Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited

DOE/RL-2015-10

Revision 0
DOE/RL-2015-10

Revision 0

2016 HANFORD LIFECYCLE 

SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST 

REPORT

Date Published

December 2015

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

P.O. Box 550, MS A7-75

Richland, Washington 99352

Release Approval Date

 Approved for Public Release;

Further Dissemination Unlimited

By Janis D. Aardal at 8:09 am, Dec 21, 2015
DOE/RL-2015-10

Revision 0

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or 

service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does 

not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

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

its contractors or subcontractors. 

This report has been reproduced from the best available copy. 

Printed in the United States of America
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

i

OVERVIEW

Purpose

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

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

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

River Protection (ORP).

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

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

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

The LCR will serve as an agreed-upon foundation for preparing budget requests and for informational 

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

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

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

While it is important to understand what this report 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 (42 USC 9601) or Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901) document. This report does not substitute for, nor 

preempt, the cleanup decision processes as set forth in the following:

 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order1(commonly referred to as the Tri-Party 

Agreement or TPA)

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

(E.D. Wa. October 25, 2010) (DOE and Ecology, 2010)

 Other legal requirements.

Background

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

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

actions necessary for DOE to meet all applicable environmental obligations.

The 2016 LCR is the sixth version and information reflects scope, schedule and cost status that is current 

as of August 31, 2015 (exceptions, such as the ORP last certified baseline (2009), are noted in the 

relevant sections of the LCR). Significant changes to cleanup obligations and related costs that have 

occurred after this date are noted in Section 1.5 and will be incorporated into future reports.

Public Involvement Process

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

cleanup process (Ecology et al. 2012, Hanford Public Involvement Plan).

The ORP planning case in this LCR is the same as that presented in previous LCRs, based on the 

River Protection Project System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. 4) in order to remain consistent with ORP’s 

last certified baseline and approved baseline change request. ORP expects to update the cost and 

schedule planning case in the LCR when a new baseline is approved and in place.

 

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

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

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

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

entered into Federal District Court on October 25, 2010.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ii

The Tri-Party agencies will make the 2016 LCR available to all interested parties on the DOE website at 

www.hanford.gov. Feedback regarding the 2016 LCR will be considered as future reports are developed.

Feedback can be emailed to lcssc@rl.gov.

Milestone Requirements

TPA M-036-01 requires that the LCR include all monitoring and related actions necessary to complete 

cleanup, and that it take critical resource availability and the practical limits of project acceleration into 

consideration. Cost and schedule information in the LCR 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 explain the preparation of the LCR,

including existing cleanup decisions, future cleanup actions, and detailed cost and schedule information.

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, which is located geographically within the Central Plateau. 

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

Hanford cleanup efforts or contractors. 

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

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

schedule is from fiscal year (FY) 2016 to FY 2060, and LTS extends through FY 2090. Although the time 

period evaluated in this report ends at 2090, LTS extends longer because some waste sites and disposal 

facilities will have caps that require maintenance and institutional controls beyond that date. The Federal 

Government plans on having a presence at Hanford well beyond FY 2090.

This report presents RL and ORP configuration-controlled planning cases. The ORP planning case is the 

same as that presented in previous LCRs, and cost and schedule information are based on the River 

Protection Project System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. 4) in order to remain consistent with ORP’s last 

certified baseline and approved baseline change request, which is the current technical baseline for ORP. 

ORP expects to update the cost and schedule planning case in the LCR when a new baseline is approved 

and in place.

The remaining estimated cleanup costs3for Hanford total approximately $107.7 billion (Figure ES-1). 

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

Waste, and the Mission Support components, as well as reasonable allowances for cost and schedule 

uncertainties. Table ES-1 provides a summary of total costs by PBS. The 2016 LCR total cost estimate 

remains consistent with the costs for the same remaining work presented in the 2015 LCR.

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

cleanup actions in prior LCRs. These costs are provided in Appendix B, Table B-5.

Cost Estimate Alternative Analyses for Selected Cleanup Actions

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

and agreed that the 2016 LCR would not include an alternatives analysis.

 

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

meet all applicable environmental obligations and complete the Hanford Site cleanup mission.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

iii

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

(includes both RL and ORP).

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

Project Work Scope

Estimated 

Cleanup Costs

1

(Billion $)

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.3 - $0.4

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $0.3

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $5.8 - $6.0

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $5.1

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $5.8 - $6.1

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $12.6 - $16.0

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) $9.0

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.0

Nuclear Facility D&D - Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) $0.7 - $0.8

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) $1.2

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $53.5

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $1.5

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $96.8 - $101.0

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS)2

$4.8

Final Reactor Disposition2

$1.9

DOE-Office of Environmental Management Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $103.5 - $107.7

1Cost ranges are shown in this table to reflect cost and schedule uncertainty where available, and the higher number is used 

throughout this report. Values are rounded, see Appendix C for details.

2Shown separate to align with DOE-Headquarters fund source accounting.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

NM = nuclear materials.

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

Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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

Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

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

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

iv

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

v

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 .............................................................................................1-1

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

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

1.3 HANFORD CLEANUP OVERVIEW ............................................................................1-3

1.3.1 Hanford Cleanup Goals ......................................................................................1-4

1.3.2 Hanford Cleanup and Management Areas..........................................................1-5

1.4 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES.........................................................1-7

1.5 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT .....................................................................1-9

1.5.1 Incorporated Changes.........................................................................................1-9

1.5.2 Future Report Changes .....................................................................................1-10

1.6 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE.............................1-10

1.7 PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OVERVIEW .......................................................1-11

1.7.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process................................................................1-11

1.7.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation Process ................................1-12

1.8 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST FOR HANFORD CLEANUP...............................1-13

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT 

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

3.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012)......................................3-6

3.3 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION ................................................................................3-8

3.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES..............3-9

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

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

4.2 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE ZONE 

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

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

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

(PBS RL-0042) ..............................................................................................................4-14

4.5 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C)............................................................................................................4-16

4.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES........4-19

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

5.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 

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

5.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT PLANT 

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

5.3 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ...................5-10

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

6.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020).......................................................6-1
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

vi

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

6.3 INFRASTRUCTURE/SITE-WIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0040)...................................6-2

6.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS)............................................................6-5

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

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

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

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

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Hanford Site Map Showing Principal Areas Designated for Cleanup. ..................................1-4

Figure 1-2. Relationship Between DOE Budget Planning and LCR Schedule.......................................1-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year..............................................................................3-5

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.........................................................................3-5

Figure 3-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup 

Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................................................3-7

Figure 3-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup 

Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................................................3-7

Figure 3-7. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year...................3-9

Figure 4-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated 

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year...............................................................................................4-6

Figure 4-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated 

Cleanup Costs by Work Element..........................................................................................4-6

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year............................................................................4-10
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

vii

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.......................................................................4-10

Figure 4-5. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup 

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

Figure 4-6. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup 

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

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

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. .........................................................................................4-15

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

Estimated Costs by Work Element. ....................................................................................4-15

Figure 4-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year............................................................................4-18

Figure 4-10. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.......................................................................4-19

Figure 5-1. Simplified Process Diagram for Tank Waste Retrieval and Treatment. ................................5-2

Figure 5-2. Depictions of Typical Tank Contents.....................................................................................5-4

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

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

Figure 5-4. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .....................................................5-7

Figure 5-5. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Estimated 

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

Figure 5-6. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Estimated 

Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................................................5-9

Figure 6-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. ........6-1

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

Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................................................6-2

Figure 6-3. Infrastructure and Services and Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining 

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. ...........................................................................................6-5

Figure 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year..........6-7

Figure 6-5. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work 

Element.................................................................................................................................6-7
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

viii

TABLES

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

Table 1-2. Cleanup Goals Identified for the Hanford Site.1......................................................................1-5

Table 1-3. Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made. (2 pages)........................1-8

Table 1-4. Hanford Site Cleanup Project Baseline Summary. (2 pages)................................................1-13

Table 1-5. Example Cleanup Project Baseline Summary and Work Breakdown to Level 3..................1-14

Table 1-6. Example of a Level 6 Work Breakdown Structure................................................................1-14

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

Table 2-2. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimates by PBS......................................................2-5

Table 3-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (2 pages)..............................3-1

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

Table 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 2 Scope. 

(2 pages) ...............................................................................................................................3-3

Table 3-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................3-6

Table 4-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (3 pages)............................4-2

Table 4-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 2 Scope Summary. ...............4-5

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) .....................................................................................4-8

Table 4-4. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary...................4-12

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

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

Table 4-6. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) ....................................................................................4-17

Table 5-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. (2 

pages)....................................................................................................................................5-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6-3. Infrastructure and Services and Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) 

Level 2 Scope Summary.......................................................................................................6-4

Table 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. .......................................6-6
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ix

TERMS

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980

CH contact-handled

CSB Canister Storage Building

CWC Central Waste Complex

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DQO data quality objectives

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EIS environmental impact statement

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

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

HAB Hanford Advisory Board

HAMMER Volpentest HAMMER Federal Training Center

HFFACO Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

HLW high-level waste

HQ U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters

HWMA Hazardous Waste Management Act (Washington State)

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IHLW immobilized high-level waste

I/SWS RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services

ISS interim safe storage

LAW low-activity waste

LCR Lifecycle Report

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LM Legacy Management

LTS long-term stewardship

MLLW mixed low-level waste

MSC Mission Support Contract

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NM nuclear materials

NRDAR Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

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

OU operable unit

PBS project baseline summary

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PRC Plateau Remediation Contract

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

RCCC River Corridor Closure Contract

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

x

RH remote-handled

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

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

ROD record of decision

RPP River Protection Project

RTD remove, treat and dispose

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SST single-shell tank

TBD to be determined

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility 

TOC Tank Operations Contract

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

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

Washington State Department of Ecology

Tri-Party Agreement Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

TRU transuranic

TRUM transuranic mixed (waste)

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

WBS work breakdown structure

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

WTPC Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Contract
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

This is the LCR for 2016. This report reflects scope, schedule and cost estimate information from fiscal 

year (FY) 2016 to FY 2090. The 2016 LCR information reflects scope, schedule, and costs that are

current as of August 31, 2015, and are configuration controlled. Significant changes that have occurred 

after this cutoff date are noted in Section 1.5 and will be incorporated into future reports. The costs shown 

have been escalated for inflation.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LIFECYCLE REPORT

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

and share information about the scope, schedule and cost of cleaning up the Hanford Site. TPA M-036-01

states that the LCR should serve:

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

briefings of affected Tribal Governments and Hanford stakeholders.”

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

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

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

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

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

approved TPA M-036-01.

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

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

1.2 PREPARING THE LIFECYCLE REPORT

DOE considers input from numerous affected parties, as discussed in the sections below.

1.2.1 Tribal Involvement

Four Tribal Nations 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 Nations work in a government-to-government relationship with DOE 

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

Tribal Nations regularly and will continue to update relevant LCR information about their values.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

affected Tribal Governments and Hanford stakeholders regarding work scope, priorities and schedule. The report 

shall include the scope, schedule and cost for each such PBS level two element and shall set forth the bases and 

assumptions for each cleanup activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

affect lifecycle scope, schedule and cost.

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

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

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

federal budget deliberations.

1.2.2 Oregon Department of Energy

DOE recognizes the State of Oregon’s interests in Hanford cleanup and protection of the Columbia River

and its uses. Consistent with legal and other agreements, DOE has committed to share information and 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-3

maintain an active dialogue with Oregon representatives about decisions and activities affecting cleanup 

at Hanford.

1.2.3 Hanford Advisory Board

The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) is a non-partisan and broadly representative body consisting of a 

balanced mix of the diverse interests that are affected by Hanford cleanup issues. The primary mission of 

the HAB is to provide informed recommendations and advice to the Tri-Party agencies on selected major 

policy issues related to cleanup. The HAB is a DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Site-Specific Advisory Board, a stakeholder board that provides DOE’s Assistant Secretary for EM and 

designees with independent advice, information, and recommendations on issues affecting the EM 

program at Hanford.

The HAB provided advice to DOE in 2009 that an LCR be prepared as one of the elements of the 

proposed Consent Decree. HAB Consensus Advice No. 223, “Lifecycle Cost and Schedule Report of the 

Proposed Consent Decree and the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Modifications,” was issued November 6, 

2009; HAB Consensus Advice No. 252 was issued November 4, 2011; HAB Consensus Advice No. 267 

was issued June 7, 2013; and HAB Consensus Advice No. 276 was issued June 5, 2014.

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

advice and the Tri-Party 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 HANFORD CLEANUP OVERVIEW

The 581-square-mile Hanford Site4is located along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington State 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

4 This area accounts for the September 2015 land transfer from DOE to the Tri-City Development Council 

(TRIDEC).
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-4

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

1.3.1 Hanford Cleanup Goals

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

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

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

Working Group, the Tank Waste Task Force, Hanford Summits, and HAB Exposure Scenario 

Workshops, as well as more than 270 advice letters issued by the HAB 

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

at various areas of the Site 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 that flows through the Hanford Site is 

known as the Hanford Reach and 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 wellbeing of the region and it is particularly important in sustaining 

the culture of Native Americans.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-5

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

Goals for Cleanup

Goal 1: Protect the Columbia River.

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

River.

Goal 3:

Clean up River Corridor waste sites and facilities to:

 Protect groundwater and the Columbia River

 Shrink the active cleanup footprint to the Central Plateau

 Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 4:

Clean up Central Plateau waste sites and facilities to:

 Protect groundwater and the Columbia River

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

 Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 5:

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

 Safely store tank waste until it is retrieved for treatment

 Safely and effectively immobilize tank waste

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

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

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

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

Goal 8:

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

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

cleanup activities are completed.

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

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

1.3.2 Hanford Cleanup and Management Areas

Hanford cleanup is overseen at DOE Headquarters (HQ) by the EM, and is directed and implemented 

locally by two DOE field offices: the Richland Operations Office (RL) and the Office of River Protection 

(ORP).5 RL manages cleanup of most of the Hanford Site and provides human resource, administration, 

and security services, as well as physical infrastructure necessary to perform the cleanup. ORP was 

established in response to Section 3139 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1999 to manage the River Protection Project (RPP). The RPP is responsible for the safe 

storage, retrieval, and transfer of tank waste currently stored in the 200 Area Tank Farms; construction of 

the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to process and immobilize the tank waste in a 

process known as vitrification; and associated tank farm operation, maintenance, engineering, and 

construction activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

5

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

by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is overseen by DOE’s Office of Science, Pacific Northwest Site Office.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-6

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

operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plateau for final disposal. The intent is to shrink the footprint of active cleanup to within the 75-squaremile area of the Central Plateau by removing excess facilities and remediating waste sites. Cleanup 

actions will support anticipated future land uses consistent with the Hanford Reach National Monument, 

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

(DOE/EIS-0222-F).

The River Corridor has been divided into six geographic areas to achieve source and groundwater remedy 

decisions. These decisions will provide comprehensive coverage for all areas within the River Corridor 

and will incorporate ongoing interim action cleanup activities. Cleanup levels will be achieved that 

support the anticipated land uses of conservation and preservation for most of this area and industrial use 

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

most land in the River Corridor and will implement long-term stewardship (LTS) activities to ensure 

protection of human health and the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

about 64 square miles of contaminated groundwater across the Site (DOE/RL-2015-07, Hanford Site 

Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2014). Today, some plumes extend far beyond the plateau.

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

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

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

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

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

control plume migration until remediation goals are achieved.

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

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

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

ensure protection of human health and the environment.

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

the tank farms. The tank farms comprise 18 distinct waste storage units that include a total of 177 

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

Inner Area of the Central Plateau. The storage tanks range in capacity from about 55,000 to 

1,250,000 gallons and, in total, contain approximately 56 million gallons of chemically hazardous 

radioactive waste from past processing operations. Sixty-seven of the SSTs are confirmed or presumed to 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-7

have collectively leaked up to 1 million gallons of contamination into the ground. In some areas, releases 

from some SST farms have reached groundwater. DOE expects these impacts to groundwater could 

increase in the future unless near-term actions are taken.

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

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

step in reducing the risk that tank waste poses to human health and the environment is to retrieve as much 

waste from SSTs as possible and put it into DSTs. Then, the waste must be fed to the WTP for processing 

and converted by a process called vitrification into solid glass waste forms. A number of associated tank 

waste facilities, waste transfer lines, the 242-A Evaporator, and the WTP (under construction) are 

associated with the Tank Waste Cleanup component. This component of cleanup is one of Hanford’s most 

challenging legacies.

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

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

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

of the River Corridor or Central Plateau cleanup 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 

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

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

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

Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

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

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

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

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

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

cleanup at Hanford and are not included in the LCR.

1.4 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

records. 

In portions of the cleanup, the Tri-Party 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 Tri-Party agencies have determined when T Plant will not be needed to support 

Hanford cleanup.

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

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

only partially defined (i.e., not final), the LCR is based on the reasonable upper bound for the range of 

plausible alternatives, or a range of alternative costs, including a reasonable upper bound or a basis of 

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

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

decisions?

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

cleanup actions should be performed?
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-8

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

how are an upper bound cost and schedule calculated?

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

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

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

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

Table 1-3. Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made. (2 pages)

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

 Disposition N Reactor

 Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

 Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

 Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use

 Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use

 Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use 

 Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use

 Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by PNNL

 Disposition 100 Area former Orchard Contaminated 

Soil Sites (100-OL-1 OU)

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

 Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 OU)

 Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil 

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

 Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium 

Finishing Plant

 Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CB-1 OU)

 Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU)

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

 Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CR-1 OU)

 Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites

 Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

 Remediate 200-SW-1 OU

 Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal 

Facilities

 Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, 

and Disposal Facilities

 Remediate Pipelines, Pits, Diversion Boxes and 

Associated Tanks (200-IS-1 OU)

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

 Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 OU)

 Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 OU)

 Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and 

Facilities

 Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone 

(200-DV-1 OU)

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

Beneficial Use

 Restore 200 East Groundwater (200-PO-1/200-BP-5 

OUs) to Beneficial Use

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

 Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

 Tank Waste Treatment

 Secondary Waste Treatment

 Double-Shell Tank Closure

 Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Closure

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

OU = operable unit.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

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

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

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

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

and values of regulators, Tribal Nations, and stakeholders.

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

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

identified approximately 34 cleanup actions for which final cleanup decisions are still needed (Table 1-3), 

and Appendix B (Table B-6) proposes a schedule for preparing cost estimate alternative analyses for these 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-9

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

agreed that the 2016 LCR would not include an alternatives analysis.

1.5 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

1.5.1 Incorporated Changes

Written feedback related to this LCR and prior LCRs was considered when preparing this report.

Comments received on the 2015 LCR are available on the DOE website at www.hanford.gov.

Significant changes made in the 2016 LCR include the following:

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

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

configuration-controlled planning cases that are current as of August 31, 2015. Significant PBS 

changes from the 2015 LCR for the same remaining work include the following:

- Site-wide Services are allocated to RL PBSs in FY 2016 only. Starting in FY 2017 these 

estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services

(I/SWS), in anticipation of a separate PBS to be established. The removal of these 

allocations from the PBSs accounts for much of the change in the RL PBS costs noted 

below.

- RL-0011 [Nuclear Materials] NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP - $15 million 

decrease due to I/SWS changes, revised risk profile and cost and/or schedule uncertainty 

as the project nears completion.

- RL-0012 [Spent Nuclear Fuel] SNF Stabilization and Disposition – $84 million decrease 

due to I/SWS changes and revised work planning per recent TPA milestone changes.

- RL-0013C Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area - $1.6 billion decrease 

due to I/SWS changes, revised risk profile, cost and/or schedule uncertainty and work 

planning to accommodate the RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition milestone 

revisions.

- RL-0020 Safeguards and Security - $1.6 billion increase due to revised planning 

assumptions to align with work planning changes in RL-0013C Solid Waste Stabilization 

and Disposition–200 Area.

- RL-0030 Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone – $2.5 billion decrease 

due to I/SWS changes, revised risk profile and cost and/or schedule uncertainty.

- RL-0040 Nuclear Facility [Decontamination and Decommissioning] D&D–Remainder of 

Hanford - $2 billion decrease due to I/SWS changes, revised risk profile, cost and/or 

schedule uncertainty and work planning.

- RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services - $5 billion increase due to planning/Site-wide 

Services changes starting in FY 2017.

- RL-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project - $82 million decrease 

due to I/SWS changes and revised work planning to accommodate the RL-0012 SNF 

Stabilization and Disposition milestone revisions.

- RL-0042 Nuclear Facility [Decontamination and Decommissioning] D&D–Fast Flux 

Test Facility Project - $253 million decrease due to I/SWS changes, revised risk profile 

and cost and/or schedule uncertainty.

- RL-0100 Richland Community and Regulatory Support - $11 million decrease due to 

revised planning assumptions.

 RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford reorganized the geographically-based 

demolition and remediation scope from the 21 closure zones in previous LCRs to the 25 

implementation areas in this LCR.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-10

 RL-0042 Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project scope incorporates the final cleanup 

decision for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in the “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure and 

Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington”

(78 FR 75913). The FFTF cleanup actions have been removed from Tables 1-3, B-1, B-3 and B-6.

1.5.2 Future Report Changes

The scope, schedule, and cost information presented in this LCR is current as of August 31, 2015. 

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

completed after the August 31, 2015, cutoff date. Other pending changes that are not reflected in this LCR

but will be incorporated in future reports also are noted.

The report presents the RL and ORP current configuration-controlled planning cases. The ORP planning 

case is the same as that presented in previous LCRs and is the current technical baseline for ORP. ORP 

expects to update the cost and schedule planning case in the LCR when a new baseline is approved and 

in place.

The Tri-Party agencies discussed revisions to various TPA milestone due dates. Approved revised 

milestones (e.g., for RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition) that have been incorporated into the 

planning case are presented in this LCR. Revisions to TPA milestones in the M-015, M-016, M-037, 

M-085, and M-091 series have not been incorporated into the planning case and will be included in 

future reports.

Decision documents, including the 300 Area record of decision (ROD), and the 100-F and Isolated Unit 

Area ROD, have also not been fully incorporated into the planning case. The scope, schedule, and costs of 

these decisions will be integrated in future LCRs.

1.6 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE

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

annual Federal budget planning process. For most fiscal years, Federal planning begins about 2 years 

before the funded work is executed (Figure 1-2). The cycle begins when DOE field offices receive fiscal 

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

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

budgets, submit them to HQ and OMB for review, and then the budgets are 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.

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

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

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

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

and OMB review of funding requests for the next fiscal year.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-11

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

1.7 PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OVERVIEW

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

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

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

1.7.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process

Each year, DOE formulates budget requests for Congressional appropriations. The planning cycle begins 

during December and January, nearly 2 years before the start of a budgeted fiscal year. The process 

begins with budget formulation where funding requirements are analyzed, prioritized, requested, and 

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

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

changes to budget requests. The process ends with receipt of Congressional appropriations. DOE’s budget 

process occurs in four distinct phases:

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

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

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

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

considered in DOE’s internal budget review.

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

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

request to Congress.

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

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

deliberations by Congress.

Annual 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. Sometimes this can result in cost and schedule changes to reconfigure activities 

resulting from budget or other constraints. DOE must determine the appropriations that will be used to 

fund each task to comply with applicable budget direction. Based on final Congressional appropriations, 

budget formulation, project planning, and replanning are intertwined and involve iterative processes with
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-12

similar steps. DOE’s process for defining and managing projects and their baseline summaries are 

described below.

1.7.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements.

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

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

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

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

as a work package can be developed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

date to achieve project milestones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

project’s master schedule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

uncertainty” in the Appendix C tables.

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

of the project budget that is available for risk uncertainty related to the project, but is held outside the 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cost estimate for increases in cost of 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. An escalation rate between 2 and 4 percent per year is used.

1.8 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST FOR HANFORD CLEANUP

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

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

encompasses 12 PBSs; 10 managed by RL and 2 managed by ORP, as shown in Table 1-4 and discussed 

further in other chapters of this LCR.

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

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/Site-wide 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

TBD Final Reactor Disposition

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.

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

Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TBD = to be determined.

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

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

broken down to at least Level 3.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-14

Table 1-5. 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.

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

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

Depending on the complexity of work scope, project maturity, contract period of performance, etc., 

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

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

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

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

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

PBS (Level 1) RL-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor

Level 2 041.03 Field Remediation Closure

Level 3 041.03.02 Field Remediation – 100-D Area

Level 4 041.03.02.02 Field Remediation – 100-DR-1

Level 5 041.03.02.02.06 Field Remediation – Burial Grounds – 100-DR-1

Level 6

041.03.02.02.06.01 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-32

041.03.02.02.06.02 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-33

041.03.02.02.06.04 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-41

041.03.02.02.06.05 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-45

041.03.02.02.06.06 Remediate Burial Ground – 126-D-2

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

PBS = project baseline summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provides estimated cleanup costs for corresponding work elements.

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

cleanup.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-1

2.0 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SUMMARY

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

Appendix C present additional details on the PBSs that cover the lifecycle cleanup work scope in the 

three major scope components and Mission Support.

2.1 HANFORD SITE LIFECYCLE SCOPE

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

Tank Waste component is contained geographically within the Central Plateau). Cleanup also includes 

Mission Support activities that provide key infrastructure and services for Hanford. Cleanup is a complex 

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

contract related to each PBS is noted in Table 2-1. The scope of cleanup work is broken down into a 

series of PBSs. Table 2-1 describes the general scope of each PBS and the chapter/section where each 

PBS is addressed.

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

LCR 

Section PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope Prime Contract

CHAPTER 3.0 – RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

River 

Corridor 

(Section 3.1)

RL-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). 

RCCC

Includes 105-KW SNF Basin 

deactivation and removal work 

scope that was transferred from 

RL-0012 in FY2012.

PRC

River 

Corridor 

(Section 3.2)

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization 

and Disposition

K Basins Closure 

Project

Removal of the K Basin sludge, 

found SNF and fuel scrap. 

PRC

River 

Corridor 

(Section 3.3)

TBD TBD Final Reactor 

Disposition

Disposition of 100 Area 

production reactors (excluding B 

Reactor).

TBD

CHAPTER 4.0 – CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.1)

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and 

Disposition–PFP

PFP Closure Project Demolition of aboveground 

facilities and structures at PFP.

PRC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.2)

RL-0030 Soil and Water 

Remediation–

Groundwater/

Vadose Zone

Groundwater Project Decision-making process for 

groundwater and waste sites and 

Hanford Site-wide groundwater 

remediation.

PRC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.3) 

and Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.3)

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility 

D&D–Remainder of 

Hanford

This PBS has two 

parts: 

RL-0040.O1.1 Central 

Plateau Remediation

Cleanup of the Central Plateau 

waste sites and facilities, including 

canyon facilities.

PRC

RL-0040.O1.2 

Infrastructure/Sitewide Services or 

Mission Support Sitewide Services

Management, repair, and capital 

upgrades to infrastructure and 

other Site-wide services.

MSC

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.4)

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.

PRC
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-2

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

LCR 

Section PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope Prime Contract

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 4.5)

RL-0013C Solid Waste 

Stabilization and 

Disposition–

200 Area

Solid and Liquid 

Waste Disposition 

Project

Waste management operations 

including treatment, storage, and 

disposal of Hanford Site waste 

streams and offsite wastes1.

PRC

CHAPTER 5.0 – TANK WASTE CLEANUP

Tank Waste 

Cleanup 

(Section 5.1)

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid 

Tank Waste 

Stabilization and 

Disposition

None Operations, retrieval, treatment, 

and closure of the single-shell and 

double-shell tanks.

TOC

Tank Waste 

Cleanup 

(Section 5.2)

ORP-0060 Major Construction–

Waste Treatment 

Plant

None Construction of the Waste 

Treatment Plant.

WTPC

CHAPTER 6.0 – MISSION SUPPORT

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.1)

RL-0020 Safeguards and 

Security

None Protection of the Hanford Site, 

special materials, resources, and 

workers.

MSC

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.2)

RL-0100 Richland Community 

and Regulatory 

Support

None Support for community and 

regulatory interaction, including 

Hanford Advisory Board, Natural 

Resource Trustee Council, Oregon 

Department of Energy, and 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology.

Various

grants

Mission 

Support 

(Section 6.4)

RL-LTS Long-Term 

Stewardship (LTS)

Post-cleanup LTS 2Infrastructure support, surveillance 

and maintenance, community 

support, and management 

activities following completion of 

cleanup activities.

TBD

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

2 See Section 6.3 for the current ongoing LTS program.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

LCR = Lifecycle Report.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

NM = nuclear materials.

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

Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

RCCC = River Corridor Closure Contract.

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

Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TBD = to be determined

TOC = Tank Operations Contract.

WTPC = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Contract.

2.2 HANFORD CLEANUP SCHEDULE

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

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

additional schedule details for the River Corridor, Central Plateau, Tank Waste, and Mission Support 

activities.

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

security, community and regulatory support, and Hanford Site infrastructure and Site-wide services. 

These activities align with the cleanup through FY 2060. RL also has planned for an LTS period that runs 

from FY 2060 through FY 2090 as part of Mission Support.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-3

Figure 2-1 shows River Corridor Cleanup complete by FY 2024, Final Reactor Disposition complete by 

FY 2068, Tank Waste Cleanup complete by FY 2050, and Central Plateau Cleanup complete by FY 2065 

(including schedule uncertainty).

Figure 2-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule.

2.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COSTS

The remaining cleanup costs6are estimated to be about $107.7 billion to complete the scope for the River 

Corridor, Final Reactor Disposition, Central Plateau, Tank Waste, Mission Support activities, and LTS. 

RL’s scope accounts for about $52.7 billion of the total costs and ORP’s scope accounts for about 

$55 billion. These estimates include cost uncertainty because many of the final cleanup decisions have not 

been made. Once these decisions are made, estimates will be revised.

Figure 2-2 summarizes the estimated remaining cleanup cost between RL and ORP. Figure 2-3 shows the 

remaining cleanup costs by year for RL and ORP. Figure 2-4 summarizes the estimated cleanup costs by 

RL and ORP PBSs. Table 2-2 provides a summary of total estimated cleanup costs for each PBS.

 

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

meet all applicable environmental obligations and complete the Hanford Site cleanup mission.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-4

Figure 2-2. Hanford Site Estimated Cleanup Cost Distribution

by DOE Field Office.

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

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

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

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

DOE-RL Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year

See Appendix C for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-5

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

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

Project Work Scope

Estimated Cleanup 

Costs

1

(Billion $)

RL Total Remaining Estimated Costs $48.5 - $52.7

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.3 - $0.4

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $0.3

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $5.8 - $6.0

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $5.1

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $5.8 - $6.1

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $12.6 - $16.0

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) $9.0

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.0

Nuclear Facility D&D - Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) $0.7 - $0.8

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) $1.2

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) $4.8

Final Reactor Disposition $1.9

ORP Total Remaining Estimated Costs $55

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $53.5

Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $1.5

Total Remaining Estimated Costs $103.5 - $107.7

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

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

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

report. Values are rounded, see Appendix C for details.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

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

River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

I/SWS = Infrastructure/Site-wide Services See Appendix C for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-6

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-1

3.0 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

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

operations areas:

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

waste sites.

 300 Area – Location of research and development, fuel fabrication facilities, and related waste sites.

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

Facility, and the FFTF.

 600 Area – Location of two major burial grounds (618-10 and -11) with some additional soil and 

debris sites.

DOE manages the River Corridor Cleanup through two projects that are planned and funded under 

separate PBSs:

1. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) addresses cleanup of waste 

sites, burial grounds, and facilities in the 100, 300, 400, and 600 Areas and the interim safe storage 

(ISS) of the C, D, DR, F, H, KE, KW, and N Reactors. This project is currently responsible for 

operating and maintaining the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) located on the 

Central Plateau, which is the disposal location for the remediation waste from the River Corridor and 

other Hanford cleanup operations. Section 3.1 discusses the scope of this project.

2. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) addresses removal of fuel and sludge from the 

K Basins. The 105-KW Basin deactivation and removal work scope has been transferred to PBS 

RL-0041. Section 3.2 discusses the scope of this project.

Although currently not considered to be a project, Final Reactor Disposition will address cleanup of the 

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

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

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

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

the Central Plateau Cleanup in Section 4.2.

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

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

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

Table 3-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Title Compliance 

Date

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

M-016-00A Complete all response actions for the 100 Areas, excluding K Area. 03/31/2017

M-016-00B Complete all interim 300 Area remedial actions. 09/30/2018

M-016-00C Complete all response actions for the 100-K Area. 09/30/2024

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

boundary and to the river for Phase 2 actions. 09/30/2024

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

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

M-093-27 Complete 105-KE and KW Reactor ISS. 09/30/2024

M-094-00 Complete disposition of 300 Area surplus facilities. 09/30/2018

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

M-016-181 Complete Deactivation, Demolition and Removal of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 09/30/2023
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-2

Table 3-1. River Corridor Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Title Compliance 

Date

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

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012)

M-016-173 Select K Basin sludge treatment and packaging technology and propose new interim 

sludge treatment and packaging milestones.

09/30/2022

M-016-176 Complete sludge removal from 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/2019

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ISS = interim safe storage.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TBD = to be determined.

3.1 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 

Hanford located in the River Corridor in accordance with existing RODs and action memoranda (see 

Appendix A). Anticipated land uses for the River Corridor are described in DOE/EIS-0222-F and in the 

pursuant ROD. The River Corridor Closure Project established the following cleanup objectives:

 Remediate waste sites.

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

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

and after the ISS process. Table 3-2 provides the status of the reactors. Note B Reactor’s status as part 

of the newly established Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

 Operate ERDF to support disposal of waste generated during D4, field remediation, ISS, and support 

to other Hanford 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 remediation of the 600 Area burial sites 618-10 

and 618-11.

Figure 3-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe 

Storage.

Figure 3-2. C Reactor in Interim Safe Storage.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-3

Table 3-2. Reactor Status.

Reactor Status Remaining Activity

B

Named National Historic Landmark by 

U.S. Department of Interior in 2008. Reactor 

open for escorted public tours.

Operation, maintenance and management of B Reactor as a 

facility of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

C Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

D Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

DR Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

F Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

H Reactor placed in ISS. Final disposition of reactor block.

KE

Fuel storage basin demolished; continued 

deactivation, decommissioning, and 

demolition activities in preparation for 

emplacement of safe storage enclosure.

Reactor ISS began in 2011 and is scheduled for completion 

by 2024; final disposition of reactor block.

KW

Awaiting sludge removal to proceed with 

demolition of adjacent buildings and 

installation of safe storage enclosure to 

complete ISS activities.

ISS is scheduled for completion by 2024; final disposition 

of reactor block.

N Reactor placed in ISS. Final end state of the reactor has not been determined.

ISS = interim safe storage.

Table 3-3 summarizes the scope for the Level 2 work elements.

Table 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 2 Scope. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

D4 Closure

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. Typical hazards associated with the buildings include radiological contamination 

(e.g., uranium, mixed fission products, activation products, plutonium), hazardous materials

(e.g., asbestos, chemicals), and industrial hazards (e.g., elevated working locations, degraded 

roofs, biological hazards, electrical hazards, excavations). The D4 process includes obtaining 

regulatory approvals; characterizing 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 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 cleanup 

criteria are met, and the sites are backfilled and revegetated.

Field Remediation 

Closure

Includes performing CERCLA field remediation and closure of contaminated waste sites in 

the River Corridor (liquid waste disposal facilities, burial grounds, burn pits, disposal pits, 

unplanned release sites, and contaminated pipelines), including confirmatory sampling, 

remediation design, RTD activities, verification sampling, and closure documentation. RODs 

for the Field Remediation Closure work scope generally identify RTD as the preferred 

alternative (RODs are identified in Appendix A).

In addition to RTD, sites were identified that require confirmatory sampling to determine the 

need for RTD. Following sampling, these sites 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 metals, hexavalent chromium, petroleumrelated compounds, strontium, uranium, and cesium. 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.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-4

Table 3-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 2 Scope. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Waste Operations

Includes the transportation, disposal, and treatment (if required) of waste from the River 

Corridor Cleanup activities, as well as from other Hanford 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. 

End State/Final 

Closure

Includes preparing an integrated River Corridor work plan for a CERCLA baseline risk 

assessment; preparing a baseline risk assessment for 100 and 300 Areas; conducting a risk 

evaluation for River Corridor areas outside 100 and 300 Areas; conducting orphan site 

evaluations; conducting surface soil surveys; preparing remedial action reports that document 

completion of interim remedial actions for each geographic area; conducting closure reviews;

preparing a remedial investigation/feasibility study and proposed plan for six River Corridor 

source and groundwater areas; and preparing transition and turnover packages for the six 

geographic areas for transition to Hanford Long-Term Stewardship. 

Mission Support/

General Support

Includes functional support and business operations necessary to achieve River Corridor 

Closure and field project objectives, 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.

Plateau 

Remediation 

Contract River 

Zone 

Environmental

Includes work remaining to complete 100-K Area remediation, demolition of K East Basin, 

disposition of K East and K West Reactors, and D4 of support structures. In K West Basin, 

near-term deactivation includes removal of containerized sludge and any found scrap/scrap 

fuel, and finally removal of the fuel basin.

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.

PBS = project baseline summary.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

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

Figure 3-3 presents the remaining cleanup costs for PBS RL-0041 by fiscal year, and Figure 3-4 presents 

the remaining estimated costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-5

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

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

Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-21 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-6

3.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012)

The SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) provides for safe stabilization, packaging, 

and interim storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) sludge. After removing radioactive sludge from the 

K West Reactor Fuel Storage Basin, the 105-KW Basin deactivation and removal work scope will be 

performed under PBS RL-0041. At the completion of this project, significant hazards to workers, the 

public, and the environment will have been eliminated. Major cleanup objectives for the SNF 

Stabilization and Disposition Project are:

 All SNF will be removed from K Basins and repackaged, dried, and transported to interim storage at 

the Canister Storage Building (CSB). This action was completed.

 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. This action was completed. Once 

stabilized and placed into storage, this waste stream and the remaining sludge will be transferred to 

another project (PBS RL-0013C, Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area; see Table 4-6,

Sludge Disposition) for final disposition to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico or 

other disposal facility.

 The remaining sludge will be retrieved and shipped to an interim onsite storage facility (T Plant), then 

treated and packaged for shipment to an offsite disposal facility.

 Debris within the 105-KW Basin will be packaged and transported for disposal.

Additional scope information on these work elements is provided in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Program 

Management

Provides project management for 100-K Area work activities.

K Basins

Operations and 

Maintenance

Includes dose data gathering and analysis; sampling and characterization of radioactive and 

hazardous waste to maintain compliance in 105-KW Basin (note that 105-KE Basin has 

been demolished); basic plant maintenance; and general duties and operations to keep 

105-KW Basin and the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility in a safe and compliant condition.

Facility 

Operations

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. 

Sludge Treatment 

Project

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, then stabilize and package the sludge for interim 

storage at Hanford. Once stabilized and placed into storage, the waste stream will be 

transferred to another project area (PBS RL-0013C, Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area) for final disposition to WIPP or other disposal facilities. Includes 

work for both capital asset and operations activities.

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other Distributed 

Costs

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 2016 only. 

Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

PBS = project baseline summary.

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

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Figure 3-5 presents remaining estimated cleanup costs for SNF Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS RL-0012) by fiscal year, and Figure 3-6 presents remaining estimated cleanup costs by 

work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-7

Figure 3-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs

by Fiscal Year.

Figure 3-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs

by Work Element.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

2016

2017

2018

2019

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$50

$100

Costs (Million)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-5 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-8

3.3 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION

Final Reactor Disposition will address cleanup of the 100 Area surplus production reactors in accordance 

with TPA M-093-00. Disposition of the 100 Area reactors (except for B Reactor, which is being 

preserved as a National Historic Landmark and is part of the newly established Manhattan Project 

National Historical Park) was one of the cost estimate alternative analyses evaluated in the 2011 LCR 

(DOE/RL-2010-25). See summary in Appendix B, Table B-5, River Corridor - Disposition 

100 Area Reactors.

Six reactors (C, D, DR, F, H, and N) have been placed in ISS configuration (see Table 3-2). KE Reactor 

has completed interim ISS and is in a minimum safe state; KE Reactor and KW Reactor are scheduled to 

complete ISS by FY 2024. After being placed in ISS, the reactors will undergo surveillance, monitoring, 

and maintenance for up to 75 years to allow radionuclides to decay. Following this period, the reactor 

blocks will be removed from their current locations and transported to the Central Plateau Inner Area for 

disposal.

The 2011 LCR identified the most plausible alternative for the reactors as safe storage followed by 

deferred one-piece removal. This alternative was developed and evaluated in a final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0119F, Final Environmental Impact Statement Decommissioning of Eight 

Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington) and in a subsequent engineering 

evaluation (DOE/RL-2005-45, Surplus Reactor Final Disposition Engineering Evaluation). DOE issued 

58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” in September 1993, which implements the recommendation for 

safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal of the surplus reactors. N Reactor was not included 

in the EIS because it was not available for decommissioning at the time of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) EIS and ISS was approved through the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process. Final disposition of N Reactor 

will be determined by a subsequent NEPA or CERCLA decision process. In the planning case presented 

in this report, N Reactor is assumed to undergo safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal.

Figure 3-7 provides the remaining estimated costs by fiscal year. The schedule is based on a 14-year 

implementation period for one-piece removal and completion of reactor removal by FY 2068 based on the 

ROD issue date of 1993 with a maximum 75-year storage period. Reactor removal must start by FY 2054. 

The estimated $1.9 billion to complete Final Reactor Disposition by FY 2068 is the escalated 

$676 million removal cost (in 2010 constant dollars) presented in Table 4-5 of the 2011 LCR.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-9

Figure 3-7. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

3.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND 

UNCERTAINTIES

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, there are uncertainties that are analyzed to estimate potential 

scope, schedule and cost changes. The following assumptions were identified for Nuclear Facility D&D–

River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) work scope:

 Regulatory changes will not require additional activities (e.g., document revisions, additional 

sampling) that would significantly impact costs or schedules.

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operating facilities will need to be available to 

support Office of Science missions. After PBS RL-0041 is completed, the facility D&D/waste site 

cleanup work will transfer to PBS RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D – Remainder of Hanford.

 The Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) and risk assessment litigation 

brought by the Yakama Nation will not significantly affect cost or schedule.

 The Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council activities, including studies and NRDAR process will 

not significantly affect cost or schedule.

For SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012), the following assumptions were 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 interim sludge storage and no pretreatment for the sludge is needed before 

transfer. Subsequent treatment and packaging of the sludge will be performed by the work scope in 

PBS RL-0013C.

 Post-CERCLA ROD treatability studies and focused feasibility studies will not affect the sludge 

treatment process.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-10

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-1

4.0 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

The Central Plateau is a 75-square-mile area located near the center of Hanford, which contains about

900 excess facilities, including five massive chemical processing facilities called canyons, and roughly 

800 non-tank farm waste sites. The Central Plateau is home to ongoing waste management operations, 

such as the Mixed Waste Low-Level Burial Grounds, liquid waste facilities, and the Waste Receiving and 

Processing (WRAP) Facility. Infrastructure services (e.g., power, water, telecommunication lines), either 

existing or to be constructed, in the Central Plateau are needed to support cleanup. These facilities, waste 

sites, canyons, and ongoing waste management operations and infrastructure are spread across the Central 

Plateau. The tank waste and WTP facilities on the Central Plateau are discussed in Chapter 5.0 as part of 

ORP’s scope.

During Site operations, 450 billion gallons of liquid waste and cooling water were discharged to the 

ground; most within the Central Plateau (TRAC-0151-VA, Historical Perspective of Radioactively 

Contaminated Liquid and Solid Wastes Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford). These past 

releases have created extensive plumes of groundwater contamination that exceed drinking water 

standards with a combined area of approximately 64 square miles (DOE/RL-2015-07). A significant 

portion of contamination remains in the soil column above the water table and poses a potential threat to 

groundwater.

Interim and final groundwater treatment is in place for contaminant plumes in the 200 West Area and in 

several locations in the 100 Areas. The ROD for the large carbon tetrachloride plume in the 200 West

Area (200-ZP-1 Operable Unit [OU]) was signed in 2008 (EPA 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 

200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington) and operation of the expanded 200 West 

Pump-and-Treat Facility began in FY 2012. The ROD for plutonium-contaminated and cesiumcontaminated soil sites (200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5 OUs) was signed in FY 2011 (EPA 2011, Record 

of Decision Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 

Operable Units) and an interim action ROD for the 200-UP-1 groundwater OU was approved in 2012 

(EPA 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site,

200-UP-1 Operable Unit). The Central Plateau cleanup is organized into the following three principal 

components (DOE/RL-2009-10):

 Inner Area – The footprint of the Central Plateau that will be dedicated to long-term waste 

management and containment of residual contamination and will remain under Federal ownership and 

control as long as a potential hazard exists. The Inner Area contains the majority of Hanford’s active 

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, including hundreds of waste sites, surplus facilities, 

miles of buried pipelines, tank farms, and large canyon facilities. Cleanup of the Inner Area will make 

this footprint as small as practical.

 Outer Area – All areas of the Central Plateau beyond the boundary of the Inner Area. It is DOE’s 

intent to clean up the Outer Area to a level comparable to the River Corridor (i.e., suitable for 

unrestricted surface use under continued Federal ownership and control and consistent with DOE’s 

anticipated future land use of conservation/mining). Contaminated soil and debris removed as part of 

Outer Area cleanup will be placed within the Inner Area for final disposal. Completion of cleanup for 

the approximately 65-square-mile Outer Area will shrink the active footprint of cleanup for the 

Central Plateau to the Inner Area.

 Groundwater and Deep Vadose Zone Remediation – DOE’s goal is to restore groundwater to its 

beneficial uses (Table 1-2, Goal 2), unless restoration is determined to be technically impracticable. 

An important element of groundwater protection and remediation is to develop and implement ways 

to protect groundwater from continuing influx of contaminants from the deep vadose zone.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-2

The 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 Inner and Outer Areas and the River Corridor).

 Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040 (geographical cleanup of waste sites 

and facilities, including the remaining canyon facilities in the Inner and Outer Areas).

 Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042 (includes FFTF located in 

River Corridor).

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

Cleanup is being performed in accordance with RODs and action memoranda as listed in Appendix A and 

with key TPA milestones listed in Table 4-1.

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011

M-083-00A Complete PFP facility transition and selected disposition activities. 09/30/2016

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. 09/30/2024

M-016-200A Complete U Plant Canyon (221-U Facility) demolition in accordance 

with the remedial design/remedial action work plan. 09/30/2017

M-016-200B Complete U Plant Canyon (221-U Facility) barrier construction in 

accordance with the remedial design/remedial action work plan. 09/30/2021

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). 

09/30/2020

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. 09/30/2016

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.

09/30/2022

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

M-091-00

Complete the treatment to LDR treatment standards for all Hanford Site 

RCRA MLLW and RCRA TRUM waste. DOE may choose to complete 

certification and shipment of TRUM waste for disposal at the WIPP in 

lieu of LDR treatment if, as of the time of shipment, such waste is exempt 

from LDR treatment standards when disposed at WIPP.

Date to be 

established pursuant 

to M-091-44T

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 M-091-01A and 

M-091-01B
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-3

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

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). In addition, 

submit a milestone change package (based on the conceptual design) for 

annual construction milestones for the planned facilities necessary for 

retrieval, storage, and treatment/processing of all Hanford Site RH 

TRUM waste and large container CH TRUM waste.

09/30/2016

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). In addition, 

submit a milestone change package documenting any substantial 

variations, based on the definitive design, from annual construction 

milestones finalized pursuant to M-091-01A.

09/30/2018

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. 09/30/2016

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. 09/30/2016

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.

09/30/2017

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) to 

applicable LDR treatment standards in compliance with 

WAC 173-303-140.

09/30/2017

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

M-091-46 Complete the certification of small container CH TRUM waste (in 

aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable storage). 09/30/2017

M-091-46H Complete offsite 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. 06/30/2017

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-015-92B

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.

12/31/2016
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-4

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

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-024-00O Complete required well installations in accordance with the RCRA and 

CERCLA groundwater requirements. TBD

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

WAC 173-303-140, “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.

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

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) complex was constructed in the 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 performed as a closure project 

under NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011), also known as the PFP Closure Project

(DOE/RL-2005-13, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant Above-Grade Structures

Non-Time Critical Removal Action). 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 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 endpoint completion criteria in compliance with all applicable agreements, regulations, CERCLA, 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and other applicable processes.

This effort eliminates 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 under way with two major and 

numerous minor facilities complete).
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-5

 Transfer the remainder of the PFP complex to RL-0040 for final remediation. Waste sites and 

subsurface facilities will be managed through remediation of the 200-PW-1/3/6, 200-CW-5 and

200-WA-1 OUs.

Table 4-2 provides a summary of the scope of each of these work elements.

Table 4-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Maintain Safe 

and Compliant 

PFP

Maintain building integrity and safety systems during D4 efforts. Tasks include maintaining 

worker/public health and environmental safety, an environmentally compliant facility, 

facility systems and components, the maintenance program, and special projects.

Disposition PFP 

Facility

Includes planning, preparing, engineering, sampling, procurement, and other tasks necessary 

to execute 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 buildings and facilities in the PFP area, reducing them to 

slab-on-grade. 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

Includes project management and support to PFP D4 activities including procurement and 

project controls. This also includes technical support such as engineering, quality assurance, 

and procedure and document maintenance.

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other 

Distributed 

Costs

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 2016 only. 

Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and 

decommissioning.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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

PFP transition is planned to be complete in FY 2016 per TPA M-083-00A. Cost and/or schedule 

uncertainty extends the schedule beyond FY 2016.

Figure 4-1 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for NM Stabilization and Disposition-PFP 

(PBS RL-0011) work scope by fiscal year; Figure 4-2 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs by 

work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-6

Figure 4-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 4-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated

Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

2016

2017

2018

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-2 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-7

4.2 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030)

Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), also known as the Groundwater 

Project, includes the following:

 Regulatory decision-making process for all groundwater OUs on the Hanford Site.

 Remediation of all groundwater on the Hanford Site in accordance with the groundwater OU 

decisions.

 Regulatory decision-making process for Central Plateau waste sites (remediation of waste sites is part 

of the Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford [PBS RL-0040] project scope).

 Regulatory decision-making process and remediation for 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 the River Corridor and Central Plateau.

Much of the contamination remains in the vadose zone soil column above the water table; however, at 

waste sites where large volumes of liquid were released, the more mobile contaminants have reached 

groundwater. The tritium groundwater contaminant plume from the Central Plateau has reached the 

Columbia River. Additional groundwater contaminant plumes such as chromium, strontium-90, and 

uranium originating in the 100 or 300 Areas also have reached the Columbia River.

The major chemical contaminants present in the groundwater include carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent 

chromium, cyanide, nitrate, and trichloroethene. Major radioactive contaminants include iodine-129, 

strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium. Other groundwater contaminants that exceed drinking 

water standards in several Hanford Site areas, but are of limited extent, include a volatile organic 

compound (cis-1,2-dichloroethene) and radioactive contaminants (carbon-14, cesium-137, gross beta, and 

plutonium-239/240) (DOE/RL-2015-07). The Groundwater Project (DOE/RL-2002-59, Hanford Site 

Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation) has three major objectives:

 Take actions necessary to prevent degradation of the groundwater

 Remediate groundwater to restore it to beneficial use where practicable and protect the river

 Monitor groundwater to identify emerging problems and guide the remediation process.

To be successful, the Groundwater Project needs to obtain sufficient characterization data, evaluate 

performance of early actions, and develop remedial action objectives. Hanford is divided into ten

groundwater OUs; six in the River Corridor (100-BC-5, 100-KR-4, 100-NR-2, 100-HR-3, 100-FR-3, 

300-FF-5) and four in the Central Plateau (200-ZP-1, 200-UP-1, 200-BP-5, 200-PO-1). Groundwater 

monitoring activities are also required by the Atomic Energy Act, CERCLA, and the Hanford Facility 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste (WA7890008967). Table 4-3 provides additional 

details on the scope of work for each of the work elements.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-8

Table 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 2 Scope

Summary. (2 pages)

Work 

Element Scope Description

Integration 

and 

Assessments

Includes eight elements: Strategic Integration; Technical Integration; Remediation Decision 

Support; Remediation Science and Technology; Sample Management and Reporting;

Environmental Databases; Value Engineering Studies; and Systematic Planning Integration. 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 Hanford, foster technical peer review, and integrate remediation decisions.

Drilling

Includes planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling and well decommissioning for 

Hanford wells according to project-specific requirements. This includes drilling wells to 

Washington State standards and preparing all required submittals and notifications required by 

Washington State law and providing well-related information for Hanford 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

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

Includes services, infrastructure, material, equipment, labor, and contracts 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 &

Performance 

Assessments

Includes:

 Operation, maintenance, sampling, and dismantlement of the Modutanks that are used for 

disposal of groundwater from onsite well sampling and maintenance, characterization, and 

remediation activities.

 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 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.

 Well maintenance, monitoring, and reporting.

 Geophysical sciences and borehole logging.

Groundwater 

OUs Decision 

Documents &

Remediation

Includes management and implementation of groundwater remediation for Hanford, including:

 Implementing the RI/FS process for groundwater OUs by performing RI/FSs 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 RODs and remedial action work plans.

 Implementing treatment systems in accordance with the design and the ROD requirements or 

modifying and expanding the remedy to optimize remediation.

 Conducting ongoing monitoring and reporting.

 Maintaining system and monitoring wells.

 Final D&D of remedy components.

The work scope is managed by OU and is consistent between the OUs. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-9

Table 4-3. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 2 Scope

Summary. (2 pages)

Work 

Element Scope Description

Regulatory 

Decisions &

Closure 

Integration

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).

Deep Vadose 

Zone 

Treatability 

Tests

This involves deep vadose zone treatability testing in accordance with DOE/RL-2007-56,

conducting 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 initial work phase focuses on conducting laboratory work and 

numerical modeling to address uncertainties associated with the technology and employing the 

technology in the deep vadose zone. The second phase involves the design and implementation of 

treatability testing in the field at carefully selected locations, using one or more technologies -

depending on the success of the initial testing.

Deep Vadose 

Zone OU

Addresses mitigation of the contamination present in the deep vadose zone at Hanford. Initial 

actions planned for this OU are field studies and deployment activities and developing 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; and final 

D&D 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 deep vadose zone OU (200-DV-1). Also, 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 

Hanford, which would be the focal point for investigation and resolution of critical deep vadose 

zone issues at Hanford and within the DOE complex.

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other 

Distributed 

Costs

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 2016 only. Starting 

in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide 

Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601.

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. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

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.

RL = Richland Operations Office.

ROD = record of decision.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

Figure 4-3 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for Soil and Water Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) by fiscal year; Figure 4-4 presents the remaining estimated 

cleanup costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-10

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$25

$50

$75

Costs (Million$)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-13 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-11

4.3 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/Site-wide services scope under 

Mission Support, which is discussed in Chapter 6.0. 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 (PBS RL-0040). The Central Plateau Remediation Project scope includes the demolition and 

remediation scope that is organized into 25 geographical areas referred to as implementation areas.

Following completion of assessment activities through decision documentation (e.g., ROD or closure 

plan) under Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), completion of the 

remedial design/remedial action work plan and waste site/facility remediation and/or closure will be 

addressed under the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040). The Central Plateau 

Remediation Project scope includes implementing the decisions through the physical cleanup of canyon 

facilities, buildings and structures, waste sites, pipelines, and miscellaneous sites (e.g., debris piles), and 

utilities to ensure appropriate protection has been provided for the cleanup.

To accomplish the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040), the following major objectives 

have been established:

 Perform safe S&M of facilities and waste sites pending remediation

 Integrate planning and execution activities with other Central Plateau projects

 Remediate waste sites and pipelines

 D&D canyons

 D&D excess facilities

 Transition the Central Plateau Inner Area to LTS.

The project will be complete when the following endpoint criteria have been reached:

 Canyons and surplus facilities removed or dispositioned and ready for transition to LTS

 Central Plateau waste sites and pipelines remediated in accordance with approved decisions

 Final disposition of Cold War legacy wastes

 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 the work 

elements shown in Table 4-4, which provides additional details on the scope of work for each of these 

work elements.

The duration, in part, is dependent on transition of the tank farms to the project for final disposition after 

closure activities are completed by ORP (see Chapter 5.0). It is also dependent on transition of waste 

management facilities that are no longer needed to support Hanford cleanup from Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) to the project for final disposition (see 

Section 4.5).
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-12

Table 4-4. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Project Management

Includes general management direction and technical/environment, safety, health, 

and quality support, engineering and technical studies necessary to support decision

making for Central Plateau remediation and to evaluate tradeoffs associated with 

remedial action and facility disposition decisions, hazard reduction and emergency 

response tasks necessary to address aging facility or waste site conditions that are 

above and beyond anticipated operational and maintenance plans.

Remediation of 

Geographic Areas

Includes geographic remediation of implementation areas in the Central Plateau. 

Each area has a variety of cleanup features that can include waste sites, facilities, 

canyons, pipelines, and remedial barriers.

Actions to be taken for cleaning up each waste site, including pipelines, will be 

determined through the regulatory decision processes (under Soil and Water 

Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030) and as part of remedial 

definition activities. Potential remedial actions for waste sites range from monitored 

natural attenuation to capping or removal, depending on waste site conditions. 

Contamination levels, risks, proximity to facilities, and other considerations are 

factored into the selection. Existing structures (other than the canyon facilities) are 

expected to be demolished and the debris disposed at ERDF.

S&M and Min-Safe for 

Facilities and Waste Sites

Includes CERCLA 5-year reviews, surveillance and system, structural, equipment, 

and other maintenance on Central Plateau facilities/buildings and waste sites.

Site-wide Services and 

Other Distributed Costs

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 2016 

only. Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as 

RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, Liability Act.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

FY = fiscal year.

PBS = project baseline summary.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

Figure 4-5 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Central Plateau Remediation Project

(PBS RL-0040) by fiscal year; Figure 4-6 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs by work 

element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-13

Figure 4-5. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs

by Fiscal Year.

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

Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

2046

2051

2056

2061

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-16 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-14

4.4 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX 

TEST FACILITY PROJECT (PBS RL-0042)

FFTF is a deactivated, 400-megawatt (thermal) liquid-metal (sodium)-cooled, research and test reactor 

located in the 400 Area. The facility was used to develop and test advanced fuels and materials for the 

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program and to serve as a prototype facility for future Liquid Metal

Fast Breeder Reactor Program facilities. DOE issued a shutdown order for FFTF in December 1993 

because the Liquid Breeder Reactor Program had been cancelled.

The scope of Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) is to provide for safe 

D&D, secure storage and stabilization of hazardous/radioactive materials, interim maintenance of 

facilities, demolition, and disposal of the waste. In the ROD (78 FR 75913), DOE decided to implement 

FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment. This scope includes:

 Remote-handled special components will have the sodium residuals removed by treatment at the 

Idaho National Laboratory and then be returned to Hanford for disposal in the Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF).

 Bulk sodium inventories located at Hanford will be converted to caustic sodium hydroxide in a 

Sodium Reaction Facility at Hanford, and then stored for ultimate use in the WTP.

 Demolition of all structures within the 400 Area Protected Area, except for reactor containment, 

to at least 3 feet below grade followed by backfill and revegetation; decommissioning waste 

would be disposed 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.

 Installing a RCRA-compliant engineered barrier over the grouted area.

 Post-closure care would include long-term monitoring of air, groundwater, and the vadose zone.

Waste sites in the 400 Area are included as part of the 300-FF-2 OU, which is being remediated under the 

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

work scope.

Table 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

FFTF Cleanup

Includes monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of FFTF and surrounding area in a 

safe and compliant manner until D&D; deactivate FFTF; disposition FFTF sodium; 

construct a sodium reaction facility; decommission FFTF in accordance with the

record of decision (78 FR 75913); and project management for these activities. 

Infrastructure Services Includes legal support. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.

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

Figure 4-7 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test 

Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) by fiscal year; Figure 4-8 shows the remaining estimated cleanup costs by 

work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-15

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-24 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-16

4.5 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 facilities and operations. The major mission 

objectives are to:

 Operate waste treatment facilities, including T Plant and the WRAP Facility.

 Provide Base Waste Management Operations at the CSB and 200 Area Interim Storage Area, IDF, 

Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) for cesium/strontium capsule storage, and LowLevel Burial Grounds and mixed waste disposal trenches.

Additional objectives are:

 Retrieve and ship transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal to the WIPP or other permitted facility.

 Develop alternative methods for treatment and disposal of orphan waste. This could include seeking 

land disposal restrictions variance approvals, expanding commercial treatment facilities permit limits,

and construction and operation of additional onsite treatment capabilities.

 Obtain processing capabilities to repackage large and remote-handled (RH) 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.

 Stored underground TRU waste will be retrieved and disposed of.

 Mixed low-level waste 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 transferred

to Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition.

 Low-Level Burial Grounds (including the mixed waste trenches) will be closed and transferred to 

Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition and remedial 

action.

 ERDF will be operated to provide solid waste treatment and disposal services in support of Hanford 

cleanup after completion of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project 

(PBS RL-0041).

 IDF will be closed according to the closure plan requirements in the Dangerous Waste Permit 

(WA7890008967). Closure will follow completion of tank waste vitrification.

Table 4-6 summarizes each scope element. As waste management facilities are no longer needed to 

support Hanford cleanup, they will be transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040) for final disposition.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-17

Table 4-6. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 2 Scope Summary.

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Project 

Management

Provides for the overall project management, coordination, direction, and customer interface 

to ensure the proper conduct of operation for this project.

Capsule Storage 

and Disposition

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.

CSB

Includes safe storage of SNF and immobilized high-level waste from the WTP while 

awaiting final disposition at the geologic repository, repackaging SNF for shipment, and 

coordination with the offsite repository for evaluations and information.

MLLW 

Treatment

Addresses treatment of MLLW to meet regulatory requirements including alternative 

methods for treatment and disposal of orphan waste. Treatment technologies include macroencapsulation, 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 Consists of the retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD facility of both CH and RH

solid TRU waste stored underground.

TRU 

Repackaging

Provides funding for WIPP production, TRU repacking operations at T Plant and WRAP (or 

a commercial facility), TRU program support for repackaging, and RH/large packaging 

capabilities.

WRAP Facility Provides base and minimum safe operations at the WRAP to support processing of TRU 

wastes to WIPP and includes transition to final D&D.

T Plant Addresses the operation and maintenance of the T Plant Complex for waste processing 

operations, including necessary upgrades and transition to final D&D of the canyon.

CWC

Includes operation and maintenance of the CWC, including upgrades to maintain needed 

capability and transition to final D&D. The scope includes provision of an alternate 

capability (other than WRAP) to load CH TRU waste into shipping containers for shipment 

to WIPP.

ERDF

Addresses the operation of the ERDF after turnover from the River Corridor Closure Project

through the end of Hanford cleanup, including cell expansion and ERDF interim cover 

construction.

Liquid Effluent 

Facilities

In 2015 operation and maintenance of LERF, ETF, and 200 Area TEDF to receive, store, 

treat, and dispose of liquid effluents from Hanford cleanup activities was transferred from 

the DOE-RL contractor to the DOE-ORP contractor. The remaining DOE-RL scope 

provides for commercial, offsite alternatives to ETF for treatment of RL liquid waste 

streams including the mixed waste trenches leachate and miscellaneous waste waters.

IDF

Provides for the preparation, startup, and operation of the IDF to receive and store low-level 

waste and MLLW in accordance with applicable waste acceptance criteria. The scope 

includes provisions for IDF expansion.

TRU Disposition

Provides funding and resources for the TRU Program’s coordination with the Central 

Characterization Project to certify TRU waste according to the WIPP Waste Acceptance 

Criteria. This work element also provides funding to perform Hanford WIPP closeout 

activities, TRU waste characterization activities at the direction or guidance of the Central 

Characterization Project and to establish shipping capabilities for RH TRU waste and 

additional CH TRU waste shipping capabilities.

SNF Disposition

Includes design and construction of a Fuel Preparation Facility, turnover of the facility to 

operations, and level of effort support to the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management and National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program activities.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-18

Table 4-6. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 2 Scope Summary.

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Mixed Waste 

Disposal 

Trenches

Includes operation of the mixed waste disposal trenches and the design, construction, and 

other activities necessary to add operational layers in the trenches to maintain their ready-toserve status and to place temporary caps on the trenches.

Sludge 

Disposition

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.

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other Distributed 

Costs

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 2016 only. 

Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

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.

RH = remote-handled.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office.

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 4-9 shows the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) by fiscal year; Figure 4-10 shows the remaining estimated 

cleanup costs by work element.

Figure 4-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C)

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

2061

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-19

Figure 4-10. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining 

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

4.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS 

AND UNCERTAINTIES

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, there are uncertainties considered regarding estimated scope, 

schedule, and cost. While a number of assumptions are made to support lifecycle development, the 

assumptions presented here are major assumptions that drive costs.

For Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), the following assumptions 

were identified:

 Planned characterization of the vadose zone below the high-level waste (HLW) tanks will be 

sufficient to evaluate remedies for protection of groundwater

 No substantial new requirements will be added to meet the state’s implementation of RCRA.

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040), the following assumptions were

identified:

 An industrial worker scenario will be used to define the exposure scenarios and the threshold cleanup 

levels for waste sites located in the Inner Area. Cleanup levels for waste sites in the Outer Area will 

support the reasonably anticipated future land use of conservation/mining.

 The Central Plateau area will remain under Federal control for the foreseeable future.

 All low-level legacy waste will be managed and treated on Hanford via remove, treat, and dispose 

(RTD) to approved onsite disposal facilities.

$0

$100

$200

$300

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-8 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-20

 Planning assumes that geographic aggregate barriers will be utilized. The aggregate barriers are 

assumed to cover canyons or other large facilities and adjacent waste sites or to cover multiple 

adjacent waste sites

 Removal excavations are assumed to be 15 feet below grade for planning and estimating purposes. 

Decision documents will identify the actual removal excavation criteria (soil cleanup level or 

excavation depth) for waste sites.

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), the following assumption was

identified:

 FFTF funding to accomplish the scope can be carried over from year to year.

For Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C), the following assumptions 

were identified:

 New treatment facilities are not required to support longer WTP operations

 T Plant will be available for modification to be the facility necessary for retrieval, storage, and 

treatment/processing of all Hanford RCRA transuranic mixed (TRUM) waste as required by 

TPA M-091-01

 WIPP will remain operational through the end of Hanford cleanup operations that have the potential 

to generate TRU waste. Current planning has processing and shipping of TRU waste to WIPP until 

FY 2030.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-1

5.0 TANK WASTE CLEANUP

Tank waste cleanup is part of the RPP and is being performed under the authority of ORP. ORP manages 

the RPP 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 tank waste and close the tank farms to protect the 

Columbia River. As a result, ORP is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, and disposal of 

approximately 56 million gallons of mixed waste contained in Hanford 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 Hanford’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 5-1 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 comprises 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 the River Protection Project System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. 4). Cost and schedule 

information are based on Revision 4 of ORP-11242 in order to remain consistent with ORP’s last certified 

baseline and approved baseline change request, which is the current technical baseline for ORP. ORP 

expects to update the cost and schedule planning case in the LCR when a new baseline is approved and in

place.

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). Seven tank farms 

(comprising 86 tanks) are located in the 200 West Area and 11 tank farms (comprising 91 tanks) are 

located in the 200 East Area. The tanks were constructed in below-grade excavations to take advantage of 

the natural radiation shielding provided by the earth. The 177 underground storage tanks represent two 

basic design types: SSTs and DSTs. The smallest SSTs have ~55,000 gallons of capacity, while the 

largest DSTs hold up to ~1,250,000 gallons.

When Hanford was in production mode, irradiated fuel from the reactors was transported to six 

separations facilities for isolating the desirable radionuclides from other reactor products. From 1944 to 

1989, the separations processes yielded millions of gallons of highly radioactive and chemically 

hazardous waste, which was pumped through underground transfer lines and subsequently stored in the 

underground storage tanks. Although the reactors and separations facilities have long since ceased 

operations, the underground waste tanks and their contents remain. The radioactive liquid waste was 

transferred from the separations facilities as slurry (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 supernate.

The ORP planning case in this LCR is the same as that presented in previous LCRs, based on the River 

Protection Project System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. 4) in order to remain consistent with ORP’s last 

certified baseline and approved baseline change request. ORP expects to update the cost and schedule 

planning case in the LCR when a new baseline is approved and in place.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-2

Figure5-1. 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 CH-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

RecycleD

Recycle

Chemicals Air Offgas Air

Glass 

Formers Chemicals

Solid Waste

IHLW

Offgas B

Liquid Effluent C

Offgas

Solid Waste

ILAW

Solid Waste BD

Treated Liquids

IHLW

Liquid Effluent

Retrieval Water and 

Chemicals

Air

Glass Formers

Chemicals

Second Low 

Activity Waste 

Air

Glass Formers

Chemicals

HLW & LAW Feed

Liquid Effluent

Liquid Effluent F

Offgas

Solid Waste

ILAW F E

Excess PT LAW E

Recycle

Interim Storage at

Central Waste Complex

Legend

Existing Facilities

Design or Construction

Future Facilities

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-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-3

To reduce the total quantity of waste to be stored, the supernate is periodically decanted and transferred 

out of waste tanks to a waste evaporation process. The evaporation process 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 saltcake, a crystalline solid waste form. At one time, most tanks contained supernate, slurry, and 

saltcake waste forms simultaneously. The current typical content of the tanks is depicted in Figure 5-2.

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 bottom of 

some tanks. Cesium and strontium capsules, currently stored in the WESF, resulted from efforts to reduce 

fission products in the tanks. 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 Hanford’s tank waste and close the tank farms to protect the Columbia River. 

ORP will reduce risk to the environment posed from 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 the entire HLW fraction contained in the 

tank farms. Approximately one-third of the low-activity waste (LAW) fraction 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 (CH) 

TRU tank waste with onsite storage prior to final disposition.

 Deploying interim storage capacity for the immobilized high-level waste (IHLW) pending 

determination of the final disposal pathway (national repository).

 Closing the SST and DST farms, ancillary facilities, and associated waste management and treatment 

facilities.

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.

ORP is developing and implementing operating strategies to address the actions in applicable regulatory 

milestones, including those in the TPA and the Consent Decree. The milestones shown in Table 5-1 were 

selected as key measures for significant progress in System Plan 4 (ORP-11242).
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-4

Figure 5-2. Depictions of Typical Tank Contents.

Table 5-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. (2 pages)

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 

M-062-45

Negotiate a one-time supplemental treatment selection and milestones.

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.

04/30/2015; 

every 6 years 

thereafter

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.

04/30/2016

D-00A-14 Pretreatment facility construction substantially complete. 12/31/2017

D-00A-171 Hot start of WTP. 12/31/2019
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-5

Table 5-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance 

Date

M-045-85

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).

01/31/2022

D-00B-041 Complete retrieval of tank wastes from the nine SSTs selected to satisfy 

D-00B-021.

09/30/2022

M-062-34-T01 Complete hot commissioning (startup and readiness prior to full operations) of 

Supplemental Treatment Vitrification Facility and/or WTP Enhancements. 12/30/2022

D-00A-011 Achieve initial plant operations for the WTP. 12/31/2022

M-047-00 Complete work necessary to provide facilities for management of secondary waste 

from the WTP. 12/31/2022

M-045-70 Complete waste retrieval from all remaining SSTs. Retrieval standards and 

completion definitions are provided in M-045-00. 12/31/2040

M-045-00 Complete the closure of all SST farms. 01/31/2043

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. 09/30/2052

1Milestones from Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology, 2010).

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 = 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.

5.1 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.

ORP’s cleanup strategy focuses on achieving significant environmental risk reduction by the retrieval and 

treatment of Hanford’s tank waste and the closure of the tank farms to protect the Columbia River. The 

primary accomplishments anticipated for FY 2016 involve continuing preparation of the tank farms to 

provide waste streams to the WTP upon hot commissioning. Work also continues on construction of the 

WTP. Completion and commissioning is driven by the Consent Decree and TPA milestones.

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 as detailed in 

ORP-11242, Revision 4. Additional scope information on these work elements is provided in Table 5-2.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-6

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

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Base Operations Provides for safe storage of waste, reduces the volume of waste through evaporation, 

provides laboratory support, and includes necessary support activities.

Retrieve and Close 

SSTs

Includes retrieval of waste from the SSTs and transfer to interim storage in DSTs. 

SSTs will then undergo closure in accordance with regulatory requirements, as will 

other associated sites in the tank farms.

Waste Feed 

Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST

Retrieval/Closure

Covers modeling of waste characteristics and volumes; transfer, treatment and 

preparation of the wastes to meet the requirements for safe retrieval of the DST wastes; 

successful operation of the WTP; and closure of the DSTs to protect the environment 

and the community. This work element also includes treatment of secondary wastes 

generated during handling and processing of tank wastes.

Supplemental 

Treatment

Includes planning and analysis for supplemental low-activity waste treatment and 

contact-handled TRU handling, up to and including design and construction.

Treat Waste Includes preparation for hot commissioning, closure planning, and final closure 

activities.

Facility Closures

Includes closure and monitoring of buildings and structures in the tank farms areas, but 

not covered elsewhere. Closure within this scope occurs mostly in the out-years and 

includes mobile facilities, office buildings, and support facilities (e.g., 200 East and 

West Evaporators).

Tank Operations 

Contract–ORP Project 

Support

Includes proportional share of costs for Site services and infrastructure. See Section 6.3

for details.

DST = double-shell tank.

ORP = Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 5-3 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) by fiscal year; Figure 5-4 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-7

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

Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 5-4. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014)

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element.

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-32 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-8

5.2 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 for pretreating and immobilizing the mixed wastes currently stored in Hanford’s 

underground storage tanks. Work is complete when WTP construction is complete and the facilities are 

turned over to ORP’s operations contractor. The following five main facilities are being constructed in the 

WTP:

 Pretreatment

 Low-Activity Waste Vitrification

 High-Level Waste Vitrification

 Balance of Facilities

 Dedicated Analytical Laboratory.

Additional scope information on these work elements is provided in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. Major Construction–Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work 

Element Scope Description

Pretreatment 

Includes design, construction, and commissioning of the Pretreatment Facility. When finished, 

pretreatment will physically and chemically condition the waste feed stream, separating the lowactivity radioactive waste from the high-level radioactive waste. 

Low-Activity 

Waste (LAW)

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)

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

Includes design, construction and commissioning of the Balance of Facilities. When finished, the 

dedicated facilities and utilities will support the WTP.

Analytical 

Laboratory

Includes design, construction, and commissioning of the Analytical Laboratory. When finished, 

samples will be analyzed to ensure the glass product meets requirements.

Shared 

Services -

Plant Wide

Includes crosscutting services and equipment provided to the construction site (e.g., project 

controls, engineering design and management, environmental, nuclear safety, construction 

services) as well as a proportional share of costs for Site services and infrastructure (see 

Section 6.3).

HLW = high-level waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 5-5 presents the remaining estimated costs for Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant 

(PBS ORP-0060) by fiscal year; Figure 5-6 presents the remaining estimated costs by work element.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-9

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 5-6. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060)

Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0

$200

$400

$600

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-34 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-10

5.3 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 NEPA process. The operating scenarios continue to be reviewed against the assumptions in Final 

Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington (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 ROD issuance. ORP-11242, 

Revision 4, details assumptions and uncertainties for the RPP.

The following is a summary of key assumptions and uncertainties from System Plan 4:

 Cesium and strontium capsules will not be processed in the WTP. (The December 13, 2013, ROD 

[78 FR 75913] states that DOE is not deciding on treatment of the cesium and strontium capsules.)

 The RPP baseline presented in this report includes cost and/or schedule uncertainty to address highly 

probable risks that an offsite geologic repository will not be available to accept IHLW canisters from 

the Hanford Site starting in April 2023 and construction of additional interim HLW storage (up to 

16,000 canisters) on the Hanford Site if the repository is delayed in opening or does not open.

 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 offsite geologic repository.

 Supplemental LAW treatment capacity could be provided by a second LAW vitrification facility 

located adjacent to the WTP, under the same technical assumptions as the WTP LAW Vitrification 

Facility, to complete hot commissioning on September 30, 2021, and begin full operations on 

October 1, 2021.

 Packaged CH-TRU waste will be interim stored on Site at the Central Waste Complex, and will be 

acceptable for disposal at the WIPP (a number of conditions, including approval of a RCRA Part B 

Permit Class III permit modification, would need to be satisfied prior to disposal at WIPP).

 CH-TRU waste treatment and packaging process capability will be available in FY 2015 to support 

TRU tank waste retrieval.

 Waste previously assumed to be RH-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.

 Laboratory services required to support waste characterization for tank farm projects and operations 

are available and provided in a timely manner.

 WTP secondary solid waste will be disposed of at the IDF and WTP secondary liquid waste will be 

treated at the ETF and disposed at IDF.

 The IDF is currently in standby mode and will be ready to serve upon completion of a performance 

assessment, permit modification, operational readiness review, etc. The activation will be completed

when the IDF is needed by the WTP. The IDF will provide permanent disposal for the immobilized 

LAW, other low-level waste, and mixed low-level waste, including:
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-11

 LAW glass packages from the WTP

 Solid waste from the WTP, including spent LAW and HLW melters

 Solid waste from the ETF from treating liquid wastes.

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 transfer of slurry in multiple DSTs 

to provide operational flexibility in managing waste and staging feed to the WTP.

 Fiscal year funding will be available to support the baseline case, including funding required for risk 

mitigating actions.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-12

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-1

6.0 MISSION SUPPORT

The Mission Support function is service oriented and provides key infrastructure, utility, resource, and

other Hanford 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 support to 

Hanford cleanup through Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100).

There are a number of infrastructure-related Mission Support activities in place to support cleanup of the 

Hanford Site. These Mission Support activities are managed under Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of 

Hanford (PBS RL-0040). Following cleanup efforts at the Hanford Site, DOE will have ongoing activities 

to maintain the protectiveness of the cleanup actions and support transition to future land uses. 

This period is referred to as LTS and is covered by PBS RL-LTS.

6.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020)

The scope of this PBS includes one primary work element: Safeguards and Security. Table 6-1 describes 

the work scope. Safeguards and Security will be required until cleanup is complete, then protection of 

human health and the environment transfers to PBS RL-LTS.

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

Work Element Scope Description

Safeguards and 

Security

This work element includes management, training, and equipment for staff; physical 

protective systems, such as intrusion protection, Hanford Site access, and badging; 

information and cyber security; personnel security; material control and accountability; 

and security program management.

PBS = project baseline summary. RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.

Figure 6-1 provides the remaining estimated costs for Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) by fiscal 

year.

Figure 6-1. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

2016 2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-2

6.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY 

SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

This PBS includes support to the communities that are influenced by the Hanford cleanup and the scope 

of work is summarized in Table 6-2.

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

Work Element Scope Description

Richland 

Community and 

Regulatory Support

This work element includes 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, Washington 

State Department of Health and other entities through grants, permits and payment of 

fees.

PBS = project baseline summary.

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

Figure 6-2 provides the remaining estimated costs for Richland Community and Regulatory Support 

(PBS RL-0100) by fiscal year.

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

Costs by Fiscal Year.

6.3 INFRASTRUCTURE/SITE-WIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0040)

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services play a key role in completing the cleanup mission, and as noted in 

Chapters 2.0 and 4.0, the work scope is included within PBS RL-0040. In previous LCRs the Site-wide 

Services costs were allocated to RL PBSs, but in this report these costs are allocated to RL PBSs for 

FY 2016 only. Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services.

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) provides essential services that cover a broad spectrum 

and range from the basic to highly specialized services that reflect the complexity and scale of the 

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-3

environmental cleanup mission. The Site-wide Services program provides direct operations support to

RL, ORP, and their contractors with cost-effective infrastructure and Site services integral and necessary 

to accomplish the environmental cleanup mission. The scope includes five primary functions: safety, 

security, and environment; Site infrastructure and utilities; Site business management; information 

resources and content management; and portfolio management.

Under the safety, security, and environment function, Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) is funded 

as a separate project and not through Site-wide Services. Other work elements under the safety, security,

and environment function include: Fire and emergency response services; emergency operations; Site 

safety standards; radiological assistance program; environmental regulatory management; public safety 

and resource protection; and radiological site services.

The work elements under the Site infrastructure and utilities function include: Offsite laboratory sample 

analysis; biological control; facility services; transportation; railroad services; roads and grounds; utilities 

(water, electricity), sewer systems; and sanitary waste management and disposal.

The work elements under the Site business management function include: Real property asset 

management; property systems/acquisition and materials management; sponsorship, management, and 

administration of employee pension and other benefits plans; Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act (Silver and Wilson 2005)/workers compensation; external affairs and other 

interactions; mail services; and reproduction, correspondence control, and multi-media.

As part of real property asset management, RL has established the LTS program to provide planning and 

interim execution of LTS for portions of the Hanford Site as they are cleaned up and before they are 

transferred to the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM). The current LTS program is part of PBS 

RL-0040 until it is transferred to LM – this future LTS program under LM is referred to as PBS RL-LTS 

in this report. The scope of the current and future LTS program is described in Section 6.4.

The work elements under the information resources and content management function include: Strategic 

planning and program management; telecommunications; information systems; and content (records) 

management.

The work elements under the portfolio management function include: Hanford portfolio planning, 

analysis and performance assessment; project acquisition and support; and independent analysis and 

assessments.

Other work elements include management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, including 

planning, directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and preserve the B Reactor 

facility in a safe condition, and operations and maintenance activities at the Volpentest HAMMER 

Federal Training Center (HAMMER) in support of the Hanford Site and other training programs.

Infrastructure work elements include repair and replacement of infrastructure systems and providing

capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. Also included are 

construction and capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements for biological control, 

crane and rigging, electrical system, facilities, Hanford Fire Department, network and 

telecommunications, studies and estimates, transportation, water and sewer utilities and other 

infrastructure reliability projects.

The scope description for these work elements is provided in Table 6-3.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-4

Table 6-3. Infrastructure and Services and Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure/

Site-wide 

Services

Includes costs for Site services and infrastructure. This work element includes emergency 

services (safeguards and security, fire and emergency response, emergency management), 

environmental integration services (Sitewide safety standards, environmental integration, 

public safety and resource protection, radiological site services, and offsite laboratory sample 

analysis), information management (information management planning and controls, 

information systems, content and records management, infrastructure/cyber security, 

information resources/content management, and information support services), Site 

infrastructure and utilities/logistics and transportation (roads and grounds, biological 

services, electrical services, water/sewer services, facility services, transportation, mail, 

property systems/acquisitions, railroad services, technical services, energy management, 

work management, land and facilities management), support functions (business operations, 

human resources, safety, health and quality), and portfolio management (portfolio planning, 

analysis and performance, project acquisition and support, and independent assessment and 

analysis).

- Includes contracted technical services in key areas such as audit, regulatory analysis, cost 

and risk analysis and estimating. Also includes mission critical support services to DOE 

and its contractors in key areas such as occupational medicine, information and 

telecommunications, janitorial, radiological laundry, electrical power and facilities rentals; 

critical independent legal counsel and litigation services in support of DOE and its

contractors; and other mission critical support services to DOE and its contractors in key 

areas such as land transfers, acquisition and contract closeout, acquisition of natural gas 

utility services, energy conservation and management (including steam), natural resource 

trusteeship, Tribal Nation support, and other small contracts.

- Includes management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, including planning, 

directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and preserve the B Reactor 

facility in a safe condition.

- Includes operations and maintenance activities at the HAMMER facility in support of the 

Hanford Site and other training programs.

- Includes repair and replacement of infrastructure systems and provides capital upgrades to 

the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. Also included are construction 

and capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements for biological control, 

crane and rigging, electrical system, facilities, Hanford Fire Department, network and 

telecommunications, studies and estimates, transportation, water and sewer utilities and 

other infrastructure reliability projects.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

HAMMER = Volpentest HAMMER Federal Training Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office.

Figure 6-3 presents the remaining estimated costs for Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040) by 

fiscal year.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-5

Figure 6-3. Infrastructure and Services and Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040)

Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

6.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS)

Following the completion of Hanford cleanup actions, the disposal facilities and their areas will require 

long-term management. Administration of the institutional controls activities will be required for portions 

of the Hanford Site to ensure protection of human health and the environment. As portions of the Site are 

cleaned up, they are managed in accordance with the Hanford Site Long-Term Stewardship Program, as 

described in DOE/RL-2010-35, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, under PBS RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. When all of the cleanup actions defined by decision documents are 

completed, the Hanford Site will be turned over to DOE-LM. This PBS element pertains to the LM 

activities at Hanford.

LTS refers to all activities necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment following 

completion of cleanup, disposal, or stabilization at a site or a portion of a site. LTS includes engineered 

and institutional controls designed to contain or to prevent exposures to residual contamination and waste, 

such as surveillance activities, recordkeeping activities, inspections, groundwater monitoring, ongoing 

pump-and-treat activities, cap repair, maintenance of entombed buildings or facilities, maintenance of 

other barriers and containment structures, access control, and posting signs. LTS begins when cleanup is 

completed and the selected remedy cleanup objectives and goals are met, as defined by the applicable 

CERCLA or RCRA decision documents, or when long-term remediation systems are constructed and 

operating as intended (e.g., groundwater pump-and-treat systems).

The current Hanford Site LTS Program manages the geographic areas for which cleanup has been 

completed in accordance with the post-cleanup requirements specified in the associated decision 

documents. These decisions include, but are not limited to, the CERCLA RODs and RCRA post-closure 

plans. In addition to managing the post-cleanup completion obligations, the LTS Program manages

Hanford’s natural and cultural resources through the framework of DOE/EIS-0222-F and 64 FR 61615, 

“Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement 

(HCP EIS),” and in accordance with Federal laws, executive orders, Tribal Nation treaties, DOE 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

2056

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-6

directives, and Hanford Site procedures. The planning basis for the Hanford Site LTS Program scope

integrates stewardship and institutional controls elements into the program from present day to 2060.

The scope, schedule and costs of LTS and institutional controls, to the extent predictable, have been 

included in this LCR for the period from 2060 to 2090. The Federal Government will have a presence at 

Hanford well beyond 2090 – especially in the Inner Area of the Central Plateau – to ensure that the 

cleanup remedies remain protective of people and the environment. As cleanup decisions are made and 

LTS requirements and institutional controls are refined, more specific information will be included in

the LCR.

Table 6-4 provides a summary of the scope. Figure 6-4 shows remaining estimated costs for PBS RL-LTS 

by fiscal year and Figure 6-5 shows the remaining estimated costs by work element.

Table 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure and Waste 

Management

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 Long-Term Stewardship 

activities. Includes operation and maintenance of 200 Area liquid effluent facilities 

in support of groundwater treatment and monitoring activities.

Site and Environmental 

Monitoring

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, and 

Environmental 

Compliance

Includes real estate and Hanford Site planning, land management, and surveillance 

and maintenance activities for the 100 and 200 Areas. Includes activities to ensure 

environmental compliance and protection.

Payment in Lieu of Taxes Includes payment in lieu of taxes.

Management and 

Administration

Provides for management and administration of these Long-Term Stewardship 

activities.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-7

Figure 6-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

Figure 6-5. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix C, Table C-29 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-8

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-1

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

7.1 SCHEDULE AND COST LIMITATIONS

The LCR is based on an annual compilation of estimated scope, schedule and cost information. In order to 

finish preparing the LCR, it is necessary to select a deadline each year when the scope, schedule, and cost 

information used to prepare the report will be “locked down.”

For the 2016 LCR, August 31, 2015, serves as the cutoff date. Unless noted otherwise, changes in the 

TPA and other applicable requirements, budget requests, appropriations, program funding allocations, and 

other scope, schedule, and cost changes after the cutoff date are not reflected in the 2016 LCR.

7.2 OTHER LIMITATIONS

Some of the activities described in the LCR are subject to the analysis and decision-making requirements 

of CERCLA, RCRA, or other applicable statutes and regulations. The information included in the LCR is 

for planning purposes only, not for regulatory decision making, which will be conducted following the 

applicable statutory and regulatory programs.

The LCR does not include resources that may be required to accomplish significant restoration of natural 

resources related to any liability of the United States for NRDAR.

Several non-DOE entities operate and manage property on the Hanford Site, typically under lease 

agreements with DOE. Examples include:

 Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utility companies that oversee the Columbia Generating 

Station nuclear power reactor.

 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, operated by a consortium of the California 

Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 State of Washington, which in turn leases land to US Ecology, Inc., a private firm that operates burial 

grounds for commercial low-level radioactive waste.

Operation, maintenance, and any subsequent future cleanup associated with activities at these facilities 

are subject to the terms and conditions of the leases (and/or other agreements) in place between the 

operating entities and DOE. Potential environmental liabilities for these and similar non-DOE operations 

are not currently considered to be part of the Hanford Site cleanup, and so are not included in the 

DOE-EM program. Consequently, lifecycle scope, schedule, and cost for these non-DOE operations are 

not included in the LCR.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-2

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

8-1

8.0 REFERENCES

24590-HLW-PL-RT-07-0001, 2008, IHLW Waste Form Compliance Plan for the Hanford Tank Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant, Rev. 2, Bechtel National, Inc., Richland, Washington.

58 FR 48509, 1993, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, Vol 58, No. 178, pp 48509. 

September 16, 1993.

64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, Vol 64, No. 218, pp 61615, November 12, 1999. 

78 FR 75913, 2013, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Record of Decision, Federal Register, Vol 78, No. 240, 

pp 75913, December 13, 2013.

Atomic Energy Act, 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 

Public Law 113-291.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

DOE and Ecology, 2010, Consent Decree in State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case 

No. 08-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. October 25, 2010).

DOE/EIS-0119F, 1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C.

DOE/EIS-0222-F, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE/RL-2002-59, 2004, Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation, 

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

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant Above-Grade 

Structures Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-45, 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-2009-10, 2013, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-25, 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-35, 2012, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2012-13, 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2015-07, 2015, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2014, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

8-2

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended. 

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 2012, Hanford Public Involvement Plan, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington, as amended.

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, 2011, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, 

and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 

200-UP-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, 

114 Stat. 1654A-38.

HNF-EP-0924, 1997, History and Stabilization of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex,

Hanford Site, Rev. 0, Fluor Hanford, Richland, Washington.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Public Law 91-190, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

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. 

Silver, K. and B. Wilson, 2005, The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. 

Fedl. Fac. Environ. J., 16: 89–104. doi: 10.1002/ffej.20065.

Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261, 112 

Stat. 1921.

TRAC-0151-VA, 1991, Historical Perspective of Radioactively Contaminated Liquid and Solid Wastes 

Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, 

Washington.

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, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, 

September 30.

WAC 173-303-140, “Land Disposal Restrictions, Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington, as amended.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-i

APPENDIX A

HANFORD SITE EXISTING CLEANUP DECISIONS
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-iii

CONTENTS

A.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD CLEANUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES.....................1

A.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD CLEANUP............................................3

A.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS.....................3

A.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY 

PROGRAM APPROVALS .....................................................................................3

A.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS .............................................................4

A.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS ....................................................4

A.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND NOT YET 

FINAL..................................................................................................................................4

A.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................26

TABLES

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)........................... 5

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages) ................................................................. 13

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions 

Affecting Hanford Cleanup. (3 pages) ...................................................................... 19

Table A-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Cleanup. ................................... 21

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup. (4 pages).................................................................................................... 22
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-iv

TERMS

AM Action Memorandum

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

bgs below ground surface

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

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERA expedited response action

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESD explanation of significant differences

HLW high-level waste

IC institutional controls

INL Idaho National Laboratory

ISRM in situ redox manipulation

ISS interim safe storage

LCR Lifecycle Report

MCL maximum contaminant level

NPL National Priorities List

NTCRA non-time-critical removal action

OU operable unit

P&T pump-and-treat

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PRG preliminary remediation goal

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

SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel

SST single-shell tank

TCRA time critical removal action

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TRU transuranic

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

WIDS Waste Information Data System

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-1

APPENDIX A

HANFORD SITE EXISTING CLEANUP DECISIONS

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

referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), M-036-01 requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

to prepare an annual Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report [LCR]). The 

LCR is expected to reflect all actions necessary for DOE to meet all applicable environmental obligations 

as it completes the Hanford cleanup mission. These environmental obligations are established in 

accordance with various decision-making processes that DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Tri-Party agencies), and other agencies 

conduct under Federal and State regulatory programs.

Several decisions affecting the Hanford cleanup mission have been made, and actions to implement these 

decisions have been completed, or are/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 TPA M-036-01:

“In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the report 

shall be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives 

or may set forth a range of alternative costs including such a reasonable upper 

bound.”

This appendix provides current information about decisions that affect cleanup, and when these decisions 

might be considered to be final cleanup decisions for LCR purposes. Specifically:

 Section A.1 provides a general overview of the principal processes that are employed at Hanford to 

reach decisions about future cleanup actions.

 Section A.2 describes in more detail the Federal and State decisions that can affect Hanford cleanup, 

the legal and/or regulatory authorities on which the decision making is based, and the types of 

documents used to embody and formalize these decisions.

 Section A.3 summarizes current decisions that, for purposes of this LCR, are considered to be 

cleanup decisions and which cleanup decisions can be identified as final cleanup decisions.

This appendix will be updated to reflect new and changed final cleanup decisions and to provide a basis 

each year for determining cleanup actions to evaluate in the latest LCR.

A.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD CLEANUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

To implement the cleanup mission, the Tri-Party agencies reach decisions about what actions need to be 

performed to protect 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) (42 USC 9601) and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 USC 6901) 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 the Tri-Party agencies use to achieve Hanford cleanup. 

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 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-2

becomes complicated when radioactive materials are present because RCRA authority does not 

extend to radionuclides. Regardless of this issue with RCRA, 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, 

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 RCRA and CERCLA, DOE is responsible for regulating the radioactive materials that it 

manages, including setting standards that affect cleanup decisions for radionuclides. 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 use(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 regulatory 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 provides a more extensive 

discussion of the decisions that have been made and that affect cleanup of Hanford, and includes several

tables that list and summarize the effects of these decisions.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-3

A.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD CLEANUP

A.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND 

LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS

CERCLA, as modified by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 1986 (42 USC 103),

established the Federal program to cleanup uncontrolled or abandoned waste sites as well as accidents, 

spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Under 40 CFR 

300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,” DOE is the lead agency with 

lead agency responsibilities by the National Contingency Plan and Executive Order 12580, Superfund 

Implementation. EPA is the lead regulatory agency under the TPA and oversees the cleanup activities 

conducted under 40 CFR 300. EPA also has certain oversight authorities granted through CERCLA and 

the TPA. 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. A 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. RODs can be final or interim; interim RODs 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.

Several CERCLA documents have been completed that include or have resulted in decisions that affect 

cleanup. These CERCLA documents and summaries of the relevant cleanup decisions are listed in 

Section A.3.

A.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY PROGRAM 

APPROVALS

RCRA, as modified by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, gave EPA 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

State, Ecology has lead authority for most elements of RCRA. Principal documents used to implement 

Hanford cleanup decisions under RCRA include:

 Final Status Permit. A final status permit includes explicit descriptions of the conditions and 

requirements that must be met by a facility 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 Hanford, a single final status permit covers the 

entire site, but is being issued in phases because of the number of TSD facilities that exist. The final 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-4

status permit includes decisions about how Federal and State statutes, regulations, and guidance have 

been interpreted and applied to specific activities conducted at each TSD facility.

 Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Some TSD facilities have closed or may close before they are covered 

under the final status permit. In such cases, a closure plan must be prepared to describe the activities 

necessary to close the TSD facility and address any remaining dangerous wastes. If dangerous waste 

will remain after closure, a post-closure plan is required to address residual contamination. Ecology 

must approve closure/post-closure plans before they are implemented, and in the process, decisions 

will be made and included in the closure/post-closure plans about how to close the TSD facility and, 

where required, conduct post-closure care.

 Corrective Action. Corrective actions to cleanup releases from RCRA TSD facilities may be 

required before a final status permit is issued. Decisions about degree/methods for cleanup will be 

made and implemented through a corrective action plan approved by Ecology.

In addition to RCRA, several other programs authorized under existing Federal and State statutes and 

regulations require permits, licenses, and other approvals that can affect cleanup at Hanford. These other 

decision documents establish, among other conditions, limits on emissions of radionuclides and other 

hazardous constituents to the air, water, and ground. Section A.3 lists the various permits, licenses, and 

other types of approvals authorized under applicable regulatory and statutory programs that include or 

have resulted in decisions affecting Hanford cleanup.

A.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS

Among other functions, the TPA helps define how CERCLA and RCRA programs will be implemented 

when they have overlapping authorities. The TPA is used to determine which decision-making process 

and documentation (e.g., CERCLA ROD, RCRA permit) will be used to establish cleanup actions for the 

waste sites and facilities at Hanford, but it is that subsequent documentation (not the TPA) where cleanup 

decisions are formally established. These may include provisions that set specific waste retrieval 

objectives and technology performance standards for certain types of cleanup actions. These TPA-based 

decisions are listed in Section A.3.

A.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS

There are a variety of other decisions embodied in executive, legislative, and judicial documents that can 

affect cleanup at Hanford. Section A.3 lists various Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, 

Congressional Acts, judicial orders/decrees, and Federal and State decisions that may affect cleanup.

A.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND NOT 

YET FINAL 

The statutory/regulatory authorities discussed in Section A.2 resulted in a multitude of national, regional, 

and/or State decisions across numerous projects and programs. Some of these decisions establish 

environmental obligations that affect the cleanup mission and are summarized in this section. 

While some decisions more clearly affect Hanford than others, care has been taken to include decisions 

that have indirect effects on cleanup. Examples of such indirect decisions 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 

Hanford. As stated earlier, the LCR is required to consider cleanup alternatives “where final cleanup 

decisions have not yet been made” (TPA M-036-01, third paragraph) at Hanford. Some cleanup decisions 

may appear to be final but are not:

 They may be “interim” remedies until a final cleanup decision can be made, or 

 They may be “partial” actions within a much larger cleanup effort. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-5

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 LCR, 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.

Hanford cleanup decisions summarized in Tables A-1, A-3, and A-5 indicate whether the decision is 

considered to be final by placing the word FINAL after the decision title. In addition to decisions that 

have been made, whether final or not, many cleanup decisions are yet to be made. By definition, the 

absence of a decision means there is not a final cleanup decision. It would be very difficult to develop an 

exhaustive list of all the decisions that still need to be made to complete Hanford cleanup. However, as 

these decisions are reached, they will be incorporated into this section of the LCR.

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area (EPA/ROD/R10-93/063) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 1100

Date Approved: Sep-93

Initial Decision: Cap Horn Rapids Landfill; offsite disposal of PCB-contaminated soils; offsite incineration of 

bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate contaminated soils; monitored natural attenuation of groundwater contamination.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the Record of Decision for the USDOE 

Hanford 1100 Area Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2010a)

ESD Sep-10 Documents significant differences to the 

selected remedies in the ROD. In summary, 

this ESD clarifies the IC requirements for the 

Horn Rapids Landfill.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

(EPA/ROD/R10-95/100) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Jan-95

Initial Decision: Initial construction of two cells; maximum size of 1.6 mi2; landfill construction in accordance 

with RCRA; capped at completion.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

USDOE Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, Explanation of 

Significant Difference (ESD)

(EPA/ESD/R10-96/145)

ESD Jul-96 Allow disposal of investigation-derived waste 

and RCRA past-practice waste to ERDF; allow 

disposal of non-process inactive TSD waste to 

ERDF; allow use of ERDF leachate for dust 

suppression/compaction activities at ERDF.

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary, (also see 

proposed plan for amendment) 

(EPA/AMD/R10-97/101)

Amended

ROD

Sep-97 Authorizes two additional disposal cells and 

the option of treating waste as needed by 

containerization and encapsulation at ERDF 

instead of at the OU.

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Amended

ROD

Mar-99 Establishes conditional approval for delisting 

of the ERDF leachate.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-6

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary, (also see 

proposed plan for amendment) 

(EPA/AMD/R10-99/038)

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, (also see 

proposed plan for amendment) 

(EPA/AMD/R10-02/030)

Amended

ROD

Jan-02 Authorizes four additional disposal cells and 

the option of staging waste at ERDF pending 

treatment and/or disposal.

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site-200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary (EPA 2007a)

Amended

ROD

May-07 Allows specific waste, such as waste 

associated with surveillance and maintenance 

of Hanford facilities, environmental 

research/development activities, sample 

analyses, liquid effluent waste treatment, 

infrastructure support, and environmental 

monitoring programs, to be disposed at ERDF; 

identifies a plug-in approach for ERDF 

disposal of additional similar Hanford cleanup 

waste generated in support of RCRA/CERCLA 

cleanup actions.

Declaration: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site - 200 Area, Benton 

County, Washington (EPA 2009a)

Amended

ROD and 

ESD

Aug-09 Allows for ERDF expansion of an area equal 

to 4 cells or 2 super cells; updates cell design 

to allow super cell concept and allows for 

ERDF expansion via EPA approval and fact 

sheets rather than ROD amendments.

Explanation of Significant Differences

For the U.S. Department of Energy

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility Hanford Site - 200 Area

Benton County, Washington (EPA 2015)

ESD Oct-15 Allows the onsite 200 West Area Pump-andTreat Facility to be used as an option for the 

treatment of ERDF leachate. This change 

would allow either the ETF or the 200 West 

Area Pump-and-Treat Facility to be used for 

treatment of ERDF leachate, depending upon 

availability.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit (EPA/ROD/R10-95/114)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-ZP-1 OU

Date Approved: May-95

Initial Decision: P&T to address carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and trichloroethylene; treatment with air 

stripping and vapor phase activated carbon; interim action to continue until final action instituted; reinjection of 

treated water.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit Superfund Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2008) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-ZP-1 OU

Date Approved: Sep-08

Initial Decision: P&T to address carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, chromium, trichloroethylene, I-129, Tc-99, and 

tritium; monitored natural attenuation; flow-path control through injection of treated water; and ICs.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-7

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-95/126)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100; 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 OUs

Date Approved: Sep-95

Initial Decision: Remove contaminated soil, structures and debris using 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.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Amendment to the Interim Action Record 

of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, 

and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington (see 

Draft B ESD and Proposed Amendment 

documents preceding this ROD 

amendment) (EPA/AMD/R10-97/044)

Amended

ROD

Apr-97 Incorporates 34 additional waste sites into the 

ROD; refines remedial cost estimate for 

original 37 sites and additional 34 sites based 

on actual data, streamlining, and lessons 

learned; documents that soil washing is not an 

effective treatment.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/151) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 100; 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 OUs

Date Approved: Feb-96

Initial Decision: No action.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/134)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100; 100-H, 100-K

Date Approved: Mar-96

Initial Decision: Interim action to remove hexavalent chromium from groundwater; 30 extraction wells; ion 

exchange treatment; reinject treated effluent; monitor; institute ICs.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site 

– 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, 

Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary

(EPA/AMD/R10-00/122)

Amended

ROD

Oct-99 Implements In Situ Redox Manipulation

(ISRM) barrier for second chromium plume in 

100-HR-3 OU; existing P&Ts remain in 

operation.

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision (EPA 2002)

ESD Oct-02 Provides justification for increased 

schedule/cost from the 1999 Amendment 

associated with a greater number of wells and 

aquifer thickness that affected implementation 

of the ISRM barrier.

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision (EPA/ESD/R10-03/606)

ESD Mar-03 Provides justification for increased 

schedule/cost from the 1999 Amendment 

associated with a greater number of wells and 

aquifer thickness that affected implementation 

of the ISRM barrier.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable 

Units Interim Action Record of Decision, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington

(EPA 2009b)

ESD Aug-09 Provides justification for increased cost and 

location of reinjection wells from the 1999 

Amendment associated with operation beyond 

initial 5-year estimate and need to control 

plume migration.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-8

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, (EPA/ROD/R10-96/143)

Note: The ROD is only FINAL for the 300-FF-1 OU; it is an interim action for 300-FF-5 OU.

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 OUs

Date Approved: Jul-96

Initial Decision: 300-FF-1: Remove contaminated soil and debris; dispose at ERDF; backfill and recontouring; 

ICs. 300-FF-5: Monitoring and ICs for groundwater.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington Explanation of 

Significant Difference (ESD)

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/505)

ESD Jan-00 Provides a site-specific land disposal 

restriction treatability variance for lead 

contamination found in the 628-4 or Landfill 

1D waste site.

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 300-FF-5 Record of Decision

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/524)

ESD Jun-00 Expanded scope of 300-FF-5 ROD to include 

groundwater in 300 Area, including 300-FF-2 

sites and any sites plugged into 300-FF-1 

ROD.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit (EPA/ROD/R10-01/119)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-2 OU

Date Approved: Apr-01

Initial Decision: Remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris; treat as needed; dispose at ERDF, WIPP, or 

other; backfill and revegetate; establish ICs; continued groundwater monitoring; and define plug-in approach.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision (EPA 2004b)

ESD May-04 Modified uranium soil cleanup level from 350 

to 267 pCi/g based on engineering study to 

ensure protectiveness of the groundwater and 

river; modified land-use assumption for 8 

outlying waste sites from industrial to 

unrestricted, changed cleanup levels for these 

sites to those consistent with 100 Area cleanup.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA 2009e)

ESD Aug-09 Incorporates 14 plug-in sites into the ROD and 

subsequent ESDs; incorporates 2 newly 

discovered sites into the ROD and subsequent 

ESDs; allows future newly discovered sites to 

be incorporated into the ROD and ESDs as 

long as cost impacts are within specified limits.

Explanation of Significant Differences, 

Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-2 Operable 

Unit, 618-10 Burial Ground (EPA 2011b)

ESD Aug-11 Modified remedy to allow necessary treatment 

of liquid waste in bottles, up to 1 gal/bottle, to 

occur in trays within the excavation area in 

accordance with an approved work plan.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision for 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5, and Record of Decision Amendment for 300-FF-1 Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA and DOE, 2013) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-1, 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5

Date Approved: Nov-13

Initial Decision: This ROD selects a remedy for the waste sites in 300-FF-2, a remedy for the groundwater in 

300-FF-5 and amends the remedy for three 300-FF-1 waste sites. The interim action remedy for 300-FF-5, selected 

in 1996 and the interim action remedy for 300-FF-2 selected in 2001 are replaced with this final action remedy. 

The remedy for 300-FF-1 selected in 1996 is amended for additional remedial action of uranium from three sites. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-9

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Contaminated buildings are being removed in accordance with CERCLA Action Memoranda and are not part of 

the OUs addressed by this ROD.

The major components of the selected remedy for the 300-FF-2 OU are: 

 Remove, treat and dispose (RTD) at waste sites 

 Temporary surface barriers and pipeline void filling 

 Enhanced attenuation of uranium using sequestration in the vadose zone, periodically rewetted zone (PRZ)

and top of the aquifer 

 ICs, including the requirement that DOE prevent the development and use of property that does not meet 

residential cleanup levels at the 300 Area Industrial Complex and 618-11 for other than industrial uses, 

including use of property for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, childcare facilities and 

playgrounds. 

The major components of the selected remedy for the 300-FF-5 OU are: 

 Monitored Natural Attenuation 

 Groundwater monitoring 

 Enhanced attenuation of uranium at the top of the aquifer 

 ICs. 

The major component of the amended remedy for 300-FF-1 is: 

 Enhanced attenuation of uranium using sequestration in the vadose zone, PRZ and top of the aquifer.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences 

for the Hanford Site 300 Area Record of 

Decision for the 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5 

Operable Units, and Record of Decision 

Amendment for the 300-FF-1 Operable 

Unit (15-AMRP-0259)

ESD and 

Amended 

ROD

Sep-15 Adds two 300-FF-2 Operable Unit wastes 

sites. The remedy for waste site 600-393 is 

RTD and no additional action is needed for 

waste site 600-386.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 and 200-PW-6 

Operable Units Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA 2011c) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 East and 200 West

Date Approved: Sep-11

Initial Decision: RTD of soil and debris to specified depths or cleanup levels for plutonium-contaminated soils 

and subsurface structures/debris. Soil vapor extraction at three 200-PW-1 waste sites will continue until vadose 

zone cleanup levels are met. Soil covers will be used to a depth of at least 15 ft over cesium-contaminated soils. 

Removal of sludge followed by tank stabilization for two tanks. No action for two waste sites. ICs and long-term 

monitoring for waste sites where contamination is left in place and an unrestricted land use is precluded. 

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-97/048)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-UP-1 OU

Date Approved: Feb-97

Initial Decision: Extract groundwater from high concentration zone of uranium and Tc-99 plumes and treat at 

Effluent Treatment Facility.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the Interim Action Record of Decision for 

the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable 

Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2009c)

ESD Feb-09 Adds National MCL of 30 μg/L for uranium as 

ARAR for treating extracted water; replaces 

190 gal/min pumping with a pumping 

requirement from existing and new wells 

consistent with approved RD/RAWP until 

uranium and Tc-99 concentrations are less than 

10 times the MCL for 4 consecutive quarters; 

adds sampling requirements and updates cost 

estimates and IC requirements.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-10

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision for Interim Remedial 

Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 

200-UP-1 Operable Unit (EPA 2012)

Interim 

Action 

ROD

Sep-12 Supersedes previous interim action ROD (Feb97) and ESD (Feb-09). Includes groundwater 

extraction/treatment (with flow path control

through injection of treated water) in 

combination with monitored natural 

attenuation for Tc-99, uranium, chromium 

(total and hexavalent), nitrate, carbon 

tetrachloride and tritium; hydraulic 

containment and further treatment technology 

evaluation for I-129; remedy performance 

monitoring and ICs.

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 

100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/039)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100, 200 North

Date Approved: Jul-99

Initial Decision: RTD for 46 sites; plug-in approach for remaining 100 Area and 200 North sites; plug-in 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.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100 Area Remaining Sites ROD, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington

(EPA/ESD/R10-00/045)

ESD Jun-00 Plugs in 600-23 and JA Jones #1 waste sites to 

the Remaining Sites ROD.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision 

(EPA 2004a)

ESD Feb-04 Adds 28 sites to ROD; adds 10 CFR 1022 and 

40 CFR 6, Appendix A as ARARs to ROD; 

revises annual ICs report date to be coincident 

with the due date for the Sitewide ICs Plan for 

Hanford CERCLA Response Actions.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington

(EPA 2009d)

ESD Aug-09 Authorizes adding 200-CW-3 OU wastes sites, 

99 newly discovered waste sites, and 87 

candidate sites using the plug-in approach in 

the ROD and any newly discovered waste sites 

that will be documented in the Administrative 

Record and in an annual fact sheet.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-FR-3, 100-IU-2, and 

100-IU-6 Operable Units (EPA 2014) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 100 Area

Date Approved: Sep-14

Initial Decision: RTD at 91 waste sites, ICs at 15 waste sites, no additional action due to interim remedial actions 

completed at 198 waste sites, monitored natural attenuation to address nitrate, hexavalent chromium, 

trichloroethene, and strontium-90 in 100-FR-3 groundwater and ICs.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/059)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100-K

Date Approved: Sep-99
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-11

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Initial Decision: Remove spent nuclear fuel from basins; remove sludge from basins; treat and remove water from 

the basins; remove debris from the basins; deactivate the basins; and institute ICs.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Interim Remedial Action Record of

Decision Amendment, U.S. Department of 

Energy; 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site 

- 100 Area, Benton County, Washington

(EPA 2005a)

Amended 

ROD

Jun-05 Modifies remedy for sludge by including 

sludge treatment prior to interim storage and 

shipment to a national repository; modifies 

remedy for debris by including grouting in 

place some of the basin debris followed by 

removal along with the removal of the basins. 

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/112)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100-N

Date Approved: Sep-99

Initial Decision: ICs for shoreline site; in situ and RTD with ex situ bioremediation for petroleum sites; RTD for 

remainder of sites in 100-NR-1; maintain ERA P&T for 100-NR-2.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Interim Action 

Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-

NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action 

Record of Decision

(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605)

ESD May-03 Removes July 31 annual ICs reporting 

requirements, consolidates reporting with the 

site-wide IC annual report; eliminates 

requirement to evaluate applying 30 in. of 

irrigation water to determine if remaining 

contaminants will impact groundwater; 

identifies need for additional ICs to preclude 

access to contaminated groundwater which will 

be incorporated into site-wide IC document.

U.S. Department of Energy, 100-NR-1 

and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site -

100 Area, Benton County, Washington, 

Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary

(EPA 2010b)

Amended 

ROD

Sep-10 Deploys the apatite sequestration technology 

for remediating Sr-90 in the 100-NR-2 OU by 

extending existing apatite permeable reactive 

barrier to ~2,500 ft, allows for deployment of 

the apatite sequestration technology elsewhere 

in the 100-NR-2 OU in accordance with an 

Ecology approved work plan, and includes 

decommissioning the treatment components of 

the existing P&T system.

Explanation of Significant Differences for 

the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable 

Units Interim Remedial Action Record of 

Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2011a)

ESD Mar-11 Adds 45 additional waste sites in the 100-NR-1 

OU for remediation by RTD (characterized per 

the 100-N Area sampling and analysis plan)

and increases the total cost 38% to 

$67,510,386.

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable 

Units Interim Remedial Action Record of 

Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington (EPA 2013)

ESD Aug-13 Adds 2 additional waste sites in the 100-NR-1 

OU for remediation by RTD and increases the 

total cost by $401,500.

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Declaration, U.S. Department of Energy 100 Area, 100-NR-1 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-00/120)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD for 2 RCRA TSDs and an associated site

Area: 100-N

Date Approved: Jan-00

Initial Decision: RTD of 116-N-1 and 116-N-3 Cribs with ERDF disposal; backfill and revegetate; any pipelines 

will be removed or sampled and left in place based on sample results.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-12

Table A-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Interim Action 

Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-

NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action 

Record of Decision

(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605)

ESD May-03 Removes July 31 annual ICs requirement and 

consolidates reporting with the site-wide IC 

annual report; eliminates requirement to 

evaluate applying 30 in. of irrigation water to 

determine if remaining contaminants will 

impact groundwater; identifies need for 

additional ICs to preclude access to 

contaminated groundwater which will be 

incorporated into site-wide IC document.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 

100-HR-2 and the 100-KR-2 Operable Units (EPA/ROD/R10-00/121)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100

Date Approved: Sep-00

Initial Decision: Remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris; treat as needed; dispose at ERDF; backfill and 

revegetate. Applies to 45 burial grounds in 100 Area.

Revision Title Type Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the Interim Action Record of Decision for 

the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 

100-KR-2 Operable Units (100 Area 

Burial Grounds) (EPA 2007b)

ESD Nov-07 Established limit of RTD excavation at the 

118-B-1 Burial Ground considering the 

balancing factors in the ROD and required 

additional ICs for protection of groundwater 

and the Columbia River.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative), Hanford Site, Washington (EPA 2005b) 

FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Oct-05

Initial Decision: Remove waste from vessels and equipment in the facility with levels of transuranic isotopes 

greater than 100 nCi/g and eventual disposal at WIPP; removal of liquids from the facility or treatment to remove 

liquids; partial removal of contaminated equipment and piping from the gallery side of the facility and dispose at 

ERDF; demolition and subsequent stabilization of the railroad tunnel, 271-U, 276-U, 291-U, and 292-U structures 

and 291-U-1 and 296-U-10 stacks and dispose at ERDF; constructing an engineered barrier; planting semiaridadapted vegetation on the barrier; ICs; post-closure care; and ongoing barrier performance and groundwater 

monitoring.

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirement. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ERA = expedited response action.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant difference.

IC = institutional controls.

ISRM = in situ redox manipulation.

MCL = maximum contaminant limit.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat. 

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

PRZ = Periodically Rewetted Zone.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976.

RD/RAWP = remedial design/remedial action work plan.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Unless otherwise noted in Table A-2, decisions made through Action Memoranda are considered final

and are available in the TPA Administrative Record (http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/). These decisions 

focus mainly on the deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition (D4) of buildings

and generally are considered final actions because buildings are demolished and the waste disposed of to 

approved facilities; or remove, treat, and dispose (RTD) of contaminated soil from waste sites, which are 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-13

generally considered final actions for individual waste sites. Slabs and contaminated soils underlying the 

buildings may require additional decision making as part of appropriate source OUs. Similarly, waste 

sites that undergo RTD as a removal action will likely have a final ROD covering the decision, even 

though no additional cleanup activities are anticipated.

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“618-9 Burial Ground 

Expedited Response 

Action, Phase I Project 

Plan” (CCN 9100749)

Feb-91 TCRA Provides for trench excavation and removal of drummed liquid 

wastes from 618-9 Burial Ground. Treatment and/or disposal 

of liquids and contaminated soils (if present) is considered part 

of the Phase 2 activities and is not considered time critical.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: 316-5 Process 

Trenches, USDOE Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA”

(CCN 9103432) 

Jul-91 ERA Provides for excavation of soil from the 316-5 Process 

Trenches and interim stabilization pending further remedial 

action as part of the 300-FF-1 OU. This AM initially was not a 

final action; however, the ROD for 300-FF-1 OU, which 

covers these trenches, is a final CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal for 200 West Area 

Carbon Tetrachloride 

Plume” (CCN 9200423)

Jan-92 ERA Identifies installing a soil vapor extraction system with 

granular activated carbon recovery and offsite granular 

activated carbon regeneration at 216-Z-1A followed by 

systems at 216-Z-18 and 216-Z-9. While this ERA is not a 

final decision; a final decision has been made through the 

CERCLA remedial process for the 200-PW-1 OU.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: Sodium 

Dichromate Barrel Landfill, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (CCN 

9307470)

Mar-93 ERA Identifies excavation and disposal of drums and homestead 

debris from the landfill and sampling any other wastes 

encountered during excavation; the expedited response would 

result in cleanup of the landfill to unrestricted levels.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; Riverland Site, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” 

(CCN 9305567)

Jun-93 ERA Provides for cleanup of the Riverland Site, part of the 

100-IU-1 OU, through excavation to address pesticide and 

hydrocarbon contamination, ordnance survey and removal, and 

sandblasting to decontaminate concrete.

“Action Memorandum: 

North Slope (Wahluke 

Slope) Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (Ecology 

and EPA 1994a)

Mar-94 ERA Provides for mitigation of physical hazards, excavation of the 

worst-case landfill, characterization of other landfills, and if 

needed, excavation of other landfills based on characterization 

results; includes investigation and as needed, mitigation of 

ordinance burial pits. As stated in the AM, the intent is to 

provide for the final removal action taken at the 100-IU-3 OU

(the Wahluke Slope).

“Action Memorandum; 

N Springs Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (Ecology 

and EPA 1994b)

Sep-94 ERA Identifies a P&T system combined with a vertical barrier for 

implementation at N Springs. These systems comprise a 

component of overall cleanup of N Springs but were also 

intended to provide additional information to the ongoing 

CERCLA and RCRA processes. This ERA is not a final 

decision.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; 100-BC-1 

Demonstration Project; 

USDOE Hanford Site; 

Richland, Washington”

(EPA and Ecology 1995)

Jun-95 ERA Allows contaminated soil from 116-B-4, 116-B-5, and 

116-C-1 to be excavated and temporarily stored pending start 

of ERDF operations; actions under this AM would provide 

additional information to support remedial design, including 

cost information, for 100-BC-1 OU. The ERA was not 

intended as a final decision; 100-BC-1 OU has been 

incorporated into an interim ROD and is undergoing a final 

ROD process.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-14

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum, 

183-H Solar Evaporation 

Basin Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 040739)

Nov-96 ERA Identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 183-H Solar 

Evaporation Basin waste generated through cleanup activities. 

“Action Memorandum, N 

Area Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 038546)

Nov-96 ERA Identifies ERDF as the disposal location for contaminated 

sediment and debris from the Emergency Dump Basin, facility 

deactivation waste, and environmental investigation waste 

from the 100-N Area.

“Action Memorandum; 

100-B/C Area Ancillary 

Facilities and the 

108-F Building Removal 

Action, USDOE Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA” (EPA 

1997)

Jan-97 NTCRA Identifies D4 with ERDF disposal for facilities in 100-B and 

100-F Areas: 111-B, 115-B, 118-C-4, 119-B, 105-C reactor 

waste, and 108-F Building. The B Reactor and ISS of 105-C 

Reactor are not included in the AM. This action is considered 

final for ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the 

reactor. Additional decisions are expected on the reactor core 

that is in ISS.

“Action Memorandum: 

Removal Action at the 

233-S Plutonium 

Concentration Facility, 

USDOE Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA”

(DOE and EPA 1997)

Mar-97 NTCRA Identifies D&D as the preferred alternative for 233-S and 

233-SA Buildings, including subsurface systems and 

structures to a depth of 3 ft (further actions beyond the 3-ft 

depth would be deferred to the associated source OU). Waste 

meeting the criteria would be disposed at ERDF; other waste 

would be disposed as appropriate.

“Action Memorandum, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

NPL, 100-IU-3 Operable 

Unit (Wahluke Slope), 

Hanford Site, Adams, 

Grant, and Franklin 

Counties, WA” (Ecology 

and DOE 1997)

Jul-97 TCRA Addresses contaminated soils/drums at the 2,4-D Burial 

Ground in 100-IU-3 OU. Removal action includes excavating 

dioxin-contaminated soil for offsite disposal; bioremediation 

of 2,4-D contaminated soil; and excavating, cleaning, and 

disposing drums at ERDF. In the 1994 AM for Wahluke 

Slope, only 2,4-D Burial Ground was identified for sampling. 

Subsequently, additional contamination was found, prompting 

another AM. Completing this AM action allows continuation 

of the deletion process for the OU from the NPL.

“Action Memorandum:

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 

105-F and 105-DR Reactor 

Buildings and Ancillary 

Facilities, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA”

(CCN 059689)

Jul-98 NTCRA Identifies ISS for 105-F and 105-DR reactor cores and D&D

for reactor components up to the cores and for 116-D, 116-DR, 

117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary facilities. Demolition will 

extend generally to 3 ft bgs; however, substructures and/or soil 

beneath the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be 

excavated. This action is considered final for the ancillary 

facilities and demolished portions of reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores in ISS.

“Action Memorandum:

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 

100-N Area Ancillary 

Facilities; Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA”

(DOE et al. 1998)

Dec-98 NTCRA Provides for D&D of the inactive contaminated ancillary 

facilities in 100-N Area, facilities in the buffer zone, Hanford 

Generating Plant, and solid waste management units inside 

Hanford Generating Plant support facilities (D&D of 105-N 

and 109-N are excluded from the AM). Contaminated soils 

under the facilities would be addressed through 100-N Area 

decision documents for waste sites.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-15

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE, Hanford 300 Area 

National Priorities List 

(NPL), 331-A Virology 

Laboratory Building, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

EPA 2000)

Feb-00 NTCRA Per the AM, the walls and floors of the 331-A Building would 

be demolished and the concrete slab would be scraped to 

remove physical hazards; wastes would be disposed at ERDF. 

The concrete slab and underlying soils would remain in place.

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List 

(NPL); 105-D and 105-H 

Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities; 

Hanford Site; Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

Ecology 2000)

Dec-00 NTCRA Identifies D&D for a portion of the 105-D and 105-H Reactor 

Facilities and D&D for the 103-D Unirradiated Fuel Element 

Storage Building, the 190-DR Process Water Pumphouse, the 

1713-H Warehouse, and the 1720-HA Arsenal. Subsurface 

structures and contaminated soil would be characterized and 

evaluated at the time of D&D. Soils and subsurface structures 

that exceed cleanup levels would be excavated with waste 

disposal primarily at ERDF and those meeting cleanup levels 

would be left in place and covered with 1 m of clean fill. 

The reactor cores would be placed in ISS for up to 75 years. 

This action is considered final for the ancillary facilities and 

demolished portions of the reactors. Additional decisions are 

expected on the reactors cores that are in ISS.

“Action Memorandum; 

USDOE, Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 

105-B Reactor Facility, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

EPA 2001)

Dec-01 NTCRA Identifies appropriate actions at B Reactor to mitigate the 

threat to site workers, public health or welfare or the 

environment by removing hazardous substances from the 

facility; these actions are consistent with increased public 

access to the reactor building; surveillance and maintenance 

activities would continue. Any wastes generated during the 

mitigation activities would be disposed at ERDF.

“Action Memorandum; 200 

West Area, Central Waste 

Complex, 183-H Solar 

Evaporation Basin Waste, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE et al. 

2003)

Jun-03 NTCRA Allows for the treatment and disposal to ERDF of wastes 

generated during the RCRA closure of 183-H basin.

“Action Memorandum; 

USDOE, 200 Area, Burial 

Ground 218-W-4C Waste 

Retrieval, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, WA”

(DOE et al. 2004)

Apr-04 TCRA Provides for the treatment and disposal of low-level and mixed 

low-level waste at ERDF from the M-091 TRU retrieval 

activities at the 218-W-4C Burial Ground. TRU is excluded 

from the AM.

“Action Memorandum: 

Request for Time Critical 

Response for Treatment 

and Disposal of Sludge 

from the 105-K East North 

Loadout Pit, USDOE 

Hanford Site” (DOE and 

EPA 2004)

Jun-04 TCRA Requires treatment of 105-K East North Loadout Pit waste 

prior to temporary storage at Hanford and ultimate disposal at 

WIPP. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-16

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

224-B Plutonium 

Concentration Facility”

(DOE/RL-2004-36)

Jun-04 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from 224-B Facility, removing 

equipment and associated piping, decontaminating structure 

and stabilizing contamination, demolishing structure to slab, 

disposing waste generated, and stabilizing area. Samples will 

be used to determine the need for additional cleanup of the 

remaining slab and any subsurface soils. These cleanup actions 

are not included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.

“Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability 

Act Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action 

Memorandum for Removal 

of the 232-Z Contaminated 

Waste Recovery Process 

Facility from the Plutonium 

Finishing Plant”

(CCN 0093881)

Nov-04 NTCRA Provides for the remaining contaminated equipment to be 

removed and the building decontaminated, stabilized, and 

dismantled leaving the building slab, which will be addressed 

under a future CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the U 

Plant Ancillary Facilities”

(DOE/RL-2004-67)

Dec-04 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from U Plant Ancillary Facilities, 

removing equipment/associated piping, decontaminating 

structures and stabilizing contamination, demolishing 

structures to slab, disposing the waste generated, and 

stabilizing the area around U Plant. The AM includes the 

specific facilities. Slabs and underlying soils will be addressed 

as needed through future CERCLA actions.

“Action Memorandum #1 

for the 300 Area Facilities”

(DOE and EPA 2005a)

Jan-05 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 72 buildings/structures in the northern part 

of 300 Area, disposing D4 waste at ERDF. An additional 

10 buildings/structures were included in the EE/CA that 

supports the AM; however, those buildings/structures were 

demolished and had no hazardous materials prior to the AM.

“Action Memorandum; 

USDOE, 100 Area, 105-N 

Reactor Facility and 109-N 

Heat Exchanger Building, 

Hanford Site, Benton 

County, WA” (DOE and 

Ecology 2005)

Mar-05 NTCRA Provides for D&D of portions of 105-N and 109-N facilities 

and constructing a protective cover over the 105-N Reactor 

block, 109-N steam generator cells and pipe gallery, placing 

them into ISS, and waste generally disposed at ERDF. Final 

D&D of these facilities would be done in the future to allow 

decay of radionuclides in the reactor block. Identifies ISS as 

64 years. This action is considered final for demolished 

portions of the reactor and heat exchange building. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor core and buildings in 

ISS.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Plutonium Finishing 

Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures Non-TimeCritical Removal Action”

(DOE/RL-2005-13)

May-05 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from PFP above-grade structures, 

removing equipment/associated piping, decontaminating 

structures and stabilizing contamination, demolishing 

structures to slab, disposing the waste generated, and 

stabilizing and covering the area around PFP. Provides a 

listing of the specific structures. Slabs and underlying soils 

would be addressed as needed through future CERCLA 

actions.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-17

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical

Removal Action for the 

100-K Area Ancillary 

Facilities” (DOE and EPA 

2005b)

Jun-05 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 27 buildings/structures in northern part of 

100-K Area with D4 waste going to ERDF. In general, slabs 

and subsurface structures would be removed with about 1 m of 

surrounding soil; however, on a case-by-case basis, the slabs,

below-grade structures and soils can be deferred to CERCLA 

actions associated with 100-KR-1 and 100-KR-2 source OUs.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

224-T Plutonium 

Concentration Facility”

(DOE/RL-2004-68)

Jun-05 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from 224-T Facility, removing 

equipment/associated piping, decontaminating structure and 

stabilizing contamination, demolishing structure to slab, 

disposing the waste generated, and stabilizing the area. 

Samples will determine the need for additional cleanup of the 

remaining slab and any subsurface soils. These cleanup actions 

are not included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Time-Critical Removal 

Action for Support 

Activities to 200-UW-1 

Operable Unit”

(DOE/RL-2005-71)

Sep-05 TCRA Provides activities to support U Canyon barrier construction, 

including removing part of the 200-W-42 pipeline, rerouting 

Treated Effluent Disposal Facility line and 

stabilizing/removing wastewater line; complete or partial 

removal of concrete slab; remove and seal 3 vent risers; and 

relocate various markers/utilities. The TCRA accelerated work 

consistent with weather conditions and to take advantage of 

available specialized resources. The action is not considered 

final; the decision process is ongoing for U Plant waste sites. 

The U Plant barrier ROD is considered final.

“Action Memorandum #2 

for the 300 Area Facilities” 

(DOE and EPA 2006a)

May-06 NTCRA Provides for D4 of the 324 and 327 Buildings and ancillary 

facilities in the 300 Area with D4 waste going to ERDF. The 

AM provides a list of the ancillary facilities. In general, slabs 

and subsurface structures would be removed along with about 

1 m of surrounding soil; however, on a case-by-case basis, the 

slabs and/or below-grade structures and soils can be deferred 

to CERCLA actions associated with the 300-FF-2 OU.

“Action Memorandum #3 

for the 300 Area Facilities”

(DOE and EPA 2006b)

Nov-06 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 110 buildings/structures in southern part of 

the 300 Area with D4 waste going to ERDF. An additional 

30 buildings/structures were included in the EE/CA that 

supports the AM; however, those buildings/structures are not 

included in the AM because DOE identified alternative uses 

for them.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2007)

Jan-07 NTCRA Identifies ISS for 105-KE and 105-KW reactor cores, D&D of

reactor components up to the cores and for remaining 

buildings and structures in 100-K Area. Subsurface structures 

will be removed 3 ft bgs; substructures and soil beneath 

facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be evaluated through 

source OU cleanup activities that are considered final for the 

ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the reactors. 

Further decisions are expected on reactor cores in ISS.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

Northern Part of the BC 

Controlled Area 

(UPR-200-E-83) 

“(DOE/RL-2008-21)

May-08 NTCRA Provides removal, treatment as needed, and disposal, generally 

to ERDF, of UPR-200-E-83 Zone A soils to a depth of 6 in, or 

until PRGs are met, and Zone B soils in areas of elevated 

radioactivity above PRGs. Excavation activities must consider 

old growth vegetation, avoiding destruction of existing plant 

life.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-18

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

212-N, -P and -R Facilities”

(DOE/RL-2008-80)

May-09 NTCRA Provides for removing nonradiological and radiological 

hazardous substances from 212-N, -P, and -R facilities 

equipment and associated piping; decontaminating structures,

stabilizing contamination, demolishing basins and underlying 

soils to 1 m depth, disposing waste generated, and stabilizing 

surrounding area. Samples will be collected from underlying 

soils to evaluate the need for additional cleanup activities.

“Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for 

11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit”

(DOE/RL-2009-48)

Jul-09 NTCRA Provides for cleanup of 11 waste sites in the 100-MG-1 OU 

using either a confirmatory sampling/no further action 

alternative (8 sites) or RTD alternative (3 sites). Cleanup 

levels will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

If confirmatory sites do not meet cleanup levels, they will be 

addressed by the RTD alternative. 

“Investigation-Derived 

Waste Purgewater 

Management Action 

Memorandum”

(DOE/RL-2009-39)

Aug-09 NTCRA Provides for additional purge water management capacity by 

relining an existing unit and installing up to 3 new units, each 

with leak-detection systems. The purge water management 

units will be operated according to requirements, monitored 

during operations, and disassembled and dispositioned to 

appropriate requirements following the operational period. 

“Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit”

(DOE/RL-2009-37)

Oct-09 NTCRA Provides for cleanup of 34 waste sites in the 200-MG-2 OU 

using a confirmatory sampling/no further action alternative 

(16 sites) or an RTD alternative (18 sites). If the confirmatory 

sites do not meet cleanup levels, they will be addressed by the 

RTD alternative. The remaining 200-MG-2 OU sites are not 

included because contamination may exceed 15 ft bgs; they 

will be addressed through the CERCLA remedial process. 

“Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for 37 

Waste Sites in the 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit”

(DOE/RL-2009-86)

Apr-10 NTCRA Provides for cleanup of 37 waste sites in 100-MG-1 OU using 

a confirmatory sampling/no further action alternative (21 sites) 

or RTD alternative (16 sites). Cleanup levels will be consistent 

with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. If confirmatory sites do 

not meet cleanup levels, they will be addressed by the RTD 

alternative. Remaining 200-MG-1 OU sites are not included 

because contamination may exceed 15 ft bgs; they will be 

addressed through the CERCLA remedial process.

“Action Memorandum for 

the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R 

Facilities, Addendum 1: 

Disposition of Railcars”

(DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1)

Dec-10 NTCRA Provides for D4 of 16 railcars located in 200 North Area with 

disposal to ERDF and includes an option to evaluate some of 

the cars for movement to the B Reactor for preservation. The 

AM identifies a pathway for addressing contaminated soils 

either by removal at the time of D4 or transfer to another OU 

for continued CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum for 

Decontamination, 

Deactivation, 

Decommissioning, and 

Demolition (D4) Activities 

for 200 East Tier 2 

Buildings/Structures”

(DOE/RL-2010-102)

Feb-11 NTCRA Established D4 to slab-on-grade for 57 Tier 2 buildings /

structures in 200 East Area; plug or grout below-grade piping 

and drains; remove equipment; remove and fill below-grade 

voids; send waste to ERDF or other approved facility for 

treatment and disposal; characterize nature and extent of 

remaining hazardous substances for future decisions; initiate 

waste site evaluation through WIDS for sites that may require 

further work; stabilize area as needed.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-19

Table A-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (7 pages)

Title Date Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum for 

General Hanford Site 

Decommissioning 

Activities”

(DOE/RL-2010-22)

Jul-13 NTCRA Establishes D4 for excess industrial buildings/structures and 

cleanup of various debris; provides for removing contaminated 

soil or evaluating contaminated soils for inclusion as a waste 

site through WIDS; identifies ERDF as the preferred location 

for wastes meeting ERDF disposal criteria; allows the 

possibility of using certain wastes in other remedial actions, 

such as fill material under barriers; and for incorporating 

additional, similar buildings and structures in the AM.

“Action Memorandum for 

200-DV-1 Operable Unit

Perched Water Pumping / 

Pore Water Extraction” 

(DOE/RL-2014-34)

Dec-14 NTCRA Provides for extraction of perched water from the 200-DV-1 

OU (B Tank Farm complex in the 200 East Area) and transfer 

of the water by tanker truck or pipeline to the 200 West pump 

and treat, where it is treated and injected into the aquifer below 

the 200 West Area.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

AM = Action Memorandum.

bgs = below ground surface.

CCN = correspondence control number.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

EE/CA = engineering evaluation/cost analysis.

ERA = expedited response action.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

NTCRA = non-time-critical removal action.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRG = preliminary remediation goal.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TCRA = time critical removal action.

TRU = transuranic.

WIDS = Waste Information Data System.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford 

Cleanup. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Hanford Facility Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, 

for the Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal of Dangerous Waste

(WA7890008967).

FINAL

Ecology issued a Draft Hanford Facility 

Dangerous Waste Permit, Rev. 9, for 

public review and comment from 

May 1, 2012, through October 22, 2012. 

Until Ecology reaches a final decision, 

Rev. 8C Permit remains in effect.

This dangerous waste permit, for the TSD of dangerous waste at 

Hanford, is the RCRA Permit for the Hanford Facility. The permit allows 

a step-wise permitting process 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 Final Status Operations

 Part IV, Unit-Specific Conditions for Corrective Action 

 Part V, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units Undergoing Closure

 Part VI, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units in Post-Closure.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit No. PSD-X80-14, issued to RL

by the EPA, Region 10.

FINAL

Covers emission of NOx to the atmosphere from the Plutonium Uranium 

Extraction Plant and the Uranium-Trioxide Plant. No expiration date.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-20

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford 

Cleanup. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Record of Decision: Decommissioning 

of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington 

(58 FR 48509) 

FINAL

In December 1992, DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, WA (DOE/EIS-0119F). The final EIS 

analyzed alternatives for decommissioning eight water-cooled, graphitemoderated plutonium-production reactors located along the Columbia 

River. The eight reactors (B, C, D, DR, F, H, KE and KW) operated 

between 1944 and 1971 and are retired from service. The alternatives 

analyzed in the EIS included no action, immediate one-piece removal, 

safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal, safe storage 

followed by deferred dismantlement, and in situ decommissioning 

alternatives. The ROD was signed September 10, 1993 (58 FR 48509). 

The ROD documented the DOE decision for safe storage followed by 

deferred one-piece removal of the eight surplus reactors. DOE prepared a 

supplemental analysis to the EIS in July 2010 (Supplement Analysis, 

Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford 

Site, Richland, Washington [DOE/EIS-0119F-SA-01]) to broaden the 

possible decommissioning approach, retaining the one-piece removal 

option and including the option for immediate dismantlement. DOE 

determined that the proposed action is not a substantial change to the 

alternatives previously analyzed in the EIS so a supplement to DOE/EIS0119F or new EIS is not needed.

Record of Decision: Final Tank 

Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (78 

FR 75913) 

FINAL

In December 2013, DOE issued the first in a series of RODs pursuant to 

the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC&WM EIS,

DOE/EIS–0391, December 2012). In this ROD DOE announced several 

decisions, including: to implement Tank Closure Alternative 2B, 

‘‘Expanded WTP Vitrification and Landfill Closure,’’ without 

supplemental treatment at WTP and without technetium-99 removal in 

the WTP Pretreatment facility; to implement FFTF Alternative 2 

Entombment; and, to implement Waste Management Alternative 2.

Hanford Site Air Operating Permit 

00-05-006, Renewal 2, Rev. A

FINAL

Covers operations on the Hanford Site having a potential to emit airborne 

emissions. The permit provides a compilation of applicable Clean Air 

Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401) requirements for radioactive and 

nonradioactive emissions at Hanford. It will be implemented through 

Federal and State programs. Effective May 1, 2014 through 

March 31, 2018.

Attachment 1 contains Ecology’s permit terms and conditions.

Attachment 2 contains the State of Washington Department of Health 

Radioactive Air Emissions License (FF-01) as permit terms and 

conditions.

Attachment 3 contains the Benton Clean Air Agency permit terms and 

conditions applicable to the regulations of open burning and asbestos.

Permit WA-002591-7, Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit

FINAL

Authorizes discharge of water from 100 Area facilities to the Columbia 

River from Outfall 004 in accordance with discharge point, effluent 

limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions. Effective 

December 1, 2009 through July 31, 2014.

Permit WAR10B90F, Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System General Permit

FINAL

Authorizes storm water discharges associated with construction activities 

from the Hanford Site to the Columbia River in accordance with a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan. No expiration date is specified; the 

estimated project completion date identified in the most recent Notice of 

Intent is May 27, 2014.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-21

Table A-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford 

Cleanup. (3 pages)

Document Summary

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-0004500, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows treated wastewater from the Effluent Treatment Facility to be 

discharged to the State-Approved Land Disposal Site. Effective January 

1, 2015 through December 31, 2019.

Permit ST-0004502, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows treated effluent from the 200 East and 200 West Areas to be 

discharged to the 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. This 

permit revised and replaced Permit ST-4502 and will remain in effect 

from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017.

Permit ST-0004511, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

This Categorical State Waste Discharge Permit authorizes the discharge 

of wastewater from maintenance, construction, and hydrotesting 

activities and allows for cooling water, condensate, and industrial storm 

water discharges at the Hanford Site. Effective January 1, 2014 through 

December 31, 2019.

Permit ST0045514, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows domestic wastewater to be treated in a non-discharging, lined 

evaporative lagoon located northeast of the 200 West Area. Effective 

July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017.

Permit WAG-50-5180, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Sand and Gravel General Permit

FINAL

Permit for wastewater discharges associated with handling sand and 

gravel for the Concrete Batch Plant in the 200 East Area. Effective 

October 1, 2010 through October 1, 2015.

Permit WAG-50-5181, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Sand and Gravel General Permit

FINAL

Permit for wastewater discharges associated with Pit 30 Quarry 

operations in the 200 East Area. Effective October 1, 2010 through 

October 1, 2015.

Large Onsite Sewage Systems (LOSS) 

“Permit to Operate” HAN099

FINAL

Lists systems in the various areas.

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Wells

Hanford has a number of UIC wells – storm water, non-storm water and 

septic systems. The Mission Support Contractor maintains the inventory 

and locations of active and inactive wells.

Table A-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Cleanup.

TPA Documentation Summary of Decision

 M-045-00

 Appendix 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 ft3in each of the 100-series tanks, 30 ft3in 

each of the 200-series tanks, or the limit of waste retrieval technology capability.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-22

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. (4 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Executive Order 11514, 

Protection and 

Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality, as 

amended by Executive 

Order 11991

This order requires Federal agencies to continually monitor and control their 

activities to protect and enhance the quality of the environment and develop 

procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely public information 

and understanding of Federal plans and programs that may have potential 

environmental impacts so that interested parties can submit their views. DOE issued 

regulations 10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures” and DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance 

Program for compliance with this order.

Executive Order 12088, 

Federal Compliance with 

Pollution Control Standards

This order directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable administrative and 

procedural pollution control standards established by, but not limited to: Clean Air 

Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401); Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901); Clean Water 

Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251); Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 USC 300); Toxic 

Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 USC 2601); and RCRA (42 USC 6901).

Executive Order 12580, 

Superfund Implementation

This order delegates a number of Federal departments and agencies, including the 

Department of Energy, the authority and responsibility to implement certain 

provisions of CERCLA as lead agency under the National Contingency Plan. 

Policies and procedures for implementing these responsibilities (e.g., response 

actions and fulfilling natural resource trusteeship responsibilities) are provided in the 

National Contingency Plan.

Federal Facilities 

Compliance Act of 1992.

FINAL

This act amended RCRA, Section 6961 and other sections and requires DOE to 

prepare plans that develop treatment capacity for mixed waste stored or generated at 

each facility, except for those facilities subject to a permit that establishes a schedule 

for treatment of such waste or an existing agreement or order governing the 

treatment of such waste to which the State is a party. The host state and/or EPA must 

approve each plan. Washington State, EPA, and DOE had the TPA, which addressed

compliance with the storage prohibition for mixed waste at the time this law was 

enacted and was not required to develop a new plan. A violation of the TPA may 

concurrently be a violation of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992

(i.e., Washington State may seek judicial enforcement under RCRA (42 USC 6901).
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-23

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. (4 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982 (42 USC 10101). 

FINAL

This act directed DOE to characterize and evaluate the Yucca Mountain site for 

suitability as a potential repository for disposal of commercial SNF and HLW. The 

act directed the President to evaluate the need for a separate repository for HLW 

resulting from atomic energy defense activities. On April 30, 1985, President Reagan 

completed this evaluation. The result was that HLW from atomic energy defense 

activities may be disposed in the proposed repository along with SNF. After passage 

by the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, on July 23, 2002, President 

Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87 approving the site at Yucca Mountain for 

developing a repository for disposal of HLW and SNF, pursuant to the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982.

As indicated in the Obama Administration’s FY2010 budget request, the 

Administration 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 dispose of HLW and SNF. The Administration directed establishing the 

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (Commission) to evaluate 

alternative approaches for meeting these obligations. The Commission submitted its

final report to the Secretary of Energy in January 2012. The Commission did not 

evaluate Yucca Mountain or any other location and recommended a waste 

management approach to resolve the current impasse, which has eight key elements:

1. A new consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management 

facilities.

2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management 

program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.

3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of 

nuclear waste management.

4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.

5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.

6. Prompt efforts to prepare for eventual large-scale transport of SNF and HLW to 

consolidated storage/disposal facilities when such facilities become available.

7. Support continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and workforce 

development.

8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste 

management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

In January 2013, DOE responded to the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report in 

the Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Radioactive Waste. This policy document proposes a framework for moving toward 

a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, 

storing, and disposing of SNF and HLW from civilian nuclear power generation, 

defense, national security and other activities. The Strategy endorses a waste 

management system containing a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial 

focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; a larger, full-scale 

interim storage facility by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide 

flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough 

used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and the siting and 

characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic 

repository by 2048. 

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. Since then, efforts have continued to include B Reactor 

in a new National Historical Park. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-24

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. (4 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

2015 National Defense 

Authorization Act

President Obama signed the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act into law on 

December 19, 2014, authorizing the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

B Reactor as the world’s first production reactor is a signature facility of the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Land Withdrawal Act

(Public Law 102-579). 

FINAL

The act withdrew land from the public domain for purposes of creating and 

operating WIPP, the geologic repository in New Mexico designated as the national 

disposal site for defense TRU waste. In addition to establishing the location for the 

facility, the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act defines the characteristics and amount of 

waste that will be disposed at the facility. Amendments to the WIPP Land 

Withdrawal Act exempt waste designated by the Secretary of Energy for disposal at 

WIPP from the RCRA land disposal restrictions. However, these amendments do not 

exempt mixed TRU waste from other RCRA requirements. WIPP does have a 

RCRA permit and can accept mixed TRU waste. On May 15, 2003, EPA Region 6 

approved DOE’s request to dispose TRU and mixed TRU waste containing PCBs at 

WIPP subject to certain “conditions of approval.”

Spent Fuel Settlement 

Agreement (No. CV-91-

0035-S-EJL and No. CV91-0054-S-EJL), 

October 17, 1995

This agreement allows INL to receive SNF and mixed waste from offsite and 

establishes schedules for the treatment of existing HLW, TRU waste, mixed waste, 

and removal of SNF from the State. 

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% of approximately 6.2 million 

gallons of remaining pumpable liquid is removed by September 30, 2003, with 

the final 2% scheduled to be removed by September 30, 2004 (this was 

completed).

 Increasing DOE funding to a level that supports successful execution of the new 

schedule for tank stabilization.

 Work under the consent decree has been completed and the court has terminated 

the consent decree.

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

Presidential Proclamation 

7319, Establishment of the 

Hanford Reach National 

Monument (June 9, 2000).

FINAL

This proclamation set apart and reserved the Hanford Reach National Monument to 

protect all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the U.S. 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 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.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-25

Table A-5. Executive Orders, Statutes and Judicial Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup. (4 pages)

Executive Orders, Statutes 

and Judicial Decisions

Summary of Decision

Memorandum of Agreement 

Between the U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

and the U.S. Department of 

Energy for the Manhattan 

Project National Historical 

Park (November 10, 2015)

The Memorandum of Agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of the two 

agencies in managing the Manhattan Project National Historical Park which includes

facilities at all three of the original Manhattan Project locations – Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee; Los Alamos, New Mexico; and the Hanford Site. At the Hanford Site, 

the B Reactor National Historic Landmark, the Bruggemann Warehouse, the 1908 

Hanford Irrigation District Pump House, the White Bluffs Bank, and the Hanford 

High School from the Town of Hanford and Hanford Construction Camp historic 

district are included in the Park.

Consent Decree in State of 

Washington v. Department 

of Energy, Case No. CV-08-

5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. 

October 25, 2010)

The Consent Decree imposes milestones for the construction, commissioning, and 

startup of the 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.

Settlement Agreement 

between the State of 

Washington and the U.S. 

Department of Energy 

(No. 2: 03CV-05018-AAM

January 6, 2006). 

FINAL

Prior to the issuance of the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) 

Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington (HSW EIS) 

(DOE/EIS-0286F) and record of decision (69 FR 39449, “Record of Decision for the 

Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, WA: Storage and Treatment of LowLevel Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and 

Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic 

Waste for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant”), the State initiated litigation 

on issues related to the importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and 

hazardous waste generated off the Hanford Site as a result of nuclear defense and 

research activities. The court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU waste to Hanford for 

processing and storage pending shipment to WIPP located near Carlsbad, New 

Mexico. DOE, the State, and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a Settlement 

Agreement ending the litigation on January 6, 2006. The agreement is intended to 

resolve the State’s concerns about HSW EIS (DOE/EIS-0286F) groundwater and 

other analyses. The agreement specifies that when the Draft Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington (DOE/EIS-0391) is complete, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that 

time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decision-making and 

will not import offsite waste to Hanford with certain limited exemptions as specified 

in the agreement. The Tank Closure –Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement is now complete. DOE continues to prohibit the importation of waste 

from off the Hanford Site at least until the Waste Treatment Plant is operating.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

HLW = high-level waste.

HSW EIS = Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 

Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental 

Impact Statement, Richland, Washington.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

SST = single-shell tank.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

TRU = transuranic.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-26

A.4 REFERENCES

10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal 

Regulations.

10 CFR 1022, “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,” Code of 

Federal Regulations.

15-AMRP-0259, 2015, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Hanford Site 300 Area Record of 

Decision for 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5, and Record of Decision Amendment for 300-FF-1, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

40 CFR 6, “Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the 

Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,” Code of Federal Regulations. 

40 CFR 300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,” Code of Federal 

Regulations.

58 FR 48509, 1993, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Federal Register, December 16. 

59 FR 22951, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,”

Federal Register, May 4.

64 FR 61615, 1999, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, November 12.

69 FR 39449, 2004, “Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, WA: 

Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level 

Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste 

for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,” Federal Register, June 30. 

73 FR 55824, 2008, “Amended Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement,” Federal Register, September 26.

78 FR 75913, 2013, “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, December 13.

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 9100749, 1991, “618-9 Burial Ground Expedited Response Action, Phase I Project Plan, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, February 13.

CCN 9103432, 1991, “Action Memorandum Approval: 316-5 Process Trenches, U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to W. Bixby, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from C.E. Findley and R. Stanley), Washington State Department of 

Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, July 15. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-27

CCN 9200423, 1992, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal for 200 West Area 

Carbon Tetrachloride Plume” (letter to R.D. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, January 21.

CCN 9305567, 1993, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal; Riverland Site, 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to L.E. Little, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington, June 23.

CCN 9307470, 1993, “Action Memorandum Approval: Sodium Dichromate Barrel Landfill, U.S. 

Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.E. Little, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, March 8. 

CCN 0093881, 2004, “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Non-Time Critical Removal Action Memorandum for Removal of the 

232-Z Contaminated Waste Recovery Process Facility from the Plutonium Finishing Plant” (letter to 

M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology from K.A. Klein), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, November 5.

Clean Air Act of 1977, 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC 1251, et seq.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

Consent Decree 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.

Consent Decree in State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No. 08-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. 

October 25, 2010).

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, “Action Memorandum: Removal Action at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration 

Facility, United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, March 24. 

DOE and EPA, 2000, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 300 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 331-A Virology Laboratory Building, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, February 15. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-28

DOE and EPA, 2001, “Action Memorandum; U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL) 105-B Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, December 27.

DOE and EPA, 2004, “Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, June 4.

DOE and EPA, 2005a, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, January 20.

DOE and EPA, 2005b, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 100-K 

Area Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 7.

DOE and EPA, 2006a, “Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE and EPA, 2006b, “Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, DOE/RL-2005-87” Letter 

Number 07-AMRC-0046, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, November 30.

DOE and EPA, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 105-KE 

and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

100-K Area Cleanup Project Manager and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington, January 4.

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, Chg. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program, Chg. 3, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 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/EIS-0119F, 1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C.

DOE/EIS-0119F-SA-01, 2010, Supplemental Analysis, Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 

Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-29

DOE/EIS-0286F, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program 

Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tank Closure and Waste Management for 

the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Environmental Impact Statement Tank Closure and Waste Management for 

the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2004-36, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 224-B 

Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2004-67, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE/RL-2004-68, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 224-T 

Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures Non-time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-71, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Time-Critical Removal Action for Support 

Activities to 200-UW-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-21, 2008, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

Northern Part of the BC Controlled Area (UPR-200-E-83), Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-80, 2009, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, -P and –R Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office,

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-39, 2009, Investigation-Derived Waste Purgewater Management Action Memorandum, 

Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites 

in 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites 

in the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, 

Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-30

DOE/RL-2010-102, 2011, Action Memorandum for Decontamination, Deactivation, Decommissioning, 

and Demolition (D4) Activities for 200 East Tier 2 Buildings/Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping/ 

Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 2 vols., as 

amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

Ecology and DOE, 1997, “Action Memorandum, USDOE Hanford 100 Area NPL, 100-IU-3 Operable 

Unit (Wahluke Slope), Hanford Site, Adams, Grant, and Franklin Counties, Washington,” (signed by 

M. Wilson and L. Piper), Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland, Washington.

Ecology and EPA, 1994a, “Action Memorandum: North Slope (Wahluke Slope) Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. Butler, Washington State 

Department of Ecology and R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Kennewick, Washington, March 17. 

Ecology and EPA, 1994b, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup Plan, 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

D. Butler, Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, September 23.

EPA and Ecology, 1995, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal; 100-BC-1 

Demonstration Project; U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site; Richland, Washington” (letter to 

L.K. McClain, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration from R.F. Smith, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 27.

EPA, 1997, “Action Memorandum; 100-B/C Area Ancillary Facilities and the 108-F Building Removal 

Action, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to J.M. Bruggeman, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. Faulk), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10 Hanford Project Office, Richland, Washington, January 29.

EPA, 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, 2005a, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, U.S. Department of Energy, 

100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-31

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, 09-AMCP-0082, 

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.

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 2010a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Record of Decision for the USDOE Hanford 

1100 Area Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2010b, U.S. Department of Energy, 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site - 100 Area, 

Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness 

Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2011a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units 

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2011b, Explanation of Significant Differences, Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-2 Operable Unit, 618-10 

Burial Ground, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-32

EPA, 2011c, Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 

and 200-PW-6 Operable Units Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 200-UP-1 

Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2014, Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-FR-3, 

100-IU-2, and 100-IU-6 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Seattle, Washington.

EPA, 2015, Explanation of Significant Differences For the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental 

Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, EPA ID: 

WA1890090078, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA and DOE, 2013, Record of Decision for 300-FF-2 and 300-FF-5, and Record of Decision 

Amendment for 300-FF-1 Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-97/101, 1997, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-99/038, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-00/122, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton County, 

Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-02/030, 2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, 

Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision 

Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 

Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-96/145, 1996, USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington, Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining Sites 

ROD, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), U.S. Environmental Protection 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-33

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-00/524, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 300-FF-5 Record of Decision, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 

Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ESD/R10-03/606, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 

Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-93/063, 1993, Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/100, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 200-ZP-1 Operable 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 

100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-96/151, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 

100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 200 Area, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, 

and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-34

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. Sec. 2 amended by Executive Order 11991 of May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26967, 3 CFR, 1977 

Comp., p. 123.

Executive Order 11991, 1977, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, 

James E. Carter, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26967.

Executive Order 12088, 1978, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, James E. Carter, 

October 13. Sec. 1-8 amended by Executive Order 12580 of Jan. 23, 1987, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 

Comp., p. 193.

Executive Order 12580, 1987, Superfund Implementation, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Executive Order 13175, 2000, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

William J. Clinton, November 6.

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, Public Law 102-386, October 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1505.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-616, November 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3221.

Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC 4901, et seq.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 USC 10101, et seq.

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, 

William J. Clinton, June 9.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 USC 300, et seq.

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, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, 

September 30.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, 1992, Public Law 102-579, October 30, 106 Stat.4777.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-i

APPENDIX B

FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-iii

CONTENTS

B.1 IDENTIFYING FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE ..............1

B.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND 

ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS........................3

B.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................3

B.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND 

DESCRIBING THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND.......................................18

B.3 RATIONALE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION OF FUTURE CLEANUP 

ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED.......................................................................................18

B.4 COMPLETED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVES.................................................18

B.5 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................22

TABLES

Table B-1. Future Cleanup Actions for which Final Decisions Have Not Been Made. ................ 2

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River 

Corridor. (5 pages) ...................................................................................................... 4

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central 

Plateau. (9 pages) ........................................................................................................ 8

Table B-4. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank 

Waste. (2 pages) ....................................................................................................... 16

Table B-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives. ............................................. 18

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action 

Alternatives. (3 pages)............................................................................................... 19
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-iv

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-v

TERMS

ABAR aggregate barrier

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980

CSNA confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup action

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESD explanation of significant differences

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FBSR fluidized bed steam reforming

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

HLW high-level waste

IBAR individual barrier

IC institutional controls

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste

INL Idaho National Laboratory

ISS interim safe storage

LAW low-activity waste

LCR Lifecycle Report

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LTS long-term stewardship

MESC maintain existing soil cover

MNA monitored natural attenuation

N/A not applicable

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NRDWL Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill

OU operable unit

P&T pump-and-treat

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

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

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SSE safe storage enclosure

SST single-shell tank

SWL solid waste landfill

TBD to be determined
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-vi

TC&WM EIS Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

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

Washington State Department of Ecology

Tri-Party Agreement Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

TRU transuranic

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing Plant

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-1

APPENDIX B

FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES

In accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), 

commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) M-036-01 requires that where final cleanup 

decisions have not yet been made, the Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle 

Report [LCR]) may consider ranges of alternatives and present a reasonable upper bound:

“In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the report 

shall be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives 

or may set forth a range of alternative costs including such a reasonable upper 

bound.”

The TPA milestone specifies that when making assumptions (e.g., about alternative cleanup actions), the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to take into account the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as well as the values expressed 

by affected Tribal Governments and Hanford stakeholders.

Cleanup decisions are made so that DOE can implement future cleanup actions at the Hanford Site.

As discussed in Section B.1, the LCR has grouped remaining Hanford Site cleanup work into 

approximately 34 separate cleanup actions.

Because final cleanup decisions have not yet been made for many of the remaining Hanford cleanup 

actions, the LCR may consider the range of plausible alternatives (or alternative costs) and present a 

reasonable upper bound. DOE has decided that information about the range of plausible alternatives, 

rather than just a range of alternative costs, would be most useful for the LCR. DOE also believes that, in 

most cases, cost estimates include allowances for uncertainties in current planning that encompass a wide 

range of potential alternatives. Section B.2 includes information about the range of plausible alternatives 

for each future cleanup action.

Because many final decisions remain to be made, a reasonable upper bound will need to be defined, along 

with schedule and costs, for a number of remaining cleanup actions. To give each action a sufficient level 

of analysis and detail, DOE has decided to take a methodical and planned approach to developing 

in-depth analyses of cleanup action alternatives, including definition of reasonable upper bound schedules 

and costs.

Section B.3 proposes a rationale and schedule for when different cleanup actions may undergo in-depth 

alternatives analyses in the LCR.

Information provided in this appendix has been developed for the sole purpose of preparing the LCR and 

fulfilling the requirements of TPA M-036-01; the LCR is not a decision-making document. Cleanup 

actions and decisions discussed in this appendix are still undergoing formal development, review, and 

eventual approval pursuant to procedures established in the TPA and applicable Federal and State 

requirements. Information in this appendix does not presume nor is it intended to prejudice the outcome 

of the requirements that must be followed by the Tri-Party agencies (DOE, Ecology, and EPA). Any 

errors or discrepancies in this appendix will be superseded by the results of the legally applicable 

decision-making processes.

B.1 IDENTIFYING FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE 

HANFORD SITE

The term “cleanup action” is used to conceptually describe work that enables cleanup to proceed for 

common or related contaminants that occur in a relatively well-defined environmental media (or waste 

management system) within a generally contiguous geographic area.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-2

This cleanup action concept is consistent with the operable unit (OU) cleanup approach taken in the TPA 

and enables future cleanup actions and alternatives to be addressed in a manner consistent with the way 

cleanup decisions are being made for Hanford. This approach also provides a reasonable middle ground 

for looking at cleanup work that is performed on Site.

The Tri-Party agencies developed a set of cleanup actions for the LCR. Table B-1 lists the future cleanup 

actions for which final cleanup decisions do not yet exist.

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

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

 Disposition N Reactor

 Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

 Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

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

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

 Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

 Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

 Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

 Disposition of 100 Area former Orchard Contaminated Soil Sites (100-OL-1 OU)

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

 Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and Facilities (200-OA-1 OU)

 Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 OUs)

 Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium Finishing Plant

 Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 OU)

 Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU)

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

 Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 OU)

 Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites

 Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

 Remediate 200-SW-1 OU

 Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities 

 Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 

 Remediate Pipelines, Pits, Diversion Boxes and Associated Tanks (200-IS-1 OU)

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

 Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 OU)

 Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 OU)

 Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

 Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 OU)

 Restore 200 West Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-UP-1 OU)

 Restore 200 East Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-PO-1/200-BP-5 OUs)

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

 Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

 Tank Waste Treatment

 Secondary Waste Treatment

 Double-Shell Tank Closure

 Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Closure

OU = operable unit.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-3

Cleanup work at Hanford can be complex and extend over long periods. Frequently, interim decisions are 

made and incremental cleanup steps are taken, followed by improved decisions as more is learned and 

other, better alternatives become available. Even relatively simple cleanup actions can encompass many 

sequenced activities and a substantial amount of work lasting several years. Thus, many of the cleanup 

actions discussed in the LCR will evolve over time and may have a different scope in future reports as 

progress is made in completing Hanford cleanup.

B.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND 

ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE CLEANUP ACTIONS

The LCR provides information about ranges of plausible alternatives for future cleanup actions.

Alternatives are included based on current understandings among the Tri-Party agencies, the status of 

existing and forthcoming cleanup decisions, and whether current planning adequately encompasses the 

range of plausible alternatives. The Tri-Party agencies developed and maintain the range of plausible 

alternatives presented in Section B.2.1.

As discussed further in Section B.2.2, a more in-depth analyses of the alternatives for individual future 

cleanup actions will be performed in order to describe a reasonable upper bound for the scope and costs of 

a specific cleanup action. The Tri-Party agencies have agreed to take a graded approach and to analyze 

alternatives and develop a reasonable upper bound scope and cost estimate as a sensitivity analysis for a 

limited set of future cleanup actions in each annual LCR. The main reasons for this approach include the 

following:

 Developing and analyzing alternatives for every separate cleanup action in every annual edition of the 

LCR would be resource intensive and inefficient

 Final cleanup decisions are expected soon for a number of cleanup actions, and the decision process 

will produce thorough and detailed analyses of potential alternatives

 Many interim cleanup actions are underway, the results of which will improve the ability to analyze 

alternatives in future LCRs.

In lieu of analyzing alternatives for all cleanup actions every year, the LCR proposes a schedule and 

rationale for when different cleanup actions will undergo in-depth analyses. Section B.3 provides this 

information.

B.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

The range of plausible alternatives for each future cleanup action was originally developed through a 

series of working sessions involving the Tri-Party agencies’ subject matter experts applying their 

knowledge of Hanford Site cleanup work and best professional judgment. Each range of plausible 

alternatives, in the opinion of the agency experts, has alternatives that include a maximum cleanup effort 

(e.g., a likely upper bound) for that cleanup action. In addition, the ranges of plausible alternatives 

exclude alternatives that could not be part of a reasonable upper bound (e.g., no action). Determining the 

range of plausible alternatives and likely upper bounding cleanup effort took into account, among other 

factors, current requirements under the TPA and other environmental obligations, and the status of 

alternatives being considered under existing and forthcoming cleanup decisions. The range of plausible 

alternatives for each cleanup action was intended to encompass the most current planning assumptions 

with respect to that cleanup action. This list is updated by the Tri-Party agencies annually.

Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4 list and are organized by the identified future cleanup actions for River 

Corridor, Central Plateau, and Tank Waste. These tables include the following:

 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-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-4

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-1a

1 River Corridor – Disposition N Reactor

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

In September 1993, DOE issued 58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” which implements the recommendation for safe storage 

followed by deferred one-piece removal of the surplus reactors. N Reactor was not included in the EIS as it was 

not available for decommissioning at the time of the NEPA EIS and ISS was approved through the CERCLA 

process. Final disposition of N Reactor will be determined by a subsequent NEPA or CERCLA decision process.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Demolition of the reactor block in ISS and transport the reactor block intact on a tractor transporter from the 

present 100 Area location to the 200 West Area for disposal.

 Safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance at the end of the safe 

storage period, demolition of the reactor block and transport of the reactor block intact on a tractor transporter 

from the present 100 Area location to the 200 West Area for disposal.

 Safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance at the end of the safe 

storage period, demolition of the reactor buildings and piece-by-piece dismantlement of the reactor core and 

transport of radioactive waste to the 200 West Area for burial. Demolition of the reactor buildings and SSE 

and filling voids beneath and around the reactor block, the reactor block, 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.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-2 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ROD amendment, and action memorandum are in place for the removal, treatment, and interim 

onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 DOE and EPA, 2004, Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and Disposal 

of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 4.

 EPA, 2005, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Remove, treat, and transfer sludge for interim storage at T Plant; transfer fuel scrap for interim storage at 

Canister Storage Building; D4 K West Basin and ancillary structures; remediate below-grade portions 

consistent with 100 Area contaminated soil sites.*

* May require removing K Reactors to access below-grade contaminated soils. K East Basin was demolished 

in 2009.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-3 River Corridor – Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Interim RODs, ROD amendments, ESDs, and Annual Fact Sheets (100 Area “Plug-In” and Candidate Waste Sites 

for FY 2010) are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, debris, and burial grounds using the 

observational and plug-in approaches with onsite disposal at ERDF.

 EPA, 2004, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-5

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

 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, 2011, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

 EPA/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 Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit 

Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-00/121, 2000, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-2 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, (42 USC 6901), et seq.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs* and applicable closure performance standards**; backfill, 

contour, and revegetate excavations.

Note: The 100 Area interim RODs for waste sites will be covered by the 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 LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* In accordance with applicable interim action RODs.

** Closure of several 100-N facilities will be according to approved RCRA closure plans.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.1 River Corridor – Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for this OU. Groundwater monitoring and annual reporting continue to track 

groundwater contamination in this OU.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

 WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-6

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Install P&T system in 100-BC-5; transition to S&M for post-treatment groundwater monitoring.

 Incorporate bioremediation for chromium.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.2 River Corridor – Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD is in place to clean up hexavalent chromium in the groundwater using P&T.

 EPA, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Expand the P&T system in 100-KR-4; transition to S&M for post-treatment groundwater monitoring.

 Continue operation of P&T system with incorporation of bioremediation for chromium.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.3 River Corridor – Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum, interim ROD, and ESD are in place to clean up strontium-90 in the groundwater using 

P&T 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.

 EPA, 2011, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units Interim

Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

 EPA, 2010, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary U.S. Department 

of Energy 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

 Ecology and EPA, 1994, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup U.S. 

Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and D. Butler, Washington State 

Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, September 23.

 EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit 

Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-7

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Resume operation of existing P&T system; operate and expand system as necessary until cleanup objectives 

are achieved; transition to S&M 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 LTS with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.4 River Corridor – Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU 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 P&T and an in situ reduction/oxidation (“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/AMD/R10-00/122, 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, 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/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, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Expand P&T system in 100-HR-3; transition to S&M for post-treatment groundwater monitoring.

 Maintain and repair in situ redox manipulation barrier.

 Incorporate bioremediation.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-8

Table B-2. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (5 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-5 River Corridor – Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained By PNNL

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Action memoranda are in place for the remaining 300 Area buildings and facilities, and DOE anticipates extending 

those cleanup decisions to include the PNNL-retained facilities once their operations end. DOE considers D&D of 

buildings and other structures to be final cleanup decisions if the facility is removed in accordance with an 

applicable action memorandum. The removal action work plan will need to be modified to address PNNL retained 

facilities once PNNL declares the facilities as surplus. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D 

has been completed. Decision documents for D&D of 300 Area buildings and facilities that may have future 

application for the PNNL-retained facilities are listed here.

 DOE and EPA, 2005, Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, January 20.

 DOE and EPA, 2006a, Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, May 16.

 DOE and EPA, 2006b, Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, November 30.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Following end of operational period for PNNL facilities (assumed no earlier than 2023), D4 all buildings and 

facilities; remediate consistent with 300 Area contaminated soil sites if needed.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and 

demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

EIS = environmental impact statement.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant differences.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

SSE = safe storage enclosure.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code.

1 RC-1 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area Reactors (Except B Reactor) was removed from the LCR in response to comments that the 1993 

National Environmental Policy Act ROD is considered a final action (see Appendix A, Table A-3)

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-1 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and Facilities

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Action memoranda are in place to D4 buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade and evaluate below-grade portions 

for contamination. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and facilities will be included in decision 

documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). DOE considers D&D of buildings and other structures to be final 

cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in accordance with an applicable action 

memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D has been completed.

 DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, Rev. 1, 

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

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with Central Plateau Outer Area contaminated soil sites.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-9

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-2 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

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

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ESD, and action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris 

with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining soil sites will be included in decision documents 

(e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 

200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs comparable to 100 Areas; backfill, contour, and revegetate 

excavations.

 RTD all sites except ponds; allow monitored natural attenuation for large pond sites with presence of existing 

vegetated soil covers.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed for all sites with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-3 Central Plateau – Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium Finishing Plant

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

A non-time critical action memorandum is in place, associated TPA milestone decision documents are approved, 

and D4 activities are being completed for above-grade structures of PFP. Final decisions and cleanup actions have 

not been made for below-grade structures/contaminated areas and are not identified in the action memorandum.

 DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade Structures

Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; leave remaining below-grade structures and 

contaminated areas in-place and transition to LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

 RTD all PFP below-grade structures and contaminated areas; backfill and revegetate.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-4 Central Plateau – Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CB-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

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-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-10

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

 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 waste and 

debris at approved facility.

 Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially demolish 

building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain institutional 

controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in B Plant Canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-5 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CP-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

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 RAOs; dispose all waste and 

debris at approved facility.

 Condition contents to place in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove contaminated 

wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially demolish building to 

canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain institutional controls and 

perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in PUREX Canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting disposition of the PUREX Canyon Building/associated waste sites and 

disposition of PUREX Storage Tunnels should be aligned and cleanup actions should be coordinated and 

integrated as much as practical.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-11

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-6 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 OU)

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, and conduct post-closure monitoring.

 Stabilize waste and prepare tunnels for in-place disposal, install barrier, perform post-closure care and 

transition to LTS.

 Remove and dispose waste and contaminated equipment from tunnels, evaluate tunnels for residual 

contamination; if needed, remediate tunnels consistent with 200 East Inner Area contaminated soil sites.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting disposition of PUREX Storage Tunnels and disposition of PUREX Canyon 

Building/associated waste sites should be aligned and cleanup actions should be coordinated and integrated as 

much as practical.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-7 Central Plateau – Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CR-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

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 soil to achieve RAOs; dispose all waste and 

debris at approved facility.

 Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated waste and soil from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially demolish 

building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain institutional 

controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soil and debris, and place in REDOX Canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-8 Central Plateau – Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the T Plant Canyon Building and Associated Waste Sites. Current 

expectations are that T Plant will continue to be used to support other remediation and waste management work.

 TBD – No decision documents currently available.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-12

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

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 soil to achieve RAOs; dispose all waste and 

debris at approved facility.

 Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially demolish 

building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain institutional 

controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soil and debris, and place in T Plant Canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of waste 

from cleanup activities.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-9 Central Plateau – Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for final disposition of the cesium/strontium capsules. 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.

 Package capsules in standardized transportation, aging, and disposal (STAD) canister systems; store at 

Hanford pending development of a national interim fuel storage facility; transport and store at an interim fuel 

storage facility pending transport and disposal at a geologic repository.

 Incorporate capsules into immobilized high-level waste glass at WTP.

 Store capsules at Hanford for 300 years (approximately 10 half-lives); after natural decay, direct dispose of 

capsules as mixed low-level radioactive waste.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-10 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-1 OU*

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the 200-SW-1 OU.

 TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

The following alternatives are being considered as part of DOE/EA-1707D, Environmental Assessment Closure of 

Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL); these alternatives are not 

intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing environmental assessment process:

 Install an evapotranspiration barrier over both landfills; upgrade monitoring and infrastructure systems; 

perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking.

 Partial RTD with removal of waste material from both landfills and impacted soil as deep as 10 feet below the 

waste material; backfill and revegetate; if necessary (e.g., contaminated residues remain), perform post-closure 

monitoring and caretaking.

 Remove all waste material from both landfills; excavate and RTD all contaminated soil to groundwater, if 

necessary; backfill and revegetate.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* Includes NRDWL and 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.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-13

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans.

 If needed, may remediate contaminated soil under zone closure; may include partial RTD with various 

capping alternatives; monitoring and institutional controls after closure may be required.

 RTD all contaminated soil; backfill and revegetate.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* Includes State-Approved Land Disposal Site; State Waste Discharge Permit Sites; 100-N Sewage Lagoon; onsite 

Sewage Systems; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfalls; and Underground Injection Control 

Well Sites.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-12 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities*

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities.

 TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans (e.g., RCRA Closure 

Plans); consequently, cleanup actions will be determined and accomplished in accordance with applicable 

regulatory and permit/license requirements. No other alternatives are being considered.

* Includes LERF/ETF, WESF, WRAP, 222-S Laboratory, IDF, and Inert Waste Landfill/Pit 9.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-13 Central Plateau – Remediate Pipelines, Pits, Diversion Boxes and Associated Tanks 

200-IS-1 OU

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The 200-IS-1 OU waste sites include tanks (except those 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 soil to a depth that is determined by the Tri-Party 

agencies to be protective of human health and ecological resources (depth TBD); backfill and revegetate.

 RTD all contaminated equipment, materials, debris and soil; backfill and revegetate.

 Stabilize select equipment in place using technologies yet to be determined.

 Leave everything in place; maintain under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-14 Central Plateau – Remediate Land Disposal Units (200-SW-2 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made to remediate the 200-SW-2 OU. (Note that this OU is not a single 

contaminated site, but comprises a large number of land disposal units.)

 TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of all waste from within individual landfills.

 Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of waste from selected sections of individual landfills 

followed by capping of remaining waste; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

 Capping of individual landfills; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

 In situ treatment/stabilization (e.g., vitrification or grouting) of portions of individual landfills followed by 

capping; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-14

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-15 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-WA-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from 200 West Inner 

Area soil sites with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 RTD approximately half of waste sites and cap remainder.

 RTD all waste sites; backfill and revegetate.

 Cap and maintain under LTS with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-16 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-EA-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from 200 East Inner 

Area soil sites with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 200-MG-2 Operable 

Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 RTD approximately half of waste sites and cap remainder.

 RTD all waste sites; backfill and revegetate.

 Cap and maintain under LTS with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-191 Central Plateau –Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Cleanup decisions have been made for D&D of some of the Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities, and 

the applicable action memorandum is expected to cover future D&D activities. DOE considers D&D of buildings 

and other structures to be final cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in accordance 

with an applicable action memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D has been 

completed. (Note that cleanup decisions have been or will be made for the Canyon Buildings and Associated 

Waste Sites; see separate cleanup actions for these facilities.)

 DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, Rev. 1, 

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

 DOE/RL-2010-102, 2011, Action Memorandum for Decontamination, Deactivation, Decommissioning, and 

Demolition (D4) Activities for 200 East Tier 2 Buildings/Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with contiguous contaminated soil sites.

 Leave structures in place and transition to LTS with appropriate institutional controls.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-15

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-20 Central Plateau – Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum provides for extraction of perched water from the 200-DV-1 OU (B Tank Farm complex 

in the 200 East Area) and transfer of the water by tanker truck or pipeline to the 200 West pump and treat, where it 

is treated and injected into the aquifer below the 200 West Area. Future cleanup decisions for other deep vadose 

zone areas will be included in decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping / Pore 

Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Implement results of treatability testing in accordance with CERCLA and/or RCRA final decisions.

 RTD all contaminated soils to groundwater if necessary and technically practical; backfill and revegetate.

 In place treatment to destroy, immobilize, or capture, treat and dispose contaminants.

 Soil flushing with P&T or pore water removal.

 Install surface barriers.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-21 Central Plateau – Restore 200 West Groundwater To Beneficial Use (200-UP-1 OU)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD for 200-UP-1 OU was issued in September 2012 that superseded the previous remedy decisions 

for this OU and a final ROD is in place for the 200-ZP-1 OU to address all contaminants.

 EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 200-UP-1 

Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Expand 200-ZP-1 extraction, treatment and injection capacity; install extraction and transfer system for 

200-UP-1; operate P&T system to achieve RAOs; continue monitoring.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

 Hydraulic containment of the iodine-129 groundwater plume.

 Groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-22 Central Plateau – Restore 200 East Groundwater to Beneficial Use 

(200-PO-1/200-BP-5 OUs)

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, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Install P&T system for 200-BP-5 OU; implement monitored natural attenuation for 200-PO-1 OU; perform 

well support and maintenance activities.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

 Install P&T system for 200-BP-5 and selective P&T for 200-PO-1 hot spots.

Note: 400 Area groundwater cleanup actions are included as part of 200-PO-1 OU.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.

WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-16

Table B-3. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (9 pages)

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.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NRDWL = Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill.

OU = operable unit.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

SWL = solid waste landfill.

TBD = to be determined.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

1CP-17 Central Plateau – Disposition Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) Complex and CP-18 Central Plateau – Disposition 

Remaining Buildings and Facilities in FFTF Complex were removed since the “Record of Decision: Final Tank 

Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington”

(78 FR 75913) is a final decision for these cleanup actions.

Table B-4. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-1 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve and treat tank waste (62 FR 8693). 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 (DOE and 

Ecology, 2010); achieve designated retrieval objectives or limits of technology; remediate structures and soil 

and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards; maintain post-closure care and monitoring 

consistent with RCRA Permit.

The following reflect alternatives considered as part of the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391); these alternatives are 

not intended to presume the outcome of the environmental impact decision process:

 Grout, cap and close SSTs with residual waste in place; monitor and implement institutional controls after 

closure; eventual transition to LTS.

 Construct new DST capacity sufficient to complete SST retrieval; close SSTs and implement post-closure 

care, monitoring, and institutional controls; eventual transition to LTS.

 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 LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-2 Tank Waste – Tank Waste Treatment

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve, separate, vitrify, and dispose the tank waste 

(62 FR 8693). The ILAW would be prepared for onsite disposal and the vitrified HLW would be placed in interim 

storage pending future disposal at a national geologic repository. 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 ILAW for disposal at the IDF; provide capacity to store all 

immobilized HLW in Hanford Shipping Facility or Interim Hanford Storage Facility (new) until a final 

repository is available.

 Perform blending and waste characterization at a new Enhanced Waste Receiving Facility.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-17

Table B-4. Summary of Future Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 pages)

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 in WTP; manage residual liquid waste at LERF/ETF/SALDS; treat solid waste 

from WTP and ETF and dispose at IDF; manage and disposition other secondary waste (e.g., failed melters).

Other plausible alternatives will be determined at a later date.

Note: Any radioactive HLW will be stored and eventually shipped to a geologic repository.

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 soil and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards; maintain 

post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit.

Other plausible alternatives will be determined at a later date.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-5 Tank Waste – WTP Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The RCRA Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit, Operable Unit-10, Chapter 11 states “Clean closure is the goal for 

the WTP. The closure plan will be revised if efforts to achieve the clean closure standards for the WTP structures 

or soil are unsuccessful. The “modified closure” approach may be followed if feasible, as provided in Condition 

II.K.3 of the Hanford RCRA Permit. It also may be closed as a landfill, as provided in Condition II.K.4 of the 

Hanford RCRA Permit, if the clean closure standards are not technically or economically feasible. The revised 

closure plan will be accompanied by a written request for modification of the permit.” Further decisions have been 

deferred to future decision-making processes.

 WA7890008967, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste 

Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, September 30.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Demolish ancillary facilities/structures to the primary containment structure; seal containment structure and 

construct a soil-based environmental barrier over the containment structure; remediate structures and soils; 

maintain post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit.

 D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions.

 Perform clean closure of WTP and all ancillary facilities/structures.

 Leave structures in place and transition to LTS with appropriate institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to LTS, 

including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

HLW = high-level waste.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

SALDS = State-Approved Land Disposal Site.

SST = single-shell tank.

TBD = to be determined.

TC&WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-18

B.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND DESCRIBING 

THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND

TPA M-036-01 refers to a “reasonable upper bound” with respect to presenting information about cleanup 

alternatives, but the milestone does not include a ready definition for “reasonable upper bound.” To 

ensure the LCR provides information that meets the requirement and intent of the milestone, DOE has 

relied on a conceptual framework as described in the 2013 LCR (Appendix A, Section A.2.2).

B.3 RATIONALE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION OF FUTURE CLEANUP 

ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED

DOE will consider recommendations from EPA and Ecology, government-to-government consultations 

(e.g., Tribal Nations, State of Oregon), Hanford Advisory Board advice, input from Hanford stakeholders, 

and public comments received on previous LCRs for selecting the future cleanup actions to be analyzed in 

the LCR. Additional details regarding the rationale used to select the future cleanup actions to be 

analyzed in the LCR are described in the 2013 LCR (Appendix A, Section A.3).

B.4 COMPLETED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The cleanup actions that have been analyzed in-depth in LCRs are summarized in Table B-5. For details 

about the cost estimate alternative analysis of any of these cleanup actions, see the specific LCR

referenced in Table B-5.

Table B-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives.

2011 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2010-25)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis (Million $) Final Decision Reference

River Corridor–Disposition 

100 Area Reactors

Reactors Remain in Place - $0

Remove Reactors - $676

Record of Decision; 

Decommissioning of Eight 

Surplus Production Reactors 

at the Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA (58 FR 

48509)

Central Plateau–Remediate 

200-SW-2 OU

Barriers - $823

Remove, Treat, Dispose of Waste - $16,614

TBD

2012 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2011-93)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis (Million $) Final Decision Reference

Tank Waste Cleanup Action–

Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell 

Tank Farm Closure

1 – Baseline Case - $59,900

2 – TRU Waste to WTP - $61,600

3 – FBSR for supplemental treatment - $58,100

4 – WTP delay with +10% vitrification capacity 

- $66,000

5 – 2020 Vision One System - $58,000

6 – WTP delay with new DST farm - $68,700

7 – Enhanced tank waste strategy - $57,300

8 – Accelerated SST retrievals - $62,800

9 – Early U Farm closure - $59,600

10 – Slow SST retrievals - $60,800

TBD

Tank Waste Cleanup Action–

Tank Waste Treatment

TBD

Tank Waste Cleanup Action–

Secondary Waste Treatment

TBD

2013 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2012-13)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis (Million $) Final Decision Reference

Central Plateau-Remediate 

Remaining Outer Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-

OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 

OUs)

The DOE planning case cleanup remedies for the 

190 waste sites evaluated includes:

RTD - $98.3

CSNA - $4.9

MESC/MNA/IC - $3.2

IBAR - $19.2

ABAR - $19.8

TBD

Central Plateau-Remediate 

Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

TBD
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-19

Table B-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives.

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-

WA-1 OU)

Total - $145.4

2014 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2013-02)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis (Million $) Final Decision Reference

None selected for 2014 N/A N/A

2015 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2014-11)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis (Million $) Final Decision Reference

None selected for 2015 N/A N/A

2016 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2015-10)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis (Million $) Final Decision Reference

None selected for 2016 N/A N/A

ABAR = aggregate barrier.

CSNA = confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup 

action.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reformer.

IBAR = individual barrier.

IC = institutional controls.

MESC = maintain existing soil cover.

MNA = monitored natural attenuation.

N/A = not applicable.

OU = operable unit.

RTD = remove, treat and dispose.

SST = single-shell tank.

TBD = to be determined.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Considering the criteria described above and cleanup actions analyzed in previous LCRs, DOE developed 

an anticipated schedule for performing in-depth analyses of plausible alternatives for each future cleanup 

action remaining at Hanford. Table B-6 presents this schedule and includes an explanation of the rationale 

for analyzing alternatives in the recommended LCR year.

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. (3 pages)

Cleanup Action Alternative

 Central Plateau–Disposition B Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 

OU)

 Central Plateau–Disposition PUREX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU)

 Central Plateau–Remediate Contaminated Deep 

Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 OU)

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). It may be 

reasonable to develop alternatives after 2016 that could 

benefit future planning and budget requests.

 Central Plateau–Restore 200 East Groundwater 

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

TPA M-015-21A was being negotiated in 2015. May be 

reasonable to develop alternatives after the 2016 LCR to

benefit future planning and budget requests.

 Central Plateau– Remediate Pipelines, Pits, 

Diversion Boxes and Associated Tanks 

(200-IS-1 OU)

 Central Plateau–Remediate Remaining 200 East 

Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 

OU)

CERCLA/RCRA decision document submittals (TPA 

M-015-92B) were being negotiated in 2015. Analyzing 

potential alternatives after the 2016 LCR could provide 

information to help inform the decision process.

 Central Plateau–Disposition Below-Grade 

Portions of PFP

 Central Plateau–Remediate 200-SW-1 OU

Cleanup is proceeding with existing decisions (e.g., interim 

ROD, action memorandum, RCRA interim status/final permit) 

and reflected in current planning documents. Prior to 

developing the 2017 LCR, decide whether alternatives should 

be analyzed based on status of final cleanup decision making.

 River Corridor–Disposition 100 Area former 

orchard contaminated soil sites (100-OL-1 OU)

TPA M-015-95 required RI/FS work plan submittal by April 

30, 2013. May be reasonable to develop alternatives after the 

2016 LCR or later that could benefit future planning and 

budget requests.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-20

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. (3 pages)

Cleanup Action Alternative

 Central Plateau–Disposition REDOX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 

OU)

May be reasonable to develop alternatives after 2016 that may

benefit future planning/budget requests.

 Central Plateau–Disposition Cesium/Strontium 

Capsules

TPA M-092-05 requires DOE to determine a disposition path 

and establish interim milestones for the cesium/strontium 

capsules by June 30, 2017. Capsules are in safe storage; no 

immediate action is required.

 Central Plateau–Restore 200 West Groundwater 

to Beneficial Use (200-UP-1 OU)

An interim action ROD was issued in September 2012 that 

superseded the previous 200-UP-1 OU decisions. Deferral to 

after 2016 would allow final decisions to be made and 

coincide with subsequent CERCLA 5-year review.

 River Corridor–Disposition 300 Area Facilities 

Retained by PNNL

Facilities will be maintained operational by PNNL until 2023, 

which is the 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 OU)

The few remaining structures in the Outer Area do not present 

imminent or significant threats to health or environment.

Cleanup actions can be implemented under existing action 

memoranda. Analysis of alternatives is not likely to contribute 

useful information for out-year budget planning.

 Central Plateau–Disposition PUREX Storage 

Tunnels (200-CP-1 OU)

Prior to development of the 2017 LCR, decide whether 

development of alternatives would benefit future planning and 

budget requests.

 Central Plateau–Disposition T Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites

 Central Plateau–Disposition Remaining Liquid 

Waste Disposal Facilities

 Central Plateau–Disposition Remaining Waste 

Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities

These facility operations are integral to the long-term cleanup 

mission and will continue well after 2020. Any likely cleanup 

actions are not expected for at least 20+ years in the future so 

earlier analyses would be premature and not needed before 

2018 for out-year budget planning.

 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. It would 

be premature to analyze alternatives for cleanup actions before 

the 2018 LCR.

 Tank Waste–Double-Shell Tank Closure 

 Tank Waste–WTP Closure

DST closure is not expected to begin before 2034 and WTP 

closure before 2050. No imminent or significant 

health/environ-mental concerns were identified that need to be 

addressed. Earlier planning and budget development would be 

unnecessary and not account credibly for future decisions and 

conditions.

CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR WHICH ALTERNATIVES WOULD NOT BE ANALYZED

River Corridor–B Reactor Preservation - B Reactor is designated a National Historic Landmark and is a 

signature facility of the newly established Manhattan Project National Historical Park so no cleanup actions are 

anticipated. Minor conditioning/maintenance activities will be performed consistent with National Park Service 

decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321) and/or National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 USC 470).

River Corridor-Disposition Remaining 100 Area Buildings/Facilities and Disposition Remaining 300 Area

Buildings/Facilities (except facilities retained for use by PNNL) - Although cleanup actions are ongoing for 

these buildings/facilities, excess buildings/facilities in the 100 and 300 Areas are expected to undergo D&D 

according to applicable action memoranda. DOE considers D&D of buildings/structures to be final cleanup 

decisions if all regulated contaminants are removed in accordance with an action memorandum so alternatives do 

not need to be analyzed.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-21

Table B-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Future Cleanup Action Alternatives. (3 pages)

Cleanup Action Alternative

River Corridor–Remediate Remaining Contaminated Sites Within Hanford Reach National 

Monument - National Monument remediation is being implemented to fulfill obligations under a Presidential 

Proclamation that establishes a de facto final decision. RTD and decontamination in the Monument areas were 

substantially completed in 2012 (some residual cleanup in the 100 Area portions of the Monument is expected to 

be complete within the next few years as part of the River Corridor or Central Plateau cleanup projects).

River Corridor - Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

River Corridor - Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

River Corridor - Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use 

River Corridor - Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial Use

The Tri-Party agencies agreed that for cleanup actions close to having final decisions there would be little value in 

presenting a cost estimate alternatives analysis in the LCR. Because K West Basin cleanup action was limited to 

only one alternative (see Table B-2) the agencies agreed to remove it from the alternatives analysis in the LCR.

Central Plateau–Disposition U Plant (Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites) - U Plant remediation was

approved according to a CERCLA Final ROD. If performed, further analysis of alternatives should be done as part 

of the process under which the current final cleanup decisions were made.

Central Plateau–Manage ERDF - ERDF was approved according to a CERCLA Final ROD and closure and 

post-closure care are part of the operating documentation. Alternatives need not be analyzed, unless future 

decisions are made that modify the current final ERDF decisions.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

FS = feasibility study.

LCR = Lifecycle Report.

OU = operable unit.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-22

B.5 REFERENCES

58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision; Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” Federal Register (September 16, 1993).

62 FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, 

WA,” Federal Register (February 26, 1997).

78 FR 75913, 2013, “Record of Decision: Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, December 13.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

DOE and Ecology, 2010, Consent Decree in State of Washington v. Department of Energy, Case No. 

08-5085-RMP (E.D. Wa. October 25, 2010).

DOE and EPA, 2004, Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, May 25.

DOE and EPA, 2005, Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

January 20.

DOE and EPA, 2006a, Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

May 16.

DOE and EPA, 2006b, Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

November.

DOE/EA-1707D, 2011, Environmental Assessment Closure of Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill 

(NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Revised Predecisional Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures, Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites 

in 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites 

in the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-23

DOE/RL-2010-22, 2013, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, 

Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-25, 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2010-102, 2011, Action Memorandum for Decontamination, Deactivation, Decommissioning, 

and Demolition (D4) Activities for 200 East Tier 2 Buildings/Structures, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2011-93, 2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2012-13, 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water 

Pumping/Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington.

Ecology and EPA, 1994, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup U.S. 

Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and D. Butler, 

Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, September 23.

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 2 vols., as 

amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 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, 2004, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2005, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 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.

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 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-24

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units 

Interim Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2010, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary U.S. 

Department of Energy 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2011, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units 

Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site, 200-UP-1 

Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/AMD/R10-00/122, 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/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 

Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/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, 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/R10-95/126, 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.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-25

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, 

and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

WA7890008967, 2013, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington, 

September 30.

WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-26

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-i

APPENDIX C

HANFORD ESTIMATED SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-ii

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-iii

CONTENTS

C.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION..................................................................................................................1

C.1.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ......................................................................2

C.1.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ......................................................................4

C.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS .........................................6

C.1.4 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS....................................................................................................16

C.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE

ZONE (PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..............................18

C.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD

(PBS RL-0040.O1.1) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS.................................30

C.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE/SITE-WIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0040.O1.2) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ....................................................................35

C.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS........................37

C.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS..........................................41

C.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 

(PBS RL-0100) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS..........................................43

C.1.11 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS....................................................................................................45

C.1.12 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS..........48

C.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION................................................................................................................48

TABLES

Table C-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. .................................................................................................................... 2

Table C-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................. 3

Table C-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule 

and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).............................................. 3

Table C-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 3 Scope Summary. ........... 4

Table C-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2 by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). .............................. 5

Table C-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and 

Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)..................................................... 5
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-iv

Table C-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 

3 Scope Summary. (3 pages)....................................................................................... 6

Table C-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 

Escalated). (3 pages)................................................................................................... 9

Table C-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)......................................................................................................................... 13

Table C-10. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. .................... 16

Table C-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated).................................................... 17

Table C-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages).......................................................................... 18

Table C-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages)................................................................................................. 21

Table C-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(5 pages) .................................................................................................................... 25

Table C-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Level 3 

Scope Summary. (3 pages)........................................................................................ 30

Table C-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated) (2 pages) .................................................................................... 32

Table C-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) NearTerm Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages) .................................................................................................................... 33

Table C-18. Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040.O1.2) Level 3 

Scope Summary......................................................................................................... 35

Table C-19. Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040.O1.2) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........................... 36

Table C-20. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 

3 Scope Summary. (3 pages).................................................................................... 37

Table C-21. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). ................................................................................................... 39

Table C-22. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages) .................................................................................................................... 39
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-v

Table C-23. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 

3 Scope Summary...................................................................................................... 41

Table C-24. 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). ................................................................................................... 42

Table C-25. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), NearTerm Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)................... 42

Table C-26. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 3 

Scope Summary......................................................................................................... 43

Table C-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........... 44

Table C-28. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....................... 45

Table C-29. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)................................................... 46

Table C-30. Final Reactor Disposition Level 2 Scope Summary................................................ 48

Table C-31. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 

2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)........................................................................ 48

Table C-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ................................................................................... 49

Table C-33. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (2 pages).................................................................................................. 50

Table C-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........... 52

Table C-35. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term 

Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages) .......... 52
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-vi

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-vii

TERMS

BOF Balance of Facilities

CCP Central Characterization Project

CENRTC capital equipment not related to construction

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

of 1980

CH contact-handled

CSB Canister Storage Building

CWC Central Waste Complex

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESH&Q environmental safety, health and quality

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

GRP Groundwater Remediation Project

HAMMER Volpentest HAMMER Federal Training Center

HLW high-level waste

IA implementation area

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IFW Integrated Field Work

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System

KE K East Basin

KW K West Basin

LAW low-activity waste

LCR Lifecycle Report

LDR land disposal restriction

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LLBG low-level (waste) burial ground

LOE level of effort

LTS Long-Term Stewardship

MLLW mixed low-level waste

MS/GS Mission Support/General Support

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NM nuclear material

O&M operations and maintenance

OHC Other Hanford Contractor

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

OU operable unit

PBS project baseline summary

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PRC Plateau Remediation Contract

PT pretreatment

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

RH remote-handled

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-viii

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)

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

ROD record of decision

RTD remove, treat, and dispose

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SST single-shell tank

STSC Sludge Transfer Storage Container

SWOC Solid Waste Operations Complex

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility

TOC Tank Operations Contract

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

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-1

APPENDIX C

HANFORD ESTIMATED SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS

As directed in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), also 

referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)

1

, M-036-01, additional schedule and cost details are 

provided in this appendix. The schedules and costs are provided by project baseline summary (PBS) and 

reflect the scope discussed in Chapters 3.0 through 6.0 of this Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and 

Cost Report (LCR), additional scope information is provided in this appendix in summary form.

The schedules and costs provided in this appendix are reported to Level 2 for the entire PBS lifecycle and 

to Level 3 for the execution year (fiscal year [FY] 2016) and a period of approximately 5 more 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 PBS is provided in the following subsections as a series of tables:

 A scope table that summarizes the Level 3 work elements. In some instances, the scope descriptions 

have been developed only to Level 2. In these cases, the information has been presented in the main 

chapters of the report and is not repeated here. 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 cost and/or schedule uncertainty (also referred to as contingency in the 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant [WTP] PBS). Costs are presented from FY2016 through 

the final year of the lifecycle for all PBSs. PBS RL-LTS extends from FY 2060 through FY 2090. 

 A near-term cost and schedule table at Level 3 by fiscal year that extends for about 5 years. 

Risk management is an essential function of project management. Cost and schedule uncertainty are 

included in the development of the Total Project Cost and the approved U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) planning case. Information provided in this LCR includes estimates for both cost and schedule 

uncertainty based on risk analysis methods that comply with DOE guidelines and orders. These estimates 

are identified as “cost and/or schedule uncertainty” in the tables in this appendix. Additional information 

about uncertainty and project risk is included in Section 1.7.2.

C.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT

BASELINE SUMMARY INFORMATION

The DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) manages their assigned cleanup mission through the 

following PBSs (at Level 1):

 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.O1.1

 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services, PBS RL-0040.O1.2

 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

 

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-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-2

 Final Reactor Disposition.

C.1.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP

(PBS RL-0011) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table C-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Maintain Safe 

and Compliant 

PFP

Maintain Safe 

and Compliant 

PFP

Maintain building integrity and safety systems during D4 efforts. Tasks 

include maintaining worker/public health and environmental safety, an 

environmentally compliant facility, facility systems and components, the 

maintenance program, and special projects.

Disposition PFP 

Facility

Disposition PFP 

Facility

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.

Project 

Management and 

Support

Project 

Management and 

Support

Provide management functions, including management and 

technical/engineering support to the project mission.

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other Distributed 

Costs

Site-wide 

Services

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 

2016 only. Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented 

as RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

NOTE: See Tables C-2 and C-3 for schedule and budget information.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractors.

NM = nuclear materials.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-3

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 Total

Maintain Safe & Compliant PFP 18,000 0 0 18,000

Disposition PFP Facility 88,961 149,525 79,829 318,315

Project Management & Support 17,000 50,000 0 67,000

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 24,700 0 0 24,700

Total 148,661 199,525 79,829 428,015

PBS = project baseline summary. PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

Table C-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 Total

1 NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) 148,661 199,525 79,829 428,015

2 Maintain Safe & Compliant PFP 18,000 0 0 18,000

3 Maintain Safe & Compliant PFP 18,000 0 0 18,000

2 Disposition PFP Facility 88,961 149,525 79,829 318,315

3 Disposition PFP Facility 88,961 22,000 0 110,961

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 127,525 79,829 207,354

2 Project Management and Support 17,000 50,000 0 67,000

3 Project Management & Support 17,000 50,000 0 67,000

2 Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 24,700 0 0 24,700

3 Site-wide Services 24,700 0 0 24,700

Total 148,661 199,525 79,829 428,015

PBS = project baseline summary. PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-4

C.1.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012)

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Program 

Management

100-K Area 

Project 

Management

Provide overarching project management for 100-K Area work activities.

K Basins 

Operations and

Maintenance

KW Basin

Provide operations support to keep KW Basin in a safe and compliant mode until 

finish of dewatering and turnover 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 

Operations 

and Support

Provide infrastructure maintenance support for non-reactor buildings (e.g., janitorial 

services, project support, direct supervision, sampling support, corrective maintenance, 

modifications); includes activities to operate all support facilities required to maintain 

KW Basin safe and compliant, including operation of water plant and all potable water 

services; routine surveillance, sampling, maintenance support in compliance with state 

and federal drinking water requirements; operation of facilities, including auxiliary 

systems (boilers; compressor; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units; fire 

systems, etc.) at KE, KW, and the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility; and management of 

the National Pollution Discharge Environmental System at 100-K Area; also 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. 

Sludge 

Treatment 

Project

Management 

and Support

Provide project management; engineering; training; safety and health support 

activities; dose data gathering and analysis, sampling, and characterization of 

radioactive and hazardous waste; baseline management; and updating waste volume 

projections.

Process 

Containerized 

Sludge

Includes designing/testing a system to retrieve, package, and transport sludge stored in 

engineered containers in KW Basin to an interim storage facility on the Central 

Plateau; procuring Containerized Sludge Retrieval and transportation system; 

modifications to existing 105-KW Facility and construction of a new facility, 

including installing all equipment necessary in the KW Facility and the new Annex; 

readiness and startup activities; retrieving sludge from the engineered containers in 

KW Basin, loading sludge into STSC, transporting the STSCs to T Plant, receiving the 

STSCs at T Plant and placing into interim storage; nuclear safety support; 

containerized sludge testing; sludge sampling and analysis; performing sludge 

treatment and packaging; T Plant modifications including project management, clear 

deck as required and cleanout cells, modify additional cells, and update safety 

documentation. Includes work for both capital asset and operations activities.

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other 

Distributed 

Costs

Site-wide 

Services

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 2016 

only. Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

NOTE: See Tables C-5 and C-6 for schedule and budget information.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractor.

PBS = project baseline summary.

STSC = Sludge Transfer Storage Container.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-5

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2 by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Program Management 6,547 6,007 8,210 8,210 28,974

K Basins Operations and Maintenance 9,162 9,262 9,484 9,484 37,392

Facility Operations 9,284 10,731 10,306 10,306 40,627

Sludge Treatment Project 99,016 31,308 28,521 23,372 182,217

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 34,200 0 0 0 34,200

Level 2 Total 158,209 57,308 56,521 51,372 323,410

Table C-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

1 SNF Stabilization and Disposition 158,209 57,308 56,521 51,372 323,410

2 Program Management 6,547 6,007 8,210 8,210 28,974

3 100K Area Project Management 6,547 6,007 8,210 8,210 28,974

2 K Basins Operations and Maintenance 9,162 9,262 9,484 9,484 37,392

3 KW Basin 9,162 9,262 9,484 9,484 37,392

2 Facility Operations 9,284 10,731 10,306 10,306 40,627

3 100K Facility Operations & Support 9,284 10,731 10,306 10,306 40,627

2 Sludge Treatment Project 99,016 31,308 28,521 23,372 182,217

3 Management and Support 4,962 5,257 5,386 0 15,605

3 Process Containerized Sludge 11,038 13,743 11,614 8,000 44,395

3 Capital Expenditures (Total Estimated Cost) 77,016 1,000 0 0 78,016

3 Capital Expenditures (Other Project Costs) 6,000 10,000 8,000 0 24,000

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 1,308 3,521 15,372 20,201

2 Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 34,200 0 0 0 34,200

3 Site-wide Services 34,200 0 0 0 34,200

Total 158,209 57,308 56,521 51,372 323,410

KW = K West SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-6

C.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA (PBS RL-0013C) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary.

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Project 

Management

Project 

Management

Provide overall management function in support of the waste management 

mission.

Capsule Storage 

and Disposition

WESF Base 

Operations

Includes activities to safely store cesium/strontium capsules in the WESF pool 

cells, operate and maintain WESF facilities and associated waste sites, structures, 

operating systems and equipment, and monitoring systems within the 

authorization envelope, prepare and package waste streams for disposition as 

required, dispose as appropriate, and maintain systems necessary for 

environmental compliance, radiological control, personnel safety and capsule 

integrity.

Cesium/Strontium 

Capsule 

Disposition

Includes retrieval of cesium/strontium capsules from WESF pool cells and 

packaging, transportation, and placement of capsules into dry storage. Provides 

for construction, including contracting/construction management oversight, 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 

immobilized high-level waste from WTP, while awaiting final disposition at a 

national repository. Includes operation and maintenance of CSB facilities and 

associated structures, operating systems and equipment, and monitoring systems. 

Also includes various corrective maintenance tasks, facility modifications, or 

capital projects necessary to continue safe, cost-effective, and compliant 

operations throughout the operating life of the facility.

Mixed Low-Level 

Waste (MLLW) 

Treatment

MLLW Project 

Management

Includes management and maintenance of the MLLW treatment and disposal 

project as well as the management of offsite commercial MLLW 

treatment/disposal contracts. It also includes the receipt of MLLW packages into 

the onsite Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches for disposal once the treatment has 

been completed and the packages have been determined to be LDR compliant.

TRU Retrieval

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-W-4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B.

TRU Repackaging TRU Repackaging

Provides for WIPP production, TRU repacking operations at T Plant and WRAP, 

TRU program support for repack, and RH/large packaging capabilities. It 

includes staffing, contracts and consumables directly related to operations.

Waste Receiving 

and Processing 

Facility (WRAP)

WRAP Base 

Operations

Provides operations and maintenance of the WRAP facility to support shipping 

and receiving activities associated with WIPP shipments. 

WRAP Transition Following operations, WRAP will be transitioned to a condition ready for D&D.

T Plant

T Plant Base 

Operations

Provides services necessary to maintain the T Plant Complex in a ready-to-serve 

status (base operations) for waste processing operations.

T Plant Upgrades Provides upgrades to waste processing equipment, systems components, and 

computer interface equipment, including physical upgrades to T Plant Facility. 

Central Waste 

Complex (CWC) CWC

Provides services necessary to maintain CWC in a ready-to-serve status (base 

operations) for interim storage of LLW, MLLW, TRU waste and waste receipts 

from RL approved generators.

Environmental 

Restoration 

Disposal Facility 

(ERDF)

ERDF Cell 

Expansion

Provide expansion of ERDF as needed to support site cleanup efforts.

ERDF Interim 

Cover

Provide interim covers to be placed over ERDF cells as they are filled. 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-7

Table C-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary.

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

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 each PBS generating waste.

Liquid Effluent 

Facilities (LEF)

200 Area LEF

Base Operations

Provides for commercial, offsite alternatives to ETF for treatment of RL liquid 

waste streams including the mixed waste trenches leachate and miscellaneous 

waste waters.

Integrated 

Disposal Facility 

(IDF)

IDF Operations

Provides operation of IDF in a safe, compliant and cost-effective manner, 

including 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 assist in review of 

documents for safety impacts, perform safety surveillances, inspections and 

support, assist in maintenance of the Health and Safety Plan, and update 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-toserve” status.

TRU Disposition

Central 

Characterization 

Project (CCP) 

Support

Provides resources to develop and maintain an interface with Hanford Site 

generators and CCP to perform TRU Certification activities. Includes support for 

generators of TRU waste to define CH and RH waste volumes and packaging 

requirements and resources to perform WIPP closeout activities to the current 

Hanford WIPP Program.

Establish Shipping 

Capability

Includes modifications to an existing CWC 2404 series structure to provide an 

additional or alternative CH shipping capabilities and establishing RH shipping 

capabilities, including all capital funded activities.

TRU Shipping

Provides the WRAP facility to support TRU waste characterization in support of 

the CCP, including staffing, overtime and consumables directly related to 

providing waste containers and operating equipment under the guidance or 

control of CCP.

Spent Nuclear 

Fuel (SNF) 

Disposition

Fuel Prep 

Facility/Offsite 

SNF Disposition

Includes design, construction and turnover to operations of a Fuel Preparation 

Facility to repackage fuel stored at the 200 Area Interim Storage Area into DOE 

Standard Canisters that satisfy repository acceptance requirements. The facility 

will include a shielded hot cell and remote welding capabilities. Also includes 

activities to facilitate final disposition of Hanford SNF inventories at a national 

repository including compliance document review, technical and programmatic 

interface with the National SNF and Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, SNF data package compliance, and planning for SNF disposition.

Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches

Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches 

Base Operations

Provides 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 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

Sludge 

Disposition

Includes activities to stabilize and package sludge from 105-KW Basin for final 

disposition to WIPP or other disposal facility, including Phase 2 treatment and 

packaging, shutdown and deactivation of needed equipment, and management 

and support.

Site-wide Services 

and Other 

Distributed Costs

Site-wide Services

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure for FY 

2016 only. Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are consolidated and presented as 

RL-0040 Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-8

Table C-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary.

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

NOTE: See Tables C-8 and C-9 for schedule and budget information.

CCP = Central Characterization Project.

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction.

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

LDR = land disposal restriction.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LLBG = Low-Level Burial Grounds.

LLW = low-level waste.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractors.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote-handled.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

SWOC = Solid Waste Operations Complex.

TEDF = Treated Effluent Disposal Facility.

TRU = transuranic.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-9

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000 Escalated). (3 pages)

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Project Management 23,851 22,327 22,810 23,280 23,903 24,470 25,363

Capsule Storage and Disposition 15,812 20,837 26,650 39,301 39,547 23,058 7,139

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 6,865 7,198 7,137 7,174 7,385 7,579 6,805

MLLW Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 424

TRU Retrieval 0 250,364 89,577 28,852 21,052 29,088 18,287

TRU Repackaging 20,000 31,753 31,372 29,547 29,428 22,499 263

WRAP 3,116 6,920 7,045 3,249 3,324 2,469 18,952

T Plant 12,192 19,189 14,493 19,895 11,849 12,172 19,772

Central Waste Complex 10,743 10,874 11,098 11,881 11,479 12,029 11,784

ERDF 0 13 1 3 1 1 127

Liquid Effluent Facilities 3,069 2,726 2,728 2,798 3,595 3,719 5,786

Integrated Disposal Facility 388 1,304 5,832 434 461 472 3,534

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 31,796 21,016 20,966 32,815

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 0 420 400 400 400 400 448

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 455 468 478 537 552 535 0

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 40,270 46,683

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 54,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 150,691 374,393 219,621 199,147 173,992 199,727 198,182

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Project Management 25,363 25,855 27,269 16,891 7,291 7,548 7,697

Capsule Storage and Disposition 571 196 198 203 223 228 234

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 6,901 7,180 7,436 6,908 7,203 7,436 7,713

MLLW Treatment 423 432 455 479 497 512 528

TRU Retrieval 19,284 16,413 15,757 9,677 2,680 826 0

TRU Repackaging 1,064 504 7 0 0 0 255

WRAP 10,572 6 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 19,749 77,165 100,114 85,889 88,919 91,966 94,720
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-10

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000 Escalated). (3 pages)

Central Waste Complex 11,624 11,879 6,223 6,953 6,804 7,010 7,252

ERDF 125 128 135 11,318 6,537 6,727 4,557

Liquid Effluent Facilities 5,959 6,115 6,234 6,418 6,535 6,663 6,853

Integrated Disposal Facility 3,530 6,118 18,532 31,599 5,744 4,238 4,387

TRU Disposition 32,708 33,379 35,174 37,020 38,404 39,619 40,833

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 458 469 480 491 502 514 525

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Disposition 38,070 38,932 43,339 75,418 102,817 87,446 48,771

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 176,401 224,771 261,353 289,264 274,156 260,733 224,325

Fiscal Year 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Project Management 7,938 8,458 8,739 8,866 9,082 9,346 9,737

Capsule Storage and Disposition 239 244 250 255 262 267 273

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 7,884 8,404 8,703 8,753 9,003 9,278 9,515

MLLW Treatment 544 578 599 607 620 639 665

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 1,354 0 2,214 0 0 396 1,778

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 97,602 102,886 106,715 107,422 110,158 113,565 115,881

Central Waste Complex 7,467 4,983 4,729 4,797 4,969 5,660 17,500

ERDF 161 174 178 180 184 190 197

Liquid Effluent Facilities 7,037 7,180 7,356 7,481 7,680 7,856 8,066

Integrated Disposal Facility 4,476 4,760 4,930 5,013 5,130 5,258 5,517

TRU Disposition 42,038 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 538 550 563 576 589 602 616

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Disposition 37,673 27,193 25,127 21,766 19,760 14,839 7,087

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 214,951 165,410 170,103 165,716 167,437 167,896 176,832
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-11

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000 Escalated). (3 pages)

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043

Project Management 10,544 10,871 11,591 11,467 11,967 11,179 11,064

Capsule Storage and Disposition 280 286 293 299 307 313 321

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 9,838 9,882 10,133 10,419 10,670 10,906 11,171

MLLW Treatment 724 745 799 787 823 769 756

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 457 1,265 24 1,081 224 0 133

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 32,101 33,596 16,231 7,893 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ERDF 215 221 237 234 244 228 224

Liquid Effluent Facilities 8,196 8,425 8,649 8,879 8,981 9,198 9,442

Integrated Disposal Facility 5,961 6,130 6,608 6,480 6,801 6,363 6,268

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 630 645 660 675 690 706 722

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Disposition 2,168 29 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 71,114 72,095 55,225 48,214 40,707 39,662 40,101

Fiscal Year 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Project Management 12,223 12,271 12,781 13,679 15,048 14,865 15,399

Capsule Storage and Disposition 328 336 343 351 39,142 40,366 2,046

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 11,391 11,857 12,215 12,067 14,798 17,369 0

MLLW Treatment 839 840 879 941 1,037 1,025 1,132

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ERDF 249 249 261 279 6,108 5,757 0
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-12

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000 Escalated). (3 pages)

Liquid Effluent Facilities 9,686 9,894 10,141 10,320 10,549 10,851 11,037

Integrated Disposal Facility 6,911 6,986 7,302 7,751 8,557 1,550 1,541

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 35,837 65,944 60,216 32,002 58,631 33,076 36,928

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 77,464 108,377 104,138 77,390 153,870 124,859 68,083

Fiscal Year 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057

Project Management 13,749 16,352 16,838 11,287 11,157 11,414 11,676

Capsule Storage and Disposition 264 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MLLW Treatment 991 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WRAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ERDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Liquid Effluent Facilities 11,378 11,586 11,860 12,132 12,366 12,721 12,979

Integrated Disposal Facility 1,373 1,697 2,268 1,889 2,085 1,669 2,012

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 55,642 59,109 9,249 8,377 8,634 9,034 9,305

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 83,397 88,744 40,215 33,685 34,242 34,838 35,972

Fiscal Year 2058 2059 2060 2061 Total

Project Management 11,945 12,220 12,501 0 650,172

Capsule Storage and Disposition 0 0 0 0 261,262
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-13

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000 Escalated). (3 pages)

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 315,176

MLLW Treatment 0 0 0 0 21,089

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 501,857

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 175,618

WRAP 0 0 0 0 55,653

T Plant 0 0 0 0 1,512,134

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 0 187,738

ERDF 0 0 0 0 45,443

Liquid Effluent Facilities 13,303 13,646 0 0 368,073

Integrated Disposal Facility 1,769 816 436 93 222,973

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 405,768

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition 9,882 10,233 17,727 0 534,495

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 3,025

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 677,388

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 54,200

Level 2 Total 36,899 36,915 30,664 93 5,992,064

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TRU = transuranic.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing Facility.

Table C-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

1 Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition – 200 Area 150,691 374,393 219,621 199,147 173,992 199,727 1,317,571

2 Project Management 23,851 22,327 22,810 23,280 23,903 24,470 140,641

3 Project Management 23,851 22,301 22,788 23,235 23,770 24,316 140,261

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 26 22 45 133 154 380

2 Capsule Storage and Disposition 15,812 20,837 26,650 39,301 39,547 23,058 165,205

3 WESF Base Operations 9,812 8,219 10,484 11,253 11,512 11,777 63,057

3 Cesium/Strontium Capsule Disposition 6,000 10,000 15,000 27,000 28,000 11,000 97,000

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 2,618 1,166 1,048 35 281 5,148
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-14

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

2 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 6,865 7,198 7,137 7,174 7,385 7,579 43,338

3 Canister Storage Building 6,865 7,189 7,123 7,161 7,326 7,494 43,158

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 9 14 13 59 85 180

2 TRU Retrieval 0 250,364 89,577 28,852 21,052 29,088 418,933

3 CH Waste Retrieval Operations 0 224,576 61,546 17,814 14,034 14,034 332,004

3 RH Waste Retrieval Operations 0 22,424 24,454 4,399 0 0 51,277

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 3,364 3,577 6,639 7,018 15,054 35,652

2 TRU Repackaging 20,000 31,753 31,372 29,547 29,428 22,499 164,599

3 TRU Repackaging 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 11,753 11,372 9,547 9,428 2,499 44,599

2 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 3,116 6,920 7,045 3,249 3,324 2,469 26,123

3 WRAP Base Operations 3,116 6,871 7,029 3,249 3,324 2,469 26,058

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 49 16 0 0 0 65

2 T Plant 12,192 19,189 14,493 19,895 11,849 12,172 89,790

3 T Plant Base Operations 12,192 15,373 10,956 11,048 11,303 11,562 72,434

3 T Plant Upgrades 0 3,772 3,493 8,577 0 0 15,842

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 44 44 270 546 610 1,514

2 Central Waste Complex 10,743 10,874 11,098 11,881 11,479 12,029 68,104

3 Central Waste Complex 10,743 10,841 11,090 11,765 11,253 11,765 67,457

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 33 8 116 226 264 647

2 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 0 13 1 3 1 1 19

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 13 1 3 1 1 19

2 Liquid Effluent Facilities 3,069 2,726 2,728 2,798 3,595 3,719 18,635

3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Base Operations 3,069 2,667 2,728 2,791 3,571 3,653 18,479

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 59 0 7 24 66 156

2 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 388 1,304 5,832 434 461 472 8,891

3 IDF Operations 388 1,301 5,832 409 419 428 8,777

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 3 0 25 42 44 114
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-15

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

2 TRU Disposition 0 0 0 31,796 21,016 20,966 73,778

3 TRU Shipping 0 0 0 31,787 20,966 20,966 73,719

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 0 0 9 50 0 59

2 Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 0 420 400 400 400 400 2,020

3 Fuel Prep Facility/Offsite SNF Disposition 0 400 400 400 400 400 2,000

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 20 0 0 0 0 20

2 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 455 468 478 537 552 535 3,025

3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base Operations 455 466 477 512 523 535 2,968

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 2 1 25 29 0 57

2 Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 40,270 40,270

3 Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 32,426 32,426

3 Cost and or Schedule Uncertainty 0 0 0 0 0 7,844 7,844

2 Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 54,200 0 0 0 0 0 54,200

3 Site-wide Services 54,200 0 0 0 0 0 54,200

Total 150,691 374,393 219,621 199,147 173,992 199,727 1,317,571

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

LEF = Liquid Effluent Facility.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote-handled.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TRU = transuranic.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-16

C.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 C-10. This PBS is 

not broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented; however, both near-term and 

remaining estimated cost information is provided.

Table C-10. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Safeguards and 

Security

Includes management, training, and equipment for staff; physical protective systems, such as 

intrusion protection, Hanford Site access, and badging; information and cyber security; 

personnel security; material control and accountability; and security program management.

NOTE: See Table C-11 for schedule and budget information.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-17

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000 Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Safeguards and Security 67,601 76,500 76,500 76,500 76,500 76,500 81,917 66,260 67,537

Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Safeguards and Security 71,459 75,318 78,155 80,574 83,180 85,514 91,099 94,215 95,675

Fiscal Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Safeguards and Security 98,014 100,899 104,721 114,613 117,249 119,946 122,705 125,527 128,414

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Safeguards and Security 131,367 134,389 137,480 140,642 143,877 147,186 150,571 154,034 157,577

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 Total

Safeguards and Security 161,201 164,909 168,702 172,582 176,551 180,612 184,766 189,016 5,148,554
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-18

C.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

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, foster technical peer review, 

integrate remediation decisions, and develop 

necessary and sufficient strategies.

Technical Integration

Remediation Decision Support

Sample Management and Reporting

Environmental Databases

Value Engineering Studies

Systematic Planning Integration

Drilling

100-KR-4 Drilling Planning, coordinating, and implementing well 

drilling and well decommissioning for Hanford 

Site wells according to project-specific 

requirements.

100-NR-2 Drilling

100-HR-3 Drilling

200-BP-5 Drilling

200-PO-1 Drilling

200-UP-1 Drilling

200-ZP-1 Drilling

TPA M-24-00 Well Drilling

Miscellaneous Well Drilling

Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells

100-BC-5 Well Drilling

100-FR-3 Well Drilling

300-FF-5 Well Drilling

Deep Vadose Zone

Project 

Management Project Management and Support Planning, management direction, evaluation, and management system outputs for this PBS.

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 nonOU specific field work.

IFW – Field Equipment Purchases (CENRTC)

Spare Parts

Groundwater 

Monitoring and 

Performance 

Assessments

Modutanks

Includes operation, maintenance, sampling, and 

dismantling the Modutanks used for disposing

groundwater from onsite well sampling and 

maintenance; geophysical borehole logging and 

reporting, groundwater sampling, water level 

monitoring, evaluating and reporting for RCRA 

treatment, storage and disposal facilities, CERCLA 

OUs, and other permitted facilities and sites; 

operation and maintenance of the Hanford 

Geotechnical Sample Library which is the 

repository for historical sediment, core, and other 

soil and sediments samples used for scientific 

studies including laboratory studies, bench tests, 

conceptual model development, and fate and 

transport evaluations for contaminant migration; 

well maintenance; and development of an updated 

soil survey map of the Hanford Site.

Geophysical Sciences and Logging

Groundwater Data Evaluation and Reporting

Groundwater Sample Collection

Hanford Geotechnical Library

Groundwater Lab Analysis and Data 

Management

Well Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting

100-BC-5 

Operable Unit

100-BC-5 OU Project Management Includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, and monitoring 

and reporting.

100-BC-5 CERCLA Process Implementation

100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-19

Table C-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

100-KR-4 

Operable Unit

100-KR-4 OU Project Management Includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, remedial actions, 

monitoring and reporting, and modifications and 

expansions.

100-KR-4 CERCLA Process Implementation

100-KR-4 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final

100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting

100-KR-4 Modifications and Expansions

100-NR-2 

Operable Unit

100-NR-2 OU Project Management Includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, remedial actions, 

and monitoring and reporting.

100-NR-2 CERCLA Process Implementation

100-NR-2 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final

100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting

100-HR-3 

Operable Unit

100-HR-3 Project Management Includes project management, decision documents 

for final remedy, remedial actions, and monitoring 

and reporting.

100-HR-3 Decision Documentation

100-HR-3 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final

100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting

100-FR-3 

Operable Unit

100-FR-3 OU Project Management Includes project management and monitoring and 

100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting reporting.

200-BP-5 

Operable Unit

200-BP-5 Project Management Includes project management, decision documents 

for final remedy, remedial actions, monitoring and 

reporting, and field studies and deployment.

200-BP-5 Decision Documentation

200-BP-5 Remedial Actions – Interim and Final

200-BP-5 Monitoring and Reporting

200-BP-5 Field Studies and Deployment

200-PO-1 

Operable Unit

200-PO-1 OU Project Management Includes project management, decision documents 

for final remedy, remedial actions, and monitoring 

and reporting.

200-PO-1 Decision Documentation

200-PO-1 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final

200-PO-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-UP-1 

Operable Unit

200-UP-1 OU Project Management Includes project management, remedial actions,

200-UP-1 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final and monitoring and reporting.

200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-ZP-1 

Operable Unit

200-ZP-1 OU Project Management Includes project management, decision 

documentation, remedial actions, and monitoring 

and reporting.

200-ZP-1 Decision Documentation

200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final

200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-PW-1 

Operable Unit

200-PW-1 OU Project Management Includes project management, remedial actions, 

200-PW-1 Remedial Actions-Interim and Final and monitoring and reporting.

200-PW-1 Monitoring and Reporting

300-FF-5 

Operable Unit

300-FF-5 OU Project Management Includes project management, remedial actions,

300-FF-5 Remedial Actions – Interim and Final and monitoring and reporting.

300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting

Regulatory 

Decisions and 

Closure 

Integration

Closure Zones

Includes CERCLA and RCRA assessment 

activities for the Central Plateau source OUs, 

including project management, planning, 

documentation, and field and other activities 

necessary to complete the final remedy decision 

process.

Deep Vadose 

Zone Treatability 

Tests

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests

Includes planning for and conducting 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 OU

The Deep Vadose Zone OU will address mitigation 

of the contamination present in the deep vadose 

zone at Hanford. The initial actions planned for 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-20

Table C-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Deep Vadose Zone Decision Documentation

this OU are the development of the decision 

documents, field studies, and deployment 

activities. Other tasks for this OU, such as 

remedial action planning and implementation; well 

support activities; monitoring and reporting 

support; OU modifications and expansions; and 

final D&D of the OU remediation activities at the 

conclusion of the project, will be further developed

following the decision process.

Deep Vadose Zone Field Studies and 

Deployment

Site-wide 

Services and 

Other Distributed 

Costs

Site-wide Services

Includes proportional share of costs for site 

services and infrastructure for FY 2016 only. 

Starting in FY 2017 these estimates are 

consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 

for details.

NOTE: See Tables C-13 and C-14 for schedule and budget information.

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

D&D = deactivation and decommissioning.

GRP = Groundwater Remediation Project.

IFW = Integrated Field Work.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractor.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-21

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Integration and Assessments 8,798 7,975 9,250 7,830 8,584 8,915 18,312 17,923 18,310

Drilling 7,448 13,611 21,781 13,804 14,315 15,471 9,508 8,844 8,634

Project Management 14,528 12,995 14,833 12,934 13,521 14,682 19,405 19,581 20,096

Integrated Field Work (IFW) 8,413 7,301 8,160 7,195 7,478 8,200 15,472 15,411 15,731

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 18,220 19,139 22,449 20,665 20,664 22,595 26,583 26,511 26,768

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,734 9,624 6,749 5,857 3,665 5,036 4,724 4,991 5,336

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 7,853 30,141 22,002 33,545 32,508 25,001 21,286 27,361 17,909

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 950 9,414 9,841 1,269 2,827 2,396 1,615 1,897 92

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 7,439 23,159 33,440 41,344 32,842 25,324 20,408 19,166 17,838

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 649 3,326 2,283 2,939 2,875 3,913 2,006 2,679 3,103

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 2,411 14,877 10,505 6,121 9,995 6,005 4,367 4,076 3,524

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 779 664 570 482 988 2,177 553 769 677

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 762 14,634 5,072 16,414 2,268 315 1,196 1,173 1,261

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 27,997 23,309 26,107 23,313 23,142 30,977 25,127 27,458 28,513

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,102 1,046 1,177 976 1,054 1,100 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 2,456 4,470 4,885 2,471 2,149 1,934 910 804 467

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 971 20,296 37,171 35,094 32,227 26,783 139 21 20

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 2,445 5,004 5,410 1,745 39 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 8,066 4,551 1,791 1,208 967 1,048 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 51,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 174,621 225,536 243,476 235,206 212,108 201,872 171,611 178,665 168,279

Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Integration and Assessments 19,257 20,301 21,409 21,748 22,361 23,028 24,467 25,772 25,737

Drilling 10,654 13,195 7,132 7,304 7,500 10,665 8,171 7,215 7,345

Project Management 10,447 11,066 11,427 7,981 8,214 8,531 4,063 4,174 4,231

Integrated Field Work (IFW) 16,487 14,609 14,923 12,992 13,472 13,839 7,901 8,219 8,330
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-22

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 27,499 29,761 30,877 31,706 33,681 34,129 39,421 37,440 37,886

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 4,592 4,815 3,872 3,584 4,245 3,584 3,462 4,562 2,369

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 12,391 11,218 11,595 12,063 11,840 3,604 3,803 4,237 21,889

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 90 94 98 101 104 107 114 118 120

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 16,985 17,409 18,088 18,442 18,291 2,942 3,359 3,371 13,423

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 1,956 2,205 1,141 407 593 356 229 240 240

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 3,474 2,145 1,650 1,148 1,253 784 260 218 51

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 678 105 19 8 0 394 0 0 0

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 1,183 1,277 1,238 1,270 1,353 1,332 1,463 1,520 1,487

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 30,724 22,929 22,632 23,283 23,758 30,791 26,184 26,480 27,524

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 469 495 517 524 518 599 580 602 657

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 156,886 151,624 146,618 142,561 147,183 134,685 123,477 124,168 151,289

Fiscal Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Integration and Assessments 26,235 27,030 27,733 30,129 31,060 33,275 32,737 34,339 31,979

Drilling 7,478 11,193 62 0 0 0 4,302 0 0

Project Management 4,319 4,457 4,641 5,028 5,198 5,539 5,483 8,246 7,650

Integrated Field Work (IFW) 8,488 8,847 7,462 8,099 8,318 8,930 8,793 11,623 10,868

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 38,645 38,148 40,313 43,452 44,648 48,954 43,930 46,012 43,332

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 2,503 1,851 1,673 1,481 2,134 2,539 3,412 2,274 962

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 4,141 4,907 3,680 2,982 1,087 576 594 1,028 772

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 122 126 131 143 147 157 155 162 151

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 3,374 3,591 3,656 2,680 985 576 589 733 369

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 246 255 261 277 298 327 294 328 303

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 465 0 0 0 0 573 0 0
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-23

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 1,520 1,586 1,691 1,784 1,873 1,984 1,950 2,036 1,931

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 27,001 35,902 30,015 33,134 32,410 35,328 34,737 35,893 39,504

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 547 534 569 607 600 759 749 635 771

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 124,649 138,892 121,887 129,796 128,758 138,944 138,298 143,309 138,592

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Integration and Assessments 30,223 33,273 33,277 32,333 33,521 36,871 36,504 40,228 35,238

Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management 7,547 8,374 8,413 8,795 9,422 10,358 10,258 11,271 9,890

Integrated Field Work (IFW) 10,715 11,872 11,920 12,479 13,352 14,667 14,502 15,986 14,058

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 42,703 47,041 46,350 48,804 52,065 56,771 58,033 61,288 60,166

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,024 1,666 1,449 1,248 1,545 369 479 1,508 1,069

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 417 388 419 336 360 224 222 245 214

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 149 165 166 173 185 204 202 223 195

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 394 403 434 423 217 239 235 0 0

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 300 337 327 348 372 405 405 420 368

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 612 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 9,208 389 305 319 341 1,007 386 416 396

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 7,033 8,021 5,945 3,878 5,963 1,997 3,264 947 0

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 729 787 667 647 830 869 798 796 945

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-24

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 110,442 112,716 110,284 109,783 118,173 123,981 125,288 133,328 122,539

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

Integration and Assessments 42,887 44,205 44,852 40,755 10,475 11,059 13,183 13,707 13,080

Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management 11,976 12,342 12,517 11,373 171 161 218 177 0

Integrated Field Work (IFW) 17,041 17,507 17,743 16,186 278 343 343 360 0

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 64,911 67,050 68,017 64,886 14,024 13,613 12,299 21,730 3,293

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 743 429 996 404 12 0 0 32 0

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 262 269 273 247 0 0 0 0 0

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 238 245 248 225 0 0 0 0 0

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 449 463 468 440 17 32 21 24 0

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 439 452 457 415 0 0 0 0 0

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 831 735 951 885 566 635 515 834 596

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 139,777 143,697 146,522 135,816 25,543 25,843 26,579 36,864 16,969

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 Total

Integration and Assessments 0 0 0 0 0 1,130,165

Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 215,632

Project Management 0 0 0 0 0 396,533

Integrated Field Work (IFW) 0 0 0 0 0 474,913

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 850 707 155 0 0 1,698,184
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-25

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-13. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 114,603

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 333,889

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 35,159

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 352,168

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 38,925

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 72,894

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 10,513

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 86,103

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 811,220

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 6,455

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 475 387 417 672 1,162 48,007

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 152,722

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 14,643

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 17,631

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 51,600

Level 2 Total 1,325 1,094 572 672 1,162 6,061,959

Table C-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

1 Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone 174,621 225,536 243,476 235,206 212,108 201,872 1,292,819

2 Integration and Assessments 8,798 7,975 9,250 7,830 8,584 8,915 51,352

3 Strategic Integration 775 699 781 677 704 763 4,399

3 Technical Integration 2,243 1,929 2,157 1,869 1,943 2,106 12,247

3 Remediation Decision Support 635 404 452 392 407 441 2,731

3 Sample Management and Reporting 1,591 1,434 1,604 1,389 1,444 1,565 9,027

3 Environmental Databases 2,591 2,559 2,862 2,479 2,578 2,793 15,862

3 Value Engineering Studies 396 0 399 0 359 0 1,154
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-26

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

3 Systematic Planning Integration 567 582 651 564 586 635 3,585

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 368 344 460 563 612 2,347

2 Drilling 7,448 13,611 21,781 13,804 14,315 15,471 86,430

3 100-KR-4 Drilling 3,079 1,445 1,545 1,338 1,391 1,508 10,306

3 100-NR-2 Drilling 0 1,536 2,051 0 0 0 3,587

3 100-HR-3 Drilling 704 680 759 657 683 741 4,224

3 200-BP-5 Drilling 0 0 618 536 557 604 2,315

3 200-PO-1 Drilling 0 1,146 1,487 1,288 1,339 1,451 6,711

3 200-UP-1 Drilling 2,401 1,595 1,741 1,508 1,568 1,699 10,512

3 200-ZP-1 Drilling 0 2,599 3,335 2,889 3,004 3,255 15,082

3 M-24-00 Well Drilling 155 997 1,410 1,222 1,270 1,377 6,431

3 Miscellaneous Well Drilling 857 786 877 760 790 857 4,927

3 100-BC-5 Well Drilling 0 0 2,312 2,003 2,082 2,257 8,654

3 100-FR-3 Well Drilling 0 0 1,193 1,033 1,074 1,164 4,464

3 300-FF-5 Well Drilling 0 2,551 524 0 0 0 3,075

3 Deep Vadose Zone 252 0 0 416 432 468 1,568

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 276 3,929 154 125 90 4,574

2 Project Management 14,528 12,995 14,833 12,934 13,521 14,682 83,493

3 Project Management and Support 14,528 12,760 14,615 12,630 13,132 14,231 81,896

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 235 218 304 389 451 1,597

2 Integrated Field Work (IFW) 8,413 7,301 8,160 7,195 7,478 8,200 46,747

3 IFW - Operations and Maintenance 7,326 6,373 7,118 6,166 6,412 6,948 40,343

3 IFW - Field Equipment Purchases (CENRTC) 260 0 0 0 0 0 260

3 Spare Parts 827 758 846 733 762 826 4,752

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 170 196 296 304 426 1,392

2 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 18,220 19,139 22,449 20,665 20,664 22,595 123,732

3 Modutanks 507 457 511 443 460 499 2,877

3 Geophysical Sciences and Logging 1,310 1,181 2,672 2,315 2,407 2,608 12,493

3 GW Lab Analysis & Data Management 4,196 3,930 4,394 3,806 3,958 4,289 24,573
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-27

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

3 GW Sample Collection 6,412 6,026 6,738 5,837 6,069 6,577 37,659

3 Hanford Geotechnical 35 32 35 31 32 35 200

3 GW Data Evaluation & Reporting 4,193 3,779 3,742 3,242 3,371 3,653 21,980

3 Well Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting 1,567 1,412 1,543 1,337 1,390 1,506 8,755

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 2,322 2,814 3,654 2,977 3,428 15,195

2 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,734 9,624 6,749 5,857 3,665 5,036 32,665

3 100-BC-5 Operable Unit Project Management 180 161 176 152 158 172 999

3 100-BC-5 CERCLA Process Implementation 1,332 921 518 330 0 0 3,101

3 100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting 222 215 227 197 205 222 1,288

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 8,327 5,828 5,178 3,302 4,642 27,277

2 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 7,853 30,141 22,002 33,545 32,508 25,001 151,050

3 100-KR-4 Project Management 397 364 407 352 366 397 2,283

3 100-KR-4 CERCLA Process Implementation 310 579 0 0 0 0 889

3 100-KR-4 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 4,877 11,111 12,456 8,372 8,705 2,096 47,617

3 100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting 567 598 564 489 508 551 3,277

3 100-KR-4 Modifications and Expansions 1,702 2,073 2,492 4,651 4,836 5,240 20,994

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 15,416 6,083 19,681 18,093 16,717 75,990

2 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 950 9,414 9,841 1,269 2,827 2,396 26,697

3 100-NR-2 Project Management 320 293 327 283 295 319 1,837

3 100-NR-2 CERCLA Process Implementation 546 10 0 0 0 0 556

3 100-NR-2 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 7,063 9,365 293 219 0 16,940

3 100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting 84 72 81 70 73 79 459

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 1,976 68 623 2,240 1,998 6,905

2 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 7,439 23,159 33,440 41,344 32,842 25,324 163,548

3 100-HR-3 Project Management 397 364 407 352 366 397 2,283

3 100-HR-3 Decision Documentation 285 125 0 0 0 0 410

3 100-HR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 6,167 12,313 14,029 12,557 13,057 6,813 64,936

3 100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 590 469 524 454 472 511 3,020
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-28

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 9,888 18,480 27,981 18,947 17,603 92,899

2 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 649 3,326 2,283 2,939 2,875 3,913 15,985

3 100-FR-3 Operable Unit Project Management 180 161 176 152 158 172 999

3 100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 469 407 480 416 433 469 2,674

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 2,758 1,627 2,371 2,284 3,272 12,312

2 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 2,411 14,877 10,505 6,121 9,995 6,005 49,914

3 200-BP-5 Project Management 275 212 232 201 209 226 1,355

3 200-BP-5 Decision Documentation 589 254 0 0 0 0 843

3 200-BP-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 1,098 6,887 5,369 0 0 0 13,354

3 200-BP-5 Monitoring and Reporting 254 233 260 226 235 254 1,462

3 200-BP-5 Field Studies and Deployment 195 12 0 0 0 0 207

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 7,279 4,644 5,694 9,551 5,525 32,693

2 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 779 664 570 482 988 2,177 5,660

3 200-PO-1 Project Management 275 252 232 201 209 226 1,395

3 200-PO-1 Decision Documentation 364 99 0 28 0 0 491

3 200-PO-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 123 113 44 0 0 280

3 200-PO-1 Monitoring and Reporting 140 128 143 124 129 140 804

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 62 82 85 650 1,811 2,690

2 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 762 14,634 5,072 16,414 2,268 315 39,465

3 200-UP-1 Project Management 79 72 81 70 73 79 454

3 200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 447 10,240 3,514 15,813 1,934 0 31,948

3 200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 236 217 242 209 218 236 1,358

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 4,105 1,235 322 43 0 5,705

2 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 27,997 23,309 26,107 23,313 23,142 30,977 154,845

3 200-ZP-1 Project Management 633 577 651 564 586 635 3,646

3 200-ZP-1 Decision Documentation 188 418 474 0 0 0 1,080

3 200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 26,980 21,872 24,039 20,825 21,654 23,465 138,835

3 200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 196 179 200 173 180 195 1,123

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 263 743 1,751 722 6,682 10,161
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-29

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

2 200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,102 1,046 1,177 976 1,054 1,100 6,455

3 200-PW-1 Project Management 71 65 72 63 65 70 406

3 200-PW-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 945 866 967 837 871 944 5,430

3 200-PW-1 Monitoring and Reporting 86 79 88 76 80 86 495

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 36 50 0 38 0 124

2 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 2,456 4,470 4,885 2,471 2,149 1,934 18,365

3 300-FF-5 Project Management 356 319 348 301 313 340 1,977

3 300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 1,001 1,968 1,384 0 0 0 4,353

3 300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting 1,099 1,238 648 130 135 147 3,397

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 945 2,505 2,040 1,701 1,447 8,638

2 Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 971 20,296 37,171 35,094 32,227 26,783 152,542

3 Closure Zones 971 18,606 27,618 26,892 24,486 24,618 123,191

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 1,690 9,553 8,202 7,741 2,165 29,351

2 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 2,445 5,004 5,410 1,745 39 0 14,643

3 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 2,445 4,734 4,395 1,745 0 0 13,319

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 270 1,015 0 39 0 1,324

2 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 8,066 4,551 1,791 1,208 967 1,048 17,631

3 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 178 163 518 186 193 210 1,448

3 Deep Vadose Zone Decision Documentation 945 2,418 300 268 0 0 3,931

3 Deep Vadose Zone Field Studies and Deployment 6,943 820 915 744 774 838 11,034

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 1,150 58 10 0 0 1,218

2 Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 51,600 0 0 0 0 0 51,600

3 Site-wide Services 51,600 0 0 0 0 0 51,600

Total 174,621 225,536 243,476 235,206 212,108 201,872 1,292,819

CENRTC= capital equipment not related to construction.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

GRP= Groundwater Remediation Project.

GW = groundwater

IFW = Integrated Field Work.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = performance baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-30

C.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD

(PBS RL-0040.O1.1) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Level 3 Scope Summary.

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Project Management

Central Plateau Project

Management

Provides overall management function in support of the nuclear 

facility D&D mission on the Central Plateau.

Central Plateau 

Engineering Studies

Provides crosscutting engineering and technical studies and tradeoff evaluations necessary to optimize design and execution for 

Central Plateau facility and waste site remediation/restoration 

with consideration of groundwater and vadose zone remediation 

and ongoing operations.

Emergency Response 

for Facility/Waste Site 

ESH&Q or 

Remediation

Includes the tasks necessary to address aging facility or waste site 

conditions that are above and beyond anticipated operational and 

maintenance plans. Activities may include hazard removal, RTD, 

stabilization, or increased S&M of waste sites; or D&D or 

increased S&M of buildings. Activities are focused on unplanned 

or unforeseen facility or waste site conditions impacting safety,

human health, or environment (e.g., major equipment failure, 

spread of contamination, structural failure).

Remediation of 

Geographic Areas

For each implementation area, provide remediation definition, remediation of pipelines, 

installation of barriers, utility relocations, post-ROD confirmatory sampling, S&M/O&M of 

installed barriers, and area closure activities. Potential waste site remediation range includes 

no action, in situ treatment (e.g., grouting), monitored natural attenuation, capping, RTD, or 

combinations of these techniques. Buildings and structures are assumed to undergo D4 

activities, including demolition to slab-on-grade. Below-grade portions will be addressed 

through the waste site cleanup process. Actual remedial actions will be determined through 

the appropriate decision process and applied through a geographical implementation 

strategy. The remediation and demolition scope has been organized into the following 25 

Implementation Areas:

 100 Area

 600 Area

 300 Area

 400 Area

 Outer Area

 PFP Implementation Area

 U Plant Implementation Area

 200 East Landfills 3 Implementation Area

 Balance of West Implementation Area

 Balance of East Implementation Area

 200 East Landfills 1 Implementation Area

 B Plant Implementation Area

 200 East Landfills 2 Implementation Area

 200 West Landfills Implementation Area

 PUREX Implementation Area

 T Plant Implementation Area

 REDOX Implementation Area

 C Farm Implementation Area

 U Farm Implementation Area

 A Farm Implementation Area

 B Farm Implementation Area

 T Farm Implementation Area

 S Farm Implementation Area

 ERDF Implementation Area

 WTP Implementation Area
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-31

Table C-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Level 3 Scope Summary.

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Surveillance and 

Maintenance and MinSafe for Facilities and 

Waste Sites

200 Area S&M 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, quality assurance, emergency 

preparedness, radiation protection, safeguards and security, 

baseline controls, and training.

300 Area S&M

400 Area S&M

600 Area S&M

Site-wide Services and 

Other Distributed Costs Site-wide Services

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure for FY 2016 only. Starting in FY 2017 these 

estimates are consolidated and presented as RL-0040 

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services. See Section 6.3 for details.

NOTE: See Tables C-16 and C-17 for schedule and budget information.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decommissioning, 

decontamination, and demolition.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ESH&Q = Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality.

IA = implementation area.

ISMS = Integrated Safety Management System.

O&M = operation and maintenance.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractor.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant).

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, dispose.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-32

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated) (2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Project Management 2,917 1,959 1,751 2,025 2,013 2,732 20,646 20,245 20,184

Remediation of Geographic Areas 0 376,543 232,699 277,021 310,152 297,001 396,718 466,334 584,359

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 19,057 12,086 12,074 13,080 12,989 12,433 13,642 14,354 13,880

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 66,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 88,874 390,588 246,524 292,126 325,154 312,166 431,006 500,933 618,423

Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Project Management 21,282 22,409 23,198 23,925 24,681 25,429 27,019 27,951 28,337

Remediation of Geographic Areas 437,561 496,098 396,677 302,963 265,458 256,156 188,126 118,320 118,996

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 14,618 14,441 14,817 14,088 14,525 14,952 15,926 17,682 17,115

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 473,461 532,948 434,692 340,976 304,664 296,537 231,071 163,953 164,448

Fiscal Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Project Management 29,023 29,880 31,008 33,816 34,768 37,307 36,763 38,429 35,898

Remediation of Geographic Areas 249,319 98,452 68,943 124,447 182,625 123,414 127,041 154,249 435,451

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 17,597 17,695 18,251 19,897 20,472 21,924 21,627 22,587 21,365

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 295,939 146,027 118,202 178,160 237,865 182,645 185,431 215,265 492,714

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Project Management 35,302 39,172 39,305 41,080 43,968 48,324 47,824 52,745 46,337

Remediation of Geographic Areas 491,973 508,046 582,764 432,556 398,957 197,452 176,365 224,399 316,885

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 21,667 25,265 25,280 26,431 28,273 30,032 27,694 30,755 27,829

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 548,942 572,483 647,349 500,067 471,198 275,808 251,883 307,899 391,051

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

Project Management 56,361 58,034 58,772 53,361 62,620 65,542 78,417 82,194 14,608

Remediation of Geographic Areas 162,516 88,353 227,508 274,310 300,442 413,312 312,819 286,204 213,092
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-33

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated) (2 pages)

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 34,418 35,493 35,936 32,812 37,820 38,680 45,727 47,725 6,532

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 253,295 181,880 322,216 360,483 400,882 517,534 436,963 416,123 234,232

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 Total

Project Management 26,375 27,359 29,193 24,321 5,916 1,642,725

Remediation of Geographic Areas 171,552 152,708 131,793 69,666 12,425 13,231,220

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 14,372 15,150 15,573 12,852 2,980 1,062,470

Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 0 0 0 0 0 66,900

Level 2 Total 212,299 195,217 176,559 106,839 21,321 16,003,315

PBS = project baseline summary. S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

Table C-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford 88,874 390,588 246,524 292,126 325,154 312,166 1,655,432

2 Project Management 2,917 1,959 1,751 2,025 2,013 2,732 13,397

3 Central Plateau Project Management 2,917 1,945 1,731 1,069 1,030 1,713 10,405

3 Central Plateau Engineering Studies 0 0 0 874 867 896 2,637

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 14 20 82 116 123 355

2 Remediation of Geographic Areas 0 376,543 232,699 277,021 310,152 297,001 1,493,416

3 B Plant Implementation Area 0 11,813 7,656 5,291 4,978 3,204 32,942

3 PFP Implementation Area 0 1,740 27,180 32,583 50,690 55,927 168,120

3 PUREX Implementation Area 0 13,454 7,770 5,663 5,805 4,135 36,827

3 REDOX Implementation Area 0 15,617 7,024 2,694 5,301 4,979 35,615

3 T Plant Implementation Area 0 0 0 0 0 990 990

3 U Plant Implementation Area 0 52,543 47,817 54,299 54,222 16,000 224,881

3 Outer Area 0 108,599 632 17,085 57,959 79,668 263,943

3 Balance of West IA 0 20,442 11,675 4,381 2,489 3,063 42,050
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-34

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040.O1.1) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

3 Balance of East IA 0 29,547 17,104 47,600 22,687 1,740 118,678

3 200E Landfills 1 Implementation Area 0 551 0 4,731 0 0 5,282

3 200E Landfills 2 Implementation Area 0 38,942 13,012 0 0 0 51,954

3 200E Landfills 3 Implementation Area 0 0 0 0 0 2,498 2,498

3 200W Landfills Implementation Area 0 82,750 92,342 102,673 106,021 124,797 508,583

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 545 487 21 0 0 1,053

2 S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 19,057 12,086 12,074 13,080 12,989 12,433 81,719

3 200 Area S&M 18,501 11,501 11,501 12,501 12,399 11,821 78,224

3 400 Area S&M 138 138 138 138 137 141 830

3 600 Area S&M 138 138 138 138 137 141 830

3 300 Area S&M 280 280 280 280 278 287 1,685

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 29 17 23 38 43 150

2 Site-wide Services and Other Distributed Costs 66,900 0 0 0 0 0 66,900

3 Site-wide Services 66,900 0 0 0 0 0 66,900

Total 88,874 390,588 246,524 292,126 325,154 312,166 1,655,432

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESH&Q = environment, safety, health, and quality.

FY = fiscal year.

IA = implementation area.

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.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-35

C.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE/SITE-WIDE SERVICES (PBS RL-0040.O1.2) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS

Table C-18. Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040.O1.2) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Infrastructure/Sitewide Services Infrastructure/Sitewide Services

Includes costs for site services and infrastructure. This work element includes 

emergency services (safeguards and security, fire and emergency response, 

emergency management), environmental integration services (site-wide safety 

standards, environmental integration, public safety and resource protection, 

radiological site services, and offsite laboratory sample analysis), information 

management (information management planning and controls, information 

systems, content and records management, infrastructure/cyber security, 

information resources/content management, and information support services), site 

infrastructure and utilities/logistics and transportation (roads and grounds, 

biological services, electrical services, water/sewer services, facility services, 

transportation, mail, property systems/acquisitions, railroad services, technical 

services, energy management, work management, land and facilities management), 

support functions (business operations, human resources, safety, health and 

quality), and portfolio management (portfolio planning, analysis and performance, 

project acquisition and support, and independent assessment and analysis).

- Includes contracted technical services in key areas such as audit, regulatory 

analysis, cost and risk analysis and estimating. Also includes mission critical 

support services to DOE and its contractors in key areas such as occupational 

medicine, information and telecommunications, janitorial, radiological laundry, 

electrical power and facilities rentals; critical independent legal counsel and 

litigation services in support of DOE and its contractors; and other mission 

critical support services to DOE and its contractors in key areas such as land 

transfers, acquisition and contract closeout, acquisition of natural gas utility 

services, energy conservation and management (including steam), natural 

resource trusteeship, Tribal Nation support, and other small contracts.

- Includes management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, including 

planning, directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and 

preserve the B Reactor facility in a safe condition.

- Includes operations and maintenance activities at the Volpentest HAMMER 

Federal Training Center in support of the Hanford Site and other training 

programs.

- Includes repair and replacement of infrastructure systems and provides capital 

upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. Also 

included are construction and capital equipment expenditures associated with 

replacements for biological control, crane and rigging, electrical system, 

facilities, Hanford Fire Department, network and telecommunications, studies 

and estimates, transportation, water and sewer utilities and other infrastructure 

reliability projects.

NOTE: See Table C-19 for schedule and budget information.

CENTRC = capital equipment not related to 

construction.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractor.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-36

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-19. Infrastructure/Site-wide Services (PBS RL-0040.O1.2) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services 0 328,100 346,000 341,000 350,000 392,000 259,929 255,496 260,489

Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services 234,899 237,067 237,384 236,810 236,506 227,637 228,053 226,561 225,000

Fiscal Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services 224,252 225,477 222,488 223,312 220,916 219,721 214,589 213,185 206,641

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services 194,504 180,467 176,478 173,366 170,199 169,515 161,599 157,566 144,844

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 Total

Infrastructure/Site-wide Services 135,609 123,837 116,875 106,472 99,163 103,361 107,130 102,882 9,017,379
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-37

C.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT

(PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-20. 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

324/327 Area (does 

not include 300-296 

remediation)

Includes D4 of 324/327 Area, provision of utility and S&M services during D4, and 

closure of utilities located in the River Corridor. Typical hazards associated with the 

buildings include radiological contamination (e.g., uranium, mixed fission products, 

activation products, plutonium), hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, chemicals), and 

industrial hazards (e.g., elevated working locations, degraded roofs, biological 

hazards, electrical hazards, excavations). The D4 process includes obtaining 

regulatory approvals; characterizing 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 

track hoe, processor, loader, cranes; explosives, cutting equipment, or other 

methods and the demolition debris are disposed, generally to ERDF. Following 

demolition, samples are collected to verify that cleanup criteria are met, and the 

sites are backfilled and revegetated. 

S&M

Periodic surveillance and maintenance activities to maintain safe access to facilities 

undergoing deactivation, to prevent or correct biological vectors at waste sites and 

to maintain compliance with closure conditions or post-closure care requirements.

Field 

Remediation 

Closure

100-N Area Includes performing CERCLA field remediation and closure of contaminated waste 

sites (liquid waste disposal facilities, burial grounds, burn pits, disposal pits, 

unplanned release sites, and contaminated pipelines) in the River Corridor. This 

includes confirmatory sampling, remediation design, RTD activities, verification 

sampling, and closure documentation. The RODs for the Field Remediation Closure 

work scope generally identify RTD as the preferred alternative (RODs are identified 

in Appendix A). In addition to RTD, confirmatory sites were identified that require 

sampling to determine the need for RTD. Following sampling, these sites 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 metals, hexavalent chromium, petroleum related compounds, strontium, 

uranium, and cesium. 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 backfill, grading, and revegetation.

100 Area 

Remaining Sites

300 Area Sites 

600 Area

Miscellaneous

Restoration

Includes field remediation of abandoned aboveground utilities and structures, 

railroads, surplus fencing, and debris, associated restoration of landscape through 

backfilling and grading to match natural contours of the area, restore positive 

drainage, and reestablish native vegetation.

Management &

Support

Provides support of the field remediation mission.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-38

Table C-20. 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

Waste 

Operations

200 Area Waste 

Operations

Includes the transportation, disposal, and treatment (if required) of waste from the 

River Corridor cleanup activities and other 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 &

Support

Provides for management function in support of the waste operations mission.

End State/Final 

Closure

End State/Final 

Closure

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 100 and 300 Areas; 

conducting orphan site evaluations; conducting surface soil surveys; preparing 

remedial action reports documenting completion of interim remedial actions for 

each geographic area; conducting closure reviews; preparing a remedial 

investigation/feasibility study and proposed plan for six River Corridor source and 

groundwater areas; and preparing transition turnover packages for the six 

geographic areas for transition to Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program.

Management &

Support

Provides for management function in support of the final closure mission.

Mission 

Support/ 

General 

Support

Project Integration 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

SH&Q

Engineering

Regulatory and 

Environmental 

Management

Office of the Project 

General Manager

PRC River 

Zone 

Environmental

100-K Group 2 

Remediation

Final remediation of waste sites and D4 of buildings and structures in the 100-K 

Area will be completed when all spent nuclear fuel is removed from the K Basins. 

Includes the interim safe storage of the KE and KW reactors consistent with the 

other 100 Area reactors and project management.

100-K Group 3 

Remediation

KW Deactivation

105-KE & 105-KW 

Reactor Disposition

100-K Project 

Management 

NOTE: See Tables C-21 and C-22 for schedule and budget information.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and 

demolition.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractor.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

SH&Q = Safety, Health & Quality.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-39

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-21. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

D4 Closure 8,000 62,000 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 112,000

Field Remediation Closure 44,613 130,811 64,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 239,627

Waste Operations 18,000 36,000 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 72,000

End State/Final Closure 1,406 1,670 754 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,830

Mission Support/General Support (MS/GS) 29,199 25,342 16,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,643

PRC River Zone Environment 6,864 26,177 27,941 52,000 71,000 65,000 68,500 80,500 11,000 408,982

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 21,114 29,763 12,802 11,588 11,687 4,812 8,695 104 100,565

Level 2 Total 108,082 303,114 198,763 64,802 82,588 76,687 73,312 89,195 11,104 1,007,647

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRC= Plateau Remediation Contract.

Table C-22. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project 108,082 303,114 198,763 64,802 82,588 76,687 834,036

2 D4 Closure 8,000 62,000 42,000 0 0 0 112,000

3 D4-324/327 Area (does not include 300-296 remediation) 6,000 60,000 40,000 0 0 0 106,000

3 D4-S&M 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 6,000

2 Field Remediation Closure 44,613 130,811 64,203 0 0 0 239,627

3 Field Remediation - 100 N Area 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

3 Field Remediation - 100 Area Remaining Sites 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

3 Field Remediation - 300 Area Sites (does not include 300-296 

remediation) 17,000 21,000 1,000 0 0 0 39,000

3 Field Remediation - 600 Area 17,000 106,000 63,000 0 0 0 186,000

3 Field Remediation - Misc Restoration 5,598 3,358 66 0 0 0 9,022

3 Field Remediation - Management and Support 5,004 453 137 0 0 0 5,594
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-40

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-22. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

2 Waste Operations 18,000 36,000 18,000 0 0 0 72,000

3 200 Area Waste Operations 15,693 33,623 15,552 0 0 0 64,868

3 Waste Ops-Management and Support 2,307 2,377 2,448 0 0 0 7,132

2 End State/Final Closure 1,406 1,670 754 0 0 0 3,830

3 End State/Final Closure 1,085 1,339 413 0 0 0 2,837

3 Management and Support 321 331 341 0 0 0 993

2 Mission Support/General Support (MS/GS) 29,199 25,342 16,102 0 0 0 70,643

3 MS/GS-Project Integration 6,241 10,180 7,195 0 0 0 23,616

3 MS/GS-Project Services 15,906 10,382 6,431 0 0 0 32,719

3 MS/GS-Safety, Health and Quality 3,709 2,511 1,306 0 0 0 7,526

3 MS/GS-Engineering 470 317 166 0 0 0 953

3 MS/GS-Regulatory and Environmental Management 981 661 349 0 0 0 1,991

3 MS/GS-Office of the Project Gen. Manager 1,892 1,291 655 0 0 0 3,838

2 PRC River Zone Environment 6,864 26,177 27,941 52,000 71,000 65,000 248,982

3 100-K Group 2 Remediation 0 0 0 48,000 48,000 43,000 139,000

3 KW Deactivation 0 0 0 4,000 18,000 14,000 36,000

3 105-KE & 105-KW Reactor Disposition 0 0 0 0 5,000 8,000 13,000

3 100-K Project Management 6,864 26,177 27,941 0 0 0 60,982

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 21,114 29,763 12,802 11,588 11,687 86,954

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 21,114 29,763 12,802 11,588 11,687 86,954

Total 108,082 303,114 198,763 64,802 82,588 76,687 834,036

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

MS/GS = mission support/general support.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contractor.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-41

C.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT (PBS RL-0042) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-23. 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 

Provide monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of the FFTF while the 

facility is in a cold and dark state pending future D&D activities.

Transition FFTF Provides the progressive shutdown of facility support systems, including 

sodium, electrical substations, and cooling systems.

Disposition FFTF 

Sodium

Includes removing sodium residuals throughout the life of the project, sodium 

shipment and conversion, and operating the Sodium Storage Facility.

Decommission 

FFTF Complex

The ROD for closure of the FFTF was published in December 2013 (see 

Appendix A). The scope includes:

- Demolition of all structures within the 400 Area Protected Area, except for 

reactor containment, to at least 3 feet below grade followed by backfill and 

revegetation; decommissioning waste would be disposed 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.

- Installing a RCRA-compliant engineered barrier over the grouted area.

- Post-closure care would include long-term monitoring of air, groundwater 

and the vadose zone.

FFTF Project 

Management Provides management in support of the project mission.

Sodium Reaction 

Facility

Provide design, construction, and turnover to operations of a new facility in the 

Hanford 400 Area to convert FFTF sodium for use as caustic feed to the Waste 

Treatment Plant.

Infrastructure 

Services Other Includes legal support.

NOTE: See Tables C-24 and C-25 for schedule and budget information.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractors.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-42

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-24. 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).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

FFTF Cleanup 2,562 1,910 2,057 3,015 3,917 3,222 15,679 65,971

Infrastructure Services 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 2,562 2,010 2,057 3,015 3,917 3,222 15,679 65,971

Fiscal Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

FFTF Cleanup 73,329 77,585 70,268 108,960 75,319 85,617 82,107 50,651

Infrastructure Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 2 Total 73,329 77,585 70,268 108,960 75,319 85,617 82,107 50,651

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Total

FFTF Cleanup 36,301 27,338 3,798 1,805 270 791,681

Infrastructure Services 0 0 0 0 0 100

Level 2 Total 36,301 27,338 3,798 1,805 270 791,781

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility. PBS = project baseline summary.

Table C-24. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated).

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project 2,562 2,010 2,057 3,015 3,917 3,222 16,783

2 FFTF Cleanup 2,562 1,910 2,057 3,015 3,917 3,222 16,683

3 Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 2,562 1,900 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,462

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 0 10 57 15 917 222 1,221

2 Infrastructure Services 0 100 0 0 0 0 100

3 Other 0 100 0 0 0 0 100

Total 2,562 2,010 2,057 3,015 3,917 3,222 16,783

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-43

C.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table C-25. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Regulatory Federal and 

State Grant Support

Regulatory Federal and 

State Grant Support

Includes 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, Washington State 

Department of Health, and other entities through grants, permits, 

and payment of fees. Includes studies for Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment but does not include significant restoration of 

natural resources to resolve any liability of the United States for 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration.

NOTE: See Table C-27 for schedule and budget information.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-44

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-26. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 14,701 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 24,304 24,547 24,793

Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 24,504 24,749 24,996 25,246 25,499 25,754 26,011 26,192 26,454

Fiscal Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 26,719 26,986 27,160 27,432 27,706 27,983 28,263 28,445 28,729

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 29,017 29,307 29,600 29,790 30,088 30,389 30,693 30,999 31,309

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 Total

Richland Community and Regulatory Support 31,623 29,822 30,120 30,421 30,726 31,033 31,343 31,657 1,190,110

PBS = project baseline summary.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-45

C.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 C-28. 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 C-27. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure and Waste 

Management

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 Long-Term Stewardship activities. Includes operation 

and maintenance of 200 Area liquid effluent facilities in support of groundwater 

treatment and monitoring activities.

Site and Environmental 

Monitoring

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, and 

Environmental Compliance

Includes real estate and Hanford Site planning, land management, and surveillance and 

maintenance activities for the 100 and 200 Areas. Includes activities to ensure 

environmental compliance and protection.

Payment in Lieu of Taxes Includes payment in lieu of taxes.

Management and 

Administration Provides for management and administration of these Long-Term Stewardship activities.

NOTE: See Table C-29 for schedule and budget information.
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-46

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-289. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066

Infrastructure 33,957 34,773 35,607 36,460 37,336 38,232 39,150

Site and Environmental Monitoring 12,192 12,483 12,784 13,089 13,403 13,726 14,056

Post-Closure Surveillance and Maintenance 27,877 28,547 29,232 29,934 30,652 31,388 32,141

Payment in Lieu of Taxes 25,571 26,184 26,813 27,456 28,115 28,790 29,481

Management and Administration 7,403 7,580 7,762 7,949 8,139 8,335 8,535

Level 2 Total 107,000 109,567 112,198 114,888 117,645 120,471 123,363

Fiscal Year 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073

Infrastructure 40,090 41,052 42,036 43,046 44,079 45,137 46,221

Site and Environmental Monitoring 14,393 14,738 15,092 15,453 15,825 16,205 16,593

Post-Closure Surveillance and Maintenance 32,913 33,702 34,511 35,339 36,188 37,056 37,947

Payment in Lieu of Taxes 30,188 30,913 31,655 32,415 33,193 33,989 34,805

Management and Administration 8,739 8,949 9,164 9,384 9,609 9,840 10,076

Level 2 Total 126,323 129,354 132,458 135,637 138,894 142,227 145,642

Fiscal Year 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080

Infrastructure 47,329 48,466 49,628 50,819 52,038 53,288 54,567

Site and Environmental Monitoring 16,993 17,399 17,818 18,246 18,684 19,131 19,590

Post-Closure Surveillance and Maintenance 38,857 39,788 40,743 41,720 42,722 43,748 44,799

Payment in Lieu of Taxes 35,640 36,496 37,371 38,268 39,187 40,127 41,090

Management and Administration 10,318 10,565 10,819 11,079 11,345 11,617 11,896

Level 2 Total 149,137 152,714 156,379 160,132 163,976 167,911 171,942

Fiscal Year 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087

Infrastructure 55,877 57,217 58,591 59,998 61,437 62,911 64,422

Site and Environmental Monitoring 20,061 20,542 21,036 21,540 22,057 22,586 23,129

Post-Closure Surveillance and Maintenance 45,873 46,974 48,100 49,256 50,439 51,649 52,888

Payment in Lieu of Taxes 42,077 43,086 44,120 45,179 46,264 47,374 48,511

Management and Administration 12,181 12,473 12,773 13,079 13,393 13,715 14,044

Level 2 Total 176,069 180,292 184,620 189,052 193,590 198,235 202,994
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-47

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-289. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2088 2089 2090 Total

Infrastructure 65,968 67,551 69,171 1,536,454

Site and Environmental Monitoring 23,683 23,937 27,533 553,997

Post-Closure Surveillance and Maintenance 54,157 55,458 56,788 1,261,386

Payment in Lieu of Taxes 49,675 50,867 52,088 1,156,988

Management and Administration 14,381 14,695 0 319,837

Level 2 Total 207,864 212,508 205,580 4,828,662
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev. 0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-48

C.1.12 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Scope information for Final Reactor Disposition is presented in Table C-30. This work is not broken 

down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented and there are no near-term cost details due to 

when the work is planned to begin.

Table C-29. Final Reactor Disposition Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Final Reactor 

Disposition

Includes final reactor disposition of the 100 Area surplus production reactors (except for 

B Reactor which is part of the newly established Manhattan Project National Historical Park). 

Following a safe storage period of up to 75 years, final reactor disposition would include 

demolition of the interim safe storage enclosure and transport of each of the eight reactor 

blocks intact on a tractor-transporter from its present location in the 100 Areas to the Central 

Plateau Inner Area for disposal. Following reactor removal, the site formerly occupied by 

each reactor would be backfilled, graded, and seeded. Although the final end state of N 

Reactor has not been determined, the planning case is to disposition it the same as the other 

reactors.

NOTE: See Table C-31 for schedule and budget information.

Table C-30. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

Final Reactor Disposition 18,811 37,623 37,623 56,434 94,057 94,057 131,679

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067

Final Reactor Disposition 282,170 282,170 282,170 188,113 188,113 94,057 56,434

Fiscal Year 2068

Final Reactor Disposition 37,623

Total 1,881,134

C.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION

The DOE, Office of River Protection (ORP) manages their assigned cleanup mission through the 

following PBSs (at Level 1):

 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition, PBS ORP-0014

 Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant, PBS ORP-0060.

Scope information for PBS ORP-0014 and PBS ORP-0060 is presented in Chapter 5.0 of the LCR. 

No additional scope is presented here. Near-term and estimated costs are presented below.
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-49

Table C-31. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Base Operations 367,606 393,976 380,201 491,668 472,975 445,198 466,042 455,014 470,787 

Retrieve and Close SSTs 238,683 225,082 268,002 218,965 126,326 136,402 108,807 71,703 54,898 

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure 188,453 226,247 197,348 189,059 187,686 168,954 166,352 175,094 182,991 

Supplemental Treatment 213,596 304,519 314,010 328,815 30,074 23,061 169,656 171,626 176,101 

Treat Waste 33,995 105,413 195,452 411,621 410,079 406,116 413,095 420,508 431,471 

Facility Closures 1,923 912 0 4,604 6,400 2,579 2,893 5,985 45,140 

TOC - ORP Project Support 43,420 59,917 62,353 48,354 45,702 45,055 45,931 47,175 52,460 

Level 2 Total 1,087,676 1,316,066 1,417,366 1,693,086 1,279,242 1,227,365 1,372,776 1,347,105 1,413,848 

Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Base Operations 496,481 485,865 508,862 567,468 539,961 567,671 548,171 576,551 582,061 

Retrieve and Close SSTs 115,761 115,140 174,473 297,347 206,817 163,133 208,752 266,323 294,811 

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure 161,213 151,474 160,483 166,190 163,648 151,104 145,679 146,633 148,179 

Supplemental Treatment 179,975 183,935 187,981 192,117 195,564 200,663 205,078 210,421 214,200 

Treat Waste 440,964 450,665 460,580 470,712 479,159 491,651 502,468 515,560 524,820 

Facility Closures 7,779 4,728 1,394 1,729 1,336 3,214 2,319 1,882 1,844 

TOC - ORP Project Support 49,210 51,056 51,332 54,637 58,005 56,796 55,192 59,837 60,673 

Level 2 Total 1,451,383 1,442,863 1,545,105 1,750,200 1,644,490 1,634,232 1,667,659 1,777,207 1,826,588 

Fiscal Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Base Operations 632,972 652,033 648,967 628,512 640,207 646,168 557,149 484,418 462,563 

Retrieve and Close SSTs 418,714 470,008 544,391 458,892 456,143 376,012 216,360 175,960 181,185 

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure 150,839 157,589 168,247 177,267 204,991 225,125 238,573 265,977 295,916 

Supplemental Treatment 218,044 222,841 225,396 229,445 234,492 239,651 243,952 250,312 255,819 

Treat Waste 534,237 545,990 562,448 572,550 585,146 598,020 608,751 624,622 559,604 

Facility Closures 2,596 11,213 7,983 11,725 4,113 1,326 747 11,530 10,195 
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-50

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-31. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

TOC - ORP Project Support 65,146 64,184 69,834 71,263 68,816 73,029 70,324 72,943 69,655 

Level 2 Total 2,022,548 2,123,858 2,227,266 2,149,654 2,193,908 2,159,331 1,935,856 1,885,762 1,834,937 

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Total

Base Operations 447,632 439,637 407,393 300,834 261,134 187,889 93,459 62,484 16,370,009 

Retrieve and Close SSTs 104,816 69,823 104,364 52,641 45,307 18,166 0 0 6,984,207 

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure 343,050 335,495 409,323 238,259 194,255 85,757 17,388 757 6,585,595 

Supplemental Treatment 260,935 267,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,149,489 

Treat Waste 544,302 528,167 513,673 488,927 500,693 253,327 0 0 15,184,786 

Facility Closures 15,046 13,392 33,132 83,973 43,314 38,195 11,774 3,253 400,168 

TOC - ORP Project Support 73,186 73,232 75,827 16,622 12,602 10,295 4,272 2,850 1,841,185 

Level 2 Total 1,788,967 1,726,956 1,543,712 1,181,256 1,057,305 593,629 126,893 69,344 53,515,439 

DST = double-shell tank.

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

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TOC = Tank Operations Contract

Table C-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

1 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 1,087,676 1,316,066 1,417,366 1,693,086 1,279,242 1,227,365 8,020,801 

2 Base Operations 367,606 393,976 380,201 491,668 472,975 445,198 2,551,624 

3 Base Operations 79,520 77,720 83,444 85,499 87,886 88,137 502,206 

3 DST Space Management 10,798 18,442 12,382 9,063 10,755 10,287 71,727 

3 TOC Facility Operations 43,054 57,124 35,537 28,555 27,198 29,940 221,408 

3 Tank Farm Upgrades 21,278 22,186 12,434 10,851 41,150 14,167 122,066 

3 Project Support 212,956 218,504 236,404 357,700 305,986 302,667 1,634,217 

2 Retrieve and Close SSTs 238,683 225,082 268,002 218,965 126,326 136,402 1,213,460 

3 Retrieval/Closure Program 38,954 101,760 82,909 25,217 9,887 34,335 293,062 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-51

Table C-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

3 SST Retrieval East Area 108,421 90,129 81,952 60,813 8,352 181 349,848 

3 SST Retrieval West Area 10,018 6,151 77,784 80,339 21,620 2,557 198,469 

3 Closure Program 456 627 437 481 472 389 2,862 

3 SST Closure 80,834 26,415 24,920 52,115 85,995 98,940 369,219 

2 Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 188,453 226,247 197,348 189,059 187,686 168,954 1,157,747 

3 WTP Feed Delivery Program 23,467 24,669 24,879 26,169 26,858 27,540 153,582 

3 Construct DST Systems 41,408 40,057 44,232 57,929 59,175 54,886 297,687 

3 Immobilization Program 32,497 54,628 33,770 18,446 15,537 24,253 179,131 

3 WTP Operational Readiness 4,221 4,322 4,426 344 353 0 13,666 

3 Tank Waste Pretreatment Project 39,387 52,772 45,406 45,036 43,750 19,507 245,858 

3 Secondary Waste Treatment/ETF 47,473 49,799 44,635 41,135 42,013 42,768 267,823 

2 Supplemental Treatment 213,596 304,519 314,010 328,815 30,074 23,061 1,214,075 

3 Supplemental Treatment 213,596 304,519 314,010 328,815 30,074 23,061 1,214,075 

2 Treat Waste 33,995 105,413 195,452 411,621 410,079 406,116 1,562,676 

3 Waste Treatment Facility 33,995 105,413 195,452 411,621 410,079 406,116 1,562,676 

2 Facility Closures 1,923 912 0 4,604 6,400 2,579 16,418 

3 TFC Facility and Other Closure 1,923 912 0 4,604 6,400 2,579 16,418 

2 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 43,420 59,917 62,353 48,354 45,702 45,055 304,801 

3 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 43,420 59,917 62,353 48,354 45,702 45,055 304,801 

Total 1,087,676 1,316,066 1,417,366 1,693,086 1,279,242 1,227,365 8,020,801 

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.

TFC = Tank Farm Contractor.

TOC = Tank Operations Contract.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-52

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-33. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Pretreatment 131,306 100,888 76,461 103,515 5,436 417,606

Low-Activity Waste Facility 80,325 60,474 31,348 42,382 1,208 215,737

High-Level Waste Facility 97,297 64,996 64,624 64,501 18,718 310,136

Balance of Facilities 52,759 24,728 12,691 10,507 484 101,169

Analytical Laboratory 39,691 28,184 17,030 18,590 1,345 104,840

Shared Services – Plant Wide 179,672 132,785 52,156 1,660 0 366,273

Total 581,050 412,055 254,310 241,155 27,191 1,515,761

PBS = project baseline summary.

Table C-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

1 Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant 581,050 412,055 254,310 241,155 27,191 1,515,761 

2 Pretreatment Facility (PT) 131,306 100,888 76,461 103,515 5,436 417,606 

3 Engineering Design - PT 480 0 0 0 0 480 

3 Plant Equipment - PT 8,976 0 0 0 0 8,976 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - PT 3,444 2,963 2,214 128 0 8,749 

3 Startup - PT 15,768 0 0 0 0 15,768 

3 Construction Field Non Manual - PT 3,427 0 0 0 0 3,427 

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Civil 3,625 0 0 0 0 3,625 

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Distribs 656 77 0 0 0 733 

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Electrical 4,395 0 0 0 0 4,395 

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Mechanical 396 0 0 0 0 396 

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Piping & Instrumentation 7,464 0 0 0 0 7,464 

3 Construction Subcontracts - PT 3,249 0 0 0 0 3,249 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-53

Table C-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - PT 3 0 0 0 0 3 

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Commissioning - PT 32,688 57,052 33,196 0 0 122,936 

3 Fee 9,343 18,955 29,886 50,137 1,457 109,778 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 37,392 21,841 11,165 53,250 3,979 127,627 

2 Low-Activity Waste Facility (LAW) 80,325 60,474 31,348 42,382 1,208 215,737 

3 Engineering Design - LAW 19 0 0 0 0 19 

3 Plant Equipment - LAW 20,780 95 (23,362) 0 0 (2,487)

3 Equipment Engineering - LAW 15 0 0 0 0 15 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - LAW 2,386 2,219 1,642 33 0 6,280 

3 Research & Technology - LAW 247 0 0 0 0 247 

3 Startup - LAW 2,136 0 0 0 0 2,136 

3 Construction Field Non Manual - LAW 115 0 0 0 0 115 

3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW - Distribs 339 40 0 0 0 379 

3 Commissioning - LAW 29,573 38,461 41,717 0 0 109,751 

3 Fee 3,191 10,114 18,304 23,613 1,257 56,479 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 21,524 9,545 (6,953) 18,736 (49) 42,803 

2 High-Level Waste Facility (HLW) 97,297 64,996 64,624 64,501 18,718 310,136 

3 Engineering Design - HLW 563 20 0 0 0 583 

3 Plant Equipment - HLW 725 4,857 (13,880) 0 0 (8,298)

3 Equipment Engineering - HLW 177 89 0 0 0 266 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - HLW 3,337 2,523 1,969 95 0 7,924 

3 Research & Technology - HLW 252 261 135 0 0 648 

3 Startup - HLW 11,151 5,560 0 0 0 16,711 

3 Construction Field Non Manual - HLW 3,504 0 0 0 0 3,504 
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-54

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Civil 3,154 0 0 0 0 3,154 

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Distribs 549 60 0 0 0 609 

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Electrical 7,527 0 0 0 0 7,527 

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Mechanical 2,275 0 0 0 0 2,275 

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Piping & Instrumentation 6,387 0 0 0 0 6,387 

3 Construction Subcontracts - HLW 4,835 0 0 0 0 4,835 

3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - HLW 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - HLW 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - HLW 2,878 0 0 0 0 2,878 

3 Commissioning - HLW 15,456 27,350 41,118 0 0 83,924 

3 Fee 6,177 12,324 26,596 21,091 14,816 81,004 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 28,350 11,952 8,686 43,315 3,902 96,205 

2 Balance of Facilities (BOF) 52,759 24,728 12,691 10,507 484 101,169 

3 Engineering Design - BOF 22 25 0 0 0 47 

3 Plant Equipment - BOF 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - BOF 502 432 280 16 0 1,230 

3 Startup - BOF 5,497 0 0 0 0 5,497 

3 Construction Field Non Manual - BOF 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 

3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF 5,265 62 0 0 0 5,327 

3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF - Distribs 301 26 0 0 0 327 

3 Construction Subcontracts - BOF 2,709 144 0 0 0 2,853 

3 Commissioning - BOF 22,122 20,996 16,768 0 0 59,886 

3 Fee 1,902 3,510 2,195 1,059 529 9,195 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 11,439 (467) (6,552) 9,432 (45) 13,807 

2 Analytical Laboratory (Lab) 39,691 28,184 17,030 18,590 1,345 104,840 

3 Engineering Design - Lab 0 0 0 0 0 0 
DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-55

Table C-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

3 Plant Equipment - Lab 1,398 0 0 0 0 1,398 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - Lab 773 689 561 32 0 2,055 

3 Startup - Lab 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Crafts (Construction) - LAB - Distribs 66 7 0 0 0 73 

3 Commissioning - Lab 28,499 27,408 22,960 0 0 78,867 

3 Fee 1,508 4,678 2,997 5,679 1,332 16,194 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 7,447 (4,598) (9,488) 12,879 13 6,253 

2 Plant Wide 179,672 132,785 52,156 1,660 0 366,273 

3 Safety Assurance - General 2,941 2,916 3,011 41 0 8,909 

3 Procurement & Subcontracts Freight - Plant Wide 215 115 12 0 0 342 

3 Project Controls - General 7,038 5,082 3,015 121 0 15,256 

3 Engineering Design - Plant Wide 1,001 409 36 14 0 1,460 

3 Engineering Design LOE - Plant Wide 3,729 3,368 2,394 306 0 9,797 

3 Engineering Management - Plant Wide 297 260 0 0 0 557 

3 Equipment Engineering - Plant Wide 228 175 176 11 0 590 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - Plant Wide 4,970 4,318 5,738 448 0 15,474 

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety LOE - Plant Wide 3,426 2,581 2,546 220 0 8,773 

3 Material Craft Services - Plant Wide 120 0 0 0 0 120 

3 Procurement & Subcontracts - Procurement - Shared Services 3,810 1,516 770 0 0 6,096 

3 Quality Assurance - General 6,534 6,464 3,488 55 0 16,541 

3 Process Engineering and Flowsheet Modeling - Plant Wide 302 33 913 93 0 1,341 

3 Startup - Plant Wide 3,268 605 0 0 0 3,873 

3 Shared Services - General 40,787 33,747 25,670 766 0 100,970 

3 Construction Field Non Manual - Shared Services 26,366 12,316 4,923 0 0 43,605 

3 Crafts (Construction) - Shared Services - Distribs (7,386) (6,961) 0 0 0 (14,347)

3 Construction Subcontracts - Plant Wide 3,494 0 0 0 0 3,494 
2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-56

DOE/RL-2015-10, Rev.

0

Table C-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages)

Schedule Level Scope 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

3 Construction Subcontracts - Shared Services - Distribs 1,230 0 0 0 0 1,230 

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - Plant Wide 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Bulk Material (Civil) - Plant Wide 461 0 0 0 0 461 

3 Bulk Material (Electrical) - Plant Wide 2 0 0 0 0 2 

3 Bulk Material (Piping & Instrumentation) - Plant Wide 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Commissioning - General 72,948 63,420 (2,146) (520) 0 133,702 

3 Project Operations - General 3,891 2,421 1,610 105 0 8,027 

Total 581,050 412,055 254,310 241,155 27,191 1,515,761 

1 Negative numbers are Bechtel National, Inc., planned give backs.

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 Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PT = Pretreatment (Facility).