 46,200

Sodium Reaction Facility 0 0 0 18,500 18,300 11,700 0 0 0

Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 3,600 3,100 3,100 3,900 3,000 3,100 4,200 3,200 3,300

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 200 700 22,200 21,900 17,200 23,900 23,900 24,800

Level 2 Total 3,600 3,300 3,800 95,300 102,900 94,300 102,400 78,600 111,300

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

FFTF Program Management 9,700 10,100 10,300 10,700 11,200 9,300 0 0 0

FFTF Cleanup 55,100 41,400 22,000 900 4,400 400 0 0 0

FFTF Sodium 45,900 14,100 700 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sodium Reaction Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 4,500 3,200 2,900 4,100 2,900 0 0 0 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 19,600 38,200 33,600 28,600 13,000 10,800 6,700 4,400 2,800

Level 2 Total 134,800 107,000 69,500 44,300 31,500 20,500 6,700 4,400 2,800

Fiscal Year 2046 2047 2048 Total

FFTF Program Management 0 0 0 114,500

FFTF Cleanup 0 0 0 236,200

FFTF Sodium 0 0 0 277,200

Sodium Reaction Facility 0 0 0 48,500

Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 0 0 0 72,200

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 1,400 600 0* 295,300

Level 2 Total 1,400 600 0* 1,043,900
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-36

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

*Cost is less than $100,000 rounding limit.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Table C-17. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Schedule Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project 2,200 2,400 2,500 3,100 2,800 2,700 15,700

2 Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 2,200 2,300 2,400 3,100 2,600 2,600 15,200

3 FFTF Min-Safe Operations 900 1,700 1,800 1,700 1,900 1,900 9,900

3 400 Area Potable/Fire Water System 1,300 600 600 1,400 700 700 5,300

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 100 100 0 200 100 500

Total 2,200 2,400 2,500 3,100 2,800 2,700 15,700

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-37

C.1.7 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-18. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Richland Community 

and Regulatory 

Support

Richland Community 

and Regulatory 

Support

Includes RL support to community activities and various boards, such 

as the Hanford Advisory Board, the Oregon Department of Energy,

and other entities through grants and fees. Includes studies for natural 

resource damage assessment, but does not include significant 

restoration of natural resources to resolve any liability of the United 

States for natural resource damage assessment and restoration.

NOTE: See Table C-19 for schedule and budget information.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-38

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-19. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 10,100 13,900 14,000 14,100 14,300 14,400 14,000 14,200 14,300

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 14,500 14,600 14,800 14,900 15,000 15,200 15,400 15,500 15,700

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 15,800 16,000 16,100 16,300 16,500 16,600 16,800 17,000 17,100

Fiscal Year 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 17,300 17,500 17,600 17,800 18,000 18,200 18,400 18,500 18,700

Fiscal Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 18,900 19,100 19,300 19,500 19,700 19,900 20,100 20,300 20,500

Fiscal Year 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 20,700 20,900 21,100 21,300 21,500 21,700 22,000 22,200 20,000

Fiscal Year 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 Total

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 20,200 20,400 20,600 20,800 21,000 21,200 1,062,000

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-39

C.1.8 HANFORD SITEWIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0201) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-20. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Hanford 

Sitewide 

Services 

Hanford 

Sitewide 

Services

Includes costs for Site services and infrastructure. This work element includes 

emergency services (fire and emergency response, emergency management), 

environmental integration services (Sitewide safety standards, environmental 

integration, public safety and resource protection, radiological site services, and offsite 

laboratory sample analysis), information management (information management 

planning and controls, information systems, content and records management, 

infrastructure/cyber security, information resources/content management, and 

information support services), Site infrastructure and utilities/logistics and 

transportation (roads and grounds, biological services, electrical services, water/sewer 

services, facility services, transportation, mail, property systems/acquisitions, railroad 

services, technical services, energy management, work management, land and facilities 

management), support functions (business operations, human resources, safety, health 

and quality), and portfolio management (portfolio planning, analysis and performance, 

project acquisition and support, and independent assessment and analysis).

Includes contracted technical services in key areas such as audit, regulatory analysis, 

cost and risk analysis and estimating. Also includes mission critical support services to 

DOE and its contractors in key areas such as occupational medicine, information and 

telecommunications, janitorial, radiological laundry, electrical power and facilities 

rentals; critical independent legal counsel and litigation services in support of DOE and 

its contractors; and other mission critical support services to DOE and its contractors in 

key areas such as land transfers, acquisition and contract closeout, acquisition of 

natural gas utility services, energy conservation and management (including steam), 

natural resource trusteeship, Tribal Nation support, Washington Department of 

Ecology, Washington Department of Health and other small contracts, permits, and 

payment of fees.

Includes management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, including 

planning, directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and preserve 

the B Reactor facility in a safe condition.

Includes operations and maintenance activities at the Volpentest HAMMER Federal 

Training Center in support of the Hanford Site and other training programs.

Includes reliability projects to repair and replace infrastructure systems and provides 

capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. Also 

includes construction and capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements 

for biological control, crane and rigging, electrical system, facilities, Hanford Fire 

Department, network and telecommunications, studies and estimates, transportation, 

water and sewer utilities and other infrastructure reliability projects.

NOTE: See Table C-21 for schedule and budget information.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-40

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-21. Hanford Sitewide Services (PBS RL-0201) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Hanford Sitewide Services 308,200 335,000 366,300 348,900 351,500 355,600 330,400 315,100 320,400

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Hanford Sitewide Services 327,500 329,800 329,600 326,400 325,000 322,200 316,800 318,000 319,600

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Hanford Sitewide Services 320,700 324,300 323,300 325,700 329,000 322,000 312,300 298,800 298,400

Fiscal Year 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054

Hanford Sitewide Services 296,500 298,000 299,900 296,500 292,300 288,400 284,100 285,900 300,800

Fiscal Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063

Hanford Sitewide Services 314,400 326,100 333,700 339,600 350,400 351,400 359,100 367,100 374,800

Fiscal Year 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072

Hanford Sitewide Services 382,700 391,600 400,100 409,200 417,700 426,600 436,500 437,400 377,400

Fiscal Year 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 Total

Hanford Sitewide Services 372,300 373,200 355,500 338,100 335,400 324,600 20,338,100

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-41

C.1.9 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Scope information for long-term stewardship (LTS), PBS RL-LTS, is presented in Table C-22. This PBS 

is not broken down to Level 3 scope, and no near-term cost details are available for this PBS because of

when the work is planned to begin.

Table C-22. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Long-Term Stewardship

Includes operation and maintenance of Hanford Site infrastructure following cleanup 

activities; environmental monitoring of groundwater, soil, and vadose zone; and 

monitoring for public safety and resource protection; planning; land management; and 

surveillance and maintenance activities to ensure environmental compliance and 

protection, payment in lieu of taxes, and management and administration.

NOTE: See Table C-23 for schedule and budget information.
2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-42

DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

Table C-23. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087

Long-Term Stewardship 254,000 260,100 266,300 272,700 279,300 286,000 292,900 299,900 307,100

Fiscal Year 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 Total

Long-Term Stewardship 314,400 322,000 329,700 329,700 329,700 339,300 348,200 351,500 5,182,800
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-43

C.1.10 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Scope information for final reactor disposition is presented in Table C-24. This work is not broken down 

to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented and no near-term cost details are available because 

of when the work is planned to begin.

Table C-24. Final Reactor Disposition Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Final Reactor 

Disposition

Includes final reactor disposition of the 100 Area surplus production reactors (except for 

B Reactor which is part of the newly established Manhattan Project National Historical Park). 

Following a safe storage period of up to 75 years, final reactor disposition would include 

demolition of the interim safe storage enclosure and transport of each of the eight reactor 

blocks intact on a tractor-transporter from its present location in the 100 Areas to the Central 

Plateau Inner Area for disposal. Following reactor removal, the site formerly occupied by 

each reactor would be backfilled, graded, and seeded. Although the final end state of

N Reactor has not been determined, the planning case is to disposition it in the same manner 

as the other reactors.

NOTE: See Table C-25 for schedule and budget information.

Table C-25. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

Final Reactor Disposition 18,800 37,600 37,600 56,400 94,100 94,100 131,700

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067

Final Reactor Disposition 282,200 282,200 282,200 188,100 188,100 94,100 56,400

Fiscal Year 2068

Final Reactor Disposition 37,600

Total 1,881,200

C.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION

The DOE, Office of River Protection (ORP), manages their assigned cleanup mission through the 

following PBSs (at Level 1):

 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition, PBS ORP-0014

 Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, PBS ORP-0060

 Waste Treatment Plant Operations, PBS ORP-0070

Scope information for PBS ORP-0014, PBS ORP-0060 and PBS ORP-0070 is presented in Chapter 5.0 of 

the LCR. No additional scope is presented here. The estimated costs for PBSs ORP-0014 and ORP-0060 

are presented in Tables C-26 to C-28.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-44

Table C-26. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS-ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Base Operations 390,800 431,700 425,100 439,800 457,800 494,400 479,000 484,700 493,100

Retrieve and Close SSTs 125,900 200,300 148,700 103,900 103,300 53,700 73,000 165,900 400,000

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

116,900 121,100 106,100 121,900 133,400 161,000 194,100 270,300 410,400

Supplemental Treatment 0 0 0 0 1,400 10,300 12,500 77,500 267,500

Treat Waste 2,800 1,700 135,200 132,100 81,600 345,500 478,400 575,200 605,900

Facility Closures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,200 15,800

TOC - ORP Project Support 79,600 87,200 91,500 109,500 116,200 135,700 147,500 167,100 200,200

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 25,100 29,500 31,800 31,800 31,300 42,100 48,500 61,300 83,900

Level 2 Total 741,100 871,500 938,400 939,000 925,000 1,242,700 1,433,000 1,809,200 2,476,800

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Base Operations 514,800 519,700 528,500 498,900 527,300 544,400 546,900 555,600 574,100

Retrieve and Close SSTs 330,800 238,200 229,900 278,200 370,100 402,900 452,900 265,900 272,100

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

497,500 514,600 428,700 390,500 414,000 387,700 342,800 302,100 264,000

Supplemental Treatment 478,000 844,100 1,807,300 1,875,100 1,936,800 622,600 210,500 510,000 640,100

Treat Waste 623,200 638,500 659,400 730,500 754,600 773,100 1,340,000 1,678,100 1,862,800

Facility Closures 6,000 1,000 9,600 25,300 52,300 10,100 3,500 1,500 1,400

TOC - ORP Project Support 215,800 233,300 281,800 291,400 307,500 244,300 254,800 278,700 298,000

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 93,500 104,800 138,300 143,400 153,000 104,700 110,500 125,900 137,200

Level 2 Total 2,759,600 3,094,200 4,083,500 4,233,300 4,515,600 3,089,800 3,261,900 3,717,800 4,049,700

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Base Operations 598,300 617,600 633,000 648,800 713,500 705,800 746,600 753,400 755,100

Retrieve and Close SSTs 389,400 451,300 415,800 528,200 623,500 625,600 811,800 823,300 804,500

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

228,000 234,800 247,500 251,900 293,900 290,900 303,100 318,700 328,400

Supplemental Treatment 624,100 627,800 645,800 661,600 683,200 702,800 722,900 746,500 761,800

Treat Waste 1,936,300 1,991,600 2,048,600 2,098,800 2,167,400 2,229,400 2,293,100 2,368,200 2,416,600

Facility Closures 1,900 3,000 2,600 7,500 14,100 6,500 3,100 4,000 2,900

TOC - ORP Project Support 309,000 319,900 326,800 340,000 359,300 366,400 386,300 397,700 403,400
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-45

Table C-26. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS-ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 143,300 148,900 151,500 159,100 170,200 172,800 184,700 189,800 191,900

Level 2 Total 4,230,300 4,394,900 4,471,600 4,695,900 5,025,100 5,100,200 5,451,600 5,601,600 5,664,600

Fiscal Year 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054

Base Operations 770,600 812,800 815,400 853,500 834,500 811,100 815,100 869,200 793,100

Retrieve and Close SSTs 843,600 725,600 845,700 769,100 750,300 802,800 793,200 610,900 428,300

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

319,500 312,000 337,400 360,400 380,600 393,100 426,400 463,500 528,200

Supplemental Treatment 783,600 809,200 835,600 856,100 880,600 902,200 931,700 958,300 978,400

Treat Waste 2,485,700 2,567,000 2,650,900 2,716,000 2,793,600 2,862,100 2,955,700 3,029,300 3,070,700

Facility Closures 2,500 3,800 2,500 1,700 9,500 7,300 5,300 2,600 2,100

TOC - ORP Project Support 414,500 420,800 438,900 446,400 455,800 466,500 479,800 485,400 484,100

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 197,000 198,100 207,800 210,500 214,000 219,000 224,600 225,100 220,400

Level 2 Total 5,817,000 5,849,300 6,134,200 6,213,700 6,318,900 6,464,100 6,631,800 6,644,300 6,505,300

Fiscal Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063

Base Operations 860,800 825,900 829,700 786,000 790,000 754,600 633,500 549,400 550,700

Retrieve and Close SSTs 438,600 437,400 364,800 347,500 297,200 163,500 47,700 5,800 6,000

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

619,200 721,900 766,800 742,300 657,200 777,500 726,700 788,300 900,000

Supplemental Treatment 1,004,400 1,033,500 1,058,700 1,092,900 1,124,100 1,160,900 1,189,300 1,218,500 1,253,400

Treat Waste 3,154,700 3,244,900 3,324,500 3,433,200 3,531,400 3,646,800 3,736,300 3,827,900 3,937,300

Facility Closures 8,400 18,900 40,100 37,400 12,800 27,600 27,900 10,600 5,900

TOC - ORP Project Support 503,900 519,400 529,500 539,200 544,100 557,200 554,400 562,300 581,800

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 231,000 238,500 242,400 244,700 243,900 248,500 242,500 244,100 253,700

Level 2 Total 6,821,000 7,040,400 7,156,500 7,223,200 7,200,700 7,336,600 7,158,300 7,206,900 7,488,800

Fiscal Year 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 Total

Base Operations 315,300 304,700 304,700 266,500 152,700 3,900 30,382,400

Retrieve and Close SSTs 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,700 7,000 300 18,400,300

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

670,300 457,600 399,300 301,800 181,300 8,300 19,913,900

Supplemental Treatment 1,000,000 937,300 684,800 0 0 0 36,163,700

Treat Waste 1,672,400 1,011,600 739,100 0 0 0 91,359,700
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-46

Table C-26. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS-ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Facility Closures 214,900 95,100 90,200 32,700 8,000 0 847,100

TOC - ORP Project Support 352,000 250,800 222,900 140,100 131,700 6,200 16,836,600

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 148,300 107,400 85,800 26,200 16,800 700 7,499,800

Level 2 Total 4,379,400 3,170,900 2,533,400 774,000 497,500 19,400 221,403,500

DST = double-shell tank.

ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TOC = Tank Operations Contract.

Table C-27. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS-ORP-0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

1 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 741,100 871,500 938,400 939,000 925,000 1,242,700 5,657,700

2 Base Operations 390,800 431,700 425,100 439,800 457,800 494,400 2,639,600

3 Base Operations 177,300 187,700 192,500 198,400 203,500 211,400 1,170,800

3 DST Space Management 21,400 25,700 25,000 24,500 27,200 22,700 146,500

3 TOC Facility Operations 49,200 53,000 56,200 59,100 60,800 86,400 364,700

3 Tank Farm Upgrades 37,200 61,400 44,800 48,000 53,600 57,400 302,400

3 Project Support 105,700 103,900 106,600 109,800 112,700 116,500 655,200

2 Retrieve and Close SSTs 125,900 200,300 148,700 103,900 103,300 53,700 735,800

3 Retrieval/Closure Program 34,600 66,500 51,200 37,900 39,300 39,900 269,400

3 SST Retrieval East Area 16,900 77,200 73,900 51,500 10,300 700 230,500

3 SST Retrieval West Area 0 0 0 7,600 50,100 9,400 67,100

3 Closure Program 4,200 4,400 4,500 3,500 3,600 3,700 23,900

3 SST Closure 2,900 12,800 17,100 3,400 0 0 36,200

3 AX-Farm Retrieval 67,300 39,400 2,000 0 0 0 108,700

2 Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 116,900 121,100 106,100 121,900 133,400 161,000 760,400

3 WTP Feed Delivery Program 32,400 33,500 34,400 35,400 36,300 37,500 209,500

3 Construct DST Systems 21,300 22,200 7,000 18,800 27,600 27,600 124,500
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-47

Table C-27. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS-ORP-0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

3 Tank Waste Characterization and Staging Facility (TWCSF) 0 0 0 0 100 7,400 7,500

3 Immobilization Program 11,300 11,700 6,300 6,500 6,600 26,800 69,200

3 WTP Operational Readiness 4,100 4,300 7,700 8,900 9,200 5,900 40,100

3 Secondary Waste Treatment/ETF 33,100 34,200 35,100 36,200 37,100 38,700 214,400

3 Strategic Planning and Technology 14,700 15,200 15,600 16,100 16,500 17,100 95,200

2 Supplemental Treatment 0 0 0 0 1,400 10,300 11,700

2 Treat Waste 2,800 1,700 135,200 132,100 81,600 345,500 698,900

3 LAW Pretreatment System (LAWPS) 2,800 1,600 104,800 91,700 20,400 25,800 247,100

3 Remaining Treat Waste 0 100 30,400 40,400 61,200 319,700 451,800

2 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 79,600 87,200 91,500 109,500 116,200 135,700 619,700

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 25,100 29,500 31,800 31,800 31,300 42,100 191,600

Total 741,100 871,500 938,400 939,000 925,000 1,242,700 5,657,700

DST = double-shell tank.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

LAWPS = Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System.

ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TFC = Tank Farm Contractor.

TOC = Tank Operations Contract.

TWCSF = Tank Waste Characterization and Staging Facility.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev.

0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-48

Table C-28. Major Construction – Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (PBS-ORP-0060) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

LBL/DFLAW 701,755 667,625 644,545 659,234 267,886 0 0 0 0

High-Level Waste Facility (HLW) 74,211 23,584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pretreatment (PT) 115,265 18,481 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HLW and PT 0 259,310 586,455 545,766 1,551,114 1,751,000 1,940,000 1,278,000 695,000

Level 2 Total 891,231 969,000 1,231,000 1,205,000 1,819,000 1,751,000 1,940,000 1,278,000 695,000

Fiscal Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Total

LBL/DFLAW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,941,045

High-Level Waste Facility (HLW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97,795

Pretreatment (PT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133,746

HLW and PT 778,000 1,229,000 1,095,000 928,000 1,055,000 1,208,000 409,769 15,309,414

Level 2 Total 778,000 1,229,000 1,095,000 928,000 1,055,000 1,208,000 409,769 18,482,000

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-i

APPENDIX D

HANFORD QUANTITATIVE CONTINGENCY RESULTS
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-iii

CONTENTS

HANFORD QUANTITATIVE CONTINGENCY RESULTS .................................................................... 1

RL-0013C. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area ............................................................... 3

RL-0020. Safeguards and Security .............................................................................................................. 4

RL-0030. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone........................................................... 5

RL-0040. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford ........................................................................... 7

RL-0041. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project .............................................................. 8

RL-0042. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project ............................................................... 9

RL-0100. Richland Community and Regulatory Support.......................................................................... 10

RL-0201. Hanford Sitewide Services ........................................................................................................ 11

RL-LTS. Long-Term Stewardship............................................................................................................ 12

ORP-0014. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition .............................................. 13

ORP-0060. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant......................................................................... 15

TABLES

Table D-1. Summary of Risk Analysis Methodologies for High Cost Ranges. (2 pages).........................1

Table D-2. RL-0013C Monte Carlo Analysis Results...............................................................................3

Table D-3. RL-0020 Monte Carlo Analysis Results..................................................................................4

Table D-4. RL-0030 Monte Carlo Analysis Results..................................................................................6

Table D-5. RL-0040 Monte Carlo Analysis Results..................................................................................7

Table D-6. RL-0041 Monte Carlo Analysis Results..................................................................................8

Table D-7. RL-0042 Monte Carlo Analysis Results..................................................................................9

Table D-8. RL-0100 Monte Carlo Analysis Results................................................................................10

Table D-9. RL-0201 Monte Carlo Analysis Results................................................................................11

Table D-10. RL-LTS Monte Carlo Analysis Results.................................................................................12

Table D-11. ORP-0014 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.............................................................................14

Table D-12. ORP-0060 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.............................................................................16
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-iv

TERMS

CB Oracle Crystal Ball software application

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

ENW Energy Northwest

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

EU estimate uncertainty

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

HLW high-level waste

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste

LAW low-activity waste

LAWPS Low-Activity Waste Pretreatment System

LTS long-term stewardship

MOA memorandum of agreement

ORP U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection

PBS project baseline summary

PRA Oracle Primavera Risk Analysis software application

PT pretreatment

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

RFI/CMS RCRA Facility Investigations/Corrective Measures Studies

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office

ROD record of decision

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

TRU transuranic

TSCR tank-side cesium removal

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

VPU vertical pipe unit

WAC waste acceptance criteria

WBS work breakdown structure

WFD waste feed delivery

WIR waste incidental to reprocessing

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-1

APPENDIX D

HANFORD QUANTITATIVE CONTINGENCY RESULTS

Appendix D provides descriptions of the risk analysis methodologies, key risks, estimating uncertainties 

(EU), and quantitative contingency results used to support identification of the upper bound of the cost 

ranges for Hanford PBSsset forth in this report. Existing RL and ORP risk models were used when available 

and revisions to existing EU assessments and risk registers were only made when supported by a reasonable 

basis specific to high cost range development. Excluded from the results are the impacts on RL PBSs 

associated with the potential WTP extension of operations. These impacts were modeled and quantified 

separately and included in the high range estimates. 

Table D-1 provides an overview of high cost range development methodologies and the following pages 

provide additional methodology descriptions and quantitative risk analysis results for each PBS identified 

in the table.

Table D-1. Summary of Risk Analysis Methodologies for High Cost Ranges. (2 pages)

PBS Title Risk Analysis Methodology

RL-0013C Solid Waste Stabilization 

and Disposition–200 Area

Base Risk Model: Existing PRA model developed by RL.

EU: Cost and schedule duration uncertainty revisions for high range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

RL-0020 Safeguards and Security Base Risk Model: CB-based risk model developed for high range.

EU: Cost uncertainty developed for high range.

Risks: One new event risk identified for high range.

RL-0030 Soil and Water 

Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose Zone

Base Risk Model: Existing PRA model developed by RL.

EU: Cost and schedule duration uncertainty revisions for high range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D–

Remainder of Hanford

Base Risk Model: Existing PRA model developed by RL.

EU: Cost and schedule duration uncertainty revisions for high range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

RL-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D–

River Corridor Closure 

Project

Base Risk Model: Existing PRA model developed by RL.

EU: No revisions to cost and schedule duration uncertainty for high 

range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

RL-0042 Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast 

Flux Test Facility Project

Base Risk Model: Existing PRA model developed by RL.

EU: Cost and schedule duration uncertainty revisions for high range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

RL-0100 Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support

Base Risk Model: CB-based risk model developed for high range.

EU: Cost uncertainty developed for high range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

RL-0201 Hanford Sitewide Services Base Risk Model: CB-based risk model developed for high range.

EU: Cost uncertainty developed for high range.

Risks: One new event risk identified for high range.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-2

Table D-1. Summary of Risk Analysis Methodologies for High Cost Ranges. (2 pages)

PBS Title Risk Analysis Methodology

RL-LTS Long-Term Stewardship Base Risk Model: CB-based risk model developed for high range.

EU: Cost uncertainty developed for high range.

Risks: No risk additions or revisions for high range.

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank 

Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition

Base Risk Model: Existing CB-based risk model developed by ORP.

EU: Cost uncertainty developed for high range.

Risks: 21 of 65 existing risks were revised for high range. Four new 

discrete risks were added for high range.

ORP-0060 Major Construction – Waste 

Treatment Plant

Base Risk Model: CB-based risk model developed for high range.

EU: Cost uncertainty developed for high range (separately from the 

CB-based risk model).

Risks: Two new discrete risks were identified for high range.

CB = Oracle Crystal Ball software application.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

EU = estimate uncertainty.

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

ORP = DOE, Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRA = Oracle Primavera Risk Analysis software application.

RL = DOE, Richland Operations Office.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-3

RL-0013C. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area

Risk Analysis Methodology

The existing Primavera Risk Analysis (PRA) model developed by RL served as the starting point for 

development of the high cost range for RL-0013C. An integrated cost and schedule risk analysis was 

performed using the resource-loaded RL-0013C schedule as the basis for the analysis. Each risk in the risk 

register was mapped to the appropriate affected activities in the schedule. Cost estimate and schedule 

duration uncertainty also were incorporated into the model and analyzed. The model was analyzed using 

PRA Version 8.7.

No new additional risks were identified to support development of the high cost range and no revisions to 

existing risks identified by RL were made. Estimating uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as 

follows: -15%/+50% applied to all waste stabilization and disposition work except for the following: 

project management (-10%/+15%); TRU retrieval and repackaging, Waste Receiving and Processing 

Facility, T-Plant, Central Waste Complex, and sludge disposition (-20%/+100%).

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for RL-0013C:

 Delays in receiving regulatory approvals (CH retrieval, alpha caisson retrieval and processing).

 Receipt of non-compliant waste from other projects.

 Spent fuel found in alpha caissons.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0013C are summarized 

below in Table D-2.

Table D-2. RL-0013C Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $9.4B

Probability Base Cost w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

0% $9.97 $0.57

10% $11.68 $2.28

20% $12.08 $2.68

30% $12.38 $2.98

40% $12.66 $3.26

50% $12.93 $3.53

60% $13.20 $3.80

70% $13.50 $4.10

80% $13.85 $4.45

90% $14.38 $4.98

100% $16.56 $7.16
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-4

RL-0020. Safeguards and Security

Risk Analysis Methodology

A cost risk analysis model based on the Oracle Crystal Ball (CB) software application was developed to 

quantify the high cost range for RL-0020. One discrete risk and cost estimate uncertainty were incorporated 

into the model and analyzed. 

One new discrete risk event was identified to support development of the high cost range. Estimating 

uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as follows: -10%/+15% for all work.

Key Risks

The following key risk has been identified for RL-0020:

 Delay in the movement of fuel in multi-canister overpacks offsite. If there is a delay in the planned 

movement of spent nuclear fuel offsite using multi-canister overpacks, there will be additional 

security related costs incurred while the fuel remains on site.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0020 are summarized below 

in Table D-3.

Table D-3. RL-0020 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $10.1B

Probability

Base Cost 

w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

Cost Risk Impact

($B)

Estimate Uncertainty

($B)

0% $10.88 $0.73 $0.82 $(0.08)

10% $11.06 $0.91 $0.92 $(0.01)

20% $11.27 $1.12 $1.06 $0.06

30% $11.43 $1.28 $1.17 $0.11

40% $11.57 $1.42 $1.26 $0.15

50% $11.70 $1.55 $1.36 $0.19

60% $11.84 $1.69 $1.48 $0.21

70% $11.98 $1.83 $1.60 $0.23

80% $12.16 $2.01 $1.75 $0.26

90% $12.39 $2.25 $1.95 $0.30

100% $13.63 $3.48 $2.41 $1.07
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-5

RL-0030. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone

Risk Analysis Methodology

The existing PRA model developed by RL served as the starting point for development of the high cost 

range for RL-0030. An integrated cost and schedule risk analysis was performed using the resource-loaded 

RL-0030 schedule as the basis for the analysis. Each risk in the risk register was mapped to the appropriate

affected activities in the schedule. Cost estimate and schedule duration uncertainty also were incorporated 

into the model and analyzed. The model was analyzed using PRA Version 8.7.

No new additional risks were identified to support development of the high cost range and no revisions to 

existing risks identified by RL were made. Estimating uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as 

follows: -15%/+50 applied to all remediation work except for integration and assessments, which was 

analyzed using -10%/+15%.

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for RL-0030:

 Pump and treat systems operate longer than planned.

 RI/FS not acceptable to regulators.

 RCRA/CERCLA issues delay ROD.

 Supplemental technology not ready in time.

 Sampling site not representative.

 Combined RFI/CMS/RI/FS with TSD closure information not accepted.

 Conceptual models invalidated.

 Pump and treat expansions required.

 Significant contamination is found.

 Nature and extent of contamination assumed is different than baseline.

 Groundwater contamination plume emerges.

 Documents review/approval delayed.

 Waste removal negotiations delay documents.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0030 are summarized below 

in Table D-4.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-6

Table D-4. RL-0030 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $7.9B

Probability Base Cost w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

0% $8.50 $0.64

10% $9.28 $1.41

20% $9.43 $1.56

30% $9.56 $1.70

40% $9.66 $1.80

50% $9.75 $1.89

60% $9.86 $1.99

70% $9.98 $2.11

80% $10.11 $2.25

90% $10.34 $2.47

100% $11.20 $3.34
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-7

RL-0040. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford

Risk Analysis Methodology

The existing PRA model developed by RL served as the starting point for development of the high cost 

range for RL-0040. An integrated cost and schedule risk analysis was performed using the resource-loaded 

RL-0040 schedule as the basis for the analysis. Each risk in the risk register was mapped to the appropriate

affected activities in the schedule. Cost estimate and schedule duration uncertainty also were incorporated 

into the model and analyzed. The model was analyzed using PRA Version 8.7.

No new additional risks were identified to support development of the high cost range and no revisions to 

existing risks identified by RL were made. Estimating uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as 

follows: -30%/+50% was applied to all work.

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for RL-0040:

 Outer Area Implementation Area ROD for soil is not as assumed.

 Outer Area Implementation Area Remedy for underground piping not as planned.

 Borrow materials not available for 200 W Landfills Implementation Area.

 Balance of East Implementation Area ROD for soil is not as assumed.

 Borrow materials not available for ERDF Implementation Area.

 Radioactive material is considered to be contaminated waste that must be removed (rather than 

hold-up material).

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0040 are summarized below 

in Table D-5.

Table D-5. RL-0040 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $13.7B

Probability Base Cost w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

0% $16.95 $3.21

10% $18.56 $4.83

20% $18.94 $5.20

30% $19.22 $5.48

40% $19.48 $5.74

50% $19.74 $6.01

60% $20.03 $6.29

70% $20.33 $6.60

80% $20.68 $6.95

90% $21.21 $7.47

100% $23.47 $9.74
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-8

RL-0041. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project

Risk Analysis Methodology

The existing PRA model developed by RL served as the starting point for development of the high cost 

range for RL-0041. An integrated cost and schedule risk analysis was performed using the resource-loaded 

RL-0041 schedule as the basis for the analysis. Each risk in the risk register was mapped to the appropriate

affected activities in the schedule. Cost estimate and schedule duration uncertainty also were incorporated 

into the model and analyzed. The model was analyzed using PRA Version 8.7.

No new additional risks were identified to support development of the high cost range and no revisions to 

existing risks identified by RL were made. Estimating uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as 

follows: -30%/+50% was applied to all work.

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for RL-0041:

 Additional remediation may be required for other 100 Area segments.

 Total volume of high-dose 300-296 waste site material exceeds available hot cell space.

 Building/system degradation and failures during S&M mode.

 Delayed ENW license amendment approval for 618-11 burial ground remediation.

 618-11 VPU/Caissons – negatively impact ENW.

 DOE and SHPO MOA process takes longer than planned (waste site 618-11).

 K-West Basin residual TRU waste discovered that must be remote handled.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0041 are summarized below 

in Table D-6.

Table D-6. RL-0041 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $1.4B

Probability Base Cost w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

0% $1.52 $0.10

10% $1.64 $0.21

20% $1.67 $0.25

30% $1.70 $0.28

40% $1.72 $0.30

50% $1.74 $0.32

60% $1.76 $0.34

70% $1.79 $0.36

80% $1.81 $0.39

90% $1.84 $0.42

100% $2.02 $0.60
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-9

RL-0042. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project

Risk Analysis Methodology

The existing PRA model developed by RL served as the starting point for development of the high cost 

range for RL-0042. An integrated cost and schedule risk analysis was performed using the resource-loaded 

RL-0042 schedule as the basis for the analysis. Each risk in the risk register was mapped to the appropriate

affected activities in the schedule. Cost estimate and schedule duration uncertainty also were incorporated 

into the model and analyzed. The model was analyzed using PRA Version 8.7.

No new additional risks were identified to support development of the high cost range and no revisions to 

existing risks identified by RL were made. Estimating uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as 

follows: -30%/+50% was applied to all work.

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for RL-0042:

 FFTF D&D and WTP operations not aligned - continued bulk sodium storage at FFTF required.

 No path to disposition highly radioactive components.

 System piping requires modification to treat residual sodium.

 WTP will not use FFTF bulk sodium.

 Building/system degradation and failures during S&M mode.

 Technical validation for entombment/residual sodium not defined.

 ETF may not be available to disposition liquid waste.

 ERDF not available for demolition waste.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0042 are summarized below 

in Table D-7.

Table D-7. RL-0042 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $0.7B

Probability Base Cost w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

0% $0.78 $0.03

10% $0.87 $0.12

20% $0.90 $0.15

30% $0.93 $0.18

40% $0.95 $0.20

50% $0.97 $0.22

60% $0.99 $0.24

70% $1.02 $0.27

80% $1.05 $0.30

90% $1.10 $0.35

100% $1.28 $0.53
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-10

RL-0100. Richland Community and Regulatory Support

Risk Analysis Methodology

A cost risk analysis model based on the CB software application was developed to quantify the high cost 

range for RL-0100. Cost estimate uncertainty was incorporated into the model and analyzed. Estimating 

uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as follows: -10%/+15% for all work.

Key Risks

No discrete event risks have been identified for RL-0100.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0100 are summarized below 

in Table D-8.

Table D-8. RL-0100 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $1.07B

Probability

Base Cost 

w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

Cost Risk Impact

($B)

Estimate Uncertainty

($B)

0% $0.97 $(0.09) $0.00 $(0.09)

10% $1.04 $(0.03) $0.00 $(0.03)

20% $1.05 $(0.01) $0.00 $(0.01)

30% $1.06 $(0.00) $0.00 $(0.00)

40% $1.07 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01

50% $1.08 $0.02 $0.00 $0.02

60% $1.09 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03

70% $1.10 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04

80% $1.11 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05

90% $1.13 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07

100% $1.21 $0.14 $0.00 $0.14
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-11

RL-0201. Hanford Sitewide Services

Risk Analysis Methodology

A cost risk analysis model based on the CB software application was developed to quantify the high cost 

range for RL-0201. One discrete risk and cost estimate uncertainty were incorporated into the model and 

analyzed. 

One new discrete risk event was identified to support development of the high cost range. Estimating 

uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as follows: -10%/+15% included based on level of effort 

activities; -10%/+50% included for reliability projects (infrastructure upgrades).

Key Risks

The following key risk has been identified for RL-0201:

 Availability of Hanford Site infrastructure, utilities and services "outside the fence" of tank farm 

infrastructure is less than adequate. If the infrastructure and services are not available or 

sufficient to support the RPP mission such as SST retrievals, waste feed delivery, treatment, and 

immobilization, then mission schedule durations and costs will increase.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-0201 are summarized below 

in Table D-9.

Table D-9. RL-0201 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $20.4B

Probability

Base Cost 

w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

Cost Risk Impact

($B)

Estimate Uncertainty

($B)

0% $19.09 $(1.28) $0.00 $(1.28)

10% $20.66 $0.29 $0.40 $(0.11)

20% $20.94 $0.56 $0.48 $0.08

30% $21.15 $0.78 $0.55 $0.23

40% $21.33 $0.96 $0.60 $0.36

50% $21.51 $1.13 $0.65 $0.49

60% $21.68 $1.31 $0.69 $0.61

70% $21.87 $1.50 $0.74 $0.75

80% $22.10 $1.72 $0.81 $0.92

90% $22.41 $2.04 $0.89 $1.15

100% $24.13 $3.76 $1.08 $2.68
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-12

RL-LTS. Long-Term Stewardship

Risk Analysis Methodology

A cost risk analysis model based on the CB software application was developed to quantify the high cost 

range for RL-LTS. Cost estimate uncertainty was incorporated into the model and analyzed. Estimating 

uncertainty for the high cost range was identified as follows: -10%/+15% for all work.

Key Risks

No discrete risks have been identified for RL-LTS.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for RL-LTS are summarized below 

in Table D-10.

Table D-10. RL-LTS Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $12.22B

Probability

Base Cost 

w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

Cost Risk Impact

($B)

Estimate Uncertainty

($B)

0% $11.22 $(1.00) $0.00 $(1.00)

10% $11.97 $(0.25) $0.00 $(0.25)

20% $12.11 $(0.11) $0.00 $(0.11)

30% $12.23 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01

40% $12.32 $0.10 $0.00 $0.10

50% $12.42 $0.20 $0.00 $0.20

60% $12.51 $0.29 $0.00 $0.29

70% $12.61 $0.39 $0.00 $0.39

80% $12.73 $0.51 $0.00 $0.51

90% $12.90 $0.67 $0.00 $0.67

100% $13.73 $1.51 $0.00 $1.51
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-13

ORP-0014. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

Risk Analysis Methodology

The existing CB-based model developed by ORP served as the starting point for development of the high 

cost range for ORP-0014. An integrated cost and schedule risk analysis was performed using a summary 

level schedule as the basis for the analysis. Each risk in the risk register was mapped to the appropriate

affected activities in the summary schedule. Cost estimate uncertainty was analyzed as a separate Monte 

Carlo analysis and then combined with risk analysis results.

Four new additional risks were identified to support development of the high cost range and revisions were 

made to 21 existing risks identified by ORP. Estimating uncertainty for the high cost range was identified 

for specific WBS cost elements; in aggregate, an overall estimate uncertainty range of -25%/+56% was 

identified.

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for ORP-0014:

 Mission extension results in need for facility replacements and major upgrades (new risk identified 

for high cost range).

 Waste incidental to reprocessing (WIR) determinations are required for newly-generated waste 

forms (new risk identified for high cost range).

 Spent ion exchange media from TSCR and optimized LAWPS do not have a disposition path (new 

risk identified for high cost range).

 WTP PT becomes nonfunctional due to major black cell system failures (new risk identified for 

high cost range).

 242-A Evaporator availability is less than adequate.

 SST retrieval systems performance does not meet requirements due to unexpected conditions.

 Inability to maintain adequate DST space.

 DST availability to perform mission functions is less than adequate.

 Waste feed delivery (WFD) is not available at the demand rate.

 WFD does not meet the WTP PT waste acceptance criteria (WAC).

 Cross-site transfer system startup is delayed.

 CH-TRU waste treatment startup is delayed.

 Waste receiver facilities are not available when needed.

 LAWPS hot commissioning is delayed.

 WTP PT hot commissioning is delayed.

 WTP PT throughput rate does not meet plan.

 WTP PT radioactive secondary solid waste not able to be treated or disposed as planned.

 WTP LAW throughput rate does not meet plan.

 WTP ILAW glass mass quantity differs from plan.

 WTP LAW radioactive solid secondary waste not able to be treated or disposed as planned.

 WTP HLW hot commissioning is delayed.

 WTP HLW throughput rate does not meet plan.

 Supplemental ILAW glass mass and/or quality differs from plan.

 Availability of Hanford Site infrastructure, utilities and services less than adequate.

 Facilities and equipment become obsolete.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-14

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for ORP-0014 are summarized 

below in Table D-11.

Table D-11. ORP-0014 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $213.9B

Probability

Base Cost 

w/Contingency

($B)

Total Contingency

($B)

Cost Risk Impact

($B)

Estimate Uncertainty

($B)

0% $236.7 $22.8 $95.5 -$72.7

10% $340.1 $126.2 $167.3 -$41.1

20% $367.7 $153.8 $179.4 -$25.6

30% $390.7 $176.8 $189.0 -$12.1

40% $412.8 $198.9 $198.3 $0.7

50% $435.1 $221.2 $207.6 $13.6

60% $458.9 $245.0 $217.7 $27.3

70% $485.8 $271.9 $229.4 $42.5

80% $518.1 $304.2 $243.5 $60.7

90% $563.4 $349.5 $264.0 $85.5

100% $812.4 $598.5 $404.3 $194.1
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-15

ORP-0060. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant

Risk Analysis Methodology

An incremental cost and schedule risk analysis model based on the CB software application was developed 

to quantify the high cost range for ORP-0060. The model is incremental because the results serve as an 

addition to the existing risk analysis rather than a replacement. Two new discrete risks were incorporated 

into the model and analyzed.

Estimate uncertainty for the high range was calculated separately from the Monte Carlo risk model for 

ORP-0060. Estimate uncertainty for LBL/DFLAW is based on BCP-02; and for PT and HLW is based on 

USACE Parametric Estimate. For the purposes of the high cost range, estimate uncertainty results were 

escalated at a 4% annual rate.

Key Risks

The following key risks have been identified for ORP-0060:

 Technical uncertainty and challenges for HLW and PT completion (new risk identified for high 

cost range).

 Implementation schedule uncertainty for HLW and PT (new risk identified for high cost range).

 Equipment performance issues during factory acceptance testing.

 Project execution below performance baseline; systemic failure.

 Technical challenges and uncertainties.

 Aging and obsolescence of existing work.

 Additional rework issues discovered during restart of construction.

 Delays in completing ORP operational readiness review.

 Complex features that fail to be operationally ready.

 Major equipment failures.

 Transition impacts from construction to startup.

 Construction quality deficiencies.

Monte Carlo Risk Analysis Results

The results of Monte Carlo risk analysis used to develop the high range for ORP-0060 are summarized 

below in Table D-12. The Total Risk Impact values shown in the table include the impact of the two new 

discrete risks identified as well as the impacts of existing risks.
DOE/RL-2018-45, Rev. 0

2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-16

Table D-12. ORP-0060 Monte Carlo Analysis Results.

Base Cost $15.5B

Probability Base Cost w/Risk Impacts

($B)

Total Risk Impactsa

($B)

0% $19.38 $3.88

10% $20.87 $5.37

20% $21.50 $6.00

30% $22.00 $6.50

40% $22.49 $6.99

50% $23.02 $7.52

60% $23.60 $8.10

70% $24.27 $8.77

80% $25.05 $9.55

90% $26.07 $10.57

100% $28.53 $13.03

a. Estimate uncertainty for the high range was calculated separately from the Monte Carlo risk model for 

ORP-0060. Values shown include discrete event risk only. Additional estimate uncertainty of about 

$4.2B is included in the high range value of about $30.3B.