Hanford Lifecycle Scope, 

Schedule and Cost Report

DOE/RL-2010-25 Rev. 0

Approved for public release

DOE/RL-2010-25 

Revision 0 

TRADEMARK 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. 

Available in paper copy. 

Printed in the United States of America 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose 

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

schedule, and cost for Hanford Site cleanup. This Lifecycle Report reflects all cleanup work that 

is to be completed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including the Richland Operations 

Office (DOE-RL) and Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP). 

With the exception of this initial 2011 Lifecycle Report, the report will be prepared and 

submitted to Hanford Site regulators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the 

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 

prioritization. 

This report will serve as an agreed upon foundation for preparing budget requests and for 

informational briefings to affected Tribal Governments, the State of Oregon, and Hanford 

stakeholders. The report supports continued discussions with EPA and Ecology on how and 

when DOE-RL and DOE-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 can and will do, it is just as important to 

understand what it does not do. This report does not make or replace any cleanup decisions, nor 

is it a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 document. This report does not substitute for, 

nor preempt, the cleanup decision processes as set forth in the Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order1(commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement or TPA) and 

other legal requirements. 

Background 

On October 25, 2010, DOE, EPA, and Ecology (the TPA agencies) agreed to modify the TPA to 

incorporate a new milestone, M-036-01, requiring annual submittal of a Lifecycle Report. 

The Lifecycle Report reflects all actions necessary for DOE to meet all applicable environmental 

obligations. 

DOE has developed the 2011 Lifecycle Report 

working with EPA and Ecology, with input from 

Tribal Governments, the State of Oregon, and the 

Hanford Advisory Board. 

The 2011 Lifecycle Report is based on scope, 

schedule, and cost estimate information and 

 

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. 

The 2011 Lifecycle Report reflects:

Actual budget for FY 2011.

President’s budget for FY 2012.

The unconstrained compliance 

budget for FY 2013 and beyond.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ES-2 

incorporates regulatory milestones from the Consent Decree and TPA Settlement Package that 

became effective October 25, 2010.2

 The costs shown are 2010 dollars, which have been 

escalated for inflation. 

Public Involvement Process 

The TPA agencies will make the 2011 Lifecycle Report available to all interested parties. 

Feedback regarding the 2011 Lifecycle Report will be used to develop future reports. 

Milestone Requirements 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires that the Lifecycle Report include all cleanup, monitoring, and 

related actions necessary to complete cleanup, and that it takes critical resource availability and 

the practical limits of project acceleration into consideration. Information in the Lifecycle 

Report is to be presented at the project baseline summary (PBS) level, with costs to be provided 

at one level below the PBS, and at levels below that for the next 2 to 5 years (near term). 

The appendices of this report provide details to explain the preparation of the Lifecycle Report in 

addition to detailed cost and schedule information. 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 also requires that, where final cleanup decisions have not yet been 

made, the Lifecycle Report be based on the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible 

alternatives, or a range of alternative costs, including a reasonable upper bound. By considering 

potential future decisions, events, contingencies, and cost and/or schedule uncertainties, a 

reasonable upper bound for future cleanup work is described. 

Summary of Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost

Hanford Site cleanup consists of three major components: River Corridor Cleanup, Central 

Plateau Cleanup, and Tank Waste Cleanup (located geographically within the Central Plateau). 

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

Hanford Site cleanup. The Hanford Site’s remaining cleanup schedule covers activities for 

cleanup and waste management, leading to transition of portions of the Hanford Site to long-term 

stewardship. The cleanup schedule is from FY 2011 to FY 2090. 

The Hanford ―to-go‖ or remaining estimated cleanup costs have an upper bound cost estimate of 

approximately $115 billion (Figure ES-1). This includes the estimated cost to complete cleanup 

within the River Corridor, Central Plateau, Tank Waste, and Mission Support components, as 

well as reasonable allowances for cost and schedule uncertainties (e.g., for activities where 

cleanup decisions have not been made). Table ES-1 provides a summary of total costs by PBS. 

Costs are updated each year to reflect work completion, recent decision making, and other 

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

major projects). 

 

2

 Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order signed October 25, 2010, settling State of 

Washington v. Chu, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-3

Figure ES-1. Hanford Site Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076 2081 2086

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ES-4 

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

Project Work Scope

Estimated 

Cleanup Cost1

(Billion $)

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.8

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $0.5 - $0.6

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $9.0 - $9.2

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $3.3

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $8.0 - $8.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $13.9 - $17.6

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) $2.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $2.1 - $2.2

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

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) $1.0

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) $5.4

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $50.4 - $56.6

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $6.1

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $103.9 - $115

1

 Cost ranges have been shown in this table to reflect cost and schedule uncertainty where available, and the higher number is 

used throughout this report.

D&D= decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

Cost Estimate Alternative Analyses for Two Selected Cleanup Actions 

The TPA agencies have agreed that the Lifecycle Report should include additional in-depth 

information and cost estimates for selected cleanup actions (for which final decisions have not 

been made). For the 2011 Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies identified 39 cleanup actions for 

which final cleanup decisions are still needed. Two of the 39 were selected for in-depth cost 

estimate alternative analysis in the 2011 Lifecycle Report in response to Tribal Government, 

State of Oregon, and stakeholder views and values. The Lifecycle Report proposes a schedule 

(Appendix A, Table A-5) for preparing additional detailed cost analyses for the remaining 

cleanup actions. 

The cleanup actions analyzed for the 2011 Lifecycle Report are: 

Disposition of 100 Area Reactors (except B Reactor). 

Remediation of the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit. 

Alternative Analysis for 100 Area Reactors

The lower bound cleanup alternative analyzed for the eight 100 Area Reactors is to maintain 

them in interim safe storage (excluding B Reactor, which is a National Historic Landmark being 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

ES-5 

preserved for future public tours) followed by one piece removal of the reactors to be completed 

by 2068 after a maximum 75-year storage period. The alternative identified as the reasonable 

upper bound analyzed in the Lifecycle Report maintains the eight reactors in interim safe 

storage, followed by deferred dismantlement, which includes piece-by-piece dismantlement of 

the reactor blocks and demolition of the reactor buildings. 

Alternative Analysis for 200-SW-2 Operable Unit

A reasonable alternative for the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit (which consists of 25 separate trenches 

formerly used for solid waste burial) leaves all or most of the waste in place. Grout injection 

would be used to fill void spaces within trenches to control future subsidence and stabilize high 

contamination areas within the trenches. Barriers would be placed over the trenches to limit 

water and biota intrusion. 

The reasonable upper bound for the Lifecycle Report is based on removal of all but one of the 

waste trenches (after confirming that it never received any waste) from the surface to the bottom 

of each trench, separating and preparing the retrieved waste for disposal, and placing the waste in 

approved disposal facilities. 

Table ES-2 summarizes the cost estimates for the two cleanup action alternatives in the 

2011 Lifecycle Report. The reasonable upper bound costs are provided as a sensitivity analysis 

and have not been added into estimated cleanup costs presented throughout this report. 

Table ES-2. Summary of Cost Estimates for Cleanup Action Alternatives Analyzed in the 

2011 Lifecycle Report.

Cleanup Action Alternative Reactors Remain in Place

(Million $)

Remove Reactors

(Million $)

Disposition of 100 Area Reactors 

(Except B Reactor) $0 $676

Cleanup Action Alternative Barriers 

(Million $)

Remove, Treat, and Dispose of 

Waste (Million $)

Remediation of the 200-SW-2 

Operable Unit $823 $16,614
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ES-6 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

i 

CONTENTS 

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

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

1.2 PREPARING THE LIFECYCLE REPORT ........................................................ 1-1

1.2.1 Tribal Involvement................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Oregon Office of Energy ......................................................................... 1-2

1.2.3 Hanford Advisory Board.......................................................................... 1-3

1.3 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE................... 1-3

1.4 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP OVERVIEW ....................................................... 1-4

1.4.1 U.S. Department of Energy Strategic and Cleanup Goals ....................... 1-4

1.4.2 Hanford Site Cleanup and Management Areas ........................................ 1-9

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS .............................. 1-11

1.6 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN 

LIFECYCLE REPORT ...................................................................................... 1-14

1.7 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS PROCESS ......................... 1-17

1.8 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT ....................................................... 1-18

2.0 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP PLANNING AND INTEGRATION .............................. 2-1

2.1 PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OVERVIEW ............................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process ....................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation Process ....................... 2-2

2.2 SCOPE, SCHEDULE, AND COST DEFINITION FOR HANFORD SITE 

CLEANUP ........................................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 HANFORD SITE INTEGRATED LIFECYCLE SUMMARY ...................................... 3-1

3.1 HANFORD SITE LIFECYCLE SCOPE ............................................................. 3-1

3.2 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP SCHEDULE ....................................................... 3-3

3.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST .......................................... 3-3

3.4 SCOPE AND COSTS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO CLEANUP ............... 3-8

4.0 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP .................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041) .................................................................................. 4-3

4.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) ....................... 4-10

4.3 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND 

UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................ 4-15

4.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ACTION - REACTOR CORE 

DISPOSITION COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ................. 4-15

4.4.1 Reactor Core Disposition Range of Plausible Alternatives and 

Reasonable Upper Bound ...................................................................... 4-16

4.4.2 Reactor Core Disposition Alternatives - Cleanup Action Scope 

Definition ............................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.3 Reactor Core Disposition Alternatives - Schedule(s) ............................ 4-17

4.4.4 Reactor Core Disposition Upper Bound Alternative – Estimated 

Cost Deferred One-Piece Removal ........................................................ 4-18
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ii

4.4.5 Reactor Core Disposition Results, Comparison, and Conclusions ........ 4-18

5.0 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) .................. 5-6

5.2 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE 

ZONE (PBS RL-0030) ....................................................................................... 5-11

5.3 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD 

(PBS RL-0040) .................................................................................................. 5-25

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

(PBS RL-0042) .................................................................................................. 5-27

5.5 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) ................................................................................................ 5-33

5.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ............... 5-39

5.7 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-SW-2 

OPERABLE UNIT COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ........... 5-40

6.0 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 

DISPOSITION (PBS ORP-0014) ........................................................................ 6-8

6.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT PLANT 

(PBS ORP-0060) ................................................................................................ 6-12

6.3 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ....... 6-16

7.0 MISSION SUPPORT....................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) ........................................... 7-2

7.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 

(PBS RL-0100) .................................................................................................... 7-4

7.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) .................................. 7-6

7.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) .............................................. 7-10

8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 SCHEDULE AND COST LIMITATIONS ......................................................... 8-1

8.2 OTHER LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.................................................................... 9-1

10.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 10-1
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

iii

APPENDICES 

A HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ........ A-i 

B TRIBES AND STAKEHOLDER VIEWS AND VALUES ............................................ B-i 

C APPLICATION OF KEY TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS ................ C-i 

D HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS ................................................................... D-i 

E HANFORD ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST AND SCHEDULE STATUS ................. E-i 

F CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-SW-2

OPERABLE UNIT COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS .......................... F-i 

FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Relationship Between U.S. Department of Energy Budget Planning and 

Lifecycle Report Schedule. ...................................................................................... 1-4

Figure 1-2. Hanford Site Map Showing Hanford’s Principal Areas Designated for 

Cleanup Purposes. .................................................................................................... 1-5

Figure 1-3. Approach to Developing Alternatives and Analyzing the Reasonable Upper 

Bound in the Lifecycle Report. .............................................................................. 1-18

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

Figure 3-2. Hanford Site Estimated Cleanup Cost Distribution by U.S. Department of 

Energy Field Office. ................................................................................................. 3-4

Figure 3-3. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ......................................... 3-5

Figure 3-4. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Costs by Project Baseline Summary. ................. 3-6

Figure 4-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe Storage. ................................................................... 4-3

Figure 4-2. C Reactor in Interim Safe Storage. .......................................................................... 4-3

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

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ................................................................................. 4-5

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. .............................................. 4-8

Figure 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ......................................... 4-9

Figure 4-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) 

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 4-11
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

iv

Figure 4-7. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated 

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................... 4-13

Figure 4-8. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated 

Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................... 4-14

Figure 5-1. Central Plateau Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ........................................................ 5-2

Figure 5-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. .................................................................................................................. 5-7

Figure 5-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ................................................................ 5-9

Figure 5-4. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ......................................................... 5-10

Figure 5-5. Major Hanford Site Groundwater Plumes in 2009. ............................................... 5-12

Figure 5-6. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-15

Figure 5-7. Overview of Hanford Site Groundwater Remedial Actions. ................................. 5-21

Figure 5-8. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................ 5-23

Figure 5-9. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ....................................... 5-24

Figure 5-10. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. ................................................................................................................ 5-26

Figure 5-11. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated 

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................... 5-28

Figure 5-12. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated 

Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................... 5-29

Figure 5-13. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) 

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-30

Figure 5-14. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) 

Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. .......................................................... 5-31

Figure 5-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) 

Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. ..................................................... 5-32

Figure 5-16. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-34

Figure 5-17. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................ 5-37

Figure 5-18. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ....................................... 5-38
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

v 

Figure 6-1. Simplified Process Diagram for Tank Waste Retrieval and Treatment. .................. 6-3

Figure 6-2. Depictions of Typical Tank Contents. ..................................................................... 6-5

Figure 6-3. Tank Waste Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................. 6-6

Figure 6-4. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ..................................................... 6-8

Figure 6-5. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............... 6-10

Figure 6-6. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......... 6-11

Figure 6-7. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Cleanup Schedule. .................................................................................................. 6-12

Figure 6-8. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................. 6-14

Figure 6-9. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Estimated Costs by Work Element. ........................................................................ 6-15

Figure 7-1. Mission Support Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ...................................................... 7-1

Figure 7-2. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............... 7-2

Figure 7-3. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Estimated Costs by 

Fiscal Year. ............................................................................................................... 7-3

Figure 7-4. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining 

Schedule. .................................................................................................................. 7-4

Figure 7-5. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining 

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................... 7-5

Figure 7-6. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Schedule. ......................... 7-6

Figure 7-7. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Costs by 

Fiscal Year. ............................................................................................................... 7-8

Figure 7-8. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Costs by 

Work Element. .......................................................................................................... 7-9

Figure 7-9. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Schedule. ............................ 7-11

Figure 7-10. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by 

Fiscal Year. ............................................................................................................. 7-13

Figure 7-11. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by 

Work Element. ........................................................................................................ 7-14
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

vi

TABLES 

Table 1-1. U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Strategic Goals 

(All Sites). (3 pages) ................................................................................................ 1-6

Table 1-2. Cleanup Goals Identified for the Hanford Site.1....................................................... 1-9

Table 1-3. Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-036-01. ............................................................ 1-12

Table 1-4. List of Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not 

Been Made. ............................................................................................................. 1-16

Table 1-5. Hanford Site Cleanup Actions and Reasons for Performing Cost Estimate 

Alternative Analyses in 2011 Lifecycle Report. .................................................... 1-17

Table 2-1. Hanford Site Cleanup Project Baseline Summary..................................................... 2-4

Table 2-2. Example Cleanup Project Baseline Summary and Work Breakdown to 

Level 3. ..................................................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2-3. Example of a Level 6 Work Breakdown Structure. .................................................. 2-5

Table 3-1. Hanford Site Project Baseline Summaries – Richland Operations Office and 

Office of River Protection. (2 pages) ...................................................................... 3-1

Table 3-2. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimates by PBS. ....................................... 3-7

Table 4-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. ............................... 4-2

Table 4-2. Reactor Status. ........................................................................................................... 4-4

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) ......................................................................... 4-6

Table 4-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....... 4-12

Table 4-5. Estimated Costs for Removing Eight Reactor Cores from the River Corridor. ...... 4-18

Table 5-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (4 pages) .............. 5-3

Table 5-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................................................................................... 5-8

Table 5-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages) ....................................................................... 5-16

Table 5-4. Groundwater Operable Unit Remediation. .............................................................. 5-19

Table 5-5. Central Plateau Soil Operable Unit Remediation. ................................................... 5-20

Table 5-6. Summary of Deep Vadose Zone Treatment Technologies Being Tested. .............. 5-22

Table 5-7. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 5-26

Table 5-8. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 5-30
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

vii 

Table 5-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) ....................................................................... 5-35

Table 5-10. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower Bound Cleanup Cost Estimate (shown in 

2010 Constant Dollars). .......................................................................................... 5-41

Table 5-11. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Upper Bound Cleanup Cost Estimate (shown in 

2010 Constant Dollars). .......................................................................................... 5-43

Table 5-12. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower and Upper Bound Cleanup Action 

Alternative Analysis. .............................................................................................. 5-43

Table 6-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree 

Milestones. ............................................................................................................... 6-7

Table 6-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS ORP-0014) Level 2 Scope Summary. ............................................................. 6-9

Table 6-3. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 6-13

Table 7-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................ 7-2

Table 7-2. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................................................................................... 7-4

Table 7-3. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary. .................... 7-7

Table 7-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....................... 7-12
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

viii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

ix

TERMS 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled 

CSB Canister Storage Building 

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

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

DOE-HQ U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters 

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

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

DQO data quality objectives 

DST double-shell tank 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

ESH&Q Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality 

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

FY fiscal year 

HAB Hanford Advisory Board 

HAMMER Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response; also 

known as the Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education 

Center 

HFFACO Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 

HLW high-level waste 

HWMA Hazardous Waste Management Act (Washington State) 

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility 

IHLW immobilized high-level waste 

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste 

ISS interim safe storage 

LAW low-activity waste 

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions 

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility 

LTS long-term stewardship 

MLLW mixed low-level waste 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NM nuclear materials 

O&M operations and maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PBS project baseline summary 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

x 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant) 

R&D research and development 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant) 

RH remote-handled 

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study 

ROD record of decision 

RPP River Protection Project 

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

S&M surveillance and maintenance 

SNF spent nuclear fuel 

SST single-shell tank

TBD to be determined 

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

TRU transuranic 

TRUM transuranic mixed (waste) 

TRUPACT Transuranic Packaging Transporter 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WBS work breakdown structure 

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WMA waste management area 

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility) 

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

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) 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). The TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires that DOE 

submit a Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report) to EPA and 

Ecology each year. 

This document is the Lifecycle Report for 2011. Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 discuss the basis for the 

Lifecycle Report and how information provided in this document has been developed. 

Chapters 3.0 through 7.0 describe the work needed to complete Hanford Site cleanup and reflect 

all applicable environmental obligations. Chapter 8.0 discusses limitations of this report and 

Chapter 9.0 identifies opportunities for improvement. Appendices to this Lifecycle Report 

provide important details and backup information. 

Unless noted otherwise in the text, this report reflects scope, schedule, and cost estimate 

information from FY 2011 to FY 2090, and incorporates regulatory milestones from the TPA 

settlement package that became effective October 25, 2010. 

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LIFECYCLE REPORT 

To plan for the future and make the best use of each 

year’s funding, DOE, EPA, and Ecology (the TPA 

agencies) work together and share information about the 

scope, schedule, and costs of cleaning up the 

Hanford Site. TPA Milestone M-036-01 cites that the 

Lifecycle Report 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.” 

1.2 PREPARING THE LIFECYCLE REPORT 

A Lifecycle Report Work Group was formed by the 

TPA agencies in December 2009. This group met on an 

as-needed basis until the TPA milestone was adopted. 

The group helped to develop the report structure, identify 

and resolve issues, and collaborate on an approach to 

The Lifecycle Report includes the 

remaining scope, schedule, and cost 

required for Hanford Site cleanup. The 

report will be used to inform affected 

parties and will help the TPA agencies

make decisions about how best to 

complete Hanford cleanup. 

The TPA agencies worked together to 

define processes and agree on the path 

forward to prepare the Lifecycle Report

in compliance with milestone language.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-2 

account for cleanup decisions that had not yet been made, and to ensure the process reflected 

Tribal Government, State of Oregon, and Hanford stakeholder values and the views of EPA and 

Ecology. 

In May and June of 2010, the TPA agencies conducted a series of working sessions that included 

managers and technical staff. The outcome of the working sessions is detailed in Appendix A, 

and includes: 

1. Identification of remaining and necessary cleanup actions for which final cleanup 

decisions have not yet been made under applicable regulatory decision-making processes. 

Approximately 39 future cleanup actions were identified. 

2. Identification of a range of plausible alternatives for the non-final cleanup actions. 

3. Preparation of a schedule for completing cost estimate alternative analyses for future 

cleanup actions. In 2011, two cleanup actions were identified for analysis: 

Disposition of the 100 Area Reactors 

Remediation of the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit (OU). 

The Lifecycle Report will be prepared each year, on a schedule that supports the Federal budget 

process as specified in TPA Milestone M-036-01. Following submittal of the report to EPA and 

Ecology, the TPA agencies will provide the report to Tribal Governments, the State of Oregon, 

and the public, and will seek input on opportunities to improve the report. 

1.2.1 Tribal Involvement 

Four Tribal Governments are involved in the Hanford Site cleanup: 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation is made up of the Cayuse, 

Umatilla, and Walla Walla people, and is federally recognized under the Treaty with the 

Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla, 1855. 

The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation are descendants of 14 tribes 

and bands that were federally recognized under the Treaty with the Yakama, 1855. 

The Nez Perce Tribe is federally recognized under the Treaty with the Nez Perces, 1855. 

The Wanapum Band is a non-federally recognized tribe that historically resided on 

Hanford lands, and participates in discussions regarding Hanford cleanup. 

Representatives from the Tribal Governments work in a government-to-government relationship 

with DOE officials on decisions affecting cleanup of the Hanford Site and protection of the land. 

Information that summarizes general tribal values has been provided by two of the Tribal 

Governments to DOE-RL and is included in Appendix B. DOE consults with the Tribal 

Governments on a regular basis and will continue to update information about their values 

relevant to this Lifecycle Report. 

1.2.2 Oregon Office of Energy 

DOE recognizes the state of Oregon’s interests in Hanford Site cleanup and protection of the 

Columbia River and its uses. Consistent with legal and other agreements, DOE has committed to 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-3 

share information and sustain an active dialogue with Oregon representatives about decisions and 

activities affecting cleanup at the Hanford Site. 

1.2.3 Hanford Advisory Board 

The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) is an independent, 

non-partisan, and broadly representative body consisting 

of a balanced mix of the diverse interests that are affected 

by Hanford Site cleanup issues. The primary mission of 

the HAB is to provide informed recommendations and 

advice to DOE, EPA, and Ecology on selected major 

policy issues related to cleanup. The HAB is a DOE 

Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) 

Site-Specific Advisory Board, a stakeholder board that 

provides DOE’s Assistant Secretary for DOE-EM and 

designees with independent advice, information, and 

recommendations on issues affecting the DOE-EM 

program at the various Hanford sites. 

The HAB recommended that DOE prepare information similar to the Lifecycle Report. HAB 

Consensus Advice No. 223, ―Lifecycle Cost and Schedule Report of the Proposed Consent 

Decree and the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Modifications,‖ was issued in November 2009. Full 

text of the HAB Consensus Advice No. 223 is included in Appendix B.

The HAB has prepared advice that relates to cleanup decisions throughout the Hanford Site. 

The HAB advice and the TPA agencies’ responses to advice can be found on DOE’s website at 

www.hanford.gov/?page=453. That advice was 

considered in the development of this report. 

1.3 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD 

BUDGET SCHEDULE 

In developing the Lifecycle Report milestone, the 

TPA agencies sought to align submittal of the report with the annual Federal budget planning 

process. For most fiscal years, Federal planning begins about 2 years before the funded work is 

executed (Figure 1-1). The cycle begins when DOE field offices receive fiscal year budget 

planning guidance from the President of the United States, DOE-Headquarters (DOE-HQ), and 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During the next 12 to 15 months, the DOE field 

budgets are developed, submitted to DOE-HQ and OMB for review, and then provided as part of 

the President’s budget that is submitted annually to Congress. Approximately 8 months later, 

under normal circumstances, before the start of the new Federal fiscal year (October 1), Congress 

approves a budget, funding is made available, and DOE begins executing work to the approved 

budget. 

Hanford Advisory Board Chair Susan 

Leckband (left), with facilitators Susan 

Hayman and Cathy McCague.

The 2011 Lifecycle Report begins with 

the FY 2011 budget and extends through 

FY 2090. Data from the 2011 Lifecycle 

Report will help support development of 

the FY 2013 budget.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 1-4 

Figure 1-1. Relationship Between U.S. Department of Energy Budget Planning and Lifecycle Report 

Schedule. 

As shown in Figure 1-1, the TPA agencies scheduled the Lifecycle Report to be completed in 

time to support the field budget planning process each year. Each Lifecycle Report will have the 

latest information available when planning begins for the next 2-year budget cycle. In addition, 

the period of time for developing the Lifecycle Report each year overlaps with the funding 

approval process for the current budget execution year and with the DOE-HQ and OMB review 

of funding requests for the next fiscal year. This overlap will enable the Lifecycle Report to 

include useful information about national priorities, events at other DOE sites, emerging 

technologies and best practices, and other circumstances that may affect the Hanford Site.

1.4 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP OVERVIEW 

The 586-square-mile Hanford Site is located along the Columbia River in southeastern 

Washington State (Figure 1-2). Beginning in the 1940s with the Manhattan Project, the 

Hanford Site 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 Site workforce is now engaged in the environmental cleanup of 

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

Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework (DOE/RL-2009-10) dated July 2010. 

1.4.1 U.S. Department of Energy Strategic and Cleanup 

Goals 

The Roadmap for EM’s Journey to Excellence (DOE 2010a) identifies seven strategic goals to 

guide DOE in accomplishing cleanup across the DOE complex, including the Hanford Site, as 

described in Table 1-1. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-5 

Figure 1-2. Hanford Site Map Showing Hanford’s Principal Areas Designated for Cleanup Purposes. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-6 

Table 1-1. U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Strategic Goals (All Sites). (3 pages)

Journey to Excellence

Strategic Goal Key Strategies to Reach the Goal

Goal 1. Complete the three major 

tank waste treatment construction 

projects within the approved 

baselines.

Work with the Federal staff, contractors, and union representatives to 

ensure that the projects have the necessary tools (e.g., technology 

resources, innovative tools to maintain motivation, a strong owner’s 

presence) to succeed in the most efficient manner.

Partner with national laboratories, industry, academia, and the Corps 

of Engineers to ensure the best scientific and engineering resources 

are used, so that the technologies selected for development and 

deployment and the design and construction approaches used will 

help reduce risk, lower cost, and accelerate project completion.

Establish an integrated design/engineering testing and commissioning 

framework across the DOE-EM complex to support project teams and 

enhance technical decision making.

Use the code of record concept to only make project changes that are 

essential to project success. (Code of record refers to the set of 

requirements in effect at the time a facility or item of equipment was 

designed and accepted by DOE.)

Use construction project reviews to identify and assist in resolution of 

key project issues related to scope, cost, schedule, project risk 

management, and technical approach.

Ensure the contract fee is aligned with completion of each capital 

asset.

Goal 2. Reduce the lifecycle costs 

and accelerate the cleanup of the 

Cold War environmental legacy.

Develop an R&D roadmap for the development and application of 

advanced modeling and simulation tools to accelerate progress on 

DOE-EM challenges in 2011.

Engage the Department’s basic and applied research capabilities to 

develop novel methods for addressing high-level waste that can 

accelerate progress and reduce costs of this multi-decadal program.

Integrate and manage the technology development and deployment

investment and insert technologies at appropriate maturity.

Continue to use the National Academy of Sciences, Environmental 

Management Advisory Board, DOE-EM Technical Experts Group, 

and the expertise of DOE-EM Federal staff to inform us on how best 

to achieve reductions in the lifecycle cost for the tank waste mission.

Use appropriate system planning models to demonstrate the benefit of 

deploying state-of-the-art technologies and/or more effective 

strategies in order to reduce the lifecycle cost of the tank waste 

cleanup mission.

Goal 3. Complete disposition of 90 

percent of the legacy TRU waste by 

the end of 2015.

Utilize shielded canisters to accelerate transportation and disposal of 

remote-handled TRU wastes.

Process and dispose of Large Box TRU, utilizing the TRUPACT-III.

Align contract incentives at WIPP and TRU generator sites to support 

specific legacy TRU disposition targets each year.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-7 

Table 1-1. U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Strategic Goals (All Sites). (3 pages)

Journey to Excellence

Strategic Goal Key Strategies to Reach the Goal

Goal 4. Reduce the DOE-EM

legacy footprint by 40 percent by 

the end of 2011, leading to 

approximately 90 percent reduction 

by 2015.

Utilize Hanford’s portion from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act.

Work with regulators and stakeholders to ensure compliance and 

timely implementation of required cleanup actions.

Focus on safe completion of DOE-EM activities (TRU waste, lowlevel waste, soil and groundwater, and D&D) resulting in reduced 

environmental risks to the community.

Goal 5. Improve safety, security and 

quality assurance towards a goal of 

zero accidents, incidents, and 

defects.

Ensure that DOE-EM sites and projects integrate safety, security, and 

quality, and evaluate performance indicators that measure these 

functions throughout the applicable lifecycle, including procurement, 

design, engineering, construction, commissioning, operation, 

deactivation/decommissioning, and environmental restoration.

Use sound science and engineering along with developing a proactive 

relationship with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to 

expeditiously resolve Board concerns and issues.

Ensure DOE-EM Headquarters and field elements continue to 

identify and deploy strategies and approaches that guarantee strong 

safety and security cultures are in place, such as Human Performance 

Improvement, performance and vulnerability assessments, and 

enhancement of the self-assessment process, focusing improvement 

efforts on areas of poorest performance.

Employ a risk-based decision-making process for operation and 

decommissioning of DOE-EM facilities.

Goal 6. Improve contract and 

project management with the 

objective of delivering results on 

time and within cost.

Use the DOE-EM Contract and Project Management Corrective 

Action Plan as a starting point and create an internal quality assurance 

process that will lead to successful and sustained execution of 

DOE-EM contract and project management improvements.

Improve and expand the use of independent contract and project 

reviews, construction project reviews, peer reviews, and external 

independent reviews to keep contracts and projects aligned and on 

track. Conduct verification and validation reviews to ensure that 

performance data is credible and reliable.

Strengthen the integration of acquisition and project management 

processes so that contract statements of work and deliverables are 

based on clear project requirements, robust front-end planning and 

risk analysis, ensuring that nuclear safety requirements are addressed 

early, and changes to contract and project baseline and the contract 

are managed through strict and timely change control processes.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-8 

Table 1-1. U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Strategic Goals (All Sites). (3 pages)

Journey to Excellence

Strategic Goal Key Strategies to Reach the Goal

Become a stronger owner by holding contractors accountable and 

pursue partnering relationships to create win-win scenarios, where 

both the Federal staff and contractor staff understand and respect the 

rules of engagement and build better business relationships. Also, 

build stronger relationships with oversight organizations to improve 

communications and demonstrate transparency and accountability in 

DOE-EM’s contract and project management.

Develop DOE-EM-specific cost estimating policy, guidance, 

historical cost databases, and expertise to improve our ability to 

perform independent government cost estimates as well as 

independent cost reviews and validation of contractor-generated cost 

estimates.

Invest in personnel development by providing training and career 

development in contract and project management.

Make effective use of small and minority owned businesses.

Goal 7. Achieve excellence in 

management and leadership, 

making DOE-EM one of the best 

places to work in the Federal 

Government.

Benchmark best-in-class agencies (the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ranked number one in this year’s Partnership for Public 

Service survey) and develop improvement plans in the areas of 

leadership, planning, performance tracking, work/business processes, 

customer service/relations, and accountability.

Establish sustainability goal targets.

Support DOE corporate management improvement initiatives.

From DOE 2010a, Roadmap for EM’s Journey to Excellence, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE-EM = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Environmental Management.

R&D = research and development.

TRU = transuranic.

TRUPACT = Transuranic Packaging Transporter.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

The overarching goals for Hanford Site cleanup are stated in Table 1-2. These goals embody 

more than 20 years of dialogue among the TPA agencies, Tribal Governments, State of Oregon, 

stakeholders, and the public. They carry forward key values captured in earlier forums such as 

the Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group, Tank Waste Task Force, Hanford Summits, and 

HAB Exposure Scenario Workshops. These goals help guide all aspects of Hanford Site 

cleanup. Cleanup activities at various Hanford Site areas support the achievement of one or 

more of these goals. These goals help set priorities to apply resources and sequence cleanup 

efforts for the greatest benefit. 

These 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 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, its waters support a multitude of uses that are vital 

to the economic and environmental well being of the region and it is particularly important in 

sustaining Native American culture. The Hanford cleanup must protect this river. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-9 

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, tank farms, and facilities to:

Protect groundwater.

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

Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 5: Safely manage and transfer legacy materials scheduled for off-site disposition, including special 

nuclear material (including plutonium), spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, and immobilized 

high-level waste.

Goal 6: Consolidate waste treatment, storage, and disposal operations on the Central Plateau.

Goal 7: 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.

1

 DOE/RL-2009-10, 2010, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

1.4.2 Hanford Site Cleanup and Management Areas 

The Hanford Site cleanup focuses on two broad geographic areas: the River Corridor and the 

Central Plateau. Tank Waste is a separate cleanup component located within the Central Plateau 

area. 

The River Corridor includes approximately 220 square miles of the Hanford Site, encompassing 

the 100 Area and 300 Area 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. The 100 Area 

contains nine retired plutonium production reactors, numerous support facilities, solid and liquid 

waste disposal sites, contaminated groundwater, and uncontaminated areas. The 300 Area, 

located north of the city of Richland, contains fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear research and 

development facilities, associated solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and contaminated 

groundwater. 

The Central Plateau includes approximately 75 square miles in the central portion of the 

Hanford Site. This region contains the 200-East and 200-West Areas, where plutonium and 

uranium were separated from irradiated fuel rods in large chemical separation process facilities. 

When the separation facilities were operating, large quantities of liquid waste containing 

radionuclides and chemicals were discharged to the soil column and percolated into the vadose 

zone and groundwater. The Central Plateau has a large inventory of processing and support 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-10

facilities, tank systems, liquid and solid waste disposal and storage facilities, utility systems, and 

contaminated groundwater. 

The Tank Waste Cleanup component focuses on retrieving and treating Hanford’s tank waste, 

and closing or remediating tank farms. The tank farms are comprised of 18 distinct waste 

storage units that include a total of 177 underground storage tanks (149 single-shell tanks [SSTs] 

and 28 double-shell tanks [DSTs]) located in the 200-East and 200-West Areas. The storage 

tanks range in capacity from 55,000 to 1,247,000 gallons and contain approximately 53 million 

gallons of chemically hazardous radioactive waste from past processing operations. Sixty-seven 

of the Hanford Site’s SSTs are confirmed or presumed to have collectively leaked up to 1 million 

gallons of contamination into the ground. A number of associated tank waste facilities, including 

dozens of inactive underground storage tanks, miles of waste transfer lines, the 

242-A Evaporator, and the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) (under 

construction) are associated with the Tank Waste Cleanup component. 

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

Hanford Reach National Monument (Figure 1-2). 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 projects. 

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 clean national monument lands. 

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 and Oregon’s only operating commercial nuclear power 

reactor, the Columbia Generating Station. These operations are not part of cleanup at the 

Hanford Site and are not included in the Lifecycle Report. 

Hanford Site cleanup is overseen at DOE-HQ by the DOE-EM, and is directed and implemented 

locally by two DOE field offices: the DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) and the 

DOE Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP).3

 DOE-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. DOE-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 WTP to process and immobilize the tank waste in a process known as vitrification; and 

associated tank farm operation, maintenance, engineering, and construction activities. 

 

3

 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-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-11

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 includes a number of requirements for the Lifecycle Report. 

In December 2009, the TPA agencies began working together to ensure a common understanding 

of the milestone requirements. Table 1-3 provides the full text of the approved TPA Milestone 

M-036-01. 

The following restates the most important requirements from the milestone (cited in bold text in 

the following paragraphs) and briefly explains how DOE, in consultation with EPA and Ecology, 

applied each requirement during development of this Lifecycle Report. 

The TPA agencies also found that they needed to clarify direction on issues encountered during 

Lifecycle Report development. The TPA agencies communicated extensively about these 

aspects of the milestone, and Appendix C documents how the Lifecycle Report has addressed 

them.

“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 requirement recognizes that cleanup often extends beyond the major demolition and 

construction activities needed to close and remediate contaminated facilities and sites. 

Hanford Site cleanup will be protective of future uses consistent with the land-use designations 

adopted and implemented by DOE. Radioactive and hazardous substances are likely to remain 

in areas of the Hanford Site, even after cleanup. Over time, some of these substances will 

degrade or decay in place. DOE will perform post-cleanup activities to maintain protective 

features (e.g., barriers, run-on and run-off diversion, fencing) and to monitor Hanford Site 

conditions (e.g., air quality, groundwater quality). Some activities will go on for decades after 

the primary cleanup activities are completed. The milestone language cited above reinforces that 

the Hanford Site cleanup includes, and the Lifecycle Report will address, future work needed to 

protect human health and the environment. 

“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.” 

The Federal fiscal year covers the calendar period from October 1 to September 30. 

The Lifecycle Report is required to be submitted by January 31 each year, with the exception of 

the initial Lifecycle Report. 

Each Lifecycle Report will take into account a combination of the actual expenditures for the 

preceding fiscal year (i.e., the ―circumstances existing as of the end of the fiscal year preceding 

the month of the report‖), and the budget approved for the current fiscal year (i.e., the ―funds 

appropriated by Congress for the Hanford cleanup‖). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-12

Table 1-3. 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 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-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-13

For example, the Lifecycle Report submitted on January 31, 2012 (about 4 months after Fiscal 

Year [FY] 2012 begins), will take into account what cleanup actions were performed using the 

FY 2011 authorized budget (covering the period from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011), 

and the cleanup actions planned based on the approved FY 2012 budget (covering the period 

from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012). 

The milestone language acknowledges that DOE must work within the budgets authorized by 

Congress. The Lifecycle Report includes scope, schedule, or cost information for cleanup 

actions that are already constrained by Congressional appropriations for the fiscal year in which 

the report is submitted. However, the milestone does require that for future years (i.e., after the 

current fiscal year), the Lifecycle Report will be developed without assuming that future funding 

is limited. 

“...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.” 

Performance of Hanford Site cleanup activities can depend on specialized expertise, personnel, 

equipment, and materials that are in limited supply. For example, the availability of trained and 

qualified radiation control specialists at the Hanford Site is limited. If resources are unavailable, 

DOE’s ability to complete work can be constrained. In addition, the ability to perform work 

quickly can be constrained by a variety of practical limits, such as how many loads of 

contaminated soil can be physically placed and covered at a disposal site in a given amount of 

time. As a result, planning for the execution of work must account for the availability of critical 

resources and the practical limits that time, space, and other factors impose. 

“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.”

DOE has financial responsibilities for maintaining a safe and secure Hanford Site, and meeting 

the needs of the associated workforce. Examples include security forces that guard nuclear 

materials, employee insurance premiums and pension benefits, and public participation grants to 

public interest groups. The milestone language gives DOE the option to include 

non-environmental costs in the Lifecycle Report, but requires that where this occurs, DOE will 

show which costs are required for meeting environmental obligations. 

“Costs shall be displayed by program baseline summary. Additional levels of 

detail will appear in appendixes to the report.... 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....”

This milestone language specifies the level of detail DOE is required to provide when presenting 

cost data in the Lifecycle Report. The project baseline summary (PBS) summarizes information 

about each major Hanford Site cleanup project. Projects that have common attributes 

(e.g., a common assumed geographic location or activity type) typically are grouped within a 

single PBS. There are 12 PBSs that cover Hanford Site cleanup. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-14

The milestone requires DOE to provide cost information by PBS, requires that near-term costs 

(covering the next 2 to 5 years) be presented at two or more levels of additional detail below the 

top-level PBS, and requires that costs for the entire lifecycle be presented at one level of 

additional detail below the top-level PBS. This distinction reflects the maturity of planning that 

is possible in the DOE budget. Activities in the near term, and where regulatory decisions have 

been made, are better defined and generally have more detailed cost information, whereas 

activities beyond the near term, or where regulatory decisions have not been made, are less well 

defined with less detailed cost estimates. 

“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 milestone language describes what DOE is required to do when providing information 

about cleanup activities for which final decisions have not yet been made. Section 1.6 provides 

additional discussion of this requirement and how it has been applied. 

“The report shall include the scope, schedule and costs for each such PBS 

level two element and shall set forth the bases and assumptions for each 

cleanup activity.” 

The TPA agencies have chosen to apply this provision broadly, and DOE has taken the approach 

in this Lifecycle Report to provide information about the bases and assumptions underlying all 

cleanup actions as presented down to PBS Level 2 and at further levels, if needed, depending on 

the particular cleanup action. 

1.6 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN 

LIFECYCLE REPORT 

Hanford Site 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 TPA agencies follow 

procedures to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, compare various cleanup 

alternatives, consider the interests of the public and other affected parties, consult with Tribal 

Governments, and document selected cleanup actions in legally binding records. 

In portions of the cleanup, the TPA agencies have agreed to schedule final cleanup decisions to 

be made at a time when more information and experience can be 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 TPA agencies have determined when the T Plant will 

not be needed to support Hanford Site cleanup. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-15

The Lifecycle Report is required to include scope, schedule, and cost information across the 

entire Hanford Site regardless of whether the cleanup decision has been made. Where cleanup 

decisions are not known or only partially defined (i.e., not final), the Lifecycle Report is based 

on the reasonable upper bound for the range of plausible alternatives, or a range of alternative 

costs, including a reasonable upper bound. These requirements introduce several concepts that 

are not fully defined in TPA Milestone 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 

defining what cleanup actions should be performed? 

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 D describes the multiple kinds of cleanup decisions to be made at the Hanford Site and 

identifies decisions that are considered to be final for the Hanford Site. Appendix A describes 

future actions required to complete Hanford cleanup and presents information on plausible 

alternatives for the future cleanup actions. Table 1-4 lists the Hanford Site cleanup actions for 

which final cleanup decisions have not yet been made. 

The Lifecycle Report includes numerous assumptions about future cleanup actions and decisions. 

Assumptions take into consideration the ranges of plausible alternatives for specific cleanup 

actions, and what would be reasonable upper bounds for the ranges of alternatives. 

The 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 Governments, and stakeholders. 

The TPA agencies have agreed the Lifecycle Report should develop more in-depth information 

about selected cleanup actions (for which final decisions have not been made). For the 2011 

Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies identified approximately 39 cleanup actions for which final 

cleanup decisions are still needed (Table 1-4), and Appendix A proposes a schedule for 

preparing in-depth cost estimate alternative analyses for these cleanup actions. Section 1.7

provides additional information about this process. 

A cost estimate alternative analyses for the two cleanup actions are shown in Table 1-5 for this 

2011 Lifecycle Report. The cleanup actions were selected in response to Tribal Government, 

State of Oregon, and stakeholder values. 

The scope, schedule, and cost information and any cost estimate alternative analyses are for 

informational purposes only and cannot replace the full analysis of a Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) feasibility study 

or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) corrective measures study or 

closure plan. The information and analyses presented here will be used to inform the public and 

to support budget requests. All cleanup decisions will follow the applicable decision-making 

process (e.g., CERCLA, RCRA). The Lifecycle Report will be updated to reflect these decisions 

as they are made. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-16

Table 1-4. List of Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made.

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

Disposition 100 Area Reactors.

Disposition 100 Area KW 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.

Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by 

PNNL.

Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites.

Restore 300 Area Groundwater to Beneficial Use.

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 200-SW-1 OU.

Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal 

Facilities.

Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, 

and Disposal Facilities.

Remediate 200-IS-1 OU.

Remediate 200-PW-1/3/6 and CW-5 OUs.

Remediate 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 FFTF Complex.

Disposition Remaining Buildings and Facilities 

within FFTF Complex.

Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and 

Facilities.

Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone 

(200-DV-1 OU).

Restore 200-West Groundwater 

(200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 OUs) 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).
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

1-17

Table 1-5. Hanford Site Cleanup Actions and Reasons for Performing Cost Estimate Alternative Analyses 

in 2011 Lifecycle Report.

Cleanup Action Reasons for Analysis in This Year’s Lifecycle Report

Disposition of the 

100 Area Reactors

Substantial historical information exists that provides a useful body of scope, schedule, 

and cost data for analyzing cleanup action alternatives for the 100 Area reactors, and for 

devising and testing an effective first time approach to performing alternatives analyses. 

In addition, a number of recent developments (e.g., potential early removal of KE Reactor, 

preparation of a draft supplemental environmental impact statement) present an 

opportunity to support near-future negotiations and budget planning. The in-depth cost 

estimate alternative analysis for this cleanup action is presented in Section 4.4 of this 

Lifecycle Report.

Remediation of the 

200-SW-2

Operable Unit

The regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, State of Oregon, and Hanford stakeholders 

have a high degree of interest in the cleanup of the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit. Information 

continues to improve about the work and estimated costs to remediate these complex 

burial grounds. Decisions about the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit will not be made for several 

years, so this opportunity to provide insight into costs of varying alternatives will provide 

information to help inform decision making. The in-depth cost estimate alternative 

analysis for this cleanup action is presented in Section 5.7 of this Lifecycle Report.

1.7 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS PROCESS 

In-depth analysis and cost estimating of alternatives will be performed for selected cleanup 

actions in each annual Lifecycle Report. This approach is described below and is depicted in 

Figure 1-3, and is explained further in Appendix A.

The approach to developing alternatives and determining the reasonable upper bound for a range 

of plausible alternatives includes the following steps: 

1. Identify and screen for decisions affecting Hanford Site cleanup; determine which 

decisions are considered to be final (see Appendix D). 

2. Identify non-final cleanup actions for which alternatives will be analyzed further 

(see Appendix A).

3. Prioritize and schedule cleanup actions for in-depth analysis of alternatives to be prepared 

for each annual report (see Appendix A).

4. Develop a range of plausible alternatives for the cleanup actions and describe a 

reasonable upper bound for the alternatives being analyzed (see Appendix A). 

Scope and cost estimates are provided as a sensitivity analysis for the reasonable upper bound of 

cleanup action alternatives and scheduled for the current year’s Lifecycle Report (Table 1-5). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-18

Figure 1-3. Approach to Developing Alternatives and Analyzing the Reasonable Upper Bound in the 

Lifecycle Report. 

1.8 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT 

Reserved for future use. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

2-1 

2.0 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP PLANNING AND INTEGRATION 

This chapter provides background information on DOE’s work planning, budget preparation, and 

integration of activities to implement Hanford Site cleanup. This section also discusses the level 

of cost detail provided in the Lifecycle Report, consistent with TPA milestone direction. 

2.1 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 Lifecycle Report, particularly where information about project costs is 

presented. 

2.1.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process 

Each year, DOE formulates its budget requests for Congressional appropriations. This annual 

planning cycle begins between December and January, nearly 2 years before the start of a 

budgeted fiscal year. The process begins with the budget formulation stage where funding 

requirements are analyzed, prioritized, requested, and received. This process results in 

submission of budget requests by the field offices to DOE-HQ in early spring. The process 

continues 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. The field budget process is the first phase of DOE’s annual 

budget formulation process. The Hanford Site offices (DOE-RL and DOE-ORP) prepare 

and submit field budget data to DOE-HQ for use in the corporate review budget process. 

2. DOE-HQ Corporate Review Budget Process. The DOE-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. The OMB budget review 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. The Congressional budget review process 

determines DOE’s final appropriations for the next Federal fiscal year, based on final 

Presidential funding and policy determinations in conjunction with Federal budget 

deliberations by Congress. 

The annual budgets developed by DOE and appropriated for spending by 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. In some cases, this can result in cost and 

schedule changes to reconfigure activities resulting from budget or other constraints. DOE also 

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

budget direction. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-2 

Based on final Congressional appropriations, budget formulation, project planning, and 

re-planning are intertwined and involve iterative processes with similar steps. The main steps, 

and DOE’s process for defining and managing projects and their baseline summaries, are 

described below. 

2.1.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation 

Process 

DOE follows a structured approach that organizes all environmental management activities into 

discrete projects. The following information summarizes key components of DOE’s cleanup 

project management approach. Additional details and more in-depth explanations are provided 

in DOE G 413.3-8, Environmental Management (EM) Cleanup Projects. 

Project Baseline Summary. DOE-EM projects that have common attributes, such as a common 

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, cost, 

and schedule baselines; defining performance metrics; and providing financial history, budget 

request justification, and other information such as 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. For example, an engineering or craft labor individual cannot be scheduled to 

accomplish more than one work package simultaneously, and the same piece of equipment 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

2-3 

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. 

Cost Uncertainty and Programmatic Risk. Project management requires that uncertainties be 

included in planning to address the risk of work not going as planned. Risk dollars are included 

as part of most cost estimates and are reserved to accommodate additional work scope, 

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

changes or uncertainties. Cost information provided in this Lifecycle Report includes estimates 

for uncertainty based on standard engineering and construction practices and considers the 

inherent unknowns regarding the nature and extent of contamination within the Hanford Site 

cleanup projects. Cost uncertainty can accommodate cost change due to discovery as the 

cleanup proceeds (e.g., conditions during environmental sampling and characterization of newly 

discovered sites). 

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

provision in a cost estimate for increases in the cost of equipment, material, labor, etc., due to 

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. In general, an escalation rate 

between 2.0 and 4.0 percent per year is used. 

2.2 SCOPE, SCHEDULE, AND COST DEFINITION FOR HANFORD SITE 

CLEANUP 

Consistent with the cleanup project management approach outlined in Section 2.1.2, DOE-RL 

and DOE-ORP have organized their work into PBSs, which include more detailed work 

breakdowns to describe in greater context the scope of DOE’s projects and operations at the 

Hanford Site. Hanford Site cleanup currently encompasses 12 PBSs, 10 of which are managed 

by DOE-RL and 2 of which are managed by DOE-ORP, as shown in Table 2-1.

Further breakdowns exist for the PBSs shown in Table 2-1, and these are discussed in more 

detail in other chapters of this Lifecycle Report. Table 2-2 shows an example of Level 2 and 

Level 3 work breakdown associated with a single PBS. This example presents a typical 

environmental management cleanup project, down to a third tier of planning detail. Most of the 

work at the Hanford Site has been similarly broken down to at least Level 3. 

Depending on complexity of work scope, project maturity, contract period of performance, and 

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

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

scope, schedule, and cost information rolls up and is incorporated into the upper tier planning 

information. Table 2-3 depicts an example of work planning down to Level 6 and how it rolls up 

through Levels 1 through 5. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-4 

Table 2-1. Hanford Site Cleanup Project Baseline Summary.

PBS Title

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition

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 and Infrastructure and Services

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-LTS Long-Term Stewardship

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

ORP-0060 Major Construction–Waste Treatment Plant

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

Table 2-2. Example Cleanup Project Baseline Summary and Work Breakdown to Level 3.

PBS (Level 1) RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition

Level 2 RL-12.12 K Basins Closure Project

Level 3

RL-12.12.01 100–K Safe and Compliant

RL-12.12.02 K Basins Operations and Maintenance

RL-12.12.03 Facility Operations

RL-12.12.11 100-K Facilities Deactivation

RL-12.12.15 105-K West Basin Deactivation and Demolition

RL-12.12.16 Sludge Treatment Project

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

2-5 

Table 2-3. Example of a Level 6 Work Breakdown Structure. 

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

Level 2 040.03 Surveillance and Maintenance and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites

Level 3 040.03.01 100 Area Surveillance and Maintenance

Level 4 040.03.01.01 100 Area Facility Surveillance and Maintenance

Level 5 040.03.01.01.03 100 Area Reactor Inspection

Level 6

040.03.01.01.03.01 Preparation for Inspection - Work Plan

040.03.01.01.03.03 Remove weld from doors

040.03.01.01.03.04 Blow Fresh Air Into Reactor Area and Check Air Quality

040.03.01.01.03.05 Survey Reactor Interior

040.03.01.01.03.06 Inspection Team Inspection Walk Down

040.03.01.01.03.07 Weld Doors Closed

040.03.01.01.03.08 Demobilize Site

040.03.01.01.03.09 Inspection Report

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

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

for the remaining Hanford Site cleanup. Out-year planning estimates are not as fully developed 

as near-term planning (typically no further than Level 3 or Level 4). Out-year planning 

information that DOE maintains beyond the contract terms, along with rolled up near-term 

information, is further elaborated in Chapters 4.0 through 7.0, and in Appendix E of this 

Lifecycle Report. Cost information will be updated each year to reflect work completion, recent 

decision making, and other changes affecting the lifecycle scope (e.g., upgrades or infrastructure 

modernization to support major projects). 

Chapters 4.0 through 7.0 summarize information at PBS Level 2, and include the work 

breakdown for each PBS, descriptions of the lifecycle work scope and associated work elements, 

and schedules for completing each of the work elements. Each chapter provides estimated 

cleanup cost information for corresponding work elements, and includes costs that are not work 

elements directly performed under the respective PBS. For example, Site-wide Services is not a 

work element directly performed in each PBS, but rather an estimated oversight cost for the 

entire lifecycle. Appendix E of this Lifecycle Report provides additional details at Level 3 for 

near-term work, and at Level 2 for the entire Hanford Site cleanup. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-6 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

3-1 

3.0 HANFORD SITE INTEGRATED LIFECYCLE SUMMARY 

This chapter presents the overall Hanford Site cleanup scope, schedule, and cost. Chapters 4.0

through 7.0 and Appendix E present additional details on the PBSs that cover the lifecycle 

cleanup work scope in the three major cleanup components and Mission Support. 

3.1 HANFORD SITE LIFECYCLE SCOPE 

The Hanford Site 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). The cleanup includes Mission Support activities that provide key infrastructure 

and services for the Hanford Site. Hanford Site cleanup is a complex task that involves multiple 

contractors performing discrete yet interdependent scopes of work. The scope of Hanford Site 

cleanup work is broken down into a series of PBSs, shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 also 

describes the general scope of each PBS and where in the Lifecycle Report each PBS is 

addressed. 

Table 3-1. Hanford Site Project Baseline Summaries – Richland Operations Office and 

Office of River Protection. (2 pages)

Lifecycle 

Report 

Section

PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope

CHAPTER 4.0 – RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

River 

Corridor 

(Section 4.1)

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).

River 

Corridor 

(Section 4.2)

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition

K Basins Closure Project Removal of K Basins sludge and 

demolition of the basins and 

associated facilities.

CHAPTER 5.0 – CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.1)

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and 

Disposition–PFP

PFP Closure Project Demolition of aboveground 

facilities and structures at PFP.

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.2)

RL-0030 Soil and Water 

Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose 

Zone

Groundwater Project Decision-making process for 

groundwater and waste sites and 

Hanford Site-wide groundwater 

remediation.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-2 

Table 3-1. Hanford Site Project Baseline Summaries – Richland Operations Office and 

Office of River Protection. (2 pages)

Lifecycle 

Report 

Section

PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.3) 

and Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.3)

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D–

Remainder of Hanford

This PBS has two parts: 

1. RL-0040 Central 

Plateau Remediation 

2. RL-0040 Infrastructure 

and Services or 

Mission Support

Cleanup of the Central Plateau 

waste sites and facilities, 

including canyon facilities. 

Scope activities directly managed 

by the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations 

Office and the management, 

repair, and capital upgrades to 

infrastructure.

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.4)

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.

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.5)

RL-0013C Solid Waste 

Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area

Solid and Liquid Waste 

Disposition Project

Waste management operations, 

including storage, treatment, and 

disposal of Hanford Site waste 

streams and off-site wastes.

CHAPTER 6.0 – TANK WASTE CLEANUP

Tank Waste

Cleanup 

(Section 6.1)

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid 

Tank Waste

Stabilization and 

Disposition

None Operations, retrieval, treatment, 

and closure of the single-shell 

and double-shell tanks.

Tank Waste

Cleanup 

(Section 6.2)

ORP-0060 Major Construction–

Waste Treatment Plant

None Construction of the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant.

CHAPTER 7.0 – MISSION SUPPORT

Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.1)

RL-0020 Safeguards and 

Security

None Protection of the Hanford Site, 

special materials, resources, and 

workers.

Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.2)

RL-0100 Richland Community 

and Regulatory Support

None Support for community and 

regulatory interaction, including 

the Hanford Advisory Board, the 

Natural Resource Trustee 

Council, the Oregon Department 

of Energy, and the Washington 

State Department of Ecology.

Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.4)

RL-LTS Long-Term 

Stewardship (LTS)

Post-cleanup LTS Infrastructure support, 

surveillance and maintenance, 

community support, and 

management activities following 

completion of cleanup activities.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

3-3 

3.2 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP SCHEDULE 

The Hanford Site’s remaining cleanup schedule covers activities for waste cleanup and waste 

management, leading to transition of portions of the Hanford Site to long-term stewardship 

(LTS). Figure 3-1 depicts the remaining schedule for the primary cleanup components. 

Chapters 4.0 through 7.0 and Appendix E of this Lifecycle Report present additional schedule 

details for the River Corridor, Central Plateau, Tank Waste, and Mission Support activities. 

Figure 3-1 shows River Corridor Cleanup complete by FY 2024 (River Corridor Closure Project 

in 2014, 100-K Area in 2024), Tank Waste Cleanup complete by FY 2050, Central Plateau 

Cleanup complete by FY 2066, and FY 2060 through 2066 is to address closure of the 

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). 

To support the cleanup, DOE-RL also has responsibility for Mission Support activities related to 

safeguards and security, community and regulatory support, Hanford Site infrastructure and 

services, and LTS. These Mission Support activities align with the cleanup through FY 2060, 

when the Hanford Site is expected to be fully transitioned to LTS. DOE-RL has planned for an 

LTS period that runs from FY 2061 through FY 2090 as part of Mission Support. 

Figure 3-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

3.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST 

The DOE remaining cleanup costs are estimated to be about $115 billion to complete the scope 

for the River Corridor, Central Plateau, Tank Waste, and Mission Support activities. DOE-RL 

scope accounts for about $52 billion, or about 45 percent of the total costs. DOE-ORP scope 

accounts for about $63 billion, or about 55 percent. 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-4 

Figure 3-2 summarizes the Hanford Site estimated ―to go‖ cleanup cost distribution between 

DOE-RL and DOE-ORP. Figure 3-3 shows the Hanford Site remaining cleanup costs by year 

for DOE-RL and DOE-ORP. Figure 3-4 summarizes the estimated Hanford Site cleanup costs 

by DOE-RL and DOE-ORP PBSs. Table 3-2 provides a summary of total estimated cleanup 

costs for each PBS. 

Figure 3-2. Hanford Site Estimated Cleanup Cost Distribution by U.S. Department of Energy Field Office. 

DOE-RL 

DOE-ORP $52 billion

$63 billion

Hanford Site

"to go" Cost Estimate

FY 2011 - FY 2090

$115 billion
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

3-5

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

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

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076 2081 2086

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

DOE-ORP Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year

DOE-RL Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-6

Figure 3-4. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Costs by Project Baseline Summary. 

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

2011

2021

2031

2041

2051

2061

2071

2081

2091

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

NFD&D = Nuclear Facility D&D

I&S = Infrastructure and Services
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

3-7 

Table 3-2. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimates by PBS.

Project Work Scope

Estimated Cleanup 

Costs

1

(Billion $)

DOE-RL Total Remaining Estimated Costs $47.4 - $51.9

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.8

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $0.5 - $0.6

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $9.0 - $9.2

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $3.3

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $8.0 - $8.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $13.9 - $17.6

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) $2.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $2.1 - $2.2

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

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) $1.0

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) $5.4

DOE-ORP Total Remaining Estimated Costs $56.5 - $62.7

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $50.4 - $56.6

Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $6.1

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Costs $103.9 - $115

1

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

report.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE-ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

River Protection.

DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

NOTE: These cost estimates do not reflect the cost estimates prepared for the remaining cleanup action alternatives as 

shown in Table ES-2.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-8 

3.4 SCOPE AND COSTS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO CLEANUP 

As stated in TPA Milestone M-036-01: 

“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.”

For purposes of this 2011 Lifecycle Report, DOE has treated all Hanford Site scope and costs as 

being directly related to environmental obligations. This approach has been taken because 

virtually all Hanford Site work is necessary for successful completion of the cleanup and can 

rarely be distinguished from non-cleanup work. This is particularly the case when work fulfills 

multiple purposes, such as maintaining Hanford Site infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities). Even 

the costs for security include, in addition to guarding nuclear materials, other actions that directly 

support cleanup, such as controlling and restricting access to contaminated areas of the Hanford 

Site, protecting property and equipment used for environmental remediation, and ensuring that 

only authorized workers are allowed on-site to perform cleanup work. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-1 

4.0 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

The River Corridor, the area of the Hanford Site along the Columbia River, is comprised of four 

production and operations areas: 

100 Areas – the location of nine former production reactors, associated support facilities, 

and related waste sites. 

300 Area – the location of research, development, and fuel fabrication facilities, and 

related waste sites. 

400 Area – the buildings and waste sites other than the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). 

600 Area – the location of two major burial grounds (618-10 and -11) with some soil and 

debris sites. 

The majority of the River Corridor Cleanup is on track for completion by FY 2015. Work 

related to the 100-K Area is scheduled for completion by FY 2024, in conjunction with 

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) and Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) work scope.

DOE manages the River Corridor Cleanup through two projects, which are planned and funded 

under separate PBSs: 

1. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) addresses the 

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. This 

project is currently responsible for operating and maintaining the ERDF, located on the 

Central Plateau, which is the disposal location for the remediation waste from the River 

Corridor and other Hanford Site cleanup operations. Section 4.1 discusses the scope of 

this project. 

2. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) addresses the removal of fuel and 

sludge from the K Basins. Because the 105-K East (105-KE) Basin has been demolished, 

the remaining scope is focused on the 105-K West (105-KW) Basin. Section 4.2

discusses the scope of this project. 

Groundwater cleanup is underway in the River Corridor. DOE-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. Therefore, the groundwater 

associated with the River Corridor is discussed in the Central Plateau Cleanup in Section 5.2.

Cleanup is conducted in accordance with interim and final records of decision (RODs) and action 

memoranda as listed in Appendix D and with key TPA milestones as listed in Table 4-1. These 

TPA milestones provide the structure that the TPA agencies have agreed to for Hanford Site 

priorities and scope sequencing. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-2 

Table 4-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones.

Milestone Title Compliance 

Date

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

M-016-00A Complete all interim response actions for the 100 Areas, excluding K Area. 12/31/2012

M-016-00B Complete all interim 300 Area remedial actions. 09/30/2018

M-016-00C Complete all interim response actions for 100-K Area. TBD

M-016-47 Complete interim remedial actions for 100-D Area. 12/31/2011

M-016-51 Complete interim remedial actions for 100-H Area. 12/31/2011

M-016-53

Complete interim response actions for 100-K Area within the perimeter boundary 

and to the river for Phase I actions.

12/31/2012

M-016-55 Complete interim response actions for 100-N Area. 12/31/2012

M-016-56 Complete interim remedial actions for 100-IU-2 and 100-IU-6. 02/28/2012

M-016-69 Complete all interim 300 Area remedial actions. 09/30/2015

M-016-74 Complete interim remediation for all 300 Area. 09/30/2012

M-016-75 Initiate substantial and continuous remediation on the 309 facility. 09/30/2013

M-016-139 Complete revegetation of 300-FF-2 OU waste sites governed by Milestone M016-74.03/31/2013

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

and to the river for Phase 2 actions.

12/31/2015

M-089-00 Closure of non-permitted mixed waste units in 324 Building Radiochemical 

Engineering Cells B and D.

09/30/2012

M-092-16 Complete removal/transfer/initiate storage of PH-III 300 Area special case waste. 09/30/2015

M-093-00 Final disposal of 100 Areas surplus production reactor buildings. TBD

M-093-20 Complete 105-N Reactor ISS. 09/30/2012

M-093-22 Complete 105-KE Reactor ISS. 07/31/2014

M-094-00 Complete disposition of 300 Area surplus facilities. 09/30/2015

M-094-08

Complete the selected removal and/or remedial actions for 11 of the following 

high priority facilities: 305B, 306E, 306W, 307 Retention Basins, 308, 309, 321, 

323, 324, 324B, 327, 333, 340, 3706, and 3720.

12/31/2011

M-094-09

Complete the selected removal and/or remedial actions for 13 of the following 

high-priority facilities: 305B, 306E, 306W, 307 Retention Basins, 308, 309, 321, 

323, 324, 324B, 326, 327, 329, 333, 340, 3706, and 3720; to include the 323 

Facility.

09/30/2013

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ISS = interim safe storage.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TBD = to be determined.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-3 

4.1 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 the Hanford Site located in the Columbia River Corridor in accordance with the existing 

interim RODs and future final RODs (see Appendix A). Anticipated land uses for the River 

Corridor are described in DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan

Environmental Impact Statement, and in the pursuant ROD. 

The River Corridor Closure Project has established the following cleanup objectives: 

Remediate waste sites. 

Deactivate, decontaminate, decommission, and demolish (D4) facilities. 

Place eight plutonium production reactors into ISS. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 depict 

C Reactor before and after the ISS process. Table 4-2 provides the status of the reactors. 

Note B Reactor’s status as a National Historic Landmark. 

Operate ERDF to support disposal of waste generated during D4, field remediation, ISS,

and support to other Hanford Site waste generators. 

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

National Priorities List. 

The River Corridor Closure Project includes the 600 Area remediation of burial sites 

618-10 and 618-11 by September 30, 2015. 

Figure 4-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe 

Storage. 

Figure 4-2. C Reactor in Interim Safe Storage. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-4 

Table 4-2. Reactor Status.

Reactor Status (as of October, 2010) Remaining Activity

B Named National Historic Landmark by 

U.S. Department of Interior in 2008. 

Reactor open for escorted public tours.

Remaining remediation (basin material disposition) to 

be complete by 2012. National Park Service to decide in 

2011 whether to incorporate B Reactor into a new 

Manhattan Project 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.

ISS (scheduled to be complete by 07/31/2014); final 

disposition of reactor block; DOE-RL is assessing 

potential near-term removal of this reactor through a 

dismantling alternative.

KW Awaiting sludge removal to proceed with 

demolition of adjacent buildings and 

installation of safe storage enclosure to 

complete ISS activities.

ISS; final disposition of reactor block.

N Reactor ISS underway. ISS (scheduled to be complete by fiscal year 2013); final 

disposition of reactor block.

DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.

ISS = interim safe storage.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-5 

Figure 4-3 depicts the primary Level 2 work elements within the Nuclear Facility D&D–River 

Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) remaining cleanup schedule. Table 4-3 summarizes the 

scope for the Level 2 work elements. 

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

Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-6 

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

D4 Closure This work element includes D4 of approximately 500 facilities, provision of utility and 

surveillance and maintenance services during D4, and closure of utilities located in the River 

Corridor. The D4 closure buildings are located throughout the River Corridor in the 100, 

300, 400, and 600 Areas of the Hanford Site. Typical hazards associated with the buildings 

include radiological contamination (e.g., uranium, mixed fission products, activation 

products, plutonium), chemical hazards (e.g., beryllium, asbestos, laboratory chemicals), and 

industrial hazards (e.g., elevated working locations, degraded roofs, biological hazards, 

electrical hazards, excavations).

The D4 process includes obtaining regulatory approvals; characterizing the hazards and 

waste; deactivating the facility by removing loose hazardous materials and equipment;

decontaminating the facility to allow open-air demolition; and decommissioning the facility 

by disconnecting utilities and services. The structure is then demolished using techniques 

such as heavy equipment (e.g., track hoe, processor, loader, cranes), explosives, cutting 

equipment, or other methods and the demolition debris is disposed, generally to ERDF. 

Following demolition, samples are collected to verify that cleanup criteria are met, and the 

sites are backfilled and revegetated. 

Reactor Interim 

Safe Storage 

(ISS) Closure

This work element includes removal of reactor area buildings and components, leaving the 

reactor blocks intact in ISS. The reactors will then undergo surveillance, monitoring, and 

maintenance for a period of time 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 200 Area for disposal. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show the change in reactor site 

footprint before and after being placed in ISS. 

Field 

Remediation 

Closure

This work element includes performing CERCLA field remediation and closure of 

contaminated waste sites and burial grounds within the River Corridor. This includes design 

and closure; confirmatory sampling; remediation of waste sites, liquid waste sites, and burial 

grounds; miscellaneous restoration; and support activities. The RODs for the Field 

Remediation Closure work scope generally identify RTD as the preferred alternative. 

(RODs are identified in Appendix D.) In addition to RTD, confirmatory sites were 

identified that require sampling to determine the need for RTD. Following sampling, these 

sites either become RTD sites or are closed as no-action sites.

Contamination in the waste sites and burial grounds of the River Corridor include chemical 

and radioactive constituents, such as asbestos, lead, chromium, carbon tetrachloride, 

strontium, uranium, cesium, and tritium. The cleanup process involves sampling and 

analyzing the site to determine the extent and type of contamination, excavating 

contaminated waste materials, and restoring the landscape through site backfill, grading, and 

revegetation.

Waste Operations This work element includes the transportation, disposal, and treatment (if required) of waste 

from the River Corridor Cleanup activities, as well as from other Hanford Site cleanup 

operators. Waste operations will expand and operate the ERDF, and transition the ERDF to 

a successor operator at the end of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project. 

Final Closure This work includes preparing an integrated River Corridor work plan for a CERCLA 

baseline risk assessment; preparing a baseline risk assessment for the 100 and 300 Areas;

conducting a risk evaluation for River Corridor areas outside of the 100 and 300 Areas;

conducting orphan site evaluations; conducting surface soil surveys; preparing remedial 

action reports; preparing a remedial investigation report and a proposed plan for River 

Corridor source areas. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-7 

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Mission/General 

Support

This work element consists of functional support and business operations necessary to 

achieve River Corridor Closure and field project objectives. This includes providing trained 

and qualified staff, performance standards, facilities services, and office supplies. General 

support functions include safety health and quality, regulatory and environmental 

management, project integration, project services, engineering services, and Office of the 

Project General Manager.

B Reactor This work element 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.

Nuclear Facility 

D&D–River 

Corridor Closure 

(100-K Area

Remediation)

This work element includes remediation of waste sites and building and structure D4 in the 

100-K Area. These activities are consistent with the activities identified for D4 closure and 

field remediation closure, but are managed by a separate contract due to the need to 

complete removal of sludge from KW Basin prior to completing the remediation. Work is 

underway utilizing separate contracts for work inside versus outside the fence at the Nuclear 

Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (100-K Area Remediation). The scope 

includes the ISS of the KE and KW Reactors consistent with the other 100 Area reactors.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

PBS = project baseline summary.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

Figure 4-4 presents the remaining cleanup costs for PBS RL-0041 by fiscal year, and Figure 4-5

presents the remaining estimated costs by work element. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-8

Figure 4-4. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Costs (Millions $)

Fiscal Year
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

4-9

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

Figure 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$200

2011

2016

2021

Costs (Millions $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25B, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-10

4.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) 

The Spend Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) provides 

for safe stabilization, packaging, and interim storage of SNF sludge. After the removal of 

sludge, the project will D4 the K Basins and other SNF project-related facilities. The mission 

requires sludge removal and treatment in concert with deactivating and dismantling the 

remaining K Basin systems and structures as they are no longer needed for the sludge project. 

At the completion of this project, significant hazards to workers, the public, and the environment 

will have been eliminated. 

The major cleanup objectives for the SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) 

are: 

All SNF will be removed from the K Basins and repackaged, dried, and transported to 

interim storage at the Canister Storage Building (CSB). 

Sludge material from K Basin knock-out pots will be pretreated, packaged, dried, and 

transported to interim storage at the CSB pending disposal at a future repository. 

The remaining sludge will be retrieved and shipped to an interim on-site storage facility, 

then treated and packaged for shipment to an off-site disposal facility. 

Debris within the 105-KW Basin will be packaged and transported for disposal. 

The water in the 105-KW Basin, after treatment with existing ion exchange equipment, 

will be transported to the 200 Area for treatment and disposal. 

The 105-KW Basin will be isolated from its associated reactor building and the basin 

building shell and superstructure removed. The 105-KW Basin substructure will be 

demolished and the demolition waste transported to the 200 Area for disposal at the 

ERDF. 

The work scope for SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) is organized into 

six main work elements, as shown in Figure 4-6, which also presents the remaining cleanup 

schedule. Additional scope information on these work elements is provided in Table 4-4. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-11

Figure 4-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25B, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-12

Table 4-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

100-K Safe and 

Compliant

This work element provides for the safety of workers, the public, and the environment 

from K Basin infrastructure and contaminated materials through monitoring, 

surveillance, containment, and management activities.

K Basins Operations 

and Maintenance

This work element includes dose data gathering and analysis; sampling and 

characterization of both radioactive and hazardous waste to maintain compliance within 

the 105-KW Basin (note that 105-KE Basin already has been demolished); and basic 

plant maintenance and general duties of operations to keep 105-KW Basin in a safe and 

compliant condition during sludge and D&D processes.

Facility Operations This work element includes auxiliary operations support, conduct of operations support, 

waste management support, and sample management support. Specific tasks include, but 

are not limited to, operational and environmental sampling, operation of potable and 

service water supplies, and conduct of operations. 

100-K Facilities

Deactivation

This work element consists of the deactivation of ancillary facilities in preparation for 

further D4 activities. Specific examples of activities include deactivation of utilities, 

removal of furniture and equipment/tools, stabilization of asbestos, identification and 

recording of hazardous materials, and decontamination of radiological contaminated 

areas. The scope also includes deactivation of the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility.

KW Basin 

Deactivation and 

Demolition

This work element covers the deactivation, including utility isolation, and dewatering of 

the 105-KW Basin followed by activities, such as asbestos abatement, to prepare the 

basin for demolition. The demolition of the 105-KW Basin will be conducted similar to 

the 105-KE Basin demolition that was completed in FY 2009. The garnet filter material 

will be transferred to appropriate containers, sampled, and shipped to an appropriate onsite disposal facility. The filters themselves will be grouted and shipped to ERDF as 

monoliths.

Sludge Treatment 

Project

This work element includes the design, procurement, fabrication, installation, testing, 

startup, operation, deactivation, and decontamination of the equipment necessary to 

perform the functions to remove consolidated containerized sludge, knock-out pot 

sludge, and settler tank sludge from the 105-KW Basin, to then stabilize and package the 

sludge for interim storage at the Hanford Site. Once stabilized and placed into storage, 

the waste stream will be handed off to another project area (PBS RL-0013C, Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area) for final disposition to WIPP or other disposal 

facilities.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

FY = fiscal year.

PBS = project baseline summary.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Figure 4-7 presents remaining estimated cleanup costs for SNF Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS RL-0012) by fiscal year, and Figure 4-8 presents remaining estimated cleanup costs by 

work element. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

4-13

Figure 4-7. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Costs (Millions $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-14

Figure 4-8. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-15

4.3 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, there are uncertainties that are analyzed to estimate 

potential scope, cost, and schedule changes. The following assumptions are identified for 

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

Final RODs will confirm that cleanup levels established in the interim RODs are 

protective of human health and the environment. Additional work scope to address 

ecological receptors will not significantly impact cost or schedule. 

Regulatory changes will not require additional activities (e.g., document revisions, 

additional sampling) that would significantly affect costs or schedules. 

The B Reactor National Historic Landmark designation will not impact the completion 

dates or cost of other cleanup activities. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operating facilities will be available in 

accordance with current schedules for the 300 Area cleanup. 

For SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012), the following assumptions are currently 

identified: 

Compliance with regulatory standards and requirements will provide an adequate level of 

protection for the worker, public health, safety, and the environment during operations 

activities and after D4 is complete. 

ERDF waste acceptance criteria will not change substantially. 

T Plant is acceptable for sludge storage and no pretreatment for the sludge is needed 

before transfer. 

Post-CERCLA ROD treatability studies and focused feasibility studies will not affect the 

sludge treatment process. 

Some of these assumptions may be subject to change because of schedule uncertainty (e.g., 

turnover dates for PNNL facilities and the K Basins). However, the River Corridor Closure 

Project Project Execution Plan (DOE 2010b), developed in accordance with DOE O 413.3B, 

Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, is under change control 

and will accommodate assumption changes. 

4.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ACTION - REACTOR CORE DISPOSITION 

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 

The reactor core disposition cost estimate alternative analysis identifies the potential actions 

surrounding decommissioning of the 100 Area reactors. Currently, five of the nine reactors 

(C, D, DR, F, and H) have been placed in ISS configuration. The N Reactor and KE Reactor are 

undergoing ISS and KW Reactor is scheduled to undergo ISS by 2019. The B Reactor, which is 

a National Historic Landmark, is being evaluated by the National Park Service for inclusion in a 

new, multi-site Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The National Park Service expects 

to make its decision in 2011. Pending the outcome of that decision, the ISS activities for 

B Reactor are on hold, and are not included in this analysis. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-16

4.4.1 Reactor Core Disposition Range of Plausible 

Alternatives and Reasonable Upper Bound 

In December 1992, DOE issued DOE/EIS-0119F, Addendum (Final Environmental Impact 

Statement): Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington. In September 1993, DOE issued 58 FR 48509, ―Record of Decision: 

Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington,‖ which implements the recommendation for ―safe storage followed by one-piece 

removal‖ of the surplus reactors. 

The following alternatives were evaluated in the final environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(DOE/EIS-0119F): 

Safe Storage Followed by Deferred Dismantlement. 

Immediate One-Piece Removal. 

In Situ Decommissioning. 

Safe Storage Followed by Deferred One-Piece Removal.

No Action. 

The alternatives evaluated in the EIS (DOE/EIS-0119F) were subsequently reviewed in 

DOE/RL-2005-45, Surplus Reactor Final Disposition Engineering Evaluation, conducted under 

TPA Milestone M-093-25, ―Submit engineering evaluation - final surplus reactor disposition.‖ 

Based on the information presented in both the final EIS (DOE/EIS-0119F) and the engineering 

evaluation (DOE/RL-2005-45), the range of alternatives that have previously been evaluated 

presented a reasonable range of plausible alternatives. Accounting for progress that has been 

made on the ISS of the reactors, the range of plausible alternatives identified for this Lifecycle 

Report is as follows: 

Safe Storage Followed by Deferred Dismantlement. Complete ISS on remaining 

reactors; 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 cores and transport of radioactive waste 

to the 200-West Area for burial. 

Immediate One-Piece Removal. Demolition of the reactor buildings that have not been 

placed in ISS, demolition of the reactor blocks in ISS, and transport of all the reactor 

blocks, intact on a tractor-transporter, from the present 100 Areas to the 200-West Area 

for disposal. 

In Situ Decommissioning. Demolition of the reactor buildings and safe storage 

enclosures and filling void beneath and around the reactor blocks. The reactor blocks, 

adjacent shield walls, and the spent fuel storage basin together with the contained 

radioactivity, gravel, and grout would be covered to a depth of at least 16.4 feet with a 

mound containing earth and gravel. 

Safe Storage Followed by Deferred One-Piece Removal. Complete ISS on remaining 

reactors; 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 blocks and 

transport of the reactor blocks, intact on a tractor-transporter, from the present 100 Area 

locations to the 200-West Area for disposal. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

4-17

TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires that the annual Lifecycle Report assess the plausible range of 

alternatives and a reasonable upper bound alternative. Based on cost, implementation time, and 

worker safety, the Safe Storage Followed by Deferred One-Piece Removal is identified as the 

most plausible alternative. Similarly, the Safe Storage Followed by Deferred Dismantlement is 

considered to be the upper bound because of higher costs, longer implementation time, and 

greater worker dose. 

4.4.2 Reactor Core Disposition Alternatives - Cleanup 

Action Scope Definition 

The two alternatives, a lower bound and upper bound, 

are considered in this Lifecycle Report and both assess 

one-piece removal and dismantlement options 

(excluding B Reactor). These alternatives have been 

developed and evaluated in the final EIS 

(DOE/EIS-0119F) and the subsequent engineering 

evaluation (DOE/RL-2005-45). The two alternatives are 

basically the same except that several of the reactors have already undergone ISS activities. 

Because considerable evaluation has already been performed on the disposition of the reactors, 

the information presented in this Lifecycle Report is consistent with and updated from the final 

EIS (DOE/EIS-0119F) and the engineering evaluation (DOE/RL-2005-45). The cost estimate 

has been escalated from the 2005 estimate to 2010 constant dollars. 

Uncertainties include the following: 

Regulatory documentation is needed to dispose of the reactor blocks on the Hanford Site. 

A disposal facility must be available. May need to assess commissioning and building an 

appropriate disposal facility. 

Uncertainty regarding regulatory requirements following an extended safe storage period 

and subsequent activities needed to meet the requirements. 

Availability of properly trained work force and technical equipment at the time of 

removal. 

Impact to surrounding land areas following cleanup of River Corridor. 

Uncertainties are assessed qualitatively and assumptions are provided where needed to help 

manage the uncertainties. 

4.4.3 Reactor Core Disposition Alternatives - Schedule(s) 

The current alternative for the reactors is ISS, where this has not already been completed (see 

Table 4-2 for reactor status). The removal of the reactors from the 100 Areas to the Central 

Plateau is not currently in DOE’s cost estimates. The schedule for removal of the reactors will 

be established based on cleanup priorities, funding availability, and on the following 

considerations. 

Removal of the reactors must be completed by 2068 based on the ROD issue date of 1993 

and a maximum 75-year storage period; therefore, removal must start by FY 2054, based 

Reactor Core Disposition

1. Lower bound alternative: Safe 

storage followed by deferred 

one-piece removal.

2. Upper bound alternative: Safe 

storage followed by deferred 

dismantlement.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-18

on a 14-year implementation period for the one-piece removal alternative and FY 2038, 

based on a 30-year implementation period for the dismantlement alternative. 

Under current planning, ERDF is scheduled to complete operations by 2055. If ERDF is 

to be the disposal location for the reactor cores, then removal actions would have to start 

no later than FY 2041, based on a 14-year implementation period for the one-piece 

removal alternative and no later than FY 2025, based on a 30-year implementation period 

for the dismantlement alternative. 

4.4.4 Reactor Core Disposition Upper Bound Alternative 

– Estimated Cost Deferred One-Piece Removal 

The costs for removing the reactors are provided as a sensitivity analysis and are summarized in 

Table 4-5. These costs represent removal of the reactors from the River Corridor to the Central 

Plateau and are based on the EIS (DOE/EIS-0119F) estimates that have been escalated to 2010 

constant dollars using an annual escalation rate of 2.3 percent; however the B Reactor is not 

included. 

Table 4-5. Estimated Costs for Removing Eight Reactor Cores from the River 

Corridor.

Reactor Core Removal Activities Costs (Million $)

(2010 dollars)

Engineering $128

Procurement Support $ 66

Decommissioning $482

Total $676

4.4.5 Reactor Core Disposition Results, Comparison, and 

Conclusions 

The cost to remove the reactors from the River Corridor (in 2010 dollars) is estimated at 

$676 million. The 1993 ROD (58 FR 48509), along with the supplement analysis 

(DOE/EIS-0119F-SA-01) concluded that the reactors would be removed by 2068. The actual 

schedule will be driven by funding availability and priorities at the Hanford Site. Other 

considerations include the final disposal location and availability of required workers and 

equipment. 

Regulatory agency and public input will factor into the ultimate schedule for removal of the 

reactors from the River Corridor. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-1 

5.0 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

The Central Plateau is a 75-square-mile area near the center of the Hanford Site that contains 

approximately 900 excess facilities, including five massive chemical processing facilities called 

canyons, and roughly 800 non-tank farm waste sites. The Central Plateau is also 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, telecommunication lines), either existing or to be constructed, in the 

Central Plateau are needed to support cleanup. This collection of facilities, waste sites, canyons, 

and ongoing waste management operations and infrastructure is spread across the Central 

Plateau. The tank waste and WTP facilities on the Central Plateau are discussed in Chapter 6.0

as part of DOE-ORP’s scope. 

During site operations, 450 billion gallons of liquid waste 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 with a combined area 

of approximately 66.5 square miles that exceeds drinking water standards (DOE/RL-2010-11, 

Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Report for 2009). A significant portion 

of the contamination remains in the soil column above the water table and poses a potential 

threat to groundwater. Interim groundwater treatment is in place for contaminant plumes in the 

200-West Area and in several locations in the 100 Areas. An ROD for the large carbon 

tetrachloride plume in the 200-West Area (200-ZP-1 OU) was signed in 2008 (EPA 2008, 

Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington).

Active waste management facilities are operating to support the ongoing cleanup and many of 

these facilities will be required to support cleanup in the future. These facilities include liquid 

effluent treatment, solid waste packaging and handling, solid waste disposal, spent fuel storage, 

analytical laboratories, and the WTP for treatment of radioactive tank waste. 

In the Central Plateau, the cleanup objective is to remediate waste sites and to decommission and 

demolish excess facilities in a manner that is protective of the environment, safe for the worker, 

and cost effective. Central Plateau Cleanup is organized into three major components: Inner 

Area, Outer Area, and Groundwater (DOE/RL-2009-81, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion 

Strategy). 

The Inner Area is defined as the part of the Hanford Site that will require long-term waste 

management and containment of residual contamination. The objective is to make this area as 

small as practical and is anticipated to be less than 10 square miles. 

The Outer Area includes 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 (that is, 

suitable for unrestricted surface use, under continued Federal ownership and control, and 

consistent with the anticipated future land use of conservation/mining). 

The goal of the groundwater component is to restore it to its beneficial uses. TPA milestone 

revisions, which support this approach, were recently finalized (October 25, 2010) 

(Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-2 

Cleanup work scope in the Central Plateau is managed through five projects: 

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011 (Inner Area). 

Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030 (entire Hanford 

Site, including both Inner and Outer Areas and the River Corridor). 

Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040 (includes the geographical 

cleanup of waste sites and facilities, including the remaining canyon facilities [Inner and 

Outer Areas]). 

Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042 (includes the Fast 

Flux Test Reactor [located in River Corridor]). 

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

Figure 5-1 presents the remaining cleanup schedule for the Central Plateau. Cleanup is being 

done in accordance with RODs and action memoranda as listed in Appendix D and with key 

TPA milestones as listed in Table 5-1. 

Figure 5-1. Central Plateau Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-3 

Table 5-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (4 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011

M-083-43

Complete transition of the 242-Z Waste Treatment Facility and 

236-Z Plutonium Reclamation Facility to support PFP

decommissioning.

9/30/2013

M-083-44

Complete transition of the 234-5Z (Plutonium Conversion Facility) 

and ZA (Plutonium Conversion Support Facility), 243-Z Low-Level 

Waste Treatment Facility, 291-Z Exhaust Building, and 291-Z-1 

Exhaust Stack to support PFP decommissioning. 

9/30/2015

M-083-00A Complete PFP facility transition and selected disposition activities. 9/30/2016

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

M-016-00 Complete remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon 

OUs.

9/30/2024

M-016-200A Complete U Plant Canyon (221-U Facility) demolition in accordance 

with the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

9/30/2017

M-016-200B Complete U Plant Canyon (221-U Facility) barrier construction in 

accordance with the remedial design/remedial action work plan.

9/30/2021

M-037-10

Complete unit-specific closure requirements according to the closure 

plan(s) for seven (7) TSD units: 207-A South Retention Basin, 

216-A-29 Ditch, 216-A-36B Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, 216-B-63 

Trench, Hexone Storage and Treatment Facility (276-S-141/142), 

and 241-CX Tank System (241-CX-70/71/72). 

9/30/2020

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. 9/30/2016

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

M-085-01 Submit a change package to establish a date for major milestone 

M-085-00.

9/30/2012

M-085-50

Submit revised removal action work plan for the 224B Concentration 

Facility in accordance with DOE/RL-2004-36, Action Memorandum 

for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 224-B Plutonium 

Concentration Facility.

12/31/2015

M-085-51

Submit removal action work plan for the 224T Transuranic Storage 

and Assay Facility in accordance with DOE/RL-2004-68, Action 

Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

224-T Plutonium Concentration Facility.

12/31/2025

M-085-60 Complete Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis report(s) for all 

Tier 2 facilities listed in Appendix J of the Tri-Party Agreement.

3/31/2018
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-4 

Table 5-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (4 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

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

M-91-00

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 

Milestone M-091-44T

M-091-01

Complete the acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing 

facilities, and modification of planned facilities necessary for 

retrieval, storage, and treatment/processing, of all Hanford Site 

RCRA TRUM waste.

Date to be established 

pursuant to 

Milestones 

M-091-01A and 

M-091-01B

M-091-01A

Complete the conceptual design for acquisition of capabilities and/or 

acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing facilities, 

and/or modification of planned facilities necessary for retrieval, 

designation, storage, and treatment/processing prior to disposal of all 

Hanford Site RH TRUM waste and TRUM waste in large containers

(in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable 

storage).

9/30/2016

M-091-01B

Complete the definitive design for acquisition of capabilities and/or 

acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing facilities, 

and/or modification of planned facilities necessary for retrieval, 

designation, storage, and treatment/processing prior to disposal of all 

Hanford Site RH TRUM waste and TRUM waste in large containers

(in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable 

storage).

9/30/2018

M-091-40

Complete the retrieval and designation of CH retrievably stored 

waste in burial grounds 218-W-4B, 218-W-3A, and 218-E-12B.

9/30/2016

M-091-41

Complete retrieval and designation of RH retrievably stored waste

(regardless of package size, including the 200 Area caissons).

12/31/2018

M-091-41A Complete retrieval of non-caisson RH, retrievably stored waste. 9/30/2016

M-091-42

Complete the treatment of small container CH MLLW (in 

aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable storage)

to meet applicable LDR treatment standards in compliance with 

WAC 173-303-140.

9/30/2017

M-091-43

Complete the treatment of large container CH MLLW and RH

MLLW (in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in 

retrievable storage).

9/30/2017

M-091-44

Complete the treatment of large container CH TRUM waste and RH

TRUM waste (in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in 

retrievable storage).

12/31/2030

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.

09/30/2018
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-5 

Table 5-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (4 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-091-46

Complete the certification of small container CH TRUM waste (in 

aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable storage).

9/30/2017

M-091-46H

Complete off-site shipment of all small container CH TRUM waste 

(in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable 

storage).

09/30/2018

M-092-05 Determine disposition path and establish interim agreement 

milestones for Hanford Site cesium/strontium capsules. 6/30/2017

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

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.

12/31/2016

M-015-21A Submit a 200-BP-5 and 200-PO-1 OU feasibility study report and 

proposed plan(s) to Ecology.

12/31/2012

M-015-38B

Submit a revised feasibility study report and revised 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.

4/30/2012

M-015-91B Submit feasibility study report(s) and proposed plan(s) for the 

200-BC-1/200-WA-1 OUs (200-West Inner Area) to EPA. 6/30/2013

M-015-92B

Submit corrective measures study and feasibility study report(s) and 

proposed corrective action decision(s)/proposed plan(s) for the 

200-EA-1 and 200-IS-1 OUs (Central Plateau 200-East Inner Area) 

to Ecology.

6/30/2014

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.

12/31/2016

M-015-110B

Submit corrective measures study and feasibility study report and 

proposed plan/proposed corrective action decision for the 200-DV-1

OU to Ecology.

9/30/2015

M-015-110D

Submit technetium-99 pilot scale treatability study test report(s) as 

an element of remedial investigation for the 200-BC-1/200-WA-1

OUs to EPA.

6/30/2012

M-016-120

DOE will have a groundwater treatment system (not to exceed 

50 gal/min pump-and-treat capacity) for the technetium-99 plume at 

the S/SX Tank Farm within the 200-UP-01 OU.

12/31/2011

M-016-122

Begin Phase I operation of the new 200-West pump-and-treat system 

per the 200 West Area 200-ZP-1 Pump-and-Treat Remedial 

Design/Remedial Action Work Plan (DOE/RL-2008-78) and the 

200-ZP-1 Record of Decision (EPA 2008).

12/31/2011

M-024-00O Complete required well installations in accordance with the RCRA 

and CERCLA groundwater requirements.

TBD

M-037-02

Submit revised closure plans to support TSD closure for five TSD 

units: 207-A South Retention Basin, 216-A-29 Ditch, 216-A-36B 

Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, and 216-B-63 Trench.

06/30/2014
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-6 

Table 5-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (4 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-037-03 Submit revised closure plans to support TSD closure for two TSD 

units: 216-B-3 Main Pond System, and 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch.

04/30/2012

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq. 

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-2004-68, 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-2008-78, 2009, 200 West Area 200-ZP-1 Pump-and-Treat Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Rev. 0 

Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

WAC 173-303-140, ―Land Disposal Restrictions,‖ Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.

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.

NM = nuclear material.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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.

5.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) 

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) complex was constructed at the Hanford Site 200-West 

Area in the late 1940s. Its mission was to convert plutonium nitrate product to the more stable 

oxide, metal, and oxalate forms for safer shipment to nuclear weapons fabrication facilities. 

In 1989, plutonium production operations ended at PFP and removing the plutonium inventory 

and plant D4 were assigned high national priority (HNF-EP-0924, History and Stabilization of 

the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex Hanford Site).

Cleanup and demolition to slab-on-grade of the PFP complex is being conducted as a closure 

project under NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011), also known as the 

PFP Closure Project (DOE/RL-2005-13, CERCLA Non-Time Critical Removal Action 

Memorandum for PFP Above-Grade Structures). To begin the PFP closure process, about 

20 tons of plutonium-bearing material stored at PFP required an integrated DOE-wide 

disposition strategy. In 2004, PFP completed the project to recover, stabilize, and package the 

inventory to meet updated safety standards in addition to shipping designated plutonium-bearing 

material to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Shipment of the remaining PFP plutonium 

inventory to DOE storage facilities was completed in 2009. 

The PFP Closure Project scope requires D4 of PFP systems and structures to accomplish the 

defined project end-point completion criteria in compliance with all applicable agreements, 

regulations, and CERCLA, RCRA, and other applicable processes. This effort eliminates 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-7 

significant hazards to workers, the public, and the environment, and additionally minimizes 

long-term risks and costs. 

Major cleanup objectives for PFP closure are to: 

Remove plutonium-bearing material and waste, including un-irradiated fuel, slightly 

irradiated fuel, and other nuclear materials from PFP facilities (removing the plutonium 

inventory was completed in 2009; residual plutonium is removed in the cleanup process). 

Eliminate the Protected Area at PFP (this scope was completed in 2009). 

Clean out and demolish facilities in the PFP complex (currently underway with two 

major and numerous minor facilities complete). 

Transfer the remainder of the PFP complex to RL-0040 for final remediation. Waste 

sites and subsurface facilities will be managed through the remediation of the 

200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5 OUs and the new 200-WA-1 OU. 

Figure 5-2 presents the NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) work elements 

along with the remaining cleanup schedule. Table 5-2 provides a summary of the scope of each 

of these work elements. 

Figure 5-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-8 

Table 5-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant PFP

This work element is focused on maintaining building integrity and safety systems 

during D4 efforts. Tasks include maintaining worker/public health and environmental 

safety; maintaining an environmentally compliant facility; maintaining facility systems 

and components; maintaining the maintenance program; and maintaining special 

projects.

Disposition PFP

Facility

This work element includes planning, preparation, engineering, sampling, 

procurement, and other tasks necessary to execute the removal of plutonium holdup 

material (e.g., material in ducting), deactivation, and disposition of aboveground PFP 

facilities before transitioning the below-grade components (e.g., below-grade 

structures and waste sites) to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040) for surveillance and maintenance and final remediation. D4 activities 

will be completed for the buildings and facilities in the PFP area, reducing them to 

slab-on-grade as part of this activity. Slab-on-grade is defined as a concrete slab, 

typically the first floor of a building resting on grade (earth) that is free of dispersible 

radiological contamination.

Project Management 

and Support

This work element includes project management and support to the PFP D4 activities 

including procurement and project controls. This work element includes technical 

support, such as engineering, quality assurance, and procedure and document 

maintenance.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear material.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

Figure 5-3 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for NM Stabilization and 

Disposition-PFP (PBS RL-0011) work scope by fiscal year; Figure 5-4 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Accelerated work scope funded by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act contribute to initial peaks, and then costs decline for the 

remainder of the lifecycle as facilities undergo D4 to slab-on-grade. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

5-9

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

Figure 5-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-10

Figure 5-4. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$100

$200

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-11

5.2 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) 

The Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), also known as the 

Groundwater Project, includes the following: 

The regulatory decision-making process for all the groundwater OUs on the Hanford Site. 

Remediation of all the groundwater on the Hanford Site in accordance with the 

groundwater OU decisions. 

The regulatory decision-making process for the River Corridor waste sites 

(PBS RL-0041). 

The regulatory decision-making process for the Central Plateau waste sites (remediation 

of waste sites is part of the Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford [PBS RL-0040] 

project scope). 

The regulatory decision-making process and remediation for the soil 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 both 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 (Figure 5-5). 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 have also reached the Columbia River. An important target TPA milestone is to 

contain or remediate the hexavalent chromium groundwater plumes in the 100 Areas by the end 

of 2012 so that water quality standards are achieved, and to have groundwater remedies in place 

for strontium-90 and uranium by 2015. 

The major chemical contaminants present in Hanford Site groundwater include carbon 

tetrachloride, chromium, cyanide, nitrate, and trichloroethene. Major radioactive contaminants 

include iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium. The major groundwater 

plumes in 2009 and their locations are shown in Figure 5-5. Other groundwater contaminants 

that exceed drinking water standards in several Hanford Site areas but are of limited extent 

include sulfate, fluoride, metals (manganese, iron, antimony, arsenic), total petroleum 

hydrocarbons (diesel), volatile organic compounds (cis-1,2-dichloroethene, methylene chloride), 

and radioactive contaminants (cesium-137, gross alpha, gross beta, plutonium-239/240) 

(DOE/RL-2010-11). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-12

Figure 5-5. Major Hanford Site Groundwater Plumes in 2009. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-13

The Groundwater Project has three major objectives (DOE/RL-2002-59, Hanford Site 

Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation): 

Take actions necessary to prevent degradation of the groundwater. 

Remediate groundwater to restore it to beneficial use where practicable and to protect the 

Columbia 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. The Hanford Site 

is divided into 10 groundwater OUs. Groundwater monitoring activities are also required by the

Atomic Energy Act and Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous 

Waste (WA7890008967). 

Groundwater cleanup in the River Corridor is divided into six groundwater OUs:

100-BC-5, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with activities 

conducted at the B and C Reactors and support facilities. No active remediation is in 

place, but the OU is being monitored and assessed for potential actions. 

100-FR-3, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the F Reactor 

and support facilities. No active remediation is in place, but the OU is being monitored. 

100-HR-3, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the D, DR, 

and H Reactors and support facilities. Active pump-and-treat systems are in place in both 

100-D and 100-H Areas and a semi-permeable barrier is in place in the 100-D Area under 

an interim ROD.

100-KR-4, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the KE and 

KW Reactors. Pump-and-treat systems are in place in the 100-K Area under an interim 

ROD.

100-NR-2, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the 

N Reactor. A former pump-and-treat system was used to address the strontium-90 

contamination at N Springs under an action memorandum and testing of an apatite barrier 

is ongoing at the 100-N Area. 

300-FF-5, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with activities in 

the 300 Area. The 300 Area groundwater is being monitored and evaluated under an 

interim ROD.

The groundwater underlying the Central Plateau is divided into four groundwater OUs: 

200-BP-5, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the B Plant 

processing facility and associated waste sites in the northeast quadrant of the Central 

Plateau. No active remediation is in place, but the OU is being monitored and assessed 

for potential actions. 

200-PO-1, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the 

Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Plant processing facility and associated waste 

sites in the southeast quadrant of the Central Plateau, including the BC cribs and trenches. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-14

No active remediation is in place, but the OU is being monitored and assessed for 

potential actions. 

200-UP-1, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the U Plant 

and Reduction-Oxidation (REDOX) processing facilities and the associated waste sites in 

the southwest quadrant of the Central Plateau. An active pump-and-treat system is in 

place for the 200-UP-1 OU under an interim ROD. 

200-ZP-1, which addresses contamination associated with the T Plant and PFP processing 

facilities and associated waste sites in the northwest quadrant of the Central Plateau. 

An active pump-and-treat system was put in place in the 200-ZP-1 OU under an interim 

ROD. A new pump-and-treat system is being constructed to fulfill the requirements of 

the 2008 ROD for this OU. This OU is also supported by 200-PW-1 (previously known 

as 200-ZP-2), which is a source OU that is remediating carbon tetrachloride 

contamination above the water table at several PFP waste sites using active and passive 

vapor extraction systems in place under an action memorandum. 

The work scope for the Groundwater Project is organized into 10 Level 2 work elements as 

shown in Figure 5-6, which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule for PBS RL-0030. 

Table 5-3 provides additional details on the scope of work for each of these work elements. 

The end dates of several work elements in Figure 5-6 reflect planning estimates of the duration 

of groundwater remediation and long-term groundwater monitoring, well support, well 

maintenance, reporting, and project management. Since most of the groundwater OUs do not 

have RODs yet, the planning estimates will be updated in future reports as remedial decisions are 

completed (e.g., the cleanup timeframe in the ROD for the 200-ZP-1 OU is estimated at 

125 years). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-15

Figure 5-6. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-16

Table 5-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Integration and 

Assessments

This work element is comprised of six parts: Strategic Integration, Technical Integration 

and Assessments, Remediation Decision Support, Remediation Science and Technology, 

Sample and Data Management, and Environmental Databases. This integration function 

coordinates and focuses Hanford Site characterization and assessment efforts to ensure 

consistency, eliminate information gaps and overlaps, apply science and technology new 

to the Hanford Site, foster technical peer review, and integrate remediation decisions.

Recharge Control This work element includes the preparation and submittal of a prioritized list of 

recommended service water line upgrades or storm water run-off control projects on an 

annual basis. Priority will be given to those projects that have potential to impact 

groundwater based on known or potential service water line leakage locations with 

respect to waste sites/subsurface contamination.

Drilling This work element includes planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling and 

well decommissioning for Hanford Site wells according to project-specific requirements. 

This includes drilling wells to Washington State standards and preparing all required 

submittals and notifications required by State law and providing well-related information 

for Hanford Site databases. Aspects of drilling include technical coordination, 

procurement, labor, subcontracts, materials, and equipment for project planning; 

documentation; field support during drilling; and project closeout to support drilling 

wells for groundwater monitoring and optimization of groundwater treatment systems.

Project Management This work element includes program management oversight; business management and 

integration; project control and integration; engineering and maintenance; environmental, 

safety, health and quality; and technical support.

Integrated Field 

Work

This work element includes services, infrastructure, material, equipment, labor, and 

contracts that are used to plan, support, and perform field work. It includes non-OU

related well maintenance, monitoring, and reporting. Major elements include operations 

and maintenance, training, field equipment purchases, unanticipated field work, and 

maintenance, monitoring, and reporting for wells that are not aligned with a specific OU.

Groundwater 

Monitoring and 

Performance 

Assessments

This work element includes:

Operation, maintenance, sampling, and dismantlement of the Modutanks that are 

used for disposal of groundwater from on-site well sampling and maintenance, 

characterization, and remediation activities.

Management, oversight, and performance of borehole and geophysical logging to 

support characterization and remedial decisions.

Groundwater sampling, analysis, monitoring, evaluation, assessment, and reporting 

for RCRA TSDs, CERCLA OUs, and other permitted facilities and sites. 

Coordination and management of groundwater sampling and water level 

determinations.

Operation, maintenance, and relocation of the Hanford Site 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.

Project management for these activities.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-17

Table 5-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Groundwater OUs 

Decision Documents 

and Remediation

This work element includes the management and implementation of groundwater

remediation for the Hanford Site, including:

Implementing the RI/FS process for groundwater OUs by performing remedial 

investigations and feasibility studies leading to final RODs.

Preparing DQO reports, sampling and analysis plans, waste management plans, and 

other regulatory documentation, as needed, for all groundwater OUs.

Conducting as needed field studies to support decision making and design.

Designing treatment systems in accordance with the RODs and remedial action work 

plans.

Implementing the treatment systems in accordance with the design and the ROD

requirements.

Conducting ongoing monitoring and reporting.

Maintaining system and monitoring wells.

The work scope is managed by OU and is consistent between the OUs. Figure 5-7

provides an overview of the active groundwater remediation efforts. Details of the actual 

assumptions for this work element are provided in Table 5-4.

Regulatory 

Decisions

This work element includes planning, management, characterization, documentation, and 

other associated activities necessary to complete the remedial decision process for each 

closure zone, including closure plans for RCRA TSD sites. Specific activities include 

RI/FSs, proposed plans, closure plans, engineering evaluation/cost analyses, DQOs, 

sampling and analysis plans, RODs, and other documents and activities leading to 

remedial decisions and remediation planning. Following completion of assessment 

activities through decision documentation (e.g., ROD or closure plan), completion of the 

remedial design/remedial action work plan and waste site/facility remediation and/or 

closure will be addressed under Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040). The reorganization of Central Plateau OUs resulting from the 

October 2010 TPA changes to Central Plateau Cleanup is summarized in Table 5-5.

Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests

This work element involves conducting the deep vadose zone treatability test(s) in 

accordance with the Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central 

Plateau (DOE/RL-2007-56), conducting cross-cutting engineering and technical studies 

necessary to support decision-making for Central Plateau remediation of the Deep 

Vadose Zone OU, and evaluating tradeoffs associated with remedial action decisions. 

The preliminary types of studies planned include:

Risk methodology studies, including evaluation of modeling and calculation 

methods, evaluation of contaminant distribution coefficients, soil moisture recharge 

rate, and other technical parameters affecting modeling.

Program support studies, including development of risk communication tools and 

technical basis documentation.

Risk tradeoff/sensitivity studies, including risk comparisons for various disposal 

alternatives and comparison of regional risk versus Hanford Site risk.

Treatability/optimization studies, including evaluation of previous treatability tests 

to identify potential applicability to Central Plateau remediation, and evaluation of 

excavation, characterization, and treatment methods that may be considered during 

the Central Plateau RI/FS process.

Other studies as identified to respond to emerging issues and priorities.

Table 5-6 describes the currently identified treatability tests.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-18

Table 5-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Deep Vadose Zone 

OU

This work element addresses mitigation of the contamination present at the Hanford Site 

in the deep vadose zone. The initial action planned for this OU is the development of the 

decision documents. Other tasks for this OU, such as remedial action planning and 

implementation; well support activities; monitoring and reporting support; OU

modifications and expansions; field studies and deployment activities; and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of the OU remediation activities at the conclusion of 

the project, will be included following the decision process.

Changes to the TPA have been undertaken to add milestones for testing remedial 

technologies and to establish a new deep vadose zone OU (200-DV-1). In addition, DOE 

is establishing a project team to focus on the development and evaluation of deep vadose 

zone remedies. DOE is also establishing the Deep Vadose Zone Applied Field Research 

Center at the Hanford Site, which would be the focal point for investigation and 

resolution of critical deep vadose zone issues at the Hanford Site and within the DOE 

complex.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

DOE/RL-2007-56, 2008, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central Plateau, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DQO = data quality objectives.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-19

Table 5-4. Groundwater Operable Unit Remediation.

Groundwater 

Operable Unit Current Remedial Action Planning Assumption Remedial Action

Estimated Period of 

Remediation

100-BC-5 None Pump-and-treat 10 years

100-FR-3 None Pump-and-treat 10 years

100-HR-3 Pump-and-treat systems in 

D and H Areas; semipermeable barrier

Expanded pump-and-treat 

augmented with 

electrocoagulation 

treatment; bioremediation; 

inject zero valent iron into 

existing semi-permeable 

barrier

Through FY 2020

100-KR-4 Pump-and-treat systems in 

KE and KW areas

Continued pump-and-treat Through FY 2018

100-NR-2 Pump-and-treat formerly 

operated; testing apatite 

reactive barrier

Expansion of apatite 

reactive barrier, total 

petroleum hydrocarbon

plume remediation, 

phytoremediation

Through FY 2020

200-BP-5 None Pump-and-treat Through FY 2022

200-PO-1 None Monitored natural 

attenuation

Not yet identified

200-UP-1 Pump-and-treat system Expanded pump-and-treat 

system

Through FY 2039

200-ZP-1 Pump-and-treat system Expanded pump-and-treat 

system

Through FY 2036

200-ZP-2 Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor extraction Through FY 2043

300-FF-5 Monitoring and 

institutional controls

Install polyphosphate 

barrier

Through FY 2024
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-20

Table 5-5. Central Plateau Soil Operable Unit Remediation.

New Operable Units (October 2010) Changes to Previous Operable Units

200-PW-1/3/6, 200-BC-1, and 200-CW-5 No additions or deletions of waste sites.

B Plant Canyon/associated waste sites (200-CB-1) Waste sites, including pipelines, in close proximity to the 

canyon building are reassigned to the new 200-CB-1 OU.

PUREX Canyon/associated waste sites (200-CP-1) Waste sites, including pipelines, in close proximity to the 

canyon building are reassigned to the new 200-CP-1 OU.

REDOX Canyon/associated waste sites (200-CR-1) Waste sites, including pipelines, in close proximity to the 

canyon building are reassigned to the new 200-CR-1 OU.

Solid Waste Burial Grounds (200-SW-2) Waste sites in the footprint of the burial grounds are 

reassigned to the 200-SW-2 OU.

200-West Inner Area (200-WA-1) Other sites in the 200-West Area not included in 200-CR-1, 

200-IS-1, 200-PW-1/6, 200-BC-1, 200-CW-5, or 200-SW-2 

are reassigned to the new 200-WA-1 OU.

200-East Inner Area (200-EA-1 and 200-IS-1) 200-IS-1 sites not included in one of the canyon OUs remain 

in the 200-IS-1 OU. Other waste sites not included in 

200-CB-1, 200-CP-1, 200-PW-3, or 200-SW-2 are 

reassigned to the new 200-EA-1 OU.

Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1) Waste sites from the 200-TW-1/2 and 200-PW-5 OUs that 

have contaminants in the deep vadose zone are reassigned to 

the new 200-DV-1 OU.

Outer Area (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3) One site from 200-CW-1 OU is reassigned to the 200-SW-2 

OU. Other 200-CW-1 sites and the 200-CW-3 sites will 

remain in their existing OU. Sites from other OUs that are 

located in the geographically-based Outer Area are 

reassigned to the new 200-OA-1 OU.

OU = operable unit.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-21

Figure 5-7. Overview of Hanford Site Groundwater Remedial Actions. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-22

Table 5-6. Summary of Deep Vadose Zone Treatment Technologies Being Tested.

Technology What is it? Reason for Treatability Testing

Desiccation Desiccation involves drying a targeted portion 

of the vadose zone by injecting dry air and 

extracting soil moisture. This reduces soil 

moisture that could transport contamination 

deeper.

Removing water from the vadose zone 

using desiccation has the potential to reduce 

the mobility of contaminants through the 

vadose zone.

In situ gaseous 

reduction

A reducing gas (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) is 

used to directly or indirectly reduce some 

contaminants so they are less soluble.

Has the potential to immobilize 

technetium-99 and uranium and has been 

demonstrated at the field scale for similar 

applications.

Multi-step 

geochemical 

manipulation

This developmental stage technique involves 

introducing gases into the vadose zone that 

create conditions for precipitation of minerals 

and contaminants.

Although still conceptual, it builds on the in 

situ gaseous reduction technology and 

provides potential for more effective 

immobilization of contaminants.

Grout injection Injection of grout or a binding agent into the 

subsurface to physically or chemically bind or 

encapsulate contaminants.

Grouting technologies have the potential for 

use as part of a remedy for the deep vadose 

zone.

Soil flushing Adding water and an appropriate mobilizing 

agent, if necessary to mobilize contaminants 

and flush them from the vadose zone into 

groundwater where they can be removed by a 

pump-and-treat system.

Provides a potential mechanism to remove 

subsurface contaminants; however, testing 

is needed to address technical uncertainties 

about mobilizing targeted contamination 

without mobilizing non-targeted mineral 

components. 

Surface barriers Surface barriers reduce subsurface water 

infiltration and the driving force for 

contaminant migration toward the 

groundwater.

Surface barriers are a baseline technology 

for near-surface contamination and a 

promising technology for controlling 

migration of contaminants in the deep 

vadose zone.

Figure 5-8 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for Soil and Water Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) by fiscal year; Figure 5-9 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Higher costs are anticipated for about the next 

10 years as groundwater remediation systems are placed in service and begin (or continue) 

operating. Remaining costs decline and primarily cover ongoing remediation operations, 

monitoring and reporting, and well support for the treatment systems. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

5-23

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

Figure 5-8. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-24

Figure 5-9. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$15

$30

$45

$60

$75

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-25

5.3 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. 

In addition to the Central Plateau Cleanup scope, PBS RL-0040 includes the infrastructure and 

services scope under Mission Support, which is discussed in Chapter 7.0. This section focuses 

on the cleanup-related elements of the PBS, also known (and referred to in the rest of this 

section) as the Central Plateau Remediation Project. The Central Plateau Remediation Project 

(PBS RL-0040) scope includes Hanford Site demolition and remediation scope that is organized 

into 26 geographical areas referred to as closure zones. 

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 (PBS RL-0040) scope includes implementing the 

decisions through the physical cleanup of canyon facilities, buildings and structures, waste sites, 

and miscellaneous sites (e.g., debris piles), and utilities to ensure appropriate protectiveness has 

been provided for the five canyon buildings and the Central Plateau waste sites and structures. 

To accomplish the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040), the following major 

objectives have been established: 

Perform safe S&M of facilities and waste sites pending remediation. 

Integrate planning and execution activities with other Central Plateau projects. 

Remediate waste sites. 

Decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) canyons. 

D&D excess facilities. 

The project will be complete when the following end point criteria have been reached: 

Canyons and surplus facilities removed or dispositioned and ready for transition to LTS. 

Central Plateau waste sites remediated in accordance with approved decisions. 

Legacy wastes and facilities at PNNL dispositioned. 

Institutional controls implemented. 

Post-remediation operations and maintenance requirements implemented. 

The work scope for the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) is organized into 

three primary Level 2 work elements as shown in Figure 5-10, which also presents the remaining 

cleanup schedule for this PBS. Table 5-7 provides additional details on the scope of work for 

each of these work elements. 

The duration of the work elements in Figure 5-10 includes planning estimates for completing 

remedial actions for the 26 Central Plateau and remainder of Hanford closure zones. 

The duration, in part, is dependent on transition of the tank farms to the project for final 

disposition after closure activities are completed by DOE-ORP (see Chapter 6.0). It is also 

dependent on transition of waste management facilities that are no longer needed to support 

Hanford Site cleanup from Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area 

(PBS RL-0013C) to the project for final disposition (see Section 5.5).
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-26

Figure 5-10. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

Table 5-7. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Regulatory Decisions This work element includes general management direction and technical/ESH&Q 

support, cross-cutting engineering and technical studies necessary to support decisionmaking for Central Plateau remediation and to evaluate tradeoffs associated with 

remedial action and facility disposition decisions, regulatory decisions for canyons and 

related nuclear process facilities, and regulatory decisions for below-slab remediation for 

non-canyon facilities.

Zone Environmental 

Remediation

This work element is the geographic remediation of closure zones in the Central Plateau. 

Each zone has a variety of cleanup features that can include waste sites, facilities, 

canyons, pipelines, and remedial barriers. 

The 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 of at ERDF.

S&M and Min-Safe 

for Facilities and 

Waste Sites

This work element includes surveillance and system, structural, equipment, and other 

maintenance on Central Plateau facilities/buildings and waste sites.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESH&Q = Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality.

PBS = project baseline summary.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-27

Figure 5-11 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Central Plateau Remediation 

Project (PBS RL-0040) by fiscal year; Figure 5-12 presents the remaining estimated cleanup 

costs by work element. Costs over the next 10 to 15 years are associated primarily with 

substantial cleanup of waste sites and facilities near B Pond and Gable Mountain Pond, B Plant, 

PFP, PUREX, REDOX, Semi-Works, and the solid waste burial grounds in 200-West Area. 

The cleanup remedies that the estimated costs are based on come from a range of alternatives. 

5.4 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. In December 1993, DOE issued 

a shutdown order for FFTF 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 the hazardous/radioactive materials, interim 

maintenance of the facilities, demolition, and disposal of the waste. The mission requires 

removal and dispositioning of sodium coolant, the Reactor Containment Building, reactor 

support buildings, and auxiliary facilities and support systems. The project technical objective 

will achieve the following: 

Remove and disposition sodium coolant and clean residual sodium. 

Fill spaces with grout below the 550-foot elevation level (grade level) of the Reactor 

Containment Building. 

Decommission and demolish all facilities. 

The regulatory decision for the FFTF containment building final closure, including the de-fueled 

reactor vessel, will be determined following the appropriate environmental analysis process. 

For planning purposes, the reactor containment dome is assumed to be removed, the below-grade 

Reactor Containment Building grouted and entombed, and the support facilities and structures 

demolished to 3 feet below grade and backfilled. The FFTF alternatives are being evaluated in 

DOE/EIS-0391, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. 

Waste sites within 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). 

These waste sites will be remediated in accordance with the ROD for the 300-FF-2 OU 

(EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington); the scope is included under 

PBS RL-0041 and discussed in Section 4.1.

Figure 5-13 shows the Level 2 scope elements and the remaining cleanup schedule for the 

Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042). Table 5-8 summarizes 

the work scope. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-28

Figure 5-11. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

5-29

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

Figure 5-12. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL

-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

2061

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-30

Figure 5-13. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. 

Table 5-8. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

FFTF Cleanup This work element includes monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of the FFTF and 

surrounding area in a safe and compliant manner until D&D; deactivation of the FFTF; 

disposition of the FFTF sodium; construction of a sodium reaction facility; 

decommissioning of the FFTF in accordance with a future record of decision; and project 

management for these activities. 

Infrastructure and 

Services

This work element includes activity related to a DOE-RL direct contract.

DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 5-14 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast 

Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) by fiscal year; Figure 5-15 shows the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Relatively low initial costs are indicative of the S&M 

period. Costs increase for about 15 years and are primarily associated with the construction of a 

sodium reaction facility, disposition of sodium, and the FFTF decommissioning efforts. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

5-31

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

Figure 5-14. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-32

Figure 5-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-33

5.5 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 Site facilities and operations. 

The major mission objectives are to: 

Operate Hanford Site waste treatment facilities, including T Plant, WRAP Facility, and 

200 Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facilities. 

Provide Base Waste Management Operations at the CSB and 200 Area Interim Storage 

Area, the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF), the Waste Encapsulation and Storage 

Facility for cesium/strontium capsule storage, and Low-Level Burial Grounds and mixed 

waste disposal trenches. 

Additional objectives are: 

Retrieve and ship transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal to the WIPP. 

Develop alternative methods for treatment and disposal of orphan waste. 

Obtain processing capabilities to include repackaging of large and remote-handled 

contaminated waste containers. 

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

Complete retrieval of stored underground TRU waste and dispose of waste. 

Mixed low-level and low-level waste will be treated as necessary and disposed. 

Waste management facilities will be deactivated at the end of their useful lives and will 

be turned over to Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final 

disposition. 

The 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 cap 

installation and final disposition. 

The ERDF will be operated to provide solid waste treatment and disposal services in 

support of Hanford Site cleanup after completion of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River 

Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041). 

The IDF will be closed according to the closure plan requirements in the Dangerous 

Waste Permit (WA7890008967). Closure will follow completion of tank waste 

vitrification. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-34

Figure 5-16 presents the scope elements and the remaining cleanup schedule for Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C). Table 5-9 summarizes each scope 

element. As waste management facilities are no longer needed to support Hanford Site cleanup, 

they will be transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for 

final disposition. 

Figure 5-16. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-35

Table 5-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Project Management This work element provides for the overall project management, coordination, direction, 

and customer interface to ensure the proper conduct of operation for this project.

Capsule Storage and 

Disposal

This work element 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)

This work element includes safe storage of SNF and immobilized high-level waste from 

the WTP while awaiting final disposition at the geologic repository, repackaging of SNF

for shipment, and coordination with the off-site repository for evaluations and 

information.

Mixed Low-Level 

Waste (MLLW) 

Treatment

This work element addresses treatment of MLLW to meet regulatory requirements. 

Treatment technologies include macro-encapsulation, stabilization, or thermal 

techniques, such as vacuum desorption. Once categorized, the waste will be prepared for 

shipment to the appropriate processing or treatment facility.

TRU Retrieval of 

Stored Waste

This work element consists of the retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD facility of 

both contact-handled and remote-handled solid stored underground TRU waste.

Waste Receiving and 

Processing (WRAP) 

Facility

This work element 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 This work element 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)

This work element 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 contact-handled TRU waste into 

shipping containers for shipment to WIPP.

Environmental 

Restoration Disposal 

Facility (ERDF)

This work element addresses the operation of the ERDF after turnover from the River 

Corridor Closure Project through the end of Hanford Site cleanup, including cell 

expansion and ERDF interim cover construction.

Liquid Effluent 

Facilities

This work element includes operation and maintenance of LERF, ETF, and 200 Area

TEDF to receive, store, treat, and dispose of liquid effluents from Hanford Site cleanup 

activities.

Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF)

This work element 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.

Low-Level and 

Mixed Low-Level 

Waste Disposal

This work element includes the operation and maintenance of the Low-Level Burial 

Grounds and includes activities such as assessments and surveillances; emergency 

preparedness; engineering; environmental sampling, monitoring, and reporting; fire 

protection; maintenance; material control; nuclear safety/industrial safety; occupational 

safety; procedure development; grounds maintenance; quality assurance/quality control; 

radiological control; training; and waste management. The scope includes maintaining 

burial ground 218-B-12, trench 94 in ready-to-serve status to support the U.S. Navy’s 

reactor compartment disposal program.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-36

Table 5-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches

This work element 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.

Sludge Disposition The scope 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.

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.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TEDF = Treated Effluent Disposal Facility.

TRU = transuranic.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

Figure 5-17 shows the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) by fiscal year; Figure 5-18 shows the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

5-37

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-17. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2011

2021

2031

2041

2051

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-38

Figure 5-18. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-39

5.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, there are uncertainties considered regarding estimate 

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. These 

assumptions reflect those associated with the costs presented in this version of the Lifecycle 

Report, and may not exactly align with DOE/RL-2009-81. As planning activities align with the 

strategy, these assumptions will be revised. This new alignment will be presented in future 

Lifecycle Reports. Key differences have been noted where appropriate. 

The following assumption is identified for NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP 

(PBS RL-0011) work scope: 

The annual funding for implementation of PBS RL-0011 will match the project request. 

For Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), the following 

assumptions are currently identified: 

The annual funding for implementation of PBS RL-0030 will match the project request. 

Planned characterization of the vadose zone below the high-level waste 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. 

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040), the following assumptions 

are currently identified: 

An industrial worker scenario will be used to define the exposure scenarios and the 

threshold cleanup levels for waste sites located within the 200 Areas. (Note: under 

DOE/RL-2009-81, the industrial worker scenario will be used in the Inner Area and a 

rural residential scenario will be used for the Outer Area.) 

The Central Plateau area of the Hanford Site will remain under Federal control for the 

foreseeable future. 

All low-level legacy waste will be managed and treated on the Hanford Site via remove, 

treat, and dispose to approved on-site disposal facilities. 

Planning assumes that geographic aggregate barriers will be utilized. 

Removal excavations typically will be 15 feet below grade. (Note: under 

DOE/RL-2009-81, excavation depths in the Inner Area are not defined, but the depth 

would be protective of humans, the environment, and groundwater. Excavation depths in 

the Outer Area would be up to 15 feet deep, to be consistent with remediation in the 

River Corridor.) 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-40

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), the following 

assumptions are currently identified: 

The annual funding profile for implementation of PBS RL-0042 will match the project 

request. 

FFTF funding to accomplish the scope can be carried over from year to year. Beginning 

in FY 2015, budget levels are to reflect an optimal ramp up to complete sodium residuals 

cleaning, bulk sodium processing, and D4 work scope. 

For Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C), the following 

assumptions are currently identified: 

The annual funding profile for implementation of PBS RL-0013C will match the project 

request. 

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 Site RCRA TRUM waste as required by 

TPA Milestone M-091-01.

WIPP will remain operational through the end of Hanford Site cleanup operations that 

have the potential to generate TRU waste.

5.7 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-SW-2

OPERABLE UNIT COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 

Twenty-five solid waste landfills (often referred to as burial grounds or burial trenches) are 

located within the 200-SW-2 OU on the Central Plateau (13 landfills are in the 200-West Area 

and 12 landfills are in the 200-East Area). Collectively, the 200-SW-2 OU landfills received 

between 450,000 and 460,000 cubic meters of a heterogeneous mixture of solid waste during 

operations that began in the mid-1940s. The 200-SW-2 OU landfills cover a cumulative area of 

over 680 acres, including layback and working margin within the perimeter. Each landfill is 

made up of burial trenches. The cumulative area of the trenches considered as part of this 

analysis is 545 acres (this area excludes unused landfills and trench sections where active storage 

is occurring). To date, no regulatory cleanup decisions have been made for the 200-SW-2 OU.

Much of the available information regarding the 200-SW-2 OU is summarized in 

DOE/RL-2004-60, 200-SW-1 Nonradioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit and 200-SW-2 

Radioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan. 

Waste volume and other information relevant to the 200-SW-2 OU were derived from 

DOE/RL-2004-60 and used for preparation of the information in this section and Appendix F. 

The quantity and quality of burial records and/or relevant historical information varies greatly; 

information generally is sparse for the earlier years and more substantive for waste buried after 

the late 1960s. 

For estimate development purposes, the 25 landfills in the 200-SW-2 OU have been sorted into 

six main categories, or bins, based on similar characteristics (DOE/RL-2004-60). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-41

The CERCLA RI/FS process is not complete for the 200-SW-2 OU. To support preparation of 

this Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies participated in working sessions to develop a range of 

plausible alternatives and describe a reasonable upper bound cleanup alternative, as follows: 

Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of all waste from within individual 

landfills (this is the reasonable upper bound). 

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 (this 

is the lower bound). 

The TPA agencies agreed that while fully removing all the 200-SW-2 OU waste may or may not 

ultimately be selected as the CERCLA remedy, providing information on a complete removal 

scenario (excavate, treat and dispose of all waste) would represent an upper bound in terms of 

cost estimates for these waste sites. The lower bound is represented by the in situ 

treatment/stabilization and capping option. 

Table 5-10 summarizes the lower bound alternative which is in situ treatment/stabilization of 

portions of individual landfills followed by capping, including continued cap maintenance and 

monitoring. The cost estimate includes project management activities and cleanup costs for each 

landfill bin. The current work scope and cost estimates for the 200-SW-2 OU are included in 

Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040); these cost estimates are 

presented in further detail in Appendix F of this Lifecycle Report. 

Table 5-10. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower Bound Cleanup Cost Estimate 

(shown in 2010 Constant Dollars).

Activities Cost

(Million $)

Overall Project Management and Support Activities $195

Remediation Definition $2

Operations and Maintenance $108

Bin 1 - TSD Unit Landfills $260

Bin 2 - Industrial Landfills $47

Bin 3 - Dry Waste Alpha Landfills $46

Bin 4 - Dry Waste Landfills $18

Bin 5 - Construction Landfills $10

Bin 6 - Caissons $0

Total (minus Cost and Schedule Uncertainty) $686

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty (20%) $137

Grand Total $823

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-42

The scope of the upper bound cleanup cost estimate is provided as a sensitivity analysis and 

includes removal of the individual waste trenches in each of the twenty-five 200-SW-2 OU

landfills, from the surface to the bottom of each waste trench, with the exception of the 218-W-6 

Burial Ground (it has been assumed that confirmational sampling and analysis will show this 

burial ground never received waste). The waste contained in the burial grounds ranges from 

low-dose rate materials, to high-dose rate materials, to potential alpha-contaminated materials. 

As radioactive components increase in concentration/activity within the waste, additional 

measures are required to protect workers, the environment, and the public; therefore, costs 

associated with these measures also increase, as does the time needed to complete the work 

scope. Disposal requirements also vary with the waste type; some material may require special 

disposal, such as at WIPP or a similar facility. 

To account for the variability in the waste and to address the range of associated cost and 

schedule impacts, three cost models were developed for this Lifecycle Report to address the 

different waste types and disposal pathways for the 200-SW-2 OU landfill wastes. 

Cost model 1 provided estimates for wastes that are expected to be suitable for disposal at 

ERDF, using practices similar to the River Corridor burial ground remediation. 

Cost model 2 provided estimates for solid wastes disposed of prior to 1970 and which 

when retrieved may contain more than 100 nanoCuries per gram of radioisotopes with 

periodic table element numbers greater than uranium; cost estimates used historic costs or 

current estimates for comparable Hanford Site activities. 

Cost model 3 provided estimates for high-dose wastes that have no easily identifiable 

handling or processing methods at the Hanford Site. 

Appendix F provides additional information on the cost models and their development. 

Costs for the 200-SW-2 OU upper bound cost estimate for remove, treat, and dispose (RTD) are 

presented in Table 5-11. Cost information is provided for each general category of activity and 

landfill bin. The total cost estimate in 2010 constant dollars for the upper bound alternative is 

$16.6 billion, including a reasonable provision of $5.5 billion to account for cost and schedule 

uncertainty. These cost estimates are presented in further detail in Appendix F of this Lifecycle 

Report. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

5-43

Table 5-11. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Upper Bound Cleanup Cost Estimate (shown in 2010 Constant 

Dollars).

Activities Cost

(Million $)

01.01 Overall Project Management and Support Activities $1,268

01.02 ERDF Expansion $180

01.03 Central Characterization Project $332

01.04 WRAP Base Operations and Min Safe $91

01.05 Bin 1 - TSD Unit Landfills $7,070

01.06 Bin 2 - Industrial Landfills $903

01.07 Bin 3 - Dry Waste Alpha Landfills $887

01.08 Bin 4 - Dry Waste Landfills $130

01.09 Bin 5 - Construction Landfills $23

01.10 Bin 6 - Caissons $142

Transport to WIPP 1$50

Total (minus uncertainty) $11,076

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty (50%) $5,538

Grand Total $16,614

1 This cost estimate has been developed only for purposes of this Lifecycle Report and does not appear in DOE’s current 

budget for WIPP.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).

Table 5-12 displays the cost estimates for both the lower and upper bound cleanup cost estimates 

for the 200-SW-2 OU. 

Table 5-12. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower and Upper Bound Cleanup Action Alternative Analysis.

Cleanup Action

Lower Bound Alternative 

Leave Waste in Place

(Million $)

Upper Bound Alternative

Remove, Treat and Dispose 

(Million $)

Remediate 200-SW-2 Operable Unit $823 $16,614

Estimated costs associated with the reasonable upper bound have not been added into the 

Hanford Site estimated cleanup cost information that is provided throughout the Lifecycle Report 

and shown in Appendix E. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-44

All estimated costs are intended strictly for planning purposes and do not account for many of 

the factors that would be part of a complete CERCLA RI/FS. As the CERCLA cleanup process 

continues, additional information will support development of potential alternatives; evaluation 

of feasibility, practicality, risk and benefits; and, refinement of associated cost estimates. 

Additional evaluation of other key decision parameters will occur through the CERCLA 

evaluation criteria in a feasibility study for the 200-SW-2 OU. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-1 

6.0 TANK WASTE CLEANUP 

Tank waste cleanup is performed by the RPP. The RPP is managed by DOE-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. 

The RPP mission is to retrieve and treat Hanford Site tank waste and close the tank farms to 

protect the Columbia River. As a result, DOE-ORP is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, 

and disposal of approximately 53 million gallons of mixed waste contained in Hanford Site 

waste tanks, and closure of all the tanks and associated facilities. The RPP work scope consists 

of two major elements: 

Safely manage the radioactive mixed waste stored in the Hanford Site’s underground 

storage tanks. This work element is conducted under Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014). 

Design, construct, and commission the WTP, which will treat and immobilize tank 

wastes into a vitrified glass form. This work element is conducted under Major 

Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060). 

Figure 6-1 illustrates the relationships between the various activities and integration of the 

elements for retrieval of the waste from the tanks, treatment to reduce hazards, and disposal. 

The RPP is comprised of the tank farms and WTP systems - nearly 200 interrelated waste 

storage, transfer, treatment, transportation, and disposal facilities. The RPP and these facilities 

are an important element of the DOE mission to protect the Columbia River. This chapter 

describes the RPP mission and scope as presented in ORP-11242, River Protection Project 

System Plan, Revision 4, along with cost and schedule information as of December 2010.1

The underground waste storage tanks were built in groups of 2 to 18 tanks; each group is known 

as a tank farm (A, AN, AP, AW, AX, AY, AZ, B, BX, BY, C, S, SX, SY, T, TX, TY, and 

U Tank Farms). Seven tank farms (comprised of 86 tanks) are located in the 200-West Area, and 

11 tank farms (comprised of 91 tanks) are located about 5 miles away in the 200-East Area. 

The tanks were constructed in a below-grade excavation and then backfilled to take advantage of 

the natural radiation shielding provided by the earth. The 177 underground storage tanks 

represent two basic design types: SSTs and DSTs. The smallest SSTs hold up to 55,000 gallons, 

while the largest DSTs hold up to 1,250,000 gallons. 

When the Hanford Site was in production, irradiated fuel from the reactors was transported to six 

separations facilities, called canyons, for the complex process of 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 their operations, the 

underground waste tanks and their contents remain. The radioactive liquid waste was transferred 

 

1Revision 5 of ORP-11242, River Protection Project System Plan, was released on November 17, 2010, and 

Revision 6 was in development at the beginning of calendar year 2011. This Lifecycle Reports reflects information 

from ORP-11242 Revision 4, and incorporates some important changes being contemplated pursuant to 

development of Revisions 5 and 6. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-2 

from the separations facilities as slurry, a liquid with suspended solids. Over time, the 

radioactive solids settled to the bottom of the tanks, creating a layer known as sludge. 

The clarified radioactive liquid above the sludge is known as supernatant or supernate. 

To reduce the total quantity of waste to be stored, the supernate was periodically decanted and 

transferred out of waste tanks for further processing. Supernatant liquids were routinely subject 

to a waste evaporation process. The evaporation process results in a separation of the heated 

waste slurry to a steam condensate fraction, which is relatively clean for further treatment and 

safe disposal, and a waste slurry fraction, which becomes more concentrated and is returned to 

the underground waste storage tanks. Historically, the concentrated waste slurry fraction cooled 

and began to form salt cake, a crystalline solid waste form. At one time, most tanks contained 

supernate, slurry, and saltcake waste forms simultaneously. Additionally, the cesium and 

strontium capsules in the Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility resulted from efforts to reduce 

fission products in the tanks. 

In addition, long-term storage at high temperatures as a result of heat from fission product decay 

contributed to the formation of a solid mass or group of large solids not easily removed called 

hard heels in the bottoms of some tanks. The current typical content of the tanks is depicted in 

Figure 6-2. More information regarding the tanks and the RPP can be found in ORP-11242.

The current strategy for tank waste cleanup involves a number of interrelated activities essential 

to the mission to retrieve and treat the Hanford Site’s tank waste and close the tank farms to 

protect the Columbia River. DOE-ORP will reduce risk to the environment posed by tank waste 

by: 

Retrieving the waste from 149 SSTs, transferring it to 28 DSTs, and delivering the waste 

to the WTP. 

Constructing and operating the WTP, which will safely treat all the high-level waste 

(HLW) fraction contained in the tank farms. Approximately one-third of the low-activity 

waste (LAW) fraction separated from the HLW fraction in the WTP will be immobilized 

in the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility. 

Developing and deploying supplemental treatment capability to treat the remaining 

two-thirds of the LAW. 

Developing and deploying waste feed preparation capability to mitigate sodium 

management issues. The goal is to minimize the quantity of glass by reducing 

contaminants that would require the addition of glass-forming additives. 

Developing and deploying treatment and packaging capability for potential 

contact-handled TRU tank waste with on-site storage prior to final disposition. 

Deploying interim storage capacity for the immobilized high-level waste pending 

determination of the final disposal pathway (national repository). 

Closing the SST and DST farms, ancillary facilities, and associated waste management 

and treatment facilities. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-3 

Figure 6-1. Simplified Process Diagram for Tank Waste Retrieval and Treatment. 

Misc. 

New 

Wastes

Other Hanford 

Facilities and 

IMUSTS

Evaporator

Liquid Effluent 

Retention Facility/ETF

A

Hanford Shipping 

Facility

Supplemental TRU 

Treatment Systems

28 Double-Shell Tanks

149 SingleShell Tanks

STORAGE TREATMENT

Planned Geologic Repository

Integrated 

Disposal Facility

State Approved Land 

Disposal Site

DISPOSAL (OFF-SITE)

DISPOSAL (ON-SITE)

WASTE TREATMENT PLANT

Retrieval 

Water and 

Chemicals

Retrieved 

Waste

Supernate for 

SST Waste 

Retrieval

Dilute 

Waste

Evaporator 

Bottoms

Water

Offgas

Evaporator Condensate

11 of the 149 SSTs may contain CH-TRU

Air

Carrier

Offgas

Liquid 

Effluent

Packaged TRU

A

C

High Level Waste

Low Activity Waste

Pretreatment

PT LAW

PT HLW

Solid Waste

Recycle

D

Recycle

Chemicals Air Offgas Air

Glass 

Formers Chemicals

Solid Waste

IHLW

Offgas

B

Liquid Effluent C

Offgas

Solid Waste

ILAW

Solid Waste

B

D

Treated Liquids

IHLW

Liquid Effluent

Legend

Existing Facilities

Design or Construction

Future Facilities

Retrieval 

Water and 

Chemicals

Air

Glass Formers

Chemicals

2

nd Low Activity 

Waste

Air

Glass Formers

Chemicals

Liquid Effluent

Liquid Effluent F

Offgas

Solid Waste

ILAW

F

E

E

Interim Storage at

Central Waste Complex

HLW & LAW Feed

CH = contact-handled.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

HLW = high-level waste.

IHLW = immobilized high-activity waste.

ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste.

IMUST = inactive miscellaneous underground storage tank.

LAW = low-activity waste.

PT = Pretreatment.

TRU = transuranic.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-4 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-5 

Figure 6-2. Depictions of Typical Tank Contents. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-6 

Major decisions regarding the use of supplemental treatment and the associated technology, the 

ultimate needed capacity, and the relationship of supplemental treatment to the WTP have not 

yet been completed. Decisions regarding supplemental treatment technology applications will 

depend partly on the outcome of the DOE/EIS-0391 process. 

The work scope for tank waste cleanup is organized into two PBSs, as shown in Figure 6-3, 

which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule. The overall schedule objective is to 

complete retrieval, treatment, and closure activities by the end of FY 2050. 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. 

Figure 6-3. Tank Waste Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

The DOE-ORP is developing and implementing operating strategies to meet the regulatory 

milestones from the Consent Decree and TPA Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology, 2010a) 

that became effective on October 25, 2010. For ORP-11242, the DOE-ORP specified ―success 

criteria,‖ a limited number of near-term and long-term dates, as proxies for approved milestones. 

The milestones shown in Table 6-1 were promulgated after Revision 4 of ORP-11242 was 

published, and were selected from the TPA and from the Consent Decree and TPA Settlement 

Package as those that best demonstrate significant progress. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-7 

Table 6-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones.

Milestone Description Compliance 

Date

M-062-40 Submit a system plan to Ecology describing the disposition of all tank waste 

managed by the Office of River Protection.

10/31/2011; 

every 3 years 

thereafter

D-00B-011 Complete retrieval of tank wastes from the following remaining SSTs in WMA C: 

C-101, C-102, C-104, C-105, C-107, C-108, C-109, C-110, C-111, and C-112.

9/30/2014

M-062-45-ZZ Submit a one-time supplemental treatment selection (a one-time selection to be 

made not later than April 30, 2015) and milestones.

4/30/2015

M-062-45 Every 6 years, within 6 months of the issuance of the last revision of the system 

plan, the parties will negotiate 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 8 years.

4/30/2015; 

every 6 years 

thereafter

M-045-82 Submit complete permit modification requests for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 (see 

Appendix I of Tri-Party Agreement) of the SST system, to support final closure 

requirements for WMA C.

9/30/2015

M-062-31-T01 Complete final design and submit a complete RCRA Part B permit modification 

request for Enhanced WTP and/or Supplemental Vitrification Treatment Facility 

based on the M-062-45 decision.

4/30/2016

D-00A-171 Hot start of WTP. 12/31/2019

M-045-85 Complete negotiations of HFFACO 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

D-00B-041 Complete retrieval of tank wastes from the nine SSTs selected to satisfy 

D-00B-02.

9/30/2022

M-062-34-T01 Complete hot commissioning of Supplemental Treatment Vitrification Facility 

and/or WTP Enhancements.

12/30/2022

D-00A-011 Achieve initial plant operations for the WTP. 12/31/2022

M-045-70 Complete waste retrieval from all remaining SSTs. Retrieval standards and 

completion definitions are provided in Milestone M-045-00.

12/31/2040

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

1

 Milestones from Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology, 2010a).

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.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-8 

6.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION 

(PBS ORP-0014) 

The 177 underground waste storage tanks and ancillary equipment, along with various support 

facilities and buildings, are primarily located in the Central Plateau 200-East and 200-West 

Areas. The waste composition varies widely, necessitating a variety of unique waste retrieval 

and treatment methods. In addition, many tanks are decades past their intended useful life. Some 

SSTs are known or are assumed to have leaked. In the 1950s and 1960s, approximately 

1 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste may have been inadvertently released into the 

environment, contaminating the soil and groundwater. Since that time, to the maximum extent 

possible, SSTs have been interim stabilized to minimize further risks to the groundwater. 

No leakage from the DSTs has been detected. 

The RPP mission is to protect the Columbia River by safely storing waste until treated and/or 

disposed and closing the underground storage tanks and associated facilities, in accordance with 

agreed upon regulatory pathways. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS ORP-0014) includes closure of the tanks, tank farms, and associated facilities. After 

closure, the remainder of the facilities will be transferred to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of 

Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition or LTS. 

The tank farms scope in this report includes planning for the lifecycle of the tank farms, beyond 

the term of the current contract, as detailed in ORP-11242, Revision 4. The scope of 

PBS ORP-0014 is organized into seven work elements as shown in Figure 6-4, which also 

presents the remaining cleanup schedule. Additional scope information on these work elements 

is provided in Table 6-2. 

Figure 6-4. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining 

Cleanup Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-9 

Table 6-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Base Operations This work element provides for safe storage of waste, reduces the volume of waste 

through evaporation, provides laboratory support, and includes necessary support 

activities such as project management.

Retrieve and Close 

SSTs

This work element 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

This work element 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.

Supplemental Treatment This work element includes planning and analysis for supplemental low-activity 

waste treatment and contact-handled TRU handling, up to and including design and 

construction.

Treat Waste This work element includes preparation for hot commissioning, closure planning, and 

final closure activities. 

Facility Closures This work element 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).

Tank Operations 

Contract – ORP Project 

Support

This work element includes shared services and Mission Support.

DST = double-shell tank.

ORP = Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

Figure 6-5 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) by fiscal year; Figure 6-6 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Costs rise as the WTP commissioning and startup 

progress, then remain fairly steady until SST closure increases the cost requirement. Costs 

decline steadily as the treatment mission ends and tank farm closures are completed. 

The estimated cost for tank closure is based on the preferred alternative of the draft 

DOE/EIS-0391. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-10

Figure 6-5. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

Costs (Billions $)

Fiscal Year
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

6-11

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

Figure 6-6. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-12

6.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT PLANT (PBS ORP-0060) 

The mission of Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) is to design, 

construct, and commission the WTP to pre-treat and immobilize the mixed wastes currently 

stored in the Hanford Site’s underground storage tanks. Work is complete when the WTP 

construction is complete and the facilities are turned over to DOE-ORP’s operations contractor. 

Five main facilities are being constructed within the WTP: 

Pretreatment. 

Low-Activity Waste Vitrification. 

High-Activity Waste Vitrification. 

Balance of Facilities. 

Dedicated Analytical Laboratory. 

The scope for PBS ORP-0060 is organized into six main work elements, as shown in Figure 6-7, 

which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule. Additional scope information on these 

work elements is provided in Table 6-3. 

Figure 6-7. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-13

Table 6-3. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Pretreatment This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the 

Pretreatment Facility. When finished, pretreatment will physically and chemically 

condition the waste feed stream, separating the low-activity radioactive waste from 

the high-level radioactive waste. 

Low-Activity Waste 

(LAW)

This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the LAW

Vitrification Facility. When finished, the LAW will go into a melter preparation 

vessel where silica and other glass-forming material 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. 

High-Level Waste 

(HLW)

This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the HLW

Vitrification 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.

Balance of Facilities This work element includes design, construction and commissioning of the Balance 

of Facilities. When finished, the dedicated facilities and utilities will support the 

WTP.

Laboratory This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the 

Analytical Laboratory. When finished, samples will be analyzed to ensure the glass 

product meets requirements.

Plant Wide This work element includes cross-cutting services and equipment provided to the 

construction site.

HLW = high-level waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 6-8 presents the remaining estimated costs for Major Construction – Waste Treatment 

Plant (PBS ORP-0060) by fiscal year; Figure 6-9 presents the remaining estimated costs by work 

element. Annual costs exhibit a downward trend as WTP design is complete, facility 

completions increase, and the project moves toward commissioning and turnover. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-14

Figure 6-8. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

2011 2012 2013 2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

6-15

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

0

Figure 6-9. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-16

6.3 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 

The activities described for the RPP are assumed to be consistent with, and encompassed by, the 

outcome of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The operating scenarios 

continue to be reviewed against the assumptions in DOE/EIS-0391 as the planning process 

continues, and updated as appropriate. Unanticipated changes resulting from the NEPA process 

could impact assumptions. Detailed designs and processing of permits are subject to completion 

of the NEPA process and issuance of an ROD. 

ORP-11242, Revision 4, details assumptions and uncertainties for the RPP. The following is a 

summary of key assumptions. 

Cesium and strontium capsules will not be processed in the WTP. 

A planned off-site geologic repository will be ready to accept immobilized high-level 

waste (IHLW) canisters from the Hanford Site starting in April 2023 at a rate that does 

not require construction of additional interim storage beyond that planned for the 

Hanford Site Shipping Facility. On-site IHLW interim storage will be operational on or 

before May 17, 2019, and provide interim storage for at least 2,000 canisters. 

The current strategy to comply with the IHLW acceptance criteria is described in 

24590-HLW-PL-RT-07-0001, IHLW Waste Form Compliance Plan for the Hanford Tank 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. It is assumed that the strategy will be 

acceptable to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. It is further 

assumed that the WTP-prepared hazardous waste delisting petition for the IHLW is 

accepted by Ecology and the receiving state before shipping the waste to the planned 

off-site geologic repository. 

Supplemental LAW treatment capacity will be provided by a second LAW vitrification 

facility located adjacent to the WTP. The second LAW facility will have the same 

technical assumptions as the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility, will complete hot 

commissioning on September 30, 2021, and will begin full operations on October 

1, 2021.

Packaged contact-handled TRU waste will be interim stored on-site at the Central Waste 

Complex. 

Contact-handled TRU waste treatment and packaging process capability will be available 

in FY 2015 to support TRU tank waste retrieval. 

Waste previously assumed to be remote-handled TRU waste will be retrieved and treated 

at the WTP together with the HLW. 

The DSTs will remain fully operational for the nominal 40-year waste treatment mission 

duration. 

The 242-A Evaporator will continue to operate, as needed, through the life of the mission 

to support SST retrieval and to maintain the sodium concentration in the delivered feed 

within WTP feed specifications. The 242-A Evaporator will not be available during 

scheduled maintenance outages. 

Selected technologies will be able to meet retrieval (tank residual) requirements. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

6-17

Laboratory services required to support waste characterization for tank farm projects and 

operations are available and provided in a timely manner. 

The IDF is currently in standby mode and will be ready to serve upon completion of an 

operational readiness review, performance assessment, permit modification, etc. 

The activation will be completed when the IDF is needed by the WTP. The IDF will 

provide permanent disposal for the immobilized low-activity waste, other low-level 

waste, and mixed low-level waste, including: 

LAW glass packages from the WTP. 

Solid waste from the WTP, including spent LAW and HLW melters. 

Solid waste from the Effluent Treatment Facility from treating liquid effluent. 

The IDF can be expanded as needed to support the mission. 

The baseline case implicitly assumes that the outcome of official Waste Incidental to 

Reprocessing Waste Determinations will be consistent with the assumed disposition of 

the primary and secondary waste forms prior to disposal. 

The cross-site transfer system will be modified as needed to allow for the transfer of 

slurry into multiple DSTs to provide operational flexibility in management of waste and 

staging of feed to the WTP. 

Fiscal year funding will be available to support the baseline case, including that funding 

required for risk mitigating actions. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-18

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

7-1 

7.0 MISSION SUPPORT 

The Mission Support function is service-oriented and provides key infrastructure, utility, 

resource, and other Hanford Site-wide 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 provide grants and other support to the Hanford Site 

cleanup through Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100). 

There are a number of infrastructure-related Mission Support activities in place to support the 

cleanup. These Mission Support activities are managed under Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder 

of Hanford (PBS RL-0040), specifically under PBS elements RL-0040.04, RL-0040.05, and 

RL-0040.06. 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 Long-Term Stewardship (LTS) and is covered by PBS RL-LTS. 

Figure 7-1 presents the remaining cleanup schedule for Mission Support. 

Figure 7-1. Mission Support Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-2 

7.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) 

The scope of this PBS includes one primary work element: Safeguards and Security. Figure 7-2

presents the remaining cleanup schedule. Table 7-1 describes the work scope. Safeguards and 

Security will be required until cleanup is complete. The level of effort required to ensure 

protectiveness may diminish as nuclear material is shipped off-site and as the cleanup progresses. 

Figure 7-2. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

Table 7-1. 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.

Figure 7-3 provides the remaining estimated costs for Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) 

by fiscal year. Figure 7-3 shows two rising cost curves; however, annual costs are assumed to be 

a consistent level of effort, and escalation of the costs through time results in increasing annual 

costs. The drop in costs associated with the initial peak (after about 2024) is related to 

completion of remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon OUs, which reduces the 

level of Safeguards and Security needed. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

7-3

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

Figure 7-3. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2011

2021

2031

2041

2051

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-4 

7.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

The scope of this PBS includes grants, payment of fees, and payments in lieu of taxes. 

Figure 7-4 provides the remaining cleanup schedule for Richland Community and Regulatory 

Support (PBS RL-0100); Table 7-2 summarizes its scope of work. Additional details are 

provided in Appendix E.

Figure 7-4. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining Schedule. 

Table 7-2. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Richland 

Community and 

Regulatory Support

This work element includes DOE-RL support to community activities and regulatory 

agencies, such as the Hanford Advisory Board, the Oregon Department of Energy, the 

Natural Resource Trustee Council, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

other entities through grants, permits, and payment of fees.

DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 7-5 provides the remaining estimated costs for Richland Community and Regulatory 

Support (PBS RL-0100) by fiscal year. 

Figure 7-5 shows two rising cost curves; however, actual annual costs are assumed to be based 

on a generally standard level of effort, and escalation of the costs results in increasing annual 

costs. The drop in costs is related to the end of a number of grants following completion of 

remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon OUs. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

7-5

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

Figure 7-5. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2011

2021

2031

2041

2051

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-6 

7.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) 

Infrastructure and Services play a key role in completing the cleanup mission, and as noted in 

Chapters 3.0 and 5.0, the work scope is included within PBS RL-0040. Infrastructure and 

Services (PBS RL-0040) encompasses several areas of work scope. 

Infrastructure and Services provides for occupational medicine for Hanford Site employees, 

steam systems, legal support, land transfers, baseline management and integration, acquisition 

support, and real property asset management. 

The scope of Infrastructure Reliability Projects is to manage the repair and replacement of the 

Hanford Site’s infrastructure systems and to provide utilities for the Site infrastructure, including 

roads, telecommunications, and facility renovations. The scope includes Emergency Services for 

fire and emergency preparedness. Operation and maintenance of the Hazardous Materials 

Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training facility also is included. 

Under Real Estate and Site Planning, DOE-RL manages real property activities including 

land-use planning (for areas and specific parcels), management (including day-to-day 

implementation of DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement, and disposal of real estate (land and facilities) or related 

interests (including deeds, easements, licenses, permits and out leases). In FY 2012, DOE-RL 

has planned the Real Estate and Site Planning activities in the other scope elements in this PBS. 

Figure 7-6 provides the remaining schedule for Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040). 

Table 7-3 summarizes the scope for Level 2 activities. 

Figure 7-6. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

7-7 

Table 7-3. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure and 

Services

This work element includes occupational medicine; steam systems; legal support; land 

transfers; cleanup baseline, integration, and development; radiochemical processing 

laboratory and 300 Area transition; and real property asset management. 

HAMMER This work element includes operations and maintenance activities at the HAMMER 

facility in support of Hanford Site and other training.

Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects

This work element includes repair and replacement of infrastructure systems and 

provides capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. 

Also included are capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements for crane 

and rigging, electrical utilities, biological control, transportation, materials management, 

Hanford Fire Department, and water and sewer utilities.

Real Estate and Site 

Planning 

This work element includes development and implementation of an integrated lifecycle 

approach to furnish, operate, coordinate, maintain, and right-size land-use planning and

management services; operation and maintenance of Hanford Site services; and 

providing real property asset management services to include land-use planning, 

management, and disposal of real property interests, such as easements, licenses, permits, 

and leases; performing management of real property at the Hanford Site and coordinating 

the use of real property among Hanford Site contractors.

HAMMER = Volpentest HAMMER Training and 

Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.

The remaining estimated costs for Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) are shown in 

Figure 7-7 by fiscal year and in Figure 7-8 by work element. Costs decline sharply in about the 

last 20 years due to cleanup progress and reduction in waste management facilities. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-8

Figure 7-7. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051

2056

2061

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

7-9

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0

Figure 7-8. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

2061

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-10

7.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) 

Following the completion of Hanford Site cleanup actions, the disposal facilities and other areas 

will require long-term management. LTS and institutional controls activities will be required for 

portions of the Hanford Site to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

Institutional controls include non-engineered restrictions on activities and access to land, 

groundwater, surface water, waste sites, waste disposal areas, and other areas or media that 

contain hazardous substances to minimize the potential for human exposure to the substances. 

Common types of institutional controls include procedural restrictions for access, fencing, 

warning notices, permits, easements, deed notifications, leases and contracts, and land-use 

controls. The scope and duration of institutional controls will be based on a number of factors, 

such as residual contamination, the location of that material, reasonably anticipated future land 

and groundwater uses, and environmental impacts. DOE/RL-2001-41, Sitewide Institutional 

Controls Plan for Hanford CERCLA Response Actions, was developed to describe how DOE 

will implement and maintain the OU-specific institutional controls specified in CERCLA 

decision documents or the RCRA post-closure plans for 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, record-keeping 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 Hanford Site LTS Program consists of the management of the post-cleanup activities, as 

well as addressing the management of the Site’s resources and environment (e.g., cultural, 

biological, natural resources). The framework and approaches for LTS at the Hanford Site are 

described in DOE/RL-2003-39, Hanford Long-term Stewardship Program and Transition: 

Preparing for Environmental Management Cleanup Completion. 

DOE/RL-2010-35, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, defines long-term, 

post-cleanup responsibilities; maintains the protectiveness of the cleanup remedies being 

conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements; and provides a framework for a 

Hanford Site-wide LTS Program to institutionalize LTS across the Hanford Site. 

The Hanford Site LTS Program will manage 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 

post-closure plans. In addition to managing the post-cleanup completion obligations, the 

Hanford Site LTS Program will manage Hanford Site 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 Government treaties, DOE directives, and Hanford 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

7-11

Site procedures. When developed, the Hanford Site LTS Program’s planning basis will integrate 

stewardship and institutional controls planning to implement the program from present day to 

2060. 

Even though requirements for LTS and institutional controls will not be completely defined for 

many years, the scope, schedule, and costs of LTS and institutional controls, to the extent 

predictable, have been included in this Lifecycle Report for the period from 2061 to 2090. 

As decisions are made and LTS and institutional controls are better identified, more specific 

information will be presented as part of the cleanup actions described in respective sections of 

this Lifecycle Report. Figure 7-9 presents the remaining schedule and Table 7-4 provides a 

summary of the scope. 

Figure 7-9. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Schedule. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-12

Table 7-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure This work element includes operation and maintenance of Hanford Site infrastructure 

following cleanup activities. Specific scope will include supplying electrical and water 

utilities, operating and maintaining emergency services (Hanford Fire Department), and 

maintaining roads as needed to support Hanford Site LTS activities.

Waste Management This work element includes operation and maintenance of 200 Area liquid effluent 

facilities in support of groundwater treatment and monitoring activities.

Site and 

Environmental 

Monitoring

This work element includes ongoing Hanford Site and environmental monitoring of 

groundwater, soil, vadose zone, and monitoring for public safety and resource protection. 

Post-Closure 

Surveillance and 

Maintenance

This work element includes real estate and Hanford Site planning, land management, and 

surveillance and maintenance activities for the 100 and 200 Areas.

Environmental 

Compliance

This work element includes activities to ensure environmental compliance and 

protection.

Stakeholder 

Participation

This work element includes continued support of stakeholder participation through 

grants, and payment of fees in lieu of taxes.

Management and 

Administration

This work element provides for management and administration of these LTS activities.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 7-10 shows remaining estimated costs for PBS RL-LTS by fiscal year; Figure 7-11 shows 

the remaining estimated costs by work element. This PBS is assumed to run from FY 2061

through FY 2090. Annual costs decline due to effectiveness of cleanup efforts and as associated 

stewardship activities are reduced. Costs drop after about FY 2080 due to completion of waste 

management activities, after which annual cost increases are attributable to escalation. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011

7-13

DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev.

Figure 7-10. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

0

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2061

2066

2071

2076

2081

2086

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-14

Figure 7-11. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

2061

2066

2071

2076

2081

2086

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

8-1 

8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS 

8.1 SCHEDULE AND COST LIMITATIONS 

The Lifecycle Report is based on an annual compilation of scope, schedule, and cost 

information. In order to finish preparing the Lifecycle Report, it is necessary to select a deadline 

each year when the information used to prepare the report will be ―locked down.‖ 

For the 2011 Lifecycle Report, October 25, 2010, serves as the cut-off date. Unless noted 

otherwise, changes in the TPA and other applicable requirements, budget requests, 

appropriations, program funding allocations, and other financial and schedule changes after the 

noted cut-off time are not reflected in the current Lifecycle Report. 

8.2 OTHER LIMITATIONS 

Some of the activities described in the Lifecycle Report are subject to the analysis and 

decision-making requirements of CERCLA, RCRA, or other applicable statutes and regulations. 

The information included in the Lifecycle Report is for planning purposes only, not for decision 

making, which will be conducted following the applicable statutory and regulatory programs. 

As necessary, the Lifecycle Report includes explanations regarding decisions that are not yet 

reflected in the scope, schedule, and cost data used for the current report. 

Several non-DOE entities operate and manage property on the Hanford Site, typically under 

lease agreements with DOE. Examples include Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utility 

companies that oversee the Columbia Generating Station nuclear power reactor; the Laser 

Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, operated by a consortium of the California 

Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 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. 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 Lifecycle Report. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

8-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

9-1 

9.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

This chapter will be used to summarize opportunities to improve the Lifecycle Report. 

This chapter also will serve as a place to record recommended improvements received from 

EPA, Tribal Governments, the State of Oregon, Ecology, stakeholders, and others to improve 

future editions of the report. Because the 2011 Lifecycle Report is the first report produced, this 

chapter does not yet include identified improvements. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

9-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

10-1 

10.0 REFERENCES 

24590-HLW-PL-RT-07-0001, 2008, IHLW Waste Form Compliance Plan for the Hanford Tank 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, River 

Protection Project, Richland, Washington. 

31 U.S.C. 3515(b), Financial statements of agencies, United States Code, as amended. 

58 FR 48509, ―Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,‖ Federal Register, (September 16, 1993). 

64 FR 61615, ―Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement (HCP EIS),‖ Federal Register, (November 12, 1999). 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public Law 111-5, February 17, 2009. 

Atomic Energy Act, 42 USC 2011, et seq. 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

CP-22319-DEL, 2004, Plan for Central Plateau Closure, Fluor Hanford, Inc., Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE 2010a, Roadmap for EM’s Journey to Excellence, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. 

DOE 2010b, River Corridor Closure Project Project Execution Plan, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE and Ecology 2010a, Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order 

signed October 25, 2010, settling State of Washington v. Chu, United States District 

Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS. 

DOE G 413.3-8, 2008, Environmental Management (EM) Cleanup Projects, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE O 413.3B, 2006, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, 

Chg. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE/EIS-0119F, 1992, Addendum (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/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C. 

DOE/RL-2001-41, 2009, Sitewide Institutional Controls Plan for Hanford CERCLA Response 

Actions, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

10-2 

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-2003-39, 2003, Hanford Long-term Stewardship Program and Transition: Preparing 

for Environmental Management Cleanup Completion, 

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-2004-60, 2008, 200-SW-I Nonradioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit and 

200-SW-2 Radioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study Work Plan, 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, CERCLA Non-Time Critical Removal Action Memorandum for PFP 

Above-Grade Structures, 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-2007-56, 2008, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central 

Plateau, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2008-78, 2009, 200 West Area 200-ZP-1 Pump-and-Treat Remedial Design/Remedial 

Action Work Plan, Rev. 0 Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-10, 2010, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-2009-81, 2009, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy, Rev. 0, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2010-11, 2009, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Report for 

2009, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2010-35, 2010, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, Rev. 0, 

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

Ecology, 2010, Tentative Agreement on Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 

Change Forms Implementing Changes to Central Plateau Cleanup, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

10-3 

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. 

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-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. 

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. 106-398, 

114 Stat. 1654A-38. 

HNF-EP-0924, 1997, History and Stabilization of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex 

Hanford Site, Fluor Hanford, Richland, Washington. 

HAB 223, 2009, ―Life Cycle Cost and Schedule Report for the Proposed Consent Decree and the 

Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Modifications,‖ (letter to D. Brockman, S. Olinger, P. Zehm, 

and M. Pirzadeh from S. Leckband), Hanford Advisory Board Consensus Advice #223, 

Richland, Washington, November 6. 

National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

National Register of Historic Places, August 19, 2008, National Park Service Announcement, 

National Park Service, Washington, DC. 

ORP-11242, 2009, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

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. 

Treaty with the Nez Perces, 1855, 12 Stat. 957, June 11, 1855, Ratified March 8, 1859, 

Proclaimed April 29, 1859. 

Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla 1855, 12 Stat. 945, June 9, 1855, Ratified 

March 8, 1859, Proclaimed April 11, 1859. 

Treaty with the Yakama, 1855, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951, Ratified March 8, 1859, Proclaimed 

April 18, 1859. 

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

10-4 

WAC 173-303-140, ―Land Disposal Restrictions,‖ Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 A-i 

APPENDIX A 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 A-iii 

CONTENTS 

A.1 IDENTIFYING CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE ...............................2

A.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND 

ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES FOR HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS ...........4

A.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................5

A.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND 

DESCRIBING THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND .......................................29

A.3 RATIONALE AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION 

OF CLEANUP ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED .............................................................31

A.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................36

TABLES 

Table A-1. List of Remaining Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for Lifecycle Report. (2 

pages) ........................................................................................................................... 3

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. 

(9 pages) ...................................................................................................................... 6

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. 

(12 pages) .................................................................................................................. 14

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 

pages) ......................................................................................................................... 26

Table A-5. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. 

(4 pages) .................................................................................................................... 33

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-iv 

TERMS 

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 

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

DST double-shell tank 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

ESD explanation of significant differences 

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

HLW high-level waste 

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility 

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISS interim safe storage 

LAW low-activity waste 

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant) 

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 

SSE safe storage enclosure 

SST single-shell tank 

TBD to be determined 

TC&WM EIS Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement 

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 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-1 

APPENDIX A 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES 

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) is to 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 conduct cleanup actions at the Hanford Site. 

As discussed in Section A.1, the Lifecycle Report has grouped remaining Hanford Site cleanup 

work into approximately 39 separate cleanup actions. This approach helps focus discussions on 

cleanup work that remains to be performed at the Hanford Site and promotes consistency with 

the ongoing cleanup decision-making process under the TPA. 

Because final cleanup decisions (see Appendix D) have not yet been made for much of the 

remaining Hanford Site cleanup work, this Lifecycle Report must 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 this Lifecycle Report. 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 A.2 includes information about the range of plausible 

alternatives for each 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 Hanford Site 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 A.3 proposes a rationale and schedule for when different cleanup actions will undergo 

in-depth alternatives analyses in the Lifecycle Report. This approach limits the complexity of the 

individual reports by presenting in-depth analysis for a few select actions in each annual report. 

The approach also provides timely information to support budget planning and other decisions 

focused on more near-term actions, and provides an appropriate level of detail in a user-friendly 

report. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-2 

The information provided in this appendix has been developed for the sole purpose of preparing 

the Lifecycle Report and fulfilling the requirements of TPA Milestone M-036-01; the Lifecycle 

Report 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 the 

procedures established in the TPA and applicable Federal and State requirements. 

The information in this appendix does not presume nor is it intended to prejudice the outcome of 

the requirements that must be followed by the TPA 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. 

A.1 IDENTIFYING CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE 

In this Lifecycle Report, the term “cleanup action” is used to conceptually describe similar, 

related work that enables cleanup to proceed for common or related contaminants that occur in a 

relatively well-defined environmental media (or waste management system) within a generally 

contiguous geographic area. This concept breaks down into three main ideas: 

 A cleanup action should include similar, related work, which means that the work 

performed should be of like kind and directed at achieving a common goal. Examples of 

similar, related work would be installing and operating a groundwater pump-and-treat 

system, removing and disposing of contaminated soil in an engineered landfill, and 

retrieving and treating waste from underground tanks. Further, if the work does not itself 

achieve cleanup (e.g., maintaining overall Hanford Site infrastructure), then it is typically 

not considered to be a specific cleanup action. 

 A cleanup action should address common or related contaminants that occur in a 

relatively well-defined environmental media or waste management system. In most cases 

around the Hanford Site, distinct industrial processes generated the materials and wastes 

that were managed through discharge to the environment, or treatment and storage in 

various containment systems. The generating processes typically produced residues that 

were chemically and/or radiologically similar with respect to each process (i.e., the 

residues were often common and related to each other) and that often ended up in the 

same places (e.g., burial grounds, cribs, ponds, tanks, basins). 

 A cleanup action should occur within a generally contiguous geographic area. This 

represents primarily the need to be able to develop and implement cleanup actions in a 

manageable way. The Hanford Site covers a large space, and cleanup actions can be 

conducted more efficiently if the cleanup work is not scattered across dozens of small, 

widely separated locations. 

This cleanup action concept is consistent with the operable unit cleanup approach taken in the 

TPA and enables cleanup actions and alternatives to be addressed in a manner consistent with the 

way cleanup decisions are being made for the Hanford Site. This approach also provides a 

reasonable middle ground for looking at the cleanup work that is performed on the Hanford Site. 

Too narrow a concept could result in individual cleanup actions covering single, discrete 

activities (e.g., the remediation of one ditch, the retrieval of a few drums of waste). Too broad a 

concept could lead to the other extreme, covering for example all the work needed for an entire 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-3 

portion of the Hanford Site (e.g., cleanup of all the facilities, soils, and groundwater throughout 

the 200 Area). 

The TPA agencies applied the concepts described in the preceding paragraphs to the current 

Hanford Site configuration to develop a set of approximately 40 separate cleanup actions for the 

Lifecycle Report. Table A-1 lists the Hanford Site cleanup actions for which final cleanup 

decisions do not yet exist and for which alternatives will be considered in the Lifecycle Report. 

The path to final cleanup can be complicated and includes the consideration of cleanup 

alternatives, identification of a preferred alternative, including regulatory agency and public 

input, decision making, and finally design and implementation of the selected cleanup action. 

Cleanup work at the Hanford Site 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 Lifecycle Report 

will evolve over time and may have a different scope in future reports as progress is made in 

completing Hanford Site cleanup. 

Table A-1. List of Remaining Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for Lifecycle Report. (2 pages) 

River Corridor Cleanup Actions 

 Disposition 100 Area Reactors 

 Disposition 100 Area K West Basin 

 Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

 Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use 

 Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use 

 Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use 

 Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use 

 Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use 

 Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

 Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

 Restore 300 Area Groundwater to Beneficial Use 

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions 

 Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings And Facilities 

 Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units) 

 Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium Finishing Plant 

 Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 Operable Unit) 

 Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

 Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

 Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 Operable Unit) 

 Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

 Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules 

 Remediate 200-SW-1 Operable Unit 

 Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities 

 Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 

 Remediate 200-IS-1 Operable Unit 

 Remediate 200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5 Operable Units 

 Remediate 200-SW-2 Operable Unit 

 Remediate Remaining 200-West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 Operable Unit) 

 Remediate Remaining 200-East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 Operable Unit) 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-4 

Table A-1. List of Remaining Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for Lifecycle Report. (2 pages) 

 Disposition Fast Flux Test Facility Complex 

 Disposition Remaining Buildings and Facilities Within Fast Flux Test Facility Complex 

 Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities 

 Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 Operable Unit) 

 Restore 200-West Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 Operable Units) 

 Restore 200-East Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-PO-1/200-BP-5 Operable Units) 

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 

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant). 

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant). 

A.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND 

ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES FOR HANFORD SITE CLEANUP 

ACTIONS 

The Lifecycle Report provides information about ranges of plausible alternatives for cleanup 

actions. The range of plausible alternatives for a cleanup action includes DOE’s current 

assumptions about future efforts. Alternatives are included based on current understandings 

among the TPA agencies, the status of existing and forthcoming cleanup decisions, and whether 

current planning already adequately encompasses the range of plausible alternatives. In a series 

of working sessions, the TPA agencies developed the range of plausible alternatives presented in 

Section A.2.1. 

As discussed further in Section A.2.2, a more in-depth analyses of the alternatives for individual 

cleanup actions will be performed in order to describe a reasonable upper bound for the scope 

and costs of a specific cleanup action. The TPA agencies have agreed to take a graded approach 

and to analyze alternatives and develop a reasonable upper bound scope and cost estimate as a 

sensitivity analysis for a limited set of cleanup actions in each annual Lifecycle Report. The main 

reasons for this approach include the following: 

 Developing and analyzing alternatives for every separate cleanup action in every annual 

edition of the Lifecycle Report 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 currently are underway, the results of which will improve 

the ability to analyze alternatives in future Lifecycle Reports. 

In lieu of analyzing alternatives for all cleanup actions every year, the Lifecycle Report proposes 

a schedule and rationale for when different cleanup actions will undergo in-depth analyses. 

Section A.3 provides this information. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-5 

A.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES 

Ranges of plausible alternatives have been identified for cleanup actions, consistent with existing 

and yet to be made cleanup decisions, ongoing interim work (if any), and status and maturity of 

efforts. The range of plausible alternatives has been identified to help ensure completeness with 

respect to the work needed to accomplish the Hanford Site cleanup mission and to provide 

regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, and affected stakeholders with sufficient information 

to help inform and guide discussions about priorities and contents for future Lifecycle Reports. 

The range of plausible alternatives for each cleanup action was developed through a series of 

working sessions involving the TPA agencies subject matter experts applying their knowledge of 

Hanford Site cleanup work and best professional judgment. Each range of plausible alternatives 

has alternatives that, in the opinion of the agency experts, 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). Determination of 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 also 

was intended to encompass the most current planning assumptions with respect to that cleanup 

action. 

Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4 list and are organized by the identified cleanup actions for River 

Corridor, Central Plateau, and Tank Waste, respectively. These tables of cleanup actions and 

plausible alternatives provide regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, and affected 

stakeholders with information to help inform and guide discussions about priorities and scoping 

of future cleanup work. In addition, 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, and a list of relevant cleanup 

decision documents. 

 For each cleanup action, a list that encompasses the likely range of plausible alternatives. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-6 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-1 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area Reactors (Except B Reactor)* 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

The DOE decided the reactor blocks for Hanford’s eight defunct plutonium reactors will be kept at their present 

sites until their radiation level lowers through natural decay and will then be buried in the Central Plateau. Action 

memoranda are in place for ISS of reactors and for D4 of ancillary facilities. 

 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. 

 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, 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, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-time-critical Removal Action for the 105-KE and 

105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, January 4. 

 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. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Demolition of the reactor buildings that have not been placed in ISS, demolition of the reactor blocks in ISS, 

and transport of all the reactor blocks, intact on a tractor-transporter, from the present 100 Area locations to 

the 200-West Area for disposal. 

 Complete ISS on remaining reactors; 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 blocks and transport of the 

reactor blocks, intact on a tractor-transporter, from the present 100 Area locations to the 200-West Area for 

disposal. 

 Complete ISS on remaining reactors; 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 cores and transport of radioactive waste to the 200-West Area for burial. 

 Demolition of the reactor buildings and SSEs and filling voids beneath and around the reactor blocks; the 

reactor blocks, adjacent shield walls, and the spent fuel storage basin together with the contained 

radioactivity, gravel, and grout covered to a depth of at least 5 meters with a mound containing earth and 

gravel. 

* B Reactor has been designated a National Historic Landmark by the U.S. Department of Interior. Ongoing 

efforts are to condition and maintain the facility safe for public access with potential for future long-term 

preservation. If the decision is made to remove/disposition B Reactor, the work would be encompassed within 

this overall reactor disposition cleanup action.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-7 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

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 

on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins. 

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 

100-DR-1, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 10-KR-1, 100-KR-2, I00-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 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 removal of K Reactors to access below-grade contaminated soils. K East Basin was demolished 

in 2009.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-8 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-3 River Corridor – Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

Interim RODs, ROD amendments, and ESDs are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, debris, and 

burial grounds using the observational and plug-in approaches with on-site disposal at the ERDF. 

 EPA, 2004a, 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, 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. 

 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/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/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 Differences 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 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. 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-9 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs* and applicable closure performance standards**; backfill, 

contour, and revegetate excavations. (Note: DOE considers the interim RTD actions as the likely final actions 

for the waste sites that have been or will be remediated under the applicable 100 Area RODs. The 100 Area 

interim RODs for waste sites will be covered by the six final RODs for the River Corridor currently being 

worked through a final RI/FS process.) 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, 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 Operable Unit To Beneficial Use 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for this operable unit. Groundwater monitoring and annual reporting 

continue to track groundwater contamination in this operable unit. 

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Install pump-and-treat system in 100-BC-5; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring. 

 Incorporate bioremediation for chromium. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.2 River Corridor – Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

An interim ROD is in place to clean up hexavalent chromium in the groundwater using pump-and-treat. 

 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, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Expand pump-and-treat system in 100-KR-4; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring. 

 Continue operation of pump-and-treat system with incorporation of bioremediation for chromium. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-10 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.3 River Corridor – Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

An action memorandum, interim ROD, and ESD are in place to clean up strontium-90 in the groundwater using 

pump-and-treat and physical barriers. An in situ apatite barrier and phytoremediation treatability tests are being 

evaluated for use in the cleanup of strontium-90 in groundwater. 

 DOE/RL-2009-54, 2009, Proposed Plan for Amendment of 100-NR-1/NR-2 Interim Action Record of 

Decision, Draft B, 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 L.K. McClain, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office 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/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Differences 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. 

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

Alternatives are being addressed as part of DOE/RL-2009-54, Proposed Plan for Amendment of 100-NR-1/NR-2 

Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision; pending completion, the following reflect alternatives from the 

proposed plan, but are not intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing decision-making process:

 Resume operation of existing pump‐and‐treat system; operate and expand system as necessary until cleanup 

objectives are achieved; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment groundwater 

monitoring. 

 Construct an impermeable barrier along the shoreline to re‐direct groundwater flow and increase travel times 

for radioactive decay to achieve cleanup objectives. 

 Expand the apatite permeable reactive barrier to promote sequestration of strontium-90. 

 Incorporate phytotechnology. 

 Use sequestration and immobilization technologies for inner portion of strontium-90 plume. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-11 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.4 River Corridor – Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ROD amendment, and ESDs are in place to clean up hexavalent chromium in the groundwater 

using pump-and-treat and an in situ oxidation/reduction (“redox”) manipulation barrier. 

 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/541/R-00/122, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment: 100-HR-3 Operable 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

 EPA, 2002, 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/ESD/R10-03/606, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record 

of Decision, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-HR-3 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, 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. 

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Expand pump-and-treat system in 100-HR-3; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring.

 Maintain and repair in situ redox manipulation barrier. 

 Incorporate bioremediation. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.5 River Corridor – Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for this operable unit. Groundwater monitoring and annual reporting 

continue to track groundwater contamination. 

 WAC 173-340, "Model Toxics Control Act - Cleanup," Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 

– WAC 173 340 720, "Ground Water Cleanup Standards." 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Install pump-and-treat system in 100-FR-3; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring.

 Incorporate bioremediation for chromium.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-12 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-5 River Corridor – Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained By PNNL 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for the facilities retained by PNNL. 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 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. 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, 2006, “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. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Following end of operational period for PNNL facilities (assumed 2023), D4 all buildings and facilities to 

slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; remediate below-grade portions 

consistent with 300 Area contaminated soil sites if needed.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-6 River Corridor – Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites* 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

Final and interim RODs, ESDs, and an action memorandum are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures 

and debris and dispose of the debris at ERDF or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant as appropriate. 

 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), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, 

Washington, July 15. 

 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/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/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. 

 EPA, 2004b, 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, 2009c, 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-13 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages) 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve remedial action objectives**; backfill, contour, and revegetate 

excavations. (Note: DOE considers the interim RTD actions as the likely final actions for the waste sites that 

have been or will be remediated under the applicable 300 Area RODs. The 300 Area interim RODs for waste 

sites will be covered by the six final RODs for the River Corridor currently being worked through a final 

RI/FS process.)

No other alternatives are contemplated at this time for 300-FF-1 Operable Unit (cleanup action has been 

completed in accordance with final cleanup decision/ROD for 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units, 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143), or for 300-FF-2 Operable Unit. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

* Includes 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Grounds, and contaminated soils associated with areas outside the FFTF 

complex. 

** In accordance with applicable interim action RODs.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-7 River Corridor – Restore 300 Area Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

The interim ROD selected monitoring and institutional controls for uranium contamination in groundwater. 

Treatability tests to sequester uranium in the vadose zone and groundwater are being evaluated for use in the 

cleanup of uranium in groundwater. 

 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. 

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Install in situ phosphate/polyphosphate treatment to sequester uranium in the vadose zone and monitor 

effectiveness. 

 Install in situ phosphate/polyphosphate treatment to sequester uranium in the groundwater and monitor 

effectiveness. 

 Shear-thinning injection at top of the aquifer to sequester uranium. 

 RTD of contaminated rewetted zone of the deep vadose zone. 

 Transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment groundwater monitoring. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

Note: Alternatives based on pumping and treating the groundwater are not considered plausible due to high 

aquifer permeability and river intrusion.

D4 = deactivate, decontaminate, decommission, and 

demolish. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

ESD = explanation of significant differences. 

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility. 

ISS = interim safe storage. 

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. 

SSE = safe storage enclosure. 

WAC = Washington Administrative Code. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-14 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 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-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, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, 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 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 Operable Units) 

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 on-site 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, 2009, 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 under long-term stewardship with appropriate 

institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-15 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 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 complete 

and approved, and D4 activities are being completed for above-grade structures of PFP. Final decisions and 

cleanup actions have not been made yet for below-grade structures and contaminated areas that are not identified 

in the action memorandum. 

 DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Non-time Critical Removal Action memorandum for Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; leave remaining below-grade structures and 

contaminated areas in-place and transition to long-term stewardship 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 long-term 

stewardship, 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 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

on site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). 

 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 

 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 all wastes 

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 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 long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-16 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-5 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

on site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). 

 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 

 Remove all contents and D4 PUREX Canyon Building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soils to achieve remedial action objectives; 

dispose all wastes 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 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 long-term 

stewardship, including ICs and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting Disposition of the PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites and 

Disposition of the PUREX Storage Tunnels should be aligned, and cleanup actions should be coordinated and 

integrated as much as practical.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-17 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-6 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels 

(200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for the PUREX Storage Tunnels. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Maintain safe storage; perform hazardous waste facility closure consistent with RCRA Permit; remediate 

radionuclides consistent with CERCLA; conduct post-closure monitoring. 

 Stabilize wastes and prepare tunnels for in-place disposal; install barrier; perform post-closure care and 

transition to long-term stewardship. 

 Remove and dispose wastes and contaminated equipment from tunnels; evaluate tunnels for residual 

contamination; if needed, remediate tunnels consistent with Central Plateau 200-East Inner Area 

contaminated soil sites. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting Disposition of the PUREX Storage Tunnels and Disposition of the 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 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

on site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). 

 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 

 Remove all contents and D4 REDOX Canyon Building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soils to achieve remedial action objectives; 

dispose all wastes 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 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 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 long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-18 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

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 be used for several more years to support other remediation and waste 

management work. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Continue ongoing operations until 2036; Transition to D4 in 2038; 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 soils to achieve remedial action objectives; 

dispose all wastes 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 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 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. 

 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 long-term 

stewardship, 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. Decisions have been 

deferred to future decision-making processes. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

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. 

 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. 

 As a Greening of America initiative, utilize the Cs/Sr capsules for thermal generation of electricity/steam in 

future operations such as the WTP and Balance of Facilities supporting the WTP.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-19 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-10 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-1 Operable Unit* 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for the 200-SW-1 Operable Unit. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

The following reflect alternatives being considered as part of DOE/EA-1707D, Interim Action Environmental 

Assessment for Closures of the Non-Radioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill; the 

following 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 soils 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 soils, to groundwater if 

necessary; backfill and revegetate. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

* Includes Non-Radioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL) 

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. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans. 

 If needed, may remediate contaminated soils under zone closure; May include partial RTD with various 

capping alternatives; Monitoring and institutional controls after closure may be required. 

 RTD all contaminated soils; Backfill and revegetate. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, 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; 

On-Site 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-20 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-13 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-IS-1 Operable Unit 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

The 200-IS-1 Operable Unit waste sites include tanks (except those considered to be included in the Tank Farms), 

pipelines, pits, diversion boxes, and associated ancillary equipment. Several pipelines are being addressed (in 

part) per 200-MG-1 removal actions; Final remediation decisions will be addressed in RODs; TSD ancillary 

equipment will be addressed in future RCRA Closure Plan(s); 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 soils to a depth that is determined by the TPA 

agencies to be protective of human health and ecological resources (depth TBD); backfill and revegetate. 

 RTD all contaminated equipment, materials, debris and soils; backfill and revegetate. 

 Stabilize select equipment in-place using technologies yet to be determined. 

 Leave everything in-place; maintain under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-14 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-PW-1/3/6 and CW-5 Operable Units

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

An expedited response action is in place for cleanup of carbon tetrachloride at several 200-PW-1 waste sites, but 

otherwise no cleanup decisions have been made to remediate the 200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5 Operable Units. 

 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. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

Alternatives have been evaluated in two feasibility studies*; The following reflect alternatives from the feasibility 

studies, but are not intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing decision making process: 

 RTD contaminated soil, sludge, and/or debris to achieve remedial action objectives. 

 Install an engineered surface barrier. 

 Perform in situ vitrification. 

 Conduct soil vapor extraction at carbon tetrachloride disposal sites. 

 Maintain existing soil cover; allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship 

with institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

* DOE/RL -2004-24, 2010, Feasibility Study for the 200-CW-5 Cooling Water Operable Unit, Draft C, 

REISSUE, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

*DOE/RL-2007-27, 2009, Feasibility Study for the Plutonium/Organic Rich Process Condensate/Process Waste 

Group Operable Unit: Includes the 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, Draft B, REISSUE, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-21 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-15 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-2 Operable Unit

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made to remediate the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit. (Note that this operable unit is 

not a single contaminated site, but is actually comprised of 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 long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-16 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200-West Inner Area Contaminated Soil 

Sites (200-WA-1 Operable Unit)

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 long-term stewardship with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-22 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-17 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200-East Inner Area Contaminated Soil 

Sites (200-EA-1 Operable Unit)

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 long-term stewardship with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-18 Central Plateau – Disposition Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) Complex

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

In 1995 DOE determined the FFTF would be deactivated. Other decisions have been deferred to future decisionmaking processes. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

The following reflect alternatives being considered as part of DOE/EIS-0391, Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement; the following alternatives are not intended to presume the 

outcome of the ongoing environmental impact process: 

 Entombment – Consolidate buildings and wastes, compact, and fill void spaces within the reactor 

containment building and contaminated ancillary buildings; install a landfill barrier over remaining structures 

and extend as needed to cover contaminated below-grade portions 

 Removal – Remove contaminated equipment and structures; reduce above-grade portions of reactor 

containment building and ancillary buildings to slab-on-grade; backfill with soil, compact and stabilize 

remaining below-grade portions; Contour and revegetate. 

 Remove and treat remote-handled special components at Hanford or INL; dispose of treated components at 

IDF or Nevada Test Site. 

 Store sodium; convert to caustic sodium hydroxide solution at Hanford or INL; reuse caustic sodium 

hydroxide solution for tank corrosion control or processing tank waste at WTP. 

 Leave structures in place with inert gas blanket for sodium residuals; transition to long-term stewardship with 

appropriate institutional controls. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-23 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-19 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Buildings and Facilities Within FFTF 

Complex

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

In 1995 DOE determined the FFTF would be deactivated. Other decisions have been deferred to future decisionmaking processes. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

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 long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-20 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, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, 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 long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-21 Central Plateau – Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone 

(200-DV-1 Operable Unit)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for the Deep Vadose Zone. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

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 contaminants. 

 Soil flushing with pump and treat or pore water removal. 

 Install surface barriers. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-24 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-22 Central Plateau – Restore 200-West Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

(200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 Operable Units)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

Interim RODs are in place for cleanup of high concentrations of selected contaminants and a final ROD is in 

place for the 200-ZP-1 operable unit to address all contaminants. 

 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/R10-97/048, 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, 2009d, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

200-UP-1 Groundwater 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, 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, “Ground Water 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 pump and treat to achieve remedial action objectives; Continue monitoring. 

 For 200-UP-1 Only – Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with 

appropriate institutional controls. 

DOE/RL-2009-122, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 200-U-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, 

includes an evaluation of three remedial alternatives. Each of these alternatives would use pump-and-treat, 

monitored natural attenuation, and hydraulic containment to address technetium-99, uranium, and iodine-129 

contamination within different time periods. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-23 Central Plateau – Restore 200-East Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

(200-PO-1/200-BP-5 Operable Units)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made for 200-East Groundwater. 

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Install pump and treat system for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit; implement monitored natural attenuation for 

200-PO-1 Operable Unit; Perform well support and maintenance activities. 

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 

 Install pump and treat system for 200-BP-5 and selective pump and treat for 200-PO-1 hot spots. 

Note: 400 Area groundwater cleanup actions are included as part of 200-PO-1 Operable Unit. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-25 

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (12 pages)

DOE/EA-1707D, 2010, Interim Action Environmental Assessment for Closures of the Non Radioactive Dangerous Waste 

Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-122, 2010, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Draft A, 

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

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

ESD = explanation of significant difference. 

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility. 

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility. 

INL = Idaho National Laboratory. 

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant). 

RAO = remedial action objective. 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976.

ROD = record of decision. 

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose. 

TBD = to be determined. 

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility. 

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-26 

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 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). Further 

decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Retrieve SST wastes (assumes two retrieval technologies) to meet milestones in the Consent Decree and TPA 

Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology 2010); achieve designated retrieval objectives or limits of 

technology; remediate structures and soils and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards; 

maintain post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit. 

The following reflect alternatives being considered as part of the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391); the following 

alternatives are not intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing environmental impact process: 

 Grout, cap and close SSTs with residual waste in-place; Monitor and implement institutional controls after 

closure; Eventual transition to long-term stewardship. 

 Construct new DST capacity sufficient to complete SST retrieval; close SSTs and implement post-closure 

care, monitoring, and institutional controls; eventual transition to long-term stewardship. 

 RTD some SSTs and ancillary facilities, residual waste, and contaminated soils; Backfill and revegetate. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, 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 immobilized LAW would be prepared for onsite disposal and the vitrified HLW would 

be placed in interim storage pending future disposal at a national geologic repository. Further decisions have been 

deferred to future decision-making processes. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Pretreat, condition and immobilize tank wastes in the WTP to meet TPA milestones and comply with RCRA 

Permit; operate supplemental treatment systems (assumed to be second LAW) to augment WTP capacity; 

place immobilized waste in canisters; transfer immobilized LAW for disposal at the IDF; provide capacity to 

store all immobilized HLW in Hanford Shipping Facility (new) until a final repository is available. 

 Perform blending and waste characterization at a new Enhanced Waste Receiving Facility. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-3 Tank Waste – Secondary Waste Treatment

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

No cleanup decisions have been made. Decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes. 

 TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives 

 Recycle liquid waste streams within WTP; manage residual liquid wastes at LERF/ETF/SALDS; treat solid 

wastes from WTP and ETF and dispose at the 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-27 

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 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; achieve designated retrieval objectives or limits of technology; 

remediate structures and soils and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards; maintain 

post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit. 

 RTD DSTs and ancillary facilities, residual waste, and contaminated soils; backfill and revegetate. 

 Stabilize, cap and close DSTs with residual waste in-place; monitor and implement institutional controls after 

closure; eventual transition to long-term stewardship. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

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. 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 may also 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, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste 

Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, as amended, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington. 

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 long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term 

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness. 

62 FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” Federal Register, 

(February 26, 1997). 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” Federal Register, 

(February 26, 1997). 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

Settlement Consent Decree between Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Department of Energy, order signed 

October 25, 2010, in State of Washington v. Chu, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case 

No. CV-08-5085-FVS. 

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion, 

Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-28 

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 pages) 

DST = double-shell tank. 

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. 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

of 1976.

SALDS = State-Approved Land Disposal Site. 

SST = single-shell tank. 

TC&WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-29 

A.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND DESCRIBING 

THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND 

TPA Milestone 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 Lifecycle Report provides information that meets the 

requirement and intent of the milestone, DOE has relied on the following conceptual framework. 

The reasonable upper bound for a range of alternatives or alternative costs describes a cleanup 

action alternative that most people can agree: 

 Is near or at the maximum feasible extent of the available engineered solutions. 

 Provides an acceptable level of health and environmental protection when complete. 

 Is appropriate relative to the effort expended and the benefits achieved. 

Applying this concept presumes the ability to satisfy several related and dependent conditions: 

 First, that mutual agreement can be achieved among responsible individuals who have 

sufficient information available to them, and are able to objectively consider the relevant 

science and applicable standards within the context of fiscal and public policy 

considerations. 

 Second, that potential health and environmental concerns are sufficiently understood, and 

that an alternative will be effective at reducing the potential concerns as claimed. 

 Last, that an alternative exists that bounds the upper range of a set of choices, and this 

upper-bounding alternative can provide tangible advantages that the other available 

choices would not. 

DOE will apply these conditions and the framework outlined above in the process of analyzing 

alternatives and identifying the reasonable upper bound for the cleanup actions that are evaluated 

in-depth in the Lifecycle Report. 

The purpose of analyzing and selecting alternatives is to formally evaluate alternative project 

solutions (e.g., designs) so that the alternative that best meets the project need is selected. 

DOE has applied a systematic process for individual cleanup actions to more definitively 

describe a range of plausible alternatives; identify a reasonable upper bound for that range of 

alternatives; and develop schedule and cost information associated with implementing that upper 

bounding cleanup alternative. For the process followed for the cost estimate alternative analyses 

presented in this year’s Lifecycle Report, DOE has adapted and broadly applied the approach it 

follows in developing and selecting alternatives for other types of engineering and construction 

projects. This approach is summarized further below, and includes the following main steps: 

1. Describe the functional requirements the project must meet. 

2. Identify any constraints that could affect the project’s conduct. 

3. Develop and analyze potential solutions until a preferred project alternative emerges. 

Alternative development and analysis begins with preparation of functional requirements to 

describe what the project is expected to do. The functional requirements define the objectives or 

standards that must be achieved, and focus primarily on physical, transformational, safety, 

environmental, operational, and other essential characteristics of a project’s function. A graded 

approach is followed so that more effort is expended on developing functional requirements for 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-30 

complex, highly hazardous, and first-of-kind projects than for simple projects that have been 

implemented many times before. 

After the functional requirements are developed, project constraints are identified, and applied to 

compare and evaluate different potential solutions. Constraints are anything that may impact or 

alter the implementation of a proposed solution. Examples of constraints include: 

 Time. If a potential solution cannot be implemented on the required schedule, then that 

alternative is not feasible, regardless of its merits. 

 Organizational/Human Factors. If a potential solution requires more expertise than is 

available within reasonable or existing cost and schedule limits, then that alternative may 

not be as good as a less technically challenging, but adequate solution. 

 Regulatory Requirements. For environmental cleanup projects, the final closure may 

drive alternative selection, as only one or two concepts may deliver the mandatory final 

closure (e.g., approved Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) records of decision). Similarly, stewardship and 

ownership issues of the site during or after project completion can affect alternative 

selection. 

 Stakeholder Issues. Some alternatives, regardless of how “good” they may be, will be 

unacceptable to important project stakeholders. In such cases, another less controversial 

solution will have to be found. 

 Risk. All alternatives will contain risks. Other factors being approximately equal, that 

solution with the lowest risk would be preferred. 

 Estimated Cleanup Cost. A potential solution with higher initial cost, but lower costs 

over the life of the project may be preferable to an alternative with cheaper construction 

costs, but higher estimated cleanup cost. 

Once the main requirements and constraints are known, a number of alternative solutions can be 

developed that could accomplish the project need. The number and variety of alternatives will be 

influenced by technical issues and stakeholder interests. 

Next, potential solutions (i.e., cleanup alternatives) that meet the project need are further 

analyzed to determine an optimal balance between meeting the functional requirements and 

performing the work in accordance with funding, schedule, and other constraints. For the 

Lifecycle Report, this analysis also includes assessing which alternative scenario is most likely to 

represent the reasonable upper bound of the plausible alternatives. 

When complete, the process should show that a reasonably full range of design concepts, 

stakeholder values, safety, technology development, implementability, regulatory requirements, 

and other relevant factors were considered in the development of the reasonable upper bound for 

the range of plausible alternatives. Documentation of the alternatives analyzed, the reasonable 

upper bound selection, schedule and cost information about the reasonable upper bound, and 

rationale for the selection will be included in the Lifecycle Report for those alternatives that have 

been analyzed in the current year’s report. 

It is important to note that the rigorous and extensive system DOE usually applies for formal 

construction project development has been adapted, rather than fully applied, to analyze 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-31 

alternatives and develop reasonable upper bounds for the Lifecycle Report. Nor should the 

process applied in the Lifecycle Report be confused with the very scrupulous cleanup study and 

approval system in place for complying with CERCLA and RCRA regulations. Those 

requirements are intended to lead to formal, public decision making and employ a series of 

incremental review and authorization steps intended to achieve compliance with statutory and 

regulatory obligations. The Lifecycle Report does not equal those formal legal procedures and 

does not result in analyses that are of the same rigor and completeness as will occur when the 

CERCLA and RCRA processes are followed. 

A.3 RATIONALE AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR ANNUAL 

SELECTION OF CLEANUP ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED 

As discussed in Appendix D, many final Hanford Site cleanup decisions are yet to be made. 

The TPA Milestone M-036-01 requirement to include alternatives in the Lifecycle Report where 

there are no final cleanup decisions creates a substantial obligation when so many decisions are 

not yet final. 

Rather than be overwhelmed with analyzing alternatives for an exhaustive list of non-final 

decisions or, alternatively, have to prepare a complete but less substantive set of analyses, DOE 

has chosen to focus in each annual edition of the Lifecycle Report on a limited number of 

cleanup actions where final decisions have not been made. DOE believes that this selective 

approach has several advantages, in that it: 

 Allows more attention to be paid to higher priority cleanup actions. 

 Provides more time to consider alternatives and assumptions that better reflect the values 

of affected parties. 

 Enables more thorough development of the bases and assumptions for assembling each 

set of plausible alternatives and for defining the reasonable upper bound. 

 Can focus on cleanup action alternatives when timing coincides better with relevant 

decision making processes, including the Federal budget cycle. 

 Should promote more insightful and productive dialogues about Hanford Site planning 

and decision making. 

 Makes effective and optimal use of available resources. 

Each year, DOE will consider the following and similar criteria to select those cleanup actions 

for which alternatives will be developed and analyzed in the Lifecycle Report. These criteria are 

not exclusive and no priority is implied by the order in which they are presented. 

 Status of Current Actions. A number of interim actions are underway even in the 

absence of final decisions. In some cases, significant progress is being made consistent 

with the expectations and values of the regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, and 

affected Hanford stakeholders. DOE believes there would be little value in analyzing 

alternatives for many of these instances, particularly when cleanup is proceeding with 

broad external support. In contrast, analyses of alternatives would be more useful where 

there has been little or no progress or agreement on how to proceed with cleanup. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-32 

 Decision-making Timeframe. At any given time, there are many cleanup 

decision-making processes at varying stages of progress. The development of alternatives 

can help inform these decision making processes, but can be less or more helpful at 

different times in each decision process. DOE prefers to analyze alternatives that will be 

supportive of decision-making timeframes. 

 Alternatives Availability. In some cases, no or very few alternatives may be available 

for consideration, while in other cases, a large range of options may be available to 

consider. DOE expects that generally it would not be helpful to analyze alternatives when 

essentially no choices exist, and that analyses could be quite helpful in framing and/or 

narrowing choices when there are many potential alternatives and/or a wide variety of 

interests and values to be considered. 

 Existing Knowledge Base. Some Hanford Site cleanup actions are already the subject of 

extensive studies, while others are not well understood. DOE believes it will generally be 

more helpful to put attention where little is known about particular cleanup actions and 

for which more and better knowledge could improve decision making. However, there 

may be instances where a large base of knowledge exists, and the Lifecycle Report could 

help in aggregating and synthesizing this information into a single discussion. 

 Risk/Benefit. Cleanup actions will have varying effects on reducing health and 

environmental risks and achieving benefits for the public, workers, and environment. 

In selecting cleanup actions to evaluate, DOE will generally prefer those that could 

contribute most positively to ameliorating Hanford Site risks and gaining health and 

environmental benefits. 

 Budget Planning. Information in the Lifecycle Report will be used to help with planning 

and requesting funding for future cleanup actions. DOE will be more likely to develop 

information about cleanup action alternatives when such information will best coincide 

with and be most supportive of budget planning cycles. 

In addition to the criteria listed above, DOE intends to consider recommendations from EPA and 

Ecology, government-to-government consultations (e.g., Tribal Nations, Oregon), input from 

Hanford stakeholders, and advice and comments received on previous Lifecycle Reports. 

Consistent with the criteria described above, DOE has developed an anticipated schedule for 

performing in-depth analyses of plausible alternatives for each of the approximately 40 cleanup 

actions currently remaining at the Hanford Site. Table A-5 presents this schedule along with an 

explanation of the rationale for analyzing alternatives in the recommended Lifecycle Report 

year. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-33 

Table A-5. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages) 

2011 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE, AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions for which Alternatives have been Analyzed 

 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area Reactors 

 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-2 Operable Unit 

2012 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell 

Tank Farm Closure 

 Tank Waste – Tank Waste Treatment 

 Tank Waste – Secondary Waste Treatment 

By the end of 2011, ORP will issue ORP-11242, River 

Protection Project System Plan, Revision 6, which will include a 

number of tank waste management scenarios. The scenarios are 

expected to provide information that could be included in the 

2012 Lifecycle Report for analyzing plausible alternatives related 

to these three tank waste cleanup actions. 

2013 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 River Corridor – Restore 100 Area 

Groundwater To Beneficial Use (100-BC-5, 

100-KR-4, 100-NR-2, 100-HR-3 and 

100-FR-3 Operable Units) 

 River Corridor – Restore 300 Area 

Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

Cleanup is proceeding consistent with existing interim decision 

and is reflected in current planning bases. Sufficient information 

about effectiveness of interim actions should be available by 

2013 to determine whether additional alternatives should be 

analyzed. Timing would also take advantage of forthcoming 

CERCLA 5-year review (expected to be issued in 2012 

timeframe). 

 Central Plateau (Outer Area) – Remediate 

Remaining Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 

Operable Units) 

An RI/FS and proposed plan are due by April 30, 2012 (TPA 

Milestone M-015-38B), and an ROD may be approved as early 

as 2013. Sufficient information about the alternatives evaluated 

should be available to determine whether additional alternatives 

should be analyzed in the 2013 Lifecycle Report. 

 Central Plateau – Remediate Tanks, Pipelines, 

Pits, Boxes, Septic Tank and Drain Fields 

(200-IS-1 Operable Unit) 

 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 

200-East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-EA-1 Operable Unit) 

The waste sites to be included in the 200-IS-1 and 200-EA-1 

Operable Units are subject to ongoing TPA negotiations that are 

expected to be resolved in the 2011 – 2012 timeframe. 

CERCLA/RCRA decision document submittals are scheduled to 

occur by June 30, 2014 (TPA milestone M-015-92B). Analyzing 

potential alternatives in the 2013 Lifecycle Report could provide 

information that would help inform the decision process. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-34 

Table A-5. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages) 

2014 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 Central Plateau – Disposition 

B Plant Canyon Building/ Associated Waste 

Sites (200-CB-1 Operable Unit) 

 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon 

Building/ Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 

Operable Unit) 

 Central Plateau – Disposition REDOX Canyon 

Building/ Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 

Operable Unit) 

Based on new TPA milestones for these canyon facilities, it is 

unlikely that extensive evaluation of alternatives will have been 

performed yet (e.g., in feasibility studies). There is potential that 

more information may be available for B Plant by mid-2013, and 

that it could be relevant and useful for analyzing alternatives for 

all three of these canyon facilities. It may be reasonable to 

develop a consolidated analysis of alternatives in the 2014 

Lifecycle Report that could benefit future planning and budget 

requests. 

 Central Plateau – Disposition FFTF Complex It is expected that the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) will 

address decisions related to this cleanup action and that a final 

ROD will be issued before work for the 2014 Lifecycle Report 

must begin. If, instead, cleanup decisions have not been made by 

mid-2013, it may be timely to reassess whether the FFTF cleanup 

action could be analyzed. 

 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 

200-West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-WA-1 Operable Unit) 

The waste sites to be included in the 200-WA-1 Operable Unit 

are subject to ongoing TPA negotiations that are expected to be 

resolved by 2012. CERCLA decision document submittals are 

scheduled to occur by June 30, 2013 (TPA milestone M-015-

91B), and a ROD may be approved as early as 2014. Sufficient 

information about the alternatives evaluated should be available 

to determine whether additional alternatives should be analyzed 

in the 2014 Lifecycle Report. 

2015 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area K West 

Basin 

 River Corridor – Remediate 100 Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites 

 River Corridor – Remediate 300 Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites 

 Central Plateau – Disposition Below-Grade 

Portions of PFP 

 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-1 

Operable Unit 

Cleanup is proceeding consistent with existing decisions (e.g., 

interim ROD, Action Memorandum, RCRA interim status/final 

permit) and is reflected in current planning documents. Final 

decisions could be made within a year or two of 2015 timeframe 

and are expected to be compatible with interim decisions. Prior 

to developing 2015 Lifecycle Report, decide whether alternatives 

should be analyzed based on status of final cleanup decision 

making. 

2016 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 Central Plateau – Disposition 

Cesium/Strontium Capsules 

Capsules are currently in safe storage and no immediate action is 

required. Other activities at the DOE complex will provide data 

and potential problem resolutions that will enhance consideration 

of alternatives for management and disposition of 

cesium/strontium capsules. 

 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-PW-1/3/6 

and CW-5 Operable Units 

An ongoing Feasibility Study process is already looking at 

potential alternatives and providing in-depth comparison and 

analysis of costs. Review progress of this existing effort to 

determine need to perform additional analyses in 2016 Lifecycle 

Report. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-35 

Table A-5. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages) 

2017 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 Central Plateau – Remediate Contaminated 

Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 Operable Unit) 

 Central Plateau – Restore 200-West 

Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

(200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 Operable Units) 

 Central Plateau – Restore 200-East 

Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

(200-PO-1/200-BP-5 Operable Units) 

Treatability studies are commencing for Central Plateau deep 

vadose zone. Cleanup actions for Central Plateau groundwater 

are proceeding consistent with existing decisions and are 

reflected in current planning documents. Deferral to 2017 would 

allow treatability testing to be completed and final decisions to 

be made and coincide with subsequent CERCLA 5-year review. 

Sufficient information should be available to decide whether 

2017 Lifecycle Report needs to analyze additional alternatives to 

support out-year budget planning for Central Plateau deep vadose 

zone remediation and groundwater restoration. 

2018 OR LATER 

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year 

 River Corridor – Disposition 300 Area 

Facilities Retained By PNNL 

Facilities will be maintained operational by PNNL. 2023 is 

assumed date to start closure and disposition of the facilities. 

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 Operable Unit) 

The few remaining structures in the outer area do not present 

imminent or significant threats to health or environment. Cleanup 

actions are likely to be non-controversial and focused on RTD, 

with scope, schedule and cost sufficiently accounted for in 

planning documents. Analysis of alternatives before 2018 are not 

likely to contribute more useful information for out-year budget 

planning. 

 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage 

Tunnels (200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

Available knowledge base is not sufficient to support detailed 

analyses. Availability of feasible alternatives extremely limited. 

Likely cleanup actions are expected to be 15+ years in the future 

so earlier planning and budget development would be premature. 

 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 before 2018 

for out-year budget planning. 

 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Buildings and Facilities Within FFTF 

Complex 

 Central Plateau –Disposition Any Remaining 

Inner Area Buildings And Facilities 

Continuing with the current planning bases and uncertainties is 

sufficient for health and environmental protection and for scope 

and budget planning prior to 2018. Information about conditions 

after other cleanup actions have occurred (e.g., disposition of 

FFTF) would be insufficient for useful analyses. It would be 

premature to analyze alternatives for these cleanup actions before 

the 2018 Lifecycle Report. 

 Tank Waste – Double-Shell Tank Closure 

 Tank Waste – WTP Closure 

Closure is not expected to begin any sooner than 2034 (for DST 

closure) and 2050 (for WTP closure). No imminent or significant 

health or environmental concerns have been identified that need 

to be addressed. Earlier planning and budget development would 

be unnecessary and could probably not account credibly for 

future decisions and conditions. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-36 

Table A-5. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages) 

CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR WHICH ALTERNATIVES WOULD NOT BE ANALYZED 

River Corridor – B Reactor Preservation 

B Reactor has been designated a National Historic Landmark so no cleanup actions are anticipated. Minor conditioning 

and maintenance activities will be performed consistent with National Park Service decision making under the National 

Environmental Policy Act and/or National Historic Preservation Act. 

Disposition Remaining 100 Area Buildings and Facilities and Disposition Remaining 300 Area Buildings and 

Facilities (except for facilities retained for use by PNNL)

Although cleanup actions are still ongoing for these buildings and facilities, all excess buildings and facilities in the 

100 and 300 Areas are expected to undergo D&D in accordance with applicable action memoranda. 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 so alternatives do not need to be analyzed. 

River Corridor – Remediate Remaining Contaminated Sites Within Hanford Reach National Monument 

National Monument remediation is being implemented to fulfill obligations established under a Presidential 

Proclamation which establishes a de facto final decision. RTD and decontamination in the Monument areas are 

expected to be substantially complete by 2012 (Some residual cleanup in the 100 Area portions of the Monument will 

be addressed after 2012). 

Central Plateau – Disposition U Plant (Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites) 

U Plant remediation has been approved in accordance with 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 has been approved in accordance with a CERCLA Final ROD and closure and post-closure care are already 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. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland 

Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq. 

ORP-11242, River Protection Project System Plan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, William J. Clinton, June 9. 

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. 

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant). 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976.

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. 

A.4 REFERENCES 

62 FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA,” Federal Register, (February 26, 1997). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-37 

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. 

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), 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. 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

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, 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, 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, 2006, “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/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-38 

DOE and EPA, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-time-criticial Removal Action for the 

105-KE and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, January 4. 

DOE/EA-1707D, 2010, Interim Action Environmental Assessment for Closures of the 

Non-Radioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill (DOE/EA-1707D), 

Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Reader’s Guide Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, Draft, 

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

DOE/RL-2004-24, 2010, Feasibility Study for the 200-CW-5 (Z-Ditches Cooling Water Waste 

Group) Operable Unit, Draft C Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Non-time Critical Removal Action memorandum for Plutonium Finishing 

Plant, Above-Grade Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2007-27, 2009, Feasibility Study for the Plutonium/Organic-Rich Process 

Condensate/Process Waste Group Operable Unit: Includes the 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, 

and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, Draft B Reissue, 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-2009-122, 2010, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 

200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Draft A, 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-2009-54, 2009, Proposed Plan for Amendment of 100-NR-1/NR-2 Interim Action 

Record of Decision, Draft B, 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-39 

DOE/RL-2010-22, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning 

Activities, Rev. 0, 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 L.K. McClain, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office 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. 

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, 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, 2002, 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, 2004a, 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, 2004b, 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, 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, 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. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-40 

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, 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, 2009c, 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, 2009d, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision 

for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater 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/541/R-00/122, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment: 100-HR-3 

Operable Unit, 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/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 Differences 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-41 

EPA/ESD/R10-03/606, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable 

Unit Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-HR-3 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 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. 

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/R10-97/048, 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 A-42 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 10-KR-1, 

100-KR-2, I00-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. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq. 

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, 

William J. Clinton, June 9. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

Settlement Consent Decree between Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. 

Department of Energy, order signed October 25, 2010, in State of Washington v. Chu, 

United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS. 

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington.

WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington. 

WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 B-i 

APPENDIX B 

TRIBES AND STAKEHOLDER VIEWS AND VALUES 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 B-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 B-iii 

CONTENTS 

B.1 CLEANUP VALUES OF AFFECTED GOVERNMENTS ................................................1

B.1.1 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN 

RESERVATION ......................................................................................................1

B.1.2 NEZ PERCE TRIBE ................................................................................................2

B.2 HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD ADVICE .....................................................................2

B.3 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................6

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 B-iv 

TERMS 

Board Hanford Advisory Board 

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 B-1 

APPENDIX B 

TRIBES AND STAKEHOLDER VIEWS AND VALUES 

B.1 CLEANUP VALUES OF AFFECTED GOVERNMENTS 

In addition to working with the State of Washington and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has government-to-government 

relationships with affected Tribal Nations and the State of Oregon. This Hanford Lifecycle 

Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report) takes into account the values of affected 

governments where assumptions have been made regarding work scope, priorities, and schedule 

for cleanup at the Hanford Site. DOE regularly consults with Tribal Governments, and will 

continue to update information about their values in the Lifecycle Report. 

B.1.1 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

The following is excerpted from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Hanford Policy (Resolution # 07-009A), January 1, 2007: 

“Hanford lands and resources should be restored to their pre-Hanford 

environmental conditions, or equivalent to those that existed at the time of the 

Treaty of 1855. 

The Columbia River including the Hanford Reach should be protected from all 

pollution associated from the historic operations of the Hanford Nuclear 

Reservation and wherever and for as long as those pollutants may pose a threat to 

the CTUIR. 

Hanford and Hanford-affected lands and resources should not be further 

developed and no new nuclear missions or expansion of nuclear energy, nor new 

or expanded nuclear fuel storage undertaken unless explicitly permitted by the 

CTUIR Board of Trustees through government-to-government consultation. 

As the USDOE Environmental Management Program completes its clean-up, the 

CTUIR should get first right of refusal if any land is removed from federal 

ownership or transferred to another entity. 

The USDOE should meet or exceed all federal and State laws with respect to 

health and safety, transportation safety, disposal, restoration, protection of 

biological species, protection of cultural resources, Tri-Party Agreement 

milestones, and other relevant laws. 

Infrastructure must be removed from the Hanford site. This includes, but is not 

limited to, buildings, pipelines, waste storage tanks, and most (but not all) roads. 

Irreversible actions must not be used as interim solutions such that further 

remediation in the future would be made more difficult. 

All sources of contamination that will impact groundwater will be removed and 

all groundwater contamination will be removed. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 B-2 

The DOE should fulfill its mission in full compliance with applicable federal and 

State laws and regulations. Administratively seeking to change or re-interpret 

existing law is illegal and is an illegal abrogation of CTUIR rights.” 

B.1.2 NEZ PERCE TRIBE 

The following is excerpted from Nez Perce Hanford End-State Vision (Resolution NP-05-411), 

adopted September 27, 2005: 

“The Nez Perce Tribe believes that the ultimate goal of the Hanford cleanup 

should be to restore the land to uncontaminated pre-Hanford conditions for 

unrestricted use. This includes air, soil, groundwater, and surface water. Tribal 

members, ecological resources, and cultural resources within Usual and 

Accustomed areas should not be exposed to any potential adverse risk above that 

which has always existed for the tribe prior to the establishment of the federal 

government projects and facilities at Hanford in 1942.” 

B.2 HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD ADVICE 

On November 6, 2009, the Hanford Advisory Board provided consensus advice (No. 223), 

Lifecycle Cost and Schedule Report of the Proposed Consent Decree and the Tri-Party 

Agreement (TPA) Modifications. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 B-3 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 B-4 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 B-5 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 B-6 

B.3 REFERENCES 

HAB 223, 2009, “Life Cycle Cost and Schedule Report for the Proposed Consent Decree and the 

Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Modifications,” (letter to D. Brockman, S. Olinger, P. Zehm, 

and M. Pirzadeh from S. Leckband), Hanford Advisory Board Consensus Advice #223, 

Richland, Washington, November 6. 

Resolution 07-009A, 2007, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Hanford 

Policy, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Richland, Washington. 

Resolution NP-05-411, 2005, Nez Perce Hanford End-State Vision, Nez Perce Tribe, 

Lapwai, Idaho. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 C-i 

APPENDIX C 

APPLICATION OF KEY TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 C-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 C-iii 

CONTENTS 

C.1 LIFECYCLE REPORT PROCESS TIMEFRAMES ..........................................................1

C.2 TYPE OF TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DOCUMENT ......................................................1

C.3 FINAL CLEANUP DECISIONS ........................................................................................2

C.4 GRADED APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ...................2

C.5 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND REASONABLE UPPER 

BOUND ...............................................................................................................................3

C.6 DISTINGUISHING PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FROM STANDARD 

PLANNING UNCERTAINTIES .........................................................................................3

C.7 ALTERNATIVES AND ACCELERATED CLEANUP ACTIONS ..................................3

C.8 COST INFORMATION DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTATION ...................................4

C.9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................4

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 C-iv 

TERMS 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 C-1 

APPENDIX C 

APPLICATION OF KEY TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) encountered several issues while preparing 

the initial Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report). The DOE, 

EPA, and Ecology worked together to ensure a common understanding of the issues; these 

mutual understandings are summarized in this appendix, which will be updated as necessary to 

reflect changes and evolution in these understandings. 

C.1 LIFECYCLE REPORT PROCESS TIMEFRAMES 

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 that after 

DOE submits the Lifecycle Report, EPA and Ecology can provide comments, and the 

TPA agencies (DOE, EPA, and Ecology) will work together to revise the report. The milestone 

does not indicate how long this comment/revision period can take, nor does it specify whether 

the milestone is completed when the Lifecycle Report is submitted or when EPA and Ecology’s 

comments are incorporated and DOE issues a revised Lifecycle Report. Depending on how long 

the comment/revision process takes, there is a risk of missing milestone due dates and/or 

overlapping from a previous report into the period for the next report. 

Discussions among the TPA agencies concluded that for each year, TPA Milestone M-036-01 

should be considered complete on the date DOE submits to EPA and Ecology the annual 

Lifecycle Report for that year. The comment and revision process will continue to be a 

requirement under the milestone, but milestone completion occurs on the date the report is 

submitted. In addition, the TPA agencies concluded that there should be no time limit placed on 

the comment period (in keeping with the Lifecycle Report being a “living document”), but that 

revision of the most recent Lifecycle Report (if determined to be necessary) would be limited to 

a reasonable period after the report’s submittal. The general expectation is that comments will 

be accepted but not accounted for until the next annual submittal of the Lifecycle Report. 

C.2 TYPE OF TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DOCUMENT 

Most documents required by the TPA are classified as Primary, Secondary, or Other. 

The document type, or classification, generally is based on the significance of the document for 

making cleanup decisions, and is used to direct documents through particular procedures for 

review, comment, and dispute resolution and for administrative recordkeeping. TPA Milestone 

M-036-01 does not specify what type of TPA document the Lifecycle Report is, and the TPA 

document classifications do not clearly align with the nature of the Lifecycle Report as an 

advisory, but not decision-making, document. 

The TPA agencies agreed that this matter would be best resolved through the project 

management processes laid out in the TPA. The TPA agencies will decide on the type of 

document, the formal methods for resolving issues and disagreements, and how to satisfy public 

involvement consistent with the Community Relations Plan for the Hanford Federal Facility 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 C-2 

Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 2002). This paragraph will be updated to describe 

the document type and management process once agreement is reached by the TPA agencies. 

C.3 FINAL CLEANUP DECISIONS 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires the Lifecycle Report to consider alternatives for 

circumstances where “final cleanup decisions” have not yet been made. Discussions among the 

TPA agencies revealed a variety of opinions about what constitutes a “final” versus “non-final” 

cleanup decision. For example, many legally final decisions are still subject to periodic review 

and could change based on new information or conditions. There also are final decisions that 

have been made under other Federal and State programs and for other DOE operations that 

directly or indirectly affect decisions about the Hanford Site cleanup mission. 

The TPA agencies concluded that it is important to document the decisions considered relevant 

to the Hanford Site cleanup mission and to indicate which ones are considered final. 

This information has been provided in Appendix D of the Lifecycle Report. 

C.4 GRADED APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires that where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, 

the Lifecycle Report is to consider ranges of alternatives and present a reasonable upper bound. 

Final cleanup decisions have not been made for many Hanford Site cleanup actions, which 

implies that there are a lot of alternatives to be considered. Further, the milestone does not 

specify what the scope of an “alternative” should include. At one extreme, an alternative could 

cover a single, discrete activity (e.g., remediation of one ditch), or at another extreme could 

cover all the work needed for an entire portion of the Hanford Site (e.g., cleanup of all the 

300 Area). 

Discussions among the TPA agencies concluded that alternatives should be addressed in a 

manner consistent with the way final and interim cleanup decisions are already being made for 

the Hanford Site. This approach bundles similar work that enables cleanup to proceed for 

common or related contaminants that occur in a relatively well-defined environmental media 

(or waste management system) within a generally contiguous geographic area. Examples of 

cleanup actions for which alternatives may be considered include dispositioning the 100 Area 

reactors, remediating all contaminated soils in the outer portions of the 200 Area, and restoring 

300 Area groundwater to beneficial use. This is a practical scale at which alternatives can be 

addressed in the Lifecycle Report. 

The TPA agencies also determined that the number of cleanup actions for which final decisions 

do not yet exist is large, and that the Lifecycle Report effort could quickly become 

overwhelming if it were to address all the potential alternatives at once. In addition, the 

TPA agencies recognized that it would be neither helpful nor necessary, for purposes of 

supporting budget planning and other decisions, to immediately perform detailed analyses on 

every potential alternative. As a result, the Lifecycle Report proposes a schedule and rationale 

for when different cleanup actions will undergo in-depth alternatives analyses. 

Appendix A of the Lifecycle Report provides additional information on how cleanup action 

alternatives have been identified and scheduled for consideration. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 C-3 

C.5 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND REASONABLE UPPER 

BOUND 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 states that “where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the 

report will be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives or a 

range of alternative costs including a reasonable upper bound.” The milestone does not define 

what a “range of plausible alternatives” is or what would be a “reasonable upper bound.” 

Numerous discussions among the TPA agencies produced general consensus on how to address 

these concepts, and they are discussed further in Section 1.6 and Appendix A of the Lifecycle 

Report. 

C.6 DISTINGUISHING PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FROM STANDARD 

PLANNING UNCERTAINTIES 

DOE’s planning typically includes “built-in” construction or operating uncertainties in 

anticipation of identified risks and opportunities. While having the appearance of being different 

alternatives, these cost and/or schedule uncertainties often present predictable variations for a 

particular cleanup approach. Developing an alternative analysis on the basis of planned cost 

and/or schedule uncertainties would be redundant, and would not be useful in considering and 

evaluating ranges of plausible alternatives for cleanup actions. 

The TPA agencies generally have agreed that cost and/or schedule uncertainties, management 

reserve, and other standard planning practices used to account for risks and opportunities will not 

normally constitute distinct alternatives. For example, an alternative based on removal, 

treatment, and disposal of contaminated soils would be a distinct alternative, but allowances for 

uncertainties that cover larger than expected excavation work (e.g., that twice as much soil must 

be removed than originally planned) would not be a distinct alternative. Where alternatives are 

presented in the Lifecycle Report, the discussion will be clear on how cost and/or schedule 

uncertainty is part of the planned costs (to avoid double counting) and, where this is not the case, 

whether and how costs have been specifically developed in planning for project uncertainty and 

risk. 

C.7 ALTERNATIVES AND ACCELERATED CLEANUP ACTIONS 

During discussions with the Hanford Advisory Board, Hanford stakeholders, and others, terms 

like “acceleration” and “accelerated scenarios” have been used when describing the need to 

consider alternatives and types of alternatives that are of interest. The TPA agencies recognize 

that many parties are interested in being able to consider the acceleration of different cleanup 

actions. However, the TPA agencies have determined that in most cases, acceleration is not in 

fact a separate alternative to a cleanup action, and that acceleration only hastens a cleanup action 

alternative that already has been or is being developed in support of a cleanup decision (whether 

interim or final). Thus, project acceleration will not normally be included in this Lifecycle 

Report, and existing decision-making processes (e.g., under Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) will 

be relied on to consider the timing and schedule for implementing proposed alternatives. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 C-4 

Nevertheless, the TPA agencies do reserve the option to consider in the Lifecycle Report specific 

cleanup action alternatives even though they may chiefly or only affect cleanup schedules. 

C.8 COST INFORMATION DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTATION 

The TPA agencies discussed a number of issues related to how cost information should be 

developed and documented in the Lifecycle Report. These discussions resulted in several 

important decisions, as follows. 

 In order to prepare schedule and cost information about future work, DOE and its 

contractors make assumptions about anticipated activities. Their planning assumes 

reasonable outcomes for decisions that have not yet been made, accounts for uncertainties 

where existing information is inadequate, and allows work to proceed without precluding 

other future choices. In effect, such planning is one available cleanup action alternative, 

and is used to develop future funding requests. To promote clarity and understanding 

about the Hanford Site cleanup mission, the Lifecycle Report will include information 

about assumptions used to develop DOE’s planning and associated costs. 

 The requirements for long-term stewardship and institutional controls will not be well 

defined for many years, and will depend greatly on the outcome of existing and future 

cleanup decisions. Even so, the costs of long-term stewardship and institutional controls, 

to the extent predictable, will be included in the Lifecycle Report. Chapter 7.0 addresses 

this subject, although the information provided is likely to be broad and generic, 

reflecting the uncertainty and long time horizons involved. As decisions are made and 

long-term stewardship and institutional controls are better identified, more specific cost 

information will be presented in the Lifecycle Report as part of the related cleanup 

actions. 

 The TPA agencies recognize that Natural Resource Damage Assessment costs eventually 

need to be included in the Lifecycle Report. However, the general opinion is that it 

would be premature to include such cost estimates, and that time should be allowed for 

the Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council to begin developing reasonable methods 

and bases for calculating Natural Resource Damage Assessment costs at the Hanford 

Site. However, the costs associated with supporting the Natural Resource Trustee 

Council will be included. 

C.9 REFERENCES 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 C-5 

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 2002, Community Relations Plan for the 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. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 C-6 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-i 

APPENDIX D 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-iii 

CONTENTS 

D.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISION MAKING PROCESSES ............2

D.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ..................................3

D.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS .....................4

D.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY 

PROGRAM APPROVALS .....................................................................................4

D.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS .............................................................5

D.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS ....................................................6

D.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND 

NOT YET FINAL ................................................................................................................6

D.4. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................28

TABLES 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages) .......................... 7

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) ................................................................. 13

Table D-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions 

Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (3 pages) ................................................ 22

Table D-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. .............. 24

Table D-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. 

(4 pages) .................................................................................................................... 25

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-iv 

TERMS 

2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. 

AM Action Memorandum. 

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. 

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 

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

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERA expedited response action 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

ESD explanation of significant differences 

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

HCP-EIS Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement 

HLW high-level waste 

IC institutional controls 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISS interim safe storage 

MCL maximum contaminant limit 

OU operable unit 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant) 

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 

SST single-shell tank 

TCRA time critical removal action 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-1 

APPENDIX D 

HANFORD SITE 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). The Lifecycle Report is expected to reflect all actions necessary 

for DOE to meet all applicable environmental obligations as it completes the Hanford Site 

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), and other agencies conduct under Federal 

and State regulatory programs. 

A number of decisions affecting the Hanford Site cleanup mission have been made, and actions 

to implement these decisions have been completed, or are or will soon be under way. Many 

other cleanup decisions, however, cannot be made yet, are in preliminary planning stages, and/or 

are the subject of final agreements that are being developed. The absence of final decisions is 

addressed in the TPA Milestone 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.” 

Several sections of this Lifecycle Report present cleanup action alternatives for 

“...circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made....” 

(TPA Milestone M-036-01). Any discussion of alternatives in this report needs to begin with an 

understanding of what “final cleanup decisions” are, which in turn requires answering several 

related questions: 

 What is a decision? 

 What is a cleanup decision? 

 What makes some decisions final and others not? 

This Appendix D to the Lifecycle Report provides current information about decisions that affect 

the Hanford cleanup mission, and when these decisions might be considered to be final cleanup 

decisions for Lifecycle Report purposes. Specifically: 

 Section D.1 provides a general overview of the principal processes that are employed at 

the Hanford Site to reach decisions about cleanup actions. 

 Section D.2 describes in more detail the Federal and state decisions that can affect 

Hanford Site 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 D.3 summarizes the current decisions that, for purposes of this Lifecycle Report, 

are considered to be Hanford Site cleanup decisions and which of these cleanup decisions 

can be identified as final cleanup decisions. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-2 

This appendix will be updated to reflect new and changed final cleanup decisions, and to provide 

a basis each year for determining cleanup actions to evaluate in the latest Lifecycle Report. 

D.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISION MAKING 

PROCESSES 

To implement the Hanford Site cleanup mission, DOE, with EPA and Ecology, reach decisions 

about what actions need to be performed to protect public and worker health 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) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) that require the 

consideration of various alternatives before selecting cleanup actions. In some cases, the 

agencies develop interim or partial decisions that enable cleanup work to proceed pending the 

ability to make final decisions (e.g., to alleviate urgent concerns, acquire better information, 

develop technological advances, obtain needed funding). 

The TPA is the primary legal framework that DOE, EPA, and Ecology are using to achieve 

cleanup of the Hanford Site. Cleanup decisions made through the TPA integrate and implement 

primarily the following regulatory processes: 

 CERCLA processes will support remedial decision making for most past-practice waste 

sites, canyon facilities, and structures that contain radioactive contamination or other 

hazardous substances. The TPA also 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 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. Regardless of this issue with RCRA, Hanford Site cleanup of 

radionuclides in RCRA waste sites will be protective and consistent with CERCLA 

cleanup practices. 

 RCRA closure processes generally will be used to achieve final closure decisions for 

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 the 

State of Washington. 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, 2007, 

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 noted above, RCRA authority does 

not extend to the cleanup of radionuclides, while CERCLA does. The TPA states that the 

cleanup process selected for an operable unit (OU) will be sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy 

the technical requirements of both authorities and the respective regulations. 

In addition to CERCLA and RCRA, DOE is responsible for regulating the radioactive materials 

that it manages, including setting standards that affect cleanup decisions for radionuclides. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-3 

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, defines additional requirements and processes 

that are applicable to cleaning up radioactive facilities and media. DOE develops and 

implements cleanup decisions under this regulatory program. 

Land use is also an important factor in making cleanup decisions because remedial action 

objectives are to reflect the reasonably anticipated future land uses(s). These future land-use 

assumptions allow risk assessments and feasibility studies to focus on developing practical and 

cost-effective remedial alternatives. These alternatives should then support future site activities 

that are consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use. 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 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 adopted and implemented a comprehensive 

land-use plan for the Hanford Site. As DOE’s decision stated: 

“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) 

An area as large and complex as the Hanford Site has an extraordinary number of decisions that 

need to be made to carry out the cleanup mission. 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 lay the groundwork for future final decisions. The rest of this Appendix D 

provides a more extensive discussion of the decisions that have been made and that affect 

cleanup of the Hanford Site, and includes several tables that list and summarize the effects of 

these decisions. 

D.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD SITE CLEANUP 

For purposes of TPA Milestone M-036-01 and this Lifecycle Report, a cleanup decision should: 

1. Be promulgated under applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities of responsible 

Federal and state agencies, and 

2. Establish an enforceable environmental obligation which results in actions or events that 

affect cleanup of the Hanford Site. 

Not all decisions meet both of these criteria. There are many statutory/regulatory authorities that 

apply to Hanford but that do not establish environmental obligations. Examples include 

requirements related to property and services acquisition, software design, cyber security, 

occupational medicine, equal opportunity, or privacy protection. Alternatively, there are many 

statutes and regulations that establish environmental obligations for the Hanford Site, but not all 

of them promulgate decisions that affect cleanup of the Site. Some examples include 

requirements for pesticide or herbicide application, drinking water purveyor reporting, storm 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-4 

water management, greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substances, emergency planning and 

community right-to-know, and selection of green products. 

Statutory/regulatory authorities that result in decisions that can affect Hanford Site cleanup are 

identified and discussed in more detail in the following sections. 

D.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND 

LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS 

CERCLA, as modified by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 1986, established 

the Federal program to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned waste sites as well as accidents, 

spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. 

EPA has lead authority for CERCLA and administers its requirements under 40 CFR 300, 

“National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.” The most common 

documentation used to implement cleanup decisions under CERCLA includes the following. 

 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. An ROD contains information 

about the site history, site description, site 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. Records 

of decision can be final or interim; interim records of decision are used to 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. 

A number of CERCLA documents have been completed that include or have resulted in 

decisions that affect Hanford Site cleanup. These CERCLA documents and summaries of the 

relevant cleanup decisions are listed in Section D.3. 

D.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY PROGRAM 

APPROVALS 

RCRA, as modified by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, gave EPA the 

authority to control the generation, transportation, and TSD of hazardous waste. 

The amendments expanded the scope of RCRA to require corrective action for certain releases of 

hazardous waste constituents to the environment from RCRA facilities regardless of time of 

release (similar to CERCLA remedial action). Unlike CERCLA, EPA may delegate authority 

for implementing RCRA to the states, and in Washington, Ecology has lead authority for most 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-5 

elements of RCRA. The principal documents used to implement Hanford Site 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 at which TSD of regulated 

hazardous waste (or dangerous waste, in Washington State) occur. A TSD facility may 

receive a final status permit even though it is closed and not operating, if there are 

ongoing caretaking activities that must be maintained after closure (i.e., during the 

post-closure care period). At the Hanford Site, a single final status permit covers the 

entire Hanford Site, but it is being issued in phases because of the number of TSD 

facilities that exist. The final status permit includes decisions about how Federal and 

state statutes, regulations, and guidance have been interpreted and applied to the specific 

activities conducted at each TSD facility. 

 Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Some Hanford Site 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 also required to address residual contamination. Ecology must approve closure 

and 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 clean up releases from RCRA TSD facilities, 

may be required before a final status permit is issued. Decisions about the degree and 

methods for cleanup will be made and implemented through a corrective action plan that 

is approved by Ecology. 

In addition to RCRA, there are numerous other programs, authorized under existing Federal and 

state statutes and regulations that require permits, licenses and other approvals that can affect 

cleanup at the Hanford Site. These other decision documents establish, among other conditions, 

limits on emissions of radionuclides and other hazardous constituents to the air, water, and 

ground. Section D.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 Site cleanup. 

D.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS 

Among other functions, the TPA helps define how the CERCLA and RCRA programs will be 

implemented when they have overlapping authorities. The TPA is used to determine which 

decision-making process and documentation (e.g., CERCLA ROD, RCRA permit) will be used 

to establish cleanup actions for the different waste sites and facilities across the Hanford Site, but 

it is that subsequent documentation (not the TPA itself) where the cleanup decisions are formally 

established. The TPA itself does, however, include some decisions that affect cleanup at the 

Hanford Site. These may include, for example, 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 D.3. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-6 

D.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS 

There are a variety of other decisions embodied in executive, legislative, and judicial documents 

that can affect cleanup of the Hanford Site. Section D.3 lists the various Executive Orders, 

Presidential Proclamations, Congressional Acts, judicial orders and decrees, and other types of 

Federal and state decisions that may affect Hanford Site cleanup. 

D.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND 

NOT YET FINAL 

The statutory/regulatory authorities discussed in Section D.2 have resulted in a multitude of 

national, regional, and/or state decisions across numerous projects and programs. Some of these 

decisions do establish environmental obligations that affect the Hanford Site cleanup mission. 

These Hanford Site cleanup decisions are summarized in this Section D.3. 

While some decisions more clearly affect the Hanford Site than others, care has been taken to 

include decisions that have indirect effects on Hanford cleanup. Examples of such indirect 

decisions might 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 in this appendix, the Lifecycle Report is required to consider cleanup 

alternatives “where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made” (TPA Milestone M-36-01, 

third paragraph) at the Hanford Site. Some cleanup decisions may appear to be final but are not: 

 They may be only interim remedies until a final cleanup decision can be made, or 

 They may only be partial actions within a much larger cleanup effort. 

Even where final decisions have been made, there are legal mandates to perform periodic 

reviews to ensure that selected remedies continue to be effective; new decisions may be needed 

depending on how well cleanup actions are working. 

To stay as simple as possible, the term final has been interpreted literally. For purposes of this 

Lifecycle Report, a cleanup decision will be treated as a final cleanup decision if: 

 The decision is embodied in a statutory/regulatory document that is titled final (e.g., final 

permit, final ROD); or 

 The decision is explicitly represented as final in a document, and such representation is 

compliant with the statutory/regulatory authority that produced the document. 

The Hanford Site cleanup decisions summarized in Tables D-1, D-3, and D-5 indicate whether 

the decision is considered to be final by inclusion of the word FINAL after the decision title in 

the first column. 

In addition to decisions that have been made, whether final or not, there are many cleanup 

decisions that are yet to be made for the Hanford Site. By definition, the absence of a decision 

means there is not a final cleanup decision. It would not be possible to develop an exhaustive list 

of all the decisions that still need to be made to complete the Hanford cleanup mission. 

However, as these decisions are reached, they will be incorporated into this section of the 

Lifecycle Report. 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages

Record of Decision Title ROD Type Area Date Approved Initial Decision Revision Title 

Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area (EPA/ROD/R10-93/063) FINAL

CERCLA Final ROD 1100 Sep-93 Cap Horn Rapids Landfill; offsite disposal of PCB-contam

monitored natural attenuation of groundwater contaminatio

Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (EPA/ROD/R10-95/100) FINAL

CERCLA Final ROD 200-West Jan-95 Initial construction of 2 cells; 

maximum size of 1.6 sq mi; landfill construction in accordance with RCRA; capped at completion 

USDOE EnvironmentaRestoration Disposal FHanford Site, Benton CWashington, ExplanatioSignificant Difference ((EPA/ESD/R10-96/145

U.S. Department of EneEnvironmental RestoraDisposal Facility, Hanf– 200 Area, Benton CoWashington, Amended of Decision, Decision Summary and ResponsiSummary, (see also proplan for amendment) (EPA/AMD/R10-97/10U.S. Department of EneEnvironmental RestoraDisposal Facility, Hanf– 200 Area, Benton CoWashington, Amended of Decision, Decision Summary and ResponsiSummary, (see also proplan for amendment) (EPA/AMD/R10-99/03U.S. Department of EneEnvironmental RestoraDisposal Facility, Hanf– 200 Area, Benton CoWashington, Amended of Decision, Decision Summary and ResponsiSummary, (see also pro

plan for amendment) (EPA/AMD/R10-02/03
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 

 D-8 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages

Record of Decision Title ROD Type Area Date Approved Initial Decision Revision Title 

U.S. Department of EneEnvironmental RestoraDisposal Facility, Hanf- 200 Area, Benton CouWashington, Amended of Decision, Decision Summary and ResponsiSummary (EPA 2007) Declaration: U.S. Depaof Energy, EnvironmenRestoration Disposal FHanford Site - 200 AreaBenton County, Washin

(EPA 2009a) 

Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit(EPA/ROD/R10-95/114) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

200-West; 200-ZP-1 OU 

May-95 Pump and treat to address carbon tetrachloride, chloroform

interim action to continue until final action instituted; reinj

Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, 200-ZP1 Operable Unit Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA 2008) FINAL

CERCLA Final ROD 200-West; 200-

ZP-1 OU 

Sep-08 Pump and treat to address carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, chr

attenuation; flow-path control through injection of treated w

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) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

100; 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 OUs 

Sep-95 Remove contaminated soil, 

structures and debris using the 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 of excavated areas followed by revegetation. 

Amendment to the InterAction Record of Decisthe 100-BC-1, 100-DR-100-HR-1 Operable UnHanford Site, Benton CWashington (See also DESD and Proposed Amendment documents preceding this ROD amendment) (EPA/AMD/R10-97/04

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

CERCLA Final ROD 100; 100-IU-1, 

100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 OUs 

Feb-96 No action 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages

Record of Decision Title ROD Type Area Date Approved Initial Decision Revision 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) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

100-H, 100-K Mar-96 Interim action to remove 

hexavalent chromium from groundwater; 30 extraction wells; ion exchange treatment; reinject treated effluent; monitor; institute institutional controls. 

Interim Remedial ActioRecord of Decision Amendment for the 100Operable Unit, HanforBenton County, WashinHanford Site, Benton CWashington (EPA/AMD/R10-00/12Explanation of SignificDifference for the 100-HOperable Unit Record Decision (EPA 2002) Explanation of SignificDifference for the 100-HOperable Unit Record Decision (EPA/ESD/R10-03/606Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 100and 100-KR-4 OperablInterim Action Record Decision, Hanford Site, County, Washington(EPA 2009b)

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-FF1 OU; it is an interim action for 300-FF-5 OU. 

CERCLA Final ROD 300; 300-FF-1 

and 300-FF-5 OUs 

Jul-96 300-FF-1: removal of 

contaminated soil and debris; disposal to ERDF; backfill and recontouring; institutional controls. 300-FF-5: monitoring and institutional controls for groundwater. 

USDOE Hanford 300 A300-FF-1 Operable UnHanford Site, Benton CWashington ExplanatioSignificant Difference ((EPA/ESD/R10-00/505

Explanation of SignificDifference for the 300-FRecord of Decision (EPA/ESD/R10-00/524
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 

 D-10 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages

Record of Decision Title ROD Type Area Date Approved Initial Decision Revision Title 

Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-97/048) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

200-West; 200-UP-1 OU 

Feb-97 Extract from high concentration 

zone of uranium and technetium-99 plumes and treat at Effluent Treatment Facility. 

Explanation of SignificDifferences for the InteAction Record of Decisthe 200-UP-1 GroundwOperable Unit, HanforBenton County, Washin

(EPA 2009c) 

Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR1, 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) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

100, 200 North Jul-99 RTD for 46 sites; plug-in 

approach for remaining 100 Area and 200 North sites; plugin approach for newly identified 100 Area sites; 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. 

Explanation of SignificDifference for the 100 ARemaining Sites ROD, Hanford 100 Area, 100Operable Unit, HanforBenton County, Washin

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/045

Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 100 Remaining Sites Interim Record of Decision (EPA 2004)Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 100 Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action RecorDecision, Hanford Site, County, Washington(EPA 2009d) 

Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/059) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

100-K Sep-99 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 institutional controls. 

Interim Remedial Action of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. DeparEnergy; 100 K Area K BHanford Site - 100 Area Benton County, Washing

(EPA 2005) 
2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages

Record of Decision Title ROD Type Area Date Approved Initial Decision Revision 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) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

100-N Sep-99 Institutional controls 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. 

Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 100Operable Unit TreatmeStorage, and Disposal IAction Record of Decis100-NR-1/100-NR-2 OpUnit Interim Action RecDecision(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605

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) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD for 2 RCRA TSDs and an associated site 

100-N Jan-00 RTD of 116-NR-1 and 116-NR3 Cribs with ERDF disposal; 

backfill and revegetate; any pipelines will be removed or sampled and left in place based on sample results. 

Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 100Operable Unit TreatmeStorage, and Disposal IAction Record of Decis100-NR-1/100-NR-2 OpUnit Interim Action RecDecision(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605

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) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

100 Sep-00 Remove contaminated soil, 

structures, and debris; treat as needed; dispose to ERDF; backfill and revegetate. Applies to 45 100-Area burial grounds. 

Explanation of SignificDifference for the InterAction Record of Decisthe 100-BC-1, 100-BC-100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, a100-KR-2 Operable Un(100 Area Burial Grou(EPA 2007b) 

Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit(EPA/ROD/R10-01/119) 

CERCLA Interim Action ROD 

300; 300-FF-2 OU 

Apr-01 Remove contaminated soil, 

structures, and debris; treat as needed; dispose to ERDF, WIPP, or other; backfill and revegetate; establish institutional controls; continued groundwater monitoring; and define plug-in approach. 

Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 300-FF-2 Operable UnRecord of Decision(EPA 2004) 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 

 D-12 

Table D-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (6 pages

Record of Decision Title ROD Type Area Date Approved Initial Decision Revision Title 

Explanation of SignificDifferences for the 300Operable Unit Interim ARecord of Decision, HaSite, Benton County, Washington (EPA 2009

Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative), Hanford Site, Washington (EPA 2005) FINAL

CERCLA Final ROD 200-West Oct-05 Removal of waste from vessels and equipment in the facili

that waste at WIPP; removal of liquids from the facility or 

from the gallery side of the facility and disposal at ERDF; and 292-U structures and the 291-U-1 and 296-U-10 stacks 

adapted vegetation on the barrier; institutional controls; po

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. ESD = explanation of significant differences. IC = institutional controls. MCL = maximum contaminant limit. OU = operable unit. 

PCB = polychlorinated bRCRA = Resource ConserRD/RAWP = remedial design/ROD = record of decisioRTD = remove, treat, disTSD = treatment, storagWIPP = Waste Isolation P
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-13 

Unless otherwise noted in Table D-2, decisions made through Action Memoranda are considered 

final. These Action Memoranda are available in the TPA Administrative Record 

(http://www2.hanford.gov/arpir/). These decisions focus mainly on the D4 of buildings, which 

are generally considered final actions since the buildings are demolished and the waste disposed 

to approved facilities, or on the removal, treatment, and disposal (RTD) of contaminated soil 

from waste sites, which are also generally considered final actions for individual waste sites. 

However, slabs and contaminated soils underlying buildings will likely go through 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 D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: 316-5 Process 

Trenches, U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington” 

(CCN 9103432) 

Jul-91 ERA The Action Memorandum (AM) 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 was initially 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 The AM identifies installation of a soil vapor extraction 

system with granular activated carbon recovery and 

offsite granular activated carbon regeneration at 

216-Z-1A initially 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 200-ZP-1 OU. 

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: Sodium 

Dichromate Barrel Landfill, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(CCN 9307470) 

Mar-93 ERA The AM identifies excavation and disposal of drums and 

homestead debris from the landfill with sampling of any 

other wastes encountered during excavation; the 

expedited reaction would result in cleanup of the landfill 

to unrestricted levels. 

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; Riverland Site, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington” (CCN 9305567) 

Jun-93 ERA The AM 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. 

“Action Memorandum: North 

Slope (Wahluke Slope) 

Expedited Response Action 

Cleanup Plan, U.S. 

Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(Ecology and EPA 1994a) 

Mar-94 ERA The AM provides for mitigation of physical hazards, 

excavation of the worst-case landfill, characterization of 

the 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 of this action 

is to provide for the final removal action taken at the 

100-IU-3 OU (the Wahluke Slope). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-14 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

“Action Memorandum, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

NPL,100-IU-3 Operable Unit 

(Wahluke Slope), Hanford 

Site, Adams, Grant, and 

Franklin Counties, 

Washington” (Ecology and 

DOE 1997) 

Jul-97 TCRA The AM addresses contaminated soils and drums at the 

2,4-D Burial Ground in the 200-IU-3 OU. The removal 

action includes excavation of dioxin-contaminated soil 

for offsite disposal; bioremediation of 2,4-D 

contaminated soil; and excavation, cleaning, and 

disposal of the drums to ERDF. Under the 1994 AM for 

the Wahluke Slope, the 2,4-D Burial Ground was only 

identified for sampling. Subsequently, additional 

contamination was found, prompting this additional 

AM. Completion of this AM action allows continuation 

of the deletion process for the OU from the NPL. 

“Action Memorandum; 

N Springs Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(Ecology and EPA 1994b) 

Sep-94 ERA The AM identifies a pump-and-treat system combined 

with a vertical barrier for implementation at N Springs. 

These systems comprise a component of the 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; 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site; Richland, 

Washington” (EPA and 

Ecology 1995) 

Jun-95 ERA The AM allows contaminated soils from waste sites 

116-B-4, 116-B-5, and 116-C-1 to be excavated and 

temporarily stored in a safe fashion pending the start of 

ERDF operations; the actions under this AM would also 

provide additional information to support remedial 

design, including cost information, for the 100-BC-1 

OU. The ERA was not intended as a final decision; the 

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 The AM identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 

183-H Solar Evaporation Basin waste generated through 

cleanup activities. 

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 200 

West Area, Central Waste 

Complex, 183-H Solar 

Evaporation Basin Waste, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al. 

2003) 

Jun-03 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM allows for the treatment and disposal to ERDF 

of wastes generated during the RCRA closure of 183-H 

basins 

“Action Memorandum, N 

Area Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 038546) 

Nov-96 ERA The AM 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-15 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

“Action Memorandum; 

100 B/C Area Ancillary 

Facilities and the 

108-F Building Removal 

Action, U.S. Department of 

Energy Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (EPA 1997) 

Jan-97 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies D4 with ERDF disposal for the 

following facilities in the 100-B and 100-F Areas: 

111-B, 115-B, 118-C-4, 119-B, 105-C reactor waste, 

and 108-F. B Reactor and the ISS of 105-C Reactor are 

not included in the AM. This action is considered final 

for the ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the 

reactor. Additional decisions are expected on the reactor 

core that is in ISS. 

“Memorandum: Removal 

Action at the 233-S Plutonium 

Concentration Facility, United 

States Department of Energy 

(USDOE) Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington” 

(DOE and EPA 1997) 

Mar-97 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies decontamination and demolition as 

the preferred alternative for the 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 to ERDF; other 

waste would be disposed as appropriate. 

“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” 

(CCN 059689) 

Jul-98 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-F and 105-DR reactor 

cores and decontamination and demolition for the 

reactor components up to the cores and for the 116-D, 

116-DR, 117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary facilities. 

Demolition will extend generally to 3 ft below ground 

level; 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 the reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores that are in 

ISS. 

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 100-N 

Area Ancillary Facilities; 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE, EPA, and 

Ecology 1998) 

Dec-98 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for D&D of the inactive contaminated 

ancillary facilities in the 100-N Area, the facilities in the 

buffer zone, the Hanford Generating Plant, and the solid 

waste management units inside the 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 the 100-N Area 

decision documents for waste sites. 

“Action Memorandum: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 

Hanford 300 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 331-A 

Virology Laboratory Building, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and EPA 

2000) 

Feb-00 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

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 to ERDF. The concrete slab and underlying 

soils would remain in place. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-16 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

“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” (DOE and 

Ecology 2000) 

Dec-00 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-F and 105-DR 

Reactor cores and decontamination and demolition for 

the reactor components up to the cores and for the 

116-D, 116-DR, 117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary 

facilities. Demolition will extend generally to 3 ft below 

ground level; 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 the 

reactors. Additional decisions are expected on the 

reactor cores that are in ISS. 

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 

Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 105-B 

Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington” 

(DOE and EPA 2001) 

Dec-01 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM 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 to ERDF. 

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 200 

Area, Burial Ground 

218-W-4C Waste Retrieval, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al. 

2004) 

Apr-04 TCRA The AM 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 The AM requires the 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 224-B 

Facility, removing equipment and associated piping, 

decontaminating the structure and/or stabilizing the 

contamination, demolishing the structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the 

area. Samples will be used to determine the need for 

additional cleanup of the remaining slab and any 

subsurface soils; however, these cleanup actions are not 

included in the AM, but deferred to future activities. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-17 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

“Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Time Critical 

Removal Action 

Memorandum for Removal of 

the 232- Contaminated Waste 

Recovery Process Facility at 

the Plutonium Finishing 

Plant” (04-AMCP-0486) 

Nov-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for removing the non-radiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities, removing equipment and associated 

piping, decontaminating the structures and/or stabilizing 

the contamination, demolishing the structures to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the area 

around U Plant. The AM provides of listing of the 

specific facilities included. Slabs and underlying soils 

would be addressed as needed through future CERCLA 

actions. 

“Action Memorandum #1 for 

the 300 Area Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2005a) 

Jan-05 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 72 buildings and 

structures in the northern part of the 300 Area with D4 

wastes going to ERDF. An additional 10 buildings and 

structures were included in the EE/CA that supports the 

AM; however, those buildings and structures were 

demolished and found to have not hazardous materials 

prior to the AM. 

“Action Memorandum #2 for 

the 300 Area Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2006a) 

May-06 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of the 324 and 327 

Buildings and ancillary facilities in the 300 Area with 

D4 wastes 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 110 buildings and 

structures in the southern part of the 300 Area with D4 

wastes going to ERDF. An additional 30 buildings and 

structures were included in the EE/CA that supports the 

AM; however, those buildings and structures are not 

included in the AM because DOE has identified 

alternative uses for them. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-18 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

“Action Memorandum; United 

States Department of Energy, 

100 Area, 105-N Reactor 

Facility and 109-N Heat 

Exchanger Building, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and 

Ecology 2005) 

Mar-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D&D of portions of the 105-N 

and 109-N facilities and construction of a protective 

cover over the 105-N Reactor block and the 109-N 

steam generator cells and pipe gallery, placing them into 

ISS; waste would generally be disposed to ERDF. The 

final D&D of these facilities would be conducted in the 

future to allow for decay of radionuclides in the reactor 

block. AM identifies the ISS period as 64 years. This 

action is considered final for the demolished portions of 

the reactor and heat exchange building. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor core and building 

that are in ISS. 

Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Non-time 

Critical Removal Action 

memorandum for Plutonium 

Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures (DOE/RL-2005-13) 

May-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for removing the non-radiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the PFP 

above-grade structures, removing equipment and 

associated piping, decontaminating the structures and/or 

stabilizing the contamination, demolishing the structures 

to slab, disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing 

and/or covering the area around PFP. The AM provides 

a listing of the specific structures included. 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 27 buildings and 

structures in the northern part of the 100-K Area with 

D4 wastes going to ERDF. 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 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 224-T 

Facility, removing equipment and associated piping, 

decontaminating the structure and/or stabilizing the 

contamination, demolishing the structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the 

area. Samples will be used to determine the need for 

additional cleanup of the remaining slab and any 

subsurface soils; however, these cleanup actions are not 

included in the AM, but deferred to future activities. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-19 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

Action Memorandum for the 

Time-Critical Removal Action 

for Support Activities to 

200-UW-1 Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2005-71) 

Sep-05 TCRA The AM provides for activities in support of the U 

Canyon barrier construction, including removal of part 

of the 200-W-42 pipeline, rerouting TEDF line and 

stabilizing/removing a waste water line; complete or 

partial removal of a concrete slab; removal and sealing 

of 3 vent risers; and relocation of miscellaneous markers 

or utilities. The TCRA was used to accelerate work 

consistent with weather conditions and to take advantage 

of availability of specialize resources. This action is not 

considered final; the decision process is ongoing for the 

waste sites in the U Plant Area. The U Plant barrier 

ROD, however, is considered final. 

“Transmittal of the Action 

Memorandum for the NonTime-Critical Removal Action 

for the 105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities” 

(07-AMRC-0086) 

Jan-07 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor cores and decontamination and demolition for 

the reactor components up to the cores and for the 

remaining buildings and structures in the 100-K Area. 

Subsurface structures will generally be removed to 3 ft 

below ground level; however, substructures and/or soil 

beneath the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be 

evaluated through source OU cleanup activities. This 

action is considered final for the ancillary facilities and 

demolished portions of the reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores that are in 

ISS. 

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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the removal, treatment as needed, 

and disposal, generally to ERDF, of UPR-200-E-83 

Zone A soils to a depth of 6 inches, or until PRGs are 

met, and Zone B soils in areas of elevated radioactivity 

above PRGs. Excavation activities must consider old 

growth vegetation and avoid 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 212-N, -P, 

and -R Facilities by removing equipment and associated 

piping, decontaminating the structures and/or stabilizing 

the contamination, demolishing each basin and 

underlying soils to a depth of 1 m, disposing of the 

waste generated, and stabilizing the surrounding area. 

Samples will be collected from the underlying soils to 

evaluate the need for additional cleanup activities 

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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-20 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit

(DOE/RL-2009-48) 

Jul-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM 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 a removal, 

treatment, disposal alternative (3 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

Should the confirmatory sites not meet cleanup levels, 

they will then be addressed by the RTD alternative. 

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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for cleanup of 37 waste sites in the 

100-MG-1 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (21 sites) or a removal, 

treatment, disposal alternative (16 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

Should the confirmatory sites not meet cleanup levels, 

they will then be addressed by the RTD alternative. The 

remainder of the 200-MG-1 OU sites are not included in 

the AM because contamination may exceed 15 ft below 

ground surface; they will be address through the 

CERCLA remedial process. 

Investigation-Derived Waste 

Purgewater Management 

Action Memorandum 

(DOE/RL-2009-39) 

Aug-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for additional purgewater 

management capacity by relining an existing unit and 

installing up to 3 new units, each with leak-detection 

systems. The purgewater management units will be 

operated in compliance with 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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for cleanup of 34 waste sites in the 

100-MG-2 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (16 sites) or an RTD 

alternative (18 sites). Should the confirmatory sites not 

meet cleanup levels, they will then be addressed by the 

RTD alternative. The remainder of the 200-MG-2 OU 

sites are not included in the AM because contamination 

may exceed 15 ft below ground surface; they will be 

address through the CERCLA remedial process. 

Action Memorandum for 

General Hanford Site 

Decommissioning Activities 

(DOE/RL-2010-22) 

Apr-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM establishes D4 for excess industrial buildings 

and structures and cleanup of miscellaneous debris; 

provides for removal of contaminated soil or evaluation 

of contaminated soils for inclusion as a waste site 

through WIDS; identifies ERDF as the preferred 

disposal location for wastes meeting ERDF disposal 

criteria; allows for the possibility of using certain wastes 

in other remedial actions, such as fill material beneath 

barriers; and allows for incorporation of additional, 

similar buildings and structures into the AM. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-21 

Table D-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) 

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision 

2,4-D = 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. 

AM = Action Memorandum. 

CCN = correspondence control number. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980. 

D4 = deactivate, decontaminate, 

decommission, and demolish. 

D&D = decontamination and 

decommissioning. 

EE/CA = engineering evaluation/cost 

analysis. 

ERA = expedited response action. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility. 

ISS = interim safe storage. 

OU = operable unit. 

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PRG = preliminary remediation goal. 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976.

RAL = remedial action level. 

ROD = record of decision. 

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose. 

TCRA = time critical removal action. 

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

TRU = transuranic. 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-22 

Table D-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup Mission. (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) 

(modified September 30, 2009)

FINAL

This dangerous waste permit, for the treatment, storage, and disposal of 

dangerous waste at the Hanford Facility, is the RCRA Permit for the 

Hanford Facility. The permit allows a step-wise permitting process of 

the Hanford Facility to ensure the proper implementation of the TPA. In 

order to accomplish this, the permit consists of six parts. 

Part I, Standard Conditions 

Part II, General Facility Conditions 

Part III, Unit-Specific Conditions for Operating Units 

 Operating Unit 2, PUREX Storage Tunnels 

 Operating Unit 3, Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area 

Effluent Treatment Facility 

 Operating Unit 4, 242-A Evaporator 

 Operating Unit 5, 325 Hazardous Waste Treatment Units 

 Operating Unit 10, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

 Operating Unit 11, Integrated Disposal Facility 

 Operating Unit 15, 331-C Storage Unit 

 Operating Unit 16, 400 Area Waste Management Unit 

Part IV, Unit-Specific Conditions for Corrective Action 

 Corrective Action Unit 1, 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Part V, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units Undergoing Closure 

 Closure Unit 1, 1325-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facility 

 Closure Unit 2, 1301-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facility 

 Closure Unit 3, 1324-N Surface Impoundment and 1324-NA 

Percolation Pond 

Part VI, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units in Post-Closure 

 Post closure Unit 1, 300 Area Process Trenches 

 Post closure Unit 2 ,183-H Solar Evaporation Basins 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit No. PSD-X80-14, issued to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10 

FINAL

Covers emission of NOx to the atmosphere from the Plutonium Uranium 

Extraction Plant and the Uranium-Trioxide Plant. No expiration date. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-23 

Table D-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup Mission. (3 pages) 

Document Summary 

Hanford Site Air Operating Permit 00-

05-006, Renewal 1 

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 requirements both for radioactive and non-radioactive 

emissions at the Hanford Site. It will be implemented through federal 

and state programs. 

Attachment 1 contains the State of Washington Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) permit terms and conditions. 

Attachment 2 contains the State of Washington Department of Health 

(Health) Radioactive Air Emissions License (FF-01) as permit terms and 

conditions. 

Attachment 3 contains the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) 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

Governing effluent discharges to the Columbia River; includes the 

outfall for the 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility and two 

outfalls in the 100-K Area. 

Permit WAR05A57F , Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit 

FINAL

Governs storm water discharges. This permit expired October 30, 2005, 

and a new permit has not yet been issued. However, facilities covered by 

this permit are automatically granted an administrative continuance of 

permit coverage until a new permit is issued. 

Permit CR-IU005, Clean Water Act of 

1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit 

FINAL

Allows wastewater from the Environmental Molecular Sciences 

Laboratory to be discharged to the city of Richland’s wastewater 

treatment facility. 

Permit ST 4500, 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. This permit 

expired August 1, 2005, and has not been reissued. The old permit will 

remain in effect until the new permit is issued. 

Permit ST 4501, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit 

FINAL

Allows for the discharge of cooling water and other primarily 

uncontaminated wastewater from 400 Area facilities to two ponds 

located north-northeast of the 400 Area perimeter fence. This permit was 

effective October 1, 2003, and expired on October 1, 2008. It will remain 

in effect until a new permit is issued. 

Permit ST 4502, 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 expired in May 2005 and has not been reissued. The old permit 

will remain in effect until the new permit is issued. 

Permit ST 4507, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows domestic wastewater to be discharged to the 100-N Area sewage 

lagoon. This permit expired in May 2002. A renewal application has 

been submitted. The old permit will remain in effect until a new permit is 

issued. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-24 

Table D-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup Mission. (3 pages) 

Document Summary 

Permit ST 4511 , Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit 

FINAL

Consolidation of permits: ST 4508, ST 4509, and ST 4510. 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. This permit was issued February 16, 

2005, and expired February 16, 2010. 

Permit WAG-50-5180, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit 

FINAL

General sand and gravel for the Concrete Batch Plant in the 200-East 

Area. Reissued in May 2006. 

Permit WAG-50-5181, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit 

FINAL

For gravel pit 30 in the 200-East Area. Reissued in May 2006. 

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 D-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. 

TPA Documentation Summary of Decision 

 M-045-00 and 

 Appendix C Part 1: 

Required Retrieval Technologies 

 Appendix H 

Closure will follow retrieval of as much tank waste as technically possible, 

with tank waste residues not to exceed 360 ft3

 in each of the 100-series 

tanks, 30 ft3

 in each of the 200-series tanks, or the limit of waste retrieval 

technology capability. 

 Work to Be Performed 

 Section IV.A.3 

 M-062-21 

Under this decree, initial plant operations is defined as, over a rolling period 

of at least three months leading to the milestone date, operating the WTP to 

produce high-level waste glass at an average rate of at least 4.2 metric tons 

of glass/day, and low-activity waste glass at an average rate of at least 21 

metric tons of glass/day. 

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-25 

Table D-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (4 pages) 

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision 

Executive Order 11514, Protection 

and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality, as amended by Executive 

Order 11991 

This Executive Order requires Federal agencies to continually monitor and 

control their activities to (1) protect and enhance the quality of the 

environment and (2) develop procedures to ensure the fullest practicable 

provision of timely public information and understanding of Federal plans 

and programs that may have potential environmental impact so that 

interested parties can submit their views. DOE has 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 Executive order. 

Executive Order 12088, Federal 

Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards

This Executive Order directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable 

administrative and procedural pollution control standards established by, but 

not limited to, the Clean Air Act of 1977, the Noise Control Act of 1972, the 

Clean Water Act of 1977, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Toxic 

Substances Control Act of 1976, and RCRA. 

Executive Order 12580, Superfund 

Implementation

This Executive Order delegates to a number of Federal departments and 

agencies the authority and responsibility to implement certain provisions of 

CERCLA. The policies and procedures for implementing these provisions 

(e.g., carrying out response actions and fulfilling natural resource trusteeship 

responsibilities) are spelled out in the National Contingency Plan. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

FINAL

This Act directed DOE to characterize and evaluate the Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, site for suitability as a potential repository for disposal of 

commercial spent nuclear fuel and HLW. The act also 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 of which was that high-level waste from atomic 

energy defense activities may be disposed of in the proposed repository 

along with spent nuclear fuel. 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 the 

development of a repository for the disposal of HLW and spent nuclear fuel, 

pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 

As indicated in the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget request, the 

Administration intends 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 ultimately dispose of HLW and spent 

nuclear fuel. The Administration directed the establishment of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (Commission) to evaluate 

alternative approaches for meeting these obligations. The Commission is 

scheduled to submit a draft report to the Secretary of Energy by July 2011, 

and a final report by January 2012. The Commission will provide the 

opportunity for a meaningful dialogue on how best to address this 

challenging issue and will provide recommendations that will form the basis 

for working with Congress to revise the statutory framework for managing 

and disposing of HLW and spent nuclear fuel. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-26 

Table D-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (4 pages) 

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision 

Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

of 1992 

FINAL

This Act, enacted on October 6, 1992, 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. The state of Washington, EPA, and DOE had an existing plan 

(i.e., the TPA) addressing compliance with the storage prohibition for mixed 

waste at the time this law was enacted. Therefore, Hanford was not required 

to develop a new plan. A violation of the TPA may concurrently be a 

violation of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 (i.e., the State of 

Washington may seek judicial enforcement under RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6901).. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act

(Public Law 102-579). 

FINAL

The act withdrew land from the public domain for the purposes of creating 

and operating WIPP, the geologic repository in New Mexico designated as 

the national disposal site for defense transuranic waste. In addition to 

establishing the location for the facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act also defines the characteristics and amount of waste that will 

be disposed of at the facility. The amendments to the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant 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 transuranic waste from 

other RCRA requirements. WIPP does have an RCRA permit and can accept 

mixed transuranic waste. On May 15, 2003, EPA Region 6 approved DOE’s 

request to dispose of transuranic waste and mixed transuranic 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 spent nuclear fuel and mixed waste 

from off site and establishes schedules for the treatment of existing highlevel waste, transuranic waste, mixed waste, and removal of spent nuclear 

fuel 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 key elements of the consent decree included: 

 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 percent of 

approximately 23.5 million liters (6.2 million gallons) of remaining 

pumpable liquid is removed by September 30, 2003, with the final 

2 percent 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-27 

Table D-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (4 pages) 

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision 

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 United States 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. 

Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

(November 6, 2000). 

FINAL

This Executive 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. 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Announcement, National Historic 

Landmark, August 19, 2008. 

Hanford’s B Reactor, has been designated a National Historic Landmark by 

the U.S. Department of Interior. 

Consent Decree and Tri-Party 

Agreement Settlement Package, 

order signed October 25, 2010, 

settling State of Washington v. Chu, 

United States District Court, Eastern 

District of Washington, 

Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS

The Consent Decree and TPA Settlement Package imposes milestones for 

the construction, commissioning, and startup of the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP), as well as continued retrieval of waste from 

Hanford’s SSTs. Significant milestones in the Consent Decree require DOE 

to meet deadlines for the WTP’s facilities to keep construction on pace; start 

treating tank waste through the WTP by 2019; achieve initial plant 

operations by 2022; retrieve the waste from the remaining 10 tanks in the 

“C” tank farm by 2014; identify nine other SSTs to retrieve waste from by 

2014; and finish retrieving the waste from those nine other tanks by 2022. 

The Consent Decree also covers reporting requirements for waste retrievals 

from SSTs, regulatory coordination, and a process to resolve disputes 

between the agencies. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-28 

Table D-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (4 pages) 

Other Federal/State Decision 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 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”), Ecology initiated litigation on 

issues related to the importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and 

hazardous waste generated off site as a result of nuclear defense and research 

activities. The court enjoined shipment of offsite transuranic waste to 

Hanford for processing and storage pending shipment to the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Several amendments have been 

made, with the result that DOE, Ecology, and the Washington State Attorney 

General’s Office signed a Settlement Agreement ending the litigation on 

January 6, 2006. The agreement is intended to resolve Ecology’s concerns 

about HSW EIS (DOE/EIS-0286F) groundwater analyses and to address 

other concerns about the HSW EIS, including those identified in the quality 

review (DOE 2006). The agreement also stipulates that when the Reader’s 

Guide Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0391) has 

been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will 

not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decision-making, and DOE 

will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain limited exemptions as 

specified in the agreement. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. 

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.

SST = single-shell tank. 

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant. 

D.4. REFERENCES 

10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

40 CFR 300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,” Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

59 FR 22951, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments,” Federal Register, May 4. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-29 

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. 

04-AMCP-0486, 2004, “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Time Critical Removal Action Memorandum for Removal of the 

232- Contaminated Waste Recovery Process Facility at 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. 

07-AMRC-0086, 2007, “Transmittal of the Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 105-KE and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities” 

(letter to L.E. Gadbois, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 100-K Area Cleanup 

Project Manager from J.R. Franco), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington, January 23. 

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. 

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), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, July 15. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-30 

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. 

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 and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order signed October 25, 2010, 

settling State of Washington v. Chu, United States District Court, Eastern District of 

Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS. 

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. 

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, “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/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-31 

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,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, November 30. 

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

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/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-32 

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, Reader’s Guide Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, Draft, 

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

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, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Non-time Critical Removal Action memorandum for Plutonium Finishing 

Plant, Above-Grade Structures, 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-33 

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, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning 

Activities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

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. 

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 U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.K. 

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

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 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, 2002, 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, 2004a, 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-34 

EPA, 2004b, 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, 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, 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, 2007a, 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, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA, 2007b, 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, 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, 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. 

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, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision 

for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater 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, 2009d, 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-35 

EPA, 2009e, 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/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, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment for the 

100-HR-3 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 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/R10-02/030, 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-36 

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Differences 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/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 Interim 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. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 D-37 

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. 

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. 

Executive Order 12088, 1978, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, James E. 

Carter, October 13. 

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.Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 

6901, et seq. 

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 USC 300, et seq. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 D-38 

Consent Decree 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). 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 USC 103, et seq. 

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 USC 2601, et seq. 

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste, as amended, 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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-i 

APPENDIX E 

HANFORD ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST AND SCHEDULE STATUS 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-iii 

CONTENTS 

E.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION..................................................................................................................1

E.1.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ......................................................................2

E.1.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ......................................................................6

E.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS .......................................12

E.1.4 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................26

E.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE 

ZONE (PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..............................28

E.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD 

(PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................46

E.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE 

AND COST DETAILS ..........................................................................................55

E.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ........................59

E.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................66

E.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 

(PBS RL-0100) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................69

E.1.11 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................71

E.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION................................................................................................................74

TABLES 

Table E-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (2 pages) .................................................................................................... 2

Table E-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................. 4

Table E-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule 

and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ............................ 4

Table E-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages) ...................................................................................................................... 6

Table E-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................. 9
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-iv 

Table E-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and 

Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ................................. 10

Table E-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 

3 Scope Summary. (5 pages) .................................................................................... 12

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (4 pages) ................................................................................................. 17

Table E-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) NearTerm Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 

pages) ......................................................................................................................... 23

Table E-10. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. ..................... 26

Table E-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). .................................................. 27

Table E-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (5 pages) .......................................................................... 28

Table E-13. 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) ................................................................................................. 33

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(7 pages) .................................................................................................................... 39

Table E-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 

Scope Summary. (3 pages) ....................................................................................... 46

Table E-16. 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) .................................................................................................................... 49

Table E-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term 

Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (4 pages)........... 51

Table E-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. ................... 55

Table E-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule 

and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) .......................... 56

Table E-20. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, 

Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................................................. 58

Table E-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 

3 Scope Summary. (3 pages) .................................................................................... 59

Table E-22. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). ................................................................................................................. 62
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-v 

Table E-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(3 pages) .................................................................................................................... 63

Table E-24. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 

3 Scope Summary. ..................................................................................................... 66

Table E-25. 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). ................................................................................................................. 67

Table E-26. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), NearTerm Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). .................. 68

Table E-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 

Scope Summary. ........................................................................................................ 69

Table E-28. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........... 70

Table E-29. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................ 71

Table E-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ................................. 72

Table E-31. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) .................................................................................. 75

Table E-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (2 pages) ................................................................................................. 77

Table E-33. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........... 79

Table E-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term 

Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)........... 80

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-vi 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-vii 

TERMS 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

BOF Balance of Facilities 

CENRTC capital equipment not related to construction 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled 

CSB Canister Storage Building 

CVDF Cold Vacuum Drying Facility 

CWC Central Waste Complex 

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

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

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

DQO data quality objective 

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 

GM groundwater monitoring 

GRP Groundwater Remediation Project 

HAMMER Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 

(Facility) 

HLW high-level waste 

HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning 

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility 

IDFE Integrated Disposal Facility East 

IFW Integrated Field Work 

IHLW immobilized high-level waste 

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste 

ISA Interim Storage Area 

ISS interim safe storage 

KE K East Basin 

KW K West Basin 

KOP knock-out pot 

LAW low-activity waste 

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility 

LLBG low-level burial ground 

LOE level of effort 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-viii 

LTS Long-Term Stewardship 

MLLW mixed low-level waste 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NM nuclear material 

NRDWL non-radioactive dangerous waste landfill 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OU operable unit 

PA performance assessment 

PBS project baseline summary 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 

PPSL Plutonium Process Support Laboratories 

PT pretreatment 

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant) 

RH remote-handled 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant) 

RMA remote mechanical operations “A” line 

RMC remote mechanical operations “C” line 

ROD record of decision 

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

S&M surveillance and maintenance 

SAP sampling and analysis plan 

SNF spent nuclear fuel 

SST single-shell tank 

STP Sludge Treatment Project 

SWOC Solid Waste Operations Complex 

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility 

TOC total organic compound 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

TRU transuranic 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility 

WM Waste Management 

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility) 

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-1 

APPENDIX E 

HANFORD CLEANUP LIFECYCLE SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

As directed in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al 1989), 

also referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), Milestone M-036-01, additional schedule and 

cost details are provided in appendices to the Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost 

Report (Lifecycle Report).1 The schedules and costs are provided by project baseline summary 

(PBS) and reflect the scope discussed in Chapters 4.0 through 7.0 of the Lifecycle Report. 

Where not adequately addressed in these chapters, additional scope information is provided in 

this appendix in summary form. 

The schedules and costs provided in this appendix are reported to Level 2 for the entire lifecycle 

and to Level 3 for the execution year (Fiscal Year [FY] 2011) and the following 5 years. Due to 

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 of the PBSs 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. These PBSs 

are identified in the appropriate subsections. 

 A cost and schedule table for the remaining lifecycle is presented at Level 2 by fiscal 

year. The costs are escalated and include site-wide service allocations and cost and/or 

schedule uncertainty (also referred to as contingency in the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant [WTP] PBS). Costs generally are presented from FY 2011 through 

2060 for all PBSs or for 2 years following the final year of the lifecycle if it extends 

beyond 2060. PBS RL-LTS extends from FY 2061 through FY 2090. 

 A near-term cost and schedule table that extends from FY 2011 through 2016. 

E.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) manages their 

assigned cleanup mission through the following PBSs (at Level 1): 

 Nuclear Materials Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011 

 SNF Stabilization and Disposition, PBS RL-0012 

 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 

 

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-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-2 

 Infrastructure and Services, 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 

 Long-Term Stewardship, PBS RL-LTS. 

E.1.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) SCHEDULE 

AND COST DETAILS 

Table E-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages) 

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant 

Maintain Worker/Public Health and 

Environmental Safety 

Provides safety, emergency management, OSHA, and 

fire protection programs for the PFP. 

Maintain Compliant Facility Provides for environmental management and 

administration, permitting, and NEPA support for the 

PFP. 

Facility System and Components Ensures the facility configuration minimizes risks, 

protects the environment, and remains in a safe and 

compliant condition. 

Maintain Maintenance Program Provides resources to manage and implement the PFP 

maintenance program. 

Maintain Special Projects Provides for special projects to safely sustain required 

facility capabilities. 

Disposition PFP 

Facility 

Transition 234-5Z Balance of Plant Addresses progressive deactivation and dismantling of 

systems, components, and structures in compliance with 

CERCLA process and resulting in established criteria 

(i.e., clean-slab-on-grade). Activities include necessary 

maintenance during D&D and activities to maintain 

temporary safe configurations. 

Transition 236-Z 

Transition 242-Z 

Transition 243-Z 

Transition 291-Z 

Transition 2736-Z/ZB Complex 

Transition Support Buildings and Yard 

Lab Support for Transition 

Maintain Transition Program 

Transition Operations Support 

Modifications To Support Transition 

Manage/Dispose of PFP Solid Waste 

Staff Transition 

Transition 234-5Z Active RMA/RMC 

Lines 

Transition 234-5Z Labs 

Transition 234-5Z Inactive 

RMA/RMC Lines 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-3 

Table E-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages) 

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Project Management 

and Support 

PFP Project Management and Support Provides for management functions, including 

management and technical/engineering support to the 

project mission. PFP Technical Support 

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0011 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure, adders, and other indirect costs. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act. 

OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. 

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PRF = Plutonium Reclamation Facility. 

RMA = remote mechanical operations “A” line. 

RMC = remote mechanical operations “C” line. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-4 

Table E-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP 23,010 24,116 24,629 4,869 506 574 77,702 Disposition PFP Facility 148,922 0 111,976 91,566 57,400 10,013 419,877 Project Management and Support 12,499 1,604 28,712 24,927 48,879 38,750 155,370 Site-wide Services – RL-0011 31,089 22,651 46,491 43,986 17,969 2,924 165,110 

Total 215,520 48,371 211,807 165,347 124,754 52,260 818,059 

NM = nuclear materials. PBS = project baseline summary. PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

Table E-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

(2 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 201

1 NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) 

2 Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP 23,010 24,116 24,629 4,869 503 Maintain Worker/Public Health and Environmental Safety 4,997 5,511 5,483 433 0 3 Maintain Compliant Facility 393 427 425 435 0 3 Facility System and Components 9,588 10,406 9,442 906 0 3 Maintain Maintenance Program 7,547 7,772 8,491 2,310 0 3 Maintain Special Projects 484 0 0 0 0 3 

 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Maintain Safe and 

Compliant PFP 0 0 788 784 50

2 Disposition PFP Facility 148,922 0 111,976 91,566 57,43 Transition 234-5Z Balance of Plant 29,271 0 17,727 11,163 3,903 Transition 236-Z 15,561 0 15,238 7,051 0 3 Transition 242-Z 2,203 0 872 73 0 3 Transition 243-Z 759 0 1,115 0 0 3 Transition 291-Z 1,985 0 5,912 748 0 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-5 

Table E-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

(2 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 201

3 Transition 2736-Z/ZB Complex 3,713 0 437 1,204 0 3 Transition Support Buildings and Yard 4,643 0 497 1,758 984 3 Lab Support for Transition 7,888 0 5,726 6,055 3,143 Maintain Transition Program 5,484 0 5,889 5,808 5,283 Transition Operations Support 24,850 0 34,947 37,029 23,73 Modifications to Support Transition 5,977 0 2,437 1,059 493 Manage/Dispose of PFP Solid Waste 13,087 0 15,637 15,767 7,193 Staff Transition 3,940 0 0 0 0 3 Transition 234-5Z Active RMA/RMC Lines 15,775 0 0 0 0 3 Transition 234-5Z Labs – PPSL / Standards / A 8,230 0 0 0 0 3 Transition 234-5Z Inactive RMA/RMC Lines 5,557 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Disposition PFP Facility 0 0 5,543 3,851 12,62 Project Management and Support 12,499 1,604 28,712 24,927 48,83 PFP Project Management and Support 9,242 1,604 17,019 18,881 21,73 PFP Technical Support 3,257 0 3,502 1,630 3,333 

 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Project Management and 

Support 0 0 487 680 23,4

3 Management Reserve – Project Management and Support 0 0 7,704 3,735 332 Site-wide Services – RL-0011 31,089 22,651 46,491 43,986 17,93 Site-wide Services – RL-0011 31,089 22,651 46,491 43,986 17,9

Total 215,520 48,371 211,807 165,347 124,7

NM = nuclear materials. PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. PPSL = Plutonium Process Support Laboratories. 

RMA = remote mechanical operations “A” lineRMC = remote mechanical operations “C” line
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-6 

E.1.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS 

Table E-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

100-K Safe and 

Compliant 

General Support Provides for general support functions that include 

administrative support; establishment and management of 

the project’s training program; management of the 

project’s overall scope, schedule, and budget; 

management of the change control process; and 

performance of project status monitoring and reporting. 

Regulatory Compliance Provides for regulatory compliance activities that include 

environmental support, nuclear safety support, quality 

assurance support, procedure support, and management 

assessment and corrective action management support. 

Safety and Health Provides functional support at the managerial level for 

radiological controls, compliance with site-wide 

regulations, maintenance of technical basis documents, 

radiological risk screening, and ALARA worksheets and 

reports. 

K Basins Operations 

and Maintenance 

KW Basin Provides for operations support to keep the KW Basin in 

a safe and compliant mode until finish of dewatering and 

turn over to D&D; includes support to preventative 

maintenance, operation of equipment, system walk 

downs, daily routines, management oversight, review and 

approve work package, and safety inspections. 

Facility Operations 100-K Facility Support Provides infrastructure maintenance support for nonreactor buildings (e.g., janitorial services, project support, 

direct supervision, sampling support, corrective 

maintenance, modifications). 

100-K Auxiliary Support Includes activities to operate all support facilities required 

to maintain the KW Basin safe and compliant, including 

operation of the water plant and all potable water services 

for the project; routine surveillance, sampling, 

maintenance support in compliance with state and Federal 

drinking water requirements; operation of facilities, 

including auxiliary systems (boilers, compressor, HVAC 

units, fire systems, etc.) at KE, KW, and CVDF; and 

management of the National Pollution Discharge 

Environmental System at 100-K Area. 

100-K Waste Handling Provides for field operations for waste handling support 

for waste flows not specific to sludge treatment and 

D&D, including waste characterization and designation, 

planning, preparation of waste management plans, waste 

area operations, and shipment documentation and 

coordination. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-7 

Table E-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

100-K Facilities 

Deactivation 

CVDF Deactivation Provides for activities to deactivate the CVDF, including 

actions such as repairing roof leaks and dispositioning 

office furniture, supplies, and unnecessary spare 

parts/tools/portable equipment; identifying, inventorying, 

labeling, and recording attached hazardous materials; 

stabilizing loose and/or damaged asbestos; draining and 

removing heels from all tanks, vessels, drums, etc., or 

characterizing them for radionuclides and hazardous 

materials; reducing electrical systems to those needed for 

surveillance and maintenance and subsequent D&D; 

isolating water supplies from buildings and draining them 

or providing freeze protection to eliminate the potential 

for leaks and/or freezing; shutting down all HVAC supply 

air and exhaust air systems; and decontaminating and 

releasing radiological contaminated zones. 

Ancillary Facilities Deactivation Provides for activities to deactivate the CVDF, including 

actions such as repairing roof leaks, office furniture and 

supplies and unnecessary spare parts/tools/portable 

equipment; identifying, inventorying, labeling, and 

recording attached hazardous materials; stabilizing loose 

and/or damaged asbestos; draining and removing heels 

from all tanks, vessels, drums, etc., or characterizing 

them for radionuclides and hazardous materials; reducing 

electrical systems to those needed for surveillance and 

maintenance and subsequent D&D; isolating water 

supplies from buildings and draining them or providing 

freeze protection to eliminate the potential for leaks 

and/or freezing; shutting down all HVAC supply air and 

exhaust air systems; and decontaminating and releasing 

radiological contaminated zones. 

KW Basin Deactivation 

and Demolition 

Management and Support Provides for project management; engineering; training; 

safety and health support activities; dose data gathering 

and analysis, sampling, and characterization of both 

radioactive and hazardous waste; baseline management; 

and updating the waste volume projections. 

KW Deactivation and Dewater Includes dose data gathering and analysis, sampling, and 

characterization of both radioactive and hazardous waste 

for the 100-K Area facilities and decontamination of the 

KW Basin walls and floor. 

KW Demolition Preparation Includes pouring of grout to partially fill the KW Basin 

North and South Load-Out Pits, Dummy Elevator Pit, 

Sand Filter Vault, and ion exchange column formed 

monolith within the facility. This will be accomplished 

utilizing a specialized contractor for grout placement. 

KW Garnet Filter Disposition Provides for the removal and disposition of the garnet 

filter media following shutdown of the Integrated Water 

Treatment System. The garnet media will be grouted and 

packaged prior to disposal at the ERDF. 

KW Superstructure Demolition Provides for the planning, management, and execution of 

the demolition of the KW superstructure. 

KW Substructure Demolition Provides for the planning, management, and execution of 

demolition of the KW substructure. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-8 

Table E-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Sludge Treatment 

Project 

STP Management and Support Provides for project management; engineering; training; 

safety and health support activities; dose data gathering 

and analysis, sampling, and characterization of both 

radioactive and hazardous waste; baseline management; 

and updating the waste volume projections. 

Knock-Out Pots Disposition Provides for disposition of the KOPs following removal 

of the sludge. 

STP – Phase 1 Retrieval and Interim 

Storage 

The scope includes removal of consolidated containerized 

sludge, KOP sludge, and Settler Tank sludge from the 

KW Basin and interim storage. 

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0012 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs. 

ALARA = as low as reasonably achievable. 

CVDF = Cold Vacuum Drying Facility. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility. 

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. 

KE = K East. 

KOP = knock-out pot. 

KW = K West. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

SNF = spent nuclear fuel. 

STP = Sludge Treatment Project. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-9 

Table E-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Ye

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

100-K Safe and Compliant 4,932 5,340 5,321 5,449 5,588 357 0 0 K Basins Operations and Maintenance 4,854 5,255 7,468 7,645 7,851 2,765 2,435 2,511 Facility Operations 3,756 4,067 4,052 4,150 4,256 272 0 0 100-K Facilities Deactivation 1,653 6,125 927 0 0 389 0 584 KW Basin Deactivation and Demolition 0 0 0 0 11,268 41,760 31,632 122 Sludge Treatment Project 60,972 58,331 60,064 23,440 30,459 30,192 21,528 7,784 Site-wide Services - RL-0012 18,465 33,688 10,595 9,270 11,504 7,099 5,285 142 

Total 94,632 112,806 88,427 49,953 70,928 82,833 60,881 11,143 

KW = K West. PBS = project baseline summary. SNF = spent nuclear fuel. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-10 

Table E-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20

1 SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) 2 100-K Safe and Compliant 4,932 5,340 5,321 5,449 5,588 357 3 General Support 2,068 2,239 2,231 2,284 2,343 150 3 Regulatory Compliance 2,128 2,304 2,296 2,351 2,411 154 3 Safety and Health 736 797 794 813 834 53 2 K Basins Operations and Maintenance 4,854 5,255 7,468 7,645 7,851 2,765 2,43 KW Basin 4,854 5,255 5,236 5,362 5,499 351 3 

 Cost and/or Schedule 

Uncertainty – Basins Operations and Maintenance 

0 0 2,232 2,283 2,352 2,414 2,4

3 

 Management Reserve – 

Basins Operations and Maintenance 

12,750 28,370 33,910 2,810 6,090 23,590 

2 Facility Operations 3,756 4,067 4,052 4,150 4,256 272 3 100-K Facility Support 1,986 2,150 2,142 2,194 2,250 144 3 100-K Auxiliary Support 1,030 1,115 1,111 1,137 1,166 74 3 100-K Waste Handling 741 802 799 819 840 54 2 100-K Facilities Deactivation 1,653 6,125 927 0 0 389 3 Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Deactivation 3,207 0 0 0 3 Ancillary Facilities Deactivation 1,653 2,918 927 0 0 389 2 KW Basin Deactivation and Demolition 0 0 0 0 11,268 41,760 313 Management and Support 0 0 0 0 2,116 8,034 7,3 KW Deactivation and Dewater 0 0 0 0 4,574 2,015 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-11 

Table E-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20

3 KW Demolition Preparation 0 0 0 0 1,674 4,638 3 KW Garnet Filter Disposition 0 0 0 0 1,063 3,984 13 KW Superstructure Demolition 0 0 0 0 0 8,173 3 KW Substructure Demolition 0 0 0 0 0 6,045 173 

 Cost and/or Schedule 

Uncertainty – KW Basin Deactivation and Demolition 

0 0 0 0 1,841 8,871 6,7

2 Sludge Treatment Project 60,972 58,331 60,064 23,440 30,459 30,192 213 

 Sludge Treatment 

Project Management and Support 

8,368 9,061 9,028 9,245 9,482 (0) 

3 Knock-Out Pots Disposition 3,558 3,725 0 0 0 3 

 Sludge Treatment 

Project – Phase 1: Retrieval and Interim Storage 

36,584 33,532 12,242 6,780 10,498 0 

3 

 Cost and/or Schedule 

Uncertainty – Sludge Treatment Project 

0 0 5,644 4,664 4,529 7,135 11

2 Site-wide Services – RL-0012 18,465 33,688 10,595 9,270 11,504 7,099 5,23 Site-wide Services – RL-0012 18,465 33,688 10,595 9,270 11,504 7,099 5,2

Total 94,632 112,806 88,427 49,953 70,928 82,833 60

KW = K West. PBS = project baseline summary. SNF = spent nuclear fuel. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-12 

E.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table E-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Project Management Project Management Provides for overall management function in support of 

the waste management mission. 

Capsule Storage and 

Disposition 

WESF Base Operations Includes activities to safely store the cesium and 

strontium capsules in the WESF pool cells, operate and 

maintain the 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 and dispose as appropriate, and maintain systems 

necessary for environmental compliance, radiological 

control, personnel safety and capsule integrity. 

WESF Upgrades Provides for the upgrade of WESF as necessary to 

maintain safe, compliant, and cost-effective operations 

until the capsules can be transferred to interim dry 

storage. 

Transition WESF Provides for the WESF operating crews to transition the 

facility to a condition ready for D&D after transfer of the 

capsules and facility shutdown. 

Cesium/strontium Capsule Disposition Includes retrieval of cesium/strontium capsules from the 

WESF pool cells and packaging, transportation, and 

placement of the capsules into dry storage. Provides for 

the construction of, including contracting and 

construction management oversight during construction, 

and operations and maintenance of the interim dry storage 

area. 

Canister Storage 

Building (CSB) 

Canister Storage Building Includes activities to safely store SNF (primarily from K 

Basins) and IHLW from the WTP, while awaiting final 

disposition at a national repository. Includes operation 

and maintenance of the CSB facilities and associated 

structures, operating systems and equipment, and 

monitoring systems. 

200 Area ISA Provides for the safe storage of SNF in dry cask storage 

systems while awaiting final disposition at a national 

repository, including surveillance and maintenance 

activities of stored spent nuclear fuel within the fenced 

area. 

Fuel Prep Facility Supports the design and construction of the Fuel 

Preparation Facility, which will receive SNF and 

cesium/strontium capsules for repackaging for subsequent 

shipments to a national repository. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-13 

Table E-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Offsite SNF Disposition Provides for interface management with the National SNF 

program and repository for final disposition and 

acceptance of Hanford Site SNF and WESF capsules and 

includes compliance documentation, data packages for 

SNF and WESF Capsules, licensing and transportation 

activities, and input to resolution of Hanford fuel 

performance issues affecting final disposition; includes 

activities such as performance assessment, NEPA 

coverage, safety analyses, and interface control 

documentation. 

Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Treatment 

Non-Thermal Treatment Provides for non-thermal treatment of MLLW in above 

ground storage at SWOC facilities, retrievably stored in 

the LLBG, or newly generated SWOC non-thermal 

treatment waste, as required to meet regulatory 

requirements; and categorization and treatment of nonthermal treatment waste from retrieval activities. 

TRU Retrieval of Stored 

Waste 

CH Waste Retrieval Operations Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD 

facility of CH suspect TRU waste from LLBGs 

218-W-4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B. 

RH Waste Retrieval Operations Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD 

facility of RH suspect TRU waste from LLBGs 218-W4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B. 

Waste Receiving and 

Processing Facility 

(WRAP) 

WRAP Base Operations Provides for operations and maintenance of the WRAP 

facility to support shipping and receiving activities 

associated with WIPP shipments. 

WRAP Transition Following operations, WRAP facility will be transitioned 

to a condition ready for D&D. 

Min Safe Operation Provides for surveillance and maintenance of structures, 

systems, components, and processes to ensure operation 

within the approved safety and compliance requirements 

envelope, including preventive maintenance, repair of 

failed and malfunctioning equipment, walkdown of safety 

systems, equipment, and facility grounds (operational 

surveillance); and routine radiological surveys during 

non-operational period and during transuranic package 

transporter only operational period. 

T-Plant T Plant Base Operations Provides for the services necessary to maintain the 

T Plant Complex in a ready-to-serve status (base 

operations) for waste processing operations. 

T Plant Upgrades Provides for upgrades to waste processing equipment, 

systems components, and computer interface equipment 

at the T Plant facilities, and includes physical upgrades to 

the T Plant Facility. 

T Plant Transition Following operations, T Plant will be transitioned to a 

condition ready for D&D. 

T Plant M-91 Upgrades Provides for upgrades to the T Plant Complex to allow 

processing of RH and large-package MLLW and TRU 

waste to meet waste acceptance criteria for disposal. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-14 

Table E-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

T Plant SNF Support Provides for upgrades to the T Plant Complex as 

necessary to store treated K Basin sludge (balance of 

sludge), including receiving treated K Basin sludge and 

placing the sludge into storage. 

RH Waste Shipments from M-91 Provides for loading RH-TRU waste into shipping 

containers for shipment to the WIPP and includes 

building payloads and preparations for shipping of the 

RH-TRU waste. 

Central Waste Complex 

(CWC) 

CWC Base Operations Provides for the services necessary to maintain the CWC 

in a ready-to-serve status (base operations) for waste 

processing operations. 

CWC CENRTC Provides for CENRTC that may be required to maintain 

the CWC facility in a ready-to-operate condition and 

includes the procurement of forklifts and other equipment 

necessary to maintain compliant facility operations for 

CWC, the LLBG, and the Mixed Waste Trenches. 

Alternate CH-TRU Shipping Facility Provides for the capability, including design and 

construction of a new facility or upgrades to existing 

facilities, to load CH-TRU waste into shipping containers 

for shipment to WIPP following closure of WRAP. 

CWC Transition Following operations, CWC will be transitioned to a 

condition ready for D&D. 

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 

Base Operations 

Provides for the operation of the LLBGs in a safe, 

compliant, and cost-effective manner, including activities 

such as emergency preparedness, assessments and 

surveillances, environmental monitoring and sampling, 

fire protection, engineering, and training. 

Environmental 

Restoration Disposal 

Facility (ERDF) 

ERDF Cell Expansion Provides for the expansion of ERDF as needed to support 

site cleanup efforts. 

ERDF Interim Cover Provides for interim covers to be placed over ERDF cells 

as they are filled. 

ERDF Operations Includes ERDF operations-related activities, such as 

leachate pump preventive maintenance, pump 

replacement, and air monitoring. Disposal and 

transportation costs are not included here, but are 

included for individual PBSs generating waste. 

Liquid Effluent Facilities 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

Base Operations 

Provides for safe, cost-effective, and environmentally 

compliant operation and maintenance of the LERF, ETF, 

and TEDF, and includes receiving, storing, treating, and 

disposing of liquid effluents from Hanford Site cleanup 

activities. 

200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

Upgrades 

Provides for modifications to the ETF, TEDF, and LERF 

to improve operations, extend the useful life, ensure 

regulatory compliance, and/or correct identified 

deficiencies. 

200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

CENRTC 

Provides for CENRTC that may be required to maintain 

the 200 Area Liquid Effluents facilities in a ready-tooperate condition. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-15 

Table E-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF) 

IDF Construction Provides for the startup and testing of the IDF, including 

preparation of operating and maintenance procedures, 

training and critical spare parts. 

IDF Operations Provides for the operation of the IDF in a safe, compliant, 

and cost-effective manner, including activities such as 

emergency preparedness; assessments and surveillances; 

environmental monitoring and sampling; fire protection; 

engineering; and training. 

IDF Regulatory and Safety Includes safety oversight and Industrial Safety, such as 

assisting in the review of documents for safety impacts, 

performing safety surveillances, inspections and support, 

assisting in the maintenance of the Health and Safety 

Plan, and updating the baseline hazards assessments; 

includes regulatory support, such as performance 

assessment, associated permit modifications, and other 

requirements (e.g., operational readiness reviews) needed 

for the existing IDF to be in “ready-to-serve” status. 

IDFE Construction Provides for additional onsite, expandable, integrated, 

disposal capacity for compliant ILAW waste stream 

packages produced at the WTP and for MLLW and LLW; 

includes project management, permitting and safety, 

project support, and engineering, procurement, and 

construction. 

Low-Level and Mixed 

Low-Level Waste 

Disposal 

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – 

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level 

Waste Disposal 

Mixed Waste Disposal 

Trenches 

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base 

Operations 

Provides for the operation of the Mixed Waste Disposal 

Trenches in a safe, compliant, and cost-effective manner, 

including activities such as emergency preparedness; 

assessments and surveillances; environmental monitoring 

and sampling; fire protection; engineering; and training. 

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 

Upgrades 

Provides for the design, construction, and other activities 

necessary to add operational layers in the Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches to maintain their ready-to-serve status 

and for placing temporary caps on the trenches prior to 

turnover to PBS RL-0040 for final cleanup and closure. 

Sludge Disposition STP – Phase 2 Treatment and 

Packaging 

Provides for treatment and packaging of sludge. 

Shutdown and Deactivation Provides for safe and compliant shutdown and 

deactivation of the STP. 

STP Management Project management and support for the Sludge 

Disposition work element. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-16 

Table E-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0013C 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs. 

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. 

IDFE = Integrated Disposal Facility – East. 

IHLW = immobilized high-level waste. 

ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste. 

ISA = Interim Storage Area. 

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility. 

LLBG = Low-Level Burial Grounds. 

MLLW = mixed low-level waste. 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

RH = remote-handled. 

SNF = spent nuclear fuel 

STP = Sludge Treatment Project 

SWOC = Solid Waste Operations Complex. 

TEDF = Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. 

TRU = transuranic. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility. 

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility). 

WTP = Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-17 

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Leve

Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20

Project Management 19,896 23,074 22,761 25,158 26,879 30,551 45,113 42,3Capsule Storage and Disposal 7,809 5,288 14,064 23,085 32,000 70,929 9,986 18,4Canister Storage Building (CSB) 4,415 4,786 4,959 5,072 7,639 7,216 8,025 18,9Mixed Low Level Waste Treatment 0 356 433 447 458 464 468 50TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 49,389 0 24,310 10,391 12,801 2,622 2,214 2,3Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 16,112 9,803 18,153 18,589 19,062 15,365 26 0 T-Plant 13,251 14,372 17,603 18,094 18,572 45,499 82,622 110,Central Waste Complex (CWC) 14,312 15,320 13,743 11,197 11,459 12,043 11,613 9,9Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 38 87 362 238 243 5,846 8,006 8,0Liquid Effluent Facilities 18,232 19,763 30,006 33,605 32,754 5,202 0 0 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 453 491 501 515 528 833 1,667 1,7Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 0 278 292 300 362 463 23Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 1,206 690 1,305 705 723 730 2,049 0 Sludge Disposition 0 0 4,653 6,425 13,585 38,096 136,517 81,4Site-wide Services - RL-0013 36,501 48,970 39,248 40,179 39,266 41,375 54,891 58,5

Total 181,614 143,000 192,379 193,990 216,271 277,134 363,660 352,
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-18 

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Leve

Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20

Project Management 61,414 52,286 46,425 47,488 51,029 37,007 24,712 25,5Capsule Storage and Disposal 4,526 194 20,330 20,931 140 143 148 15Canister Storage Building (CSB) 37,535 10,198 10,068 10,503 11,089 11,010 11,378 11,9Mixed Low Level Waste Treatment 524 538 551 574 599 609 630 66TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T-Plant 119,341 92,677 65,605 115,506 143,085 124,043 128,107 135,Central Waste Complex (CWC) 10,662 10,641 10,892 11,350 5,937 6,473 6,284 6,6Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 5,506 117 110 143 144 146 150 15Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 1,356 1,403 1,449 4,491 15,908 29,183 5,188 5,0Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sludge Disposition 35,383 36,075 35,885 3,477 1,673 461 154 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 41,362 33,945 36,600 53,155 66,766 65,960 60,792 84,4

Total 317,675 238,074 227,915 267,618 296,370 275,035 237,543 270,
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-19 

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Leve

Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 20

Project Management 26,829 29,124 28,298 30,454 30,514 27,980 59,887 38,1Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Canister Storage Building (CSB) 24,618 25,356 25,828 26,334 26,995 29,451 36,990 24,2Mixed Low Level Waste Treatment 718 737 750 763 781 824 916 96TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T-Plant 146,756 152,406 155,320 156,924 161,719 130,879 38,861 45,0Central Waste Complex (CWC) 4,518 4,158 4,236 4,319 4,934 16,521 0 0 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 173 173 178 186 180 199 219 23Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 5,463 5,636 5,707 5,877 5,957 6,339 7,115 7,5Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 91,616 90,156 87,970 85,466 84,881 80,711 51,262 40,3

Total 300,691 307,746 308,287 310,323 315,961 292,904 195,250 156,
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-20 

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Leve

Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 20

Project Management 24,663 24,397 25,628 24,741 24,821 27,365 21,430 21,3Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 3 0 13 0 0 0 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 22,790 23,621 614 1 0 0 0 0 Mixed Low Level Waste Treatment 921 936 1,007 1,104 3 0 0 0 TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T-Plant 2,358 5,934 5,820 7,553 13,889 21,205 19,489 17,1Central Waste Complex (CWC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 220 220 240 265 281 302 321 32Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 7,120 7,180 7,768 8,657 9,258 10,234 10,544 10,3Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 11,710 10,831 5,868 7,588 7,977 10,056 10,761 11,7

Total 69,782 73,119 46,948 49,909 56,242 69,162 62,545 60,9
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-21 

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Leve

Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 20

Project Management 15,518 15,564 16,542 16,500 13,226 15,149 15,463 14,7Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T-Plant 169 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Waste Complex (CWC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 12,096 323 345 315 129 0 0 0 Liquid Effluent Facilities 71,745 70,789 75,979 69,173 70,728 81,973 83,658 79,4Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 31,635 26,067 27,736 15,947 13,889 22,464 22,806 17,9

Total 131,162 112,876 120,602 101,935 97,972 119,586 121,927 112,
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-22 

Table E-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Leve

Escalated). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year Total 

Project Management 1,432,723 Capsule Storage and Disposal 256,477 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 601,985 Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 22,554 TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 104,154 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 97,110 T-Plant 2,857,865 Central Waste Complex (CWC) 240,918 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 55,980 Liquid Effluent Facilities 827,245 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 219,713 Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 2,457 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 7,408 Sludge Disposition 467,452 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 2,014,368 

Total 9,208,409 

PBS = project baseline summary. TRU = transuranic. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-23 

Table E-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 

($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 2 Project Management 19,896 23,074 22,761 25,158 26,879 3 Project Management 19,896 16,068 16,029 16,414 16,833 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management 0 0 374 397 434 3 Management Reserve - Project Management 0 7,006 6,359 8,347 9,613 2 Capsule Storage and Disposal 7,809 5,288 14,064 23,085 32,000 3 WESF Base Operations 4,878 5,288 5,275 5,402 5,539 3 WESF Upgrades 2,932 0 6,258 718 3 3 Transition WESF 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cesium/Strontium Capsule Disposition 0 0 1,661 14,604 21,410 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 870 2,361 5,048 2 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 4,415 4,786 4,959 5,072 7,639 3 CSB Legacy 4,206 4,559 4,548 4,657 4,776 3 100% 200 Area Interim Storage Area 210 227 227 232 238 3 Fuel Preparation Facility 0 0 0 0 2,369 3 Off Site SNF Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - CSB 0 0 185 182 256 2 Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 0 356 433 447 458 3 Non-Thermal Treatment 0 356 355 363 373 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Mixed Low- Level Waste Treatment 0 0 78 83 86 2 TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 49,389 0 24,310 10,391 12,801 3 Contact-Handled Waste Retrieval Operations 40,245 0 22,686 9,883 10,176 3 Remote-Handled Waste Retrieval Operations 9,144 0 0 0 1,633 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 1,624 508 992 2 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 16,112 9,803 18,153 18,589 19,062 3 WRAP Transition 0 0 0 0 0 3 Min-Safe Operation 1,387 1,503 1,500 1,536 1,575 3 WRAP Base Operations 14,725 8,300 15,923 16,306 16,722 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - WRAP 0 0 730 747 764 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-24 

Table E-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 

($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

2 T-Plant 13,251 14,372 17,603 18,094 18,572 3 T-Plant Base Operations 13,251 14,372 14,337 14,681 15,056 3 T-Plant Upgrades 0 0 0 0 0 3 T-Plant Transition 0 0 0 0 0 3 T-Plant M-91 Upgrades 0 0 0 0 0 3 T-Plant Spent Nuclear Fuel Support 0 0 0 0 0 3 Remote-Handled Waste Shipments from M-91 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - T-Plant 0 0 3,266 3,413 3,516 2 Central Waste Complex (CWC) 14,312 15,320 13,743 11,197 11,459 3 CWC Base Operations 7,832 8,490 8,469 8,673 8,894 3 CWC CENRTC 261 0 0 0 0 3 Alternate Contact-Handled TRU Shipping Facility 3,689 4,560 2,772 22 0 3 CWC Transition 0 0 0 0 0 3 Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds Base Operations 2,531 2,270 2,264 2,319 2,378 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - CWC 0 0 237 183 187 2 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 38 87 362 238 243 3 ERDF Cell Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 3 ERDF Interim Cover 0 0 0 0 0 3 ERDF Operations 38 87 87 89 91 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - ERDF 0 0 275 149 152 2 Liquid Effluent Facilities 18,232 19,763 30,006 33,605 32,754 3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Base Operations 18,145 19,669 19,621 20,093 20,605 3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Upgrades 0 0 7,787 10,583 9,151 3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities CENRTC 87 94 94 96 99 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 2,504 2,833 2,899 2 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 453 491 501 515 528 3 IDF Construction 0 0 0 0 0 3 IDF Operations 363 394 393 402 413 3 IDF Regulatory and Safety 90 97 97 100 102 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-25 

Table E-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 

($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Integrated Disposal Facility - East (IDFE) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - IDF 0 0 10 13 14 2 Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 0 278 292 300 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 0 278 292 300 2 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 1,206 690 1,305 705 723 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base Operations 636 690 688 705 723 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Upgrades 570 0 616 0 0 2 Sludge Disposition 0 0 4,653 6,425 13,585 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 3 Sludge Treatment Project – Phase 2 Treatment and Package 0 0 4,653 6,425 13,585 3 Shutdown and Deactivation 0 0 0 0 0 3 STP Management and Support 0 0 0 0 0 2 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 36,501 48,970 39,248 40,179 39,266 3 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 36,501 48,970 39,248 40,179 39,266 

Total 181,614 143,000 192,379 193,990 216,271 

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction. CSB = Canister Storage Building. CWC = Central Waste Complex. ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility. IDFE = Integrated Disposal Facility – East. 

PBS = project baseline summary. SNF = spent nuclear fuel. TRU = transuranic. WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility. WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facil
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-26 

E.1.4 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) SCHEDULE AND COST 

DETAILS 

Scope information for Safeguards and Security, PBS RL-0020, is presented in Table E-10. 

This PBS is not broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented; however, 

both near-term and remaining estimated cleanup cost information is provided. 

Table E-10. Safeguards and Securities (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. 

 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-27 

Table E-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Safeguards and Security 69,234 69,234 64,826 66,917 68,179 70,109 71,884 73,691 

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 

Safeguards and Security 73,063 74,947 76,744 45,771 46,817 48,481 49,943 51,748 

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 

Safeguards and Security 56,398 58,300 59,814 61,440 63,334 65,777 67,550 69,032 

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 

Safeguards and Security 44,451 46,360 47,490 49,951 50,604 54,048 58,400 61,793 

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 

Safeguards and Security 72,559 77,690 80,432 86,549 88,073 90,099 92,171 94,291 

Total 

3,279,975 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-28 

E.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table E-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Integration and 

Assessments 

Strategic Integration Coordinates and focuses on site characterization and 

assessment efforts to ensure consistency and technical 

defensibility in the application of CERCLA processes, 

eliminate information gaps and overlaps, apply science 

and technology new to Hanford, foster technical peer 

review, integrate remediation decisions, and develop 

necessary and sufficient strategies. 

Technical Integration 

Remediation Decision Support 

Remediation Science and Technology 

Sample and Data Management 

Environmental Databases 

Value Engineering Studies 

Recharge Control Recharge Commons Annually prepare a prioritized list of recommended 

service water line upgrades or storm water runoff 

control projects to eliminate artificial recharge. 

Drilling 100-KR-4 Drilling Planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling 

and well decommissioning for Hanford Site wells 

according to project-specific requirements. 100-HR-3 Drilling 

200-BP-5 Drilling 

200-PO-1 Drilling 

200-UP-1 Drilling 

200-ZP-1 Drilling 

200-ZP-2 Drilling 

TPA M-24-00 Well Drilling 

Miscellaneous Well Drilling 

Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells 

300-FF-5 Well Drilling 

100-NR-2 Drilling 

100-BC-5 Well Drilling 

100-FR-3 Well Drilling 

Project Management Project Management and Support Planning, management direction, evaluation, and 

management system outputs for this PBS. Project Management and Support – 

Training 

Integrated Field Work 

(IFW) 

IFW – Operations and Maintenance Includes general and common activities, services, 

infrastructure, material, equipment, labor, and contracts 

used to plan, support, and perform non-OU specific field 

work, including non-OU-related well maintenance, 

monitoring, and reporting. 

IFW – Training 

IFW – GRP Field Work Projects 

IFW – Field Equipment Purchases 

(CENRTC) 

Non-OU-Related Well Maintenance 

and Monitoring and Reporting 

Groundwater 

Monitoring and 

Performance 

Modutanks The scope of these activities cross-cut and support 

multiple projects in PBS RL-0030. RCRA Monitoring and Reporting 

RCRA Field Support 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-29 

Table E-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Assessments Hanford Geotechnical 

Groundwater Monitoring/Performance 

Assessment Project Management 

100-BC-5 Operable 

Unit 

100-BC-5 Operable Unit Project 

Management 

Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, and field studies and deployment. 100-BC-5 Decision Documentation 

100-BC-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

100-BC-5 Well Support 

100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting 

100-BC-5 Modifications and 

Expansions 

100-BC-5 Field Studies and 

Deployment 

100-KR-4 Operable 

Unit 

100-KR-4 Operable Unit Project 

Management 

Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, field studies and deployment, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

100-KR-4 Decision Documentation 

100-KR-4 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

100-KR-4 Well Support 

100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting 

100-KR-4 Modifications and 

Expansions 

100-KR-4 Field Studies and 

Deployment 

100-KR-4 D&D 

100-NR-2 Operable 

Unit 

100-NR-2 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, field studies and deployment, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

100-NR-2 Decision Documentation 

100-NR-2 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

100-NR-2 Well Support 

100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting 

100-NR-2 Modifications and 

Expansions 

100-NR-2 Field Studies and 

Deployment 

100-NR-2 D&D 

100-HR-3 Operable 

Unit 

100-HR-3 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, field studies and deployment, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

100-HR-3 Decision Documentation 

100-HR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

100-HR-3 Well Support 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-30 

Table E-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 

100-HR-3 Modifications and 

Expansions 

100-HR-3 Field Studies and 

Deployment 

100-HR-3 D&D 

100-FR-3 Operable 

Unit 

100-FR-3 OU Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, and modifications 

and expansions. 

100-FR-3 Decision Documentation 

100-FR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

100-FR-3 Well Support 

100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 

100-FR-3 Modifications and 

Expansions 

200-BP-5 Operable 

Unit 

200-BP-5 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, and field studies and deployment. 200-BP-5 Decision Documentation 

200-BP-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

200-BP-5 Well Support 

200-BP-5 Field Studies and 

Deployment 

200-PO-1 Operable 

Unit 

200-PO-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, and well support. 200-PO-1 Decision Documentation 

200-PO-1 Well Support 

200-UP-1 Operable 

Unit 

200-UP-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, and final deactivation and decommissioning 

of remedy components. 

200-UP-1 Decision Documentation 

200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

200-UP-1 Well Support 

200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 

200-UP-1 D&D 

200-UP-1 Modifications and 

Expansions 

200-ZP-1 Operable 

Unit 

200-ZP-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, 

monitoring and reporting, modifications and expansions, 

and final deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

200-ZP-1 Decision Documentation 

200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 

200-ZP-1 D&D 

200-ZP-1 Modifications and 

Expansions 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-31 

Table E-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

200-ZP-2 Operable 

Unit 

(now 200-PW-1 

Operable Unit) 

200-ZP-2 Project Management Scope includes project management, remedial actions, 

well support, and final deactivation and 

decommissioning of remedy components. 200-ZP-2 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

200-ZP-2 Well Support 

200-ZP-2 D&D 

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 300-FF-5 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, well support, remedial 

actions, monitoring and reporting, and field studies and 

deployment. 

300-FF-5 Decision Documentation 

300-FF-5 Well Support 

300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final) 

300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting 

300-FF-5 Field Studies and 

Deployment 

Regulatory Decisions 1 B/C Cribs and Trenches Area 

Remediation 

Scope includes CERCLA and RCRA assessment 

activities for the Central Plateau source operable units, 

including project management, planning, 

documentation, and field and other activities necessary 

to complete the final remedy decision process. 

200-CW-1/3 Gable Mountain 

200-CW-2/4/5 

200-TW-1/2 Scavenged Waste 

200-PW-2/4 Uranium-Rich Process 

200-PW-1 Plutonium-Rich Waste 

Group 

200-LW-1/2 200A Chem Lab Waste 

Group 

200-UR-1 Unplanned Releases Waste 

Group 

200-SW-1/2 Solid Waste Disposal 

Areas 

200-IS-1 Tanks, Lines, Pits and Boxes 

200-BP1-1 Hanford Prototype Barrier 

Burial Ground Sampling and Analysis 

Model Group DQO/SAPs 

200-MW-1 Misc. Waste Group 

Closure 

200-CS-1 Chemical Sewer 

Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests 

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests Scope includes planning for and conducting both 

laboratory and field treatability tests to investigate 

options for remediating the deep vadose zone in the 

Central Plateau. 

Deep Vadose Zone 

Operable Unit 

Deep Vadose Zone Decision 

Documentation 

The Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit will address 

mitigation of the contamination present at the Hanford 

Site in the deep vadose zone. The initial action planned 

for this OU (project management, remedial actions, well 

support, etc.) will be addressed in the future. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-32 

Table E-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0030 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs. 

1

 Transition of scope, schedule, and cost information into the new Central Plateau operable units is not yet complete, so 

this information is presented by old operable units in the report. 

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to 

construction. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

D&D = deactivation and decommissioning. 

DQO = data quality objective. 

GRP = Groundwater Remediation Project. 

IFW = Integrated Field Work. 

OU = operable unit. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act. 

SAP = Sampling and Analysis Plan. 

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-33 

Table E-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Integration and Assessments 12,705 15,495 14,636 15,244 15,514 14,451 14,414 15,287 Recharge Control 21 23 23 23 24 24 24 26 Drilling 22,842 2,674 6,242 2,491 7,128 26,012 14,184 9,900 Project Management 22,891 21,677 21,413 23,255 21,932 21,441 19,974 16,005 Integrated Field Work 7,169 7,952 10,188 10,531 10,724 10,854 10,877 11,743 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 11,933 13,280 13,373 22,436 14,503 14,249 14,264 15,387 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,127 1,331 465 2,465 2,505 5,785 3,400 2,659 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 8,324 8,718 12,997 11,795 13,735 24,638 22,613 10,180 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 2,734 774 14,763 20,232 12,585 4,819 4,154 12,788 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 27,008 11,452 17,575 14,499 37,807 26,861 12,016 23,313 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 389 7,053 10,632 6,580 4,807 3,324 3,013 2,938 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 326 361 6,069 24,249 11,214 10,406 11,133 12,674 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 527 4,064 5,858 5,020 11,148 3,426 1,988 15,403 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 22,281 8,289 5,522 3,284 3,138 2,958 4,172 4,238 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 63,558 42,462 57,178 50,039 32,649 30,239 30,203 32,721 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 1,208 1,340 1,322 5,034 1,412 1,576 1,581 1,638 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 1,415 4,947 3,944 6,663 3,396 2,663 1,992 1,563 Regulatory Decisions 2,612 961 6,160 3,134 1,724 558 4 0 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 9,508 9,537 10,268 2,243 7,349 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 12,992 58,545 41,556 48,952 31,523 31,907 29,554 36,240 

Total 231,568 220,934 260,186 278,170 244,819 236,194 199,559 224,703 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-34 

Table E-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 

Integration and Assessments 15,933 14,383 14,436 15,041 15,459 15,747 16,678 17,196 Recharge Control 27 28 29 30 32 32 34 35 Drilling 3,909 9,049 8,599 8,408 7,983 12,485 6,493 6,992 Project Management 22,104 17,085 20,400 16,329 13,152 12,524 13,461 9,541 Integrated Field Work 12,453 12,854 13,152 13,721 14,340 12,219 12,393 11,085 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 16,054 16,564 16,908 17,647 18,536 18,966 19,687 20,768 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 2,585 16,017 16,508 17,099 3,020 3,088 1,391 272 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 7,729 6,544 26,874 4,621 3,466 3,447 2,916 2,004 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 10,855 6,150 469 473 310 245 253 267 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 2,403 1,590 1,223 691 235 239 247 263 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 2,562 2,665 897 248 260 266 277 300 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 19,782 6,215 4,287 3,873 3,627 3,521 2,963 2,319 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 787 601 523 430 875 482 471 492 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 819 843 6,476 597 482 431 391 406 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 31,666 32,394 33,139 33,901 34,681 35,479 36,295 37,130 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 2,050 1,970 3,013 2,050 123 126 130 137 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 20,306 27,250 24,674 24,174 19,038 16,031 11,635 12,393 Regulatory Decisions 22,722 9,043 12,033 5,566 3,317 994 1,094 209 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 51,725 53,359 26,084 25,968 11,685 1,018 1,232 67 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 33,064 35,179 33,649 26,626 24,677 25,177 25,805 29,880 

Total 279,535 269,784 263,373 217,495 175,296 162,516 153,848 151,756 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-35 

Table E-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 

Integration and Assessments 18,755 19,744 19,656 20,025 20,523 21,499 24,424 25,637 Recharge Control 39 40 40 41 42 44 50 53 Drilling 7,505 6,471 6,751 6,698 6,968 349 0 0 Project Management 5,594 5,576 5,739 5,866 4,889 7,592 6,901 8,647 Integrated Field Work 6,254 6,442 6,562 6,691 6,938 7,177 8,153 8,585 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 22,652 23,277 23,816 24,271 24,748 25,906 29,448 31,056 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 291 299 299 318 320 333 378 403 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 225 166 166 167 171 180 203 213 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 118 121 112 114 117 123 140 147 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 291 304 306 308 313 330 375 398 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 329 341 347 355 315 327 372 377 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 1,556 1,164 474 377 385 404 458 489 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 532 548 559 570 1,044 616 724 759 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 454 419 419 437 443 464 409 414 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 39,751 40,665 41,600 42,557 43,536 44,537 8,695 29 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 149 178 111 113 115 121 138 145 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 7,984 6,904 3,597 261 182 189 212 228 Regulatory Decisions 11 11 12 12 12 12,059 5,547 1,614 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 27,217 27,019 26,059 25,540 24,733 29,289 42,307 40,689 

Total 139,704 139,692 136,625 134,722 135,794 151,540 128,933 119,884 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-36 

Table E-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 

Integration and Assessments 24,081 24,362 25,127 27,586 29,296 29,618 29,400 28,982 Recharge Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Management 6,237 6,030 6,771 7,259 7,983 8,563 8,907 8,868 Integrated Field Work 8,035 8,169 8,876 9,852 10,499 11,708 12,109 11,949 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 29,120 29,739 32,248 35,692 38,037 42,483 43,790 43,172 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 379 385 421 465 498 549 564 553 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 200 205 224 247 263 296 303 133 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 138 140 153 181 193 214 221 219 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 373 380 412 449 485 537 257 245 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 352 367 400 441 470 526 544 535 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 455 469 509 562 591 653 677 673 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 685 696 757 858 1,634 1,002 1,046 1,034 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 262 256 283 318 334 372 389 385 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 136 138 1 0 0 0 0 0 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 216 217 236 260 281 307 320 316 Regulatory Decisions 7,536 3,189 582 1 0 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 20,833 19,237 24,738 32,077 35,773 43,389 45,698 49,700 

Total 99,038 93,979 101,738 116,249 126,336 140,216 144,225 146,766 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-37 

Table E-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 

Integration and Assessments 28,513 30,038 32,309 29,037 29,837 34,168 34,862 32,835 Recharge Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Management 8,876 9,522 9,579 8,679 8,786 9,821 9,133 8,602 Integrated Field Work 11,813 12,434 13,292 11,986 12,290 14,178 14,466 13,625 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 42,655 44,678 48,015 43,362 44,556 50,624 51,652 48,649 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 548 574 619 563 571 658 672 633 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 133 138 148 134 136 152 155 146 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 216 227 236 211 217 247 252 238 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 529 558 597 538 555 633 646 608 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 664 679 723 668 692 782 798 752 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 1,023 1,078 1,150 1,046 1,065 1,231 1,256 1,183 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 374 390 425 379 393 475 463 436 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 315 324 352 320 329 369 376 354 Regulatory Decisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 32,928 33,044 35,190 20,187 17,620 28,613 29,048 22,870 

Total 128,587 133,682 142,635 117,111 117,048 141,953 143,779 130,931 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-38 

Table E-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages) 

Fiscal Year Total 

Integration and Assessments 1,132,820 Recharge Control 936 Drilling 215,083 Project Management 592,365 Integrated Field Work 542,769 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 1,470,448 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 100,045 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 196,935 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 124,672 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 203,543 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 66,369 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 162,844 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 100,736 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 83,518 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 1,012,114 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 29,714 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 232,849 Regulatory Decisions 154,638 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 38,904 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 255,612 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 1,601,720 

Total 8,318,635
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-39 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-00302 Integration and Assessments 12,705 15,495 14,636 15,244 15,514 3 Strategic Integration 979 1,294 1,059 1,324 1,126 3 Technical Integration 2,364 2,567 2,186 2,247 2,325 3 Remediation Decision Support 1,912 2,076 1,684 1,731 1,790 3 Remediation Science and Technology 3,569 3,877 3,862 3,970 4,106 3 Sample and Data Management 948 1,297 1,292 1,328 1,374 3 Environmental Databases 2,664 3,582 3,569 3,668 3,795 3 Value Engineering Studies 271 294 293 301 311 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Integration and Assessments 0 508 692 675 687 2 Recharge Control 21 23 23 23 24 3 Recharge Commons 21 23 23 23 24 2 Drilling 22,842 2,674 6,242 2,491 7,128 3 100-KR-4 Drilling 2,116 0 0 351 0 3 100-HR-3 Drilling 2,430 0 0 0 0 3 200-BP-5 Drilling 17 0 0 0 0 3 200-PO-1 Drilling 1,200 0 0 0 0 3 200-UP-1 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 3 200-ZP-1 Drilling 8,071 322 3,755 1 0 3 200-ZP-2 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 3 TPA M-24-00 Well Drilling 2,461 2,065 2,117 2,072 2,408 3 Miscellaneous Well Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 3 Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells 5,158 0 0 0 0 3 300-FF-5 Well Drilling 74 0 0 0 4,637 3 100-NR-2 Drilling 430 0 0 0 0 3 100-BC-5 Well Drilling 95 0 0 0 0 3 100-FR-3 Well Drilling 790 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Drilling 0 287 370 67 83 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-40 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

2 Project Management 22,891 21,677 21,413 23,255 21,932 3 Project Management and Support 7,169 7,786 10,248 10,534 10,896 3 Project Management and Support - Training 164 178 854 878 908 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management 0 0 258 334 388 3 Management Reserve - Project Management 15,558 13,713 10,053 11,510 9,740 2 Integrated Field Work 7,169 7,952 10,188 10,531 10,724 3 IFW - Operations and Maintenance 4,328 4,700 6,287 6,462 6,684 3 Integrated Field Work - Training 1,755 1,906 2,509 2,579 2,668 3 IFW - GRP Field Work Projects 782 850 847 870 900 3 IFW - Field Equipment Purchases (CENRTC) 178 194 193 198 0 3 Non OU Related Well Maintenance and Monitoring and Reporting 127 138 135 139 144 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Integrated Field Work 0 165 218 283 327 2 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 11,933 13,280 13,373 22,436 14,503 3 Modutanks 0 0 73 5,829 0 3 RCRA Monitoring and Reporting 9,065 9,849 9,808 10,082 10,428 3 RCRA Field Support 2,586 2,808 2,798 2,876 2,975 3 Hanford Geotechnical 71 77 76 79 81 3 GM/PA Project Management 211 230 229 235 243 3 

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 

0 317 389 3,336 775 

2 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,127 1,331 465 2,465 2,505 3 100-BC-5 OU Project Management 52 56 56 58 60 3 100-BC-5 Decision Documentation 971 248 100 756 0 3 100-BC-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 0 0 0 3 100-BC-5 Well Support 50 54 54 55 57 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-41 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting 54 59 58 60 62 3 100-BC-5 Modifications and Expansions 0 0 0 0 0 3 100-BC-5 Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 0 914 198 1,537 2,327 2 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 8,324 8,718 12,997 11,795 13,735 3 100-KR-4 Project Management 336 365 364 374 387 3 100-KR-4 Decision Documentation 0 529 527 356 782 3 100-KR-4 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 5,501 5,392 5,371 4,863 5,016 3 100-KR-4 Well Support 79 88 88 90 93 3 100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting 183 174 255 262 271 3 100-KR-4 Modifications and Expansions 403 440 165 0 175 3 100-KR-4 Field Studies and Deployment 1,823 1,730 0 0 0 3 100-KR-4 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 0 0 6,227 5,851 7,011 2 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 2,734 774 14,763 20,232 12,585 3 100-NR-2 Project Management 168 182 182 187 193 3 100-NR-2 Decision Documentation 227 101 584 0 0 3 100-NR-2 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 2,221 308 307 315 326 3 100-NR-2 Well Support 58 63 63 65 67 3 100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting 59 64 64 66 68 3 100-NR-2 Modifications and Expansions 0 0 0 0 0 3 100-NR-2 Field Studies and Deployment 0 56 633 3,448 1,704 3 100-NR-2 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 0 0 12,931 16,152 10,226 2 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 27,008 11,452 17,575 14,499 37,807 3 100-HR-3 Project Management 328 356 355 365 377 3 100-HR-3 Decision Documentation 648 476 306 756 0 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-42 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 100-HR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 7,892 8,984 8,856 6,697 6,919 3 100-HR-3 Well Support 132 164 164 168 174 3 100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 277 301 575 591 612 3 100-HR-3 Modifications and Expansions 17,732 121 436 1,843 1,790 3 100-HR-3 Field Studies and Deployment 0 436 346 22 23 3 100-HR-3 D&D 0 0 1,324 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 614 5,214 4,056 27,912 2 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 389 7,053 10,632 6,580 4,807 3 100-FR-3 OU Project Management 87 94 94 97 100 3 100-FR-3 Decision Documentation 181 727 480 596 166 3 100-FR-3 Remedial Actions (interim and final) 0 0 1,443 1,988 2,057 3 100-FR-3 Well Support 61 66 66 68 70 3 100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 60 65 65 66 69 3 100-FR-3 Modifications and Expansions 0 4,375 1,107 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 0 1,725 7,378 3,765 2,346 2 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 326 361 6,069 24,249 11,214 3 200-BP-5 Project Management 141 154 201 207 214 3 200-BP-5 Decision Documentation 0 0 635 7,915 1,125 3 200-BP-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 3,602 7,097 5,855 3 200-BP-5 Well Support 185 200 200 205 212 3 200-BP-5 Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 0 4,872 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 0 8 1,431 3,952 3,808 2 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 527 4,064 5,858 5,020 11,148 3 200-PO-1 Project Management 256 278 277 285 294 3 200-PO-1 Decision Documentation 0 0 0 1,488 1,441 3 200-PO-1 Well Support 271 315 314 323 334 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-43 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 3,471 5,267 2,925 9,079 2 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 22,281 8,289 5,522 3,284 3,138 3 200-UP-1 Project Management 187 203 202 208 215 3 200-UP-1 Decision Documentation 0 2,145 1,026 273 216 3 200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 626 5,203 3,538 2,281 2,396 3 200-UP-1 Well Support 100 116 116 119 123 3 200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 338 475 357 269 112 3 200-UP-1 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 3 200-UP-1 Modifications and Expansions 21,029 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 0 147 283 135 75 2 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 63,558 42,462 57,178 50,039 32,649 3 200-ZP-1 Project Management 279 362 359 369 382 3 200-ZP-1 Decision Documentation 2,809 2,581 2,281 3,043 2,614 3 200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 4,673 26,331 27,793 24,891 24,690 3 200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 310 394 427 439 454 3 200-ZP-1 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 3 200-ZP-1 Modifications and Expansions 55,488 12,794 22,270 18,525 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 4,048 2,772 4,510 2 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 1,208 1,340 1,322 5,034 1,412 3 200-ZP-2 Project Management 215 234 233 239 248 3 200-ZP-2 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 977 1,062 1,057 4,158 1,124 3 200-ZP-2 Well Support 15 16 0 0 0 3 200-ZP-2 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-ZP-2 Operable Unit 0 28 32 637 40 2 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 1,415 4,947 3,944 6,663 3,396 3 300-FF-5 Project Management 252 274 273 280 290 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-44 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 300-FF-5 Decision Documentation 685 707 0 0 0 3 300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 0 0 0 3 300-FF-5 Wells Support 87 94 94 97 100 3 300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting 391 700 698 717 742 3 300-FF-5 Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 0 3,341 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 0 3,171 2,880 2,227 2,264 2 Regulatory Decisions 2,612 961 6,160 3,134 1,724 3 B/C Cribs and Trenches Area Remediation 34 0 0 0 0 3 200-CW-1/3 Gable Mountain 199 57 0 0 0 3 200-CW-2/4/5 5 0 0 0 0 3 200-TW-1/2 Scavenged Waste 0 0 0 0 0 3 200-PW-2/4 Uranium-Rich Process 0 0 0 0 0 3 200-PW-1 Pu-Rich Waste Group 60 0 0 0 0 3 200-LW-1/2 200A Chem Lab Waste Group 59 0 0 0 0 3 200-UR-1 Unplanned Releases Waste Group 95 0 0 0 0 3 200-SW-1/2 Solid Waste Disposal Areas 244 0 0 0 0 3 200-IS-1 Tanks, Lines, Pits and Boxes 144 0 0 0 0 3 200-BP1-1 Hanford Prototype Barrier 148 157 0 0 0 3 Burial Ground Sampling and Analysis 19 748 24 0 0 3 Model Group DQO/SAPs 1,442 0 0 0 0 3 200-MW-1 Misc. Waste Group Closure 139 0 0 0 0 3 200-CS-1 Chemical Sewer 25 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Regulatory Decisions 0 0 6,136 3,134 1,724 2 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 9,508 9,537 10,268 2,243 7,349 3 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 9,096 9,119 9,840 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 412 418 428 2,243 7,349 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-45 

Table E-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3

Escalated). (7 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

2 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 3 Deep Vadose Zone Decision Documentation 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 2 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 12,992 58,545 41,556 48,952 31,523 3 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 12,992 58,545 41,556 48,952 31,523 

Total 231,568 220,934 260,186 278,170 244,819 

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction. D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. DQO = data quality objective. GM = groundwater monitoring. GRP = Groundwater Remediation Project. IFW = Integrated Field Work. 

OU = operable unit. PA = performance assessment. PBS = performance baseline summary. RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ASAP = Sampling and Analysis Plan. TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-46 

E.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD (PBS RL-0040) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table E-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Regulatory Decisions 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 cross-cutting 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 – FY 2014 to FY 2048 

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 impacting safety, human health, or 

environment (e.g., major equipment failure, spread of 

contamination, structural failure). 

Canyon ROD Planning activity that supports workscope in four 

Central Plateau zones (PUREX, B Plant, REDOX, 

T Plant) and a ROD for below-grade remediation of 

PFP; includes characterization, alternatives analysis, 

feasibility study/proposed plan development, document 

review cycles with Regulators, public comment, 

comment resolution, and disposition determination 

(primarily by CERCLA ROD) for the canyons. 

Zone Environmental 

Remediation 

For each closure zone, provides for remediation definition, remediation of pipelines, installation of 

barriers, utility relocations, post-ROD confirmatory sampling, S&M/O&M of installed barriers, 

and zone 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. Actual 

remedial actions will be determined through the appropriate decision process and applied through a 

geographical implementation strategy. The information in this table is a summary of the planning 

assumptions. 

Zone 1, 200-E Admin Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure. 

Zone 2, 200-E Ponds Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure. This is the largest remediation zone on the 

Central Plateau. This zone also constitutes a 

considerable portion of the newly-defined Outer Zone 

under DOE/RL-2009-81. 

Zone 3, 200-W Ponds Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-47 

Table E-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Zone 4, B Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure. This zone also contains a tank farm and will 

require remedial coordination with the tank farm cleanup 

efforts. 

Zone 5, B Plant Zone This zone contains a canyon (B Plant), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, and pipelines that will be 

addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 6, C Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. This zone also contains a tank 

farm (C Farm) and will require remedial coordination 

with the tank farm cleanup efforts. 

Zone 7, CSB Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 8, ERDF Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 9, ETF Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 10, PFP Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. 

Zone 11, PUREX Zone This zone contains a canyon (PUREX), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 12, REDOX Zone This zone contains a canyon (REDOX), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 13, S/U Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and utility relocations that will be addressed through 

zone closure. This zone also contains tank farms and 

will require remedial coordination with the tank farm 

cleanup efforts. 

Zone 14, Semi-Works Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. 

Zone 15, Solid Waste Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 16, T Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure. 

This zone also contains tank farms and will require 

remedial coordination with the tank farm cleanup efforts. 

Zone 17, T Plant Zone This zone contains a canyon (T Plant), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 18, U Plant Zone This zone contains a canyon (U Plant), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-48 

Table E-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Zone 19, WM Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. 

Zone 20, WTP/A Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. This zone also contains tank 

farms and will require remedial coordination with the 

tank farm cleanup efforts. 

Zone 21, IDF Zone This zone contains waste sites that will be addressed 

through zone closure. 

Zone 22, NRDWL/BC Control Zone This zone contains waste sites and pipelines that will be 

addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 23, 100 Area This zone contains buildings and structures that will be 

addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 24, 600 Area This zone contains buildings and structures that will be 

addressed through zone closure. 

Zone 25, 300 Area This zone does not currently have any identified scope in 

the lifecycle plan. Cleanup is assumed to be 

accomplished through RL-0041. 

Zone 26, 400 Area This zone contains buildings and structures that will be 

addressed through zone closure. 

Surveillance and 

Maintenance and Min-Safe 

for Facilities and Waste 

Sites 

100 Area S&M Scope includes CERCLA 5-year reviews, visual 

surveillance, surface maintenance, maintain facilities 

and waste sites in minimum safe condition to protect 

personnel and the environment, documentation, 

environmental protection, ISMS, nuclear safety, 

occupational safety and health, QA, emergency 

preparedness, radiation protection, safeguards and 

security, baseline controls, and training. 

200 Area S&M 

400 Area S&M 

600 Area S&M 

300 Area S&M 

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0040 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs. 

DOE/RL-2009-81, 2009, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

CSB = Canister Storage Building. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

D4 = deactivation, decommissioning, 

decontamination, and demolition. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility. 

ESH&Q = Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality. 

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility. 

FY = fiscal year. 

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility. 

ISMS = Integrated Safety Management System. 

NRDWL = non-radioactive dangerous waste landfill. 

O&M = operation and maintenance. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant). 

QA = quality assurance. 

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant). 

ROD = record of decision. 

RTD = remove, treat, dispose. 

S&M = surveillance and maintenance. 

WM = Waste Management 

WTP = Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-49 

Table E-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

Escalated). (2 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201

Regulatory Decisions 12,824 18,004 11,529 20,650 30,234 68,594 91,718 47,8Zone Environmental Remediation 275,538 0 0 1,049 252,622 408,614 553,862 383,3S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 12,322 13,143 13,122 13,436 14,193 14,349 13,748 13,6Site-wide Services - RL-0040 15,499 0 5,282 5,799 55,375 83,163 81,565 78,7

Total 316,182 31,147 29,932 40,935 352,424 574,720 740,892 523,6

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 202

Regulatory Decisions 65,562 67,841 42,434 38,190 41,001 36,509 32,665 36,6Zone Environmental Remediation 676,814 466,635 424,239 379,215 377,872 336,447 273,611 143,9S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 14,773 15,548 16,656 15,539 15,906 16,141 16,715 17,6Site-wide Services - RL-0040 89,202 82,685 73,995 65,193 52,333 57,183 60,937 35,6

Total 846,351 632,710 557,324 498,138 487,112 446,279 383,928 233,9

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 203

Regulatory Decisions 30,168 30,901 32,278 33,964 32,374 35,760 38,776 41,0Zone Environmental Remediation 41,253 34,464 47,258 39,463 52,399 176,219 224,643 202,5S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 19,163 20,787 20,128 20,508 20,924 21,998 24,974 25,3Site-wide Services - RL-0040 25,139 25,980 29,391 29,151 28,023 26,174 41,742 45,1

Total 115,723 112,131 129,055 123,086 133,720 260,151 330,136 314,0

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 204

Regulatory Decisions 63,415 69,260 53,633 53,394 49,326 59,307 59,877 55,7Zone Environmental Remediation 368,482 422,706 292,125 224,800 157,658 57,716 42,294 118,3S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 23,816 25,577 26,250 29,118 30,943 34,437 35,697 35,2Site-wide Services - RL-0040 96,579 95,385 88,193 71,887 61,770 49,827 52,583 72,7

Total 552,293 612,929 460,201 379,199 299,696 201,286 190,452 282,1

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 205

Regulatory Decisions 60,078 64,198 72,805 60,119 62,643 81,336 68,834 71,2Zone Environmental Remediation 107,404 93,620 56,976 233,792 201,510 61,661 57,824 164,S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 13,600 14,199 11,779 10,614 10,891 12,599 12,804 12,1Site-wide Services - RL-0040 52,805 49,295 35,638 51,955 44,460 26,419 27,428 40,3

Total 233,886 221,311 177,198 356,480 319,504 182,015 166,891 287,8
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-50 

Table E-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

Escalated). (2 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 Total 

Regulatory Decisions 24,699 25,350 31,618 34,117 23,260 4,600 2,646,872 Zone Environmental Remediation 99,296 128,067 130,267 119,230 68,827 20,125 11,321,049 S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 2,513 2,826 3,400 3,183 3,252 791 973,319 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,628,445 

Total 126,508 156,243 165,285 156,531 95,339 25,515 17,569,685 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. PBS = project baseline summary. S&M = surveillance and maintenance. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-51 

Table E-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, L

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (4 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-00402 Regulatory Decisions 12,824 18,004 11,529 20,650 30,234 3 Central Plateau Project Management 6,601 5,586 5,572 5,706 10,495 3 Central Plateau Engineering Studies 0 0 0 0 1,248 3 Emergency Response for Facility/Waste Site ESH&Q or Remediation - FY 2014 - FY 2048 0 0 0 0 6,861 3 Canyon ROD 1,415 0 0 0 4,501 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Decisions and Closure Integration 367 157 206 182 582 3 Management Reserve - Decisions and Closure Integration 4,442 12,262 5,750 14,762 6,547 2 Zone Environmental Remediation 275,538 0 0 1,049 252,622 3 Zone 1 (200-E Admin Zone) 2,491 0 0 595 613 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 1 (200- E Admin Zone) 369 0 0 226 111 3 Zone 2 (200-E Ponds Zone) 16,383 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 2 (200- E Ponds Zone) 3,099 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 3 (200-W Ponds Zone) 5,878 0 0 0 2,115 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 3 (200- W Ponds Zone) 839 0 0 29 508 3 Zone 4 (B Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 8,526 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 4 (B Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 1,111 3 Zone 5 (B Plant Zone) 1,135 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 5 (B Plant Zone) 145 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 6 (C Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 6 (C Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 7 (CSB Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-52 

Table E-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, L

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (4 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 7 (CSB Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 8 (ERDF Zone) 0 0 0 0 990 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 8 (ERDF Zone) 78 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 9 (ETF Zone) 0 0 0 0 6,373 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 9 (ETF Zone) 0 0 0 0 2,813 3 Zone 10 (PFP Zone) 0 0 0 0 175 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 10 (PFP Zone) 0 0 0 0 38 3 Zone 11 (PUREX Zone) 0 0 0 0 36,741 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 11 (PUREX Zone) 0 0 0 0 27,667 3 Zone 12 (REDOX Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 12 (REDOX Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 13 (S/U Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 13 (S/U Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 14 (Semi-Works Zone) 369 0 0 0 311 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 14 (Semi-Works Zone) 483 0 0 0 62 3 Zone 15 (Solid Waste Zone) 149 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 15 (Solid Waste Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 16 (T Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 16 (T Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 17 (T Plant Zone) 6,839 0 0 0 51,497 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 17 (T Plant Zone) 1,003 0 0 199 12,067 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-53 

Table E-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, L

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (4 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Zone 18 (U Plant Zone) 42,965 0 0 0 71,138 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 18 (U Plant Zone) 3,805 0 0 0 29,766 3 Zone 19 (WM Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 19 (WM Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 20 (WTP/A Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 20 (WTP/A Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 21 (IDF Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 21 (IDF Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 22 (NRDWL/BC Control Zone) 139,950 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 22 (NRDWL/BC Control Zone) 1,590 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 23 (100 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 23 (100 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 24 (600 Area) 47,966 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 24 (600 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zone 26 (400 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 26 (400 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 2 S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 12,322 13,143 13,122 13,436 14,193 3 100 Area S&M 0 0 0 0 407 3 200 Area S&M 10,643 11,345 11,318 11,590 11,885 3 400 Area S&M 416 451 450 460 472 3 600 Area S&M 416 451 450 460 472 3 300 Area S&M 517 560 559 572 587 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-54 

Table E-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, L

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (4 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 330 336 345 353 369 2 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 15,499 0 5,282 5,799 55,375 3 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 15,499 0 5,282 5,799 55,375 

Total 316,182 31,147 29,932 40,935 352,424 

CSB = Canister Storage Building. D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. ESH&Q = environment, safety, health, and quality. ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility. FY = fiscal year. IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility. NRDWL = non-radioactive dangerous waste landfill. 

PBS = project baseline summary. PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant). REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant). ROD = record of decision. S&M = surveillance and maintenance. WM = Waste Management. WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization P
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-55 

E.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS 

Scope information for Infrastructure and Services, PBS RL-0040, is presented in Table E-18. No 

additional scope detail is presented here; however, both near-term and remaining estimated 

cleanup cost information is provided. 

Table E-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary 

Infrastructure and 

Services 

Occupational 

Medicine 

This work element includes occupational medicine; steam systems; legal 

support; land transfers; cleanup baseline, integration, and development; 

radiochemical processing laboratory and 300 Area transition; and real 

property asset management. Steam Systems 

Legal Support 

Land Transfers 

Cleanup Baseline, 

Integration, and 

Development 

HAMMER HAMMER This work element includes operations and maintenance activities at the 

HAMMER facility in support of Hanford Site and other training. 

Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects 

Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects 

This work element includes repair and replacement of infrastructure systems 

and provides capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale 

expense projects. Also included are capital equipment expenditures 

associated with replacements for crane and rigging, electrical utilities, 

biological control, transportation, materials management, Hanford Fire 

Department, and water and sewer utilities. 

Real Estate and Site 

Planning 

Real Estate and Site 

Planning 

This work element includes development and implementation of an 

integrated, lifecycle approach to furnish, operate, coordinate, maintain, and 

right-size land-use planning and management services; operation and 

maintenance of Hanford Site services; and providing real property asset 

management services to include land-use planning, management, and 

disposal of real property interests, such as easements, licenses, permits, and 

leases; performing management of real property at the Hanford Site and 

coordinating the use of real property among Hanford Site contractors. 

HAMMER = Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility). The Volpentest 

HAMMER Training and Education Center. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-56 

Table E-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

(2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Infrastructure and Services 14,852 15,111 15,511 11,354 12,299 6,692 6,763 6,966 HAMMER 8,640 7,252 7,259 7,419 7,557 7,771 7,968 8,168 Real Estate and Site Planning 3,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 18,484 21,647 21,103 22,279 23,060 24,001 24,030 24,570 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 15,499 0 8,165 8,885 7,871 6,584 6,789 7,960 

Total 61,096 44,010 52,038 49,937 50,787 45,049 45,551 47,663 

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 

Infrastructure and Services 7,497 7,658 7,596 9,393 8,025 8,169 8,348 8,587 HAMMER 7,866 7,767 7,674 7,756 7,703 7,725 7,725 7,702 Real Estate and Site Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 36,394 40,638 40,055 32,395 42,275 28,237 24,801 13,996 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 8,990 10,941 11,150 11,456 17,165 12,288 12,103 9,957 

Total 60,747 67,003 66,474 61,000 75,169 56,419 52,976 40,243 

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 

Infrastructure and Services 9,122 9,417 9,530 9,708 12,161 10,287 10,453 10,767 HAMMER 7,598 7,551 7,494 7,436 7,366 7,283 7,188 7,016 Real Estate and Site Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 15,133 15,150 16,115 15,972 16,472 17,121 19,010 32,151 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 10,277 10,013 9,932 9,470 9,078 9,839 14,929 21,525 

Total 42,130 42,131 43,071 42,587 45,077 44,530 51,580 71,460 

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 

Infrastructure and Services 9,716 9,882 10,237 10,473 10,542 10,840 11,043 14,282 HAMMER 6,723 6,579 6,422 6,247 6,065 5,924 5,846 5,609 Real Estate and Site Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 23,014 23,823 24,679 25,677 26,461 18,412 9,278 9,491 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 9,163 8,523 10,514 12,647 13,364 11,306 2,810 2,978 

Total 48,616 48,807 51,851 55,044 56,432 46,481 28,977 32,361 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-57 

Table E-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

(2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 

Infrastructure and Services 12,028 12,543 12,739 13,019 13,318 13,652 13,905 14,219 HAMMER 4,747 4,381 3,983 3,542 3,051 3,121 3,193 3,266 Real Estate and Site Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 10,162 10,395 10,634 10,879 11,129 11,385 5,824 5,957 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 1,702 1,500 1,350 766 561 794 808 691 

Total 28,639 28,820 28,707 28,206 28,059 28,952 23,729 24,134 

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 Total 

Infrastructure and Services 9,949 8,513 9,454 10,695 10,091 3,937 590,584 HAMMER 0 0 0 0 0 0 323,856 Real Estate and Site Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,622 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 998,671 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 0 0 0 0 0 405,177 

Total 9,949 8,513 9,454 10,695 10,091 3,937 2,321,910 

HAMMER = Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility); also known as the Volpentest HAMMER Trai

PBS = project baseline summary. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-58 

Table E-20. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,0

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Infrastructure and Services, PBS RL-00402 Infrastructure and Services 14,852 15,111 15,511 11,354 12,299 3 Occupational Medicine 2,618 2,667 2,739 2,802 2,867 3 Steam Systems 5,511 5,615 5,767 5,900 6,036 3 Legal Support 2,043 2,082 2,138 2,187 2,238 3 Land Transfers 0 0 0 0 639 3 Cleanup Baseline, Integration, and Development 4,078 4,155 4,267 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - RL-0040 603 592 599 464 520 2 HAMMER 8,640 7,252 7,259 7,419 7,557 3 HAMMER 8,640 7,252 7,259 7,419 7,557 2 Real Estate and Site Planning 3,622 0 0 0 0 3 Real Estate and Site Planning 3,622 0 0 0 0 2 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 18,484 21,647 21,103 22,279 23,060 3 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 18,484 21,647 21,103 22,279 23,060 2 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 15,499 0 8,165 8,885 7,871 3 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 15,499 0 8,165 8,885 7,871 

Total 61,097 44,010 52,038 49,937 50,787 

HAMMER = The Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center. Also known as Hazardous Materials Management and EmePBS = project baseline summary. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-59 

E.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

 

Table E-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

D4 Closure 100 Area This work element includes D4 of approximately 500 

facilities, provision of utility and surveillance and 

maintenance services during D4, and closure of utilities 

located in the River Corridor. The D4 closure buildings 

are located throughout the River Corridor in the 100, 

300, 400, and 600 Areas of the Hanford Site. Typical 

hazards associated with the buildings include 

radiological contamination (e.g., uranium, mixed fission 

products, activation products, plutonium), chemical 

hazards (e.g., beryllium, asbestos, laboratory 

chemicals), and industrial hazards (e.g., elevated 

working locations, degraded roofs, biological hazards, 

electrical hazards, excavations). 

The D4 process includes obtaining regulatory 

approvals; characterizing the hazards and waste; 

deactivating the facility by removing loose hazardous 

materials and equipment; decontaminating the facility 

to allow open-air demolition; and decommissioning the 

facility by disconnecting utilities and services. The 

structure is then demolished using techniques such as 

heavy equipment (e.g., track hoe, processor, loader, 

cranes), explosives, cutting equipment, or other 

methods and the demolition debris is disposed, 

generally to ERDF. Following demolition, samples are 

collected to verify that cleanup criteria are met, and the 

sites are backfilled and revegetated. 

324/327 Area 

300 Area Sites 

400 Area 

Surveillance and Maintenance Scope addresses activities associated with maintaining 

buildings in a safe and compliant manner, including 

performing required surveillances on a periodic basis. 

Operate and Close Utilities Scope addresses operating utilities during and to 

support cleanup activities, then closing the utilities once 

they are no longer needed. 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the D4 mission. 

Reactor ISS Closure 100 B/C Area This work element includes removal of reactor area 

buildings and components, leaving the reactor blocks 

intact in interim safe storage. The reactors will then 

undergo surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance for 

a period of time 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 200 Area for disposal. 

100 K Area 

100-N Area 

Management and Support 

Field Remediation 

Closure 

100-B/C Area This work element includes performing CERCLA field 

remediation and closure of contaminated waste sites 

and burial grounds within the River Corridor. This 

includes design and closure; confirmatory sampling; 

remediation of waste sites, liquid waste sites, and burial 

100-D Area 

100-H Area 

100-K Area 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-60 

 

Table E-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

100-N Area grounds; miscellaneous restoration; and support 

activities. The records of decision for the Field 

Remediation Closure work scope generally identify 

RTD as the preferred alternative. (Records of decision 

are identified in Appendix A of the Lifecycle Report.) 

In addition to RTD, confirmatory sites were identified 

that require sampling to determine the need for RTD. 

Following sampling, these sites either become RTD 

sites or are closed as no-action sites. 

Contamination in the waste sites and burial grounds of 

the River Corridor include chemical and radioactive 

constituents, such as asbestos, lead, chromium, carbon 

tetrachloride, strontium, uranium, cesium, and tritium. 

The cleanup process involves sampling and analyzing 

the site to determine the extent and type of 

contamination, excavating contaminated waste 

materials, and restoring the landscape through site 

backfill, grading, and revegetation. 

100 Area Remaining Sites 

300 Area Sites 

400 Area 

600 Area 

Miscellaneous Restoration This scope addresses cleanup activities associated with 

general materials, such as debris piles, and other items 

that do not require CERCLA or RCRA cleanup, but that 

could present a physical hazard or unpleasant aesthetic 

if not addressed. 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the field remediation mission. 

Waste Operations 200 Area Waste Operations This work element includes the transportation, disposal, 

and treatment (if required) of waste from the River 

Corridor cleanup activities, as well as from other 

Hanford Site cleanup operators. Waste operations will 

expand and operate the ERDF, and transition the ERDF 

to a successor operator at the end of the Nuclear Facility 

D&D–River Corridor Closure Project. 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the waste operations mission. 

Final Closure Final Closure This work element includes developing a final strategy; 

preparing an integrated River Corridor work plan for a 

CERCLA baseline risk assessment; preparing a baseline 

risk assessment for the 100 and 300 Areas; conducting a 

risk evaluation for River Corridor areas outside of the 

100 and 300 Areas; conducting orphan site evaluations; 

conducting surface soil surveys; preparing remedial 

action reports; preparing an remedial investigation 

report and a proposed plan for River Corridor source 

areas; and conducting independent closure reviews. 

The scope supports obtaining a proposed “Finding of 

Suitability to Transfer” the Hanford Site’s River 

Corridor to long-term stewardship in accordance with 

CERCLA Section 120(h). 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the final closure mission. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-61 

 

Table E-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages) 

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary 

Mission Support/ General 

Support 

Project Integration This work element consists of functional support and 

business operations necessary to achieve River Corridor 

Closure and field project objectives. This includes 

providing trained and qualified staff, performance 

standards, facilities services, and office supplies. 

General support functions include safety health and 

quality, regulatory and environmental management, 

project integration, project services, engineering 

services, and Office of the Project General Manager. 

Project Services 

Safety, Health, and Quality 

Engineering 

Regulatory and Environmental 

Management 

Office of the Project General Manager 

B Reactor B Reactor The scope 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. 

Nuclear Facility D&D – 

100-K Remediation 

100-K Group 2 Remediation Final remediation of waste sites and D4 buildings and 

structures in the 100-K Area will be completed when all 

spent nuclear fuel is removed from the K Basins. The 

scope includes the ISS of the KE and KW reactors 

consistent with the other 100 Area reactors. 

100-K Group 1 Remediation 

100-K Area Regulatory Closure 

Documents 

100-K Group 3 Remediation 

KW Deactivation 

100-K Area Utilities 

100-K Project Management 

KE and KW Reactor ISS 

100-K Bioremediation 

Site-wide Services Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility. 

ISS = interim safe storage. 

KE = K East. 

KW = K West. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-62 

Table E-22. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, 

($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

D4 Closure 106,492 112,837 36,082 2 0 0 0 0 Reactor Interim Safe Storage (ISS) Closure 19,155 9,228 1,272 0 0 0 0 0 Field Remediation Closure 124,027 52,191 18,642 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Operations 74,416 66,932 44,470 323 0 0 0 0 Final Closure 2,317 2,088 5,108 41 0 0 0 0 Mission/General Support 34,553 34,823 31,256 2,117 0 0 0 0 Indirect Costs 16,024 16,225 13,372 68,578 0 0 0 0 Management Reserve - River Corridor Closure Contract 36,080 29,977 66,260 8,159 871 894 452 408 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - River Corridor Closure Contract 0 0 66,122 173,684 158,088 117,820 96,370 44,063 B Reactor 2,360 2,454 2,511 2,592 2,641 2,716 2,785 2,855 Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure (100-K Area Remediation) 108,427 6,771 25,594 18,113 20,763 18,536 15,367 16,841 Site-wide Services - RL-0041 32,736 8,000 7,368 5,419 5,338 3,841 3,260 4,095 

Total 556,588 341,526 318,056 279,028 187,701 143,807 118,235 68,262 

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 

D4 Closure 0 0 0 0 255,413 Reactor Interim Safe Storage (ISS) Closure 0 0 0 0 29,655 Field Remediation Closure 0 0 0 0 194,860 Waste Operations 0 0 0 0 186,142 Final Closure 0 0 0 0 9,555 Mission/General Support 0 0 0 0 102,749 Indirect Costs 0 0 0 0 114,198 Management Reserve - River Corridor Closure Contract 923 14 0 0 144,231 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - River Corridor Closure Contract 0 479 1,130 1,308 667,968 B Reactor 0 0 0 0 23,841 Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure (100-K Area Remediation) 19,445 44,340 44,609 28,609 389,754 Site-wide Services - RL-0041 3,950 10,022 10,421 8,163 107,560 

Total 24,318 54,855 56,160 38,080 2,225,925 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition. 

ISS = interim safe storage. PBS = project baseline summary. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-63 

Table E-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

Escalated). (3 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project, PBS RL-00412 D4 Closure 106,492 112,837 36,082 2 0 3 D4-100 Area 23,962 24,509 7,344 0 0 3 D4-324/327 Area 38 0 0 0 0 3 D4-300 Area Sites 44,268 49,104 13,313 0 0 3 D4-400 Area 0 5,128 1,486 0 0 3 D4-Surveillance and Maintenance 4,893 4,789 396 2 0 3 D4-Operate and Close Utilities 6,993 6,696 492 0 0 3 D4-Management and Support 26,338 22,611 13,051 0 0 2 Reactor Interim Safe Storage (ISS) Closure 19,155 9,228 1,272 0 0 3 ISS -100 B/C Area 3,482 4,284 613 0 0 3 ISS -100 K Area 6,591 1,190 0 0 0 3 ISS -100 N Area 7,248 904 0 0 0 3 ISS -Management and Support 1,834 2,850 659 0 0 2 Field Remediation Closure 124,027 52,191 18,642 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 100 B/C Area 3,107 6,752 5,009 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 100 D Area 22,304 1,100 0 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 100 H Area 2,791 1,749 781 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 100 K Area 19,009 7,915 3,189 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 100 N Area 6,998 7,335 560 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 100 Area Remaining Sites 5,224 628 0 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 300 Area Sites 7,849 11,975 4,442 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 400 Area 0 149 1 0 0 3 Field Remediation - 600 Area 53,991 11,835 732 0 0 3 Field Remediation - Misc Restoration 136 135 2 0 0 3 Field Remediation - Management and Support 2,617 2,617 3,925 0 0 2 Waste Operations 74,416 66,932 44,470 323 0 3 200 Area Waste Operations 72,374 64,123 40,995 196 0 3 Waste Operations Management and Support 2,042 2,809 3,475 128 0 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-64 

Table E-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

Escalated). (3 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

2 Final Closure 2,317 2,088 5,108 41 0 3 Final Closure 1,897 1,668 4,450 11 0 3 Final Closure Management and Support 420 420 658 29 0 2 Mission/General Support 34,553 34,823 31,256 2,117 0 3 Mission/General Support Project Integration 4,833 4,833 4,547 249 0 3 Mission/General Support Project Services 14,126 14,145 12,905 949 0 3 Mission/General Support Safety, Health and Quality 6,091 6,091 7,115 419 0 3 Mission/General Support Engineering 1,219 1,219 1,029 55 0 3 Mission/General Support Regulatory and Environmental Management 1,632 1,632 2,531 83 0 3 Mission/General Support Office of the Project General Manager 6,653 6,903 3,128 363 0 2 Indirect Costs 16,024 16,225 13,372 68,578 0 2 Management Reserve - River Corridor Closure Contract 36,080 29,977 66,260 8,159 871 2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - River Corridor Closure Contract 0 0 66,122 173,684 158,088 2 B Reactor 2,360 2,454 2,511 2,592 2,641 2 Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure (100-K Area Remediation) 108,427 6,771 25,594 18,113 20,763 3 100-K Group 2 Remediation 2,437 0 8,550 59 0 3 100-K Group 1 Remediation 40,501 249 0 0 0 3 100-K Area Regulatory Closure Documents 0 0 166 953 4,821 3 100-K Group 3 Remediation 34,111 1,631 96 106 0 3 KW Deactivation 2,742 0 0 0 0 3 100-K Area Utilities 2,744 1,259 1,256 1,067 0 3 100-K Project Management 8,520 3,632 8,210 8,407 8,621 3 KE and KW Reactor ISS 11,078 0 7,315 7,521 7,320 3 100-K Bioremediation 6,295 0 0 0 0 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-65 

Table E-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

Escalated). (3 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Nuclear Facility D&D – River Corridor Closure (100-K Area Remediation) 0 0 0 0 0 2 Site-wide Services - RL-0041 32,736 8,000 7,368 5,419 5,338 3 Site-wide Services - RL-0041 32,736 8,000 7,368 5,419 5,338 

Total 556,588 341,526 318,056 279,028 187,701 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. ISS = interim safe storage. D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition. KE = K East. KW = K West. PBS = project baseline summary. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-66 

E.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table E-24. 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 Cleanup Maintain Safe and 

Compliant FFTF 

Complex 

Provides for monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of the FFTF while the 

facility is in a cold and dark state pending future D&D activities. 

Transition FFTF 

Complex 

Provides for the progressive shutdown of facility support systems, including 

sodium, electrical substations, and cooling systems. 

Disposition FFTF 

Sodium 

Includes removal of sodium residuals throughout the life of the project, sodium 

shipment and conversion, and the operation of the Sodium Storage Facility. 

Decommission FFTF 

Complex 

While the final closure of the FFTF has not yet been determined, the planning 

assumptions include: 

 Demolition of all structures within the 400 Area Protected Area, except for 

reactor containment, to at least three feet below grade followed by backfill 

and revegetation; decommissioning waste would be disposed to 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. 

 Installation of an engineered barrier over the grouted area. 

 Installation of monitoring wells for long term monitoring. 

FFTF Project 

Management 

Provides for management function in support of the project mission. 

Sodium Reaction 

Facility 

Provides for the 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. 

Infrastructure 

and Services 

Infrastructure and 

Services 

This work scope includes activity related to a DOE-RL direct contract. 

Site-wide 

Services 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site services and infrastructure, 

adders, and other indirect costs. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. 

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-67 

Table E-25. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Cos

Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

FFTF Cleanup 1,394 1,669 1,659 1,699 1,741 1,752 1,771 1,909 Infrastructure and Services 38 41 41 42 43 43 44 47 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 1,028 796 489 521 459 372 384 475 

Total 2,460 2,507 2,189 2,262 2,243 2,167 2,199 2,431 

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 

FFTF Cleanup 7,377 13,536 36,024 47,434 49,931 60,332 59,288 61,571 Infrastructure and Services 49 50 52 54 0 0 0 0 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 832 1,687 5,844 8,653 10,492 11,582 12,060 10,632 

Total 8,258 15,274 41,920 56,141 60,423 71,914 71,348 72,202 

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Total 

FFTF Cleanup 62,634 79,749 78,454 89,620 95,348 53,220 4,691 962,151 Infrastructure and Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 639 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 12,156 11,505 9,331 11,022 11,568 9,586 2,360 159,620 

Total 74,790 91,254 87,784 100,643 106,916 62,806 7,051 1,122,410 

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility. PBS = project baseline summary. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-68 

Table E-26. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Leve

($1,000, Escalated).

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042 2 FFTF Cleanup 1,394 1,669 1,659 1,699 1,741 3 Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 1,133 1,233 1,225 1,255 1,287 3 Transition FFTF Complex 16 17 17 18 18 3 Disposition FFTF Sodium 103 112 111 114 117 3 Decommission FFTF Complex 0 0 0 0 0 3 FFTF Project Management 142 307 305 313 320 3 Sodium Reaction Facility 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - FFTF 0 0 0 0 0 2 Infrastructure and Services 38 41 41 42 43 3 Infrastructure and Services 38 41 41 42 43 2 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 1,028 796 489 521 459 3 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 1,028 796 489 521 459 

Total 2,460 2,506 2,189 2,262 2,243 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility. PBS = project baseline summary. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-69 

E.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Scope information for Community and Regulatory Support, PBS RL-0100, is presented in 

Table E-27. This PBS is not broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented; 

however, both near-term and remaining estimated cleanup cost information is provided. 

Table E-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

Work Element Scope Description 

Richland Community 

and Regulatory Support 

This work element includes DOE-RL support to community activities and regulatory agencies, 

such as the Hanford Advisory Board, the Oregon Department of Energy, the Natural Resource 

Trustee Council, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and other entities through grants, 

permits, and payment of fees. 

DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-70 Table E-28. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Lev

($1,000, Escalated). Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 19,387 20,337 25,898 26,573 25,488 25,548 26,124 26,385 

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 27,095 27,366 27,639 20,811 20,204 20,406 20,610 20,816 

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 21,447 21,575 21,791 22,009 22,229 22,347 22,570 21,207 

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 20,392 20,051 19,855 19,954 20,054 19,671 15,384 15,460 

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 15,694 15,772 15,851 15,930 16,010 16,090 16,170 16,251 

Fiscal Year Total 

1,035,451 

PBS = project baseline summary. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-71 

E.1.11 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND COST 

DETAILS 

Scope information for Long-Term Stewardship, PBS RL-LTS, is presented in Table E-29. This 

PBS is not broken down to Level 3 scope, and there are no near-term cost details for this PBS 

due to when the work is planned to begin. 

Table E-29. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

Work Element Scope Description 

Infrastructure The scope includes operation and maintenance of site infrastructure following cleanup activities. 

Specific scope will include supplying electrical and water utilities, operating and maintaining 

emergency services (Hanford Fire Department), and maintaining roads as needed to support site 

long-term stewardship activities. 

Waste Management Scope includes operation and maintenance of 200 Area liquid effluent facilities in support of 

groundwater treatment and monitoring activities. 

Site and Environmental 

Monitoring 

Scope includes ongoing site and environmental monitoring of groundwater, soil, and the vadose 

zone, and monitoring for public safety and resource protection. 

Post-Closure 

Surveillance and 

Maintenance 

Scope includes real estate and site planning, land management, and surveillance and maintenance 

activities for the 100 and 200 Areas. 

Environmental 

Compliance 

Scope includes activities to ensure environmental compliance and protection. 

Stakeholder 

Participation 

Scope includes continued support of stakeholder participation through grants, and payment of fees 

in lieu of taxes. 

Management and 

Administration 

Scope provides for management and administration of these long-term stewardship activities. 

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-72 

Table E-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($

(2 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 

Infrastructure 28,025 27,262 26,521 25,800 25,098 24,415 23,751 23,104 Waste Management 93,717 91,168 88,688 86,276 83,929 81,646 79,425 77,265 Site and Environmental Monitoring 56,286 54,755 53,266 51,817 50,408 49,036 47,702 46,405 Post-Closure S&M 52,383 50,958 49,572 48,224 46,911 45,636 44,395 43,187 Environmental Compliance 4,675 4,548 4,424 4,303 4,186 4,073 3,962 3,854 Stakeholder Participation 21,280 20,701 20,138 19,590 19,057 18,539 18,035 17,544 Management and Administration 21,609 20,985 20,379 19,792 19,223 18,670 18,134 17,614 

Total 277,975 270,377 262,988 255,802 248,812 242,015 235,404 228,973 2

Fiscal Year 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 

Infrastructure 21,046 20,259 19,500 18,770 19,221 17,713 16,325 15,045 Waste Management 70,381 67,746 65,210 62,768 64,275 59,236 54,592 50,312 Site and Environmental Monitoring 42,271 40,688 39,165 37,699 38,603 35,577 32,788 30,217 Post-Closure S&M 39,699 38,562 37,458 36,386 35,651 34,421 33,245 32,120 Environmental Compliance 3,511 3,379 3,253 3,131 3,206 2,955 2,723 2,510 Stakeholder Participation 15,981 15,383 14,807 14,252 14,594 13,450 12,396 11,424 Management and Administration 16,021 15,444 14,888 14,353 14,476 13,519 12,633 11,811 

Total 208,910 201,461 194,281 187,359 190,026 176,871 164,702 153,439 1

Fiscal Year 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 

Infrastructure 16,154 16,542 16,092 16,639 17,372 18,310 19,481 20,923 Waste Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site and Environmental Monitoring 32,445 33,224 32,320 33,419 34,889 36,774 39,127 42,023 Post-Closure S&M 30,179 29,577 28,772 28,482 28,479 28,758 29,325 30,197 Environmental Compliance 2,695 2,759 2,684 2,776 2,898 3,054 3,250 3,490 Stakeholder Participation 12,266 12,561 12,219 12,635 13,190 13,903 14,793 15,887 Management and Administration 6,703 6,689 6,495 6,545 6,661 6,847 7,107 7,451 

Total 100,442 101,352 98,582 100,496 103,489 107,646 113,083 119,971 1
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-73 

Table E-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($

(2 pages) 

Fiscal Year Total 

Infrastructure 616,383Waste Management 1,426,191Site and Environmental Monitoring 1,237,977Post-Closure S&M 1,112,067Environmental Compliance 102,818Stakeholder Participation 468,035Management and Administration 398,003

Total 5,361,474 

PBS = project baseline summary. S&M = surveillance and maintenance. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-74 

E.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION 

The DOE, Office of River Protection (DOE-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 Plant, PBS ORP-0060. 

Scope information for PBS ORP-0014 and PBS ORP-0060 is presented in Chapter 6.0 of the 

Lifecycle Report. No additional scope is presented here. Near-term and estimated cleanup costs 

are presented below. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-75 

Table E-31. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Base Operations 326,090 254,861 263,931 356,555 366,504 367,605 393,976 380,20Retrieve and Close SSTs 81,167 87,367 88,074 62,587 124,749 238,683 225,082 268,00Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 99,834 93,886 115,732 149,250 189,060 188,453 226,248 197,34Supplemental Treatment 4,239 8,379 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 314,01Treat Waste 0 6,620 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 195,45Facility Closures 0 0 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 0 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 31,127 33,808 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 62,353 

Total 542,456 484,920 516,405 666,578 841,029 1,087,674 1,316,067 1,417,3

Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 

Base Operations 445,198 466,041 455,013 470,788 496,480 485,865 508,862 567,46Retrieve and Close SSTs 136,401 108,806 71,703 54,898 115,761 115,140 174,473 297,34Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 168,954 166,352 175,096 182,990 161,213 151,475 160,483 166,19Supplemental Treatment 23,061 169,656 171,626 176,101 179,975 183,935 187,981 192,11Treat Waste 406,116 413,095 420,508 431,471 440,964 450,665 460,580 470,71Facility Closures 2,579 2,893 5,985 45,140 7,779 4,728 1,394 1,729 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 45,055 45,931 47,175 52,460 49,210 51,056 51,332 54,637 

Total 1,227,364 1,372,775 1,347,106 1,413,849 1,451,382 1,442,862 1,545,104 1,750,20

Fiscal Year 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 

Base Operations 548,172 576,550 582,060 632,972 652,033 648,968 628,511 640,20Retrieve and Close SSTs 208,752 266,322 294,811 418,713 470,008 544,391 458,892 456,14Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 145,680 146,634 148,180 150,839 157,589 168,245 177,266 204,99Supplemental Treatment 205,078 210,421 214,200 218,044 222,841 225,396 229,445 234,49Treat Waste 502,468 515,560 524,820 534,237 545,990 562,448 572,550 585,14Facility Closures 2,319 1,882 1,844 2,596 11,213 7,983 11,725 4,113 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 55,192 59,837 60,673 65,146 64,184 69,834 71,263 68,816 

Total 1,667,660 1,777,206 1,826,588 2,022,547 2,123,858 2,227,265 2,149,651 2,193,90
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-76 

Table E-31. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) 

Fiscal Year 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 

Base Operations 484,417 462,563 447,632 439,638 407,393 300,834 261,134 187,89Retrieve and Close SSTs 175,960 181,184 104,817 69,822 104,365 52,641 45,307 18,166 Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 265,977 295,917 343,051 335,495 409,323 238,259 194,255 85,757 Supplemental Treatment 250,312 255,819 260,935 267,210 0 0 0 0 Treat Waste 624,622 559,604 544,302 528,167 513,673 488,927 500,693 253,32Facility Closures 11,530 10,195 15,046 13,392 33,132 83,973 43,314 38,195 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 72,943 69,655 73,186 73,232 75,827 16,622 12,602 10,295 

Total 1,885,761 1,834,937 1,788,968 1,726,957 1,543,712 1,181,257 1,057,304 593,63

Fiscal Year Total 

Base Operations 17,937,947 Retrieve and Close SSTs 7,428,147 Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 7,233,362 Supplemental Treatment 6,312,318 Treat Waste 15,238,379 Facility Closures 403,661 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 2,013,009 

Total 56,566,824 

DOE-ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection. PBS = project baseline summary. DST = double-shell tank. SST = single-shell tank. 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-77 

Table E-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition, PBS ORP-0014 2 Base Operations 326,090 254,861 263,931 356,555 366,504 3 Base Operations 83,187 79,473 77,175 80,707 88,836 3 DST Space Management 9,383 7,353 7,373 23,956 13,627 3 TOC Facility Operations 35,204 25,271 28,104 34,726 41,214 3 Tank Farm Upgrades 28,356 6,033 10,339 13,626 10,927 3 Project Support 169,959 136,731 140,940 203,540 211,900 2 Retrieve and Close SSTs 81,167 87,367 88,074 62,587 124,749 3 Retrieval/Closure Program 24,385 24,396 39,487 23,367 28,756 3 SST Retrieval East Area 53,107 58,359 30,155 28,207 51,314 3 SST Retrieval West Area 0 0 0 0 0 3 Closure Program 2,999 1,561 1,110 1,675 806 3 SST Closure 676 3,050 17,322 9,339 43,873 2 Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 99,834 93,886 115,732 149,250 189,060 3 WTP Feed Delivery Program 22,599 18,068 17,933 20,575 22,203 3 Construct DST Systems 14,868 31,571 47,101 59,979 53,872 3 RA - Transfer System Mod Project 13,155 0 0 0 0 3 DST Retrieval/Closure East Area 0 0 0 0 0 3 DST Retrieval/Closure West Area 0 0 0 0 0 3 Immobilization Program 10,353 10,679 24,869 22,978 51,315 3 WTP Operational Readiness 3,379 3,618 3,543 4,425 4,122 3 Tank Waste Pretreatment Project 13,348 5,110 1,459 27,083 31,145 3 Secondary Waste Treatment/ETF 11,892 9,724 6,943 14,209 26,402 3 Next Generation Projects 10,239 15,117 13,883 0 0 2 Supplemental Treatment 4,239 8,379 8,546 44,243 97,424 3 Supplemental Treatment 4,239 8,379 8,546 44,243 97,424 2 Treat Waste 0 6,620 6,832 19,834 20,310 3 Waste Treatment Facility (WTP) 0 6,620 6,832 19,834 20,310 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-78 

Table E-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) 

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

2 Facility Closures 0 0 0 8 3,484 3 TFC Facility and Other Closure 0 0 0 8 3,484 2 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 31,127 33,808 33,290 34,101 39,498 3 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 31,127 33,808 33,290 34,101 39,498 

Total 542,457 484,921 516,405 666,578 841,029 

DST = double-shell tank. ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility. ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection. PBS = project baseline summary. 

SST = single-shell tank. TOC = total organic carbon. WTP = Waste Treatment and Immo
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-79 

Table E-33. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule an

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Pretreatment 237,346 340,112 405,343 303,973 210,178 131,307 100,889 76,461 103,515 Low-Activity Waste 61,717 76,228 65,851 46,713 33,684 80,326 60,474 31,348 42,382 High-Level Waste 153,894 184,699 142,607 147,373 134,009 97,298 64,995 64,623 64,501 Balance of Facilities 30,350 36,368 57,932 54,967 80,097 52,759 24,727 12,691 10,507 Laboratory 22,472 31,998 17,942 28,418 26,726 39,691 28,184 17,030 18,590 Plant Wide 351,926 335,141 307,033 297,136 265,717 226,809 156,370 59,698 33,130 

Total 857,705 1,004,547 996,709 878,581 750,410 628,190 435,639 261,851 272,626 

PBS = project baseline summary. 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-80 

Table E-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by F

Escalated). (4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

1 Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant, PBS ORP-0060 2 Pretreatment 237,346 340,112 405,343 303,973 210,179 3 Engineering Design - PT 46,355 53,925 36,771 6,542 1,425 3 Plant Equipment - PT 46,194 108,815 103,908 59,259 13,722 3 Equipment Engineering - PT 1,208 3 0 0 0 3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - PT 2,424 1,841 997 2,246 2,544 3 Research and Technology - PT 6,430 2,819 2,550 0 0 3 Plant Material - PT 17,330 19,513 33,794 14,222 0 3 Startup - PT 163 174 181 286 10,982 3 Construction Field Non Manual - PT 12,441 14,761 17,182 16,788 13,079 3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Civil 19,893 19,137 16,451 21,521 12,360 3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Distribs 5,781 5,581 4,204 3,238 2,680 3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Electrical 1,320 2,980 20,269 16,037 18,336 3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Mechanical 1,161 3,486 11,243 13,895 9,517 3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Piping and Instrumentation 27,666 32,286 53,433 44,843 31,501 3 Construction Subcontracts - PT 2,593 11,256 11,063 23,909 19,368 3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - PT 1,200 30 223 3,664 1,341 3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - PT 3,141 2,726 2,654 4,782 599 3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - PT 2,114 6,091 13,272 8,473 2,358 3 Commissioning - PT 1,115 1,000 1,267 5,865 18,664 

- Fee 11,078 14,531 20,913 16,738 17,279 - Contingency 27,739 39,157 54,968 41,665 34,424 

2 Low-Activity Waste 61,716 76,227 65,851 46,715 33,682 3 Engineering Design - LAW 5,976 3,329 1,383 456 194 3 Plant Equipment - LAW 12,197 13,718 8,874 3,795 0 3 Equipment Engineering - LAW 1,676 418 14 14 14 3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - LAW 736 694 1,290 1,106 1,043 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-81 

Table E-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by F

Escalated). (4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Research and Technology - LAW 370 424 240 232 239 3 Plant Material - LAW 585 1,604 0 0 0 3 Startup - LAW 156 168 212 2,594 8,345 3 Construction Field Non Manual - LAW 6,037 6,750 6,790 5,926 1,318 3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW 14,572 24,756 25,786 10,424 0 3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW - Distribs 2,379 2,124 1,613 1,507 1,082 3 Construction Subcontracts - LAW 1,391 10,329 10,708 1,443 0 3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - LAW 275 345 142 0 0 3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - LAW 269 1,094 1,057 7 0 3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - LAW 39 342 520 129 0 3 Commissioning - LAW 601 788 954 5,363 11,330 

- Fee 9,281 5,445 761 8,076 914 - Contingency 5,176 3,899 5,507 5,643 9,203 

2 High-Level Waste 153,894 184,701 142,609 147,372 134,006 3 Engineering Design - HLW 15,869 14,434 6,086 1,223 1,235 3 Plant Equipment - HLW 55,623 44,084 32,557 17,137 12,277 3 Equipment Engineering - HLW 2,255 820 22 4 34 3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - HLW 564 578 548 1,584 2,209 3 Research and Technology - HLW 292 300 335 451 370 3 Plant Material - HLW 17,765 24,244 0 0 0 3 Process Engineering and Flowsheet Modeling - HLW 157 147 153 158 255 3 Startup - HLW 8,416 9,322 11,063 11,138 8,868 3 Construction Field Non Manual - HLW 19,919 26,329 17,486 16,757 10,700 3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Civil 4,363 4,878 2,249 2,229 1,679 3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Distribs 1,002 4,021 6,064 7,497 10,714 3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Electrical 2,636 5,574 9,347 9,612 7,449 3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Mechanical 3,356 6,817 9,632 18,916 18,588 3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Piping and 1,355 2,874 4,242 12,477 15,671 
 July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 E-82 

Table E-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by F

Escalated). (4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Instrumentation 

3 Construction Subcontracts - HLW 1,392 2,091 5,391 449 14 3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - HLW 412 2,083 3,468 2,913 1,082 3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - HLW 3,367 5,299 5,152 6,723 4,306 3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - HLW 698 617 661 2,341 8,368 3 Commissioning - HLW 15,869 14,434 6,086 1,223 1,235 

- Fee 6,451 19,614 8,245 10,079 6,189 - Contingency 8,002 10,575 19,908 25,684 23,998 

2 Balance of Facilities 30,351 36,367 57,932 54,965 80,098 3 Engineering Design - BOF 4,142 6,780 3,345 1,080 466 3 Plant Equipment - BOF 4,015 5,487 11,603 1,980 18,633 3 Equipment Engineering - BOF 113 127 516 432 484 3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - BOF 466 555 1,067 539 0 3 Plant Material - BOF 208 815 10,646 11,310 9,153 3 Startup - BOF 3,231 3,371 3,755 4,752 5,236 3 Construction Field Non Manual - BOF 5,012 4,359 7,901 12,661 12,070 3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF 1,547 1,057 1,000 1,054 834 3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF - Distribs 928 2,406 2,718 5,665 4,184 3 Construction Subcontracts - BOF 2,352 4,577 5,747 6,414 13,258 3 Commissioning - BOF 4,142 6,780 3,345 1,080 466 

- Fee 7,863 3,324 3,559 3,034 3,935 - Contingency 474 3,509 6,075 6,044 11,845 

2 Laboratory 22,473 31,998 17,943 28,416 26,726 3 Engineering Design - Lab 1,814 1,557 542 66 50 3 Plant Equipment - Lab 1,474 912 2,460 6,371 1,671 3 Equipment Engineering - Lab 0 394 908 148 0 3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - Lab 168 208 1,200 691 792 3 Research and Technology - Lab 155 171 1,056 5,507 643 3 Plant Material - Lab 2,694 2,618 1,706 400 0 
 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 E-83 

Table E-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by F

Escalated). (4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope 

Fiscal Year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

3 Startup - Lab 7,060 8,335 2,653 216 0 3 Construction Field Non Manual - Lab 988 962 249 249 195 3 Crafts (Construction) - Lab 1,210 6,527 859 0 0 3 Crafts (Construction) - Lab - Distribs 0 171 0 0 0 3 Construction Subcontracts - Lab 323 583 0 0 0 3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - Lab 11 78 30 0 0 3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - Lab 1,023 1,292 4,442 11,657 19,546 3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - Lab 1,814 1,557 542 66 50 3 Commissioning - Lab 1,474 912 2,460 6,371 1,671 

- Fee 4,700 6,922 356 879 1,089 - Contingency 853 1,268 1,482 2,232 2,740 

2 Plant Wide 351,926 335,141 307,033 297,136 265,717 

Total 857,705 1,004,547 996,709 878,581 750,410 

BOF = Balance of Facilities. HLW = High-Level Waste (Facility). LAB = Analytical Laboratory. LAW = Low-Activity Waste (Facility). 

LOE = level of effort. ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River ProtPBS = project baseline summary. PT = Pretreatment (Facility). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

E-84 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-i 

APPENDIX F 

CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-SW-2 OPERABLE 

UNIT COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-iii 

CONTENTS 

F.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1

F.2 200-SW-2 OPERABLE UNIT RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ..................2

F.2.1 Current Lower Bound Work Scope and Cost Assumptions ....................................3

F.2.2 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Reasonable Upper Bound ...............................................5

F.3 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................11

TABLES 

Table F-1. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower Bound Cleanup Cost Estimate (shown in 

2010 Constant Dollars). ............................................................................................... 3

Table F-2. Project Baseline Summary Level 3 Work Element, for the 200-SW-2 

Operable Unit Lower Bound Cost Estimate (shown in 2010 Constant 

Dollars). (2 pages) ...................................................................................................... 4

Table F-3. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Waste Volume Quantities for Upper 

Bound Remove, Treat, and Dispose Alternative. (2 pages) ....................................... 7

Table F-4. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Costs for Upper Bound Retrieve, Treat, 

and Dispose Alternative (2010 Constant Dollars). ...................................................... 9

Table F-5. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Costs, by Project Baseline Summary 

Level 3 Work Element, for Upper Bound Retrieve, Treat and Dispose 

Alternative (2010 Constant Dollars). (2 pages) ........................................................ 10

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-iv 

TERMS 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

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

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

OU operable unit 

PBS project baseline summary 

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant) 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

TRU transuranic 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility) 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-1 

APPENDIX F 

CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-SW-2 OPERABLE 

UNIT COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 

F.1 BACKGROUND 

Twenty-five solid waste landfills (often referred to as burial grounds or burial trenches) are 

located within the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit (OU) on the Central Plateau (13 landfills are in the 

200-West Area and 12 landfills are in the 200-East Area). Collectively, the 200-SW-2 landfills 

received between 450,000 and 460,000 cubic meters of a heterogeneous mixture of solid waste 

during operations that began in the mid-1940s. The 200-SW-2 landfills cover a cumulative area 

of over 680 acres, including layback and working margin within the perimeter. Each landfill is 

made up of burial trenches. The cumulative area of the trenches considered as part of this 

analysis is 545 acres (this area excludes unused landfills and trench sections where active 

remedial/storage efforts are occurring). To date, no regulatory decisions have been made for the 

200-SW-2 OU. 

Much of the available information regarding the 200-SW-2 OU is summarized in 

DOE/RL-2004-60, 200-SW-1 Nonradioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit and 200-SW-2 

Radioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan. 

Waste volume and other information relevant to the 200-SW-2 OU were derived from 

DOE/RL-2004-60 and used for preparation of PFM-00011, Rough Order of Magnitude Cost and 

Schedule Estimate for Hanford Lifecycle Report (DOE/RL-2010 25 Rev. A) Evaluation of 

200-SW-2 Remove, Treat, Dispose (RTD) Alternative. The quantity and quality of burial records 

and/or relevant historical information varies greatly; information generally is sparse for the 

earlier years and more substantive for waste buried after the late 1960s. 

For planning purposes and to aid in assessing potential remedial paths, the 25 landfills in the 

200-SW-2 OU have been sorted into six main categories, or bins, based on similar 

characteristics, as follows (DOE/RL-2004-60): 

 Bin 1: TSD Unit Landfills. This bin includes landfills that are regulated as Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) hazardous and mixed waste treatment, 

storage, and disposal (TSD) units and are included in the 2008 Hanford Facility LowLevel Burial Grounds Dangerous Waste Permit Application Part A (EPA 1994 as 

amended). 

 Bin 2: Industrial Landfills. This bin includes past practice landfills that received 

radioactive waste, packaged primarily in large wooden or concrete boxes and containing 

large quantities of fission products. For the most part, these sites were restricted to burial 

of large pieces of failed or obsolete equipment from the chemical processing facilities in 

the 200 Area, although some items came from the 100 Areas. 

 Bin 3: Dry Waste Alpha Landfills. This bin includes past practice landfills that 

received radioactive waste packaged primarily in fiberboard or small wooden boxes, 

wrapped in heavy brown paper or burlap, or placed in the trench without packaging. 

A small proportion of the waste is packaged in metal drums. Historical documentation 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-2 

indicates that these sites contain at least 90 percent of the 200 Areas’ landfill alpha 

inventory of solid wastes disposed of prior to 1970. 

 Bin 4: Dry Waste Landfills. This bin includes past practice landfills that received 

radioactive waste packaged primarily in fiberboard or small wooden boxes, wrapped in 

heavy brown paper or burlap, or placed in the trench without packaging. A small portion 

of the waste is packaged in metal drums. 

 Bin 5: Construction Landfills. This bin includes past practice landfills that mainly 

were limited to burial of wastes resulting from construction work on existing facilities or 

demolition of surplus facilities. Waste in these sites is believed to contain very little 

radioactive contamination. 

 Bin 6: Caissons. This bin includes caissons and vertical pipe units used for disposal of 

hot cell waste or high plutonium concentration waste. This bin also includes caissons 

that are believed to be empty/unused, according to historical documentation. One group 

of caissons contains retrievably stored waste that will be dispositioned by the Waste 

Retrieval Project under Project Baseline Summary (PBS) RL-0013C, Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area. 

F.2 200-SW-2 OPERABLE UNIT RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES 

During the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA) remedial investigation/feasibility study work planning process for the 200-SW-2 OU 

(DOE/RL-2004-60), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), and Washington State Department of Ecology (together the Tri-Party Agreement 

[TPA] agencies) identified potential remedial alternatives that include the following: 

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of waste from within individual 

landfills. 

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of waste from selected sections of 

individual landfills. 

 Capping of individual landfills. 

 In situ treatment/stabilization (e.g., vitrification or grouting) of portions of individual 

landfills. 

 Some combination of the above. 

 No action with continued monitoring. 

The CERCLA remedial investigation/feasibility study process is not yet complete for the 

200-SW-2 OU and uncertainty remains concerning the nature and extent of contamination and 

remedy selection. 

To support preparation of this Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies participated in working 

sessions to develop a range of plausible alternatives and describe a reasonable upper bound. The 

range of plausible alternatives was identified as follows: 

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of all waste from within individual 

landfills (this is the reasonable upper bound). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-3 

 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 (this 

is the lower bound). 

The TPA agencies agreed that while fully removing all the 200-SW-2 OU waste may or may not 

ultimately be selected as the CERCLA remedy, providing information on a complete removal 

scenario (remove, treat, and dispose) would represent an upper bound in terms of cost and effort 

for these waste sites. 

F.2.1 Current Lower Bound Work Scope and Cost Assumptions 

The work scope and cost estimates for the 200-SW-2 OU are included in PBS RL-0040, Nuclear 

Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford. Based on the cleanup assumptions of grout injection and 

capping, remaining estimated cleanup costs range from $686 million (unescalated, 2010 constant 

dollars, without uncertainty) to $823 million with 20 percent cost and/or schedule uncertainty 

(unescalated, 2010 constant dollars). Table F-1 summarizes estimated costs for each project 

management activity and landfill bin that constitute the lower bound alternative consisting of in 

situ treatment/stabilization of portions of the landfills, followed by capping and continued cap 

maintenance and monitoring. 

Table F-1. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower Bound Cleanup Cost Estimate 

(shown in 2010 Constant Dollars). 

Activities Cost 

(Million $) 

Overall Project Management and Support Activities $195 

Remediation Definition $2 

Operations and Maintenance $108 

Bin 1 - TSD Unit Landfills $260 

Bin 2 - Industrial Landfills $47 

Bin 3 - Dry Waste Alpha Landfills $46 

Bin 4 - Dry Waste Landfills $18 

Bin 5 - Construction Landfills $10 

Bin 6 - Caissons $0 

Total (minus Cost and Schedule Uncertainty) $686 

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty (20%) $137 

Grand Total $823 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-4 

Table F-2 provides a more detailed view of the current lower bound cost estimate. In Table F-2, 

the costs per category/bin are fragmented because of the difference between bin and closure zone 

membership (DOE/RL-2004-60; DOE/RL-2009-81, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion 

Strategy; CP-22319-DEL, Plan for Central Plateau Closure). Additionally, the caissons (Bin 6) 

were consolidated as part of the overall cost of their parent waste site, thus there is no discrete 

cost for them in this estimate. 

Table F-2. Project Baseline Summary Level 3 Work Element, for the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower 

Bound Cost Estimate (shown in 2010 Constant Dollars). (2 pages)

PBS Schedule 

Level Work Element Cost (Million $) 

2 Overall Project Management & Support Activities $195 

3 Overall Project Management $195 

2 Remediation Definition $2 

3 Solid Waste Zone – Waste Sites $0.375 

3 Waste Management Zone – Waste Sites $1.13 

3 PUREX Zone – Waste Sites $0.28 

3 Semi-Works Zone – Waste Sites $0.028 

2 Operations and Maintenance $108 

3 Solid Waste Zone $51.3 

3 Waste Management Zone $51.4 

3 PUREX Zone $0.7 

3 Semi-Works Zone $4.8 

2 Bin 1 - TSD Unit Landfills $260 

3 Solid Waste Zone $102 

3 Waste Management Zone $158 

3 PUREX Zone $0 

3 Semi-Works Zone $0 

2 Bin 2 - Industrial Landfills $47 

3 Solid Waste Zone $8.7 

3 Waste Management Zone $37.9 

3 PUREX Zone $0 

3 Semi-Works Zone $0 

2 Bin 3 - Dry Waste Alpha Landfills $46 

3 Solid Waste Zone $0 

3 Waste Management Zone $46 

3 PUREX Zone $0 

3 Semi-Works Zone $0 

2 Bin 4 - Dry Waste Landfills $18 

3 Solid Waste Zone $0 

3 Waste Management Zone $15.8 

3 PUREX Zone $2.6 

3 Semi-Works Zone $0 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-5 

Table F-2. Project Baseline Summary Level 3 Work Element, for the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Lower 

Bound Cost Estimate (shown in 2010 Constant Dollars). (2 pages)

PBS Schedule 

Level Work Element Cost (Million $) 

2 Bin 5 - Construction Landfills $10 

3 Solid Waste Zone $2.9 

3 Waste Management Zone $0 

3 PUREX Zone $0 

3 Semi-Works Zone $7 

2 Bin 6 - Caissons (Caissons not separately costed from parent burial ground in 

current planning case) $0 

Total (minus Cost and Schedule Uncertainty) $686 

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty (20%) $137 

Grand Total $823 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant). TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

F.2.2 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Reasonable Upper Bound 

The scope of the reasonable upper bound is provided as a sensitivity analysis and includes 

removal of the individual waste trenches in each of the 25 200-SW-2 OU landfills, from the 

surface to the bottom of each waste trench, with the exception of the 218-W-6 Burial Ground (it 

has been assumed that confirmational sampling and analysis will show this burial ground never 

received waste). The waste contained in the burial grounds ranges from low-dose rate materials, 

to high-dose rate materials, to potential alpha-contaminated materials. The associated processes 

for excavating and handling these varying materials also range in complexity, cost, and time 

requirements. 

As radioactive components increase in concentration/activity within the waste, additional 

measures are required to protect workers, the environment, and the public; therefore, costs 

associated with these measures also increase, as does the time needed to complete the work 

scope. These more complex wastes may also necessitate special handling requirements, such as 

containment structures, air-flow controls, remotely controlled equipment, and repackaging or 

treatment processes. Disposal requirements also vary with the waste type; some material may 

require special disposal, such as at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) or a similar facility. 

To account for the variability in the waste and to address the range of associated cost and 

schedule impacts, DOE, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) developed three cost models for 

this Lifecycle Report to address the different waste types and disposal pathways for the 

200-SW-2 OU landfill wastes. This approach takes into account the bins that have been used 

previously to categorize the types of burial grounds in the 200-SW-2 OU, anticipates three 

potential waste disposition choices that will need to be made as waste is retrieved, and estimates 

the quantity of waste from each burial ground that, based on available information, is likely to be 

diverted to each of the three waste disposition pathways. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-6 

The three waste type/disposition groups associated with the cost models are as follows: 

 Group 1 (Cost model 1). This group addresses wastes that are expected to be suitable 

for disposal at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility and uses estimates for 

excavation volumes similar to the River Corridor burial ground remediation. 

 Group 2 (Cost model 2). This group addresses solid wastes disposed of prior to 1970 

and which, when retrieved, may contain more than 100 nanoCuries per gram of 

radioisotopes with periodic table element numbers greater than uranium. Excavation 

volumes containing the solid wastes disposed of prior to 1970 were estimated using 

historic costs or current estimates for comparable Hanford Site activities and quantities 

for retrieving transuranic (TRU) wastes (e.g., TRU retrieval; HNF-19169, Transuranic 

Mixed/Mixed Low-Level Waste Project Management Plan). 

 Group 3 (Cost model 3). This group represents work involving excavation of wastes 

containing high-dose materials that are not included in Group 1 or Group 2. These 

wastes have no readily identifiable handling or processing methods at the Hanford Site 

and are assumed to require negative pressure containment structures to support waste 

retrieval and conditioning. 

An upper-bound waste volume estimate was developed from a review of the DOE complex for 

comparable work currently being performed at the Hanford Site and other DOE sites. Additional 

upper bound assumptions were identified based on the current status of the remedial 

investigation/feasibility study process for the OU (i.e., in the early work planning phases with 

some non-intrusive soil gas sampling, surface geophysics, and a varying degree of process 

knowledge), the uncertainty of the waste form (burial grounds are a heterogeneous mixture of 

waste and contamination types), and current estimates of waste volumes in each waste 

category/bin, with an associated working margin. 

Table F-3 provides the estimated waste volumes for each group (waste disposition pathway) 

associated with each burial ground. Excavation volumes are based on engineering drawings and 

other documentation; waste volumes are based on documented quantities assumed disposed and 

the proportion and/or type of waste. Retrieval rates are estimates drawn from historic or actual 

values from similar DOE work. Detailed assumptions regarding the calculation of the waste 

quantities and other processing requirements for Groups 1, 2, and 3 are provided in PFM-00011. 

The geometry and configuration of the trenches, coupled with conservatively applied 

contaminated material controls, results in a larger quantity of material to be removed from the 

trenches than was initially buried. The estimated amount of soil cover, and thus the quantity of 

potentially contaminated material to be removed from the burial grounds, results in 

approximately ten times the amount of waste originally disposed. In the absence of specific 

characterization data, it has been assumed that all materials removed from the landfills would be 

contaminated and require management and disposal. DOE expects that effective project 

management, careful retrieval techniques, and field work controls would substantially reduce the 

actual amount of contaminated wastes. However, for purposes of estimating upper bound waste 

quantities, no credit has been taken for advantageous work practices. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-7 

Table F-3. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Waste Volume Quantities for Upper Bound Remove, Treat, 

and Dispose Alternative. (2 pages)

Burial Ground Bin Burial 

Ground 

Wastes Suitable for 

ERDF, 

Corresponding to 

Group 1 

(cubic meters) 

Potential Pre-1970 Solid 

Waste >100 nanoCuries 

per gram, 

Corresponding to Group 

2 (cubic meters) 

High-Dose Rate 

Waste, 

Corresponding to 

Group 3 

(cubic meters) 

Bin 1 – 

TSD Unit Landfills 

218-E-10 276,155 0 18,667 

218-E-12B 378,278 121 59,185 

218-W-3A 546,704 50 78,491 

218-W-3AE 304,436 0 33,633 

218-W-4B 55,566 1,110 6,641 

218-W-4C 154,867 0 14,567 

218-W-5 460,678 0 78,982 

218-W-6 0 0 0 

Total Cubic 

Meters — 2,176,682 1,281 290,166 

Number of Days 1 — 6,219 160 3,673 

Bin 2 – 

Industrial 

Landfills 

218-E-2 25,368 0 3,251 

218-E-2A 4,666 0 0 

218-E-5 48,679 142 1,252 

218-E-5A 83,699 0 2,993 

218-E-9 26,261 0 0 

218-W-1A 102,463 0 5,400 

218-W-2A 622,175 178 14,366 

218-W-11 3,450 0 0 

Total Cubic 

Meters — 916,761 320 27,262 

Number of Days 1 — 2,619 40 345 

Bin 3 – 

Dry Waste Alpha 

Landfills 

218-W-1 17,740 6,560 0 

218-W-2 158,750 8,240 0 

218-W-3 191,282 5,930 0 

218-W-4A 263,491 5,140 0 

Total Cubic 

Meters — 631,263 25,870 0 

Number of Days 1 — 1,804 3,234 0 

Bin 4 - Dry Waste 

Landfills 

218-E-1 26,237 0 0 

218-E-12A 595,193 0 0 

Total Cubic 

Meters — 621,430 0 0 

Number of Days 1 — 1,776 0 0 

Bin 5 - 218-E-8 23,322 0 0 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-8 

Table F-3. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Waste Volume Quantities for Upper Bound Remove, Treat, 

and Dispose Alternative. (2 pages)

Burial Ground Bin Burial 

Ground 

Wastes Suitable for 

ERDF, 

Corresponding to 

Group 1 

(cubic meters) 

Potential Pre-1970 Solid 

Waste >100 nanoCuries 

per gram, 

Corresponding to Group 

2 (cubic meters) 

High-Dose Rate 

Waste, 

Corresponding to 

Group 3 

(cubic meters) 

Construction 

Landfills 

218-E-4 63,325 0 0 

218-C-9 21,378 0 0 

Total Cubic 

Meters — 108,025 0 0 

Number of Days 1 — 309 0 0 

Bin 6 - Caissons 218-W-4A 1,299 0 35 

218-W-4B 1,773 0 106 

Total Cubic 

Meters — 3,072 0 141 

Number of Days 1 — 9 0 2 1 The number of days is how many days it would take to retrieve, condition, transfer, and disposition (to disposal or interim 

storage) the waste volume for each bin. The number of days can be used to estimate potential duration and schedule for 

performing the remove, treat, and dispose alternative. The number of days is calculated by dividing the total cubic meters by the 

daily retrieval rate for each waste disposition group (Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3). The daily retrieval rate has been estimated 

to be 350 m3/day for Group 1; 8 m3/day for Group 2; and, 79 m3/day for Group 3 (PFM-00011). 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

DOE-RL generated unit rate and cost elements that were used to quantify remediation time 

frames and cost estimates for the 200-SW-2 OU. These estimates are based on different 

information sources, including actual costs, from such actions as the remediation of 618-7 in the 

300 Area, the 618-10 and 618-11 planning estimates, the feasibility study cost estimates for the 

burial ground remediation in Waste Area Group 7 at the Idaho National Laboratory, and data 

from the Hanford Site M-091 retrieval activities (see PFM-00011). 

Table F-4 provides a cost rollup for each identified PBS level 2 task involved in the upper bound 

alternative (remove, treat, and dispose all 200-SW-2 OU landfills). Table F-5 provides a more 

detailed view of the cost estimate illustrating the component values of the principal activities 

down to PBS Level 3. Project cost estimates were calculated using the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimating System (MII) software application. MII is 

used by the Corps of Engineers and many architect/engineering firms for the preparation of 

detailed construction cost estimates and is a Hanford Site accepted software for this purpose. 

The software is used for the preparation of programming estimates, current working estimates, 

bid opening estimates, and construction modification estimates in support of the MILCON, Civil 

Works, and Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste programs. 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-9 

Table F-4. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Costs for Upper Bound Retrieve, Treat, and Dispose 

Alternative (2010 Constant Dollars). 

Activities Cost (Million $) 

01.01 Overall Project Management and Support Activities $1,268 

01.02 ERDF Expansion $180 

01.03 Central Characterization Project $332 

01.04 WRAP Base Operations and Min Safe $91 

01.05 Bin 1 - TSD Unit Landfills $7,070 

01.06 Bin 2 Industrial Landfills $903 

01.07 Bin 3 Dry Waste Alpha Landfills $887 

01.08 Bin 4 Dry Waste Landfills $130 

01.09 Bin 5 Construction Landfills $23 

01.10 Bin 6 Caissons $142 

Transport to WIPP 1 $50 

Total (minus uncertainty) $11,076 

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty (50%) $5,538 

Grand Total $16,614 1

 Costs for transport to WIPP, for purposes of DOE planning, would be carried in the WIPP budget and not included in 

the Hanford Site PBS. This cost estimate has been developed only for purposes of this Lifecycle Report and does not appear 

in DOE’s current budget for WIPP. 

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility). 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

The cost data generated by MII, tailored for Hanford Site activities and the processing/quantity 

data provided in Table F-3, was used to calculate the values presented in Tables F-4 (PBS 

Level 2 costs) and F-5 (PBS Level 3 costs). Estimated cost information is provided for each 

general category of activity and its corresponding components. The total estimated cost in 2010 

constant dollars for the upper bound alternative is $16.6 billion, including a reasonable provision 

of $5.5 billion to account for cost and schedule uncertainty associated with the early level of 

maturity for this upper bound alternative. 

The cost estimate for transport to WIPP has been included as a line item cost for Group 2 wastes 

only. The cost is based on an average rate of $5 per shipment mile and an assumed typical 

shipment comprised of packages that contain a total average quantity of 10 cubic meters of 

waste. Based on these assumptions, and an estimated Group 2 waste volume of approximately 

27,500 cubic meters, the number of shipments to WIPP would be 2,750 (at 10 cubic meters per 

shipment); the number of roundtrip shipment miles would be 9,993,000 (2,750 shipments times 

3,612 miles per roundtrip from the Hanford Site to WIPP); and, the total cost would be 

$49,665,000 (9,993,000 shipment miles times $5 per shipment mile). 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-10 

Table F-5. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Costs, by Project Baseline Summary Level 3 Work 

Element, for Upper Bound Retrieve, Treat and Dispose Alternative (2010 Constant Dollars). (2 pages) 

PBS 

Schedule 

Level 

Work Element Cost 1 

(Million $) 

2 01.01 Overall Project Management & Support Activities $1,268 

3 01.01.01 Overall Project Management & Support Activities $1,268 

2 01.02 ERDF Expansion $180 

3 01.02.01 ERDF Expansion $180 

2 01.03 Central Characterization Project $332 

3 01.03.01 Central Characterization Project $332 

2 01.04 WRAP Base Operations and Min Safe $91 

3 01.04.01 WRAP Base Operations and Min Safe $91 

2 01.05 Bin 1 - TSD Unit Landfills $7,070 

3 01.05.02 Excavation & Drum/Box Retrieval $7,047 

3 01.05.03 Close-Out Sampling and Closure Reporting $1 

3 01.05.06 Backfill and Reveg $22 

2 01.06 Bin 2 Industrial Landfills $903 

3 01.06.02 Excavation & Drum/Box Retrieval $893 

3 01.06.03 Close-Out Sampling and Closure Reporting $0 

3 01.06.06 Backfill and Reveg $9 

2 01.07 Bin 3 Dry Waste Alpha Landfills $887 

3 01.07.01 Non-Intrusive Characterization $0 

3 01.07.02 Excavation & Drum/Box Retrieval $881 

3 01.07.03 Close-Out Sampling and Closure Reporting $0 

3 01.07.06 Backfill and Reveg $6 

2 01.08 Bin 4 Dry Waste Landfills $130 

3 01.08.02 Excavation & Drum/Box Retrieval $124 

3 01.08.03 Close-Out Sampling and Closure Reporting $0 

3 01.08.06 Backfill and Reveg $6 

2 01.09 Bin 5 Construction Landfills $23 

3 01.09.02 Excavation & Drum/Box Retrieval $22 

3 01.09.03 Close-Out Sampling and Closure Reporting $0 

3 01.09.06 Backfill and Reveg $1 

2 01.10 Bin 6 Caissons $142 

3 01.10.06 Backfill and Reveg $0 

3 01.10.07 Caissons $142 

NA Transport to WIPP 2 $50 

 Total (minus uncertainty) $11,076 

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty (50%) $5,538 

 Grand Total $16,614 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report July 6, 2011 

 F-11 

Table F-5. 200-SW-2 Operable Unit Estimated Costs, by Project Baseline Summary Level 3 Work 

Element, for Upper Bound Retrieve, Treat and Dispose Alternative (2010 Constant Dollars). (2 pages) 

PBS 

Schedule 

Level 

Work Element Cost 1 

(Million $) 

1

 Estimated costs for some work elements are less than $500,000 and rounding to the nearest $1 Million results in the 

estimate being shown as $0. 2

 Costs for transport to WIPP, for purposes of DOE planning, are carried in the WIPP budget and are not included in the 

Hanford Site PBS. This cost estimate has been developed only for purposes of this Lifecycle Report and does not appear in 

DOE’s current budget for WIPP.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

PBS = project baseline summary. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

WRAP= Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility). 

 

F.3 REFERENCES 

CP-22319-DEL, 2004, Plan for Central Plateau Closure, Rev. 0, Fluor Hanford, Inc., Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2004-60, 2008, 200-SW-I Nonradioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit and 200-SW2 Radioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

Work Plan, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-81, 2009, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy, Rev. 0, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

Ecology, 1994, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit for the 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, WA7890008967, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. 

HNF-19169, 2009, Transuranic Mixed/Mixed Low-Level Waste Project Management Plan, 

Rev. 6, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. 

PFM-00011, 2011, Rough Order of Magnitude Cost and Schedule Estimate for Hanford 

Lifecycle Report (DOE/RL-2010-25) Evaluation of 200-SW-2 Remove, Treat, Dispose 

Alternative, Rev. 0, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington. 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimating System (MII), 

Version 2.8, HISI ID: 2552, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site, Richland 

Operations Office, Washington. 

 
DOE/RL-2010-25, Rev. 0 

July 6, 2011 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

 F-12 

This page intentionally left blank.