DOE/RL-2011-93

Revision 0

 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, 

Schedule and Cost Report

Date Published

December 2011

P.O. Box 550

Richland, Washington 99352

P.O. Box 450

Richland, Washington 99352

Approved for Public Release; 

Further Dissemination Unlimited 
DOE/RL-2011-93

Revision 0

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, 

or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or 

otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its 

endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or 

subcontractors.

This report has been reproduced from the best available copy. 

Available in paper copy.

Printed in the United States of America
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose

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

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

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

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

The report will be prepared and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) annually by January 31, in time to 

support DOE’s annual budget process and to help inform decision makers about schedule and 

work prioritization. 

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

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

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

when DOE-RL and DOE-ORP will complete cleanup, and how milestone changes and 

adjustments will affect lifecycle scope, schedule and cost.

While it is important to understand what this report can and will do, it is just as important to 

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

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

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

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

Agreement and Consent Order1

Background 

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

other legal requirements.

On October 25, 20102

The 2011 Lifecycle Report (

, DOE, EPA, and Ecology (the TPA agencies) agreed to modify the TPA to 

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

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

obligations. 

DOE/RL-2010-25) was prepared and submitted to EPA and Ecology 

on July 21, 2011. 

The 2012 Lifecycle Report information reflects scope, schedule and cost status that is current as 

of August 31, 2011, and the costs shown have been escalated for inflation. Changes that have 

occurred after this date (such as Record of Decision for the 200-CW-5, 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 

and 200-PW-6 operable units and revision of some TPA milestone dates) are shown in 

Section 1.8 and will be incorporated into future reports. 

 

1 Ecology, DOE, and EPA, 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 Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order signed October 25, 2010, settling State of Washington v. 

Chu, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. 08-5085-FVS. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-2 

Public Involvement Process

The TPA agencies will make the 2012 Lifecycle Report available to all interested parties on the 

DOE-RL website at www.hanford.gov. Feedback regarding the 2012 Lifecycle Report will be 

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

Milestone Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

addition to detailed cost and schedule information. 

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

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

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

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

reasonable upper bound for future cleanup work is described. 

Summary of Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost

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

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

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

services to Hanford Site cleanup. 

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

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

(LTS). The active cleanup schedule is from fiscal year (FY) 2012 to FY 2060, and is followed 

by LTS through FY 2090. Although the lifecycle extends until 2090, DOE will have a presence 

at Hanford well beyond that time. 

The Hanford remaining estimated cleanup costs total approximately $112 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 (e.g., for activities where cleanup decisions have not been made). 

Table ES-1 provides a summary of total costs by PBS. Costs are updated each year to reflect 

work completion, recent decision making, and other changes affecting the cleanup scope 

(e.g., upgrades or infrastructure modernization to support major projects). 

The remaining estimated cleanup cost does not include the upper bound cost estimates prepared 

for selected future cleanup actions. These are summarized in Appendix A, Table A-5. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-3 

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

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

2012

2025

2038

2051

2064

2077

2090

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-4 

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

Project Work Scope

Estimated 

Cleanup Costs

1

 

(Billion $)

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.9 - $1.0

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $0.4 - $0.5 

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $8.0 - $9.0

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $3.2 

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $7.6 - $8.1

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $12.9 - $17.2

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) $2.2 - $2.3 

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.7 - $1.8

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

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

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

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $49.8 - $56.0 

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $5.0

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs2 $99.1 - $111.7

1

 Cost 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 D for details. 2 Excludes approximately $1.9 billion to complete Final Reactor Disposition by FY 2068 (escalated $676 million removal 

cost from 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report [DOE/RL-2010-25]). 

D&D= decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

Cost Estimate Alternative Analyses for Selected Cleanup Actions

The TPA agencies have agreed that the Lifecycle Report should include additional information 

about cleanup alternatives and cost estimates for selected cleanup actions. Developing cost 

estimate alternative analyses for each Lifecycle Report involves several steps. First, the TPA 

agencies review the current status of Hanford Site cleanup actions for which final decisions have 

not been made. For the 2012 Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies identified 38 cleanup actions 

for which final cleanup decisions are still needed. Based on agency values and interests of 

affected stakeholders, the TPA agencies then select the cleanup actions to be analyzed for the 

current year. A proposed schedule for analyzing remaining cleanup actions is provided in 

Appendix A, Table A-6. 

Cost estimate alternative analysis proceeds with several more steps for each selected cleanup 

action. For most cleanup actions, there will be a range of plausible alternatives available and the 

TPA agencies work together to determine what should be included. From this range of plausible 

alternatives, the TPA agencies then determine what the reasonable upper bound is likely to be, 

primarily based on technological capabilities and limitations. The scope of work for the 

reasonable upper bound alternative is then described to support development of estimates using 

standard cost estimating tools and methodologies. The cost estimates are provided as a 

sensitivity analysis for the reasonable upper bound for each selected cleanup action alternative. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ES-5 

Sections 1.6 and 1.7 provide additional background on the process for selecting cleanup actions 

and preparing cost estimate alternative analyses. 

For the 2012 Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies determined that cleanup actions associated with 

tank waste treatment should be evaluated. The cost estimate alternative analyses presented in 

this Lifecycle Report are based on the results of ten scenarios, or cases, selected by DOE-ORP 

and Ecology in accordance with TPA Milestone M-062-40 and reported in ORP-11242, River 

Protection Project System Plan, Revision 6 [RPP System Plan (Rev. 6)]. The Baseline Case 

(Case 1) and the nine additional scenarios (Cases 2 – 10) were determined by the TPA agencies 

to provide a range of plausible alternatives and to include reasonable upper bounds for the tank 

waste treatment mission. The level of detail and information developed for these ten scenarios 

provides better granularity and is more valuable for purposes of performing cost estimate 

alternative analyses for tank waste treatment than the three tank waste treatment cleanup actions 

originally agreed to by the TPA agencies. 

The Baseline Case describes how the River Protection Project (RPP) mission could be achieved 

given an underlying set of assumptions. The Baseline Case shows how the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP), together with a second low-activity waste (LAW) Vitrification 

Facility and the potential contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) tank waste treatment process, 

could treat the Hanford tank waste by 2043, with approximately 25 years of WTP operations and 

an estimated lifecycle cost of $59.9 billion.

Starting with the Baseline Case, each of the scenarios change some of the underlying 

assumptions in order to evaluate the impacts of those changes upon the tank waste treatment 

mission. Table ES-2 shows the purpose of the ten scenarios, brief summary observations on the 

results when compared to the Baseline Case, and estimated lifecycle cost of the RPP mission for 

each scenario. Section 6.4 of this Lifecycle Report provides additional details regarding these 

scenarios.

Table ES-2. Summary Results for RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Cases 2 – 10. (4 pages)

Case 

No.

Scenario 

Title Purpose Observations

Lifecycle Cost 

(FY 1997 to 

end of mission)

1 Baseline 

Case

Provide the 

technical basis 

for updates to 

the Tank 

Operations 

Contract 

Performance 

Measurement 

Baseline

Retrieving waste from the SSTs to DSTs and delivering the 

waste to the WTP; deploy supplemental treatment capability, 

currently depicted as a second LAW Vitrification Facility; 

treatment and packaging capability for potential TRU tank 

waste interim storage at the Central Waste Complex pending 

determination of the final disposal pathway; deploy interim 

storage capacity for the immobilized HLW pending 

determination of the final disposal pathway; and disposing of 

packaged immobilized LAW onsite at the Integrated Disposal 

Facility and closing the SST and DST farms, ancillary 

facilities, and associated waste management and treatment 

facilities.

$59.9 B

2 TRU waste 

to WTP

Show impacts of 

treating all 

potential TRU 

tank waste at 

WTP as HLW

The additional waste treated at the WTP caused an increase in 

the number of HLW canisters, an increase in WTP treatment 

duration, and an associated increase in lifecycle cost. 

$61.6 B
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-6 

Table ES-2. Summary Results for RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Cases 2 – 10. (4 pages)

Case 

No.

Scenario 

Title Purpose Observations

Lifecycle Cost 

(FY 1997 to 

end of mission)

3 FBSR for 

supplemental 

treatment

Deploy FBSR as 

an alternative to 

a second LAW 

Vitrification 

Facility

The supplemental pretreatment and treatment capacity added 

for Case 3 facilitated an earlier completion of SST retrievals, 

earlier SST and DST closures, and shorter treatment duration. 

The costs to install and operate the alternative supplemental 

treatment system were offset by the elimination of a second 

LAW Vitrification Facility and by the decreased mission 

length.

The sodium management of Case 3 could be optimized to 

further reduce the demand on the WTP Pretreatment Facility 

and improve the utilization of the supplemental pretreatment 

and treatment systems.

When compared on a volume basis, the FBSR product is 

2.4 times the volume of LAW glass for the same amount of 

sodium processed.

The accelerated schedule necessary for a 2018 deployment of 

FBSR carries significant risks.

$58.1 B

4 WTP delay 

with +10% 

vitrification 

capacity

Evaluate how 

well a 10% 

increase in 

overall 

vitrification

capacity offsets 

all/part of the 

impact of the 

uniform 4-year 

delay in WTP 

startup

Increased vitrification capacity only recovered about 1 year 

from the 4-year delay in WTP startup. As such, SST retrievals 

and closures, DST closures, and the end of treatment all occur 

years behind the Baseline Case, resulting in an increased 

lifecycle cost.

The 10% additional vitrification capacity may exceed the 

mechanical handling capabilities of the HLW Vitrification 

Facility.

$66.0 B

5 2020 Vision 

One System

Show impacts of 

phased turnover 

of WTP facilities

Starting LAW treatment earlier than the Baseline Case had 

beneficial impacts on the mission, allowing SST retrievals and 

closures, DST closures, and end of treatment all to occur ahead 

of the Baseline Case. Competing demands for DST space 

early in the mission caused milestone B-3, “Start five 

additional SST retrievals,” to be missed by about nine months. 

The additional costs of providing supplemental pretreatment 

and supporting early LAW treatment were more than offset by 

the cost savings due to shorter mission duration.

Despite a 13.5-month outage in HLW production caused by 

DST space constraints, all tank waste was treated 

approximately 20 months earlier than the Baseline Case.

$58.0 B

6 WTP delay 

with new 

DST farm

Evaluate how 

well a new DST 

farm offsets the 

impact of a 

uniform 4-year 

delay in WTP 

startup

The 4-year delay in startup of WTP causes a nearly 4-year 

delay in the end of treatment, even with a new DST farm. 

While the additional DST farm allows SST retrievals to be 

completed with less than a 4-year delay, the milestone is still 

missed. The increased mission duration due to delayed 

treatment increases the lifecycle cost considerably.

$68.7 B
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ES-7 

Table ES-2. Summary Results for RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Cases 2 – 10. (4 pages)

Case 

No.

Scenario 

Title Purpose Observations

Lifecycle Cost 

(FY 1997 to 

end of mission)

7 Enhanced 

tank waste 

strategy

Use of 

transformational

technologies that 

may shorten 

mission schedule 

by 7 years and 

reduce lifecycle 

cost by 

$16 billion

Replacing the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility and a second 

LAW Vitrification Facility with eight FBSR fed by both of the 

WTP pretreatment and supplemental pretreatment processes 

accelerated the treatment end date by 3.5 years compared to the 

Baseline Case and 6 years compared to the PMB. All other 

success criteria were met; typically in advance of the Baseline 

Case. The scenario goal of shortening the mission by 7 years 

and saving $16 billion when compared to the PMB were only 

partially met (6 years and $4.3 billion were saved). Significant 

savings were achieved through the 3.5-year treatment duration 

reduction relative to the Baseline Case.

The sodium management of Case 7 could be optimized to 

further reduce demand on the WTP Pretreatment Facility and 

improve the use of the supplemental pretreatment and 

treatment systems.

The accelerated schedule necessary for a 2018 deployment of 

FBSR carries significant risks.

When compared on a volume basis, the FBSR product is 

2.4 times the volume of LAW glass for the same amount of 

sodium processed.

The enhanced HLW glass model and the increased LAW 

immobilization capacity allow waste to be staged through the 

DST system more rapidly than the Baseline Case. As a result, 

both the HLW and LAW facilities experience SST retrievallimited outages during the mission.

$57.3 B

8 Accelerated 

SST 

retrievals

Show effect on 

mission duration 

using alternate 

SST retrieval 

approach

All mission success criteria were met by Case 8, with the 

exception of the SST closure date, and the treatment end date 

was more than 2 years later than the Baseline Case. The 

increased treatment duration was due to the additional waste 

sent to the WTP from potential CH-TRU waste tanks (the 

starting point for Case 8 was Case 2). Less-than-optimal 

blending of the potential CH-TRU tank waste (due to timing of 

retrievals and waste diversity available) caused more HLW 

glass to be produced. Staging waste in sound SSTs allowed 

SST retrievals to complete earlier than for Case 2, which also 

treated potential CH-TRU waste at the WTP.

SSTs are not currently approved to receive consolidated waste 

and there is significant risk that the effort needed to 

demonstrate that selected SSTs are fit-for-use; implement any 

required engineering, operational, or administrative controls; 

and support an accelerated SST retrieval permitting schedule 

would not support a 2020 project start.

$62.8 B

9 Early U Farm 

closure

Show impacts of

beginning 

U Farm 

retrievals instead 

of A Farm for 

the 

nine retrievals 

after C Farm

All mission success criteria were met by Case 9 and the results 

are similar to those for the Baseline Case. The treatment end 

date is 2 months earlier than the Baseline Case, with a 

$300 million reduction in lifecycle cost.

The total volume of waste retrieved from SSTs during 2020 to 

2025 in Case 9 exceeds that of the Baseline Case due to the 

creation of additional deep sludge tanks to use more DST 

space.

$59.6 B
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-8 

Table ES-2. Summary Results for RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Cases 2 – 10. (4 pages)

Case 

No.

Scenario 

Title Purpose Observations

Lifecycle Cost 

(FY 1997 to 

end of mission)

10 Slow SST 

retrievals

Show impacts on 

the baseline of 

increasing the 

minimum 

retrieval 

durations for 

SSTs

All mission success criteria were met by Case 10, with the 

exception of the SST closure date. The results are similar to 

those for the Baseline Case. The 25% slower SST retrievals in 

the near-term can be tolerated due to schedule contingency 

built into the early retrieval schedules, which allows for a 

reasonable increase in the duration of one retrieval to avoid 

impacting the following retrieval.

$60.8 B

CH-TRU = contact-handled transuranic.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reforming.

HLW = high-level waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

PMB = performance measurement baseline.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

i 

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.3 Hanford Advisory Board.......................................................................... 1-2

1.3 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE................... 1-2

1.4 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP OVERVIEW ....................................................... 1-3

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

1.4.2 Hanford Site Cleanup and Management Areas ........................................ 1-7

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS ................................ 1-9

1.6 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN 

LIFECYCLE REPORT ...................................................................................... 1-13

1.7 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS PROCESS ......................... 1-15

1.8 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT ....................................................... 1-16

1.8.1 Incorporated Changes ............................................................................ 1-16

1.8.2 Future Report Changes .......................................................................... 1-17

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

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

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

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

2.2 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST DEFINITION FOR HANFORD SITE 

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

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

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

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

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

3.4 SCOPE AND COSTS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO CLEANUP ............... 3-7

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

4.1 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

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

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

4.3 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND 

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

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

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

5.2 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE 

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

5.3 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD

(PBS RL-0040) .................................................................................................. 5-23
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ii

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

(PBS RL-0042) .................................................................................................. 5-25

5.5 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) ................................................................................................ 5-31

5.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ............... 5-37

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

6.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 

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

6.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT PLANT 

(PBS ORP-0060) ................................................................................................ 6-11

6.3 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ....... 6-15

6.4 TANK WASTE CLEANUP COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 

ANALYSES – RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT SYSTEM PLAN, 

REVISION 6, SCENARIOS .............................................................................. 6-16

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

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

7.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-1

APPENDICES

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

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

C HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS ................................................................... C-i 

D HANFORD ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST AND SCHEDULE STATUS ................ D-i 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

iii

FIGURES

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

Lifecycle Report Schedule. ...................................................................................... 1-3

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

Cleanup Purposes. .................................................................................................... 1-4

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

Bound in the Lifecycle Report. .............................................................................. 1-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 4-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-13

Figure 5-6. Overview of Hanford Site Groundwater Remedial Actions. ................................. 5-19
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

iv

Figure 5-7. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................ 5-21

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ....................................... 5-22

Figure 5-9. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. ................................................................................................................ 5-24

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

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................... 5-26

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

Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................... 5-27

Figure 5-12. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) 

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-28

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. .......................................................... 5-29

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. ..................................................... 5-30

Figure 5-15. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-32

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................ 5-35

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ....................................... 5-36

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

Figure 6-2. Depictions of Typical Tank Contents. ..................................................................... 6-4

Figure 6-3. Tank Waste Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................. 6-5

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

(PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ..................................................... 6-7

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

(PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ................. 6-9

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

(PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......... 6-10

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

Schedule. ................................................................................................................ 6-11

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

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................. 6-13

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

Estimated Costs by Work Element. ........................................................................ 6-14

Figure 6-10. Comparison of RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Cases to Mission Milestones. ........... 6-23
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

v 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work Element. ........................................................................................................ 7-14

TABLES

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

(All Sites). (3 pages) ................................................................................................ 1-5

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

 ....................................................... 1-8

Table 1-3. Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-036-01. ............................................................ 1-10

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

Been Made. ............................................................................................................. 1-14

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

Alternative Analyses in 2012 Lifecycle Report. .................................................... 1-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3-2. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimates by PBS. ....................................... 3-7
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

vi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages) ....................................................................... 5-14

Table 5-4. Groundwater Operable Unit Remediation. .............................................................. 5-17

Table 5-5. Central Plateau Soil Operable Unit Remediation. ................................................... 5-18

Table 5-6. Summary of Deep Vadose Zone Treatment Technologies Being Tested. .............. 5-20

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 5-24

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 5-28

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) ....................................................................... 5-33

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

Milestones. (2 pages) ................................................................................................ 6-5

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

(PBS ORP-0014) Level 2 Scope Summary. ............................................................. 6-8

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 6-12

Table 6-4. Case Comparison Matrix. (2 pages) ........................................................................ 6-18

Table 6-5. RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Highlights. (3 pages) .................................................... 6-20

Table 6-6. Summary Results for Cases 2 – 10 (3 pages) .......................................................... 6-24

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

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

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

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

Table 7-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....................... 7-12
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

vii

TERMS

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled 

CSB Canister Storage Building

CW Cesium Waste

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

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

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

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

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

DQO data quality objectives

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESH&Q Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality 

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FBSR fluidized bed steam reformer

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

HAB Hanford Advisory Board 

HAMMER Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response; also 

known as the Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education 

Center

HFFACO Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 

HLW high-level waste

HWMA Hazardous Waste Management Act (Washington State)

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IHLW immobilized high-level waste

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste

ISS interim safe storage

LAW low-activity waste

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions 

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LTS long-term stewardship

MLLW mixed low-level waste

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NM nuclear materials

O&M operations and maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PBS project baseline summary
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

viii

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PMB Performance Measurement Baseline

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

PW Plutonium Waste

R&D research and development

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)

RH remote-handled 

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

ROD record of decision

RPP River Protection Project

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SST single-shell tank

TBD to be determined

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TRU transuranic 

TRUM transuranic mixed (waste)

TRUPACT Transuranic Packaging Transporter

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WBS work breakdown structure 

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WMA waste management area

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 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) added a new milestone to the 

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

referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). The TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires that DOE 

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

Ecology each year. 

This document is the Lifecycle Report for 2012. Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 discuss the basis for the 

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

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

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

appendices provide important details and backup information. 

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

information from fiscal year (FY) 2012 to FY 2090. The 2012 Lifecycle Report information 

reflects scope, schedule and cost that is current as of August 31, 2011, and the costs shown have 

been escalated for inflation. Changes that have occurred after this cutoff date (such as the record 

of decision [ROD] for the 200-CW-5, 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 and 200-PW-6 operable units and 

revision of some TPA milestone dates) are shown in Section 1.8 and will be incorporated into 

future reports.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LIFECYCLE REPORT

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

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

agencies) work together and share information about the 

scope, schedule and costs of cleaning up the 

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

Lifecycle Report should serve: 

“...as an agreed upon foundation for 

preparing budget requests and for informational briefings of affected Tribal 

Governments and Hanford stakeholders.

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

how and when the USDOE will complete cleanup, how Congressional 

appropriations for the Hanford Site for that year may affect assumptions 

presented in the report, and how milestone changes and adjustments will 

affect lifecycle scope, schedule and cost.” 

1.2 PREPARING THE LIFECYCLE REPORT

In preparing the Lifecycle Report, DOE considered input from numerous affected parties, as 

discussed below. 

The Lifecycle Report includes the 

remaining scope, schedule and cost 

required for Hanford Site cleanup. The 

report will be used to inform affected 

parties and will help the TPA agencies

make decisions about how best to 

complete Hanford cleanup. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-2 

1.2.1 Tribal Involvement 

Four Tribal Governments are involved in the Hanford Site cleanup: 

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

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

Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla, 1855. 

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

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

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

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

Hanford lands, and participates in discussions regarding Hanford cleanup. 

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

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

DOE consults with the Tribal Governments on a regular basis and will continue to update 

information about their values relevant to this Lifecycle Report.

1.2.2 Oregon Department of Energy

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

Columbia River and its uses. Consistent with legal and other agreements, DOE has committed to 

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

activities affecting cleanup at the Hanford Site. 

1.2.3 Hanford Advisory Board 

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

consisting of a balanced mix of the diverse interests that are affected by Hanford Site cleanup 

issues. The primary mission of the HAB is to provide informed recommendations and advice to 

DOE, EPA, and Ecology on selected major policy issues related to cleanup. The HAB is a DOE 

Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) Site-Specific Advisory Board, a stakeholder 

board that provides DOE’s Assistant Secretary for DOE-EM and designees with independent 

advice, information, and recommendations on issues affecting the DOE-EM program at the 

various Hanford sites. 

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

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

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

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

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

www.hanford.gov/?page=453. That advice was considered in the development of this report.

1.3 LIFECYCLE REPORT AND HANFORD BUDGET SCHEDULE

In developing the Lifecycle Report milestone, the TPA agencies sought to align submittal of the 

report with the annual Federal budget planning process. For most fiscal years, Federal planning 

begins about 2 years before the funded work is executed (Figure 1-1). The cycle begins when 

DOE field offices receive fiscal year budget planning guidance from the President of the United 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-3 

States, DOE-Headquarters (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 to 

DOE-HQ and OMB for review, and then 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. 

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

Schedule.

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

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

have the latest information available when planning begins for the next 2-year budget cycle. 

In addition, the period of time for developing the Lifecycle Report each year overlaps with the 

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

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

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

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

1.4 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP OVERVIEW

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

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

Hanford Site played a pivotal role in the Nation’s defense, eventually producing approximately 

74 tons of plutonium — nearly two-thirds of all the plutonium recovered for government 

purposes in the United States. Today, the Hanford Site includes numerous former nuclear 

material production areas, active and closed research facilities, waste storage and disposal sites, 

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

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

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

described in Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework (DOE/RL-2009-10) dated July 2010. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-4 

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

1.4.1 U.S. Department of Energy Strategic and Cleanup Goals 

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

accomplish cleanup across the DOE complex, including the Hanford Site, as described in 

Table 1-1. 

b
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-5 

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

Journey to Excellence

Strategic Goal Key Strategies to Reach the Goal

Goal 1. Complete the three major 

tank waste treatment construction 

projects within the approved 

baselines.

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

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

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

presence) to succeed in the most efficient manner.

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

Engineers to ensure the best scientific and engineering resources are 

used, so that the technologies selected for development and deployment 

and the design and construction approaches used will help reduce risk, 

lower cost, and accelerate project completion.

• Establish an integrated design/engineering testing and commissioning 

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

enhance technical decision making.

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

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

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

designed and accepted by DOE.)

• Use construction project reviews to identify and assist in resolution of 

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

management, and technical approach.

• Ensure the contract fee is aligned with completion of each capital asset.

Goal 2. Reduce the lifecycle costs 

and accelerate the cleanup of the 

Cold War environmental legacy.

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

advanced modeling and simulation tools to accelerate progress on 

DOE-EM challenges in 2011. 

• Engage the Department’s basic and applied research capabilities to 

develop novel methods for addressing high-level waste that can 

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

• Integrate and manage the technology development and deployment

investment and insert technologies at appropriate maturity.

• Continue to use the National Academy of Sciences, Environmental 

Management Advisory Board, DOE-EM Technical Experts Group, and 

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

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

• Use appropriate system planning models to demonstrate the benefit of 

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

in order to reduce the lifecycle cost of the tank waste cleanup mission.

Goal 3. Complete disposition of 

90 percent of the legacy TRU

waste by the end of 2015.

• Utilize shielded canisters to accelerate transportation and disposal of 

remote-handled TRU wastes. 

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

• Align contract incentives at WIPP and TRU generator sites to support 

specific legacy TRU disposition targets each year.

Goal 4. Reduce the DOE-EM

legacy footprint by 40 percent by 

the end of 2011, leading to 

approximately 90 percent 

reduction by 2015.

• Utilize Hanford’s portion from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. 

• Work with regulators and stakeholders to ensure compliance and timely 

implementation of required cleanup actions.

• Focus on safe completion of DOE-EM activities (TRU waste, low-level 

waste, soil and groundwater, and D&D) resulting in reduced 

environmental risks to the community.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-6 

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

Journey to Excellence

Strategic Goal Key Strategies to Reach the Goal

Goal 5. Improve safety, security 

and quality assurance towards a 

goal of zero accidents, incidents, 

and defects.

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

quality, and evaluate performance indicators that measure these 

functions throughout the applicable lifecycle, including procurement, 

design, engineering, construction, commissioning, operation, 

deactivation/decommissioning, and environmental restoration.

• Use sound science and engineering along with developing a proactive 

relationship with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to 

expeditiously resolve Board concerns and issues.

• Ensure DOE-EM Headquarters and field elements continue to identify 

and deploy strategies and approaches that guarantee strong safety and 

security cultures are in place, such as Human Performance 

Improvement, performance and vulnerability assessments, and 

enhancement of the self-assessment process, focusing improvement 

efforts on areas of poorest performance.

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

decommissioning of DOE-EM facilities.

Goal 6. Improve contract and 

project management with the 

objective of delivering results on 

time and within cost.

• Use the DOE-EM Contract and Project Management Corrective Action 

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

that will lead to successful and sustained execution of DOE-EM

contract and project management improvements.

• Improve and expand the use of independent contract and project 

reviews, construction project reviews, peer reviews, and external 

independent reviews to keep contracts and projects aligned and on 

track. Conduct verification and validation reviews to ensure that 

performance data is credible and reliable.

• Strengthen the integration of acquisition and project management 

processes so that contract statements of work and deliverables are based 

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

analysis, ensuring that nuclear safety requirements are addressed early, 

and changes to contract and project baseline are managed through strict 

and timely change control processes.

• Become a stronger owner by holding contractors accountable and 

pursue partnering relationships to create win-win scenarios, where both 

the Federal staff and contractor staff understand and respect the rules of 

engagement and build better business relationships. Also, build stronger 

relationships with oversight organizations to improve communications 

and demonstrate transparency and accountability in DOE-EM’s contract 

and project management.

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

cost databases, and expertise to improve our ability to perform 

independent government cost estimates as well as independent cost 

reviews and validation of contractor-generated cost estimates.

• Invest in personnel development by providing training and career 

development in contract and project management.

• Make effective use of small and minority owned businesses.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-7 

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

Journey to Excellence

Strategic Goal Key Strategies to Reach the Goal

Goal 7. Achieve excellence in 

management and leadership, 

making DOE-EM one of the best 

places to work in the Federal 

Government.

• Benchmark best-in-class agencies (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

ranked number one in this year’s Partnership for Public Service survey) 

and develop improvement plans in the areas of leadership, planning, 

performance tracking, work/business processes, customer 

service/relations, and accountability.

• Establish sustainability goal targets.

• Support DOE corporate management improvement initiatives.

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

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. 

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

Environmental Management. 

R&D = research and development.

TRU = transuranic. 

TRUPACT = Transuranic Packaging Transporter.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

efforts for the greatest benefit. 

These goals reflect DOE’s recognition that the Columbia River is a critical resource for the 

people and ecology of the Pacific Northwest. The 50-mile stretch of the river known as the 

Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River in the United States. 

As one of the largest rivers in North America, its waters support a multitude of uses that are vital 

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

sustaining Native American culture. The Hanford cleanup must protect this river. 

1.4.2 Hanford Site Cleanup and Management Areas

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

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

area. 

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

the 100 Area and 300 Area along the south shore of the Columbia River, portions of the 400 and 

600 Areas, and the contiguous lands that extend to the Central Plateau boundaries. The 100 Area 

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

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

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

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

groundwater. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-8 

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: Cleanup 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: Cleanup Central Plateau waste sites, tank farms, and facilities to:

• Protect groundwater.

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

• Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 5: Safely manage and transfer legacy materials scheduled for offsite disposition, including special 

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

high-level waste.

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

Goal 7: Develop and implement institutional controls and long-term stewardship activities that protect human 

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

cleanup activities are completed.

1

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

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

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

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

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

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

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

zone and groundwater. The Central Plateau has a large inventory of processing and support 

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

contaminated groundwater.

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

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

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

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

tanks range in capacity from about 55,000 to 1,250,000 gallons and as of October 2010 contain 

approximately 55 million gallons of chemically hazardous radioactive waste from past 

processing operations. Sixty-seven of the Hanford Site’s SSTs are confirmed or presumed to 

have collectively leaked up to 1 million gallons of contamination into the ground. A number of 

associated tank waste facilities, including dozens of inactive underground storage tanks, miles of 

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

the Tank Waste Cleanup component. 

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

Hanford Reach National Monument (Figure 1-2). Much cleanup work has been accomplished 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-9 

within the designated monument area, and remaining work is expected to be completed within 

the next few years either as part of the River Corridor or Central Plateau cleanup projects. 

DOE is coordinating with the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

other agencies to provide care and maintenance of the clean national monument lands. 

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

Gravitational Wave Observatory and the State of Washington, which in turn leases land to 

US Ecology, Inc., a private firm that operates burial grounds for commercial radioactive 

low-level waste. DOE leases land to Energy Northwest (a consortium of public utility 

companies), which operates Washington and Oregon’s only operating commercial nuclear power 

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

Hanford Site and are not included in the Lifecycle Report. 

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

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

DOE Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP).

3

 DOE-RL manages cleanup of most of the 

Hanford Site, and provides human resource, administration, and security services, as well as 

physical infrastructure necessary to perform the cleanup. DOE-ORP was established in response 

to Section 3139 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

to manage the River Protection Project (RPP). The RPP is responsible for the safe storage, 

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

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

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

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS

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

Table 1-3 provides the full text of the approved TPA Milestone M-036-01. 

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

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

applied each requirement during development of this Lifecycle Report. 

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

Lifecycle Report development. The TPA agencies communicated extensively about these 

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

them.

“The report will include all other cleanup and monitoring activities 

(including post-closure activities) and all related actions necessary to 

complete the cleanup mission to provide a complete understanding of the 

resources necessary for the Hanford cleanup mission.” 

 

3

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

by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is overseen by DOE’s Office of Science, Pacific Northwest Site Office.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington V. Chu, Case No. 08-5085-FVS and in the Hanford RCRA/HWMA Permit, including the Hanford 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

forth the bases and assumptions for each cleanup activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adjustments will affect lifecycle scope, schedule and cost.

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

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

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

to internal federal budget deliberations.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protect human health and the environment. 

“This report shall take into account circumstances existing as of the end of 

the fiscal year preceding the month of the report, including funds 

appropriated by Congress for the Hanford cleanup, but shall not assume any 

limitation on funding for future years.” 

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

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

the initial Lifecycle Report.

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

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

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

appropriated by Congress for the Hanford cleanup”). 

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

begins), will take into account what cleanup actions were performed using the FY 2011 

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

cleanup actions planned based on the approved planning case for the remaining lifecycle. 

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

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

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

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

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

is limited. 

“...The report will take into consideration critical resource availability not 

based upon assumed future funding limitations and the practical limits of 

project acceleration when developing an executable plan.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resources and the practical limits that time, space, and other factors impose. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-12

“USDOE may also include costs other than those directly related to 

environmental obligations (such as security costs) but shall clearly 

distinguish expenditures for environmental obligations from other 

expenditures.” 

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

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

materials, employee insurance premiums and pension benefits. The milestone language gives 

DOE the option to include non-environmental costs in the Lifecycle Report, but requires that 

where this occurs, DOE will show which costs are required for meeting environmental 

obligations. 

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

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

will typically be one level below the PBS for the lifecycle, and at levels below 

that for the next two to five years beyond the execution year....”

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

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

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

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

single PBS. There are 12 PBSs that cover Hanford Site cleanup. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

defined with less detailed cost estimates.

“In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the 

report shall be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of 

plausible alternatives or may set forth a range of alternative costs including 

such a reasonable upper bound.” 

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

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

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

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

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

cleanup activity.” 

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

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

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

the particular cleanup action.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-13

1.6 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN 

LIFECYCLE REPORT

Hanford Site cleanup is achieved through an ongoing process for making and then implementing 

cleanup decisions in accordance with approved work plans and procedures, which are the bases 

for performing cleanup actions. When making cleanup decisions, the TPA agencies ensure 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, compare various cleanup alternatives, consider 

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

document selected cleanup actions in legally binding records. 

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

be made at a time when more information and experience can be gained, or after certain facilities 

are no longer needed. For example, decisions on cleaning up the T Plant Canyon Building in the 

Central Plateau will not be made until the TPA agencies have determined when the T Plant will 

not be needed to support Hanford Site cleanup. 

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

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

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

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

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

are not fully defined in TPA Milestone M-036-01: 

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

final decisions? 

• Alternatives. How are alternatives considered when making cleanup decisions and 

defining what cleanup actions should be performed? 

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

alternatives and how are an upper bound cost and schedule calculated? 

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

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

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

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

which final cleanup decisions have not yet been made. 

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

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

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

The alternatives and upper bounds for future cleanup actions contemplate potential decisions, 

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

and values of regulators, Tribal Governments, and stakeholders. 

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

about selected cleanup actions (for which final decisions have not been made). The TPA 

agencies identified approximately 38 cleanup actions for which final cleanup decisions are still 

needed (Table 1-4), and Appendix A proposes a schedule for preparing in-depth cost estimate 

alternative analyses for these cleanup actions. Section 1.7 provides additional information about 

this process. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-14

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

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

• Disposition 100 Area Reactors. 

• Disposition 100 Area 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.

• Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

• Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by 

PNNL. 

• Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites. 

• Restore 300 Area Groundwater to Beneficial Use.

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

• Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 OU). 

• Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated 

Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 

OUs). 

• Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium 

Finishing Plant. 

• Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CB-1 OU). 

• Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU). 

• Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 

OU). 

• Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated

Waste Sites (200-CR-1 OU). 

• Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites. 

• Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules. 

• Remediate 200-SW-1 OU.

• Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal 

Facilities.

• Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, 

and Disposal Facilities.

• Remediate 200-IS-1 OU.

• Remediate 200-SW-2 OU.

• Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 OU). 

• Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 OU). 

• Disposition FFTF Complex. 

• Disposition Remaining Buildings and Facilities 

within FFTF Complex. 

• Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and 

Facilities. 

• Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone 

(200-DV-1 OU). 

• Restore 200 West Groundwater 

(200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 OUs) to Beneficial Use.

• Restore 200 East Groundwater 

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

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

• Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm 

Closure. 

• Tank Waste Treatment. 

• Secondary Waste Treatment. 

• Double-Shell Tank Closure.

• Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

Closure. 

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

OU = operable unit.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

For the 2012 Lifecycle Report, cost estimate alternative analyses have been presented based on 

scenarios evaluated in the River Protection Project System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. ) 

(RPP System Plan [Rev. 6]). Table 1-5 lists the cleanup actions for which cost estimate 

information has been provided in this Lifecycle Report. 

6
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-15

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

in 2012 Lifecycle Report.

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

• Tank Waste - Tank Retrieval and SingleShell Tank Farm Closure

• Tank Waste - Tank Waste Treatment

• Tank Waste - Secondary Waste Treatment

In October 2011, ORP issued the River Protection Project 

System Plan (ORP-11242, Rev. 6), which included a number 

of tank waste management scenarios. The scenarios provide 

information for analyzing plausible alternatives related to 

these three tank waste cleanup actions. Cost estimate 

alternative analysis information is presented in Section 6.4 

of this Lifecycle Report.

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

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

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 USC 9601, 

et seq.) feasibility study or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 

(42 USC 6901, et seq.) corrective measures study or closure plan. The information and analyses 

presented here will be used to inform the public and to support budget requests. All cleanup 

decisions will follow the applicable decision-making process (e.g., CERCLA, RCRA). The 

Lifecycle Report will be updated to reflect these decisions as they are made.

1.7 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS PROCESS

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

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

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

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

of plausible alternatives includes the following steps: 

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

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

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

(see Appendix A).

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

for each annual report (see Appendix A).

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

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

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

cleanup action alternatives and scheduled for the current year’s Lifecycle Report (Table 1-5). 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-16

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

Lifecycle Report.

1.8 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

1.8.1 Incorporated Changes

Written feedback related to the 2011 Lifecycle Report, which was received by November 10, 

2011, from EPA, Ecology, Oregon, Tribal Nations, the HAB, and the public was considered

when preparing this report. However, due to the compressed timing between the close of the 

2011 Lifecycle Report comment period and the production of the 2012 Lifecycle Report many of 

the suggestions cannot be accomplished until the 2013 Lifecycle Report is developed. The 

comments received on the 2011 Lifecycle Report are available on the DOE website at 

www.hanford.gov. 

Significant changes made in this Lifecycle Report from the 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, 

Schedule and Cost Report (DOE/RL-2010-25) include the following items: 

1. Added surplus reactor disposition (except B Reactor) to Hanford Site remaining 

cleanup cost estimate (Table ES-1 and Table 3-2 footnotes). 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-17

2. Added new TPA milestones for SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) to 

Table 4-1 and updated Tables 5-1 and 6-1 to reflect TPA milestone changes.

3. Updated cost and schedule for Nuclear Facility D&D – River Corridor Closure Project 

(PBS RL-0041) in Section 4.1. 

4. Updated cost for Nuclear Facility D&D – Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) in 

Section 5.3. 

5. Updated cost for Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition – 200 Area 

(PBS RL-0013C) in Section 5.5. 

6. Added new cost estimate alternative analyses in Section 6.4 based on scenarios 

evaluated in the RPP System Plan, Rev. 6 (ORP-11242). 

7. Added new Section A.4 to Appendix A to summarize the completed cost estimate 

alternative analyses from the prior Lifecycle Report.

8. Updated Table C-1 in Appendix C to reflect recent CERCLA RODs and associated 

changes.

9. Updated Appendix D to reflect cost and schedule for all PBSs from FY 2012 to 

FY 2090. 

10. Deleted Appendix B, which described the stakeholder views and values used to 

influence the design of the initial Lifecycle Report and the development and analysis of 

the future cleanup actions. 

11. Expanded Section 1.8.1 to summarize the significant changes made to the 2012 

Lifecycle Report, and added Section 1.8.2 to show changes to scope, schedule and cost 

that were not included in this report due to timing. 

12. Deleted Chapter 9.0, Opportunities for Improvement. 

1.8.2 Future Report Changes 

The scope, schedule and cost information presented in the 2012 Lifecycle Report is current as of 

August 31, 2011. This section summarizes regulatory decisions and other changes that have 

occurred after the August 31 cutoff date, as well as other pending changes that will be 

incorporated in future reports. 

1. The ROD for the plutonium and cesium-contaminated waste sites in the 200-CW-5, 

200-PW-1, 200-PW-3 and 200-PW-6 operable units was finalized in September 2011. 

The ROD is summarized in Appendix C, but this report does not reflect the scope, 

schedule and costs of this decision. 

2. Due to FY 2012 budget impacts, several TPA milestone dates have been renegotiated. 

The revised milestone dates and the adjusted schedule and costs are not included in this 

report.

3. The reorganization of Central Plateau operable units resulting from the October 2010 

TPA changes to Central Plateau Cleanup are not reflected in the schedule and costs in 

this report. 

4. Some of the planning case assumptions and costs do not align with the Central Plateau 

Cleanup Completion Strategy (DOE/RL-2009-81).
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-18

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-1 

2.0 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP PLANNING AND INTEGRATION

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

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

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

2.1 PLANNING AND INTEGRATION OVERVIEW

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

budget development practices. A general understanding of common terms and methodology will 

be useful later in this Lifecycle Report, particularly where information about project costs is 

presented. 

2.1.1 Annual Budget Formulation Process

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

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

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

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

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

continues with post-formulation monitoring and responding to questions to estimate impacts of 

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

appropriations. DOE’s budget process occurs in four distinct phases: 

1. Field Budget Process. The field budget process is the first phase of DOE’s annual 

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

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

2. DOE-HQ Corporate Review Budget Process. The DOE-HQ organizations use field 

budget data and spring planning decisions to develop initial organizational budget 

requests that are jointly evaluated and considered in DOE’s internal budget review. 

3. OMB Budget Review Process. The OMB budget review process is the principal 

mechanism for preparing DOE’s annual budget submission to the OMB, which is 

responsible for assembling the President’s annual budget request to Congress. 

4. Congressional Budget Review Process. The Congressional budget review process 

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

Presidential funding and policy determinations in conjunction with Federal budget 

deliberations by Congress. 

The annual budgets developed by DOE and appropriated for spending by Congress are allocated 

to the responsible DOE projects. Congressional budgets commonly provide different allocations, 

include additional requirements, or provide other directions that can affect project planning. 

If adjustments are required, DOE goes through a scheduling and resource-leveling process to 

adjust plans and accommodate the authorized budget. In some cases, this can result in cost and 

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

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

budget direction. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-2 

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

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

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

described below.

2.1.2 U.S. Department of Energy Project Formulation Process

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

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

project management approach. 

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

common geographic location or activity type, typically are grouped as a PBS. Congressional 

funding authorizations typically are also allocated by PBS. Each PBS contains a logical 

grouping of work activities organized in discrete projects or activities by establishing technical 

scope, schedule and cost baselines; defining performance metrics; and providing financial 

history, budget request justification, and other information such as programmatic risk and 

compliance drivers. DOE may define a cleanup project as the entire PBS, or a project may be a 

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

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

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

organized into discrete WBS elements. The WBS provides a product/activities-oriented system 

to arrange, define, and depict all work in a structured framework. This step is essential to 

developing comprehensive bases for planning and managing project-specific scope, schedule and 

cost. Whether the government or a contractor performs the elements, the structure must be 

compatible with cost estimating and scheduling requirements.

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

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

packages, which define the work for each WBS element. Planning packages are used when the 

work has not been completely defined. Budget is assigned to planning packages based on a 

mature estimate, until such time as a work package can be developed. 

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

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

accomplish each task and the sequence of execution. The master schedule should reveal tasks 

that must be completed or partially completed before other tasks begin. These interrelationships 

help define the project’s critical path (the sequence of activities that must be completed on 

schedule for the entire project to be completed on schedule). Task schedules evolve by 

balancing the work to be done against the required completion date to achieve project 

milestones.

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

simultaneously, so work must be organized to ensure existing resources are not overtaxed or 

underutilized. For example, an engineering or craft labor individual cannot be scheduled to 

accomplish more than one work package simultaneously, and the same piece of equipment 

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 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-3 

resources. Resource leveling may result in the need to revise or update a project’s master 

schedule. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discovered sites).

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

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

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

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

escalated to the time when the project will be accomplished. In general, an escalation rate 

between 2.0 and 4.0 percent per year is used. 

2.2 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST DEFINITION FOR HANFORD SITE 

CLEANUP

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

and DOE-ORP have organized their work into PBSs. These PBSs include detailed work 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through Levels 1 through 5. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-4 

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

PBS Title

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP 

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and Disposition

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

RL-0020 Safeguards and Security

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

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford and Infrastructure and Services

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

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

RL-0100 Richland Community and Regulatory Support

RL-LTS Long-Term Stewardship

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

ORP-0060 Major Construction–Waste Treatment Plant

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

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

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

Level 2 RL-12.12 K Basins Closure Project

Level 3 

RL-12.12.01 100–K Safe and Compliant

RL-12.12.02 K Basins Operations and Maintenance

RL-12.12.03 Facility Operations

RL-12.12.11 100-K Facilities Deactivation

RL-12.12.15 105-K West Basin Deactivation and Demolition

RL-12.12.16 Sludge Treatment Project

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-5 

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

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

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

Level 3 040.03.01 100 Area Surveillance and Maintenance

Level 4 040.03.01.01 100 Area Facility Surveillance and Maintenance

Level 5 040.03.01.01.03 100 Area Reactor Inspection

Level 6 

 040.03.01.01.03.01 Preparation for Inspection - Work Plan

 040.03.01.01.03.03 Remove weld from doors

 040.03.01.01.03.04 Blow Fresh Air Into Reactor Area and Check Air Quality

 040.03.01.01.03.05 Survey Reactor Interior

 040.03.01.01.03.06 Inspection Team Inspection Walk Down

 040.03.01.01.03.07 Weld Doors Closed

 040.03.01.01.03.08 Demobilize Site

 040.03.01.01.03.09 Inspection Report

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

modernization to support major projects). 

Chapters 4.0 through 7.0 summarizes information at PBS Level 2, and includes the work 

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

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

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

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

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

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

near-term work, and at Level 2 for the entire Hanford Site cleanup. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-6 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-1 

3.0 HANFORD SITE INTEGRATED LIFECYCLE SUMMARY 

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

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

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

3.1 HANFORD SITE LIFECYCLE SCOPE

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

Plateau, and Tank Waste (the Tank Waste component is contained geographically within the 

Central Plateau). The cleanup includes Mission Support activities that provide key infrastructure 

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

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

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

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

addressed.

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

Office of River Protection. (2 pages)

Lifecycle 

Report 

Section

PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope

CHAPTER 4.0 – RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

River 

Corridor 

(Section 4.1) 

RL-0041 Nuclear Facility D&D–

River Corridor Closure 

Project

None Cleanup of the River Corridor 

waste sites and facilities, 

including placing the reactors in 

interim safe storage (this scope 

excludes groundwater

remediation, which is addressed 

through PBS RL-0030). 

River 

Corridor 

(Section 4.2) 

RL-0012 SNF Stabilization and 

Disposition

K Basins Closure Project Removal of the K Basin sludges, 

found spent nuclear fuel and fuel 

scrap. 105-KW SNF Basin 

deactivation and removal work

scope will be shifted to RL-0041 

in FY 2012. 

CHAPTER 5.0 – CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.1) 

RL-0011 NM Stabilization and 

Disposition–PFP

PFP Closure Project Demolition of aboveground 

facilities and structures at PFP.

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.2) 

RL-0030 Soil and Water 

Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose 

Zone

Groundwater Project Decision-making process for 

groundwater and waste sites and 

Hanford Site-wide groundwater 

remediation. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-2 

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

Office of River Protection. (2 pages)

Lifecycle 

Report 

Section

PBS Official Title Alternate Titles General Scope

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.3) 

and Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.3) 

RL-0040 Nuclear Facility D&D–

Remainder of Hanford

This PBS has two parts: 

1. RL-0040 Central 

Plateau Remediation 

2. RL-0040 Infrastructure 

and Services or 

Mission Support

Cleanup of the Central Plateau 

waste sites and facilities, 

including canyon facilities. 

Scope activities directly managed 

by the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations 

Office and the management, 

repair, and capital upgrades to 

infrastructure. 

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.4) 

RL-0042 Nuclear Facility D&D–

Fast Flux Test Facility 

Project

None Demolition of the Fast Flux Test 

Facility and associated waste sites 

and structures. 

Central 

Plateau 

(Section 5.5) 

RL-0013C Solid Waste 

Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area

Solid and Liquid Waste 

Disposition Project

Waste management operations, 

including storage, treatment, and 

disposal of Hanford Site waste 

streams and offsite wastes1

. 

CHAPTER 6.0 – TANK WASTE CLEANUP

Tank Waste

Cleanup 

(Section 6.1) 

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid 

Tank Waste

Stabilization and 

Disposition

None Operations, retrieval, treatment, 

and closure of the single-shell 

and double-shell tanks. 

Tank Waste

Cleanup 

(Section 6.2) 

ORP-0060 Major Construction–

Waste Treatment Plant

None Construction of the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant. 

CHAPTER 7.0 – MISSION SUPPORT

Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.1) 

RL-0020 Safeguards and 

Security

None Protection of the Hanford Site, 

special materials, resources, and 

workers.

Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.2) 

RL-0100 Richland Community 

and Regulatory Support

None Support for community and 

regulatory interaction, including 

the Hanford Advisory Board, the 

Natural Resource Trustee 

Council, the Oregon Department 

of Energy, and the Washington 

State Department of Ecology.

Mission 

Support 

(Section 7.4) 

RL-LTS Long-Term 

Stewardship (LTS)

Post-cleanup LTS Infrastructure support, 

surveillance and maintenance, 

community support, and 

management activities following 

completion of cleanup activities. 

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

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-3 

3.2 HANFORD SITE CLEANUP SCHEDULE

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 3-1 shows River Corridor Cleanup complete by FY 2020 (River Corridor Closure Project 

in 2017, 100-K Area in 2020), Tank Waste Cleanup complete by FY 2050, Central Plateau 

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

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). 

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 3-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule.

3.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST

The DOE remaining cleanup costs are estimated to be about $112 billion to complete the scope 

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

scope accounts for about $51 billion, or about 46 percent of the total costs. DOE-ORP scope 

accounts for about $61 billion, or about 54 percent. These estimates include cost uncertainty 

because many of the final cleanup decisions have not been made. Once these decisions are 

made, estimates will be revised.

Tank Waste Cleanup

Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule

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

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

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

finally, to the transition to long-term stewardship.

FY2010 FY2020 FY2030 FY2040 FY2050 FY2060 FY2070 FY2080 FY2090 FY2100

Central Plateau Cleanup

Mission Support Long-Term Stewardship

River Corridor Cleanup

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-4 

Figure 3-2 summarizes the Hanford Site estimated remaining cleanup cost distribution between 

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

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

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

costs for each PBS.

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

DOE-RL 

DOE-ORP $51 billion

$61 billion

Hanford Site

Remaining Cost 

Estimate

FY 2012 - FY 2090

$112 billion
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-5 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

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

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

2012

2025

2038

2051

2064

2077

2090

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

DOE-ORP Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year

DOE-RL Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-6 

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

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

2012

2025

2038

2051

2064

2077

2090

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

NFD&D = Nuclear Facility D&D

I&S = Infrastructure and Services

See Appendix D for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-7 

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

Project Work Scope

Estimated Cleanup 

Costs

1

(Billion $)

DOE-RL Total Remaining Estimated Costs $44.3 - $50.7

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.9 - $1.0

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) $0.4 - $0.5 

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $8.0 - $9.0 

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $3.2 

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $7.6 - $8.1 

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $12.9 - $17.2 

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) $2.2 - $2.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.7 - $1.8

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

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

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

DOE-ORP Total Remaining Estimated Costs $54.8 - $61.0 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $49.8 - $56.0 

Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $5.0 

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Costs2 $99.1 - $111.7 1

 Cost 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 D for details.

2 Excludes approximately $1.9 billion to complete Final Reactor Disposition by FY 2068 (escalated $676 million removal 

cost from 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report [DOE/RL-2010-25]).

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

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

River Protection.

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

Operations Office.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary. 

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

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

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

3.4 SCOPE AND COSTS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO CLEANUP

As stated in TPA Milestone M-036-01: 

“USDOE may also include costs other than those directly related to 

environmental obligations (such as security costs) but shall clearly 

distinguish expenditures for environmental obligations from other 

expenditures.” 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-8 

For purposes of this 2012 Lifecycle Report, DOE has treated all Hanford Site scope and costs as 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

only authorized workers are allowed onsite to perform cleanup work. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-1 

4.0 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP

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

production and operations areas: 

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

and related waste sites.

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

related waste sites.

• 400 Area – the buildings and waste sites other than

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

debris sites.

the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). 

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

related to the 100-K Area is scheduled for completion by FY 2024 per TPA Milestone M-016-00 

(Table 4-1) in conjunction with SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) and Solid 

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

DOE manages the River Corridor Cleanup through two projects, which are planned and funded 

under separate PBSs:

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

cleanup of waste sites, burial grounds, and facilities in the 100, 300, 400, and 600 Areas 

and the interim safe storage (ISS) of the C, D, DR, F, H, KE, KW, and N Reactors. This 

project is currently responsible for operating and maintaining the ERDF, located on the 

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

Corridor and other Hanford Site cleanup operations. Section 4.1 discusses the scope of 

this project.

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

sludge from the K Basins. The 105-KW Basin deactivation and removal work scope is 

being transferred to PBS RL-0041. Section 4.2 discusses the scope of this project. 

Groundwater cleanup is underway in the River Corridor. DOE-RL manages the groundwater 

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

covers groundwater remediation for the entire Hanford Site. Therefore, the groundwater 

associated with the River Corridor is discussed in the Central Plateau Cleanup in Section 5.2. 

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

in Appendix C and with key TPA milestones as listed in Table 4-1. These TPA milestones 

provide the structure that the TPA agencies have agreed to for Hanford Site priorities and scope 

sequencing. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-2 

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

Milestone Title Compliance 

Date

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

M-016-00 Complete remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon OUs. 09/30/2024

M-016-00A Complete all interim response actions for the 100 Areas, excluding K Area. 12/31/2012

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

M-016-00C Complete all response actions for the 100-K Area, including regulatory agency 

approval of project closeout documents. 12/31/2020

M-016-47 Complete interim remedial actions for 100-D Area. 12/31/2011

M-016-51 Complete interim remedial actions for 100-H Area. 12/31/2011

M-016-53 Complete interim response actions for 100-K Area within the perimeter boundary and 

to the river for Phase I actions. 12/31/2012

M-016-55 Complete interim response actions for 100-N Area. 12/31/2012

M-016-56 Complete interim remedial actions for 100-IU-2 and 100-IU-6. 02/28/2012

M-016-69 Complete all interim 300 Area remedial actions. 09/30/2015

M-016-74 Complete interim remediation for all 300 Area “inside the fence” waste sites north of 

Apple Street. 09/30/2012

M-016-75 Initiate substantial and continuous remediation on the 309 facility. 09/30/2013

M-016-139 Complete revegetation of 300-FF-2 OU waste sites governed by Milestone M-016-74. 03/31/2013

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. 12/31/2015

M-016-178 Initiate Deactivation of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/2015

M-016-181 Complete Deactivation, Demolition and Removal of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 09/30/2019

M-016-186 Initiate Soil Remediation Under 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/2019

M-089-00 Closure of non-permitted mixed waste units in 324 Building Radiochemical 

Engineering Cells B and D. 09/30/2012

M-092-16 Complete removal/transfer/initiate storage of PH-III 300 Area special case waste. 09/30/2015

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

M-093-20 Complete 105-N Reactor ISS. 09/30/2012

M-093-22 Complete 105-KE Reactor ISS. 07/31/2014

M-093-26 Initiate 105-KW Reactor ISS. 12/31/2015

M-093-27 Complete 105-KW Reactor ISS. 12/31/2019

M-094-00 Complete disposition of 300 Area surplus facilities. 09/30/2015

M-094-08

Complete the selected removal and/or remedial actions for 11 of the following high 

priority facilities: 305B, 306E, 306W, 307 Retention Basins, 308, 309, 321, 323, 324, 

324B, 327, 333, 340, 3706, and 3720.

06/30/2012

M-094-09

Complete the selected removal and/or remedial actions for 13 of the following highpriority facilities: 305B, 306E, 306W, 307 Retention Basins, 308, 309, 321, 323, 324, 

324B, 326, 327, 329, 333, 340, 3706, and 3720; to include the 323 Facility. 

09/30/2013

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012)

M-016-171 Complete K Basin sludge treatment and packaging technology evaluation report and 

submit a schedule including proposed new interim milestones for bench scale or 

identified testing in order to meet M-016-173.

03/31/2012

M-016-172 Complete KOP material removal from 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 09/30/2012

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

sludge treatment and packaging milestones.

03/31/2015

M-016-174 Complete final design of sludge retrieval and transfer system. 09/30/2013

M-016-175 Begin sludge removal from 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 09/30/2014

M-016-176 Complete sludge removal from 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/2015

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

ISS = interim safe storage.

KOP = knock-out pot.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TBD = to be determined.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-3 

4.1 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0041) 

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

areas of the Hanford Site located in the Columbia River Corridor in accordance with the existing 

interim RODs and future final RODs (see Appendix C). Anticipated land uses for the River 

Corridor are described in DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan

Environmental Impact Statement, and in the pursuant ROD. 

The River Corridor Closure Project has established the following cleanup objectives: 

• Remediate waste sites. 

• Deactivate, decontaminate, decommission, and demolish (D4) facilities.

• Place eight plutonium production reactors into ISS. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 depict 

C Reactor before and after the ISS process. Table 4-2 provides the status of the reactors. 

Note B Reactor’s status as a National Historic Landmark. 

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

and support to other Hanford Site waste generators. 

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

National Priorities List.

• The River Corridor Closure Project includes remediation of the 600 Area burial sites 

618-10 and 618-11 by September 30, 2015. 

Figure 4-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe 

Storage.

Figure 4-2. C Reactor in Interim Safe Storage.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-4 

Table 4-2. Reactor Status.

Reactor Status (as of August, 2012) Remaining Activity

B Named National Historic Landmark by U.S. 

Department of Interior in 2008. Reactor 

open for escorted public tours.

Remaining remediation (basin material disposition) to 

be complete by 2012. In July 2011, the National Park 

Service recommended to Congress inclusion of 

B Reactor into a Manhattan Project National Historic 

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 was started in 2011 and scheduled for 

completion by July 14, 2014; 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; final disposition of reactor block. 

N Reactor ISS underway. ISS (scheduled to be complete by September 30, 2012); 

final disposition of reactor block. 

ISS = interim safe storage.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-5 

Figure 4-3 depicts the primary Level 2 work elements within the Nuclear Facility D&D–River 

Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) remaining cleanup schedule. Table 4-3 summarizes the 

scope for the Level 2 work elements. 

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

Schedule. 

Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Remaining Cleanup Schedule

Interim regulatory decisions are in place for the majority of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure 

Project work scope. These decisions identify the remove, treat as needed, and dispose alternative for waste 

sites and deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition for the buildings and structures. 

The reactors will be placed in interim safe storage pending a future action to move them to the Central 

Plateau. 

Nuclear Facility D&D – River Corridor Closure (100-K Area Remediation)

Reactor ISS Closure

Field Remediation Closure

Waste Operations

Final Closure

Mission/General Support

D4 Closure

B Reactor

FY2012 FY2014 FY2016 FY2018 FY2020
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-6 

Table 4-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

D4 Closure This work element includes D4 of approximately 500 facilities, provision of utility and 

surveillance and maintenance services during D4, and closure of utilities located in the River 

Corridor. The D4 closure buildings are located throughout the River Corridor in the 100, 

300, 400, and 600 Areas of the Hanford Site. Typical hazards associated with the buildings 

include radiological contamination (e.g., uranium, mixed fission products, activation 

products, plutonium), chemical hazards (e.g., beryllium, asbestos, laboratory chemicals), and 

industrial hazards (e.g., elevated working locations, degraded roofs, biological hazards, 

electrical hazards, excavations).

The D4 process includes obtaining regulatory approvals; characterizing the hazards and 

waste; deactivating the facility by removing loose hazardous materials and equipment; 

decontaminating the facility to allow open-air demolition; and decommissioning the facility 

by disconnecting utilities and services. The structure is then demolished using techniques 

such as heavy equipment (e.g., track hoe, processor, loader, cranes), explosives, cutting 

equipment, or other methods and the demolition debris is disposed, generally to ERDF. 

Following demolition, samples are collected to verify that cleanup criteria are met, and the 

sites are backfilled and revegetated. 

Reactor Interim 

Safe Storage 

(ISS) Closure

This work element includes removal of reactor area buildings and components, leaving the 

reactor blocks intact in ISS. The reactors will then undergo surveillance, monitoring, and 

maintenance for a period of time up to 75 years, to allow radionuclides to decay. Following 

this period, the reactor blocks will be removed from their current locations and transported 

to the 200 Area for disposal. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show the change in reactor site 

footprint before and after being placed in ISS. 

Field 

Remediation 

Closure

This work element includes performing CERCLA field remediation and closure of 

contaminated waste sites and burial grounds within the River Corridor. This includes design 

and closure; confirmatory sampling; remediation of waste sites, liquid waste sites, and burial 

grounds; miscellaneous restoration; and support activities. The RODs for the Field 

Remediation Closure work scope generally identify RTD as the preferred alternative. 

(RODs are identified in Appendix C.) In addition to RTD, confirmatory sites were 

identified that require sampling to determine the need for RTD. Following sampling, these 

sites either become RTD sites or are closed as no-action sites.

Contamination in the waste sites and burial grounds of the River Corridor include chemical 

and radioactive constituents, such as asbestos, lead, chromium, carbon tetrachloride, 

strontium, uranium, cesium, and tritium. The cleanup process involves sampling and 

analyzing the site to determine the extent and type of contamination, excavating 

contaminated waste materials, and restoring the landscape through site backfill, grading, and 

revegetation.

Waste Operations This work element includes the transportation, disposal, and treatment (if required) of waste 

from the River Corridor Cleanup activities, as well as from other Hanford Site cleanup 

operators. Waste operations will expand and operate the ERDF, and transition the ERDF to 

a successor operator at the end of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project. 

Final Closure This work includes preparing an integrated River Corridor work plan for a CERCLA 

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

conducting a risk evaluation for River Corridor areas outside of the 100 and 300 Areas; 

conducting orphan site evaluations; conducting surface soil surveys; preparing remedial 

action reports; preparing a remedial investigation report and a proposed plan for River 

Corridor source areas. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-7 

Table 4-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Mission/General 

Support

This work element consists of functional support and business operations necessary to 

achieve River Corridor Closure and field project objectives. This includes providing trained 

and qualified staff, performance standards, facilities services, and office supplies. General 

support functions include safety, health and quality, regulatory and environmental 

management, project integration, project services, engineering services, and Office of the 

Project General Manager.

B Reactor This work element includes management and oversight for B Reactor facility activities, 

including planning, directing, and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, and 

preserve the B Reactor facility in a safe condition.

Nuclear Facility 

D&D–River 

Corridor Closure 

(100-K Area

Remediation)

This work element includes remediation of waste sites and building and structure D4 in the 

100-K Area. These activities are consistent with the activities identified for D4 closure and 

field remediation closure, but are managed by a separate contract due to the need to 

complete removal of sludge from KW Basin prior to completing the remediation. Work is 

underway utilizing separate contracts for work inside versus outside the fence at the Nuclear 

Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (100-K Area Remediation). The scope 

includes the ISS of the KE and KW Reactors consistent with the other 100 Area reactors.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

PBS = project baseline summary.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

Figure 4-4 presents the remaining cleanup costs for PBS RL-0041 by fiscal year, and Figure 4-5 

presents the remaining estimated costs by work element. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-8 

Figure 4-4. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-9 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$100

$200

2012

2016

2020

2024

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-22 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-10

4.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) 

The Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) provides for 

safe stabilization, packaging, and interim storage of SNF sludge. After removal of the sludges, 

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

The mission requires sludge removal and treatment in concert with deactivating and dismantling 

the remaining K Basin systems and structures as they are no longer needed for the sludge project. 

At the completion of this project, significant hazards to workers, the public, and the environment 

will have been eliminated.

The major cleanup objectives for the SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) 

are: 

• All SNF will be removed from the K Basins and repackaged, dried, and transported to 

interim storage at the Canister Storage Building (CSB). 

• Sludge material from K Basin knock-out pots will be pretreated, packaged, dried, and 

transported to interim storage at the CSB pending disposal at a future repository. 

• The remaining sludge will be retrieved and shipped to an interim onsite storage facility, 

then treated and packaged for shipment to an offsite disposal facility. 

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

• The water in the 105-KW Basin, after treatment with existing ion exchange equipment, 

will be transported to the 200 Area for treatment and disposal. 

The work scope for SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) is organized into 

six main work elements, as shown in Figure 4-6, which also presents the remaining cleanup 

schedule. Additional scope information on these work elements is provided in Table 4-4. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-11

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

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Cleanup Schedule

Through the course of this project, hazards associated with spent nuclear fuel in the 100-K Area basins are 

reduced as the sludge is removed, processed, and properly disposed. The basins are demolished to support 

transition of the 105-K East and 105-K West Reactors to interim safe storage. Following sludge removal, the 

cleanup of the 100-K Area waste sites and facilities can be completed under Nuclear Facility D&D-River 

Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041).

100-K Safe and Compliant

Facility Operations

KW Basin D&D

Sludge Treatment Project

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

K Basins O&M

100-K Facilities Deactivation
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-12

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

Work Element Scope Description

100-K Safe and 

Compliant

This work element provides for the safety of workers, the public, and the environment 

from K Basin infrastructure and contaminated materials through monitoring, 

surveillance, containment, and management activities.

KW Basin and 

CVDF Operations 

and Maintenance

This work element includes dose data gathering and analysis; sampling and 

characterization of both radioactive and hazardous waste to maintain compliance within 

the 105-KW Basin (note that 105-KE Basin already has been demolished); and basic 

plant maintenance and general duties and operations to keep the 105-KW Basin and 

CVDF in a safe and compliant condition.

Facility Operations This work element includes auxiliary operations support, conduct of operations support, 

waste management support, and sample management support. Specific tasks include, but 

are not limited to, operational and environmental sampling, operation of potable and 

service water supplies, and conduct of operations. 

100-K Facilities

Deactivation

This work element will be performed under PBS RL-0041. 

KW Basin 

Deactivation and 

Demolition

This work element covers the deactivation, including utility isolation, and dewatering of 

the 105-KW Basin followed by activities, such as asbestos abatement, to prepare the 

basin for demolition. The demolition of the 105-KW Basin will be conducted similar to 

the 105-KE Basin demolition that was completed in FY 2009. The garnet filter material 

will be transferred to appropriate containers, sampled, and shipped to an appropriate 

onsite disposal facility. The filters themselves will be grouted and shipped to ERDF as 

monoliths.

Sludge Treatment 

Project

This work element includes the design, procurement, fabrication, installation, testing, 

startup, operation, deactivation, and decontamination of the equipment necessary to 

perform the functions to remove consolidated containerized sludge, knock-out pot 

sludge, and settler tank sludge from the 105-KW Basin, to then stabilize and package the 

sludge for interim storage at the Hanford Site. Once stabilized and placed into storage, 

the waste stream will be handed off to another project area (PBS RL-0013C, Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area) for final disposition to WIPP or other disposal 

facilities.

CVDF = Cold Vacuum Drying Facility.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

FY = fiscal year.

PBS = project baseline summary.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Figure 4-7 presents remaining estimated cleanup costs for SNF Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS RL-0012) by fiscal year, and Figure 4-8 presents remaining estimated cleanup costs by 

work element. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-13

Figure 4-7. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-14

Figure 4-8. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-5 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-15

4.3 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, there are uncertainties that are analyzed to estimate 

potential scope, schedule and cost changes. The following assumptions are identified for 

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

• Final RODs will confirm that cleanup levels established in the interim RODs are 

protective of human health and the environment. Additional work scope to address 

ecological receptors will not significantly impact cost or schedule.

• Regulatory changes will not require additional activities (e.g., document revisions, 

additional sampling) that would significantly affect costs or schedules. 

• The B Reactor National Historic Landmark designation will not impact the completion 

dates or cost of other cleanup activities. 

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operating facilities will be available in 

accordance with current schedules for the 300 Area cleanup. 

For SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012), the following assumptions are currently 

identified: 

• Compliance with regulatory standards and requirements will provide an adequate level of 

protection for the worker, public health, safety, and the environment during operations 

activities and after D4 is complete. 

• ERDF waste acceptance criteria will not change substantially. 

• T Plant is acceptable for sludge storage and no pretreatment for the sludge is needed 

before transfer.

• Post-CERCLA ROD treatability studies and focused feasibility studies will not affect the 

sludge treatment process.

Some of these assumptions may be subject to change because of schedule uncertainty

(e.g., turnover dates for PNNL facilities and the K Basins). However, the River Corridor 

Closure Project Project Execution Plan (DOE 2010a), developed in accordance with 

DOE O 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, is 

under change control and will accommodate assumption changes. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-16

This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-1 

5.0 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP

The Central Plateau is a 75-square-mile area near the center of the Hanford Site that contains 

approximately 900 excess facilities, including five massive chemical processing facilities called 

canyons, and roughly 800 non-tank farm waste sites. The Central Plateau is also home to 

ongoing waste management operations, such as the Mixed Waste Low-Level Burial Grounds, 

liquid waste facilities, and the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility. Infrastructure 

services (e.g., power, water, telecommunication lines), either existing or to be constructed, in the 

Central Plateau are needed to support cleanup. This collection of facilities, waste sites, canyons, 

and ongoing waste management operations and infrastructure is spread across the Central 

Plateau. The tank waste and WTP facilities on the Central Plateau are discussed in Chapter 6.0 

as part of DOE-ORP’s scope. 

During site operations, 450 billion gallons of liquid waste were discharged to the ground; most 

within the Central Plateau (TRAC-0151-VA, Historical Perspective of Radioactively 

Contaminated Liquid and Solid Wastes Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford). These 

past releases have created extensive plumes of groundwater contamination with a combined area 

of approximately 72 square miles that exceeds drinking water standards (DOE/RL-2011-01, 

Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2010). A significant portion of the 

contamination remains in the soil column above the water table and poses a potential threat to 

groundwater. Interim groundwater treatment is in place for contaminant plumes in the 200 West

Area and in several locations in the 100 Areas. An ROD for the large carbon tetrachloride plume 

in the 200 West Area (200-ZP-1 OU) was signed in 2008 (EPA 2008, Record of Decision 

Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington).

Active waste management facilities are operating to support the ongoing cleanup and many of 

these facilities will be required to support cleanup in the future. These facilities include liquid 

effluent treatment, solid waste packaging and handling, solid waste disposal, spent fuel storage, 

analytical laboratories, and the WTP for treatment of radioactive tank waste. 

In the Central Plateau, the cleanup objective is to remediate waste sites and to decommission and 

demolish excess facilities in a manner that is protective of the environment, safe for the worker, 

and cost effective. Central Plateau Cleanup is organized into three major components: Inner 

Area, Outer Area, and Groundwater (DOE/RL-2009-81, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion 

Strategy). 

The Inner Area is defined as the part of the Hanford Site that will require long-term waste 

management and containment of residual contamination. The objective is to make this area as 

small as practical and is anticipated to be less than 10 square miles. 

The Outer Area includes all areas of the Central Plateau beyond the boundary of the Inner Area. 

It is DOE’s intent to clean up the Outer Area to a level comparable to the River Corridor (that is, 

suitable for unrestricted surface use, under continued Federal ownership and control, and 

consistent with the anticipated future land use of conservation/mining). 

The goal of the groundwater component is to restore it to its beneficial uses. TPA milestone 

revisions, which support this approach, were recently finalized (October 25, 2010) 

(Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS). 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-2 

Cleanup work scope in the Central Plateau is managed through five projects: 

• NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011 (Inner Area). 

• Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030 (entire Hanford 

Site, including both Inner and Outer Areas and the River Corridor). 

• Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040 (includes the geographical 

cleanup of waste sites and facilities, including the remaining canyon facilities [Inner and 

Outer Areas]). 

• Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042 (includes the FFTF

[located in River Corridor]). 

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

Figure 5-1 presents the remaining cleanup schedule for the Central Plateau. Cleanup is being 

done in accordance with RODs and action memoranda as listed in Appendix C and with key 

TPA milestones as listed in Table 5-1. 

Figure 5-1. Central Plateau Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

Central Plateau Remaining Cleanup Schedule

The Central Plateau contains large canyon facilities used for fuel processing that produced large volumes of 

liquid and solid waste. Some of this waste has been stored in underground tanks, while other waste was 

discharged to or placed in the ground. A number of support facilities are located in the Central Plateau. 

Cleanup of the Central Plateau is generally in the early phases of the regulatory decision process; however, 

two major records of decision are in place and active cleanup work is ongoing for the groundwater, a canyon 

facility, and a number of soil waste sites. End dates of some work elements are in part to support DOE-ORP

scope.

FY2010 FY2020 FY2030 FY2040 FY2050 FY2060 FY2070

Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition-200 Area

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP

Nuclear Facility D&D-FFTF Project

Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford 

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-3 

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011

M-083-44 

Complete transition of the 234-5Z (Plutonium Conversion Facility) 

and ZA (Plutonium Conversion Support Facility), 243-Z Low-Level 

Waste Treatment Facility, 291-Z Exhaust Building, and 291-Z-1 

Exhaust Stack to support PFP decommissioning. 

09/30/2015

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. 09/30/2012

M-085-50 

Submit revised removal action work plan for the 224B 

Concentration Facility in accordance with DOE/RL-2004-36, Action 

Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

224-B Plutonium Concentration Facility. 

12/31/2015

M-085-51 

Submit removal action work plan for the 224T Transuranic Storage 

and Assay Facility in accordance with DOE/RL-2004-68, Action 

Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

224-T Plutonium Concentration Facility. 

12/31/2025

M-085-60 Complete Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis report(s) for all 

Tier 2 facilities listed in Appendix J of the Tri-Party Agreement. 03/31/2018

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 

Milestone M-091-44T
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-4 

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-091-01

Complete the acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing 

facilities, and modification of planned facilities necessary for 

retrieval, storage, and treatment/processing, of all Hanford Site 

RCRA TRUM waste.

Date to be established 

pursuant to Milestones 

M-091-01A and 

M-091-01B

M-091-01A

Complete the conceptual design for acquisition of capabilities and/or 

acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing facilities, 

and/or modification of planned facilities necessary for retrieval, 

designation, storage, and treatment/processing prior to disposal of all 

Hanford Site RH TRUM waste and TRUM waste in large containers

(in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable 

storage). 

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). 

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). 

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
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-5 

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

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

M-015-00

Complete the RI/FS (or RCRA facility investigation/corrective 

measures study and RI/FS) process for all non-tank farm OUs except 

for canyon/associated past practice waste site OUs covered in 

M-085-00. 

12/31/2016

M-015-21A Submit a 200-BP-5 and 200-PO-1 OU feasibility study report and 

proposed plan(s) to Ecology. 06/30/2015

M-015-38B

Submit a revised feasibility study report and revised proposed 

plan(s) for the 200-CW-1, 200-CW-3, and 200-OA-1 OUs for waste 

sites in the Outer Area of the Central Plateau to EPA. 

10/30/2014

M-015-91B Submit feasibility study report(s) and proposed plan(s) for the 

200-BC-1/200-WA-1 OUs (200 West Inner Area) to EPA. 12/31/2015

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

M-015-93B

Submit RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study and 

RI/FS report and proposed corrective action decision/proposed plan 

for the 200-SW-2 OU to Ecology.

12/31/2016

M-015-110B

Submit corrective measures study and feasibility study report and 

proposed plan/proposed corrective action decision for the 200-DV-1 

OU to Ecology. 

09/30/2015

M-015-110D

Submit technetium-99 pilot scale treatability study test report(s) as 

an element of remedial investigation for the 200-BC-1/200-WA-1 

OUs to EPA. 

06/30/2012

M-016-120

DOE will have a groundwater treatment system (not to exceed 

50 gal/min pump-and-treat capacity) for the technetium-99 plume at 

the S/SX Tank Farm within the 200-UP-01 OU. 

08/31/2012

M-016-122

Begin Phase I operation of the new 200 West pump-and-treat system 

per the 200 West Area 200-ZP-1 Pump-and-Treat Remedial 

Design/Remedial Action Work Plan (DOE/RL-2008-78) and the 

200-ZP-1 Record of Decision (EPA 2008). 

12/31/2011

M-024-00O Complete required well installations in accordance with the RCRA 

and CERCLA groundwater requirements. TBD

M-037-02

Submit revised closure plans to support TSD closure for five TSD 

units: 207-A South Retention Basin, 216-A-29 Ditch, 216-A-36B 

Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, and 216-B-63 Trench.

06/30/2014

M-037-03 Submit revised closure plans to support TSD closure for two TSD 

units: 216-B-3 Main Pond System, and 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch. 04/30/2012
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-6 

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq. 

DOE/RL-2004-36, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 224-B Plutonium 

Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2004-68, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 224-T Plutonium 

Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2008-78, 2009, 200 West Area 200-ZP-1 Pump-and-Treat Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Rev. 0 

Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

WAC 173-303-140, “Land Disposal Restrictions,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

CH = contact-handled.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

LDR = Land Disposal Restrictions.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

NM = nuclear material.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant). 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant). 

RH = remote-handled.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

TBD = to be determined.

TRUM = transuranic mixed (waste).

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

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

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) complex was constructed at the Hanford Site 200 West

Area in the late 1940s. Its mission was to convert plutonium nitrate product to the more stable 

oxide, metal, and oxalate forms for safer shipment to nuclear weapons fabrication facilities. 

In 1989, plutonium production operations ended at PFP and removing the plutonium inventory 

and plant D4 were assigned high national priority (HNF-EP-0924, History and Stabilization of 

the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex Hanford Site). 

Cleanup and demolition to slab-on-grade of the PFP complex is being conducted as a closure 

project under NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011), also known as the 

PFP Closure Project (DOE/RL-2005-13, 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 the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Shipment of the remaining PFP plutonium 

inventory to DOE storage facilities was completed in 2009. 

The PFP Closure Project scope requires D4 of PFP systems and structures to accomplish the 

defined project endpoint completion criteria in compliance with all applicable agreements, 

regulations, and CERCLA, 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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-7 

Major cleanup objectives for PFP closure are to:

• Remove plutonium-bearing material and waste, including un-irradiated fuel, slightly 

irradiated fuel, and other nuclear materials from PFP facilities (removing the plutonium 

inventory was completed in 2009; residual plutonium is removed in the cleanup process). 

• Eliminate the Protected Area at PFP (this scope was completed in 2009).

• Clean out and demolish facilities in the PFP complex (currently underway with two 

major and numerous minor facilities complete).

• Transfer the remainder of the PFP complex to RL-0040 for final remediation. Waste 

sites and subsurface facilities will be managed through the remediation of the 

200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5 OUs and the new 200-WA-1 OU. 

Figure 5-2 presents the NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) work elements 

along with the remaining cleanup schedule. Table 5-2 provides a summary of the scope of each 

of these work elements.

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

Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP

Disposition PFP Facility

Project Management and Support

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Cleanup Schedule

In accordance with Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-83-00A, all hazardous and nuclear materials will be 

removed from the above-ground facilities at the complex and those facilities will be demolished to slab-ongrade by September 30, 2016. Remaining hazards associated with below-grade facilities will be 

transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) to undergo Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act cleanup activities. 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-8 

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

Work Element Scope Description

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant PFP

This work element is focused on maintaining building integrity and safety systems 

during D4 efforts. Tasks include maintaining worker/public health and environmental 

safety; maintaining an environmentally compliant facility; maintaining facility systems 

and components; maintaining the maintenance program; and maintaining special 

projects.

Disposition PFP

Facility

This work element includes planning, preparation, engineering, sampling, 

procurement, and other tasks necessary to execute the removal of plutonium holdup 

material (e.g., material in ducting), deactivation, and disposition of aboveground PFP 

facilities before transitioning the below-grade components (e.g., below-grade 

structures and waste sites) to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040) for surveillance and maintenance and final remediation. D4 activities 

will be completed for the buildings and facilities in the PFP area, reducing them to 

slab-on-grade as part of this activity. Slab-on-grade is defined as a concrete slab, 

typically the first floor of a building resting on grade (earth) that is free of dispersible 

radiological contamination.

Project Management 

and Support

This work element includes project management and support to the PFP D4 activities 

including procurement and project controls. This work element includes technical 

support, such as engineering, quality assurance, and procedure and document 

maintenance.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear material.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

Figure 5-3 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for NM Stabilization and 

Disposition-PFP (PBS RL-0011) work scope by fiscal year; Figure 5-4 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-9 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-10

Figure 5-4. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$100

$200

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-2 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-11

5.2 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER/VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) 

The Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), also known as the 

Groundwater Project, includes the following: 

• The regulatory decision-making process for all the groundwater OUs on the Hanford Site. 

• Remediation of all the groundwater on the Hanford Site in accordance with the 

groundwater OU decisions. 

• The regulatory decision-making process for the Central Plateau waste sites (remediation 

of waste sites is part of the Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford [PBS RL-0040] 

project scope). 

• The regulatory decision-making process and remediation for the soil contamination in the 

Central Plateau deep vadose zone. 

The project includes soil and groundwater characterization, groundwater monitoring, 

groundwater treatment, well drilling, treatability testing, evaluation of remediation options, and 

preparing the regulatory documentation necessary to obtain final RODs on remedial actions for 

soil waste sites and groundwater, including both the River Corridor and Central Plateau. 

Much of the contamination remains in the vadose zone soil column above the water table; 

however, at waste sites where large volumes of liquid were released, the more mobile 

contaminants have reached groundwater. The tritium groundwater contaminant plume from the 

Central Plateau has reached the Columbia River. Additional groundwater contaminant plumes 

such as chromium, strontium-90, and uranium originating in the 100 or 300 Areas have also 

reached the Columbia River. An important target TPA milestone is to contain or remediate the 

hexavalent chromium groundwater plumes in the 100 Areas by the end of 2012 so that water 

quality standards are achieved, and to have groundwater remedies in place for strontium-90 and 

uranium by 2015. 

The major chemical contaminants present in Hanford Site groundwater include carbon 

tetrachloride, chromium, cyanide, nitrate, and trichloroethene. Major radioactive contaminants 

include iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium. Other groundwater 

contaminants that exceed drinking water standards in several Hanford Site areas but are of 

limited extent include sulfate, fluoride, metals (manganese, iron, antimony, arsenic), total 

petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel), volatile organic compounds (cis-1,2-dichloroethene, methylene 

chloride), and radioactive contaminants (cesium-137, gross alpha, gross beta, 

plutonium-239/240) (DOE/RL-2011-01).

The Groundwater Project has three major objectives (DOE/RL-2002-59, Hanford Site 

Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation): 

• Take actions necessary to prevent degradation of the groundwater. 

• Remediate groundwater to restore it to beneficial use where practicable and to protect the 

Columbia River. 

• Monitor groundwater to identify emerging problems and guide the remediation process. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-12

To be successful, the Groundwater Project needs to obtain sufficient characterization data, 

evaluate performance of early actions, and develop remedial action objectives. The Hanford Site 

is divided into 10 groundwater OUs. Groundwater monitoring activities are also required by the

Atomic Energy Act and Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous 

Waste (WA7890008967). 

Groundwater cleanup in the River Corridor is divided into six groundwater OUs:

• 100-BC-5, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with activities 

conducted at the B and C Reactors and support facilities. No active remediation is in 

place, but the OU is being monitored and assessed for potential actions. 

• 100-FR-3, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the F Reactor 

and support facilities. No active remediation is in place, but the OU is being monitored. 

• 100-HR-3, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the D, DR, 

and H Reactors and support facilities. Active pump-and-treat systems are in place in both 

100-D and 100-H Areas and a permeable reactive barrier is in place in the 100-D Area 

under an interim ROD. 

• 100-KR-4, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the KE and 

KW Reactors. Pump-and-treat systems are in place in the 100-K Area under an interim 

ROD. 

• 100-NR-2, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the 

N Reactor. The existing apatite permeable reactive barrier is being expanded to 

approximately 2,500 feet under an interim ROD. 

• 300-FF-5, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with activities in 

the 300 Area. The 300 Area groundwater is being monitored and evaluated under an 

interim ROD. 

The groundwater underlying the Central Plateau is divided into four groundwater OUs: 

• 200-BP-5, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the B Plant

processing facility and associated waste sites in the northeast quadrant of the Central 

Plateau. No active remediation is in place, but the OU is being monitored and assessed 

for potential actions. 

• 200-PO-1, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the 

Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Plant processing facility and associated waste 

sites in the southeast quadrant of the Central Plateau, including the BC cribs and trenches. 

No active remediation is in place, but the OU is being monitored and assessed for 

potential actions.

• 200-UP-1, which addresses the groundwater contamination associated with the U Plant

and Reduction-Oxidation (REDOX) processing facilities and the associated waste sites in 

the southwest quadrant of the Central Plateau. An active pump-and-treat system is in 

place for the 200-UP-1 OU under an interim ROD. 

• 200-ZP-1, which addresses contamination associated with the T Plant and PFP processing 

facilities and associated waste sites in the northwest quadrant of the Central Plateau. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-13

An active pump-and-treat system was put in place in the 200-ZP-1 OU under an interim 

ROD. A new pump-and-treat system will fulfill the requirements of the 2008 ROD for 

this OU. This OU is also supported by 200-PW-1, which is a source OU that is 

remediating carbon tetrachloride contamination above the water table at several PFP 

waste sites using active and passive vapor extraction systems in place under an action 

memorandum. 

The work scope for the Groundwater Project is organized into 10 Level 2 work elements as 

shown in Figure 5-5, which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule for PBS RL-0030. 

Table 5-3 provides additional details on the scope of work for each of these work elements. 

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

Schedule. 

Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining 

Cleanup Schedule

Through the course of this project, drilling, field work, monitoring, and assessments support development of 

remedy decisions. The project implements and maintains remedies for groundwater and the deep vadose

zone while controlling recharge into the subsurface. Remedies for the Central Plateau waste sites in the 

source operable units are implemented by Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040).

Groundwater Operable Units Decision Documents and Remediation*

Integration and Assessments

Project Management

Integrated Field Work

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit

*Includes the following operable units: 100-BC-5, 100-KR-4, 100-NR-2, 100-HR-3, 100-FR-3, 200-BP-5, 

200-PO-1, 200-UP-1, 200-ZP-1, 200-PW-1, and 300-FF-5.

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

FY2012 FY2018 FY2024 FY2030 FY2036 FY2042 FY2048 FY2054 FY2060

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration

Recharge Control

Drilling
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-14

The end dates of several work elements in Figure 5-5 reflect planning estimates of the duration 

of groundwater remediation and long-term groundwater monitoring, well support, well 

maintenance, reporting, and project management. Since most of the groundwater OUs do not 

have final decisions yet, the planning estimates will be updated in future reports as remedial 

decisions are completed (e.g., the cleanup timeframe in the ROD for the 200-ZP-1 OU is 

estimated at 125 years).

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Integration and 

Assessments

This work element is comprised of six parts: Strategic Integration, Technical Integration 

and Assessments, Remediation Decision Support, Remediation Science and Technology, 

Sample and Data Management, and Environmental Databases. This integration function 

coordinates and focuses Hanford Site characterization and assessment efforts to ensure 

consistency, eliminate information gaps and overlaps, apply science and technology new 

to the Hanford Site, foster technical peer review, and integrate remediation decisions.

Recharge Control This work element includes the preparation and submittal of a prioritized list of 

recommended service water line upgrades or storm water run-off control projects on an 

annual basis. Priority will be given to those projects that have potential to impact 

groundwater based on known or potential service water line leakage locations with 

respect to waste sites/subsurface contamination.

Drilling This work element includes planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling and 

well decommissioning for Hanford Site wells according to project-specific requirements. 

This includes drilling wells to Washington State standards and preparing all required 

submittals and notifications required by State law and providing well-related information 

for Hanford Site databases. Aspects of drilling include technical coordination, 

procurement, labor, subcontracts, materials, and equipment for project planning; 

documentation; field support during drilling; and project closeout to support drilling 

wells for groundwater monitoring and optimization of groundwater treatment systems.

Project Management This work element includes program management oversight; business management and 

integration; project control and integration; engineering and maintenance; environmental, 

safety, health and quality; and technical support.

Integrated Field 

Work

This work element includes services, infrastructure, material, equipment, labor, and 

contracts that are used to plan, support, and perform field work. It includes non-OU

related well maintenance, monitoring, and reporting. Major elements include operations 

and maintenance, training, field equipment purchases, unanticipated field work, and 

maintenance, monitoring, and reporting for wells that are not aligned with a specific OU. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-15

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Groundwater 

Monitoring and 

Performance 

Assessments

This work element includes:

• Operation, maintenance, sampling, and dismantlement of the Modutanks that are 

used for disposal of groundwater from onsite well sampling and maintenance, 

characterization, and remediation activities. 

• Management, oversight, and performance of borehole and geophysical logging to 

support characterization and remedial decisions. 

• Groundwater sampling, analysis, monitoring, evaluation, assessment, and reporting 

for RCRA TSDs, CERCLA OUs, and other permitted facilities and sites. 

• Coordination and management of groundwater sampling and water level 

determinations.

• Operation, maintenance, and relocation of the Hanford Site Geotechnical Sample 

Library, the repository for historical sediment, core, and other soil and sediment 

samples used for scientific studies including laboratory studies, bench tests, 

conceptual model development, and fate and transport evaluations for contaminant 

migration.

• Project management for these activities.

Groundwater OUs 

Decision Documents

and Remediation

This work element includes the management and implementation of groundwater

remediation for the Hanford Site, including:

• Implementing the RI/FS process for groundwater OUs by performing remedial 

investigations and feasibility studies leading to final RODs. 

• Preparing DQO reports, sampling and analysis plans, waste management plans, and 

other regulatory documentation, as needed, for all groundwater OUs.

• Conducting as needed field studies to support decision making and design. 

• Designing treatment systems in accordance with the RODs and remedial action work 

plans. 

• Implementing the treatment systems in accordance with the design and the ROD

requirements. 

• Conducting ongoing monitoring and reporting. 

• Maintaining system and monitoring wells. 

The work scope is managed by OU and is consistent between the OUs. Figure 5-6 

provides an overview of the active groundwater remediation efforts. Details of the actual 

assumptions for this work element are provided in Table 5-4. 

Regulatory 

Decisions

This work element includes planning, management, characterization, documentation, and 

other associated activities necessary to complete the remedial decision process for each 

closure zone, including closure plans for RCRA TSD sites. Specific activities include 

RI/FSs, proposed plans, closure plans, engineering evaluation/cost analyses, DQOs, 

sampling and analysis plans, RODs, and other documents and activities leading to 

remedial decisions and remediation planning. Following completion of assessment 

activities through decision documentation (e.g., ROD or closure plan), completion of the 

remedial design/remedial action work plan and waste site/facility remediation and/or 

closure will be addressed under Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040). The reorganization of Central Plateau OUs resulting from the 

October 2010 TPA changes to Central Plateau Cleanup is summarized in Table 5-5.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-16

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (3 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests 

This work element involves conducting the deep vadose zone treatability test(s) in 

accordance with the Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central 

Plateau (DOE/RL-2007-56), conducting cross-cutting engineering and technical studies 

necessary to support decision-making for Central Plateau remediation of the Deep 

Vadose Zone OU, and evaluating tradeoffs associated with remedial action decisions. 

The preliminary types of studies planned include:

• Risk methodology studies, including evaluation of modeling and calculation 

methods, evaluation of contaminant distribution coefficients, soil moisture recharge 

rate, and other technical parameters affecting modeling.

• Program support studies, including development of risk communication tools and 

technical basis documentation.

• Risk tradeoff/sensitivity studies, including risk comparisons for various disposal 

alternatives and comparison of regional risk versus Hanford Site risk.

• Treatability/optimization studies, including evaluation of previous treatability tests 

to identify potential applicability to Central Plateau remediation, and evaluation of 

excavation, characterization, and treatment methods that may be considered during 

the Central Plateau RI/FS process.

• Other studies as identified to respond to emerging issues and priorities.

Table 5-6 describes the currently identified treatability tests.

Deep Vadose Zone 

OU

This work element addresses mitigation of the contamination present at the Hanford Site 

in the deep vadose zone. The initial action planned for this OU is the development of the 

decision documents. Other tasks for this OU, such as remedial action planning and 

implementation; well support activities; monitoring and reporting support; OU

modifications and expansions; field studies and deployment activities; and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of the OU remediation activities at the conclusion of 

the project, will be included following the decision process.

Changes to the TPA have been undertaken to add milestones for testing remedial 

technologies and to establish a new deep vadose zone OU (200-DV-1). In addition, DOE 

is establishing a project team to focus on the development and evaluation of deep vadose 

zone remedies. DOE is also establishing the Deep Vadose Zone Applied Field Research 

Center at the Hanford Site, which would be the focal point for investigation and 

resolution of critical deep vadose zone issues at the Hanford Site and within the DOE 

complex.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq.

DOE/RL-2007-56, 2008, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central Plateau, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DQO = data quality objectives.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-17

Table 5-4. Groundwater Operable Unit Remediation. 

Groundwater 

Operable Unit Current Remedial Action Planning Assumption Remedial Action

Estimated Period of 

Remediation

100-BC-5 None Pump-and-treat 10 years

100-FR-3 None Pump-and-treat 10 years

100-HR-3 Pump-and-treat systems in 

D and H Areas; permeable 

reactive barrier

Expanded pump-and-treat 

augmented with 

electrocoagulation 

treatment; bioremediation; 

inject zero valent iron into 

existing semi-permeable 

barrier

Through FY 2020

100-KR-4 Pump-and-treat systems in 

KE and KW areas

Continued pump-and-treat Through FY 2018

100-NR-2 Pump-and-treat formerly 

operated; expanding apatite 

permeable reactive barrier

Expansion of apatite 

reactive barrier, total 

petroleum hydrocarbon

plume remediation, 

phytoremediation

Through FY 2020

200-BP-5 None Pump-and-treat Through FY 2022

200-PO-1 None Monitored natural 

attenuation

Not yet identified

200-UP-1 Pump-and-treat system Expanded pump-and-treat 

system

Through FY 2039

200-ZP-1 Pump-and-treat system Expanded pump-and-treat 

system

Through FY 2036

200-PW-1* Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor extraction Through FY 2043

300-FF-5 Monitoring and 

institutional controls

Install polyphosphate 

barrier

Through FY 2024

*200-PW-1 is a source operable unit above the 200-ZP-1 groundwater operable unit.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-18

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

New Operable Units (October 2010) Changes to Previous Operable Units

200-PW-1/3/6, 200-BC-1, and 200-CW-5 No additions or deletions of waste sites.

B Plant Canyon/associated waste sites (200-CB-1) Waste sites, including pipelines, in close proximity to the 

canyon building are reassigned to the new 200-CB-1 OU. 

PUREX Canyon/associated waste sites (200-CP-1) Waste sites, including pipelines, in close proximity to the 

canyon building are reassigned to the new 200-CP-1 OU. 

REDOX Canyon/associated waste sites (200-CR-1) Waste sites, including pipelines, in close proximity to the 

canyon building are reassigned to the new 200-CR-1 OU. 

Solid Waste Burial Grounds (200-SW-2) Waste sites in the footprint of the burial grounds are 

reassigned to the 200-SW-2 OU. 

200 West Inner Area (200-WA-1) Other sites in the 200 West Area not included in 200-CR-1, 

200-IS-1, 200-PW-1/6, 200-BC-1, 200-CW-5, or 200-SW-2 

are reassigned to the new 200-WA-1 OU. 

200 East Inner Area (200-EA-1 and 200-IS-1) 200-IS-1 sites not included in one of the canyon OUs remain 

in the 200-IS-1 OU. Other waste sites not included in 

200-CB-1, 200-CP-1, 200-PW-3, or 200-SW-2 are 

reassigned to the new 200-EA-1 OU. 

Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1) Waste sites from the 200-TW-1/2 and 200-PW-5 OUs that 

have contaminants in the deep vadose zone are reassigned to 

the new 200-DV-1 OU. 

Outer Area (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3) One site from 200-CW-1 OU is reassigned to the 200-SW-2 

OU. Other 200-CW-1 sites and the 200-CW-3 sites will 

remain in their existing OU. Sites from other OUs that are 

located in the geographically-based Outer Area are 

reassigned to the new 200-OA-1 OU. 

OU = operable unit.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant). 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-19

Figure 5-6. Overview of Hanford Site Groundwater Remedial Actions.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-20

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

Technology What is it? Reason for Treatability Testing

Desiccation Desiccation involves drying a targeted portion 

of the vadose zone by injecting dry air and 

extracting soil moisture. This reduces soil 

moisture that could transport contamination 

deeper.

Removing water from the vadose zone 

using desiccation has the potential to reduce 

the mobility of contaminants through the 

vadose zone. 

In situ gaseous 

reduction

A reducing gas (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) is 

used to directly or indirectly reduce some 

contaminants so they are less soluble.

Has the potential to immobilize 

technetium-99 and uranium and has been 

demonstrated at the field scale for similar 

applications.

Multi-step 

geochemical 

manipulation

This developmental stage technique involves 

introducing gases into the vadose zone that 

create conditions for precipitation of minerals 

and contaminants.

Although still conceptual, it builds on the in 

situ gaseous reduction technology and 

provides potential for more effective 

immobilization of contaminants.

Grout injection Injection of grout or a binding agent into the 

subsurface to physically or chemically bind or 

encapsulate contaminants.

Grouting technologies have the potential for 

use as part of a remedy for the deep vadose 

zone.

Soil flushing Adding water and an appropriate mobilizing 

agent, if necessary to mobilize contaminants 

and flush them from the vadose zone into 

groundwater where they can be removed by a 

pump-and-treat system.

Under consideration as a potential 

mechanism to remove subsurface 

contaminants; however, testing is needed to 

address technical uncertainties about 

mobilizing targeted contamination without 

mobilizing non-targeted mineral 

components. 

Surface barriers Surface barriers reduce subsurface water 

infiltration and the driving force for 

contaminant migration toward the 

groundwater.

Surface barriers are a baseline technology 

for near-surface contamination and a 

promising technology for controlling 

migration of contaminants in the deep 

vadose zone.

Figure 5-7 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for Soil and Water Remediation–

Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) by fiscal year; Figure 5-8 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Higher costs are anticipated for about the next 

10 years as groundwater remediation systems are placed in service and begin (or continue) 

operating. Remaining costs decline and primarily cover ongoing remediation operations, 

monitoring and reporting, and well support for the treatment systems. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-21

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-7. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-22

Figure 5-8. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$15

$30

$45

$60

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-13 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-23

5.3 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD (PBS RL-0040) 

Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) is the geographically based 

cleanup and closure of the Central Plateau and remaining scope in the other Hanford Site areas. 

In addition to the Central Plateau Cleanup scope, PBS RL-0040 includes the infrastructure and 

services scope under Mission Support, which is discussed in Chapter 7.0. This section focuses 

on the cleanup-related elements of the PBS, also known (and referred to in the rest of this 

section) as the Central Plateau Remediation Project. The Central Plateau Remediation Project 

(PBS RL-0040) scope includes Hanford Site demolition and remediation scope that is organized 

into 26 geographical areas referred to as closure zones. 

Following completion of assessment activities through decision documentation (e.g., ROD or 

closure plan) under Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), 

completion of the remedial design/remedial action work plan and waste site/facility remediation 

and/or closure will be addressed under the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040). 

The Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) scope includes implementing the 

decisions through the physical cleanup of canyon facilities, buildings and structures, waste sites, 

and miscellaneous sites (e.g., debris piles), and utilities to ensure appropriate protectiveness has 

been provided for the five canyon buildings and the Central Plateau waste sites and structures. 

To accomplish the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040), the following major 

objectives have been established:

• Perform safe S&M of facilities and waste sites pending remediation. 

• Integrate planning and execution activities with other Central Plateau projects. 

• Remediate waste sites. 

• Decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) canyons. 

• D&D excess facilities.

The project will be complete when the following endpoint criteria have been reached: 

• Canyons and surplus facilities removed or dispositioned and ready for transition to LTS. 

• Central Plateau waste sites remediated in accordance with approved decisions. 

• Legacy wastes and facilities at PNNL dispositioned. 

• Institutional controls implemented.

• Post-remediation operations and maintenance requirements implemented. 

The work scope for the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) is organized into 

three primary Level 2 work elements as shown in Figure 5-9, which also presents the remaining 

cleanup schedule for this PBS. Table 5-7 provides additional details on the scope of work for 

each of these work elements.

The duration of the work elements in Figure 5-9 includes planning estimates for completing 

remedial actions for the 26 Central Plateau and remainder of Hanford closure zones. 

The duration, in part, is dependent on transition of the tank farms to the project for final 

disposition after closure activities are completed by DOE-ORP (see Chapter 6.0). It is also 

dependent on transition of waste management facilities that are no longer needed to support 

Hanford Site cleanup from Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area 

(PBS RL-0013C) to the project for final disposition (see Section 5.5).
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-24

Figure 5-9. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

Table 5-7. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Regulatory Decisions This work element includes general management direction and technical/ESH&Q 

support, cross-cutting engineering and technical studies necessary to support decisionmaking for Central Plateau remediation and to evaluate tradeoffs associated with 

remedial action and facility disposition decisions, regulatory decisions for canyons and 

related nuclear process facilities, and regulatory decisions for below-slab remediation for 

non-canyon facilities.

Zone Environmental 

Remediation

This work element is the geographic remediation of closure zones in the Central Plateau. 

Each zone has a variety of cleanup features that can include waste sites, facilities, 

canyons, pipelines, and remedial barriers. 

The actions to be taken for cleaning up each waste site, including pipelines, will be 

determined through the regulatory decision processes (under Soil and Water 

Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030) and as part of remedial 

definition activities. Potential remedial actions for waste sites range from monitored 

natural attenuation to capping or removal, depending on waste site conditions. 

Contamination levels, risks, proximity to facilities, and other considerations are factored 

into the selection. Existing structures (other than the canyon facilities) are expected to be 

demolished and the debris disposed of at ERDF.

S&M and Min-Safe 

for Facilities and 

Waste Sites

This work element includes surveillance and system, structural, equipment, and other 

maintenance on Central Plateau facilities/buildings and waste sites.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESH&Q = Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality.

PBS = project baseline summary.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Cleanup Schedule

This PBS implements cleanup of Central Plateau facilities, including canyon facilities and waste sites. 

Hazards associated with buildings and wastes sites are progressively reduced using a systematic closure 

zone approach. Scope includes obtaining cleanup decisions for facilities, including canyon buildings, and 

implementing the cleanup actions for facilities and waste sites. 

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Regulatory Decisions 

Zone Environmental Remediation 

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 

FY2012 FY2018 FY2024 FY2030 FY2036 FY2042 FY2048 FY2054 FY2060 FY2066
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-25

Figure 5-10 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Central Plateau Remediation 

Project (PBS RL-0040) by fiscal year; Figure 5-11 presents the remaining estimated cleanup

costs by work element. Costs over the next 10 to 15 years are associated primarily with 

substantial cleanup of waste sites and facilities near B Pond and Gable Mountain Pond, B Plant, 

PFP, PUREX, REDOX, Semi-Works, and the solid waste burial grounds in 200 West Area. 

The cleanup remedies that the estimated costs are based on come from a range of alternatives. 

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

(PBS RL-0042) 

The FFTF is a deactivated, 400-megawatt (thermal) liquid-metal (sodium)-cooled, research and 

test reactor located in the 400 Area. The facility was used to develop and test advanced fuels and 

materials for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program and to serve as a prototype facility 

for future Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program facilities. In December 1993, DOE issued 

a shutdown order for FFTF because the Liquid Breeder Reactor Program had been cancelled. 

The scope of Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) is to provide 

for safe D&D, secure storage and stabilization of the hazardous/radioactive materials, interim 

maintenance of the facilities, demolition, and disposal of the waste. The mission requires 

removal and dispositioning of sodium coolant, the Reactor Containment Building, reactor 

support buildings, and auxiliary facilities and support systems. The project technical objective 

will achieve the following:

• Remove and disposition sodium coolant and clean residual sodium. 

• Fill spaces with grout below the 550-foot elevation level (grade level) of the Reactor 

Containment Building. 

• Decommission and demolish all facilities.

The regulatory decision for the FFTF containment building final closure, including the de-fueled 

reactor vessel, will be determined following the appropriate environmental analysis process. 

For planning purposes, the reactor containment dome is assumed to be removed, the below-grade 

Reactor Containment Building grouted and entombed, and the support facilities and structures 

demolished to 3 feet below grade and backfilled. The FFTF alternatives are being evaluated in 

DOE/EIS-0391, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Volume 1 and Volume 2. 

Waste sites within the 400 Area are included as part of the 300-FF-2 OU, which is being 

remediated under the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041). 

These waste sites will be remediated in accordance with the ROD for the 300-FF-2 OU 

(EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington); the scope is included under 

PBS RL-0041 and discussed in Section 4.1. 

Figure 5-12 shows the Level 2 scope elements and the remaining cleanup schedule for the 

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

the work scope. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-26

Figure 5-10. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-27

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-11. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-16 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-28

Figure 5-12. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. 

Table 5-8. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

FFTF Cleanup This work element includes monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of the FFTF and 

surrounding area in a safe and compliant manner until D&D; deactivation of the FFTF; 

disposition of the FFTF sodium; construction of a sodium reaction facility; 

decommissioning of the FFTF in accordance with a future record of decision; and project 

management for these activities. 

Infrastructure and 

Services

This work element includes activity related to a DOE-RL direct contract.

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

Operations Office.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 5-13 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast 

Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) by fiscal year; Figure 5-14 shows the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Relatively low initial costs are indicative of the S&M

period. Costs increase for about 15 years and are primarily associated with the construction of a 

sodium reaction facility, disposition of sodium, and the FFTF decommissioning efforts. 

Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Cleanup Schedule

While some cleanup work in and around the 400 Area is included as part of the River Corridor, this PBS 

focuses on cleaning up the Fast Flux Test Reactor and other facilities within the 400 Area Protected Area. 

The FFTF is currently in a surveillance and maintenance mode, with some hazardous materials continuing to 

be removed and bulk sodium safely stored. Eventually, the sodium will be processed and final disposition 

will commence. Disposition decisions are pending completion of the Draft Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement and a record of decision.

FFTF Cleanup

Infrastructure and Services

FY2010 FY2015 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-29

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-13. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2012

2017

2022

2027

2032

2037

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-30

Figure 5-14. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-25 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-31

5.5 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA

(PBS RL-0013C) 

The scope of the Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) project is 

to provide waste treatment and disposal services for Hanford Site facilities and operations. 

The major mission objectives are to:

• Operate Hanford Site waste treatment facilities, including T Plant, WRAP Facility, and 

200 Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facilities (ETF). 

• Provide Base Waste Management Operations at the CSB and 200 Area Interim Storage 

Area, the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF), the Waste Encapsulation and Storage 

Facility (WESF) for cesium/strontium capsule storage, and Low-Level Burial Grounds 

and mixed waste disposal trenches.

Additional objectives are: 

• Retrieve and ship transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal to the WIPP. 

• Develop alternative methods for treatment and disposal of orphan waste. 

• Obtain processing capabilities to include repackaging of large and remote-handled

contaminated waste containers. 

The Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) includes completing 

the following activities: 

• Cesium and strontium capsules will be transferred to dry storage and/or permanent 

disposal. 

• Irradiated nuclear fuels will be removed offsite to a national repository for final 

disposition. 

• Complete retrieval of stored underground TRU waste and dispose of waste. 

• Mixed low-level and low-level waste will be treated as necessary and disposed.

• Waste management facilities will be deactivated at the end of their useful lives and will 

be turned over to Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final 

disposition. 

• The Low-Level Burial Grounds (including the mixed waste trenches) will be closed and 

transferred to Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final 

disposition and remedial action. 

• The ERDF will be operated to provide solid waste treatment and disposal services in 

support of Hanford Site cleanup after completion of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River 

Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041). 

• The IDF will be closed according to the closure plan requirements in the Dangerous 

Waste Permit (WA7890008967). Closure will follow completion of tank waste 

vitrification.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-32

Figure 5-15 presents the scope elements and the remaining cleanup schedule for Solid Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C). Table 5-9 summarizes each scope 

element. As waste management facilities are no longer needed to support Hanford Site cleanup, 

they will be transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for 

final disposition. 

Figure 5-15. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule. 

FY2012 FY2018 FY2024 FY2030 FY2036 FY2042 FY2048 FY2054 FY2060

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition-200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Cleanup 

Schedule

This PBS provides waste management services for the Hanford Site, including treatment, storage, and 

disposal capability to meet the needs of the cleanup. Scope includes operation of waste facilities and 

management of special wastes, such as special nuclear materials and spent fuel. Once PBS RL-0013C

activities are complete, waste facilities will be turned over to PBS RL-0040 for final disposition and long-term 

stewardship.

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Project Management

Capsule Storage and Disposal

Canister Storage Building (CSB)

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment

Central Waste Complex (CWC)

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF)

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches

T-Plant

Sludge Disposition

Liquid Effluent Facilities

TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP)

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-33

Table 5-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Project Management This work element provides for the overall project management, coordination, direction, 

and customer interface to ensure the proper conduct of operation for this project.

Capsule Storage and 

Disposal

This work element addresses operation of the WESF pool cells, and includes life

extension upgrades to ensure safe and compliant operations, retrieval and disposition of 

cesium/strontium capsules, and transition of WESF for final D&D.

Canister Storage 

Building (CSB)

This work element includes safe storage of SNF and immobilized high-level waste from 

the WTP while awaiting final disposition at the geologic repository, repackaging of SNF

for shipment, and coordination with the offsite repository for evaluations and 

information.

Mixed Low-Level 

Waste (MLLW) 

Treatment

This work element addresses treatment of MLLW to meet regulatory requirements. 

Treatment technologies include macro-encapsulation, stabilization, or thermal 

techniques, such as vacuum desorption. Once categorized, the waste will be prepared for 

shipment to the appropriate processing or treatment facility.

TRU Retrieval of 

Stored Waste

This work element consists of the retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD facility of 

both contact-handled and remote-handled solid stored underground TRU waste. 

Waste Receiving and 

Processing (WRAP) 

Facility 

This work element provides base and minimum safe operations at the WRAP to support 

processing of TRU wastes to WIPP and includes transition to final D&D.

T Plant This work element addresses the operation and maintenance of the T Plant Complex for 

waste processing operations, including necessary upgrades and transition to final D&D 

of the canyon.

Central Waste 

Complex (CWC)

This work element includes operation and maintenance of the CWC, including upgrades 

to maintain needed capability and transition to final D&D. The scope includes provision 

of an alternate capability (other than WRAP) to load contact-handled TRU waste into 

shipping containers for shipment to WIPP.

Environmental 

Restoration Disposal 

Facility (ERDF)

This work element addresses the operation of the ERDF after turnover from the River 

Corridor Closure Project through the end of Hanford Site cleanup, including cell 

expansion and ERDF interim cover construction.

Liquid Effluent 

Facilities

This work element includes operation and maintenance of LERF, ETF, and 200 Area

TEDF to receive, store, treat, and dispose of liquid effluents from Hanford Site cleanup 

activities.

Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF)

This work element provides for the preparation, startup, and operation of the IDF to 

receive and store low-level waste and MLLW in accordance with applicable waste 

acceptance criteria. The scope includes provisions for IDF expansion.

Low-Level and 

Mixed Low-Level 

Waste Disposal

This work element includes the operation and maintenance of the Low-Level Burial 

Grounds and includes activities such as assessments and surveillances; emergency 

preparedness; engineering; environmental sampling, monitoring, and reporting; fire 

protection; maintenance; material control; nuclear safety/industrial safety; occupational 

safety; procedure development; grounds maintenance; quality assurance/quality control; 

radiological control; training; and waste management. The scope includes maintaining 

burial ground 218-B-12, trench 94 in ready-to-serve status to support the U.S. Navy’s 

reactor compartment disposal program.

Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches

This work element includes operation of the mixed waste disposal trenches and the 

design, construction, and other activities necessary to add operational layers in the 

trenches to maintain their ready-to-serve status and to place temporary caps on the 

trenches.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-34

Table 5-9. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Sludge Disposition The scope includes activities to stabilize and package the sludge from the 105-KW Basin 

for final disposition to WIPP or other disposal facilities, including Phase 2 treatment and 

packaging shutdown and deactivation of needed equipment, and management and 

support.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility. 

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility. 

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TEDF = Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. 

TRU = transuranic. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility). 

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

Figure 5-16 shows the remaining estimated cleanup costs for the Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) by fiscal year; Figure 5-17 shows the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-35

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-16. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-36

Figure 5-17. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-8 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-37

5.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU 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. These 

assumptions reflect those associated with the costs presented in this version of the Lifecycle 

Report, and may not exactly align with DOE/RL-2009-81. As planning activities align with the 

strategy, these assumptions will be revised. This new alignment will be presented in future 

Lifecycle Reports. Key differences have been noted where appropriate.

The following assumption is identified for NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP 

(PBS RL-0011) work scope: 

• The annual funding for implementation of PBS RL-0011 will match the project request. 

For Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030), the following 

assumptions are currently identified:

• The annual funding for implementation of PBS RL-0030 will match the project request. 

• Planned characterization of the vadose zone below the high-level waste (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 

are currently identified:

• An industrial worker scenario will be used to define the exposure scenarios and the 

threshold cleanup levels for waste sites located within the 200 Areas. (Note: under 

DOE/RL-2009-81, the industrial worker scenario will be used in the Inner Area and a 

rural residential scenario will be used for the Outer Area.) 

• The Central Plateau area of the Hanford Site will remain under Federal control for the 

foreseeable future. 

• All low-level legacy waste will be managed and treated on the Hanford Site via remove, 

treat, and dispose to approved onsite disposal facilities. 

• Planning assumes that geographic aggregate barriers will be utilized. 

• Removal excavations typically will be 15 feet below grade. (Note: under 

DOE/RL-2009-81, excavation depths in the Inner Area are not defined, but the depth 

would be protective of humans, the environment, and groundwater. Excavation depths in 

the Outer Area would be up to 15 feet deep. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-38

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), the following 

assumptions are currently identified: 

• The annual funding profile for implementation of PBS RL-0042 will match the project 

request. 

• FFTF funding to accomplish the scope can be carried over from year to year. Beginning 

in FY 2015, budget levels are to reflect an optimal ramp up to complete sodium residuals 

cleaning, bulk sodium processing, and D4 work scope.

For Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C), the following 

assumptions are currently identified: 

• The annual funding profile for implementation of PBS RL-0013C will match the project 

request. 

• New treatment facilities are not required to support longer WTP operations. 

• T Plant will be available for modification to be the facility necessary for retrieval, 

storage, and treatment/processing of all Hanford Site RCRA TRUM waste as required by 

TPA Milestone M-091-01. 

• WIPP will remain operational through the end of Hanford Site cleanup operations that 

have the potential to generate TRU waste.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-1 

6.0 TANK WASTE CLEANUP

Tank waste cleanup is performed by the RPP. The RPP is managed by DOE-ORP as required by 

the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, and augmented 

by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. 

The RPP mission is to retrieve and treat Hanford Site tank waste and close the tank farms to 

protect the Columbia River. As a result, DOE-ORP is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, 

and disposal of approximately 55 million gallons4

• Safely manage the radioactive mixed waste stored in the Hanford Site’s underground 

storage tanks. This work element is conducted under Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014). 

 of mixed waste contained in Hanford Site 

waste tanks, and closure of all the tanks and associated facilities. The RPP work scope consists 

of two major elements:

• Design, construct, and commission the WTP, which will treat and immobilize tank 

wastes into a vitrified glass form. This work element is conducted under Major 

Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060). 

Figure 6-1 illustrates the relationships between the various activities and integration of the 

elements for retrieval of the waste from the tanks, treatment to reduce hazards, and disposal. 

The RPP is comprised of the tank farms and WTP systems - nearly 200 interrelated waste 

storage, transfer, treatment, transportation, and disposal facilities. The RPP and these facilities 

are an important element of the DOE mission to protect the Columbia River. This chapter 

describes the RPP mission and scope as presented in the River Protection Project System Plan

(ORP-11242, Rev. 4). Cost and schedule information also are based on Revision 4 of 

ORP-11242 in order to remain consistent with ORP’s last certified baseline and approved 

baseline change requests. ORP will be evaluating the need for potential changes to the RPP 

baseline as a result of information in Revision 6 of ORP-11242, and future baseline changes will 

be reflected in the Lifecycle Report.

5

The underground waste storage tanks were built in groups of 2 to 18 tanks; each group is known 

as a tank farm (A, AN, AP, AW, AX, AY, AZ, B, BX, BY, C, S, SX, SY, T, TX, TY, and 

U Tank Farms). Seven tank farms (comprised of 86 tanks) are located in the 200 West Area, and 

11 tank farms (comprised of 91 tanks) are located 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 about 55,000 gallons of capacity, while the largest 

DSTs hold up to about 1,250,000 gallons. 

When the Hanford Site was in production, irradiated fuel from the reactors was transported to six 

separations facilities for isolating the desirable radionuclides from other reactor products. From 

 

4 This is the total volume of tank waste as of October 2010 reported in Revision 6 of ORP-11242, River Protection Project 

System Plan. The total volume of tank waste fluctuates over time because water and chemicals may be added to the tanks as part 

of certain waste retrieval processes to facilitate waste retrieval; water is also removed by the waste evaporator.

5

Revision 6 of ORP-11242, River Protection Project System Plan, was released in October 2011. This Lifecycle Report reflects 

information primarily from ORP-11242 Revision 4, and incorporates some important changes anticipated in Revision 6.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-2 

1944 to 1989, the separations processes yielded millions of gallons of highly radioactive and 

chemically hazardous waste, which was pumped through underground transfer lines and 

subsequently stored in the underground storage tanks. Although the reactors and separations 

facilities have long since ceased their operations, the underground waste tanks and their contents 

remain. The radioactive liquid waste was transferred from the separations facilities as slurry, a 

liquid with suspended solids. Over time, the radioactive solids settled to the bottom of the tanks, 

creating a layer known as sludge. The clarified radioactive liquid above the sludge is known as 

supernatant or supernate. 

To reduce the total quantity of waste to be stored, the supernate 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 salt cake, a crystalline solid waste 

form. At one time, most tanks contained supernate, slurry, and saltcake waste forms 

simultaneously. 

In addition, the cesium and strontium capsules in the WESF resulted from efforts to reduce 

fission products in the tanks. Finally, long-term storage at high temperatures as a result of heat 

from fission product decay contributed to the formation of a solid mass or group of large solids 

not easily removed called hard heels in the bottoms of some tanks. The current typical content of 

the tanks is depicted in Figure 6-2. More information regarding the tanks and the RPP can be 

found in ORP-11242. 

The current strategy for tank waste cleanup involves a number of interrelated activities essential 

to the mission to retrieve and treat the Hanford Site’s tank waste and close the tank farms to 

protect the Columbia River. DOE-ORP will reduce risk to the environment posed 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 all the 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 HLW pending determination of 

the final disposal pathway (national repository). 

• Closing the SST and DST farms, ancillary facilities, and associated waste management 

and treatment facilities.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-3 

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

Misc. 

New 

Wastes

Other Hanford 

Facilities and 

IMUSTS

Evaporator

Liquid Effluent 

Retention Facility/ETF

A

Hanford Shipping 

Facility

Supplemental CH-TRU 

Treatment Systems

28 Double-Shell Tanks

149 Single- Shell Tanks

STORAGE TREATMENT

Planned Geologic Repository

Integrated Disposal Facility

State Approved Land 

Disposal Site

DISPOSAL (OFF-SITE)

DISPOSAL (ON-SITE)

WASTE TREATMENT PLANT

Retrieval 

Water and 

Chemicals

Retrieved 

Waste

Supernate for 

SST Waste 

Retrieval

Dilute 

Waste Evaporator 

Bottoms

Water

Offgas

Evaporator Condensate

11 of the 149 SSTs may contain CH-TRU

Air

Carrier

Offgas

Liquid 

Effluent

Packaged TRU

A

C

High Level Waste

Low Activity Waste

Pretreatment

PT LAW

PT HLW

Solid Waste

Recycle

D

Recycle

Chemicals Air Offgas Air Glass 

Formers Chemicals

Solid Waste

IHLW

Offgas

B

Liquid Effluent C

Offgas

Solid Waste

ILAW

Solid Waste

B

D

Treated Liquids

IHLW

Liquid Effluent

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-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-4 

Figure 6-2. Depictions of Typical Tank Contents.

The work scope for tank waste cleanup is organized into two PBSs, as shown in Figure 6-3, 

which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule. The overall schedule objective is to 

complete retrieval, treatment, and closure activities by the end of FY 2050. Once closure 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-5 

activities are completed, the tank farms will be transitioned to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder 

of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition or LTS. 

Figure 6-3. Tank Waste Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

The DOE-ORP is developing and implementing operating strategies to meet applicable

regulatory milestones, including those from the Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement

Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology, 2010) that became effective on October 25, 2010. The 

milestones shown in Table 6-1 were selected from the TPA and from the Consent Decree and 

TPA Settlement Package as key measures for significant progress. 

Table 6-1. 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

D-00B-011 Complete retrieval of tank wastes from the following remaining SSTs in WMA C: 

C-101, C-102, C-104, C-105, C-107, C-108, C-109, C-110, C-111, and C-112.

09/30/2014

M-062-40ZZ Not later than the System Plan Report due date of 10/31/2014, DOE will submit a 

one-time Hanford Tank Waste Supplemental Treatment Technologies Report.

10/31/2014

M-062-45ZZ Negotiate a one-time supplemental treatment selection (a one-time selection to be 

made not later than April 30, 2015) and milestones.

04/30/2015

M-062-45 Every 6 years, within 6 months of the issuance of the last revision of the system 

plan, the parties will negotiate tank waste retrieval sequencing and milestones, and 

milestones for installation of infrastructure to feed tank waste from the DST system 

to the tank waste treatment system for the next 8 years.

04/30/2015; 

every 6 

years 

thereafter

Tank Waste Remaining Cleanup Schedule

One of the world’s largest environmental cleanup projects is underway at the Hanford Site in Washington 

State. A fully integrated system of waste storage, treatment, and disposal facilities is in varying stages of 

design, construction, operation, or future planning. These facilities are needed to complete DOE’s mission to 

protect the Columbia River, one of the largest river systems in the Pacific Northwest. The River Protection 

Project will clean up the tank waste and tank farms in a compliant manner, immobilize and facilitate safe 

disposal of associated radioactive and chemical wastes; and protect human health, the environment, and 

Columbia River resources. 

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

FY2011 FY2015 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040 FY2045 FY2050 FY2055

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-6 

Table 6-1. Tank Waste Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement and Consent Decree Milestones. (2 pages)

Milestone Description Compliance 

Date

M-045-82 Submit complete permit modification requests for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 (see Appendix I 

of Tri-Party Agreement) of the SST system, to support final closure requirements 

for WMA C. 

09/30/2015

M-062-31-T01 Complete final design and submit a complete RCRA Part B permit modification 

request for Enhanced WTP and/or Supplemental Vitrification Treatment Facility 

based on the M-062-45 decision.

04/30/2016

D-00A-171 Hot start of WTP. 12/31/2019

M-045-85 Complete negotiations of HFFACO interim milestones for closure of the remaining 

WMAs (including a schedule for 200 West Area closures, the submittal of closure 

plans and risk assessments, and final closure dates for each WMA).

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-047-00 Complete work necessary to provide facilities for management of secondary waste 

from the WTP.

12/31/2022

M-062-34-T01 Complete hot commissioning of Supplemental Treatment Vitrification Facility 

and/or WTP Enhancements.

12/30/2022

D-00A-011 Achieve initial plant operations for the WTP. 12/31/2022

M-045-70 Complete waste retrieval from all remaining SSTs. Retrieval standards and 

completion definitions are provided in Milestone M-045-00.

12/31/2040

M-045-00 Complete the closure of all SST farms. 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

1

 Milestones from Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology, 2010). 

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.

6.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION 

(PBS ORP-0014) 

The 177 underground waste storage tanks and ancillary equipment, along with various support 

facilities and buildings, are primarily located in the Central Plateau 200 East and 200 West

Areas. The waste composition varies widely, necessitating a variety of unique waste retrieval 

and treatment methods. In addition, many tanks are decades past their intended useful life. Some 

SSTs are known or are assumed to have leaked. In the 1950s and 1960s, approximately 

1 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste may have been inadvertently released into the 

environment, contaminating the soil and groundwater. Since that time, to the maximum extent 

possible, SSTs have been interim stabilized to minimize further risks to the groundwater. 

No leakage from the DSTs has been detected. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-7 

The RPP mission is to protect the Columbia River by safely storing waste until treated and/or 

disposed and closing the underground storage tanks and associated facilities, in accordance with 

agreed upon regulatory pathways. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition 

(PBS ORP-0014) includes closure of the tanks, tank farms, and associated facilities. After 

closure, the remainder of the facilities will be transferred to Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of 

Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final disposition or LTS. 

The tank farms scope in this report includes planning for the lifecycle of the tank farms as 

detailed in ORP-11242, Revision 4. The scope of PBS ORP-0014 is organized into seven work 

elements as shown in Figure 6-4, which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule. 

Additional scope information on these work elements is provided in Table 6-2. 

Figure 6-4. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining 

Cleanup Schedule. 

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

Cleanup Schedule

Through the course of this project, risks posed by 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste 

stored in underground tanks at the Hanford Site are reduced. Wastes are moved out of aging single-shell 

tanks into newer and safer double-shell tanks and ultimately treated and vitrified. Challenges include the 

application of new and innovative technologies as the commitment to perform high-hazard work safely and 

effectively is maintained. Final disposition decisions are pending outcomes of the record of decision and 

review cycle of DOE/EIS-0391, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

FY2012 FY2015 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040 FY2045 FY2050

Base Operations

Retrieve and Close SSTs

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure

Supplemental Treatment

Treat Waste

Facility Closures

Tank Operations Contract – ORP Project Support
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-8 

Table 6-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Base Operations This work element provides for safe storage of waste, reduces the volume of waste 

through evaporation, provides laboratory support, and includes necessary support 

activities such as project management.

Retrieve and Close SSTs This work element includes retrieval of waste from the SSTs and transfer to interim 

storage in DSTs. SSTs will then undergo closure in accordance with regulatory 

requirements, as will other associated sites in the tank farms.

Waste Feed 

Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST

Retrieval/Closure

This work element covers modeling of waste characteristics and volumes; transfer, 

treatment and preparation of the wastes to meet the requirements for safe retrieval of 

the DST wastes; successful operation of the WTP; and closure of the DSTs to protect 

the environment and the community. 

Supplemental Treatment This work element includes planning and analysis for supplemental low-activity 

waste treatment and contact-handled TRU handling, up to and including design and 

construction. 

Treat Waste This work element includes preparation for hot commissioning, closure planning, and 

final closure activities. 

Facility Closures This work element includes closure and monitoring of buildings and structures in the 

tank farms areas, but not covered elsewhere. Closure within this scope occurs mostly 

in the out-years and includes mobile facilities, office buildings, and support facilities

(e.g., 200 East and West Evaporators). 

Tank Operations 

Contract – ORP Project 

Support

This work element includes shared services and Mission Support.

DST = double-shell tank.

ORP = Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 6-5 presents the remaining estimated cleanup costs for Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) by fiscal year; Figure 6-6 presents the remaining 

estimated cleanup costs by work element. Costs rise as the WTP commissioning and startup 

progress, then remain fairly steady until SST closure increases the cost requirement. Costs 

decline steadily as the treatment mission ends and tank farm closures are completed. 

The estimated cost for tank closure is based on the preferred alternative of the draft 

DOE/EIS-0391, Volume 1 and Volume 2. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-9 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 6-5. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

2012

2017

2022

2027

2032

2037

2042

2047

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-10

Figure 6-6. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

2012

2017

2022

2027

2032

2037

2042

2047

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-31 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-11

6.2 MAJOR CONSTRUCTION – WASTE TREATMENT PLANT (PBS ORP-0060) 

The mission of Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) is to design, 

construct, and commission the WTP to pre-treat and immobilize the mixed wastes currently 

stored in the Hanford Site’s underground storage tanks. Work is complete when the WTP 

construction is complete and the facilities are turned over to DOE-ORP’s operations contractor. 

Five main facilities are being constructed within the WTP:

• Pretreatment

• Low-Activity Waste Vitrification

• High-Level Waste Vitrification

• Balance of Facilities

• Dedicated Analytical Laboratory. 

The scope for PBS ORP-0060 is organized into six main work elements, as shown in Figure 6-7, 

which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule. Additional scope information on these 

work elements is provided in Table 6-3. 

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

Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Schedule

This project will finalize the design of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, finish construction, and 

perform cold and hot commissioning to demonstrate the operability and functionality of the plant.

Pretreatment

Low-Activity Waste

High-Level Waste

Balance of Facilities

Laboratory

Plant Wide

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-12

Table 6-3. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Pretreatment This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the 

Pretreatment Facility. When finished, pretreatment will physically and chemically 

condition the waste feed stream, separating the low-activity radioactive waste from the 

high-level radioactive waste. 

Low-Activity Waste 

(LAW)

This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the LAW

Vitrification Facility. When finished, the LAW will go into a melter preparation vessel 

where silica and other glass-forming material are added and the mixture will be fed into 

one of two melters. The mixture will be heated to 2,100° F using Joule heating. The 

molten mixture will be poured into large stainless steel canisters that are then welded 

shut. 

High-Level Waste 

(HLW)

This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the HLW

Vitrification Facility. Similar to the LAW, when finished the HLW will be mixed with 

glass-forming materials, heated to molten, and poured into stainless steel canisters.

Balance of Facilities This work element includes design, construction and commissioning of the Balance of 

Facilities. When finished, the dedicated facilities and utilities will support the WTP. 

Laboratory This work element includes design, construction, and commissioning of the Analytical 

Laboratory. When finished, samples will be analyzed to ensure the glass product meets 

requirements.

Plant Wide This work element includes cross-cutting services and equipment provided to the 

construction site.

HLW = high-level waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 6-8 presents the remaining estimated costs for Major Construction – Waste Treatment 

Plant (PBS ORP-0060) by fiscal year; Figure 6-9 presents the remaining estimated costs by work 

element. Annual costs exhibit a downward trend as WTP design is complete, facility 

completions increase, and the project moves toward commissioning and turnover. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-13

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 6-8. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

2012 2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-14

Figure 6-9. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-33 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-15

6.3 TANK WASTE CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

The activities described for the RPP are assumed to be consistent with, and encompassed by, the 

outcome of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process. The operating 

scenarios continue to be reviewed against the assumptions in DOE/EIS-0391 (Volume 1 and 

Volume 2) as the planning process continues, and updated as appropriate. Unanticipated 

changes resulting from the NEPA process could impact assumptions. Detailed designs and 

processing of permits are subject to completion of the NEPA process and issuance of an ROD. 

ORP-11242, Revision 4, details assumptions and uncertainties for the RPP. The following is a 

summary of key assumptions. 

• Cesium and strontium capsules will not be processed in the WTP. 

• A planned offsite geologic repository will be ready to accept immobilized high-level 

waste (IHLW) canisters from the Hanford Site starting in April 2023 at a rate that does 

not require construction of additional interim storage beyond that planned for the 

Hanford Site Shipping Facility. Onsite IHLW interim storage will be operational on or 

before May 17, 2019, and provide interim storage for at least 2,000 canisters. 

• The current strategy to comply with the IHLW acceptance criteria is described in 

24590-HLW-PL-RT-07-0001, IHLW Waste Form Compliance Plan for the Hanford Tank 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. It is assumed that the strategy will be 

acceptable to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. It is further 

assumed that the WTP prepared hazardous waste delisting petition for the IHLW is 

accepted by Ecology and the receiving state before shipping the waste to the planned 

offsite geologic repository. 

• Supplemental LAW treatment capacity will be provided by a second LAW vitrification 

facility located adjacent to the WTP. The second LAW facility will have the same 

technical assumptions as the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility, will complete hot 

commissioning on September 30, 2021, and will begin full operations on 

October 1, 2021. 

• Packaged CH-TRU waste will be interim stored onsite at the Central Waste Complex. 

• 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 remote-handled TRU waste will be retrieved and treated 

at the WTP together with the HLW. 

• The DSTs will remain fully operational for the nominal 40-year waste treatment mission 

duration. 

• The 242-A Evaporator will continue to operate, as needed, through the life of the mission 

to support SST retrieval and to maintain the sodium concentration in the delivered feed 

within WTP feed specifications. The 242-A Evaporator will not be available during 

scheduled maintenance outages.

• Selected technologies will be able to meet retrieval (tank residual) requirements.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-16

• 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 in the IDF and WTP secondary liquid waste 

will be treated at the ETF.

• The IDF is currently in standby mode and will be ready to serve upon completion of an 

operational readiness review, performance assessment, permit modification, etc. 

The activation will be completed when the IDF is needed by the WTP. The IDF will 

provide permanent disposal for the immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW), other 

low-level waste, and mixed low-level waste, including: 

− LAW glass packages from the WTP

− Solid waste from the WTP, including spent LAW and HLW melters

− Solid waste from the ETF from treating liquid effluent. 

The IDF can be expanded as needed to support the mission. 

• The baseline case implicitly assumes that the outcome of official Waste Incidental to 

Reprocessing Waste Determinations will be consistent with the assumed disposition of 

the primary and secondary waste forms prior to disposal. 

• The cross-site transfer system will be modified as needed to allow for the transfer of 

slurry into multiple DSTs to provide operational flexibility in management of waste and 

staging of feed to the WTP.

• Fiscal year funding will be available to support the baseline case, including that funding 

required for risk mitigating actions.

6.4 TANK WASTE CLEANUP COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES – 

RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT SYSTEM PLAN, REVISION 6, SCENARIOS

The purpose of this section is to provide information about selected cleanup actions for which 

final decisions have not yet been made for tank waste cleanup. Sections 1.6 and 1.7 of this 

Lifecycle Report discuss the overall process for identifying cleanup actions, defining the range of 

plausible alternatives, and preparing reasonable upper bound cost estimates. Appendix A of this 

Lifecycle Report describes remaining cleanup actions for the Hanford Site, including several 

associated with tank waste. The TPA agencies have determined that the 2012 Lifecycle Report 

should consider cleanup actions relative to tank waste treatment, currently presented in 

Appendix A, Table A-4 as: Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure; Tank Waste 

Treatment; and, Secondary Waste Treatment.

The current ORP strategy6

 

6 DISCLAIMER: Some of the activities described herein may be subject to and/or undergoing analysis required by the 

for completing the RPP mission involves a number of interrelated 

activities for treating tank wastes and closing the tank farms. ORP recently completed RPP 

System Plan (Rev. 6), one of the purposes of which was to analyze the results of different 

scenarios, or cases, selected by ORP and Ecology in accordance with TPA Milestone M-062-40, 

National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). They are included in this document for planning purposes only, not for decisional 

purposes, which will be conducted following the NEPA process.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-17

as documented in letter 10-TPD-148.7

The TPA agencies concluded that the RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) scenario analyses would 

provide better granularity and be more valuable for purposes of performing cost estimate 

alternative analyses for tank waste treatment than additional analyses for three of the cleanup 

actions listed in Table A-4. Consequently, the TPA agencies have agreed, for the 2012 Lifecycle 

Report, that the objectives of the cost estimate alternative analyses would be well served by the 

results of the scenarios analyzed in RPP System Plan (Rev. 6). The rest of this section of the 

Lifecycle Report summarizes relevant information for those scenarios.

 These scenarios look at potential impacts, including 

changes to the lifecycle schedule and cost, of different alternatives to the tank waste treatment 

mission.

The cost estimate alternative analyses presented in this section are based on the results of ten 

scenarios, or cases, reported in RPP System Plan (Rev. 6). RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) provides 

the technical basis, by means of the Baseline Case (Case 1), for updates to the Tank Operations 

Contract Performance Measurement Baseline, and presents the results for the remaining 

scenarios (Cases 2 – 10) selected by ORP and Ecology.

The Baseline Case describes how the RPP mission could be achieved given an underlying set of 

assumptions. The Baseline Case demonstrates the interactions among several key technical 

aspects of the RPP mission, including SST retrieval, 242-A Evaporator campaigns, DST space 

management waste feed delivery, SST and DST closure, total processed sodium, supplemental 

LAW treatment capacity, mission duration, WTP pretreatment throughput, and HLW glass 

formulation. The Baseline Case also provides an estimated lifecycle cost and conveys the key 

issues and uncertainties of the mission for the given set of underlying assumptions. 

The Baseline Case shows how the WTP, together with a second LAW Vitrification Facility and 

the potential CH-TRU tank waste treatment process, could treat the Hanford tank waste by 2043, 

with approximately 25 years of WTP operations and an estimated lifecycle cost of $59.9 billion. 

All SST waste retrievals are projected to be completed in 2039. All schedule-based success 

criteria are projected to be met, with the exception that the completion date of all SST farm 

closures is projected to be about nine months late.

Starting with the Baseline Case, each of the scenarios changes some of the underlying 

assumptions in order to evaluate the impacts of those changes upon the treatment mission. 

Table 6-4 provides an overview of all ten cases and highlights the differences in scope. 

A summary of targeted success criteria and results for the Baseline Case and Cases 2 - 10 is 

summarized in Table 6-5. A comparison of the Baseline Case and Cases 2 - 10 to the mission 

metric success criteria is shown in Figure 6-10. Table 6-6 shows the intended purpose of each of 

the scenarios and brief summary observations on the results when compared to the Baseline 

Case. Details regarding each of these scenarios can be found in the RPP System Plan (Rev. 6). 

 

7 Brockman, D. A., and J. A. Hedges, 2010, “Partial Completion of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (TriParty Agreement) Interim Milestone M-062-40, to Submit a System Plan to Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 

Describing the Disposition of All Tank Waste Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of River Protection 

(ORP), Including Retrieval of All Tanks Not Addressed by the Consent Decree in Washington v. DOE, Case No. 08-5085-FVS, 

and the Completion of the Treatment Mission,” (Letter 10-TPD-148 to D. A. Faulk, Program Manager, Office of Environmental 

Cleanup, Hanford Project Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 28), U. S. Department of Energy, Office of 

River Protection, and Washington State Department of Ecology Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-18

Table 6-4. Case Comparison Matrix. (2 pages)

Case SST 

retrievals

TRU 

disposition

WTP 

pretreatment

Supplemental 

pretreatment

WTP HLW hot 

commissioning

WTP LAW 

hot 

commissioning

Supplemental 

treatment 

process

Net vitrification

capacity

Glass formulation 

models

Additional 

details

Baseline 

Case

Aligned with SST 

Retrieval Plana 

Onsite 

storage at 

CWC

WTP 

pretreatment 

with equipment 

alternative

None 2018 2018 Second LAW 

vitrification 

facility

HLW: 5.25 

MTG/d

LAW: 21 

MTG/d

HLW: 2009 GFM

LAW: DOE 2004 

LAW glass model

Eliminated 

Aluminum 

Removal 

Facility

Case 2:

TRU Waste 

to WTP

Retrieve potential 

CH-TRU waste 

tanks into the 

DST system

WTP Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline

Case 3:

FBSR for 

supplement

al treatment 

Baseline Baseline Baseline SCIX/RMF attankBaseline Baseline Four fluidized 

bed steam 

reformers

Baseline Baseline

Case 4:

WTP delay 

with 

increased 

vitrification 

capacity

Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline 2022 2022 Baseline HLW and LAW 

capacities 110% 

of baseline.

Baseline

Case 5:

2020 

Vision 

One System

Baseline Baseline Baseline RMF in 

Tank AP-105

and SCIX in 

Tank AP-107 

provide interim 

pretreatment 

for early feed to 

WTP LAW 

Vitrification 

Facility

Baseline 2016 Baseline Adjust ramp 

rates to support 

LAW glass in 

2016

Baseline Secondary 

liquid waste 

from WTP 

LAW 

Vitrification 

Facility will 

be returned to 

tank farms

Case 6:

WTP delay 

with new 

DST farm

Integrate eight 

new 1-Mgal 

DSTs with 

existing DST 

transfer system

Baseline Baseline Baseline 2022 2022 Baseline Baseline Baseline

Case 7:

Enhanced 

tank waste 

strategy

Adjust as 

necessary to 

achieve end date 

7 years earlier 

than baseline

Baseline Baseline SCIX/RMF attankBaseline NA No WTP LAW 

Vitrification 

Facility, all 

LAW treated by 

eight fluidized 

bed steam 

reformers

Baselineb HLW: 2009 GFM 

with OB/ND

LAW: NA
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-19

Table 6-4. Case Comparison Matrix. (2 pages)

Case SST 

retrievals

TRU 

disposition

WTP 

pretreatment

Supplemental 

pretreatment

WTP HLW hot 

commissioning

WTP LAW 

hot 

commissioning

Supplemental 

treatment 

process

Net vitrification

capacity

Glass formulation 

models

Additional 

details

Case 8:

Accelerated 

SST 

retrievals

Retrieve B Farm 

potential 

CH-TRU waste 

tanks into the 

DST system and 

retrieve and stage 

all T Farm waste 

in sound 

TX Farm tanks

WTP Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Wiped film 

evaporator(s) 

at T Complex 

WRF needed 

to support 

waste staging

Case 9:

Early 

U Farm 

closure

Retrieve the four 

AX Farm tanks 

and five U Farm 

tanks, as the nine 

additional 

retrievals after 

C Farm

Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline

Case 10: 

Slow SST 

retrievals

Increase 

minimum 

duration of each 

SST retrieval by 

25% for all 

retrievals starting 

between 1/1/2011 

and 1/1/2021

Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline

a RPP-RPT-40145, 2011, Single-Shell Tank Waste Retrieval Plan, Rev. 2, Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC, Richland, Washington. b

 The Case 7 assumptions allow for an increase in the HLW Vitrification Facility capacity, if needed to shorten the mission duration. However, this increased capacity did not appreciably shorten the mission, so the 

baseline capacity was retained.

CH-TRU = contact-handled transuranic.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reformer. 

GFM = glass formulation model.

HLW = high-level waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

MTG = metric ton of glass.

OB/ND = optical basicity/nepheline 

discriminator

RMF = rotary microfiltration.

SCIX = small column ion exchange.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WRF = waste retrieval facility.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-20

Table 6-5. RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Highlights. (3 pages)

Metric

(milestone)

Success 

criteria

System 

Plan 

(Rev. 5): 

Baseline 

Case

System Plan (Rev. 6) Scenarios

Case 1:

Baseline 

Case

Case 2:

TRU 

waste to 

WTP

Case 3:

FBSR for 

supplemental 

treatment

Case 4:

WTP delay 

with increased 

vitrification

Case 5:

2020 Vision 

One System

Case 6:

WTP delay 

with new 

DST farm

Case 7:

Enhanced 

tank waste 

strategy

Case 8:

Accelerated 

retrieval

Case 9:

Early 

U Farm 

closure

Case 10:

Slow SST 

retrievals

Lifecycle cost, 

FY 1997 to end 

of mission

$61.5B − $59.9 B $61.6 B $58.1 B $66.0 B $58.0 B $68.7 B $57.3 B $62.8 B $59.6 B $60.8 B 

Meets near-term 

funding targets 

through 2015

$2,750M − $2,440 M $2,400 M $3,226 M $2,314 M

$2,705 M

$2,450 M $3,377 M $2,413 M $2,442 M $2,439 M

Meets near-term 

funding profile 

through 2015

Note a −   X    X   

Complete 

C Farm 

retrievals (B-1)

9/30/2014 7/13/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 12/21/2013 1/23/2014

Start five 

additional SST 

retrievals (B-3)

12/31/2017 2/9/2015 7/23/2017 7/23/2017 9/16/2017 7/2017 9/9/2018 7/23/2017 9/16/2017 7/23/2017 5/21/2017 7/27/2017

Close WMA C 

(M-045-83)

6/30/2019 6/28/2019 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 11/9/2018

Complete nine 

additional SST 

retrievals (B-4)

9/30/2022 9/20/2017 12/16/2020 12/16/2020 11/4/2019 7/17/2024 4/21/2020 8/25/2021 10/24/2019 12/16/2020 8/15/2020 1/17/2021

Complete all 

SST retrievals 

(M-045-70)

12/31/2040 10/13/2039 9/8/2039 9/25/2040 11/3/2038 8/14/2043 9/14/2038 7/24/2042 9/9/2037 3/27/2040 9/7/2038 10/4/2040

Close all SSTs 

(M-045-00)

1/31/2043 9/29/2043 10/5/2043 10/20/2044 12/2/2042 9/11/2047 10/9/2042 8/20/2046 10/4/2041 4/21/2044 10/2/2042 10/31/2044

Treat all tank 

waste (M-062-

00)

12/31/2047 8/26/2045 4/23/2043 5/13/2044 8/13/2041 3/27/2046 8/26/2041 3/16/2047 10/4/2039 6/7/2045 1/17/2043 10/16/2043

Close all DSTs 

(M-042-00A)

9/30/2052 9/15/2049 3/18/2048 6/1/2049 8/7/2046 2/17/2051 7/30/2046 3/21/2052 12/18/2045 5/31/2050 1/17/2048 10/22/2048
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-21

Table 6-5. RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Highlights. (3 pages)

Metric

(milestone)

Success 

criteria

System 

Plan 

(Rev. 5): 

Baseline 

Case

System Plan (Rev. 6) Scenarios

Case 1:

Baseline 

Case

Case 2:

TRU 

waste to 

WTP

Case 3:

FBSR for 

supplemental 

treatment

Case 4:

WTP delay 

with increased 

vitrification

Case 5:

2020 Vision 

One System

Case 6:

WTP delay 

with new 

DST farm

Case 7:

Enhanced 

tank waste 

strategy

Case 8:

Accelerated 

retrieval

Case 9:

Early 

U Farm 

closure

Case 10:

Slow SST 

retrievals

Complete 

potential TRU 

tank waste 

packaging

− 6/26/2023 7/13/2023 − 7/13/2023 7/13/2023 7/13/2023 7/13/2023 7/13/2023 − 7/13/2023 7/13/2023

HLW glass mass 

(MTG)

− 33,654 31,968 34,884 31,056 31,512 30,721 31,304 28,205 37,137 31,875 31,995

HLW glass 

canisters

− 10,713 10,586 11,552 10,284 10,435 10,173 10,366 9,340 12,298 10,555 10,595

HLW glass 

waste oxide 

loading

− 37.6% 36.9% 35.3% 37.8% 37.7% 38.4% 38.3% 41.2% 36.3% 36.6% 37.0%

LAW glass mass 

(MTG)

− 415,430 527,838 533,110 152,045 523,479 520,966 525,433 0 527,819 526,269 523,693

LAW glass 

containers

− 75,419 95,825 96,782 27,602 95,034 94,577 95,389 0 95,822 95,540 95,073

LAW glass 

sodium oxide 

loading

− 17.2% 17.8% 17.7% 19.92% 17.9% 18.0% 17.8% 0 17.9% 18.0% 17.9%

Sodium 

reporting to 

LAW glass 

(MT)

− 53,058 69,659 70,109 22,474 69,657 69,689 69,487 0 70,018 70,136 69,499

FBSR product 

(MT)

− − − − 620,099 − − − 912,751 − − −

Sodium 

reporting to 

FBSR product 

(MT)

− − − − 46,380 − − − 68,507 − − −

LiHT by-product 

(MT)

− 20,201 − − − − − − − − − −

Potential TRU 

tank waste 

drums

− 7,491 7,492 − 7,492 7,492 7,492 7,492 7,492 − 7,491 7,492
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-22

Table 6-5. RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Highlights. (3 pages)

Metric

(milestone)

Success 

criteria

System 

Plan 

(Rev. 5): 

Baseline 

Case

System Plan (Rev. 6) Scenarios

Case 1:

Baseline 

Case

Case 2:

TRU 

waste to 

WTP

Case 3:

FBSR for 

supplemental 

treatment

Case 4:

WTP delay 

with increased 

vitrification

Case 5:

2020 Vision 

One System

Case 6:

WTP delay 

with new 

DST farm

Case 7:

Enhanced 

tank waste 

strategy

Case 8:

Accelerated 

retrieval

Case 9:

Early 

U Farm 

closure

Case 10:

Slow SST 

retrievals

Notes: BOLD RED text indicates a figure or date that does not meet the success criteria. a

 Near-term funding targets are: FY 2011: $410 M; FY 2012: $510 M; FY 2013: $510 M; FY 2014: $610 M; FY 2015: $710 M. Total FY 2011 – FY 2015 is $2,750 M.

 – The case meets or is generally consistent with the near-term funding targets. X – The case deviates from the near-term funding targets.  – The case meets the near-term funding targets in some years, but 

not others. b

 All projected results are contingent on favorable resolution of the key issues and uncertainties associated with each scenario. c

 Lifecycle costs for Cases 1-10 were developed using the TOC cost model. Lifecycle cost figures are for use in the System Plan for comparative purposes only, and do not reflect the currently approved performance 

measurement baseline.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reformer. 

FY = fiscal year.

HLW = high-level waste.

LiHT = lithium hydrotalcite. 

MT = metric ton.

MTG = metric tons of glass.

SST = single-shell tank.

TOC = Tank Operations Contract.

TRU = transuranic.

WMA = waste management area.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-23

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Baseline 

Case: $59.9

Case 2: 

$61.6

Case 3: 

$58.1

Case 4: 

$66.0

Case 5: 

$58.0

Case 6: 

$68.7

Case 7: 

$57.3

Case 8: 

$62.8

Case 9: 

$59.6

Case 10: 

$60.8

$50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75

Billions of Dollars

Life-cycle cost, FY 1997 to end of 

mission $61.5B

Baseline 

Case: 12/21/2013

Case 2: 

12/21/2013

Case 3: 

12/21/2013

Case 4: 

12/21/2013

Case 5: 

12/21/2013

Case 6: 

12/21/2013

Case 7: 

12/21/2013

Case 8: 

12/21/2013

Case 9: 

12/21/2013

Case 10: 

1/23/2014

2013 2014 2015 2016

Calendar Year

Complete C Farm retrievals (B-1) 

9/30/2014

Baseline 

Case: 

7/23/2017

Case 2: 

7/23/2017

Case 3: 

9/16/2017

Case 4: 

7/1/2017

Case 5: 

9/9/2018

Case 6: 

7/23/2017

Case 7: 

9/16/2017

Case 8: 

7/23/2017

Case 9: 

5/21/2017

Case 10: 

7/27/2017

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Calendar Year

Start five additional SST 

retrievals (B-3) 

12/31/2017

Baseline 

Case: 

11/9/2018

Case 2: 

11/9/2018

Case 3: 

11/9/2018

Case 4: 

11/9/2018

Case 5: 

11/9/2018

Case 6: 

11/9/2018

Case 7: 

11/9/2018

Case 8: 

11/9/2018

Case 9: 

11/9/2018

Case 10: 

11/9/2018

2018 2019 2020 2021

Calendar Year

Close WMA C (M-045-83) 

6/30/2019

Baseline 

Case: 12/16/2020

Case 2: 

12/16/2020

Case 3: 

11/4/2019

Case 4: 

7/17/2024

Case 5: 

4/21/2020

Case 6: 

8/25/2021

Case 7: 

10/24/2019

Case 8: 

12/16/2020

Case 9: 

8/15/2020

Case 10: 

1/17/2021

2015 2020 2025 2030

Calendar Year

Complete nine additional SST 

retrievals (B-4) 

9/30/2022

Baseline 

Case: 

9/8/2039

Case 2: 

9/25/2040

Case 3: 

11/3/2038

Case 4: 

8/14/2043

Case 5: 

9/14/2038

Case 6: 

7/24/2042

Case 7: 

9/9/2037

Case 8: 

3/27/2040

Case 9: 

9/7/2038

Case 10: 

10/4/2040

2035 2040 2045

Calendar Year

Complete all SST retrievals 

(M-045-70) 

12/31/2040

Baseline 

Case: 

10/5/2043

Case 2: 

10/20/2044

Case 3: 

12/2/2042

Case 4: 

9/11/2047

Case 5: 

10/9/2042

Case 6: 

8/20/2046

Case 7: 

10/4/2041

Case 8: 

4/21/2044

Case 9: 

10/2/2042

Case 10: 

10/31/2044

2035 2040 2045 2050

Calendar Year

Close all SSTs (M-045-00) 

1/31/2043

Baseline 

Case: 

4/23/2043

Case 2: 

5/13/2044

Case 3: 

8/13/2041

Case 4: 

3/27/2046

Case 5: 

8/26/2041

Case 6: 

3/16/2047

Case 7: 

10/4/2039

Case 8: 

6/7/2045

Case 9: 

1/17/2043

Case 10: 

10/16/2043

2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Calendar Year

Treat all tank waste (M-062-00) 

12/31/2047

Baseline 

Case: 

3/18/2048

Case 2: 

6/1/2049

Case 3: 

8/7/2046

Case 4: 

2/17/2051

Case 5: 

7/30/2046

Case 6: 

3/21/2052

Case 7: 

12/18/2045

Case 8: 

5/31/2050

Case 9: 

1/17/2048

Case 10: 

10/22/2048

2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Calendar Year

Close all DSTs (M-42-00A) 

9/30/2052

System Plan 6 Cases

Baseline Case

Case 2:TRU to WTP

Case 3:FBSR for supplemental treatment

Case 4:WTP delay with increased vitrification

Case 5:2020 Vision One System

Case 6:WTP delay with new DST farm

Case 7:Enhanced tank waste strategy

Case 8:Accelerated retrieval

Case 9:Early U Farm closure

Case 10:Slow SST retrievals

Figure 6-10. Comparison of RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) Cases to Mission Milestones.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-24

Table 6-6. Summary Results for Cases 2 – 10 (3 pages)

Case 

No. Scenario Title Purpose Observations

1 Baseline Case Provide the technical basis 

for updates to the Tank 

Operations Contract 

Performance 

Measurement Baseline

Retrieving waste from the SSTs to DSTs and delivering the waste 

to the WTP; deploy supplemental treatment capability, currently 

depicted as a second LAW Vitrification Facility; treatment and 

packaging capability for potential TRU tank waste interim 

storage at the Central Waste Complex pending determination of 

the final disposal pathway; deploy interim storage capacity for 

the immobilized HLW pending determination of the final 

disposal pathway; and disposing of packaged immobilized LAW 

onsite at the Integrated Disposal Facility and closing the SST and 

DST tank farms, ancillary facilities, and associated waste 

management and treatment facilities.

2 TRU waste to 

WTP

Show impacts of treating 

all potential TRU tank 

waste at WTP as HLW

The additional waste treated at the WTP caused an increase in the 

number of HLW canisters, an increase in WTP treatment 

duration, and an associated increase in lifecycle cost. 

3 FBSR for 

supplemental

treatment

Deploy FBSR as an 

alternative to a second

LAW Vitrification 

Facility

The supplemental pretreatment and treatment capacity added for 

Case 3 facilitated an earlier completion of SST retrievals, earlier 

SST and DST closures, and shorter treatment duration. The costs 

to install and operate the alternative supplemental treatment 

system were offset by the elimination of a second LAW 

Vitrification Facility and by the decreased mission length.

The sodium management of Case 3 could be optimized to further 

reduce the demand on the WTP Pretreatment Facility and 

improve the utilization of the supplemental pretreatment and 

treatment systems. 

When compared on a volume basis, the FBSR product is 

2.4 times the volume of LAW glass for the same amount of 

sodium processed.

The accelerated schedule necessary for a 2018 deployment of 

FBSR carries significant risks.

4 WTP delay 

with +10% 

vitrification 

capacity

Evaluate how well a 10% 

increase in overall 

vitrification capacity 

offsets all/part of the 

impact of the uniform 

4-year delay in WTP 

startup

Increased vitrification capacity only recovered about one year 

from the 4-year delay in WTP startup. As such, SST retrievals 

and closures, DST closures, and the end of treatment all occur 

years behind the Baseline Case, resulting in an increased lifecycle 

cost.

The 10% additional vitrification capacity may exceed the 

mechanical handling capabilities of the HLW Vitrification

Facility.

5 2020 Vision

One System

Show impacts of phased 

turnover of WTP 

facilities

Starting LAW treatment earlier than the Baseline Case had 

beneficial impacts on the mission, allowing SST retrievals and 

closures, DST closures, and end of treatment all to occur ahead of 

the Baseline Case. Competing demands for DST space early in 

the mission caused milestone B-3, “Start five additional SST 

retrievals,” to be missed by about nine months. The additional 

costs of providing supplemental pretreatment and supporting 

early LAW treatment were more than offset by the cost savings 

due to shorter mission duration.

Despite a 13.5-month outage in HLW production caused by DST 

space constraints, all tank waste was treated approximately 

20 months earlier than the Baseline Case.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-25

Table 6-6. Summary Results for Cases 2 – 10 (3 pages)

Case 

No. Scenario Title Purpose Observations

6 WTP delay 

with new 

DST farm

Evaluate how well a new 

DST farm offsets the

impact of a uniform 

4-year delay in WTP 

startup

The 4-year delay in startup of WTP causes a nearly 4-year delay 

in the end of treatment, even with a new DST farm. While the 

additional DST farm allows SST retrievals to be completed with 

less than a 4-year delay, the milestone is still missed. The 

increased mission duration due to delayed treatment increases the 

lifecycle cost considerably.

7 Enhanced 

tank waste 

strategy

Use of transformational 

technologies that may 

shorten mission schedule 

by 7 years and reduce 

lifecycle cost by 

$16 billion

Replacing the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility and a second 

LAW Vitrification Facility with eight FBSRs fed by both of the 

WTP pretreatment and supplemental pretreatment processes 

accelerated the treatment end date by 3.5 years compared to the 

Baseline Case and 6 years compared to the PMB. All other 

success criteria were met; typically in advance of the Baseline 

Case. The scenario goal of shortening the mission by 7 years and 

saving $16 billion when compared to the PMB were only 

partially met (6 years and $4.3 billion were saved). Significant 

savings were achieved through the 3.5-year treatment duration 

reduction relative to the Baseline Case.

The sodium management of Case 7 could be optimized to further 

reduce demand on the WTP Pretreatment Facility and improve 

the use of the supplemental pretreatment and treatment systems.

The accelerated schedule necessary for a 2018 deployment of 

FBSRs carries significant risks.

When compared on a volume basis, the FBSR product is 

2.4 times the volume of LAW glass for the same amount of 

sodium processed.

The enhanced HLW glass model and the increased LAW 

immobilization capacity allow waste to be staged through the 

DST system more rapidly than the Baseline Case. As a result, 

both the HLW and LAW facilities experience SST retrievallimited outages during the mission.

8 Accelerated 

SST retrievals

Show effect on mission 

duration using alternate 

SST retrieval approach

All mission success criteria were met by Case 8, with the 

exception of the SST closure date, and the treatment end date was 

more than 2 years later than the Baseline Case. The increased 

treatment duration was due to the additional waste sent to the 

WTP from potential CH-TRU waste tanks (the starting point for 

Case 8 was Case 2). Less-than-optimal blending of the potential 

CH-TRU tank waste (due to timing of retrievals and waste 

diversity available) caused more HLW glass to be produced. 

Staging waste in sound SSTs allowed SST retrievals to complete 

earlier than for Case 2, which also treated potential CH-TRU 

waste at the WTP.

SSTs are not currently approved to receive consolidated waste 

and there is significant risk that the effort needed to demonstrate 

that selected SSTs are fit-for-use; implement any required 

engineering, operational, or administrative controls; and support 

an accelerated SST retrieval permitting schedule would not 

support a 2020 project start.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-26

Table 6-6. Summary Results for Cases 2 – 10 (3 pages)

Case 

No. Scenario Title Purpose Observations

9 Early U Farm 

closure

Show impacts of 

beginning U Farm 

retrievals instead of 

A Farm for the 

nine retrievals after 

C Farm

All mission success criteria were met by Case 9 and the results 

are similar to those for the Baseline Case. The treatment end date 

is 2 months earlier than the Baseline Case, with a $300 million 

reduction in lifecycle cost.

The total volume of waste retrieved from SSTs during 2020 to

2025 in Case 9 exceeds that of the Baseline Case due to the 

creation of additional deep sludge tanks to use more DST space.

10 Slow SST 

retrievals

Show impacts on the 

baseline of increasing the

minimum retrieval 

durations for SSTs

All mission success criteria were met by Case 10, with the 

exception of the SST closure date. The results are similar to 

those for the Baseline Case. The 25% slower SST retrievals in 

the near-term can be tolerated due to schedule contingency built 

into the early retrieval schedules, which allows for a reasonable 

increase in the duration of one retrieval to avoid impacting the 

following retrieval.

CH-TRU = contact-handled transuranic.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reformer. 

HLW = high-level waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

PMB = performance measurement baseline.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-1 

7.0 MISSION SUPPORT

The Mission Support function is service-oriented and provides key infrastructure, utility, 

resource, and other Hanford Site-wide cleanup support. DOE has responsibilities to protect 

personnel, nuclear material, and physical property on the Hanford Site. These activities are 

performed under Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020). DOE works closely with the 

regulatory agencies and community to provide support to the Hanford Site cleanup through 

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

There are a number of infrastructure-related Mission Support activities in place to support the 

cleanup. These Mission Support activities are managed under Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder 

of Hanford (PBS RL-0040), specifically under PBS elements RL-0040.04, RL-0040.05, and 

RL-0040.06. Following cleanup efforts at the Hanford Site, DOE will have ongoing activities to 

maintain the protectiveness of the cleanup actions and support transition to future land uses. 

This period is referred to as LTS and is covered by PBS RL-LTS. Figure 7-1 presents the 

remaining cleanup schedule for Mission Support. 

 

Figure 7-1. Mission Support Remaining Cleanup Schedule. 

Mission Support Remaining Cleanup Schedule

Mission Support provides for behind-the-scenes infrastructure, services, community relations, and regulatory 

agency support necessary to the cleanup mission. Safeguards and Security measures ensure protection of 

Site physical, human, and intellectual resources, while infrastructure is maintained to ensure utilities, office 

space, equipment, and specialized work forces are in place when needed at cleanup locations. Long-term 

stewardship requirements are identified and implemented throughout the cleanup process with final transition 

of the Hanford Site to Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) following completion of the cleanup. The PBSs

included in Mission Support are Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020), Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040.04/.05/.06), and Long-Term 

Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS). 

Safeguards and Security

FY2010 FY2020 FY2030 FY2040 FY2050 FY2060 FY2070 FY2080 FY2090 FY2100

Richland Community and Regulatory Support

Infrastructure and Services

Long-Term Stewardship

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-2 

7.1 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) 

The scope of this PBS includes one primary work element: Safeguards and Security. Figure 7-2 

presents the remaining cleanup schedule. Table 7-1 describes the work scope. Safeguards and 

Security will be required until cleanup is complete. The level of effort required to ensure 

protectiveness may diminish as nuclear material is shipped offsite and as the cleanup progresses. 

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

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

Work Element Scope Description

Safeguards and 

Security

This work element includes management, training, and equipment for staff; physical 

protective systems, such as intrusion protection, Hanford Site access, and badging; 

information and cyber security; personnel security; material control and accountability; 

and security program management.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 7-3 provides the remaining estimated costs for Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) 

by fiscal year. Figure 7-3 shows two rising cost curves; however, annual costs are assumed to be 

a consistent level of effort, and escalation of the costs through time results in increasing annual 

costs. The drop in costs associated with the initial peak (after about 2024) is related to 

completion of remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon OUs, which reduces the 

level of Safeguards and Security needed.

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Cleanup Schedule 

Specially-trained and equipped protective services ensure the safety of the Hanford Site, its workers, and the 

unique technical, physical, and radiological property located here. Intellectual property, as well as physical 

property, is protected.

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

FY2012 FY2018 FY2024 FY2030 FY2036 FY2042 FY2048 FY2054 FY2060

Safeguards and Security
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-3 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

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

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-4 

7.2 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

This PBS includes support to the communities that are influenced by the Hanford cleanup. 

Figure 7-4 provides the remaining cleanup schedule for Richland Community and Regulatory 

Support (PBS RL-0100); Table 7-2 summarizes its scope of work. Additional details are 

provided in Appendix D. 

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

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

Work Element Scope Description

Richland 

Community and 

Regulatory Support

This work element includes DOE-RL support to community activities and regulatory 

agencies, such as the Hanford Advisory Board, the Oregon Department of Energy, the 

Natural Resource Trustee Council, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

other entities through fees, grants, and payment in lieu of taxes. 

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

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 7-5 provides the remaining estimated costs for Richland Community and Regulatory 

Support (PBS RL-0100) by fiscal year. Figure 7-5 shows two rising cost curves; however, actual 

annual costs are assumed to be based on a generally standard level of effort, and escalation of the 

costs results in increasing annual costs. The drop in costs is related to the end of payments 

following completion of remedial actions for all non-tank farm and non-canyon OUs. 

Richland Community and Regulatory Support

Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining Schedule

DOE is committed to supporting the communities that are influenced by the Hanford cleanup and provides 

funding in the form of fees, grants, and payments to support public, regulatory, and other community 

participation in Hanford Site cleanup. The Hanford Advisory Board, the Natural Resource Trustee 

Council, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and Oregon Department of Energy all participate 

through this PBS. Richland Community and Regulatory Support is provided during cleanup activities 

under this PBS. Activities associated with this PBS move into PBS RL-LTS following cleanup activities.

FY2010 FY2015 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040 FY2045 FY2050 FY2055 FY2060 FY2065

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-5 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Figure 7-5. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-6 

7.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) 

Infrastructure and Services play a key role in completing the cleanup mission, and as noted in 

Chapters 3.0 and 5.0, the work scope is included within PBS RL-0040. Infrastructure and 

Services (PBS RL-0040) encompasses several areas of work scope. 

Infrastructure and Services provides for occupational medicine for Hanford Site employees, 

steam systems, legal support, land transfers, baseline management and integration, acquisition 

support, and real property asset management. 

The scope of Infrastructure Reliability Projects is to manage the repair and replacement of the 

Hanford Site’s infrastructure systems and to provide utilities for the site infrastructure, including 

roads, telecommunications, and facility renovations. The scope includes Emergency Services for 

fire and emergency preparedness. Operation and maintenance of the Hazardous Materials 

Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training facility also is included. 

Figure 7-6 provides the remaining schedule for Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040). 

Table 7-3 summarizes the scope for Level 2 activities.

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

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Schedule

This PBS provides needed Hanford Site-wide services and infrastructure support through the course of the 

Hanford Site cleanup, including utilities, occupational medicine, renovation and maintenance, roads, and 

other key Site-wide elements that ensure the needed infrastructure and systems are in place.

Infrastructure and Services

HAMMER

Infrastructure Reliability Projects

FY2012 FY2018 FY2024 FY2030 FY2036 FY2042 FY2048 FY2054 FY2060 FY2066
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-7 

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

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure and 

Services

This work element includes occupational medicine; steam systems; legal support; land 

transfers; cleanup baseline, integration, and development; radiochemical processing 

laboratory and 300 Area transition; and real property asset management. 

HAMMER This work element includes operations and maintenance activities at the HAMMER 

facility in support of Hanford Site and other training.

Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects

This work element includes repair and replacement of infrastructure systems and 

provides capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale expense projects. 

Also included are capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements for crane 

and rigging, electrical utilities, biological control, transportation, materials management, 

Hanford Fire Department, and water and sewer utilities.

HAMMER = Volpentest HAMMER Training and 

Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.

The remaining estimated costs for Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) are shown in 

Figure 7-7 by fiscal year and in Figure 7-8 by work element. Costs decline sharply in about the 

last 20 years due to cleanup progress and reduction in waste management facilities.

 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-8 

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

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-9 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

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

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

2054

2060

2066

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-19 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-10

7.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS)

Following the completion of Hanford Site cleanup actions, the disposal facilities and other areas 

will require long-term management. LTS and institutional controls activities will be required for 

portions of the Hanford Site to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

Institutional controls include non-engineered restrictions on activities and access to land, 

groundwater, surface water, waste sites, waste disposal areas, and other areas or media that 

contain hazardous substances to minimize the potential for human exposure to the substances. 

Common types of institutional controls include procedural restrictions for access, fencing, 

warning notices, permits, easements, deed notifications, leases and contracts, and land-use 

controls. The scope and duration of institutional controls will be based on a number of factors, 

such as residual contamination, the location of that material, reasonably anticipated future land 

and groundwater uses, and environmental impacts. DOE/RL-2001-41, Sitewide Institutional 

Controls Plan for Hanford CERCLA Response Actions, was developed to describe how DOE 

will implement and maintain the OU-specific institutional controls specified in CERCLA 

decision documents or the RCRA post-closure plans for the Hanford Site.

LTS refers to all activities necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment 

following completion of cleanup, disposal, or stabilization at a site or a portion of a site. LTS

includes engineered and institutional controls designed to contain or to prevent exposures to 

residual contamination and waste, such as surveillance activities, record-keeping activities, 

inspections, groundwater monitoring, ongoing pump-and-treat activities, cap repair, maintenance 

of entombed buildings or facilities, maintenance of other barriers and containment structures, 

access control, and posting signs. LTS begins when cleanup is completed and the selected 

remedy cleanup objectives and goals are met, as defined by the applicable CERCLA or RCRA 

decision documents, or when long-term remediation systems are constructed and operating as 

intended (e.g., groundwater pump-and-treat systems).

The Hanford Site LTS Program consists of the management of the post-cleanup activities, as 

well as addressing the management of the site’s resources and environment (e.g., cultural, 

biological, natural resources). The framework and approaches for LTS at the Hanford Site are 

described in DOE/RL-2003-39, Hanford Long-term Stewardship Program and Transition: 

Preparing for Environmental Management Cleanup Completion. 

DOE/RL-2010-35, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, defines long-term, 

post-cleanup responsibilities; maintains the protectiveness of the cleanup remedies being 

conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements; and provides a framework for a 

Hanford Site-wide LTS Program to institutionalize LTS across the Hanford Site.

The Hanford Site LTS Program will manage the geographic areas for which cleanup has been 

completed in accordance with the post-cleanup requirements specified in the associated decision 

documents. These decisions include, but are not limited to, the CERCLA RODs and RCRA 

post-closure plans. In addition to managing the post-cleanup completion obligations, the 

Hanford Site LTS Program will manage Hanford Site natural and cultural resources through the 

framework of DOE/EIS-0222-F and 64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS),” and in accordance 

with Federal laws, executive orders, Tribal Government treaties, DOE directives, and Hanford 

Site procedures. When developed, the Hanford Site LTS Program’s planning basis will integrate
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-11

stewardship and institutional controls planning to implement the program from present day to 

2060. 

Even though requirements for LTS and institutional controls will not be completely defined for 

many years, the scope, schedule, and costs of LTS and institutional controls, to the extent 

predictable, have been included in this Lifecycle Report for the period from 2061 to 2090. DOE 

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 decisions are made and LTS and institutional controls are better identified, more specific 

information will be presented as part of the cleanup actions described in respective sections of 

this Lifecycle Report. Figure 7-9 presents the remaining schedule and Table 7-4 provides a

summary of the scope.

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

Infrastructure

Waste Management

Site and Environmental Monitoring

Post-Closure Surveillance and Maintenance

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Schedule 

Following cleanup activities, DOE will continue activities at the Hanford Site to ensure the cleanup remains 

protective. Activities will include maintenance of infrastructure used to support monitoring and surveillance. 

DOE will provide management of the site, including ongoing stakeholder participation. 

Environmental Compliance

Stakeholder Participation

FY2061 FY2065 FY2070 FY2075 FY2080 FY2085 FY2090 FY2095

Management and Administration

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-12

Table 7-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure This work element includes operation and maintenance of Hanford Site infrastructure 

following cleanup activities. Specific scope will include supplying electrical and water 

utilities, operating and maintaining emergency services (Hanford Fire Department), and 

maintaining roads as needed to support Hanford Site LTS activities.

Waste Management This work element includes operation and maintenance of 200 Area liquid effluent 

facilities in support of groundwater treatment and monitoring activities.

Site and 

Environmental 

Monitoring

This work element includes ongoing Hanford Site and environmental monitoring of 

groundwater, soil, vadose zone, and monitoring for public safety and resource protection. 

Post-Closure 

Surveillance and 

Maintenance

This work element includes real estate and Hanford Site planning, land management, and 

surveillance and maintenance activities for the 100 and 200 Areas.

Environmental 

Compliance

This work element includes activities to ensure environmental compliance and 

protection.

Stakeholder 

Participation

This work element includes continued support of stakeholder participation through fees

and payment in lieu of taxes. 

Management and 

Administration

This work element provides for management and administration of these LTS activities.

LTS = long-term stewardship.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 7-10 shows remaining estimated costs for PBS RL-LTS by fiscal year; Figure 7-11 shows 

the remaining estimated costs by work element. This PBS is assumed to run from FY 2061 

through FY 2090. Annual costs decline due to effectiveness of cleanup efforts and as associated 

stewardship activities are reduced. Costs drop after FY 2080 due to completion of waste 

management activities, after which annual cost increases are attributable to escalation.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-13

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

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

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2061

2066

2071

2076

2081

2086

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-14

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

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

2061

2066

2071

2076

2081

2086

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-30 for cost and schedule data
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

8-1 

8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

8.1 SCHEDULE AND COST LIMITATIONS

The Lifecycle Report is based on an annual compilation of estimated scope, schedule, and cost 

information. In order to finish preparing the Lifecycle Report, it is necessary to select a deadline 

each year when the information used to prepare the report will be “locked down.” 

For the 2012 Lifecycle Report, August 31, 2011, 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 2012 Lifecycle Report.

8.2 OTHER LIMITATIONS

Some of the activities described in the Lifecycle Report are subject to the analysis and 

decision-making requirements of CERCLA, RCRA, or other applicable statutes and regulations. 

The information included in the Lifecycle Report is for planning purposes only, not for decision 

making, which will be conducted following the applicable statutory and regulatory programs. 

As necessary, the Lifecycle Report includes explanations regarding decisions that are not yet 

reflected in the scope, schedule, and cost data used for the current report. 

Several non-DOE entities operate and manage property on the Hanford Site, typically under 

lease agreements with DOE. Examples include: 

• Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utility companies that oversee the Columbia 

Generating Station nuclear power reactor. 

• 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 Lifecycle Report. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

8-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

9-1 

9.0 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. 

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. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public Law 111-5, February 17, 2009.

Atomic Energy Act, 42 USC 2011, et seq. 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

Brockman, D. A., and J. A. Hedges, 2010, “Partial Completion of Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Interim Milestone M-062-40, to 

Submit a System Plan to Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Describing 

the Disposition of All Tank Waste Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 

Office of River Protection (ORP), Including Retrieval of All Tanks Not Addressed by the 

Consent Decree in Washington v. DOE, Case No. 08-5085-FVS, and the Completion of 

the Treatment Mission,” (Letter 10-TPD-148 to D. A. Faulk, Program Manager, Office of 

Environmental Cleanup, Hanford Project Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

October 28), U. S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and Washington 

State Department of Ecology Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington. 

DOE 2010a, River Corridor Closure Project Project Execution Plan, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE 2010b, Roadmap for EM’s Journey to Excellence, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. 

DOE and Ecology, 2010, Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order 

signed October 25, 2010, settling State of Washington v. Chu, United States District 

Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS.

DOE O 413.3B, 2010, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, 

Chg. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE/EIS-0222-F, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Volume 1 and Volume 2, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE/RL-2001-41, 2009, Sitewide Institutional Controls Plan for Hanford CERCLA Response 

Actions, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

9-2 

DOE/RL-2002-59, 2004, Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and 

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

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2003-39, 2003, Hanford Long-term Stewardship Program and Transition: Preparing 

for Environmental Management Cleanup Completion, 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-2004-68, 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-2007-56, 2008, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central 

Plateau, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2008-78, 2009, 200 West Area 200-ZP-1 Pump-and-Treat Remedial Design/Remedial 

Action Work Plan, Rev. 0 Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-10, 2010, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-2009-81, 2009, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy, Rev. 0, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2010-25, 2011 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-2010-35, 2010, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-2011-01, 2011, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2010, Rev. 0, 

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

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. 

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

9-3 

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. 106-398, 

114 Stat. 1654A-38. 

HNF-EP-0924, 1997, History and Stabilization of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex 

Hanford Site, Fluor Hanford, Richland, Washington. 

HAB 223, 2009, “Life Cycle Cost and Schedule Report for the Proposed Consent Decree and the 

Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Modifications,” (letter to D. Brockman, S. Olinger, P. Zehm, 

and M. Pirzadeh from S. Leckband), Hanford Advisory Board Consensus Advice #223, 

Richland, Washington, November 6. 

National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

ORP-11242, 2009, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 

ORP-11242, 2011, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 6, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

RPP-RPT-40145, 2011, Single-Shell Tank Waste Retrieval Plan, Rev. 2, Washington River 

Protection Solutions, LLC, Richland, Washington. 

Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261, 

112 Stat. 1921. 

TRAC-0151-VA, 1991, Historical Perspective of Radioactively Contaminated Liquid and Solid 

Wastes Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford, Westinghouse Hanford 

Company, Richland, Washington. 

Treaty with the Nez Perces, 1855, 12 Stat. 957, June 11, 1855, Ratified March 8, 1859, 

Proclaimed April 29, 1859. 

Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla, 1855, 12 Stat. 945, June 9, 1855, Ratified 

March 8, 1859, Proclaimed April 11, 1859. 

Treaty with the Yakama, 1855, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951, Ratified March 8, 1859, Proclaimed 

April 18, 1859. 

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington. 

WAC 173-303-140, “Land Disposal Restrictions,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

9-4 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-i 

APPENDIX A 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-iii

CONTENTS

A.1 IDENTIFYING CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE ...............................2

A.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND 

ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES FOR HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS ...........4

A.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................5

A.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND 

DESCRIBING THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND .......................................28

A.3 RATIONALE AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION 

OF CLEANUP ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED .............................................................30

A.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................36

TABLES

Table A-1. List of Remaining Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for Lifecycle Report. (2 

pages) ........................................................................................................................... 3

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. 

(8 pages) ...................................................................................................................... 6

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. 

(11 pages) .................................................................................................................. 14

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 

pages) ......................................................................................................................... 25

Table A-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives. ............................................. 32

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. 

(4 pages) .................................................................................................................... 33
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-iv

TERMS

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESD explanation of significant differences

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FBSR fluidized bed steam reforming 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

HLW high-level waste

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISS interim safe storage

LAW low-activity waste

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

NPL National Priorities List

NRDWL Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill

ORP Office of River Protection

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

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

ROD record of decision

RPP U.S. Department of Energy, River Protection Project 

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

SALDS State-Approved Land Disposal Site 

SSE safe storage enclosure

SST single-shell tank

SWL solid waste landfill

TBD to be determined

TC&WM EIS Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TRU transuranic 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-v 

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing Plant

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-vi

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-1 

APPENDIX A 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

(Ecology et al. 1989), commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), 

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

Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report) is to consider ranges of 

alternatives and present a reasonable upper bound: 

“In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the 

report shall be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of 

plausible alternatives or may set forth a range of alternative costs including 

such a reasonable upper bound.” 

The TPA milestone specifies that when making assumptions (e.g., about alternative cleanup 

actions), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to take into account the views of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State Department of Ecology 

(Ecology), as well as the values expressed by affected Tribal Governments and Hanford 

stakeholders. 

Cleanup decisions are made so that DOE can conduct cleanup actions at the Hanford Site.

As discussed in Section A.1, the Lifecycle Report has grouped remaining Hanford Site cleanup 

work into approximately 38 separate cleanup actions. This approach helps focus discussions on 

cleanup work that remains to be performed at the Hanford Site and promotes consistency with 

the ongoing cleanup decision-making process under the TPA. 

Because final cleanup decisions (see Appendix C) have not yet been made for much of the 

remaining Hanford Site cleanup work, this Lifecycle Report must consider the range of plausible 

alternatives (or alternative costs) and present a reasonable upper bound. DOE has decided that 

information about the range of plausible alternatives, rather than just a range of alternative costs, 

would be most useful for this Lifecycle Report. DOE also believes that in most cases, cost 

estimates include allowances for uncertainties in current planning that encompass a wide range 

of potential alternatives. Section A.2 includes information about the range of plausible 

alternatives for each cleanup action. 

Because many final decisions remain to be made, a reasonable upper bound will need to be 

defined, along with schedule and costs, for a number of remaining Hanford Site cleanup actions.

To give each action a sufficient level of analysis and detail, DOE has decided to take a 

methodical and planned approach to developing in-depth analyses of cleanup action alternatives, 

including definition of reasonable upper bound schedules and costs. 

Section A.3 proposes a rationale and schedule for when different cleanup actions will undergo 

in-depth alternatives analyses in the Lifecycle Report. This approach limits the complexity of the 

individual reports by presenting in-depth analysis for a few select actions in each annual report. 

The approach also provides timely information to support budget planning and other decisions 

that are focused on more near-term actions, and provides an appropriate level of detail in a 

user-friendly report.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-2 

The information provided in this appendix has been developed for the sole purpose of preparing 

the Lifecycle Report and fulfilling the requirements of TPA Milestone M-036-01; the Lifecycle 

Report is not a decision-making document. Cleanup actions and decisions discussed in this 

appendix are still undergoing formal development, review, and eventual approval pursuant to the 

procedures established in the TPA and applicable Federal and State requirements. 

The information in this appendix does not presume nor is it intended to prejudice the outcome of 

the requirements that must be followed by the TPA agencies (DOE, Ecology, and EPA). Any 

errors or discrepancies in this appendix will be superseded by the results of the legally applicable 

decision-making processes. 

A.1 IDENTIFYING CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR THE HANFORD SITE

In this Lifecycle Report, the term “cleanup action” is used to conceptually describe similar, 

related work that enables cleanup to proceed for common or related contaminants that occur in a 

relatively well-defined environmental media (or waste management system) within a generally 

contiguous geographic area. This concept breaks down into three main ideas:

• A cleanup action should include similar, related work, which means that the work 

performed should be of like kind and directed at achieving a common goal. Examples of 

similar, related work would be installing and operating a groundwater pump-and-treat 

system, removing and disposing of contaminated soil in an engineered landfill, and 

retrieving and treating waste from underground tanks. Further, if the work does not itself 

achieve cleanup (e.g., maintaining overall Hanford Site infrastructure), then it is typically 

not considered to be a specific cleanup action.

• A cleanup action should address common or related contaminants that occur in a 

relatively well-defined environmental media or waste management system. In most cases 

around the Hanford Site, distinct industrial processes generated the materials and wastes 

that were managed through discharge to the environment, or treatment and storage in 

various containment systems. The generating processes typically produced residues that 

were chemically and/or radiologically similar with respect to each process (i.e., the 

residues were often common and related to each other) and that often ended up in the 

same places (e.g., burial grounds, cribs, ponds, tanks, basins). 

• A cleanup action should occur within a generally contiguous geographic area. This 

represents primarily the need to be able to develop and implement cleanup actions in a 

manageable way. The Hanford Site covers a large space, and cleanup actions can be 

conducted more efficiently if the cleanup work is not scattered across dozens of small, 

widely separated locations.

This cleanup action concept is consistent with the operable unit cleanup approach taken in the 

TPA and enables cleanup actions and alternatives to be addressed in a manner consistent with the 

way cleanup decisions are being made for the Hanford Site. This approach also provides a 

reasonable middle ground for looking at the cleanup work that is performed on the Hanford Site. 

Too narrow a concept could result in individual cleanup actions covering single, discrete 

activities (e.g., the remediation of one ditch, the retrieval of a few drums of waste). Too broad a 

concept could lead to the other extreme, covering for example all the work needed for an entire 

portion of the Hanford Site (e.g., cleanup of all the facilities, soils, and groundwater throughout 

the 200 Area).
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-3 

The TPA agencies applied the concepts described in the preceding paragraphs to the current 

Hanford Site configuration to develop a set of approximately 38 separate cleanup actions for the 

Lifecycle Report. Table A-1 lists the Hanford Site cleanup actions for which final cleanup 

decisions do not yet exist and for which alternatives will be considered in the Lifecycle Report. 

The path to final cleanup can be complicated and includes the consideration of cleanup 

alternatives, identification of a preferred alternative, including regulatory agency and public 

input, decision-making, and finally design and implementation of the selected cleanup action. 

Cleanup work at the Hanford Site can be complex and extend over long periods. Frequently, 

interim decisions are made and incremental cleanup steps are taken, followed by improved 

decisions as more is learned and other, better alternatives become available. Even relatively 

simple cleanup actions can encompass many sequenced activities and a substantial amount of 

work lasting several years. Thus, many of the cleanup actions discussed in the Lifecycle Report 

will evolve over time and may have a different scope in future reports as progress is made in 

completing Hanford Site cleanup. 

Table A-1. List of Remaining Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for Lifecycle Report. (2 pages)

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

• Disposition 100 Area Reactors

• Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

• Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

• Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

• Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

• Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

• Restore 300 Area Groundwater to Beneficial Use

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

• Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and Facilities (200-OA-1 Operable Unit)

• Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable 

Units)

• Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium Finishing Plant

• Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 Operable Unit)

• Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 Operable Unit)

• Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 Operable Unit)

• Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 Operable Unit)

• Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites

• Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

• Remediate 200-SW-1 Operable Unit

• Disposition Remaining Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities 

• Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 

• Remediate 200-IS-1 Operable Unit

• Remediate 200-SW-2 Operable Unit

• Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 Operable Unit)

• Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-EA-1 Operable Unit)

• Disposition Fast Flux Test Facility Complex

• Disposition Remaining Buildings and Facilities Within Fast Flux Test Facility Complex
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-4 

Table A-1. List of Remaining Hanford Site Cleanup Actions for Lifecycle Report. (2 pages)

• Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

• Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 Operable Unit)

• Restore 200 West Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 Operable Units)

• Restore 200 East Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-PO-1/200-BP-5 Operable Units)

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

• Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

• Tank Waste Treatment

• Secondary Waste Treatment

• Double-Shell Tank Closure

• Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Closure

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).

A.2 IDENTIFYING RANGES OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND 

ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES FOR HANFORD SITE CLEANUP 

ACTIONS

The Lifecycle Report provides information about ranges of plausible alternatives for cleanup 

actions. The range of plausible alternatives for a cleanup action includes DOE’s current 

assumptions about future efforts. Alternatives are included based on current understandings 

among the TPA agencies, the status of existing and forthcoming cleanup decisions, and whether 

current planning already adequately encompasses the range of plausible alternatives. In a series 

of working sessions, the TPA agencies developed the range of plausible alternatives presented in 

Section A.2.1. 

As discussed further in Section A.2.2, a more in-depth analyses of the alternatives for individual 

cleanup actions will be performed in order to describe a reasonable upper bound for the scope 

and costs of a specific cleanup action. The TPA agencies have agreed to take a graded approach 

and to analyze alternatives and develop a reasonable upper bound scope and cost estimate as a 

sensitivity analysis for a limited set of cleanup actions in each annual Lifecycle Report. The main 

reasons for this approach include the following: 

• Developing and analyzing alternatives for every separate cleanup action in every annual 

edition of the Lifecycle Report would be resource intensive and inefficient. 

• Final cleanup decisions are expected soon for a number of cleanup actions, and the 

decision process will produce thorough and detailed analyses of potential alternatives. 

• Many interim cleanup actions currently are underway, the results of which will improve 

the ability to analyze alternatives in future Lifecycle Reports.

In lieu of analyzing alternatives for all cleanup actions every year, the Lifecycle Report proposes 

a schedule and rationale for when different cleanup actions will undergo in-depth analyses.

Section A.3 provides this information. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-5 

A.2.1 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Ranges of plausible alternatives have been identified for cleanup actions, consistent with existing 

and yet to be made cleanup decisions, ongoing interim work (if any), and status and maturity of 

efforts. The range of plausible alternatives has been identified to help ensure completeness with 

respect to the work needed to accomplish the Hanford Site cleanup mission and to provide 

regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, and affected stakeholders with sufficient information 

to help inform and guide discussions about priorities and contents for future Lifecycle Reports. 

The range of plausible alternatives for each cleanup action was developed through a series of 

working sessions involving the TPA agencies subject matter experts applying their knowledge of 

Hanford Site cleanup work and best professional judgment. Each range of plausible alternatives, 

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). Determination of the range of plausible alternatives and likely upper bounding cleanup 

effort took into account, among other factors, current requirements under the TPA and other 

environmental obligations, and the status of alternatives being considered under existing and 

forthcoming cleanup decisions. The range of plausible alternatives for each cleanup action also 

was intended to encompass the most current planning assumptions with respect to that cleanup 

action.

Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4 list and are organized by the identified cleanup actions for River 

Corridor, Central Plateau, and Tank Waste, respectively. These tables of cleanup actions and 

plausible alternatives provide regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, and affected 

stakeholders with information to help inform and guide discussions about priorities and scoping 

of future cleanup work. In addition, these tables include the following information: 

• For each cleanup action, a summary of the current cleanup decisions that have been made 

pursuant to the TPA and other environmental obligations, and a list of relevant cleanup 

decision documents. 

• For each cleanup action, a list that encompasses the likely range of plausible alternatives. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-6 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-1 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area Reactors (Except B Reactor)* 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

The DOE decided the reactor blocks for Hanford’s eight retired plutonium reactors will be kept at their present 

sites until their radiation level lowers through natural decay and will then be buried in the Central Plateau. Action 

memoranda are in place for ISS of reactors and for D4 of ancillary facilities.

• CCN 059689, 1998, “Action Memorandum: USDOE Hanford 100 Area National Priorities List (NPL); 

105-F and 105-DR Reactor Buildings and Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; Benton County, Washington,” 

Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, July 14.

• DOE and Ecology, 2000, “Action Memorandum: United States Department of Energy Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL); 105-D and 105-H Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; 

Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and Washington

State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, December 8.

• DOE and Ecology, 2005, “Action Memorandum; United States Department of Energy, 100 Area, 105-N 

Reactor Facility and 109-N Heat Exchanger Building, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear 

Waste Program, Richland, Washington, March 10.

• DOE and EPA, 2001, “Action Memorandum; U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL) 105-B Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

December 27.

• DOE and EPA, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-time-critical Removal Action for the 105-KE and 

105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, January 4.

• EPA, 1997, “Action Memorandum; 100 B/C Area Ancillary Facilities and the 108-F Building Removal 

Action, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to J.M. Bruggeman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. Faulk), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10 Hanford Project Office, Richland, Washington, January 29.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Demolition of the reactor buildings that have not been placed in ISS, demolition of the reactor blocks in ISS, 

and transport of all the reactor blocks, intact on a tractor-transporter, from the present 100 Area locations to 

the 200 West Area for disposal.

• Complete ISS on remaining reactors; safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, 

and maintenance; at the end of the safe storage period, demolition of the reactor blocks and transport of the 

reactor blocks, intact on a tractor-transporter, from the present 100 Area locations to the 200 West Area for 

disposal. 

• Complete ISS on remaining reactors; safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, 

and maintenance; at the end of the safe storage period, demolition of the reactor buildings and piece-by-piece 

dismantlement of the reactor cores and transport of radioactive waste to the 200 West Area for burial. 

• Demolition of the reactor buildings and SSEs and filling voids beneath and around the reactor blocks, the 

reactor blocks, adjacent shield walls, and the spent fuel storage basin together with the contained 

radioactivity, gravel, and grout covered to a depth of at least 5 meters with a mound containing earth and 

gravel.

* B Reactor has been designated a National Historic Landmark by the U.S. Department of Interior. Ongoing 

efforts are to condition and maintain the facility safe for public access with potential for future long-term

preservation. If the decision is made to remove/disposition B Reactor, the work would be encompassed within 

this overall reactor disposition cleanup action.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-7 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-2 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ROD amendment, and action memorandum are in place for the removal, treatment, and interim 

on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins.

• EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, 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 removal of K Reactors to access below-grade contaminated soils. K East Basin was demolished 

in 2009.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-8 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-3 River Corridor – Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Interim RODs, ROD amendments, and ESDs are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, debris, and 

burial grounds using the observational and plug-in approaches with on-site disposal at the ERDF.

• EPA, 2004a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2007, Explanation of Significant Difference for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 100-KR-2 Operable Units (100 Area 

Burial Grounds), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 

100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

• EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 

200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining Sites ROD, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ROD/R10-00/120, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit 

Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ROD/R10-00/121, 2000, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-2 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-9 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs* and applicable closure performance standards**; backfill, 

contour, and revegetate excavations. (Note: DOE considers the interim RTD actions as the likely final actions 

for the waste sites that have been or will be remediated under the applicable 100 Area RODs. The 100 Area 

interim RODs for waste sites will be covered by the six final RODs for the River Corridor currently being 

worked through a final RI/FS process.) 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* In accordance with applicable interim action RODs.

** Closure of several 100-N facilities will be according to approved RCRA closure plans.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.1 River Corridor – Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for this operable unit. Groundwater monitoring and annual reporting 

continue to track groundwater contamination in this operable unit.

• WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Install pump-and-treat system in 100-BC-5; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring.

• Incorporate bioremediation for chromium.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.2 River Corridor – Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD is in place to clean up hexavalent chromium in the groundwater using pump-and-treat.

• EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Expand pump-and-treat system in 100-KR-4; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring.

• Continue operation of pump-and-treat system with incorporation of bioremediation for chromium.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-10

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.3 River Corridor – Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An action memorandum, interim ROD, and ESD are in place to clean up strontium-90 in the groundwater using 

pump-and-treat and physical barriers. An in situ apatite barrier and phytoremediation treatability tests are being 

evaluated for use in the cleanup of strontium-90 in groundwater.

• DOE/RL-2009-54, 2010, Proposed Plan for Amendment of 100-NR-1/NR-2 Interim Action Record of 

Decision, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

• Ecology and EPA, 1994, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup U.S. 

Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.K. McClain, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, 

Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

June 27.

• 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, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives

Alternatives are being addressed as part of DOE/RL-2009-54, Proposed Plan for Amendment of 100-NR-1/NR-2 

Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision; pending completion, the following reflect alternatives from the 

proposed plan, but are not intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing decision-making process:

• Resume operation of existing pump‐and‐treat system; operate and expand system as necessary until cleanup 

objectives are achieved; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment groundwater 

monitoring.

• Construct an impermeable barrier along the shoreline to re‐direct groundwater flow and increase travel times 

for radioactive decay to achieve cleanup objectives.

• Expand the apatite permeable reactive barrier to promote sequestration of strontium-90.

• Incorporate phytotechnology.

• Use sequestration and immobilization technologies for inner portion of strontium-90 plume.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-11

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.4 River Corridor – Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ROD amendment, and ESDs are in place to clean up hexavalent chromium in the groundwater 

using pump-and-treat and an in situ oxidation/reduction (“redox”) manipulation barrier.

• EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/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, 2002, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of Decision, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ESD/R10-03/606, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record 

of Decision, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-HR-3 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2009b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Expand pump-and-treat system in 100-HR-3; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring.

• Maintain and repair in situ redox manipulation barrier.

• Incorporate bioremediation.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-4.5 River Corridor – Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for this operable unit. Groundwater monitoring and annual reporting 

continue to track groundwater contamination.

• WAC 173-340, "Model Toxics Control Act - Cleanup," Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, "Ground Water Cleanup Standards."

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Install pump-and-treat system in 100-FR-3; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment 

groundwater monitoring.

• Incorporate bioremediation for chromium.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with institutional controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-12

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-5 River Corridor – Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained By PNNL

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the facilities retained by PNNL. Action memoranda are in place for the 

remaining 300 Area buildings and facilities, and DOE anticipates extending those cleanup decisions to include the 

PNNL-retained facilities once their operations end. DOE considers D&D of buildings and other structures to be

final cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in accordance with an applicable action 

memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D has been completed. Decision 

documents for D&D of 300 Area buildings and facilities that may have future application for the PNNL-retained 

facilities are listed here. 

• DOE and EPA, 2005, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, January 20.

• DOE and EPA, 2006, “Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, 

November 30.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Following end of operational period for PNNL facilities (assumed in 2023), D4 all buildings and facilities to 

slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; remediate below-grade portions 

consistent with 300 Area contaminated soil sites if needed.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-6 River Corridor – Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites*

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Final and interim RODs, ESDs, and an action memorandum are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures 

and debris and dispose of the debris at ERDF or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant as appropriate.

• CCN 9103432, 1991, “Action Memorandum Approval: 316-5 Process Trenches, U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to W. Bixby, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office from C.E. Findley and R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, 

Washington, July 15. 

• EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 

Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ESD/R10-00/524, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 300-FF-5 Record of Decision, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 300-FF-2 Operable 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2004b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record of Decision, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Interim Action Record 

of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-13 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (8 pages)

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve remedial action objectives**; backfill, contour, and revegetate 

excavations. (Note: DOE considers the interim RTD actions as the likely final actions for the waste sites that

have been or will be remediated under the applicable 300 Area RODs. The 300 Area interim RODs for waste 

sites will be covered by the six final RODs for the River Corridor currently being worked through a final 

RI/FS process.)

No other alternatives are contemplated at this time for 300-FF-1 Operable Unit (cleanup action has been 

completed in accordance with final cleanup decision/ROD for 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units, 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143), or for 300-FF-2 Operable Unit.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* Includes 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Grounds, and contaminated soils associated with areas outside the FFTF 

complex.

** In accordance with applicable interim action RODs.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-7 River Corridor – Restore 300 Area Groundwater To Beneficial Use

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The interim ROD selected monitoring and institutional controls for uranium contamination in groundwater.

Treatability tests to sequester uranium in the vadose zone and groundwater are being evaluated for use in the 

cleanup of uranium in groundwater.

• EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.” 

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Install in situ phosphate/polyphosphate treatment to sequester uranium in the vadose zone and monitor 

effectiveness.

• Install in situ phosphate/polyphosphate treatment to sequester uranium in the groundwater and monitor 

effectiveness.

• Shear-thinning injection at top of the aquifer to sequester uranium.

• RTD of contaminated rewetted zone of the deep vadose zone.

• Transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment groundwater monitoring.

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Alternatives based on pumping and treating the groundwater are not considered plausible due to high 

aquifer permeability and river intrusion.

D4 = deactivate, decontaminate, 

decommission, and demolish.

D&D= decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant differences.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976. 

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

SSE = safe storage enclosure.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-14

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-1 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings And Facilities

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Action memoranda are in place to D4 buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade and evaluate below-grade portions 

for contamination. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and facilities will be included in decision 

documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). DOE considers D&D of buildings and other structures to be final 

cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in accordance with an applicable action 

memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D has been completed.

• DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

• DOE/RL-2010-22, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, Rev. 0, 

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

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with Central Plateau Outer Area contaminated soil sites.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-2 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ESD, and action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris 

with on-site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining soil sites will be included in decision 

documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

• EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 

200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2009, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs comparable to 100 Areas; backfill, contour, and revegetate 

excavations.

• RTD all sites except ponds; allow monitored natural attenuation for large pond sites with presence of existing 

vegetated soil covers. 

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed for all sites under long-term stewardship with appropriate 

institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-15

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-3 Central Plateau – Disposition Below-Grade Portions of 

Plutonium Finishing Plant

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

A non-time critical action memorandum is in place, associated TPA milestone decision documents are complete 

and approved, and D4 activities are being completed for above-grade structures of PFP. Final decisions and 

cleanup actions have not been made yet for below-grade structures and contaminated areas that are not identified 

in the action memorandum.

• DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, 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 long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

• RTD all PFP below-grade structures and contaminated areas; backfill and revegetate. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-4 Central Plateau – Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CB-1 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

on site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

• DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove all contents and D4 B Plant Canyon Building, including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites, and contaminated soils to achieve RAOs; dispose all wastes 

and debris at approved facility. 

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially 

demolish building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain 

institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in B Plant Canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-16

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-5 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

on site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

• DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove all contents and D4 PUREX Canyon Building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soils to achieve remedial action objectives; 

dispose all wastes and debris at approved facility

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; Stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially 

demolish building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain 

institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in PUREX 

Canyon for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over 

the canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including ICs and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting Disposition of the PUREX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites and 

Disposition of the PUREX Storage Tunnels should be aligned, and cleanup actions should be coordinated and 

integrated as much as practical.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-17

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-6 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels 

(200-CP-1 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the PUREX Storage Tunnels. 

• TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Maintain safe storage; perform hazardous waste facility closure consistent with RCRA Permit; remediate 

radionuclides consistent with CERCLA; conduct post-closure monitoring. 

• Stabilize wastes and prepare tunnels for in-place disposal; install barrier; perform post-closure care and

transition to long-term stewardship. 

• Remove and dispose wastes and contaminated equipment from tunnels; evaluate tunnels for residual 

contamination; if needed, remediate tunnels consistent with Central Plateau 200 East Inner Area 

contaminated soil sites. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

Note: Cleanup decisions affecting Disposition of the PUREX Storage Tunnels and Disposition of the PUREX 

Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites should be aligned, and cleanup actions should be coordinated and 

integrated as much as practical.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-7 Central Plateau – Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites 

(200-CR-1 Operable Unit) 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from waste sites with 

on site disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining buildings and waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). 

• DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Remove all contents and D4 REDOX Canyon Building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soils to achieve remedial action objectives; 

dispose all wastes and debris at approved facility. 

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially 

demolish building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain 

institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in REDOX 

Canyon for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over 

the canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-18

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-8 Central Plateau – Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the T Plant Canyon Building and Associated Waste Sites. Current 

expectations are that T Plant will be used for several more years to support other remediation and waste 

management work.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Continue ongoing operations until 2036; Transition to D4 in 2038; fulfill hazardous waste facility closure 

obligations consistent with RCRA permit

• Remove all contents and D4 T Plant Canyon Building including below-grade foundation; remove all 

contaminated materials, associated waste sites and contaminated soils to achieve remedial action objectives; 

dispose all wastes and debris at approved facility. 

• Condition contents for placement in spaces below canyon deck level; stabilize and fill voids; remove 

contaminated wastes and soils from associated waste sites and dispose at approved facility; partially 

demolish building to canyon deck level; place engineered barrier over demolished structure; maintain 

institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Condition contents, retrieve associated waste site contaminated soils and debris, and place in T Plant Canyon 

for entombment; stabilize and fill voids; surround with clean fill and place an engineered barrier over the 

canyon building; maintain institutional controls and perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Same as preceding (entombment) alternative, with addition of disposal capability to allow receipt of wastes 

from cleanup activities. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-9 Central Plateau – Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for final disposition of the cesium/strontium capsules. Decisions have been 

deferred to future decision-making processes.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Package and transport capsules from WESF to dry storage; store capsules pending final disposition; direct 

dispose of capsules at a geologic repository. 

• Incorporate capsules into immobilized high-level waste glass at WTP. 

• Store capsules at Hanford Site for 300 years (approximately 10 half-lives); after natural decay, direct dispose 

of capsules as mixed low-level radioactive waste. 

• As a Greening of America initiative, utilize the Cs/Sr capsules for thermal generation of electricity/steam in 

future operations such as the WTP and Balance of Facilities supporting the WTP.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-19

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-10 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-1 Operable Unit* 

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the 200-SW-1 Operable Unit. 

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

The following reflect alternatives being considered as part of DOE/EA-1707D, Environmental Assessment 

Closure of Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL); the following 

alternatives are not intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing environmental assessment process:

• Install an evapotranspiration barrier over both landfills; upgrade monitoring and infrastructure systems; 

perform post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Partial RTD with removal of waste material from both landfills and impacted soils as deep as 10 feet below 

the waste material; backfill and revegetate; if necessary (e.g., contaminated residues remain), perform 

post-closure monitoring and caretaking. 

• Remove all waste material from both landfills; excavate and RTD all contaminated soils, to groundwater if 

necessary; backfill and revegetate. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* Includes 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.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans. 

• If needed, may remediate contaminated soils under zone closure; May include partial RTD with various 

capping alternatives; Monitoring and institutional controls after closure may be required. 

• RTD all contaminated soils; backfill and revegetate. 

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

* Includes State-Approved Land Disposal Site; State Waste Discharge Permit Sites; 100-N Sewage Lagoon; 

On-Site Sewage Systems; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfalls; and Underground Injection 

Control Well Sites. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-12 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage and 

Disposal Facilities*

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the Remaining Waste Treatment, Storage And Disposal Facilities.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Closure of facilities will be according to approved operating plans and closure plans (e.g., RCRA Closure 

Plans); consequently, cleanup actions will be determined and accomplished in accordance with applicable 

regulatory and permit/license requirements. No other alternatives are being considered. 

* Includes LERF/ETF, WESF, WRAP, 222-S Laboratory, IDF, and Inert Waste Landfill/Pit 9. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-20

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-13 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-IS-1 Operable Unit

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The 200-IS-1 Operable Unit waste sites include tanks (except those considered to be included in the Tank Farms), 

pipelines, pits, diversion boxes, and associated ancillary equipment. Several pipelines are being addressed (in 

part) per 200-MG-1 removal actions; Final remediation decisions will be addressed in RODs; TSD ancillary 

equipment will be addressed in future RCRA Closure Plan(s); other media may be addressed via CERCLA 

process.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available. 

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD all contaminated equipment, materials, debris and soils to a depth that is determined by the TPA 

agencies to be protective of human health and ecological resources (depth TBD); backfill and revegetate. 

• RTD all contaminated equipment, materials, debris and soils; backfill and revegetate. 

• Stabilize select equipment in-place using technologies yet to be determined. 

• Leave everything in-place; maintain under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-14 Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-2 Operable Unit

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made to remediate the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit. (Note that this operable unit is 

not a single contaminated site, but is actually comprised of a large number of land disposal units.)

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of all waste from within individual landfills. 

• Excavation, treatment (as necessary), and disposal of waste from selected sections of individual landfills 

followed by capping of remaining waste; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring. 

• Capping of individual landfills; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring. 

• In situ treatment/stabilization (e.g., vitrification or grouting) of portions of individual landfills followed by 

capping; includes continued cap maintenance and monitoring.

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-21

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-15 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil 

Sites (200-WA-1 Operable Unit)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from 200 West Inner 

Area soil sites with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

• DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD approximately half of waste sites and cap remainder. 

• RTD all waste sites; backfill and revegetate. 

• Cap and maintain under long-term stewardship with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-16 Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil 

Sites (200-EA-1 Operable Unit)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Several action memoranda are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, and debris from 200 East Inner 

Area soil sites with disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining waste sites will be included in 

decision documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs). 

• DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

• DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• RTD approximately half of waste sites and cap remainder. 

• RTD all waste sites; backfill and revegetate. 

• Cap and maintain under long-term stewardship with monitoring and appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-22

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-17 Central Plateau – Disposition Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) Complex

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In 1995, DOE determined the FFTF would be deactivated. Other decisions have been deferred to future decisionmaking processes.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

The following reflect alternatives being considered as part of DOE/EIS-0391, Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement; the following alternatives are not intended to presume the 

outcome of the ongoing environmental impact process:

• Entombment – Consolidate buildings and wastes, compact, and fill void spaces within the reactor 

containment building and contaminated ancillary buildings; install a landfill barrier over remaining structures 

and extend as needed to cover contaminated below-grade portions

• Removal – Remove contaminated equipment and structures; reduce above-grade portions of reactor 

containment building and ancillary buildings to slab-on-grade; backfill with soil, compact and stabilize 

remaining below-grade portions; contour and revegetate. 

• Remove and treat remote-handled special components at Hanford or INL; dispose of treated components at 

IDF or Nevada Test Site. 

• Store sodium; convert to caustic sodium hydroxide solution at Hanford or INL; reuse caustic sodium 

hydroxide solution for tank corrosion control or processing tank waste at WTP. 

• Leave structures in place with inert gas blanket for sodium residuals; transition to long-term stewardship with 

appropriate institutional controls. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-18 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining Buildings and Facilities Within FFTF 

Complex

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In 1995, DOE determined the FFTF would be deactivated. Other decisions have been deferred to future decisionmaking processes. 

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with contiguous contaminated soil sites. 

• Leave structures in-place and transition to long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: CP-19 Central Plateau –Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings And Facilities

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Cleanup decisions have been made for D&D of some of the Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities, and 

the applicable Action Memorandum is expected to cover future D&D activities. DOE considers D&D of 

buildings and other structures to be final cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in 

accordance with an applicable Action Memorandum. Alternatives do not need to be considered where such D&D 

has been completed. (Note that cleanup decisions have been or will be made for the Canyon Buildings and 

Associated Waste Sites; see separate cleanup actions for these facilities.)

• DOE/RL-2010-22, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning Activities, Rev. 0, 

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

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions consistent with contiguous contaminated soil sites. 

• Leave structures in-place and transition to long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-23

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-20 Central Plateau – Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone 

(200-DV-1 Operable Unit)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for the Deep Vadose Zone.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Implement results of treatability testing in accordance with CERCLA and/or RCRA final decisions. 

• RTD all contaminated soils, to groundwater if necessary and technically practical; backfill and revegetate. 

• In-place treatment to destroy, immobilize, or capture, treat and dispose contaminants. 

• Soil flushing with pump and treat or pore water removal. 

• Install surface barriers. 

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-21 Central Plateau – Restore 200 West Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

(200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 Operable Units)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Interim RODs are in place for cleanup of high concentrations of selected contaminants and a final ROD is in 

place for the 200-ZP-1 operable unit to address all contaminants.

• EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 200-ZP-1 Operable 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 200-UP-1 Operable 

Unit, 200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• EPA, 2009d, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

• EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Olympia, Washington.

• WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Expand 200-ZP-1 extraction, treatment and injection capacity; install extraction and transfer system for 

200-UP-1; operate pump and treat to achieve remedial action objectives; continue monitoring. 

• For 200-UP-1 Only – Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with 

appropriate institutional controls. 

DOE/RL-2009-122, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, 

includes an evaluation of three remedial alternatives. Each of these alternatives would use pump-and-treat, 

monitored natural attenuation, and hydraulic containment to address technetium-99, uranium, and iodine-129 

contamination within different time periods.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-24

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. (11 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION:

CP-22 Central Plateau – Restore 200 East Groundwater To Beneficial Use 

(200-PO-1/200-BP-5 Operable Units)

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made for 200 East Groundwater.

• WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Install pump and treat system for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit; implement monitored natural attenuation for 

200-PO-1 Operable Unit; perform well support and maintenance activities. 

• Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed under long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional 

controls. 

• Install pump and treat system for 200-BP-5 and selective pump and treat for 200-PO-1 hot spots. 

Note: 400 Area groundwater cleanup actions are included as part of 200-PO-1 Operable Unit. 

DOE/EA-1707D, 2011, Environmental Assessment for 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, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2009-122, 2010, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Draft A, 

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

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant difference.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976. 

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TBD = to be determined.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code. 

WESF = Waste Encapsulation and Storage 

Facility.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-25

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-1 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve and treat tank waste (62 FR 8693). Further 

decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Retrieve SST wastes (assumes two retrieval technologies) to meet milestones in the Consent Decree and TPA 

Settlement Package (DOE and Ecology, 2010); achieve designated retrieval objectives or limits of 

technology; remediate structures and soils and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards; 

maintain post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit. 

The following reflect alternatives being considered as part of the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391); the following 

alternatives are not intended to presume the outcome of the ongoing environmental impact process:

• Grout, cap and close SSTs with residual waste in-place; monitor and implement institutional controls after 

closure; eventual transition to long-term stewardship. 

• Construct new DST capacity sufficient to complete SST retrieval; close SSTs and implement post-closure 

care, monitoring, and institutional controls; eventual transition to long-term stewardship. 

• RTD some SSTs and ancillary facilities, residual waste, and contaminated soils; backfill and revegetate. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-2 Tank Waste – Tank Waste Treatment

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve, separate, vitrify, and dispose of the tank 

waste (62 FR 8693). The immobilized LAW would be prepared for onsite disposal and the vitrified HLW would 

be placed in interim storage pending future disposal at a national geologic repository. Further decisions have been 

deferred to future decision-making processes.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Pretreat, condition and immobilize tank wastes in the WTP to meet TPA milestones and comply with RCRA 

Permit; operate supplemental treatment systems (assumed to be second LAW) to augment WTP capacity; 

place immobilized waste in canisters; transfer ILAW for disposal at the IDF; provide capacity to store all 

immobilized HLW in Hanford Shipping Facility (new) until a final repository is available. 

• Perform blending and waste characterization at a new Enhanced Waste Receiving Facility. 

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-3 Tank Waste – Secondary Waste Treatment

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made. Decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

• TBD – No decision documents currently available.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Recycle liquid waste streams within WTP; manage residual liquid wastes at LERF/ETF/SALDS; treat solid 

wastes from WTP and ETF and dispose at the IDF; manage and disposition other secondary waste (e.g., 

failed melters). 

Other plausible alternatives will be determined at a later date.

Note: Any radioactive HLW will be stored and eventually shipped to a geologic repository.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-26

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-4 Tank Waste – Double-Shell Tank Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made. Decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Retrieve DST wastes consistent with TPA; achieve designated retrieval objectives or limits of technology; 

remediate structures and soils and install cover/cap to meet closure performance standards; maintain 

post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit. 

• RTD DSTs and ancillary facilities, residual waste, and contaminated soils; backfill and revegetate. 

• Stabilize, cap and close DSTs with residual waste in-place; monitor and implement institutional controls after 

closure; eventual transition to long-term stewardship. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-5 Tank Waste – WTP Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

The RCRA Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit, Operable Unit-10, Chapter 11 states “Clean closure is the goal for 

the WTP. The closure plan will be revised if efforts to achieve the clean closure standards for the WTP structures 

or soil are unsuccessful. The “modified closure” approach may be followed if feasible, as provided in Condition 

II.K.3 of the Hanford RCRA Permit. It may also be closed as a landfill, as provided in Condition II.K.4 of the 

Hanford RCRA Permit, if the clean closure standards are not technically or economically feasible. The revised 

closure plan will be accompanied by a written request for modification of the permit.” Further decisions have 

been deferred to future decision-making processes.

• WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste 

Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, as amended, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

• Demolish ancillary facilities/structures to the primary containment structure; seal containment structure and 

construct a soil-based environmental barrier over the containment structure; remediate structures and soils; 

maintain post-closure care and monitoring consistent with RCRA Permit. 

• D4 all buildings and facilities to slab-on-grade; evaluate below-grade portions for residual contamination; if 

needed, remediate below-grade portions. 

• Perform clean closure of WTP and all ancillary facilities/structures. 

• Leave structures in-place and transition to long-term stewardship with appropriate institutional controls. 

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to long-term

stewardship, including institutional controls and 5-year reviews of remedy effectiveness.

62 FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” Federal Register, 

(February 26, 1997).

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE and Ecology, 2010, Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order signed October 25, 2010, 

settling State of Washington v. Chu, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. 

CV-08-5085-FVS.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion, 

Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State Department 

of Ecology, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-27

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (3 pages)

DST = double-shell tank.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

HLW = high-level waste.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste.

LAW = low-activity waste.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

of 1976. 

SALDS = State-Approved Land Disposal Site.

SST = single-shell tank.

TC&WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

For purposes of the 2012 Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies agreed that cleanup actions 

associated with tank waste treatment should be evaluated for reasonable upper bound cost 

estimate alternative analyses. Specifically, this would consider three of the cleanup actions 

identified above in Table A-4: 

• TW-1 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure 

• TW-2 Tank Waste – Tank Waste Treatment

• TW-3 Tank Waste – Secondary Waste Treatment

Subsequently, the TPA agencies determined that this purpose would be adequately served with 

information being developed for ORP-11242, River Protection Project System Plan, Revision 6 

[RPP System Plan (Rev. 6)]. 

Among other purposes, RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) analyzed the results of different scenarios, or 

cases, selected by ORP and Ecology in accordance with TPA Milestone M-062-40, as 

documented in letter 10-TPD-148.1

Case 1 – Baseline Case. The purpose of this case was to provide the technical basis for 

updates to the Tank Operations Contract Performance Measurement Baseline. 

 These scenarios look at potential impacts, including changes 

to the lifecycle schedule and cost, of different alternatives to the tank waste treatment mission. 

The TPA agencies concluded that the RPP System Plan (Rev. 6) scenario analyses would 

provide better granularity and be more valuable for purposes of performing cost estimate 

alternative analyses for tank waste treatment. The scenarios that were evaluated included a 

Baseline Case (Case 1), and nine other scenarios (Cases 2 – 10). The titles and purposes for 

these scenarios, or cases, were:

Case 2 – TRU Waste to WTP. The purpose of this case was to show impacts of treating all 

potential transuranic (TRU) tank waste at WTP as HLW. 

 

1 Brockman, D. A., and J. A. Hedges, 2010, “Partial Completion of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (TriParty Agreement) Interim Milestone M-062-40, to Submit a System Plan to Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 

Describing the Disposition of All Tank Waste Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of River Protection 

(ORP), Including Retrieval of All Tanks Not Addressed by the Consent Decree in Washington v. DOE, Case No. 08-5085-FVS, 

and the Completion of the Treatment Mission,” (Letter 10-TPD-148 to D. A. Faulk, Program Manager, Office of Environmental 

Cleanup, Hanford Project Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 28), U. S. Department of Energy, Office of 

River Protection, and Washington State Department of Ecology Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-28

Case 3 – FBSR for Supplemental Treatment. The purpose of this case was to deploy 

fluidized bed steam reforming (FBSR) as an alternative to a second LAW vitrification 

facility. 

Case 4 – WTP Delay with +10% Vitrification Capacity. The purpose of this case was to

evaluate how well a 10% increase in overall vitrification capacity offsets all/part of 

the impact of the uniform 4 year delay in WTP startup. 

Case 5 – 2020 Vision One System. The purpose of this case was to show impacts of phased 

turnover of WTP facilities. 

Case 6 – WTP Delay with New DST Farm. The purpose of this case was to evaluate how 

well a new DST farm offsets the impact of a uniform 4 year delay in WTP startup. 

Case 7 – Enhanced Tank Waste Strategy. The purpose of this case was to show use of 

transformational technologies that may shorten mission schedule by 7 years and 

reduce lifecycle cost by $16 billion. 

Case 8 – Accelerated SST Retrievals. The purpose of this case was to show the effect on 

mission duration using alternate SST retrieval approach. 

Case 9 – Early U Farm Closure. The purpose of this case was to show impacts of 

beginning U Farm retrievals instead of A Farm for the nine retrievals after C Farm. 

Case 10 – Slow SST Retrievals. The purpose of this case was to show impacts on the 

baseline of increasing the minimum retrieval durations for SSTs. 

Consequently, the cost estimate alternative analyses presented in this 2012 Lifecycle Report are 

based on the results of the ten scenarios identified above. The results of these scenarios are 

discussed further in Section 6.4 of this Lifecycle Report, and extensive details can be found in 

RPP System Plan (Rev. 6).

A.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND DESCRIBING 

THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND

TPA Milestone M-036-01 refers to a “reasonable upper bound” with respect to presenting 

information about cleanup alternatives, but the milestone does not include a ready definition for 

“reasonable upper bound.” To ensure the Lifecycle Report provides information that meets the 

requirement and intent of the milestone, DOE has relied on the following conceptual framework. 

The reasonable upper bound for a range of alternatives or alternative costs describes a cleanup 

action alternative that most people can agree:

• Is near or at the maximum feasible extent of the available engineered solutions. 

• Provides an acceptable level of health and environmental protection when complete. 

• Is appropriate relative to the effort expended and the benefits achieved. 

Applying this concept presumes the ability to satisfy several related and dependent conditions: 

• First, that mutual agreement can be achieved among responsible individuals who have 

sufficient information available to them, and are able to objectively consider the relevant 

science and applicable standards within the context of fiscal and public policy 

considerations. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-29

• Second, that potential health and environmental concerns are sufficiently understood, and 

that an alternative will be effective at reducing the potential concerns as claimed. 

• Last, that an alternative exists that bounds the upper range of a set of choices, and this 

upper-bounding alternative can provide tangible advantages that the other available 

choices would not. 

DOE will apply these conditions and the framework outlined above in the process of analyzing 

alternatives and identifying the reasonable upper bound for the cleanup actions that are evaluated 

in-depth in the Lifecycle Report.

The purpose of analyzing and selecting alternatives is to formally evaluate alternative project 

solutions (e.g., designs) so that the alternative that best meets the project need is selected. 

DOE has applied a systematic process for individual cleanup actions to more definitively 

describe a range of plausible alternatives; identify a reasonable upper bound for that range of 

alternatives; and develop schedule and cost information associated with implementing that upper 

bounding cleanup alternative. For the process followed for the cost estimate alternative analyses 

presented in this year’s Lifecycle Report, DOE has adapted and broadly applied the approach it 

follows in developing and selecting alternatives for other types of engineering and construction 

projects. This approach is summarized further below, and includes the following main steps: 

1. Describe the functional requirements the project must meet.

2. Identify any constraints that could affect the project’s conduct. 

3. Develop and analyze potential solutions until a preferred project alternative emerges. 

Alternative development and analysis begins with preparation of functional requirements to 

describe what the project is expected to do. The functional requirements define the objectives or 

standards that must be achieved, and focus primarily on physical, transformational, safety, 

environmental, operational, and other essential characteristics of a project’s function. A graded 

approach is followed so that more effort is expended on developing functional requirements for 

complex, highly hazardous, and first-of-kind projects than for simple projects that have been 

implemented many times before.

After the functional requirements are developed, project constraints are identified, and applied to 

compare and evaluate different potential solutions. Constraints are anything that may impact or 

alter the implementation of a proposed solution. Examples of constraints include:

• Time. If a potential solution cannot be implemented on the required schedule, then that 

alternative is not feasible, regardless of its merits.

• Organizational/Human Factors. If a potential solution requires more expertise than is 

available within reasonable or existing cost and schedule limits, then that alternative may 

not be as good as a less technically challenging, but adequate solution. 

• Regulatory Requirements. For environmental cleanup projects, the final closure may 

drive alternative selection, as only one or two concepts may deliver the mandatory final 

closure (e.g., approved CERCLA [42 USC 9601] ROD). Similarly, stewardship and 

ownership issues of the site during or after project completion can affect alternative 

selection.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-30

• Stakeholder Issues. Some alternatives, regardless of how “good” they may be, will be 

unacceptable to important project stakeholders. In such cases, another less controversial 

solution will have to be found. 

• Risk. All alternatives will contain risks. Other factors being approximately equal, that 

solution with the lowest risk would be preferred. 

• Estimated Cleanup Cost. A potential solution with higher initial cost, but lower costs 

over the life of the project may be preferable to an alternative with cheaper construction 

costs, but higher estimated cleanup cost. 

Once the main requirements and constraints are known, a number of alternative solutions can be 

developed that could accomplish the project need. The number and variety of alternatives will be 

influenced by technical issues and stakeholder interests. 

Next, potential solutions (i.e., cleanup alternatives) that meet the project need are further 

analyzed to determine an optimal balance between meeting the functional requirements and 

performing the work in accordance with funding, schedule, and other constraints. For the 

Lifecycle Report, this analysis also includes assessing which alternative scenario is most likely to 

represent the reasonable upper bound of the plausible alternatives. 

When complete, the process should show that a reasonably full range of design concepts, 

stakeholder values, safety, technology development, implementability, regulatory requirements, 

and other relevant factors were considered in the development of the reasonable upper bound for 

the range of plausible alternatives. Documentation of the alternatives analyzed, the reasonable 

upper bound selection, schedule and cost information about the reasonable upper bound, and 

rationale for the selection will be included in the Lifecycle Report for those alternatives that have 

been analyzed in the current year’s report. 

It is important to note that the rigorous and extensive system DOE usually applies for formal 

construction project development has been adapted, rather than fully applied, to analyze

alternatives and develop reasonable upper bounds for the Lifecycle Report. Nor should the 

process applied in the Lifecycle Report be confused with the very scrupulous cleanup study and 

approval system in place for complying with CERCLA and RCRA regulations. Those 

requirements are intended to lead to formal, public decision making and employ a series of 

incremental review and authorization steps intended to achieve compliance with statutory and 

regulatory obligations. The Lifecycle Report does not equal those formal legal procedures and 

does not result in analyses that are of the same rigor and completeness as when the CERCLA and 

RCRA processes are followed.

A.3 RATIONALE AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR ANNUAL 

SELECTION OF CLEANUP ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED

As discussed in Appendix C, many final Hanford Site cleanup decisions are yet to be made.

The TPA Milestone M-036-01 requirement to include alternatives in the Lifecycle Report where 

there are no final cleanup decisions creates a substantial obligation.

Rather than be overwhelmed with analyzing alternatives for an exhaustive list of non-final 

decisions or, alternatively, have to prepare a complete but less substantive set of analyses, DOE 

has chosen to focus in each annual edition of the Lifecycle Report on a limited number of 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-31

cleanup actions where final decisions have not yet been made. DOE believes that this selective 

approach has several advantages, in that it:

• Allows more attention to be paid to higher priority cleanup actions. 

• Provides more time to consider alternatives and assumptions that better reflect the values 

of affected parties. 

• Enables more thorough development of the bases and assumptions for assembling each 

set of plausible alternatives and for defining the reasonable upper bound. 

• Can focus on cleanup action alternatives when timing coincides better with relevant 

decision-making processes, including the Federal budget cycle.

• Should promote more insightful and productive dialogues about Hanford Site planning 

and decision making. 

• Makes effective and optimal use of available resources.

Each year, DOE will consider the following and similar criteria to select those cleanup actions 

for which alternatives will be developed and analyzed in the Lifecycle Report. These criteria are 

not exclusive and no priority is implied by the order in which they are presented. 

• Status of Current Actions. A number of interim actions are underway even in the 

absence of final decisions. In some cases, significant progress is being made consistent 

with the expectations and values of the regulatory agencies, Tribal Governments, and 

affected Hanford stakeholders. DOE believes there would be little value in analyzing 

alternatives for many of these instances, particularly when cleanup is proceeding with 

broad external support. In contrast, analyses of alternatives would be more useful where 

there has been little or no progress or agreement on how to proceed with cleanup.

• Decision-making Timeframe. At any given time, there are many cleanup 

decision-making processes at varying stages of progress. The development of alternatives 

can help inform these decision making processes, but can be less or more helpful at 

different times in each decision process. DOE prefers to analyze alternatives that will be 

supportive of decision-making timeframes.

• Alternatives Availability. In some cases, none or very few alternatives may be available 

for consideration, while in other cases, a large range of options may be available to 

consider. DOE expects that generally it would not be helpful to analyze alternatives when 

essentially no choices exist, and that analyses could be quite helpful in framing and/or 

narrowing choices when there are many potential alternatives and/or a wide variety of 

interests and values to be considered. 

• Existing Knowledge Base. Some Hanford Site cleanup actions are already the subject of 

extensive studies, while others are not well understood. DOE believes it will generally be 

more helpful to put attention where little is known about particular cleanup actions and 

for which more and better knowledge could improve decision making. However, there 

may be instances where a large base of knowledge exists, and the Lifecycle Report could 

help in aggregating and synthesizing this information into a single discussion. 

• Risk/Benefit. Cleanup actions will have varying effects on reducing health and 

environmental risks and achieving benefits for the public, workers, and environment. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-32

In selecting cleanup actions to evaluate, DOE will generally prefer those that could 

contribute most positively to ameliorating Hanford Site risks and gaining health and 

environmental benefits. 

• Budget Planning. Information in the Lifecycle Report will be used to help with planning 

and requesting funding for future cleanup actions. DOE will be likely to develop 

information about cleanup action alternatives when such information coincides with and 

be supportive of budget planning cycles. 

In addition to the criteria listed above, DOE intends to consider recommendations from EPA and 

Ecology, government-to-government consultations (e.g., Tribal Nations, Oregon), Hanford 

Advisory Board advice, input from Hanford stakeholders, and public comments received on 

previous Lifecycle Reports. 

The cleanup actions that have been analyzed in-depth in previous Lifecycle Reports are 

summarized in Table A-5. For details about the cost estimate alternative analysis of any of these 

cleanup actions, see the specific Lifecycle Report referenced in Table A-5. 

Table A-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

TBD

Central Plateau – Remediate 

200-SW-2 Operable Unit

Barriers - $823

Remove, Treat, Dispose of Waste - $16,614

TBD

Considering the criteria described above and the cleanup actions analyzed in previous Lifecycle 

Reports, DOE has developed an anticipated schedule for performing in-depth analyses of 

plausible alternatives for each of the cleanup actions currently remaining at the Hanford Site.

Table A-6 presents this schedule along with an explanation of the rationale for analyzing 

alternatives in the recommended Lifecycle Report year.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-33

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

2013 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year

• Central Plateau (Outer Area) – Remediate 

Remaining Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 

Operable Units)

An RI/FS and proposed plan are due by October 30, 2014 (TPA 

Milestone M-015-38B), and an ROD may be approved as early 

as 2015. Sufficient information should be available to determine 

whether additional alternatives should be analyzed in the 2013 

Lifecycle Report.

• Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 

200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-WA-1 Operable Unit)

The waste sites to be included in the 200-WA-1 Operable Unit 

are subject to ongoing TPA negotiations that are expected to be 

resolved by 2012. CERCLA decision document submittals are 

scheduled to occur by December 31, 2015 (TPA Milestone 

M-015-91B), and a ROD may be approved as early as 2016. 

Sufficient information about the alternatives evaluated should be 

available to determine whether additional alternatives should be 

analyzed in the 2013 Lifecycle Report.

2014 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year

• Central Plateau – Disposition B Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 

Operable Unit)

• Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 

Operable Unit)

• Central Plateau – Remediate Contaminated 

Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 Operable Unit)

Based on new TPA milestones for these canyon facilities, it is 

unlikely that extensive evaluation of alternatives will have been 

performed yet (e.g., in feasibility studies). It may be reasonable 

to develop alternatives in the 2014 Lifecycle Report that could 

benefit future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau – Restore 200 East

Groundwater to Beneficial Use 

(200-PO-1/200-BP-5 Operable Units)

TPA Milestone M-015-21A requires FS and proposed plan 

submittal by June 30, 2015. It may be reasonable to develop 

alternatives in the 2014 Lifecycle Report that could benefit future 

planning and budget requests.

2015 (or Later) HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year

• Central Plateau – Remediate Tanks, Pipelines, 

Pits, Boxes, Septic Tank and Drain Fields 

(200-IS-1 Operable Unit)

• Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 

200 East Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-EA-1 Operable Unit)

The waste sites to be included in the 200-IS-1 and 200-EA-1 

Operable Units are subject to ongoing TPA negotiations that are 

expected to be resolved in the 2012 – 2013 timeframe.

CERCLA/RCRA decision document submittals are scheduled to 

occur by December 31, 2016 (TPA Milestone M-015-92B).

Analyzing potential alternatives in the 2015 Lifecycle Report or 

later could provide information that would help inform the 

decision process.

• Central Plateau – Disposition Below-Grade 

Portions of PFP

• Central Plateau – Remediate 200-SW-1 

Operable Unit

Cleanup is proceeding consistent with existing decisions (e.g., 

interim ROD, Action Memorandum, RCRA interim status/final 

permit) and is reflected in current planning documents. Final 

decisions could be made within a year or two of 2015 timeframe 

and are expected to be compatible with interim decisions. Prior 

to developing 2015 Lifecycle Report, decide whether alternatives 

should be analyzed based on status of final cleanup decision 

making.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-34

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

• Central Plateau – Remediate Remaining 200 

West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-WA-1 Operable Unit)

New TPA Milestone M-085-30A requires RI/FS submittal by 

December 31, 2017. It may be reasonable to develop alternatives 

after 2015 that could benefit future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau – Disposition FFTF Complex It is expected that the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) will 

address decisions related to this cleanup action and that a final 

ROD will be issued before cleanup action alternatives must 

begin. If, instead, cleanup decisions have not been made, it may 

be timely to reassess whether the FFTF cleanup action could be 

analyzed.

• Central Plateau – Disposition REDOX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CR-1 

Operable Unit)

New TPA Milestone M-085-30A requires RI/FS submittal by 

December 31, 2017. It may be reasonable to develop alternatives 

after 2015 that could benefit future planning and budget requests.

• Central Plateau – Disposition

Cesium/Strontium Capsules

Capsules are currently in safe storage and no immediate action is 

required. Other activities at the DOE complex will provide data 

and potential problem resolutions that will enhance consideration 

of alternatives for management and disposition of 

cesium/strontium capsules.

• Central Plateau – Restore 200 West

Groundwater to Beneficial Use 

(200-ZP-1/200-UP-1 Operable Units)

Treatability studies are commencing for Central Plateau deep 

vadose zone. Cleanup actions for Central Plateau groundwater 

are proceeding consistent with existing decisions and are 

reflected in current planning documents. Deferral to after 2015

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. 2023 is 

assumed date to start closure and disposition of the facilities. 

Earlier analysis of alternatives would be premature and not

needed for out-year budget planning.

• Central Plateau (Outer Area) – Disposition 

Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 Operable Unit)

The few remaining structures in the outer area do not present 

imminent or significant threats to health or environment. Cleanup 

actions are likely to be non-controversial and focused on RTD, 

with scope, schedule and cost sufficiently accounted for in 

planning documents. Analysis of alternatives before 2018 are not 

likely to contribute more useful information for out-year budget 

planning.

• Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage 

Tunnels (200-CP-1 Operable Unit)

Available knowledge base is not sufficient to support detailed 

analyses. Availability of feasible alternatives extremely limited. 

Likely cleanup actions are expected to be 15+ years in the future 

so earlier planning and budget development would be premature.

• Central Plateau – Disposition T Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites

• Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities

• Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities

These facility operations are integral to the long-term cleanup 

mission and will continue well after 2020. Any likely cleanup 

actions are not expected for at least 20+ years in the future so 

earlier analyses would be premature and not needed before 2018

for out-year budget planning.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-35

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

• Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Buildings and Facilities Within FFTF 

Complex

• Central Plateau –Disposition Any Remaining 

Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

Continuing with the current planning bases and uncertainties is 

sufficient for health and environmental protection and for scope 

and budget planning prior to 2018. Information about conditions 

after other cleanup actions have occurred (e.g., disposition of 

FFTF) would be insufficient for useful analyses. It would be 

premature to analyze alternatives for these cleanup actions before 

the 2018 Lifecycle Report.

• Tank Waste – Double-Shell Tank Closure 

• Tank Waste – WTP Closure

Closure is not expected to begin any sooner than 2034 (for DST

closure) and 2050 (for WTP closure). No imminent or significant 

health or environmental concerns have been identified that need 

to be addressed. Earlier planning and budget development would 

be unnecessary and could probably not account credibly for 

future decisions and conditions.

CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR WHICH ALTERNATIVES WOULD NOT BE ANALYZED

River Corridor – B Reactor Preservation

B Reactor has been designated a National Historic Landmark so no cleanup actions are anticipated. Minor conditioning 

and maintenance activities will be performed consistent with National Park Service decision making under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321) and/or National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470). 

Disposition Remaining 100 Area Buildings and Facilities and Disposition Remaining 300 Area Buildings and 

Facilities (except for facilities retained for use by PNNL)

Although cleanup actions are still ongoing for these buildings and facilities, all excess buildings and facilities in the 

100 and 300 Areas are expected to undergo D&D in accordance with applicable action memoranda. DOE considers 

D&D of buildings and other structures to be final cleanup decisions if all regulated contaminants have been removed in 

accordance with an applicable Action Memorandum so alternatives do not need to be analyzed.

River Corridor – Remediate Remaining Contaminated Sites Within Hanford Reach National Monument

National Monument remediation is being implemented to fulfill obligations established under a Presidential 

Proclamation which establishes a de facto final decision. RTD and decontamination in the Monument areas are 

expected to be substantially complete by 2012 (Some residual cleanup in the 100 Area portions of the Monument will 

be addressed after 2012).

Central Plateau – Disposition U Plant (Canyon Building/Associated Waste Sites)

U Plant remediation has been approved in accordance with a CERCLA Final ROD. If performed, further analysis of 

alternatives should be done as part of the process under which the current final cleanup decisions were made.

Central Plateau – Manage ERDF

ERDF has been approved in accordance with a CERCLA Final ROD and closure and post-closure care are already part 

of the operating documentation. Alternatives need not be analyzed, unless future decisions are made that modify the 

current final ERDF decisions.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601 et seq.

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland 

Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq.

ORP-11242, 2011, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 6, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, 

Washington.

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, William J. Clinton, June 9.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-36

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976. 

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

A.4 REFERENCES

62 FR 8693, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA,” Federal Register, (February 26, 1997). 

Brockman, D. A., and J. A. Hedges, 2010, “Partial Completion of Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Interim Milestone M-062-40, to 

Submit a System Plan to Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Describing 

the Disposition of All Tank Waste Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 

Office of River Protection (ORP), Including Retrieval of All Tanks Not Addressed by the 

Consent Decree in Washington v. DOE, Case No. 08-5085-FVS, and the Completion of 

the Treatment Mission,” (Letter 10-TPD-148 to D. A. Faulk, Program Manager, Office of 

Environmental Cleanup, Hanford Project Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

October 28), U. S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and Washington 

State Department of Ecology Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, Washington. 

CCN 059689, 1998, “Action Memorandum: USDOE Hanford 100 Area National Priorities List 

(NPL); 105-F and 105-DR Reactor Buildings and Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; 

Benton County, Washington,” Washington State Department of Ecology, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington, July 14. 

CCN 9103432, 1991, “Action Memorandum Approval: 316-5 Process Trenches, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to W. Bixby, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from C.E. Findley and R. 

Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, July 15. 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

DOE and Ecology, 2000, “Action Memorandum: United States Department of Energy Hanford 

100 Area National Priorities List (NPL); 105-D and 105-H Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Richland, Washington, December 8. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-37

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 Ecology, 2010, Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order 

signed October 25, 2010, settling State of Washington v. Chu, United States District 

Court, Eastern District of Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS.

DOE and EPA, 2001, “Action Memorandum; U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL) 105-B Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, December 27. 

DOE and EPA, 2004, “Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment 

and Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 4. 

DOE and EPA, 2005, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, January 20. 

DOE and EPA, 2006, “Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, November. 

DOE and EPA, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-time-criticial Removal Action for the 

105-KE and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, January 4. 

DOE/EA-1707D, 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, 2009, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-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-2009-122, 2010, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 

200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-38

DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

11 Waste Sites in 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-54, 2010, Proposed Plan for Amendment of 100-NR-1/NR-2 Interim Action 

Record of Decision, 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, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning 

Activities, Rev. 0, 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. 

Ecology and EPA, 1994, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action Cleanup 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.K. McClain, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 27. 

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 

2 vols., as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental 

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

EPA, 1997, “Action Memorandum; 100 B/C Area Ancillary Facilities and the 108-F Building 

Removal Action, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to J.M. 

Bruggeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. Faulk), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Hanford Project Office, Richland, 

Washington, January 29. 

EPA, 2002, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2004a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA, 2004b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-39

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 Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2009c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2009d, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision 

for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-40

EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/524, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 300-FF-5 Record of 

Decision, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable 

Unit Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 

100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

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/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 

300-FF-2 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-41

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 

200-UP-1 Operable Unit, 200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 

100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 

100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable 

Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC 470, et seq.

ORP-11242, 2011, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 6, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, 

William J. Clinton, June 9. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington.

WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington. 

WAC 173-340-720, “Ground Water Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

A-42

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-i 

APPENDIX B 

APPLICATION OF KEY TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-iii

CONTENTS

B.1 LIFECYCLE REPORT PROCESS TIMEFRAMES...........................................................1

B.2 TYPE OF TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DOCUMENT ......................................................1

B.3 FINAL CLEANUP DECISIONS ........................................................................................2

B.4 GRADED APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ...................2

B.5 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND REASONABLE UPPER 

BOUND ...............................................................................................................................3

B.6 DISTINGUISHING PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FROM STANDARD 

PLANNING UNCERTAINTIES.........................................................................................3

B.7 ALTERNATIVES AND ACCELERATED CLEANUP ACTIONS ..................................3

B.8 COST INFORMATION DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTATION ...................................4

B.9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................4
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-iv

TERMS

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-1 

APPENDIX B 

APPLICATION OF KEY TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) encountered several issues while preparing 

the initial Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report). The DOE, 

EPA, and Ecology worked together to ensure a common understanding of the issues; these 

mutual understandings are summarized in this appendix, which will be updated as necessary to 

reflect changes and evolution in these understandings. 

B.1 LIFECYCLE REPORT PROCESS TIMEFRAMES

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

commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), Milestone M-036-01 requires that after 

DOE submits the Lifecycle Report, EPA and Ecology can provide comments, and the 

TPA agencies (DOE, EPA, and Ecology) will work together to revise the report. The milestone 

does not indicate how long this comment/revision period can take, nor does it specify whether 

the milestone is completed when the Lifecycle Report is submitted or when EPA and Ecology’s 

comments are incorporated and DOE issues a revised Lifecycle Report. Depending on how long 

the comment/revision process takes, there is a risk of missing milestone due dates and/or 

overlapping from a previous report into the period for the next report. 

Discussions among the TPA agencies concluded that for each year, TPA Milestone M-036-01 

should be considered complete on the date DOE submits to EPA and Ecology the annual 

Lifecycle Report for that year. The comment and revision process will continue to be a 

requirement under the milestone, but milestone completion occurs on the date the report is 

submitted. In addition, the TPA agencies concluded that there should be no time limit placed on 

the comment period (in keeping with the Lifecycle Report being a “living document”), but that 

revision of the most recent Lifecycle Report (if determined to be necessary) would be limited to 

a reasonable period after the report’s submittal. The general expectation is that comments will 

be accepted but not accounted for until the next annual submittal of the Lifecycle Report. 

B.2 TYPE OF TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DOCUMENT

Most documents required by the TPA are classified as Primary, Secondary, or Other. 

The document type, or classification, generally is based on the significance of the document for 

making cleanup decisions, and is used to direct documents through particular procedures for 

review, comment, and dispute resolution and for administrative recordkeeping. TPA Milestone 

M-036-01 does not specify what type of TPA document the Lifecycle Report is, and the TPA 

document classifications do not clearly align with the nature of the Lifecycle Report as an 

advisory, but not decision-making, document. 

The TPA agencies agreed that this matter would be best resolved through the project 

management processes laid out in the TPA. The TPA agencies will decide on the type of 

document, the formal methods for resolving issues and disagreements, and how to satisfy public 

involvement consistent with the Community Relations Plan for the Hanford Federal Facility 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-2 

Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 2002). This paragraph will be updated to describe 

the document type and management process once agreement is reached by the TPA agencies. 

B.3 FINAL CLEANUP DECISIONS

TPA Milestone M-036-01 requires the Lifecycle Report to consider alternatives for 

circumstances where “final cleanup decisions” have not yet been made. Discussions among the 

TPA agencies revealed a variety of opinions about what constitutes a “final” versus “non-final” 

cleanup decision. For example, many legally final decisions are still subject to periodic review 

and could change based on new information or conditions. There also are final decisions that 

have been made under other Federal and State programs and for other DOE operations that 

directly or indirectly affect decisions about the Hanford Site cleanup mission. 

The TPA agencies concluded that it is important to document the decisions considered relevant 

to the Hanford Site cleanup mission and to indicate which ones are considered final. 

This information is provided in Appendix C of the Lifecycle Report.

B.4 GRADED APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES

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

the Lifecycle Report is to consider ranges of alternatives and present a reasonable upper bound. 

Final cleanup decisions have not been made for many Hanford Site cleanup actions, which 

implies that there are several alternatives to be considered. Further, the milestone does not 

specify what the scope of an “alternative” should include. At one extreme, an alternative could 

cover a single, discrete activity (e.g., remediation of one ditch), or at another extreme could 

cover all the work needed for an entire portion of the Hanford Site (e.g., cleanup of all the 

300 Area).

Discussions among the TPA agencies concluded that alternatives should be addressed in a 

manner consistent with the way final and interim cleanup decisions are already being made for 

the Hanford Site. This approach bundles similar work that enables cleanup to proceed for 

common or related contaminants that occur in a relatively well-defined environmental media 

(or waste management system) within a generally contiguous geographic area. Examples of 

cleanup actions for which alternatives may be considered include dispositioning the 100 Area 

reactors, remediating all contaminated soils in the outer portions of the 200 Area, and restoring

300 Area groundwater to beneficial use. This is a practical scale at which alternatives can be 

addressed in the Lifecycle Report.

The TPA agencies also determined that the number of cleanup actions for which final decisions 

do not yet exist is large, and that the Lifecycle Report effort could quickly become 

overwhelming if it were to address all the potential alternatives at once. In addition, the 

TPA agencies recognized that it would be neither helpful nor necessary, for purposes of 

supporting budget planning and other decisions, to immediately perform detailed analyses on 

every potential alternative. As a result, the Lifecycle Report proposes a schedule and rationale 

for when different cleanup actions will undergo in-depth alternatives analyses.

Appendix A of the Lifecycle Report provides additional information on how cleanup action 

alternatives have been identified and scheduled for consideration. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-3 

B.5 RANGE OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND REASONABLE UPPER 

BOUND

TPA Milestone M-036-01 states, “where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the 

report will be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of plausible alternatives or a 

range of alternative costs including a reasonable upper bound.” The milestone does not define 

what a “range of plausible alternatives” is or what would be a “reasonable upper bound.” 

Numerous discussions among the TPA agencies produced general consensus on how to address 

these concepts, and they are discussed further in Section 1.6 and Appendix A. 

B.6 DISTINGUISHING PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FROM STANDARD 

PLANNING UNCERTAINTIES 

DOE’s planning typically includes “built-in” construction or operating uncertainties in 

anticipation of identified risks and opportunities. While having the appearance of being different 

alternatives, these cost and/or schedule uncertainties often present predictable variations for a 

particular cleanup approach. Developing an alternative analysis on the basis of planned cost 

and/or schedule uncertainties would be redundant, and would not be useful in considering and 

evaluating ranges of plausible alternatives for cleanup actions.

The TPA agencies generally have agreed that cost and/or schedule uncertainties, management 

reserve, and other standard planning practices used to account for risks and opportunities will not 

normally constitute distinct alternatives. For example, an alternative based on removal, 

treatment, and disposal of contaminated soils would be a distinct alternative, but allowances for 

uncertainties that cover larger than expected excavation work (e.g., that twice as much soil must 

be removed than originally planned) would not be a distinct alternative. Where alternatives are 

presented in the Lifecycle Report, the discussion will be clear on how cost and/or schedule 

uncertainty is part of the planned costs (to avoid double counting) and, where this is not the case, 

whether and how costs have been specifically developed in planning for project uncertainty and 

risk.

B.7 ALTERNATIVES AND ACCELERATED CLEANUP ACTIONS

During discussions with the Hanford Advisory Board, Hanford stakeholders, and others, terms 

like “acceleration” and “accelerated scenarios” have been used when describing the need to 

consider alternatives and types of alternatives that are of interest. The TPA agencies recognize 

that many parties are interested in being able to consider the acceleration of different cleanup 

actions. However, the TPA agencies have determined that in most cases, acceleration is not in 

fact a separate alternative to a cleanup action, and that acceleration only hastens a cleanup action 

alternative that already has been or is being developed in support of a cleanup decision (whether 

interim or final). Thus, project acceleration will not normally be included in this Lifecycle 

Report, and existing decision-making processes (e.g., under Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 USC 9601, et seq.] and Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act [(42 USC 6901 et seq.]) will be relied on to consider the timing and schedule 

for implementing proposed alternatives. Nevertheless, the TPA agencies do reserve the option to 

consider in the Lifecycle Report specific cleanup action alternatives even though they may 

chiefly or only affect cleanup schedules. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

B-4 

B.8 COST INFORMATION DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTATION

The TPA agencies discussed a number of issues related to how cost information should be 

developed and documented in the Lifecycle Report. These discussions resulted in several 

important decisions, as follows. 

• In order to prepare schedule and cost information about future work, DOE and its 

contractors make assumptions about anticipated activities. Their planning assumes 

reasonable outcomes for decisions that have not yet been made, accounts for uncertainties 

where existing information is inadequate, and allows work to proceed without precluding 

other future choices. In effect, such planning is one available cleanup action alternative, 

and is used to develop future funding requests. To promote clarity and understanding 

about the Hanford Site cleanup mission, the Lifecycle Report will include information 

about assumptions used to develop DOE’s planning and associated costs. 

• The requirements for long-term stewardship and institutional controls will not be well 

defined for many years, and will depend greatly on the outcome of existing and future 

cleanup decisions. Even so, the costs of long-term stewardship and institutional controls, 

to the extent predictable, will be included in the Lifecycle Report. Chapter 7.0 addresses

this subject, although the information provided is likely to be broad and generic, 

reflecting the uncertainty and long time horizons involved. As decisions are made and 

long-term stewardship and institutional controls are better identified, more specific cost 

information will be presented in the Lifecycle Report as part of the related cleanup 

actions.

• The TPA agencies recognize that Natural Resource Damage Assessment costs eventually 

need to be included in the Lifecycle Report. However, the general opinion is that it 

would be premature to include such cost estimates, and that time should be allowed for 

the Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council to begin developing reasonable methods 

and bases for calculating Natural Resource Damage Assessment costs at the Hanford 

Site. However, the costs associated with supporting the Natural Resource Trustee 

Council will be included. 

B.9 REFERENCES

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended. 

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 2002, Community Relations Plan for the Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order, Washington State Department of Ecology, 

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

Washington. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901 et seq. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-i 

APPENDIX C 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-iii

CONTENTS

C.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISION MAKING PROCESSES ...........2

C.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ..................................3

C.2.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 DECISIONS .....................4

C.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY 

PROGRAM APPROVALS .....................................................................................4

C.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS .............................................................5

C.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS ....................................................5

C.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND 

NOT YET FINAL ................................................................................................................6

C.4. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................30

TABLES

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages) ........................... 7

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages) ................................................................ 14

Table C-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions 

Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (3 pages) ................................................ 24

Table C-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. .............. 26

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. 

(5 pages) .................................................................................................................... 26
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-iv

TERMS

2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 

AM Action Memorandum 

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

CCN correspondence control number 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

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

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERA expedited response action

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESD explanation of significant differences

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

HCP-EIS Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement

HLW high-level waste

IC institutional controls

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISS interim safe storage

MCL maximum contaminant limit

OU operable unit 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RD/RAWP remedial design/remedial action work plan

ROD record of decision

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

SST single-shell tank

TCRA time critical removal action

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WIDS Waste Information Data System

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-1 

APPENDIX C 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS

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

commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), Milestone M-036-01 requires the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare an annual Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and 

Cost Report (Lifecycle Report). The Lifecycle Report is expected to reflect all actions necessary 

for DOE to meet all applicable environmental obligations as it completes the Hanford Site 

cleanup mission. These environmental obligations are established in accordance with various 

decision-making processes that DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and other agencies conduct under Federal 

and State regulatory programs.

A number of decisions affecting the Hanford Site cleanup mission have been made, and actions 

to implement these decisions have been completed, or are or will soon be under way. Many 

other cleanup decisions, however, cannot be made yet, are in preliminary planning stages, and/or 

are the subject of final agreements that are being developed. The absence of final decisions is 

addressed in the TPA Milestone M-036-01: 

“In circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made, the 

report shall be based upon the reasonable upper bound of the range of 

plausible alternatives or may set forth a range of alternative costs including 

such a reasonable upper bound.” 

Several sections of this Lifecycle Report present cleanup action alternatives for 

“...circumstances where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made....” 

(TPA Milestone M-036-01). Any discussion of alternatives in this report needs to begin with an 

understanding of what “final cleanup decisions” are, which in turn requires answering several 

related questions: 

• What is a decision? 

• What is a cleanup decision? 

• What makes some decisions final and others not? 

This appendix provides current information about decisions that affect the Hanford cleanup 

mission, and when these decisions might be considered to be final cleanup decisions for 

Lifecycle Report purposes. Specifically:

• Section C.1 provides a general overview of the principal processes that are employed at 

the Hanford Site to reach decisions about cleanup actions. 

• Section C.2 describes in more detail the Federal and State decisions that can affect 

Hanford Site cleanup, the legal and/or regulatory authorities on which the decision 

making is based, and the types of documents used to embody and formalize these 

decisions. 

• Section C.3 summarizes the current decisions that, for purposes of this Lifecycle Report, 

are considered to be Hanford Site cleanup decisions and which of these cleanup decisions 

can be identified as final cleanup decisions. 

This appendix will be updated to reflect new and changed final cleanup decisions, and to provide 

a basis each year for determining cleanup actions to evaluate in the latest Lifecycle Report.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-2 

C.1 PRINCIPAL HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISION MAKING 

PROCESSES

To implement the Hanford Site cleanup mission, DOE, with EPA and Ecology, reach decisions 

about what actions need to be performed to protect public and worker health and the 

environment. Cleanup decisions are based on a variety of legal and regulatory authorities such 

as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) (42 USC 9601) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 

that require the consideration of various alternatives before selecting cleanup actions. In some 

cases, the agencies develop interim or partial decisions that enable cleanup work to proceed 

pending the ability to make final decisions (e.g., to alleviate urgent concerns, acquire better 

information, develop technological advances, obtain needed funding). 

The TPA is the primary legal framework that DOE, EPA, and Ecology are using to achieve 

cleanup of the Hanford Site. Cleanup decisions made through the TPA integrate and implement 

primarily the following regulatory processes: 

• CERCLA processes will support remedial decision making for most past-practice waste 

sites, canyon facilities, and structures that contain radioactive contamination or other 

hazardous substances. The TPA also identifies a subset of waste sites as RCRA 

past-practice sites. Consistent with EPA directives and guidance, the TPA establishes the 

expectation that either a RCRA corrective action or a CERCLA remedial action will lead 

to an equivalent cleanup result. In practice, this expectation becomes complicated when 

radioactive materials are present because RCRA authority does not extend to 

radionuclides. Regardless of this issue with RCRA, Hanford Site cleanup of 

radionuclides in RCRA waste sites will be protective and consistent with CERCLA 

cleanup practices.

• RCRA closure processes generally will be used to achieve final closure decisions for 

active RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. RCRA corrective action 

processes also are applicable when RCRA wastes from past hazardous waste practices 

must be cleaned up. EPA has delegated implementation of the RCRA program to the 

State of Washington. Ecology implements the program via RCRA-equivalent State 

regulations and through facility-specific permits. RCRA closure and post-closure 

requirements are contained in the Hanford Site RCRA Permit (WA7890008967, 2007, 

Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous Waste 

Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste).

The clear intent of the TPA is to minimize duplication and overlap of regulatory authorities 

while ensuring compliance with applicable requirements. As noted above, RCRA authority does 

not extend to the cleanup of radionuclides, while CERCLA does. The TPA states that the 

cleanup process selected for an operable unit (OU) will be sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy 

the technical requirements of both authorities and the respective regulations. 

In addition to 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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-3 

Land use is also an important factor in making cleanup decisions because remedial action 

objectives are to reflect the reasonably anticipated future land uses(s). These future land-use 

assumptions allow risk assessments and feasibility studies to focus on developing practical and 

cost-effective remedial alternatives. These alternatives should then support future site activities 

that are consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use. DOE is responsible for 

designating land uses on the Hanford Site and for identifying future land uses that will guide risk 

assessments and cleanup decisions. Pursuant to a record of decision (ROD) published on 

November 2, 1999 (64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS)”) and amended ROD published on September 26, 

2008 (73 FR 55824, “Amended Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use 

Plan Environmental Impact Statement”), DOE has adopted and implemented a comprehensive 

land-use plan for the Hanford Site. As DOE’s decision stated: 

“The purpose of this land-use plan and its implementing policies and procedures 

is to facilitate decision making about the site’s uses and facilities over at least the 

next 50 years. The Department’s decision seeks to balance the Department’s 

continuing land-use needs at Hanford with its desire to preserve important 

ecological and cultural values of the site and allow for economic development in 

the area.” (64 FR 61615 – 61616) 

An area as large and complex as the Hanford Site has an extraordinary number of decisions that 

need to be made to carry out the cleanup mission. While many cleanup decisions have been 

made, only some of these decisions are considered to be final; many are either interim decisions, 

or decisions that lay the groundwork for future final decisions. The rest of this appendix 

provides a more extensive discussion of the decisions that have been made and that affect 

cleanup of the Hanford Site, and includes several tables that list and summarize the effects of 

these decisions.

C.2 DECISIONS THAT CAN AFFECT HANFORD SITE CLEANUP

For purposes of TPA Milestone M-036-01 and this Lifecycle Report, a cleanup decision should: 

1. Be promulgated under applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities of responsible 

Federal and State agencies, and

2. Establish an enforceable environmental obligation which results in actions or events that 

affect cleanup of the Hanford Site.

Not all decisions meet both of these criteria. There are many statutory/regulatory authorities that 

apply to Hanford but that do not establish environmental obligations. Examples include 

requirements related to property and services acquisition, software design, cyber security, 

occupational medicine, equal opportunity, or privacy protection. Alternatively, there are many 

statutes and regulations that establish environmental obligations for the Hanford Site, but not all 

of them promulgate decisions that affect cleanup of the Site. Some examples include 

requirements for pesticide or herbicide application, drinking water purveyor reporting, storm 

water management, greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substances, emergency planning and 

community right-to-know, and selection of green products. 

Statutory/regulatory authorities that result in decisions that can affect Hanford Site cleanup are 

identified and discussed in more detail in the following sections. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-4 

C.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 clean up uncontrolled or abandoned waste 

sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants 

into the environment. EPA has lead authority for CERCLA and administers its requirements 

under 40 CFR 300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.” The 

most common documentation used to implement cleanup decisions under CERCLA includes the 

following. 

• CERCLA ROD. The CERCLA ROD is a public document, developed from information 

generated during the remedial investigation/feasibility study that explains which 

remediation alternatives will be used to clean up a site. An ROD contains information 

about the site history, site description, site characteristics, community participation, 

enforcement activities, past and present activities, contaminated media, the contaminants 

present, scope and role of response action, and the remedy selected for cleanup. Records 

of decision can be final or interim; interim records of decision are used to allow cleanup 

actions to proceed until a final decision can be reached. 

• Explanation of Significant Differences and ROD Amendment. Documents used to 

modify or clarify an existing ROD. The explanation of significant difference is used 

when changes to a component of a remedy do not fundamentally alter the overall cleanup 

approach. The amendment is used when there are fundamental changes, or a number of 

significant changes, that together have the effect of a fundamental change to the remedy 

selected in the ROD. 

• Action Memorandum. A public document used to exercise the CERCLA removal 

authority and enable cleanup action to proceed where a site presents a relatively 

time-sensitive, non-complex problem that can and should be readily addressed. 

A number of CERCLA documents have been completed that include or have resulted in 

decisions that affect Hanford Site cleanup. These CERCLA documents and summaries of the 

relevant cleanup decisions are listed in Section C.3. 

C.2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER STATUTORY/REGULATORY PROGRAM 

APPROVALS

RCRA, as modified by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, gave EPA the 

authority to control the generation, transportation, and TSD of hazardous waste. 

The amendments expanded the scope of RCRA to require corrective action for certain releases of 

hazardous waste constituents to the environment from RCRA facilities regardless of time of 

release (similar to CERCLA remedial action). Unlike CERCLA, EPA may delegate authority 

for implementing RCRA to the States, and in Washington, Ecology has lead authority for most 

elements of RCRA. The principal documents used to implement Hanford Site cleanup decisions 

under RCRA include: 

• Final Status Permit. A final status permit includes explicit descriptions of the 

conditions and requirements that must be met by a facility at which TSD of regulated 

hazardous waste (or dangerous waste, in Washington State) occur. A TSD facility may 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-5 

receive a final status permit even though it is closed and not operating, if there are 

ongoing caretaking activities that must be maintained after closure (i.e., during the 

post-closure care period). At the Hanford Site, a single final status permit covers the 

entire Hanford Site, but it is being issued in phases because of the number of TSD

facilities that exist. The final status permit includes decisions about how Federal and 

State statutes, regulations, and guidance have been interpreted and applied to the specific 

activities conducted at each TSD facility.

• Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Some Hanford Site TSD facilities have closed or may close 

before they are covered under the final status permit. In such cases, a closure plan must 

be prepared to describe the activities necessary to close the TSD facility and address any 

remaining dangerous wastes. If dangerous waste will remain after closure, a post-closure 

plan is also required to address residual contamination. Ecology must approve closure 

and post-closure plans before they are implemented, and in the process decisions will be 

made and included in the closure/post-closure plans about how to close the TSD facility 

and, where required, conduct post-closure care.

• Corrective Action. Corrective actions, to clean up releases from RCRA TSD facilities, 

may be required before a final status permit is issued. Decisions about the degree and 

methods for cleanup will be made and implemented through a corrective action plan that 

is approved by Ecology. 

In addition to RCRA, there are numerous other programs, authorized under existing Federal and 

State statutes and regulations that require permits, licenses and other approvals that can affect 

cleanup at the Hanford Site. These other decision documents establish, among other conditions, 

limits on emissions of radionuclides and other hazardous constituents to the air, water, and 

ground. Section C.3 lists the various permits, licenses, and other types of approvals authorized 

under applicable regulatory and statutory programs that include or have resulted in decisions 

affecting Hanford Site cleanup.

C.2.3 TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT DECISIONS

Among other functions, the TPA helps define how the CERCLA and RCRA programs will be 

implemented when they have overlapping authorities. The TPA is used to determine which 

decision-making process and documentation (e.g., CERCLA ROD, RCRA permit) will be used 

to establish cleanup actions for the different waste sites and facilities across the Hanford Site, but 

it is that subsequent documentation (not the TPA itself) where the cleanup decisions are formally 

established. The TPA itself does, however, include some decisions that affect cleanup at the 

Hanford Site. These may include, for example, provisions that set specific waste retrieval 

objectives and technology performance standards for certain types of cleanup actions. These 

TPA-based decisions are listed in Section C.3. 

C.2.4 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS

There are a variety of other decisions embodied in executive, legislative, and judicial documents 

that can affect cleanup of the Hanford Site. Section C.3 lists the various Executive Orders, 

Presidential Proclamations, Congressional Acts, judicial orders and decrees, and other types of 

Federal and State decisions that may affect Hanford Site cleanup.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-6 

C.3 SUMMARY OF HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS – FINAL AND 

NOT YET FINAL 

The statutory/regulatory authorities discussed in Section C.2 have resulted in a multitude of 

national, regional, and/or State decisions across numerous projects and programs. Some of these 

decisions do establish environmental obligations that affect the Hanford Site cleanup mission. 

These Hanford Site cleanup decisions are summarized in this Section C.3. 

While some decisions more clearly affect the Hanford Site than others, care has been taken to 

include decisions that have indirect effects on Hanford cleanup. Examples of such indirect 

decisions might include those that define national standards for risk-based exposure limits, 

enable offsite activities that contribute contaminants to Hanford environmental media, or 

constrain the ability to disposition materials or wastes at or from the Hanford Site.

As stated earlier in this appendix, the Lifecycle Report is required to consider cleanup 

alternatives “where final cleanup decisions have not yet been made” (TPA Milestone M-36-01, 

third paragraph) at the Hanford Site. Some cleanup decisions may appear to be final but are not: 

• They may be only interim remedies until a final cleanup decision can be made, or 

• They may only be partial actions within a much larger cleanup effort. 

Even where final decisions have been made, there are legal mandates to perform periodic 

reviews to ensure that selected remedies continue to be effective; new decisions may be needed 

depending on how well cleanup actions are working. 

To stay as simple as possible, the term final has been interpreted literally. For purposes of this 

Lifecycle Report, a cleanup decision will be treated as a final cleanup decision if:

• The decision is embodied in a statutory/regulatory document that is titled final (e.g., final 

permit, final ROD); or

• The decision is explicitly represented as final in a document, and such representation is 

compliant with the statutory/regulatory authority that produced the document. 

The Hanford Site cleanup decisions summarized in Tables C-1, C-3, and C-5 indicate whether 

the decision is considered to be final by inclusion of the word FINAL

In addition to decisions that have been made, whether final or not, there are many cleanup 

decisions that are yet to be made for the Hanford Site. By definition, the absence of a decision 

means there is not a final cleanup decision. It would not be possible to develop an exhaustive list 

of all the decisions that still need to be made to complete the Hanford cleanup mission. 

However, as these decisions are reached, they will be incorporated into this section of the 

Lifecycle Report.

after the decision title in 

the first column.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-7 

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Initial Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area (EPA/ROD/R10-93/063) 

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

FINAL

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 Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 This ESD documents significant 

differences to the selected remedies in the 

ROD. In summary, this ESD clarifies the 

institutional control requirements for the 

Horn Rapids Landfill.

Initial Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

(EPA/ROD/R10-95/100) 

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

FINAL

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Jan-95 

Initial Decision: Initial construction of two cells; maximum size of 1.6 sq mi; landfill construction in accordance 

with RCRA; capped at completion.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 and 

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, (see also 

proposed plan for amendment) 

(EPA/AMD/R10-97/101) 

ROD 

Amendment

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 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, 

Benton County, Washington, Amended 

Record of Decision, Decision Summary 

and Responsiveness Summary, (see also 

proposed plan for amendment) 

(EPA/AMD/R10-99/038) 

ROD 

Amendment

Mar-99 Establishes conditional approval for 

delisting of the ERDF leachate. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, 

Benton County, Washington, Amended 

Record of Decision, Decision Summary 

and Responsiveness Summary, (see also 

ROD 

Amendment

Jan-02 Authorizes four additional disposal cells 

and the option of staging waste at ERDF 

pending treatment and/or disposal. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-8 

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

proposed plan for amendment) 

(EPA/AMD/R10-02/030) 

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) 

ROD 

Amendment

May-07 Allows specific Hanford-generated waste, 

such as waste associated with surveillance 

and maintenance of Hanford facilities, 

environmental research and development 

activities, sample analyses, liquid effluent 

waste treatment, infrastructure support, 

and environmental monitoring programs, 

to be disposed at ERDF; identifies a plugin 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) 

ROD 

Amendment 

and ESD

Aug-09 Amendment allows for ERDF expansion 

of an area equal to four cells or two super 

cells; the ESD updates the cell design to 

allow super cell concept and allows for 

ERDF expansion via EPA approval and 

fact sheets rather than ROD amendments. 

Initial 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: Pump and treat 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.

Initial Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington

(EPA 2008) 

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

FINAL

Area: 200 West; 200-ZP-1 OU

Date Approved: Sep-08

Initial Decision: Pump and treat to address carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, chromium, trichloroethylene, iodine-129, 

technetium-99, and tritium; monitored natural attenuation; flow-path control through injection of treated water; and 

institutional controls.

Initial 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 Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 

ROD 

Amendment

Apr-97 Incorporates 34 additional waste sites into 

ROD; refines remedial cost estimate for 

original 37 sites and additional 34 sites 

based on actual data, streamlining, and 

lessons learned; documents that soil 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-9 

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

documents preceding this ROD 

amendment) (EPA/AMD/R10-97/044) 

washing is not effective treatment.

Initial 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) 

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

FINAL

Area: 100; 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 OUs 

Date Approved: Feb-96

Initial Decision: No action.

Initial 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 institutional controls.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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) 

ROD 

Amendment

Oct-99 Implements In Situ Redox Manipulation

barrier for second chromium plume in 100-

HR-3 OU; existing pump and treats 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 and 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.

Initial 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

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

for the 300-FF-1 OU; it is an interim action for 300-FF-5 OU.

Area: 300; 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 OUs 

Date Approved: Jul-96

Initial Decision: 300-FF-1: removal of contaminated soil and debris; disposal to ERDF; backfill and recontouring; 

institutional controls. 300-FF-5: monitoring and institutional controls for groundwater.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-10

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 all of the groundwater in 300 Area, 

including the 300-FF-2 sites and any sites 

plugged into the 300-FF-1 ROD.

Initial 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 specified cleanup levels for plutoniumcontaminated soils and subsurface structures and debris. Soil vapor extraction at three of the 200-PW-1 

waste sites will continue until vadose zone cleanup levels are met. Soil covers will be used to provide 

coverage to a depth of at least 15 feet over cesium-contaminated soils. Removal of sludge followed by 

tank stabilization for two tanks. No action for two waste sites. Institutional controls and long-term 

monitoring for waste sites where contamination is left in place and an unrestricted land use is precluded.

Initial 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 technetium-99 plumes and treat 

at Effluent Treatment Facility.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 

requirement with a pumping requirement 

from existing and new wells consistent 

with approved RD/RAWP until uranium 

and technetium-99 concentrations are less 

than 10 times the MCL for 4 consecutive 

quarters; also adds sampling requirements 

and updates cost estimates and institutional 

control requirements.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-11

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Initial 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 Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 institutional controls 

report date to be coincident with the due 

date for the Sitewide Institutional Controls 

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 addition of 200-CW-3 OU 

wastes sites, 99 newly discovered waste 

sites, and 87 candidate sites using the 

“plug-in” approach in the ROD, as well as 

any additional newly discovered waste 

sites that will be documented in the 

Administrative Record and in an annual 

fact sheet.

Initial 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

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 institutional controls.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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) 

ROD 

Amendment

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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-12

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Initial 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: Institutional controls for shoreline site; in situ and RTD with ex situ bioremediation for petroleum 

sites; RTD for remainder of sites in 100-NR-1; maintain ERA P&T for 100-NR-2.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 institutional 

controls reporting requirement and 

consolidates the reporting with the sitewide IC annual report; eliminates the 

requirement to evaluate application of 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)

ROD 

Amendment

Sep-10 Deploys the apatite sequestration 

technology for remediation of Sr-90 in the 

100-NR-2 Groundwater OU by extending 

the existing apatite permeable reactive 

barrier to approximately 2,500 ft, allows 

for deployment of the apatite sequestration 

technology elsewhere within the 100-NR-2 

OU in accordance with an Ecology 

approved work plan, and includes 

decommissioning the treatment 

components of the existing pump-and-treat 

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 

following confirmatory sampling and 

increases the total cost 38% to 

$67,510,386.

Initial 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-NR-1 and 116-NR-3 Cribs with ERDF disposal; backfill and revegetate; any pipelines 

will be removed or sampled and left in place based on sample results.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Interim Action 

ESD May-03 Removes July 31 annual institutional 

controls reporting requirement and 

consolidates the reporting with the site-
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-13

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-

NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action 

Record of Decision

(EPA/ESD/R10-03/605)

wide IC annual report; eliminates the 

requirement to evaluate application of 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.

Initial 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 45 100-Area burial grounds.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

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 institutional controls for 

protection of groundwater and the 

Columbia River.

Initial 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 institutional controls; continued groundwater monitoring; and define plug-in 

approach.

Revision Title Revision 

Type

Revision 

Date Revised Decision

Explanation of Significant Differences 

for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record 

of Decision (EPA 2004b)

ESD May-04 Modified the uranium soil cleanup level 

from 350 to 267 pCi/g based on an 

engineering study to ensure protectiveness 

of the groundwater and river; modified the 

land-use assumption for 8 outlying waste 

sites from industrial to unrestricted and 

changed the cleanup levels for these sites 

to those consistent with the 100 Area 

cleanups.

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 

ESD Aug-11 Modified remedy to allow for necessary 

treatment of liquid waste in bottles, up to 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-14

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Unit, 618-10 Burial Ground (EPA 

2011b)

1 gallon per bottle, to occur in trays within 

the excavation area in accordance with an 

approved work plan.

Initial Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative), Hanford Site, Washington (EPA 2005b) 

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

FINAL

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Oct-05 

Initial Decision: Removal of waste from vessels and equipment in the facility with levels of transuranic isotopes 

greater than 100 nCi/g and eventual disposal of that waste 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 

disposal at ERDF; demolition and subsequent stabilization of the railroad tunnel, 271-U, 276-U, 291-U, and 292-U 

structures and the 291-U-1 and 296-U-10 stacks and disposal at ERDF; construction of an engineered barrier; 

planting of semiarid-adapted vegetation on the barrier; institutional controls; post-closure care; and ongoing barrier 

performance and groundwater monitoring.

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirement. 

bgs = below ground surface.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESD = explanation of significant differences.

IC = institutional controls.

MCL = maximum contaminant limit.

OU = operable unit.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976. 

RD/RAWP = remedial design/remedial action work plan.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, dispose.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal. 

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Unless otherwise noted in Table C-2, decisions made through Action Memoranda are considered 

final. These Action Memoranda are available in the TPA Administrative Record 

(http://www2.hanford.gov/arpir/). These decisions focus mainly on the D4 of buildings, which 

are generally considered final actions since the buildings are demolished and the waste disposed 

to approved facilities, or on the removal, treatment, and disposal (RTD) of contaminated soil 

from waste sites, which are also generally considered final actions for individual waste sites. 

However, slabs and contaminated soils underlying buildings will likely go through additional 

decision making as part of appropriate source OUs. Similarly, waste sites that undergo RTD as a 

removal action will likely have a final ROD covering the decision, even though no additional 

cleanup activities are anticipated. 

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“618-9 Burial Ground 

Expedited Response Action, 

Phase I, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland, 

Washington”

(CCN 9100749) 

Feb-91 TCRA This Expedited Response Action (ERA) provides for 

trench excavation and removal of drummed liquid 

wastes from the 618-9 Burial Ground. The treatment 

and/or disposal of the liquids and contaminated soils (if 

present) is considered part of the Phase 2 activities and 

is not considered time critical.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-15

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: 316-5 Process 

Trenches, U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington”

(CCN 9103432) 

Jul-91 ERA The Action Memorandum (AM) provides for excavation 

of soil from the 316-5 Process Trenches and interim 

stabilization pending further remedial action as part of 

the 300-FF-1 OU. This AM was initially not a final 

action; however, the ROD for 300-FF-1 OU, which 

covers these trenches, is a final CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal for 200 West Area 

Carbon Tetrachloride Plume”

(CCN 9200423) 

Jan-92 ERA The AM identifies installation of a soil vapor extraction

system with granular activated carbon recovery and 

offsite granular activated carbon regeneration at 

216-Z-1A initially followed by systems at 216-Z-18 and 

216-Z-9. While this ERA is not a final decision; a final 

decision has been made through the CERCLA remedial 

process for 200-ZP-1 OU.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: Sodium 

Dichromate Barrel Landfill, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(CCN 9307470) 

Mar-93 ERA The AM identifies excavation and disposal of drums and 

homestead debris from the landfill with sampling of any 

other wastes encountered during excavation; the 

expedited reaction would result in cleanup of the landfill 

to unrestricted levels.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; Riverland Site, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington” (CCN 9305567) 

Jun-93 ERA The AM provides for cleanup of the Riverland Site, part 

of the 100-IU-1 OU, through excavation to address 

pesticide and hydrocarbon contamination, ordnance 

survey and removal, and sandblasting to decontaminate 

concrete.

“Action Memorandum: North 

Slope (Wahluke Slope) 

Expedited Response Action 

Cleanup Plan, U.S. 

Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(Ecology and EPA 1994a) 

Mar-94 ERA The AM provides for mitigation of physical hazards, 

excavation of the worst-case landfill, characterization of 

the other landfills, and if needed, excavation of other 

landfills based on characterization results; includes 

investigation and as needed, mitigation of ordinance 

burial pits. As stated in the AM, the intent of this action 

is to provide for the final removal action taken at the 

100-IU-3 OU (the Wahluke Slope).

“Action Memorandum, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

NPL,100-IU-3 Operable Unit

(Wahluke Slope), Hanford 

Site, Adams, Grant, and 

Franklin Counties, 

Washington” (Ecology and 

DOE 1997) 

Jul-97 TCRA The AM addresses contaminated soils and drums at the 

2,4-D Burial Ground in the 200-IU-3 OU. The removal 

action includes excavation of dioxin-contaminated soil 

for offsite disposal; bioremediation of 2,4-D 

contaminated soil; and excavation, cleaning, and 

disposal of the drums to ERDF. Under the 1994 AM for 

the Wahluke Slope, the 2,4-D Burial Ground was only 

identified for sampling. Subsequently, additional 

contamination was found, prompting this additional 

AM. Completion of this AM action allows continuation 

of the deletion process for the OU from the NPL.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-16

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum; 

N Springs Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(Ecology and EPA 1994b) 

Sep-94 ERA The AM identifies a pump-and-treat system combined 

with a vertical barrier for implementation at N Springs. 

These systems comprise a component of the overall 

cleanup of N Springs but were also intended to provide 

additional information to the ongoing CERCLA and 

RCRA processes. This ERA is not a final decision.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; 100-BC-1 

Demonstration Project; 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site; Richland, 

Washington” (EPA and 

Ecology 1995) 

Jun-95 ERA The AM allows contaminated soils from waste sites 

116-B-4, 116-B-5, and 116-C-1 to be excavated and 

temporarily stored in a safe fashion pending the start of 

ERDF operations; the actions under this AM would also 

provide additional information to support remedial 

design, including cost information, for the 100-BC-1 

OU. The ERA was not intended as a final decision; the 

100-BC-1 OU has been incorporated into an interim 

ROD and is undergoing a final ROD process.

“Action Memorandum, 183-H 

Solar Evaporation Basin 

Waste Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan” 

(CCN 040739) 

Nov-96 ERA The AM identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 

183-H Solar Evaporation Basin waste generated through 

cleanup activities. 

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 200 

West Area, Central Waste 

Complex, 183-H Solar 

Evaporation Basin Waste, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al.

2003) 

Jun-03 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM allows for the treatment and disposal to ERDF 

of wastes generated during the RCRA closure of 183-H 

basins

“Action Memorandum, N 

Area Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 038546) 

Nov-96 ERA The AM identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 

contaminated sediment and debris from the Emergency 

Dump Basin, facility deactivation waste, and 

environmental investigation waste from the 100-N Area.

“Action Memorandum; 

100-B/C Area Ancillary 

Facilities and the 

108-F Building Removal 

Action, U.S. Department of 

Energy Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (EPA 1997) 

Jan-97 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies D4 with ERDF disposal for the 

following facilities in the 100-B and 100-F Areas: 

111-B, 115-B, 118-C-4, 119-B, 105-C reactor waste, 

and 108-F. B Reactor and the ISS of 105-C Reactor are 

not included in the AM. This action is considered final 

for the ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the 

reactor. Additional decisions are expected on the reactor 

core that is in ISS.

“Memorandum: Removal 

Action at the 233-S Plutonium 

Concentration Facility, United 

States Department of Energy 

(USDOE) Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington” 

(DOE and EPA 1997) 

Mar-97 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies decontamination and demolition as 

the preferred alternative for the 233-S and 233-SA 

buildings, including subsurface systems and structures to 

a depth of 3 ft (further actions beyond the 3-ft depth 

would be deferred to the associated source OU). Waste 

meeting the criteria would be disposed to ERDF; other 

waste would be disposed as appropriate.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-17

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL), 

105-F and 105-DR Reactor 

Buildings and Ancillary 

Facilities, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington” 

(CCN 059689) 

Jul-98 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-F and 105-DR reactor 

cores and decontamination and demolition for the 

reactor components up to the cores and for the 116-D, 

116-DR, 117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary facilities. 

Demolition will extend generally to 3 ft below ground 

level; however, substructures and/or soil beneath the 

facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be excavated. 

This action is considered final for the ancillary facilities 

and demolished portions of the reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores that are in 

ISS.

“Action Memorandum: 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 100-N 

Area Ancillary Facilities; 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al.

1998)

Dec-98 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for D&D of the inactive contaminated 

ancillary facilities in the 100-N Area, the facilities in the 

buffer zone, the Hanford Generating Plant, and the solid 

waste management units inside the Hanford Generating 

Plant support facilities (D&D of 105-N and 109-N are 

excluded from the AM). Contaminated soils under the 

facilities would be addressed through the 100-N Area 

decision documents for waste sites.

“Action Memorandum: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 

Hanford 300 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 331-A 

Virology Laboratory Building, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and EPA 

2000) 

Feb-00 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

Per the AM, the walls and floors of the 331-A Building 

would be demolished and the concrete slab would be 

scraped to remove physical hazards; wastes would be 

disposed to ERDF. The concrete slab and underlying 

soils would remain in place.

“Action Memorandum: United 

States Department of Energy 

Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL); 105-D 

and 105-H Reactor Facilities 

and Ancillary Facilities; 

Hanford Site; Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and 

Ecology 2000) 

Dec-00 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-F and 105-DR 

Reactor cores and decontamination and demolition for 

the reactor components up to the cores and for the 

116-D, 116-DR, 117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary 

facilities. Demolition will extend generally to 3 ft below 

ground level; however, substructures and/or soil beneath 

the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be 

excavated. This action is considered final for the 

ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the 

reactors. Additional decisions are expected on the 

reactor cores that are in ISS.

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 

Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 105-B 

Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington” 

(DOE and EPA 2001) 

Dec-01 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies appropriate actions at B Reactor to 

mitigate the threat to Site workers, public health or 

welfare or the environment by removing hazardous 

substances from the facility; these actions are consistent 

with increased public access to the reactor building; 

surveillance and maintenance activities would continue. 

Any wastes generated during the mitigation activities 

would be disposed to ERDF.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-18

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 200 

Area, Burial Ground 

218-W-4C Waste Retrieval, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al.

2004)

Apr-04 TCRA The AM provides for the treatment and disposal of 

low-level and mixed low-level waste at ERDF from the 

M-091 TRU retrieval activities at the 218-W-4C Burial 

Ground. TRU is excluded from the AM.

“Action Memorandum: 

Request for Time Critical 

Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 

105-K East North Loadout Pit, 

USDOE Hanford Site” (DOE 

and EPA 2004) 

Jun-04 TCRA The AM requires the treatment of 105-K East North 

Loadout Pit waste prior to temporary storage at Hanford 

and ultimate disposal at WIPP. 

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time Critical Removal 

Action for the 224-B 

Plutonium Concentration 

Facility (DOE/RL-2004-36) 

Jun-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 224-B 

Facility, removing equipment and associated piping, 

decontaminating the structure and/or stabilizing the 

contamination, demolishing the structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the 

area. Samples will be used to determine the need for 

additional cleanup of the remaining slab and any 

subsurface soils; however, these cleanup actions are not 

included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.

“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” (CCN 

093881) 

Nov-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the remaining contaminated 

equipment to be removed and the building 

decontaminated, stabilized, and dismantled leaving the 

building slab, which will be addressed under a future 

CERCLA action.

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities 

(DOE/RL-2004-67) 

Dec-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the non-radiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities, removing equipment and associated 

piping, decontaminating the structures and/or stabilizing 

the contamination, demolishing the structures to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the area 

around U Plant. The AM provides of listing of the 

specific facilities included. Slabs and underlying soils 

would be addressed as needed through future CERCLA 

actions.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-19

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum #1 for 

the 300 Area Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2005a) 

Jan-05 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 72 buildings and 

structures in the northern part of the 300 Area with D4 

wastes going to ERDF. An additional 10 buildings and 

structures were included in the EE/CA that supports the 

AM; however, those buildings and structures were 

demolished and found to have not hazardous materials 

prior to the AM.

“Action Memorandum #2 for 

the 300 Area Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2006a) 

May-06 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of the 324 and 327 

Buildings and ancillary facilities in the 300 Area with 

D4 wastes going to ERDF. The AM provides a list of 

the ancillary facilities. In general, slabs and subsurface 

structures would be removed along with about 1 m of 

surrounding soil; however, on a case-by-case basis, the 

slabs and/or below-grade structures and soils can be 

deferred to CERCLA actions associated with the 

300-FF-2 OU.

“Action Memorandum #3 for 

the 300 Area Facilities,”

(DOE and EPA 2006b) 

Nov-06 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 110 buildings and 

structures in the southern part of the 300 Area with D4 

wastes going to ERDF. An additional 30 buildings and 

structures were included in the EE/CA that supports the 

AM; however, those buildings and structures are not 

included in the AM because DOE has identified 

alternative uses for them.

“Action Memorandum; United 

States Department of Energy, 

100 Area, 105-N Reactor 

Facility and 109-N Heat 

Exchanger Building, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and 

Ecology 2005) 

Mar-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the D&D of portions of the 105-N 

and 109-N facilities and construction of a protective 

cover over the 105-N Reactor block and the 109-N 

steam generator cells and pipe gallery, placing them into 

ISS; waste would generally be disposed to ERDF. The 

final D&D of these facilities would be conducted in the 

future to allow for decay of radionuclides in the reactor 

block. AM identifies the ISS period as 64 years. This 

action is considered final for the demolished portions of 

the reactor and heat exchange building. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor core and building 

that are in ISS.

Action Memorandum for the 

Plutonium Finishing Plant, 

Above-Grade Structures Nontime Critical Removal Action

(DOE/RL-2005-13) 

May-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the non-radiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the PFP 

above-grade structures, removing equipment and 

associated piping, decontaminating the structures and/or 

stabilizing the contamination, demolishing the structures 

to slab, disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing 

and/or covering the area around PFP. The AM provides 

a listing of the specific structures included. Slabs and 

underlying soils would be addressed as needed through 

future CERCLA actions.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-20

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

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 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the D4 of 27 buildings and 

structures in the northern part of the 100-K Area with 

D4 wastes going to ERDF. In general, slabs and 

subsurface structures would be removed along with 

about 1 m of surrounding soil; however, on a 

case-by-case basis, the slabs and/or below-grade 

structures and soils can be deferred to CERCLA actions 

associated with the 100-KR-1 and 100-KR-2 source 

OUs.

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 224-T 

Plutonium Concentration 

Facility (DOE/RL-2004-68) 

Jun-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 224-T 

Facility, removing equipment and associated piping, 

decontaminating the structure and/or stabilizing the 

contamination, demolishing the structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the 

area. Samples will be used to determine the need for 

additional cleanup of the remaining slab and any 

subsurface soils; however, these cleanup actions are not 

included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.

Action Memorandum for the 

Time-Critical Removal Action 

for Support Activities to 

200-UW-1 Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2005-71) 

Sep-05 TCRA The AM provides for activities in support of the U 

Canyon barrier construction, including removal of part 

of the 200-W-42 pipeline, rerouting TEDF line and 

stabilizing/removing a waste water line; complete or 

partial removal of a concrete slab; removal and sealing 

of 3 vent risers; and relocation of miscellaneous markers 

or utilities. The TCRA was used to accelerate work 

consistent with weather conditions and to take advantage 

of availability of specialize resources. This action is not 

considered final; the decision process is ongoing for the 

waste sites in the U Plant Area. The U Plant barrier 

ROD, however, is considered final.

“Transmittal of the Action 

Memorandum for the NonTime-Critical Removal Action 

for the 105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor Facilities and

Ancillary Facilities” 

(07-AMRC-0086) 

Jan-07 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor cores and decontamination and demolition for 

the reactor components up to the cores and for the 

remaining buildings and structures in the 100-K Area. 

Subsurface structures will generally be removed to 3 ft 

below ground level; however, substructures and/or soil 

beneath the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be 

evaluated through source OU cleanup activities. This 

action is considered final for the ancillary facilities and 

demolished portions of the reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores that are in 

ISS.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-21

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the Northern Part 

of the BC Controlled Area 

(UPR-200-E-83) 

(DOE/RL-2008-21) 

May-08 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the removal, treatment as needed, 

and disposal, generally to ERDF, of UPR-200-E-83 

Zone A soils to a depth of 6 inches, or until PRGs are 

met, and Zone B soils in areas of elevated radioactivity 

above PRGs. Excavation activities must consider old 

growth vegetation and avoid destruction of existing 

plant life. 

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 212-N, -P and 

-R Facilities 

(DOE/RL-2008-80) 

May-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 212-N, -P, 

and -R Facilities by removing equipment and associated 

piping, decontaminating the structures and/or stabilizing 

the contamination, demolishing each basin and 

underlying soils to a depth of 1 m, disposing of the 

waste generated, and stabilizing the surrounding area. 

Samples will be collected from the underlying soils to 

evaluate the need for additional cleanup activities 

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 212-N, 212-P, 

and 212-R Facilities, 

Addendum 1: Disposition of 

Railcars 

(DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1) 

Dec-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for D4 of 16 railcars located in 

200 North Area with disposal to ERDF and includes an 

option to evaluate some of the cars for movement to the 

B Reactor for preservation. The AM identifies a 

pathway for addressing contaminated soils either by 

removal at the time of D4 or transfer to another OU for 

continued CERCLA action.

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit

(DOE/RL-2009-48) 

Jul-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for cleanup of 11 waste sites in the 

100-MG-1 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (8 sites) or a removal, 

treatment, disposal alternative (3 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

Should the confirmatory sites not meet cleanup levels, 

they will then be addressed by the RTD alternative. 

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2009-86) 

Apr-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for cleanup of 37 waste sites in the 

100-MG-1 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (21 sites) or a removal, 

treatment, disposal alternative (16 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

Should the confirmatory sites not meet cleanup levels, 

they will then be addressed by the RTD alternative. The 

remainder of the 200-MG-1 OU sites are not included in 

the AM because contamination may exceed 15 ft below 

ground surface; they will be address through the 

CERCLA remedial process.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-22

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

Investigation-Derived Waste 

Purgewater Management 

Action Memorandum 

(DOE/RL-2009-39) 

Aug-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for additional purgewater 

management capacity by relining an existing unit and 

installing up to 3 new units, each with leak-detection 

systems. The purgewater management units will be 

operated in compliance with requirements, monitored 

during operations, and disassembled and dispositioned 

to appropriate requirements following the operational 

period. 

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 200-MG-2 

Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2009-37) 

Oct-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for cleanup of 34 waste sites in the 

100-MG-2 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (16 sites) or an RTD 

alternative (18 sites). Should the confirmatory sites not 

meet cleanup levels, they will then be addressed by the 

RTD alternative. The remainder of the 200-MG-2 OU 

sites are not included in the AM because contamination 

may exceed 15 ft below ground surface; they will be 

address through the CERCLA remedial process. 

Action Memorandum for 

General Hanford Site 

Decommissioning Activities 

(DOE/RL-2010-22) 

Apr-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM establishes D4 for excess industrial buildings 

and structures and cleanup of miscellaneous debris; 

provides for removal of contaminated soil or evaluation 

of contaminated soils for inclusion as a waste site 

through WIDS; identifies ERDF as the preferred 

disposal location for wastes meeting ERDF disposal 

criteria; allows for the possibility of using certain wastes 

in other remedial actions, such as fill material beneath 

barriers; and allows for incorporation of additional, 

similar buildings and structures into the AM.

Action Memorandum for 

Decontamination, 

Deactivation, 

Decommissioning, and 

Demolition (D4) Activities for 

200 East Tier 2 

Buildings/Structures

(DOE/RL-2010-102) 

Feb-11 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

This AM established D4 to slab-on-grade for 57 Tier 2 

buildings/structures in the 200 East Area; plug or grout 

below-grade piping and/or drains; remove equipment; 

remove and/or 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 the area as needed.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-23

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (10 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

2,4-D = 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid.

AM = Action Memorandum.

CCN = correspondence control number.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980. 

D4 = deactivate, decontaminate, 

decommission, and demolish.

D&D = decontamination and 

decommissioning.

EE/CA = engineering evaluation/cost 

analysis.

ERA = expedited response action.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

OU = operable unit.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRG = preliminary remediation goal.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

of 1976.

RAL = remedial action level.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

TCRA = time critical removal action.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 

TRU = transuranic.

WIDS = Waste Information Data System.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-24

Table C-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup Mission. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Hanford Facility Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act Permit, Dangerous 

Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste (WA7890008967) 

(modified September 30, 2009)

This dangerous waste permit, for the treatment, storage, and disposal of 

dangerous waste at the Hanford Facility, is the RCRA Permit for the 

Hanford Facility. The permit allows a step-wise permitting process of 

the Hanford Facility to ensure the proper implementation of the TPA. In 

order to accomplish this, the permit consists of six parts. 

FINAL

Part I, Standard Conditions

Part II, General Facility Conditions 

Part III, Unit-Specific Conditions for Operating Units 

• Operating Unit 2, PUREX Storage Tunnels

• Operating Unit 3, Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area 

Effluent Treatment Facility

• Operating Unit 4, 242-A Evaporator

• Operating Unit 5, 325 Hazardous Waste Treatment Units

• Operating Unit 10, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

• Operating Unit 11, Integrated Disposal Facility

• Operating Unit 15, 331-C Storage Unit

• Operating Unit 16, 400 Area Waste Management Unit

Part IV, Unit-Specific Conditions for Corrective Action 

• Corrective Action Unit 1, 100-NR-1 Operable Unit

Part V, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units Undergoing Closure

• Closure Unit 1, 1325-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facility

• Closure Unit 2, 1301-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facility 

• Closure Unit 3, 1324-N Surface Impoundment and 1324-NA 

Percolation Pond

Part VI, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units in Post-Closure

• Post closure Unit 1, 300 Area Process Trenches

• Post closure Unit 2 ,183-H Solar Evaporation Basins

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit No. PSD-X80-14, issued to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10

Covers emission of NOx to the atmosphere from the Plutonium Uranium 

Extraction Plant and the Uranium-Trioxide Plant. No expiration date.

FINAL
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-25

Table C-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup Mission. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Hanford Site Air Operating Permit 00-

05-006, Renewal 1

Covers operations on the Hanford Site having a potential to emit airborne 

emissions. The permit provides a compilation of applicable Clean Air 

FINAL Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401) requirements both for radioactive and nonradioactive emissions at the Hanford Site. It will be implemented through 

Federal and State programs. 

Attachment 1 contains the State of Washington Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) permit terms and conditions. 

Attachment 2 contains the State of Washington Department of Health 

(Health) Radioactive Air Emissions License (FF-01) as permit terms and 

conditions. 

Attachment 3 contains the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) permit 

terms and conditions applicable to the regulations of open burning and 

asbestos.

Permit CR-IU005, Clean Water Act of 

1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit

Allows wastewater from the Environmental Molecular Sciences 

Laboratory to be discharged to the city of Richland’s wastewater 

treatment facility.

FINAL

Permit ST 4500, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

Allows treated wastewater from the Effluent Treatment Facility to be 

discharged to the State-Approved Land Disposal Site. This permit 

expired August 1, 2005, and has not been reissued. The old permit will 

FINAL remain in effect until the new permit is issued.

Permit ST 4501, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

Allows for the discharge of cooling water and other primarily 

uncontaminated wastewater from 400 Area facilities to two ponds 

located north-northeast of the 400 Area perimeter fence. This permit was 

effective October 1, 2003, and expired on October 1, 2008. It will remain 

in effect until a new permit is issued.

FINAL

Permit ST 4502, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

Allows treated effluent from the 200-East and 200-West Areas to be 

discharged to the 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. This 

permit expired in May 2005 and has not been reissued. The old permit 

FINAL will remain in effect until the new permit is issued.

Permit ST 4507, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

Allows domestic wastewater to be discharged to the 100-N Area sewage 

lagoon. This permit expired in May 2002. A renewal application has 

been submitted. The old permit will remain in effect until a new permit is 

FINAL issued.

Permit ST 4511 , Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

Consolidation of permits: ST 4508, ST 4509, and ST 4510. This 

Categorical State Waste Discharge Permit authorizes the discharge of 

wastewater from maintenance, construction, and hydrotesting activities 

and allows for cooling water, condensate, and industrial storm water 

discharges at the Hanford Site. This permit was issued February 16, 

2005, and expired February 16, 2010.

FINAL

Permit WAG-50-5180, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

General sand and gravel for the Concrete Batch Plant in the 200-East 

Area. Reissued in May 2006.

FINAL
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-26

Table C-3. Permits, Licenses, and Other Statutory/Regulatory Program Decisions Affecting Hanford Site 

Cleanup Mission. (3 pages)

Document Summary

Permit WAG-50-5181, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

For gravel pit 30 in the 200-East Area. Reissued in May 2006.

FINAL

Large Onsite Sewage Systems (LOSS) 

“Permit to Operate” HAN099

Lists systems in the various areas

FINAL

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 C-4. Tri-Party Agreement Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. 

TPA Documentation Summary of Decision

• M-045-00 and

• Appendix C Part 1: 

Required Retrieval Technologies

• Appendix H 

Closure will follow retrieval of as much tank waste as technically possible, 

with tank waste residues not to exceed 360 ft3 in each of the 100-series 

tanks, 30 ft3 in each of the 200-series tanks, or the limit of waste retrieval 

technology capability.

• Work to Be Performed 

• Section IV.A.3

• M-062-21

Under this decree, initial plant operations is defined as, over a rolling period 

of at least three months leading to the milestone date, operating the WTP to 

produce high-level waste glass at an average rate of at least 4.2 metric tons 

of glass/day, and low-activity waste glass at an average rate of at least 21 

metric tons of glass/day.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (5 pages)

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision

Executive Order 11514, Protection 

and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality, as amended by Executive 

Order 11991

This Executive Order requires Federal agencies to continually monitor and 

control their activities to (1) protect and enhance the quality of the 

environment and (2) develop procedures to ensure the fullest practicable 

provision of timely public information and understanding of Federal plans 

and programs that may have potential environmental impact so that 

interested parties can submit their views. DOE has issued regulations 

(10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures”) and DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance Program, for compliance with this Executive order.

Executive Order 12088, Federal 

Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards

This Executive Order directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable 

administrative and procedural pollution control standards established by, but 

not limited to, the Clean Air Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401), the Noise Control 

Act of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1977, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 

1974, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, and RCRA.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-27

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (5 pages)

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision

Executive Order 12580, Superfund 

Implementation

This Executive Order delegates to a number of Federal departments and 

agencies the authority and responsibility to implement certain provisions of 

CERCLA. The policies and procedures for implementing these provisions 

(e.g., carrying out response actions and fulfilling natural resource trusteeship 

responsibilities) are spelled out in the National Contingency Plan.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 This Act directed DOE to characterize and evaluate the Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, site for suitability as a potential repository for disposal of 

commercial spent nuclear fuel and HLW. The act also directed the President 

to evaluate the need for a separate repository for HLW resulting from atomic 

energy defense activities. On April 30, 1985, President Reagan completed 

this evaluation, the result of which was that high-level waste from atomic 

energy defense activities may be disposed of in the proposed repository 

along with spent nuclear fuel. After passage by the U.S. House of 

Representatives and U.S. Senate, on July 23, 2002, President Bush signed 

House Joint Resolution 87 approving the site at Yucca Mountain for the 

development of a repository for the disposal of HLW and spent nuclear fuel, 

pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 

FINAL

As indicated in the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget request, the 

Administration intends to terminate the Yucca Mountain program while 

developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives. Notwithstanding the decision 

to terminate the Yucca Mountain program, DOE remains committed to 

meeting its obligations to manage and ultimately dispose of HLW and spent 

nuclear fuel. The Administration directed the establishment of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (Commission) to evaluate 

alternative approaches for meeting these obligations. The Commission is 

scheduled to submit a draft report to the Secretary of Energy by July 2011, 

and a final report by January 2012. The Commission will provide the 

opportunity for a meaningful dialogue on how best to address this 

challenging issue and will provide recommendations that will form the basis 

for working with Congress to revise the statutory framework for managing 

and disposing of HLW and spent nuclear fuel.

Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

of 1992

This Act, enacted on October 6, 1992, amended RCRA, Section 6961 and 

other sections and requires DOE to prepare plans that develop treatment 

capacity for mixed waste stored or generated at each facility, except for those 

facilities subject to a permit that establishes a schedule for treatment of such 

waste or an existing agreement or order governing the treatment of such 

waste to which the State is a party. The host state and/or EPA must approve 

each plan. The State of Washington, EPA, and DOE had an existing plan 

(i.e., the TPA) addressing compliance with the storage prohibition for mixed 

waste at the time this law was enacted. Therefore, Hanford was not required 

to develop a new plan. A violation of the TPA may concurrently be a 

violation of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 (i.e., the State of 

Washington may seek judicial enforcement under RCRA (

FINAL

42 USC 6901).
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-28

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (5 pages)

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act

(Public Law 102-579).

The act withdrew land from the public domain for the purposes of creating 

and operating WIPP, the geologic repository in New Mexico designated as 

the national disposal site for defense transuranic waste. In addition to 

establishing the location for the facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act also defines the characteristics and amount of waste that will 

be disposed of at the facility. The amendments to the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant Land Withdrawal Act exempt waste designated by the Secretary of 

Energy for disposal at WIPP from the RCRA land disposal restrictions. 

However, these amendments do not exempt mixed transuranic waste from 

other RCRA requirements. WIPP does have an RCRA permit and can accept 

mixed transuranic waste. On May 15, 2003, EPA Region 6 approved DOE’s 

request to dispose of transuranic waste and mixed transuranic waste 

containing PCBs at WIPP subject to certain “conditions of approval.” 

FINAL

Spent Fuel Settlement Agreement

(No. CV-91-0035-S-EJL and 

No. CV-91-0054-S-EJL), 

October 17, 1995

This agreement allows INL to receive spent nuclear fuel and mixed waste 

from off site and establishes schedules for the treatment of existing highlevel waste, transuranic waste, mixed waste, and removal of spent nuclear 

fuel from the State. 

Consent Decree for Stabilization of 

SSTs at Hanford Site between U.S. 

Department of Energy and 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology (No. CT-99-5076-EFS) 

September 29, 1999

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: 

FINAL

• Pumping the tanks that pose the greatest environmental risk first, thus 

providing additional protection for the Columbia River and public 

health.

• Accelerating the schedule for pumping so that 98 percent of 

approximately 23.5 million liters (6.2 million gallons) of remaining 

pumpable liquid is removed by September 30, 2003, with the final 

2 percent scheduled to be removed by September 30, 2004 (this was 

completed).

• Increasing DOE funding to a level that supports successful execution of 

the new schedule for tank stabilization.

• Work under the consent decree has been completed and the court has 

terminated the consent decree.

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 

Establishment of the Hanford Reach 

National Monument (June 9, 2000)

This proclamation set apart and reserved the Hanford Reach National 

Monument to protect all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by 

the United States within the boundaries of the monument area. The lands 

reserved consist of approximately 195,000 acres, and are appropriated and 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or 

other disposition under the public land laws. The monument is to be 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under existing agreements 

with DOE. DOE retains its responsibilities under applicable environmental 

laws, including the remediation of hazardous substances or the restoration of 

natural resources at the Hanford Site. 

FINAL
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-29

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (5 pages)

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision

Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

(November 6, 2000).

This Executive Order supplements “Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal Governments” (

FINAL

59 FR 22951), and states that 

each executive department and agency shall consult, to the greatest extent 

practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with Tribal Nations prior to 

taking actions that affect Federally recognized tribal governments. This order 

also states that each executive department and agency shall assess the impact 

of Federal government plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal trust 

resources and ensure that tribal government rights and concerns are 

considered during the development of such plans, projects, programs, and 

activities.

U.S. Department of Interior 

Announcement, National Historic 

Landmark, August 19, 2008.

Hanford’s B Reactor, has been designated a National Historic Landmark by 

the U.S. Department of Interior. 

Consent Decree and Tri-Party 

Agreement Settlement Package, 

order signed October 25, 2010, 

settling State of Washington v. Chu, 

United States District Court, Eastern 

District of Washington, 

Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS

The Consent Decree and TPA Settlement Package imposes milestones for 

the construction, commissioning, and startup of the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP), as well as continued retrieval of waste from 

Hanford’s SSTs. Significant milestones in the Consent Decree require DOE 

to meet deadlines for the WTP’s facilities to keep construction on pace; start 

treating tank waste through the WTP by 2019; achieve initial plant 

operations by 2022; retrieve the waste from the remaining 10 tanks in the 

“C” tank farm by 2014; identify nine other SSTs to retrieve waste from by 

2014; and finish retrieving the waste from those nine other tanks by 2022. 

The Consent Decree also covers reporting requirements for waste retrievals 

from SSTs, regulatory coordination, and a process to resolve disputes 

between the agencies.

Settlement Agreement between the 

State of Washington and the U.S. 

Department of Energy (No. 2:

03CV-05018-AAM

January 6, 2006) 

Prior to the issuance of the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 

Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, 

Washington (HSW EIS) (

FINAL

DOE/EIS-0286F) and record of decision 

(69 FR 39449, “Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 

Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level 

Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste for 

Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant”), the State of Washington (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 transuranic waste to Hanford for processing and storage 

pending shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 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 also 

stipulates that when the Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

(DOE/EIS-0391) has been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until 

that time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decisionmaking, and DOE will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain 

limited exemptions as specified in the agreement.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-30

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (5 pages)

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

HLW = high-level waste.

HSW EIS = Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 

Hazardous) Waste Program 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Richland, Washington.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976.

SST = single-shell tank.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

C.4. REFERENCES

10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

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. 

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. 

07-AMRC-0086, 2007, “Transmittal of the Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical 

Removal Action for the 105-KE and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities” 

(letter to L.E. Gadbois, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 100-K Area Cleanup 

Project Manager from J.R. Franco), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington, January 23. 

CCN 038546, 1996, “Action Memorandum, N Area Waste Expedited Response Action Cleanup Plan” 

(letter to R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington 

State Department of Ecology from L.L. Piper), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington, November 7.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-31

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, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland, Washington,” Washington State Department of 

Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

CCN 9103432, 1991, “Action Memorandum Approval: 316-5 Process Trenches, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to W. Bixby, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from C.E. Findley and 

R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, July 15. 

CCN 9200423, 1992, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal for 200 West 

Area Carbon Tetrachloride Plume” (letter to R.D. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith and R. Stanley), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, 

January 21. 

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 093881, 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.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-32

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 and Tri-Party Agreement Settlement Package, order signed October 25, 2010, 

settling State of Washington v. Chu, United States District Court, Eastern District of 

Washington, Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS. 

Consent Decree for Stabilization of Single-shell Tanks at Hanford Site between U.S. Department 

of Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology, order signed September 29, 

1999, in State of Washington v. United States Department of Energy, Eastern District of 

Washington, Civil Action No. CT-99-5076-EFS. 

DOE and Ecology, 2000, “Action Memorandum: United States Department of Energy Hanford 

100 Area National Priorities List (NPL); 105-D and 105-H Reactor Facilities and 

Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Richland, Washington, December 8. 

DOE and Ecology, 2005, “Action Memorandum; United States Department of Energy, 100 Area, 

105-N Reactor Facility and 109-N Heat Exchanger Building, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program, Richland, 

Washington, March 10. 

DOE and EPA, 1997, “Memorandum: Removal Action at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration 

Facility, United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, March 24. 

DOE and EPA, 2000, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 300 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL), 331-A Virology Laboratory Building, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, February 15. 

DOE and EPA, 2001, “Action Memorandum; U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL) 105-B Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, December 27. 

DOE and EPA, 2004, “Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment 

and Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 4. 

DOE and EPA, 2005a, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, January 20. 

DOE and EPA, 2005b, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

100-K Area Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 7. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-33

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 O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE, EPA, and Ecology, 1998, “Action Memorandum; USDOE Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List, 100-N Area Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Richland, Washington, December 17. 

DOE, EPA, and Ecology, 2003, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 West 

Area, Central Waste Complex, 183-H Solar Evaporation Basin Waste, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Richland, Washington, June 25. 

DOE, EPA, and Ecology, 2004, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Area, 

Burial Ground 218-W-4C Waste Retrieval, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, April 19. 

DOE/EIS-0286F, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program 

Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Reader’s Guide Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, Draft, 

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

DOE/RL-2004-36, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

224-B Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2004-67, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

U Plant Ancillary Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2004-68, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

224-T Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, 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-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-34

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, 2010, Action Memorandum for General Hanford Site Decommissioning 

Activities, 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. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-35

Ecology and EPA, 1994a, “Action Memorandum: North Slope (Wahluke Slope) Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup Plan, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from 

D. Butler, Washington State Department of Ecology and R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency), Washington State Department of Ecology, Kennewick, Washington, 

March 17. 

Ecology and EPA, 1994b, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action 

Cleanup U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.K. 

McClain, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department 

of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 27. 

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. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-36

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. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-37

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. 

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/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-97/101, 1997, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-99/038, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-00/122, 2000, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-02/030, 2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-96/145, 1996, USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington, Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining 

Sites ROD, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-38

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 Interim Record of Decision for the 

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/151, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 

100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 

200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-39

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 

100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 

100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable 

Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-00/120, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Declaration, 

U.S. Department of Energy 100 Area, 100-NR-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-00/121, 2000, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2 and the 100-KR-2 Operable Units, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 

300-FF-2 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

Executive Order 11514, 1970, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, Richard 

M. Nixon, March 5. Sec. 2 amended by Executive Order 11991 of May 24, 1977, 42 FR 

26967, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 123.

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 13175, 2000, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

William J. Clinton, November 6. 

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, Public Law 102-386, October 6, 1992, 

106 Stat. 1505. 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-616, November 8, 1984, 

98 Stat. 3221. 

Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC 4901, et seq.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 USC 10101, et seq.

Presidential Proclamation 7319, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, 

William J. Clinton, June 9. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 USC 300, et seq.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

C-40

Spent Fuel Settlement Agreement between the State of Idaho and U.S. Department of Energy, 

order signed October 16, 1995, in Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Batt

(CV-91-0035-S-EJL) and United States V. Batt (CV-91-0054-S-EJL).

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 USC 103, et seq.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 USC 2601, et seq.

WA7890008967, 2007, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, 

Dangerous Waste Portion, Revision 8C, for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of 

Dangerous Waste, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, 

Washington. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, 1992, Public Law 102-579, October 30, 

106 Stat.4777. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-i 

APPENDIX D 

HANFORD ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST AND SCHEDULE STATUS
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-iii

CONTENTS

D.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION..................................................................................................................1

D.1.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ......................................................................2

D.1.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ......................................................................6

D.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS .......................................12

D.1.4 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................25

D.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE

ZONE (PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..............................27

D.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD

(PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................43

D.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE 

AND COST DETAILS ..........................................................................................51

D.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ........................55

D.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................62

D.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 

(PBS RL-0100) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................65

D.1.11 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................67

D.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION................................................................................................................70

TABLES

Table D-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (2 pages) .................................................................................................... 2

Table D-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................. 4

Table D-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule 

and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ............................ 4

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

(3 pages) ...................................................................................................................... 6

Table D-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................. 9
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-iv

Table D-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and 

Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ................................. 10

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 

3 Scope Summary. (5 pages) .................................................................................... 12

Table D-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages) ................................................................................................. 17

Table D-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) ......................................................................................................................... 22

Table D-10. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. .................... 25

Table D-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). .................................................. 26

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (5 pages) .......................................................................... 27

Table D-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) ................................................................................................. 32

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(6 pages) .................................................................................................................... 37

Table D-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 

Scope Summary. (3 pages) ....................................................................................... 43

Table D-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages) .................................................................................................................... 46

Table D-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term 

Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages) .......... 48

Table D-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. .................. 51

Table D-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule 

and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) .......................... 52

Table D-20. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, 

Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................................................. 54

Table D-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages) .......................................................................... 55

Table D-22. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). ................................................................................................................. 58
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-v 

Table D-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), 

Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(3 pages) .................................................................................................................... 59

Table D-24. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 

3 Scope Summary. ..................................................................................................... 62

Table D-25. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), 

Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). ................................................................................................................. 63

Table D-26. 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). ........ 64

Table D-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 

Scope Summary. ........................................................................................................ 65

Table D-28. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........... 66

Table D-29. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....................... 67

Table D-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ................................. 68

Table D-31. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP0014) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) .................................................................................. 71

Table D-32. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP0014), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (2 pages) ................................................................................................. 73

Table D-33. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........... 75

Table D-34. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term 

Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (5 pages) .......... 76
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-vi

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-vii

TERMS

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

BOF Balance of Facilities

CENRTC capital equipment not related to construction 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled 

CSB Canister Storage Building

CVDF Cold Vacuum Drying Facility

CWC Central Waste Complex

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

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

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

DQO data quality objective 

DST double-shell tank

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ESH&Q environmental safety, health and quality 

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FY fiscal year

GM groundwater monitoring 

GRP Groundwater Remediation Project 

HAMMER Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 

(Facility)

HLW high-level waste

HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning 

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IDFE Integrated Disposal Facility East

IFW Integrated Field Work 

IHLW immobilized high-level waste

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste

ISA Interim Storage Area

ISS interim safe storage

KE K East Basin

KW K West Basin

KOP knock-out pot 

LAW low-activity waste

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

LLBG low-level burial ground 

LOE level of effort
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-viii

LTS Long-Term Stewardship

MLLW mixed low-level waste

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NM nuclear material

NRDWL non-radioactive dangerous waste landfill

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OU operable unit 

PA performance assessment

PBS project baseline summary

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

PPSL Plutonium Process Support Laboratories

PT pretreatment

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant)

RH remote-handled 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant)

RMA remote mechanical operations “A” line

RMC remote mechanical operations “C” line

ROD record of decision

RTD remove, treat, and dispose 

S&M surveillance and maintenance

SAP sampling and analysis plan

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SST single-shell tank

STP Sludge Treatment Project

SWOC Solid Waste Operations Complex 

TEDF Treated Effluent Disposal Facility

TOC total organic compound 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TRU transuranic 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WM Waste Management

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-1 

APPENDIX D 

HANFORD CLEANUP LIFECYCLE SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

As directed in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Ecology et al. 1989), 

also referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)

1

The schedules and costs provided in this appendix are reported to Level 2 for the entire lifecycle 

and to Level 3 for the execution year (Fiscal Year [FY] 2012) and the following 5 years. Due to 

the complexity of the Level 3 schedules, the information is reported in table format with costs by 

year. The start and finish of each Level 3 work element is reflected by the initial and final years 

that include costs. 

, Milestone M-036-01, additional schedule 

and cost details are provided in appendices to the Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost 

Report (Lifecycle Report). The schedules and costs are provided by project baseline summary 

(PBS) and reflect the scope discussed in Chapters 4.0 through 7.0 of the Lifecycle Report. 

Where not adequately addressed in these chapters, additional scope information is provided in 

this appendix in summary form. 

Information for each of the PBSs is provided in the following subsections as a series of tables: 

• A scope table that summarizes the Level 3 work elements. In some instances, the scope 

descriptions have been developed only to Level 2. In these cases, the information has 

been presented in the main chapters of the report and is not repeated here. These PBSs 

are identified in the appropriate subsections. 

• A cost and schedule table for the remaining lifecycle is presented at Level 2 by fiscal 

year. The costs are escalated and include site-wide service allocations and cost and/or 

schedule uncertainty (also referred to as contingency in the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant [WTP] PBS). Costs generally are presented from FY 2012 through 

FY 2060 for all PBSs or for 2 years following the final year of the lifecycle if it extends 

beyond FY 2060. PBS RL-LTS extends from FY 2061 through FY 2090. 

• A near-term cost and schedule table that extends for approximately 5 years. 

D.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) manages their 

assigned cleanup mission through the following PBSs (at Level 1):

• Nuclear Materials Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011 

• SNF Stabilization and Disposition, PBS RL-0012 

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

• Safeguards and Security, PBS RL-0020 

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

• Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040 

 

1 Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington, as amended. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-2 

• Infrastructure and Services, PBS RL-0040 

• Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Cleanup Project, PBS RL-0041 

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

• Richland Community and Regulatory Support, PBS RL-0100 

• Long-Term Stewardship, PBS RL-LTS.

D.1.1 NM STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–PFP (PBS RL-0011) SCHEDULE 

AND COST DETAILS 

Table D-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant 

Maintain Worker/Public Health and 

Environmental Safety

Provides safety, emergency management, OSHA, and 

fire protection programs for the PFP.

Maintain Compliant Facility Provides for environmental management and 

administration, permitting, and NEPA support for the 

PFP.

Facility System and Components Ensures the facility configuration minimizes risks, 

protects the environment, and remains in a safe and 

compliant condition.

Maintain Maintenance Program Provides resources to manage and implement the PFP 

maintenance program.

Maintain Special Projects Provides for special projects to safely sustain required 

facility capabilities.

Disposition PFP 

Facility

Transition 234-5Z Balance of Plant Addresses progressive deactivation and dismantling of 

systems, components, and structures in compliance with 

CERCLA process and resulting in established criteria 

(i.e., clean-slab-on-grade). Activities include necessary 

maintenance during D&D and activities to maintain 

temporary safe configurations.

Transition 236-Z 

Transition 242-Z 

Transition 243-Z 

Transition 291-Z 

Transition 2736-Z/ZB Complex

Transition Support Buildings and Yard

Lab Support for Transition

Maintain Transition Program

Transition Operations Support

Modifications To Support Transition

Manage/Dispose of PFP Solid Waste

Staff Transition

Transition 234-5Z Active RMA/RMC 

Lines 

Transition 234-5Z Labs

Transition 234-5Z Inactive 

RMA/RMC Lines
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-3 

Table D-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Project Management 

and Support

PFP Project Management and Support Provides for management functions, including 

management and technical/engineering support to the 

project mission. PFP Technical Support

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0011 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure, adders, and other indirect costs.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.

NM = nuclear materials.

OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PRF = Plutonium Reclamation Facility.

RMA = remote mechanical operations “A” line.

RMC = remote mechanical operations “C” line.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-4 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-2. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year

($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP 19,016 33,439 32,518 31,955 3,746 0 120,674

Disposition PFP Facility 17,802 114,404 212,885 159,592 79,895 13,029 597,607

Project Management and Support 10,948 24,098 22,375 36,125 38,318 31,214 163,078

Site-wide Services – RL-0011 22,651 46,491 43,986 17,969 2,924 0 134,021

Total 70,417 218,432 311,764 245,641 124,883 44,243 1,015,380

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

Table D-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

2 Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP 19,016 33,439 32,518 31,955 3,746 0 120,674

3 Maintain Worker/Public Health and Environmental Safety 3,345 3,583 3,500 3,305 287 0 14,020

3 Maintain Compliant Facility 323 349 342 342 28 0 1,384

3 Facility System and Components 7,228 13,323 13,034 12,902 1,645 0 48,132

3 Maintain Maintenance Program 8,120 15,396 14,785 14,711 1,212 0 54,224

3 Maintain Special Projects 0 0 73 189 0 0 262

3 

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Maintain Safe and 

Compliant PFP 0 788 784 506 574 0 2,653

2 Disposition PFP Facility 17,802 114,404 212,885 159,592 79,895 13,029 597,607

3 Transition 234-5Z Balance of Plant 11,395 21,335 69,152 96,538 60,269 5,529 264,218

3 Transition 236-Z 0 8,605 39,379 6,584 0 0 54,568

3 Transition 242-Z 0 0 8,239 9,507 1,552 0 19,298

3 Transition 243-Z 0 0 0 3,137 0 0 3,137

3 Transition 291-Z 0 0 0 8,253 6,623 0 14,876

3 Transition 2736-Z/ZB Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-5 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-3. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Transition Support Buildings and Yard 0 0 7,737 5,272 1,184 0 14,193

3 Lab Support for Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Maintain Transition Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Transition Operations Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Modifications to Support Transition 0 44 2,765 1,403 0 0 4,212

3 Manage/Dispose of PFP Solid Waste 2,491 3,641 12,496 15,187 3,653 0 37,468

3 Staff Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Transition 234-5Z Active RMA/RMC Lines 3,916 23,500 15,189 0 0 0 42,605

3 Transition 234-5Z Labs – PPSL / Standards / A 0 1,737 4,078 1,098 0 0 6,913

3 Transition 234-5Z Inactive RMA/RMC Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Disposition PFP Facility 0 55,542 53,850 12,613 6,614 7,500 136,119

2 Project Management and Support 10,948 24,098 22,375 36,125 38,318 31,214 163,078

3 PFP Project Management and Support 10,236 17,308 12,856 11,499 9,418 6,639 67,956

3 PFP Technical Support 712 803 838 859 860 0 4,072

3 

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Project Management and 

Support 0 487 680 23,431 25,748 23,575 72,494

3 Management Reserve – Project Management and Support 0 5,500 8,001 336 2,292 1,000 17,129

2 Site-wide Services – RL-0011 22,651 46,491 43,986 17,969 2,924 0 134,021

3 Site-wide Services – RL-0011 22,651 46,491 43,986 17,969 2,924 0 134,021

Total 70,417 218,432 311,764 245,641 124,883 44,243 1,015,380

NM = nuclear materials.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PPSL = Plutonium Process Support Laboratories.

RMA = remote mechanical operations “A” line.

RMC = remote mechanical operations “C” line.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-6 

D.1.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS

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

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

100-K Safe and

Compliant

General Support Provides for general support functions that include 

administrative support; establishment and management of 

the project’s training program; management of the 

project’s overall scope, schedule and budget; 

management of the change control process; and 

performance of project status monitoring and reporting.

Regulatory Compliance Provides for regulatory compliance activities that include 

environmental support, nuclear safety support, quality 

assurance support, procedure support, and management 

assessment and corrective action management support.

Safety and Health Provides functional support at the managerial level for 

radiological controls, compliance with site-wide 

regulations, maintenance of technical basis documents, 

radiological risk screening, and ALARA worksheets and 

reports. 

K Basins Operations 

and Maintenance

KW Basin Provides for operations support to keep the KW Basin in 

a safe and compliant mode until finish of dewatering and 

turn over to D&D; includes support to preventative 

maintenance, operation of equipment, system walk 

downs, daily routines, management oversight, review and 

approve work package, and safety inspections.

Facility Operations 100-K Facility Support Provides infrastructure maintenance support for nonreactor buildings (e.g., janitorial services, project support, 

direct supervision, sampling support, corrective 

maintenance, modifications). 

100-K Auxiliary Support Includes activities to operate all support facilities required 

to maintain the KW Basin safe and compliant, including 

operation of the water plant and all potable water services 

for the project; routine surveillance, sampling, 

maintenance support in compliance with state and Federal 

drinking water requirements; operation of facilities, 

including auxiliary systems (boilers, compressor, HVAC 

units, fire systems, etc.) at KE, KW, and CVDF; and 

management of the National Pollution Discharge 

Environmental System at 100-K Area.

100-K Waste Handling Provides for field operations for waste handling support 

for waste flows not specific to sludge treatment and 

D&D, including waste characterization and designation, 

planning, preparation of waste management plans, waste 

area operations, and shipment documentation and 

coordination.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-7 

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

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

100-K Facilities 

Deactivation

CVDF Deactivation Provides for activities to deactivate the CVDF, including 

actions such as repairing roof leaks and dispositioning

office furniture, supplies, and unnecessary spare 

parts/tools/portable equipment; identifying, inventorying, 

labeling, and recording attached hazardous materials; 

stabilizing loose and/or damaged asbestos; draining and 

removing heels from all tanks, vessels, drums, etc., or 

characterizing them for radionuclides and hazardous 

materials; reducing electrical systems to those needed for 

surveillance and maintenance and subsequent D&D; 

isolating water supplies from buildings and draining them 

or providing freeze protection to eliminate the potential 

for leaks and/or freezing; shutting down all HVAC supply 

air and exhaust air systems; and decontaminating and 

releasing radiological contaminated zones. 

Ancillary Facilities Deactivation Provides for activities to deactivate the CVDF, including 

actions such as repairing roof leaks, office furniture and 

supplies and unnecessary spare parts/tools/portable 

equipment; identifying, inventorying, labeling, and 

recording attached hazardous materials; stabilizing loose 

and/or damaged asbestos; draining and removing heels 

from all tanks, vessels, drums, etc., or characterizing 

them for radionuclides and hazardous materials; reducing 

electrical systems to those needed for surveillance and 

maintenance and subsequent D&D; isolating water 

supplies from buildings and draining them or providing 

freeze protection to eliminate the potential for leaks 

and/or freezing; shutting down all HVAC supply air and 

exhaust air systems; and decontaminating and releasing 

radiological contaminated zones. 

KW Basin Deactivation 

and Demolition

Management and Support Provides for project management; engineering; training; 

safety and health support activities; dose data gathering 

and analysis, sampling, and characterization of both 

radioactive and hazardous waste; baseline management; 

and updating the waste volume projections.

KW Deactivation and Dewater Includes dose data gathering and analysis, sampling, and 

characterization of both radioactive and hazardous waste 

for the 100-K Area facilities and decontamination of the 

KW Basin walls and floor.

KW Demolition Preparation Includes pouring of grout to partially fill the KW Basin 

North and South Load-Out Pits, Dummy Elevator Pit, 

Sand Filter Vault, and ion exchange column formed 

monolith within the facility. This will be accomplished 

utilizing a specialized contractor for grout placement.

KW Garnet Filter Disposition Provides for the removal and disposition of the garnet 

filter media following shutdown of the Integrated Water 

Treatment System. The garnet media will be grouted and 

packaged prior to disposal at the ERDF.

KW Superstructure Demolition Provides for the planning, management, and execution of 

the demolition of the KW superstructure.

KW Substructure Demolition Provides for the planning, management, and execution of 

demolition of the KW substructure.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-8 

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

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Sludge Treatment 

Project

STP Management and Support Provides for project management; engineering; training; 

safety and health support activities; dose data gathering 

and analysis, sampling, and characterization of both 

radioactive and hazardous waste; baseline management; 

and updating the waste volume projections.

Knock-Out Pots Disposition Provides for disposition of the KOPs following removal 

of the sludge.

STP – Phase 1 Retrieval and Interim 

Storage

The scope includes removal of consolidated containerized 

sludge, KOP sludge, and Settler Tank sludge from the 

KW Basin and interim storage.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0012 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs.

ALARA = as low as reasonably achievable.

CVDF = Cold Vacuum Drying Facility.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

KE = K East.

KOP = knock-out pot.

KW = K West.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

STP = Sludge Treatment Project.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-9 

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

100-K Safe and Compliant 5,340 5,321 5,448 5,588 357 0 0 22,054

K Basins Operations and Maintenance 5,255 7,468 7,645 7,851 2,765 2,435 2,511 35,930

Facility Operations 4,067 4,052 4,150 4,256 272 0 0 16,797

100-K Facilities Deactivation 6,125 927 0 0 389 0 582 8,023

KW Basin Deactivation and Demolition 0 0 0 11,268 41,759 31,622 122 84,771

Sludge Treatment Project 58,331 60,065 23,440 30,459 30,192 21,529 7,784 231,800

Site-wide Services - RL-0012 33,688 10,595 9,270 11,504 7,099 5,227 136 77,519

Total 112,806 88,428 49,953 70,926 82,833 60,813 11,135 476,894

KW = K West.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-10

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012)

2 100-K Safe and Compliant 5,340 5,321 5,448 5,588 357 0 0 22,054

3 General Support 2,239 2,231 2,284 2,343 150 0 0 9,247

3 Regulatory Compliance 2,304 2,296 2,351 2,411 154 0 0 9,516

3 Safety and Health 797 794 813 834 53 0 0 3,291

2 K Basins Operations and Maintenance 5,255 7,468 7,645 7,851 2,765 2,435 2,511 35,930

3 KW Basin 5,255 5,236 5,362 5,499 351 0 0 21,703

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – 

Basins Operations and Maintenance 0 2,232 2,283 2,352 2,414 2,435 2,511 14,227

2 Facility Operations 4,067 4,052 4,150 4,256 272 0 0 16,797

3 100-K Facility Support 2,150 2,142 2,194 2,250 144 0 0 8,880

3 100-K Auxiliary Support 1,115 1,111 1,137 1,166 74 0 0 4,603

3 100-K Waste Handling 802 799 819 840 54 0 0 3,314

2 100-K Facilities Deactivation 6,125 927 0 0 389 0 582 8,023

3 Cold Vacuum Drying Facility 

Deactivation 3,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,207

3 Ancillary Facilities Deactivation 2,918 927 0 0 389 0 582 4,816

2 KW Basin Deactivation and 

Demolition 0 0 0 11,268 41,759 31,622 122 84,771

3 Management and Support 0 0 0 2,116 8,034 7,568 0 17,718

3 KW Deactivation and Dewater 0 0 0 4,574 2,015 0 0 6,589

3 KW Demolition Preparation 0 0 0 1,674 4,638 0 0 6,312

3 KW Garnet Filter Disposition 0 0 0 1,063 3,984 108 0 5,155

3 KW Superstructure Demolition 0 0 0 0 8,173 0 0 8,173

3 KW Substructure Demolition 0 0 0 0 6,045 17,223 0 23,268

3 

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – 

KW Basin Deactivation and 

Demolition

0 0 0 1,841 8,871 6,722 122 17,556
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-11

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-6. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2 Sludge Treatment Project 58,331 60,065 23,440 30,459 30,192 21,529 7,784 231,800

3 Sludge Treatment Project 

Management and Support 9,061 9,028 9,245 9,482 0 0 0 36,816

3 Knock-Out Pots Disposition 3,725 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,725

3 Sludge Treatment Project – Phase 

1: Retrieval and Interim Storage 33,532 12,242 6,780 10,498 0 0 0 63,052

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – 

Sludge Treatment Project 0 5,644 4,664 4,529 7,135 11,166 3,873 37,011

2 Management Reserve – Sludge 

Treatment Project 12,013 33,151 2,751 5,950 23,057 10,363 3,911 91,196

3 Management Reserve – Sludge 

Treatment Project 12,013 33,151 2,751 5,950 23,057 10,363 3,911 91,196

2 Site-wide Services – RL-0012 33,688 10,595 9,270 11,504 7,099 5,227 136 77,519

3 Site-wide Services – RL-0012 33,688 10,595 9,270 11,504 7,099 5,227 136 77,519

Total 112,806 88,428 49,953 70,926 82,833 60,813 11,135 476,894

KW = K West.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-12

D.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Project Management Project Management Provides for overall management function in support of 

the waste management mission.

Capsule Storage and

Disposition

WESF Base Operations Includes activities to safely store the cesium and 

strontium capsules in the WESF pool cells, operate and 

maintain the WESF facilities and associated waste sites, 

structures, operating systems and equipment, and 

monitoring systems within the authorization envelope, 

prepare and package waste streams for disposition as 

required and dispose as appropriate, and maintain systems 

necessary for environmental compliance, radiological 

control, personnel safety and capsule integrity.

WESF Upgrades Provides for the upgrade of WESF as necessary to 

maintain safe, compliant, and cost-effective operations 

until the capsules can be transferred to interim dry 

storage. 

Transition WESF Provides for the WESF operating crews to transition the 

facility to a condition ready for D&D after transfer of the 

capsules and facility shutdown. 

Cesium/strontium Capsule Disposition Includes retrieval of cesium/strontium capsules from the 

WESF pool cells and packaging, transportation, and 

placement of the capsules into dry storage. Provides for 

the construction of, including contracting and 

construction management oversight during construction, 

and operations and maintenance of the interim dry storage 

area.

Canister Storage 

Building (CSB) 

Canister Storage Building Includes activities to safely store SNF (primarily from K 

Basins) and IHLW from the WTP, while awaiting final 

disposition at a national repository. Includes operation 

and maintenance of the CSB facilities and associated 

structures, operating systems and equipment, and 

monitoring systems.

200 Area ISA Provides for the safe storage of SNF in dry cask storage 

systems while awaiting final disposition at a national 

repository, including surveillance and maintenance 

activities of stored spent nuclear fuel within the fenced 

area.

Fuel Prep Facility Supports the design and construction of the Fuel 

Preparation Facility, which will receive SNF and 

cesium/strontium capsules for repackaging for subsequent 

shipments to a national repository.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-13

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Offsite SNF Disposition Provides for interface management with the National SNF 

program and repository for final disposition and 

acceptance of Hanford Site SNF and WESF capsules and 

includes compliance documentation, data packages for 

SNF and WESF Capsules, licensing and transportation 

activities, and input to resolution of Hanford fuel 

performance issues affecting final disposition; includes 

activities such as performance assessment, NEPA 

coverage, safety analyses, and interface control 

documentation.

Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Treatment

Non-Thermal Treatment Provides for non-thermal treatment of MLLW in above 

ground storage at SWOC facilities, retrievably stored in 

the LLBG, or newly generated SWOC non-thermal 

treatment waste, as required to meet regulatory 

requirements; and categorization and treatment of nonthermal treatment waste from retrieval activities.

TRU Retrieval of Stored 

Waste

CH Waste Retrieval Operations Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD 

facility of CH suspect TRU waste from LLBGs 

218-W-4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B. 

RH Waste Retrieval Operations Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD 

facility of RH suspect TRU waste from LLBGs 218-W4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B. 

Waste Receiving and 

Processing Facility

(WRAP)

WRAP Base Operations Provides for operations and maintenance of the WRAP 

facility to support shipping and receiving activities 

associated with WIPP shipments. 

WRAP Transition Following operations, WRAP facility will be transitioned 

to a condition ready for D&D.

Min Safe Operation Provides for surveillance and maintenance of structures, 

systems, components, and processes to ensure operation 

within the approved safety and compliance requirements 

envelope, including preventive maintenance, repair of 

failed and malfunctioning equipment, walkdown of safety 

systems, equipment, and facility grounds (operational 

surveillance); and routine radiological surveys during 

non-operational period and during transuranic package 

transporter only operational period.

T-Plant T Plant Base Operations Provides for the services necessary to maintain the 

T Plant Complex in a ready-to-serve status (base 

operations) for waste processing operations.

T Plant Upgrades Provides for upgrades to waste processing equipment, 

systems components, and computer interface equipment 

at the T Plant facilities, and includes physical upgrades to 

the T Plant Facility. 

T Plant Transition Following operations, T Plant will be transitioned to a 

condition ready for D&D.

T Plant M-91 Upgrades Provides for upgrades to the T Plant Complex to allow 

processing of RH and large-package MLLW and TRU

waste to meet waste acceptance criteria for disposal.

T Plant SNF Support Provides for upgrades to the T Plant Complex as 

necessary to store treated K Basin sludge (balance of 

sludge), including receiving treated K Basin sludge and 

placing the sludge into storage.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-14

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

RH Waste Shipments from M-91 Provides for loading RH-TRU waste into shipping 

containers for shipment to the WIPP and includes 

building payloads and preparations for shipping of the 

RH-TRU waste. 

Central Waste Complex

(CWC) 

CWC Base Operations Provides for the services necessary to maintain the CWC 

in a ready-to-serve status (base operations) for waste 

processing operations.

CWC CENRTC Provides for CENRTC that may be required to maintain 

the CWC facility in a ready-to-operate condition and 

includes the procurement of forklifts and other equipment 

necessary to maintain compliant facility operations for 

CWC, the LLBG, and the Mixed Waste Trenches.

Alternate CH-TRU Shipping Facility Provides for the capability, including design and 

construction of a new facility or upgrades to existing 

facilities, to load CH-TRU waste into shipping containers 

for shipment to WIPP following closure of WRAP.

CWC Transition Following operations, CWC will be transitioned to a 

condition ready for D&D.

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 

Base Operations

Provides for the operation of the LLBGs in a safe, 

compliant, and cost-effective manner, including activities 

such as emergency preparedness, assessments and 

surveillances, environmental monitoring and sampling, 

fire protection, engineering, and training.

Environmental 

Restoration Disposal 

Facility (ERDF) 

ERDF Cell Expansion Provides for the expansion of ERDF as needed to support 

site cleanup efforts.

ERDF Interim Cover Provides for interim covers to be placed over ERDF cells 

as they are filled. 

ERDF Operations Includes ERDF operations-related activities, such as 

leachate pump preventive maintenance, pump 

replacement, and air monitoring. Disposal and 

transportation costs are not included here, but are 

included for individual PBSs generating waste.

Liquid Effluent Facilities 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

Base Operations

Provides for safe, cost-effective, and environmentally 

compliant operation and maintenance of the LERF, ETF, 

and TEDF, and includes receiving, storing, treating, and 

disposing of liquid effluents from Hanford Site cleanup 

activities.

200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

Upgrades

Provides for modifications to the ETF, TEDF, and LERF 

to improve operations, extend the useful life, ensure 

regulatory compliance, and/or correct identified 

deficiencies.

200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

CENRTC 

Provides for CENRTC that may be required to maintain 

the 200 Area Liquid Effluents facilities in a ready-tooperate condition.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-15

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF) 

IDF Construction Provides for the startup and testing of the IDF, including 

preparation of operating and maintenance procedures, 

training and critical spare parts.

IDF Operations Provides for the operation of the IDF in a safe, compliant, 

and cost-effective manner, including activities such as 

emergency preparedness; assessments and surveillances; 

environmental monitoring and sampling; fire protection; 

engineering; and training.

IDF Regulatory and Safety Includes safety oversight and Industrial Safety, such as 

assisting in the review of documents for safety impacts, 

performing safety surveillances, inspections and support, 

assisting in the maintenance of the Health and Safety 

Plan, and updating the baseline hazards assessments; 

includes regulatory support, such as performance 

assessment, associated permit modifications, and other 

requirements (e.g., operational readiness reviews) needed 

for the existing IDF to be in “ready-to-serve” status. 

IDFE Construction Provides for additional onsite, expandable, integrated, 

disposal capacity for compliant ILAW waste stream 

packages produced at the WTP and for MLLW and LLW; 

includes project management, permitting and safety, 

project support, and engineering, procurement, and 

construction.

Low-Level and Mixed 

Low-Level Waste 

Disposal

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – 

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level 

Waste Disposal

Mixed Waste Disposal 

Trenches

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base 

Operations

Provides for the operation of the Mixed Waste Disposal 

Trenches in a safe, compliant, and cost-effective manner, 

including activities such as emergency preparedness; 

assessments and surveillances; environmental monitoring 

and sampling; fire protection; engineering; and training.

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 

Upgrades

Provides for the design, construction, and other activities 

necessary to add operational layers in the Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches to maintain their ready-to-serve status 

and for placing temporary caps on the trenches prior to 

turnover to PBS RL-0040 for final cleanup and closure.

Sludge Disposition STP – Phase 2 Treatment and 

Packaging

Provides for treatment and packaging of sludge.

Shutdown and Deactivation Provides for safe and compliant shutdown and 

deactivation of the STP.

STP Management Project management and support for the Sludge 

Disposition work element.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-16

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0013C 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs.

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to 

construction.

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

IDFE = Integrated Disposal Facility – East.

IHLW = immobilized high-level waste.

ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste.

ISA = Interim Storage Area.

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LLBG = Low-Level Burial Grounds.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote-handled.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel. 

STP = Sludge Treatment Project. 

SWOC = Solid Waste Operations Complex.

TEDF = Treated Effluent Disposal Facility.

TRU = transuranic.

TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).

WTP = Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-17

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages)

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Project Management 23,074 22,760 25,158 26,879 30,551 45,105 42,320 49,759 51,987 61,433

Capsule Storage and Disposal 5,288 14,064 23,085 32,000 70,929 9,982 18,460 18,451 9,109 4,529

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 4,786 4,960 5,071 7,638 7,216 8,022 18,871 27,010 37,508 37,573

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 356 433 447 459 463 468 499 501 511 525

TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 24,311 10,391 12,801 2,622 2,214 2,352 71 0 0 

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 

(WRAP) 9,803 18,154 18,589 19,062 15,365 26 0 0 0 0 

T-Plant 14,372 17,603 18,094 18,572 45,499 82,595 109,967 113,591 118,300 119,436

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 15,320 13,742 11,197 11,459 12,043 11,608 9,890 9,874 10,097 10,672

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

(ERDF) 87 362 238 243 5,846 8,004 8,067 8,084 103 5,510

Liquid Effluent Facilities 19,763 30,006 33,605 32,754 5,203 0 0 0 0 0 

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 491 500 515 529 832 1,666 1,749 1,295 1,331 1,358

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Disposal 0 278 292 300 362 464 234 251 207 69

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 690 1,304 705 723 730 2,048 0 0 0 0 

Sludge Disposition 0 4,653 6,425 13,585 38,096 136,460 81,272 35,265 38,292 35,417

Site-wide Services - RL-0013 48,970 39,248 40,179 39,266 41,375 54,288 56,016 45,386 39,811 42,306

Total 143,000 192,378 193,991 216,270 277,132 362,950 349,697 309,538 307,256 318,828
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-18

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages)

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Project Management 52,350 46,500 47,565 51,029 37,007 24,711 25,529 24,747 26,661 26,828

Capsule Storage and Disposal 194 20,399 21,000 162 161 150 166 439 151 0 

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 10,231 10,105 10,539 11,089 11,010 11,377 11,972 23,202 23,868 24,618

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 539 553 575 599 609 629 661 679 698 718

TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 

(WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

T-Plant 92,921 65,803 115,864 143,084 124,043 128,107 135,914 138,510 142,884 146,756

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 10,674 10,932 11,389 5,936 6,472 6,284 6,620 6,794 6,989 4,517

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

(ERDF) 117 110 143 144 146 150 158 167 167 173

Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 1,407 1,454 4,506 15,908 29,183 5,188 5,002 5,149 5,298 5,463

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sludge Disposition 36,183 36,011 3,485 1,672 461 153 0 0 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0013 36,021 38,827 55,527 66,766 65,961 60,792 84,468 90,004 90,528 91,617

Total 240,637 230,694 270,593 296,389 275,053 237,541 270,490 289,691 297,244 300,690
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-19

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages)

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Project Management 29,125 28,298 30,453 30,513 27,980 59,887 38,131 31,982 27,994 24,662

Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 25,357 25,828 26,335 26,996 29,452 36,990 24,286 25,597 23,070 22,790

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 737 750 763 781 824 915 963 1,007 927 920

TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 

(WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

T-Plant 152,405 155,320 156,924 161,718 130,880 38,862 45,051 1,388 1,109 2,358

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 4,158 4,236 4,318 4,934 16,521 0 0 0 0 0 

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

(ERDF) 174 177 186 181 199 219 239 252 225 221

Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 5,636 5,708 5,878 5,957 6,338 7,115 7,538 7,942 7,167 7,120

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0013 90,157 87,970 85,466 84,882 80,712 51,263 40,334 25,032 14,959 11,711

Total 307,749 308,287 310,323 315,962 292,906 195,251 156,542 93,200 75,451 69,782
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-20

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages)

Fiscal Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Project Management 24,397 25,627 24,742 24,821 27,365 21,429 21,369 17,310 18,476 15,517

Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 23,621 614 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 936 1,007 1,104 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 

(WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

T-Plant 5,934 5,820 7,552 13,889 21,204 19,488 17,104 10,909 4,946 168

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

(ERDF) 220 240 266 281 303 320 320 335 339 12,095

Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,894 71,745

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 7,179 7,769 8,657 9,259 10,234 10,544 10,389 27 0 0 

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0013 10,832 5,869 7,589 7,978 10,058 10,762 11,732 5,740 11,531 31,635

Total 73,119 46,946 49,911 56,231 69,164 62,543 60,914 34,321 51,186 131,160
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-21

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-8. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition –200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (5 pages)

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 Total

Project Management 15,563 16,542 16,500 13,226 15,150 15,464 14,771 6,173 7,548 1,412,968

Capsule Storage and Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248,719

Canister Storage Building (CSB) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 597,603

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,559

TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,762

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 

(WRAP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,999

T-Plant 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,845,077

Central Waste Complex (CWC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 226,676

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

(ERDF) 323 345 315 129 0 0 0 0 0 55,923

Liquid Effluent Facilities 70,789 75,979 69,173 70,725 81,969 83,655 79,440 32,509 35,791 809,000

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219,281

Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,457

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,200

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 467,430

Site-wide Services - RL-0013 26,067 27,736 15,947 13,888 22,463 22,806 17,981 6,996 12,429 1,979,881

Total 112,875 120,602 101,935 97,968 119,582 121,925 112,192 45,678 55,768 9,029,535

PBS = project baseline summary.

TRU = transuranic.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-22

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

2 Project Management 23,074 22,760 25,158 26,879 30,551 45,105 173,527

3 Project Management 16,068 16,029 16,414 16,833 17,003 17,044 99,391

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management 0 374 397 434 423 506 2,134

3 Management Reserve - Project Management 7,006 6,359 8,347 9,613 13,125 27,555 72,005

2 Capsule Storage and Disposal 5,288 14,064 23,085 32,000 70,929 9,982 155,348

3 WESF Base Operations 5,288 5,275 5,402 5,539 5,595 5,609 32,708

3 WESF Upgrades 0 6,258 718 3 0 0 6,979

3 Transition WESF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cesium/Strontium Capsule Disposition 0 1,661 14,604 21,410 57,060 3,398 98,133

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Capsule Storage and 

Disposal 0 870 2,361 5,048 8,273 975 17,527

2 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 4,786 4,960 5,071 7,638 7,216 8,022 37,693

3 CSB Legacy 4,559 4,548 4,657 4,776 4,825 4,836 28,201

3 100% 200 Area Interim Storage Area 227 227 232 238 240 241 1,405

3 Fuel Preparation Facility 0 0 0 2,369 1,891 2,600 6,860

3 Off Site SNF Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - CSB 0 185 182 256 260 345 1,228

2 Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 356 433 447 459 463 468 2,626

3 Non-Thermal Treatment 356 355 363 373 376 377 2,200

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Mixed Low-Level Waste

Treatment 0 78 83 86 87 91 425

2 TRU Retrieval of Stored Waste 0 24,311 10,391 12,801 2,622 2,214 52,339

3 Contact-Handled Waste Retrieval Operations 0 22,686 9,883 10,176 0 0 42,745

3 Remote-Handled Waste Retrieval Operations 0 0 0 1,633 1,650 1,654 4,937

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - TRU Retrieval of Stored 

Waste 0 1,624 508 992 972 560 4,656

2 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 9,803 18,154 18,589 19,062 15,365 26 80,999

3 WRAP Transition 0 0 0 0 14,187 0 14,187

3 Min-Safe Operation 1,503 1,500 1,536 1,575 0 0 6,114
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-23

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 WRAP Base Operations 8,300 15,923 16,306 16,722 0 0 57,251

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - WRAP 0 730 747 764 1,178 26 3,445

2 T-Plant 14,372 17,603 18,094 18,572 45,499 82,595 196,735

3 T-Plant Base Operations 14,372 14,337 14,681 15,056 15,208 15,244 88,898

3 T-Plant Upgrades 0 0 0 0 1,366 15,656 17,022

3 T-Plant Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 T-Plant M-91 Upgrades 0 0 0 0 18,861 34,155 53,016

3 T-Plant Spent Nuclear Fuel Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Remote-Handled Waste Shipments from M-91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - T-Plant 0 3,266 3,413 3,516 10,064 17,540 37,799

2 Central Waste Complex (CWC) 15,320 13,742 11,197 11,459 12,043 11,608 75,369

3 CWC Base Operations 8,490 8,469 8,673 8,894 8,984 9,005 52,515

3 CWC CENRTC 0 0 0 0 298 0 298

3 Alternate Contact-Handled TRU Shipping Facility 4,560 2,772 22 0 0 0 7,354

3 CWC Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds Base Operations 2,270 2,264 2,319 2,378 2,563 2,408 14,202

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - CWC 0 237 183 187 198 195 1,000

2 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 87 362 238 243 5,846 8,004 14,780

3 ERDF Cell Expansion 0 0 0 0 4,612 6,139 10,751

3 ERDF Interim Cover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 ERDF Operations 87 87 89 91 92 93 539

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - ERDF 0 275 149 152 1,142 1,772 3,490

2 Liquid Effluent Facilities 19,763 30,006 33,605 32,754 5,203 0 121,331

3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Base Operations 19,669 19,621 20,093 20,605 5,203 0 85,190

3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Upgrades 0 7,787 10,583 9,151 0 0 27,521

3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities CENRTC 94 94 96 99 0 0 383

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 2,504 2,833 2,899 0 0 8,236

2 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 491 500 515 529 832 1,666 4,533

3 IDF Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-24

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 IDF Operations 394 393 402 413 421 1,528 3,551

3 IDF Regulatory and Safety 97 97 100 102 394 103 893

3 Integrated Disposal Facility - East (IDFE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - IDF 0 10 13 14 17 35 89

2 Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 278 292 300 362 464 1,696

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Low-Level and Mixed 

Low-Level Waste Disposal 0 278 292 300 362 464 1,696

2 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 690 1,304 705 723 730 2,048 6,200

3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base Operations 690 688 705 723 730 732 4,268

3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Upgrades 0 616 0 0 0 1,316 1,932

2 Sludge Disposition 0 4,653 6,425 13,585 38,096 136,460 199,219

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Sludge Treatment Project – Phase 2 Treatment and Package 0 4,653 6,425 13,585 28,099 126,439 179,201

3 Shutdown and Deactivation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 STP Management and Support 0 0 0 0 9,997 10,021 20,018

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 48,970 39,248 40,179 39,266 41,375 54,288 263,326

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0013 48,970 39,248 40,179 39,266 41,375 54,288 263,326

Total 143,000 192,379 193,990 216,271 277,134 362,950 1,385,724

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

IDFE = Integrated Disposal Facility – East. 

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

STP = Sludge Treatment Project. 

TRU = transuranic.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-25

D.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 D-10. 

This PBS is not broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented; however, 

both near-term and remaining estimated cleanup cost information is provided. 

Table D-10. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Safeguards and 

Security

This work element includes management, training, and equipment for staff; physical protective 

systems, such as intrusion protection, Hanford Site access, and badging; information and cyber 

security; personnel security; material control and accountability; and security program 

management.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-26

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Safeguards and Security 69,234 64,826 66,917 68,179 70,109 71,884 73,691 69,121 71,327 73,063

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Safeguards and Security 74,947 76,744 45,771 46,817 48,481 49,943 51,748 53,065 54,806 56,398

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Safeguards and Security 58,300 59,814 61,440 63,334 65,777 67,550 69,032 42,920 44,384 44,451

Fiscal Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Safeguards and Security 46,360 47,490 49,951 50,604 54,048 58,400 61,793 65,227 69,427 72,559

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

Safeguards and Security 77,690 80,432 86,549 88,073 90,099 92,171 94,291 95,850 95,657

Total 3,210,744
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-27

D.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE ZONE 

(PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Integration and 

Assessments

Strategic Integration Coordinates and focuses on site characterization and 

assessment efforts to ensure consistency and technical 

defensibility in the application of CERCLA processes,

eliminate information gaps and overlaps, apply science 

and technology new to Hanford, foster technical peer 

review, integrate remediation decisions, and develop 

necessary and sufficient strategies.

Technical Integration

Remediation Decision Support

Remediation Science and Technology

Sample and Data Management

Environmental Databases

Value Engineering Studies

Recharge Control Recharge Commons Annually prepare a prioritized list of recommended 

service water line upgrades or storm water runoff

control projects to eliminate artificial recharge.

Drilling 100-KR-4 Drilling Planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling 

and well decommissioning for Hanford Site wells 

according to project-specific requirements. 100-HR-3 Drilling

200-BP-5 Drilling

200-PO-1 Drilling

200-UP-1 Drilling

200-ZP-1 Drilling

200-PW-1 Drilling

TPA M-24-00 Well Drilling

Miscellaneous Well Drilling

Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells

300-FF-5 Well Drilling 

100-NR-2 Drilling

100-BC-5 Well Drilling

100-FR-3 Well Drilling

Project Management Project Management and Support Planning, management direction, evaluation, and 

management system outputs for this PBS. Project Management and Support – 

Training

Integrated Field Work

(IFW) 

IFW – Operations and Maintenance Includes general and common activities, services, 

infrastructure, material, equipment, labor, and contracts 

used to plan, support, and perform non-OU specific field 

work, including non-OU-related well maintenance, 

monitoring, and reporting. 

IFW – Training

IFW – GRP Field Work Projects

IFW – Field Equipment Purchases 

(CENRTC) 

Non-OU-Related Well Maintenance 

and Monitoring and Reporting
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-28

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Groundwater 

Monitoring and 

Performance 

Assessments

Modutanks The scope of these activities cross-cut and support 

multiple projects in PBS RL-0030. RCRA Monitoring and Reporting

RCRA Field Support

Hanford Geotechnical

Groundwater Monitoring/Performance 

Assessment Project Management

100-BC-5 Operable 

Unit

100-BC-5 Operable Unit Project 

Management

Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, and field studies and deployment. 100-BC-5 Decision Documentation

100-BC-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

100-BC-5 Well Support

100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting

100-BC-5 Modifications and 

Expansions

100-BC-5 Field Studies and 

Deployment

100-KR-4 Operable 

Unit

100-KR-4 Operable Unit Project 

Management

Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, field studies and deployment, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

100-KR-4 Decision Documentation

100-KR-4 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

100-KR-4 Well Support

100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting

100-KR-4 Modifications and 

Expansions

100-KR-4 Field Studies and 

Deployment

100-KR-4 D&D 

100-NR-2 Operable 

Unit

100-NR-2 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, field studies and deployment, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

100-NR-2 Decision Documentation

100-NR-2 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

100-NR-2 Well Support

100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting

100-NR-2 Modifications and 

Expansions

100-NR-2 Field Studies and 

Deployment

100-NR-2 D&D
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-29

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

100-HR-3 Operable 

Unit

100-HR-3 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, field studies and deployment, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

100-HR-3 Decision Documentation

100-HR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

100-HR-3 Well Support

100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting

100-HR-3 Modifications and 

Expansions

100-HR-3 Field Studies and 

Deployment

100-HR-3 D&D

100-FR-3 Operable 

Unit

100-FR-3 OU Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, and modifications 

and expansions. 

100-FR-3 Decision Documentation

100-FR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

100-FR-3 Well Support

100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting

100-FR-3 Modifications and 

Expansions

200-BP-5 Operable 

Unit

200-BP-5 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, and field studies and deployment. 200-BP-5 Decision Documentation

200-BP-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

200-BP-5 Well Support

200-BP-5 Field Studies and 

Deployment

200-PO-1 Operable 

Unit

200-PO-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, and well support. 200-PO-1 Decision Documentation

200-PO-1 Well Support

200-UP-1 Operable 

Unit

200-UP-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, modifications and 

expansions, and final deactivation and decommissioning 

of remedy components. 

200-UP-1 Decision Documentation

200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

200-UP-1 Well Support

200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-UP-1 D&D

200-UP-1 Modifications and 

Expansions
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-30

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

200-ZP-1 Operable 

Unit

200-ZP-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, 

monitoring and reporting, modifications and expansions, 

and final deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components. 

200-ZP-1 Decision Documentation

200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-ZP-1 D&D

200-ZP-1 Modifications and 

Expansions

200-PW-1 Operable 

Unit

200-PW-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, remedial actions, 

well support, and final deactivation and 

decommissioning of remedy components. 200-PW-1 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

200-PW-1 Well Support

200-PW-1 D&D

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 300-FF-5 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, well support, remedial 

actions, monitoring and reporting, and field studies and 

deployment. 

300-FF-5 Decision Documentation

300-FF-5 Well Support

300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting

300-FF-5 Field Studies and

Deployment

Regulatory Decisions 1 B/C Cribs and Trenches Area 

Remediation

Scope includes CERCLA and RCRA assessment 

activities for the Central Plateau source operable units, 

including project management, planning, 

documentation, and field and other activities necessary 

to complete the final remedy decision process.

200-CW-1/3 Gable Mountain

200-CW-2/4/5

200-TW-1/2 Scavenged Waste

200-PW-2/4 Uranium-Rich Process

200-PW-1 Plutonium-Rich Waste 

Group

200-LW-1/2 200A Chem Lab Waste 

Group

200-UR-1 Unplanned Releases Waste 

Group

200-SW-1/2 Solid Waste Disposal 

Areas

200-IS-1 Tanks, Lines, Pits and Boxes

200-BP1-1 Hanford Prototype Barrier

Burial Ground Sampling and Analysis

Model Group DQO/SAPs

200-MW-1 Misc. Waste Group 

Closure 

200-CS-1 Chemical Sewer
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-31

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. (5 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests Scope includes planning for and conducting both 

laboratory and field treatability tests to investigate 

options for remediating the deep vadose zone in the 

Central Plateau. 

Deep Vadose Zone 

Operable Unit

Deep Vadose Zone Decision 

Documentation

The Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit will address 

mitigation of the contamination present at the Hanford 

Site in the deep vadose zone. The initial action planned 

for this OU (project management, remedial actions, well 

support, etc.) will be addressed in the future.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0030

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs.

1

 Transition of scope, schedule and cost information into the new Central Plateau operable units is not yet complete, so 

this information is presented by old operable units in the report.

CENRTC= capital equipment not related to 

construction.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

D&D = deactivation and decommissioning.

DQO = data quality objective.

GRP = Groundwater Remediation Project.

IFW = Integrated Field Work.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act.

SAP = Sampling and Analysis Plan.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-32

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Integration and Assessments 15,495 14,636 15,244 15,514 14,451 14,409 15,256 15,492 15,571 15,949

Recharge Control 23 23 23 24 24 24 26 26 27 28

Drilling 2,674 6,243 2,491 7,128 26,013 14,176 9,880 6,062 4,560 3,913

Project Management 21,677 21,413 23,256 21,932 21,442 19,969 15,978 20,122 24,419 22,118

Integrated Field Work 7,953 10,189 10,531 10,724 10,854 10,871 11,720 11,695 11,961 12,466

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments 13,281 13,373 22,437 14,502 14,250 14,257 15,357 15,307 15,646 16,069

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,331 466 2,466 2,506 5,786 3,398 2,654 2,537 2,599 2,588

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 8,718 12,997 11,796 13,736 24,638 22,607 10,179 9,179 8,433 7,729

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 774 14,764 20,233 12,585 4,819 4,153 12,768 13,549 13,232 10,864

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 11,452 17,576 14,498 37,807 26,862 12,012 23,284 15,745 3,011 2,403

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 7,052 10,633 6,580 4,808 3,325 3,012 2,933 2,646 2,629 2,565

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 362 6,070 24,249 11,214 10,405 11,131 12,660 7,594 7,368 19,782

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 4,064 5,858 5,021 11,148 3,426 1,988 15,402 16,999 1,376 788

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 8,289 5,522 3,285 3,137 2,957 4,173 4,229 3,171 3,328 820

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 42,462 57,178 50,039 32,650 30,239 30,191 32,660 29,216 30,953 31,666

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,340 1,322 5,034 1,413 1,576 1,579 1,635 1,523 1,557 2,053

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 4,946 3,945 6,662 3,396 2,663 1,991 1,561 1,247 1,255 20,318

Regulatory Decisions 962 6,160 3,134 1,724 558 4 0 0 35,492 22,743

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 9,537 10,268 2,243 7,349 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,741 50,607 51,778

Site-wide Services - RL-0030 58,545 41,556 48,952 31,523 31,907 29,229 34,644 29,240 33,444 33,819

Total 220,937 260,192 278,174 244,820 236,195 199,174 222,826 235,091 267,468 280,459
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-33

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Integration and Assessments 14,428 14,490 15,093 15,459 15,748 16,678 17,196 17,663 18,207 18,755

Recharge Control 28 29 30 32 32 34 35 36 37 39

Drilling 9,079 8,631 8,437 7,983 12,487 6,494 6,992 7,086 7,228 7,505

Project Management 17,115 20,438 16,364 13,151 12,524 13,461 9,541 10,171 10,089 5,595

Integrated Field Work 12,896 13,201 13,771 14,341 12,219 12,392 11,085 11,413 11,789 6,254

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments 16,617 16,972 17,711 18,535 18,967 19,687 20,768 21,377 21,909 22,651

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 16,070 16,571 17,161 3,020 3,088 1,391 272 276 282 291

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 6,544 26,956 4,622 3,466 3,447 2,915 2,004 1,583 1,614 225

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 6,168 471 474 310 245 253 266 274 163 118

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 1,591 1,225 692 235 239 247 263 270 279 290

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 2,674 900 249 260 266 277 301 308 317 329

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 6,218 4,287 3,873 3,627 3,521 2,963 2,319 2,513 2,684 1,555

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 603 524 432 874 482 470 493 510 918 532

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 846 6,498 599 481 432 392 407 427 429 454

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 32,393 33,158 33,902 34,681 35,479 36,295 37,130 37,984 38,856 39,751

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,976 3,025 2,057 122 126 130 137 141 145 149

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 27,290 24,720 24,202 19,037 16,031 11,636 12,392 11,686 10,229 7,984

Regulatory Decisions 9,050 12,037 5,568 3,315 994 1,094 209 340 63 11

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 53,537 26,151 25,971 11,685 1,018 1,233 67 26 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0030 37,333 35,835 27,951 24,677 25,177 25,805 29,880 30,974 31,025 27,217

Total 272,456 266,119 219,159 175,291 162,522 153,847 151,757 155,058 156,263 139,705
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-34

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Integration and Assessments 19,746 19,656 20,025 20,525 21,499 24,425 25,636 27,076 24,395 24,081

Recharge Control 40 40 41 42 44 50 53 22 0 0 

Drilling 6,471 6,750 6,698 6,968 349 0 0 0 0 0 

Project Management 5,576 5,739 5,866 4,889 7,592 6,901 8,647 6,879 6,238 6,236

Integrated Field Work 6,441 6,563 6,690 6,938 7,176 8,153 8,585 9,031 8,141 8,037

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments 23,276 23,816 24,271 24,746 25,906 29,448 31,056 32,715 29,630 29,121

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 300 299 319 320 333 378 402 427 382 379

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 166 166 167 170 179 203 213 224 202 199

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 121 112 114 117 123 140 147 155 139 138

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 304 306 308 313 330 375 398 419 376 373

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 341 347 356 316 327 371 377 397 357 352

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 1,164 474 377 384 405 458 489 512 465 455

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 548 559 570 1,044 616 724 759 782 1,238 685

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 419 420 437 443 464 409 414 435 265 261

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 40,665 41,601 42,557 43,536 44,537 8,695 29 0 0 0 

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 178 111 113 115 121 138 145 152 137 136

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 6,904 3,597 261 182 189 211 229 246 221 216

Regulatory Decisions 11 12 12 12 12,060 5,547 1,614 7,697 10,303 7,536

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0030 27,019 26,059 25,540 24,733 29,289 42,306 40,688 44,812 26,845 20,833

Total 139,690 136,627 134,722 135,793 151,539 128,932 119,881 131,981 109,334 99,038
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-35

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Integration and Assessments 24,361 25,126 27,585 29,296 29,617 29,400 28,982 29,188 29,440 28,512

Recharge Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Project Management 6,030 6,771 7,260 7,982 8,563 8,907 8,868 8,790 8,942 8,876

Integrated Field Work 8,169 8,877 9,852 10,499 11,708 12,108 11,950 12,026 12,131 11,813

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments 29,738 32,248 35,692 38,038 42,484 43,790 43,172 43,749 43,991 42,654

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 385 421 464 498 548 564 554 559 565 548

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 205 225 247 263 296 303 133 133 135 133

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 140 153 181 192 213 221 218 220 222 216

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 380 412 449 485 536 257 246 233 0 0 

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 366 400 441 470 525 543 535 543 545 530

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 468 509 562 590 653 677 673 677 684 664

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 696 757 859 1,635 1,002 1,046 1,034 1,045 1,052 1,023

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 256 283 318 334 372 389 386 383 388 373

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 139 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 217 236 261 281 307 320 316 318 321 315

Regulatory Decisions 3,189 582 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0030 19,237 24,738 32,077 35,772 43,388 45,698 49,700 45,074 40,356 32,928

Total 93,976 101,739 116,249 126,335 140,214 144,223 146,767 142,938 138,772 128,585
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-36

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 Total

Integration and Assessments 30,037 32,309 29,038 29,837 34,169 34,862 32,834 32,701 40,114 1,120,206

Recharge Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 912

Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192,298

Project Management 9,521 9,579 8,679 8,785 9,821 9,133 8,602 8,567 10,509 569,523

Integrated Field Work 12,434 13,293 11,986 12,291 14,177 14,466 13,625 13,569 16,645 535,699

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments 44,677 48,016 43,362 44,556 50,624 51,652 48,649 48,452 59,434 1,458,636

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 573 619 563 571 658 672 633 631 772 99,090

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 138 148 134 137 152 155 146 146 179 188,685

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 226 235 211 217 247 252 238 237 290 121,918

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176,481

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 558 597 538 556 632 646 607 606 742 65,985

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 679 723 669 692 782 798 752 749 918 162,497

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 1,078 1,150 1,046 1,065 1,231 1,256 1,183 1,178 1,445 100,214

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 389 425 379 394 475 463 436 434 533 61,253

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 948,503

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,526

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 324 352 320 329 369 376 354 353 433 231,549

Regulatory Decisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152,034

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,397

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255,814

Site-wide Services - RL-0030 33,044 35,190 20,187 17,621 28,614 29,048 22,870 21,246 37,860 1,591,505

Total 133,678 142,636 117,112 117,051 141,951 143,779 130,929 128,869 169,874 8,090,725
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-37

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030

2 Integration and Assessments 15,495 14,636 15,244 15,514 14,451 14,409 89,749

3 Strategic Integration 1,294 1,059 1,324 1,126 1,137 1,387 7,327

3 Technical Integration 2,567 2,186 2,247 2,325 2,347 2,352 14,024

3 Remediation Decision Support 2,076 1,684 1,731 1,790 639 640 8,560

3 Remediation Science and Technology 3,877 3,862 3,970 4,106 4,146 4,155 24,116

3 Sample and Data Management 1,297 1,292 1,328 1,374 1,387 1,390 8,068

3 Environmental Databases 3,582 3,569 3,668 3,795 3,831 3,839 22,284

3 Value Engineering Studies 294 293 301 311 314 0 1,513

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Integration and 

Assessments 508 691 675 687 650 646 3,857

2 Recharge Control 23 23 23 24 24 24 141

3 Recharge Commons 23 23 23 24 24 24 141

2 Drilling 2,674 6,243 2,491 7,128 26,013 14,176 58,725

3 100-KR-4 Drilling 0 0 351 0 0 897 1,248

3 100-HR-3 Drilling 0 0 0 0 1,704 1,741 3,445

3 200-BP-5 Drilling 0 0 0 0 3,155 36 3,191

3 200-PO-1 Drilling 0 0 0 0 2,228 3,277 5,505

3 200-UP-1 Drilling 0 0 0 0 10,782 3,115 13,897

3 200-ZP-1 Drilling 322 3,755 1 0 0 0 4,078

3 200-PW-1 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 898 898

3 TPA M-24-00 Well Drilling 2,065 2,117 2,072 2,408 2,542 773 11,977

3 Miscellaneous Well Drilling 0 0 0 0 122 8 130

3 Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 300-FF-5 Well Drilling 0 0 0 4,637 4,841 2,794 12,272

3 100-NR-2 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 100-BC-5 Well Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 100-FR-3 Well Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Drilling 287 371 67 83 639 637 2,084
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-38

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2 Project Management 21,677 21,413 23,256 21,932 21,442 19,969 129,689

3 Project Management and Support 7,786 10,248 10,534 10,896 11,002 11,024 61,490

3 Project Management and Support - Training 178 854 878 908 917 919 4654

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management 0 258 334 388 440 486 1,906

3 Management Reserve - Project Management 13,713 10,053 11,510 9,740 9,083 7,540 61,639

2 Integrated Field Work 7,953 10,189 10,531 10,724 10,854 10,871 61,122

3 IFW - Operations and Maintenance 4,700 6,287 6,462 6,684 6,749 6,763 37,645

3 Integrated Field Work - Training 1,906 2,509 2,579 2,668 2,694 2,699 15,055

3 IFW - GRP Field Work Projects 850 847 870 900 909 911 5,287

3 IFW - Field Equipment Purchases (CENRTC) 194 193 198 0 0 0 585

3 Non OU Related Well Maintenance and Monitoring and 

Reporting 138 135 139 144 145 145 846

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Integrated Field Work 165 218 283 328 357 353 1,704

2 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 13,281 13,373 22,437 14,502 14,250 14,257 92,100

3 Modutanks 0 73 5,829 0 0 0 5,902

3 RCRA Monitoring and Reporting 9,849 9,808 10,082 10,428 10,525 10,555 61,247

3 RCRA Field Support 2,808 2,798 2,876 2,975 3,004 3,010 17,471

3 Hanford Geotechnical 77 76 79 81 82 82 477

3 GM/PA Project Management 230 229 235 243 246 246 1,429

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Groundwater Monitoring 

and Performance Assessments 317 389 3,336 775 393 364 5,574

2 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 1,331 466 2,466 2,506 5,786 3,398 15,953

3 100-BC-5 OU Project Management 56 56 58 60 60 60 350

3 100-BC-5 Decision Documentation 248 100 756 0 0 0 1,104

3 100-BC-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 0 0 0 1,377 1,377

3 100-BC-5 Well Support 54 54 55 57 57 58 335

3 100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting 59 58 60 62 63 63 365

3 100-BC-5 Modifications and Expansions 0 0 0 0 3,704 1,267 4,971

3 100-BC-5 Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-39

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 914 198 1,537 2,327 1,902 573 7,451

2 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 8,718 12,997 11,796 13,736 24,638 22,607 94,492

3 100-KR-4 Project Management 365 364 374 387 391 391 2,272

3 100-KR-4 Decision Documentation 529 527 356 782 0 0 2,194

3 100-KR-4 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 5,392 5,371 4,863 5,016 5,065 2,244 27,951

3 100-KR-4 Well Support 88 88 90 93 94 94 547

3 100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting 174 255 262 271 274 274 1,510

3 100-KR-4 Modifications and Expansions 440 165 0 175 5,770 6,249 12,799

3 100-KR-4 Field Studies and Deployment 1,730 0 0 0 0 0 1,730

3 100-KR-4 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 0 6,227 5,851 7,012 13,044 13,355 45,489

2 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 774 14,764 20,233 12,585 4,819 4,153 57,328

3 100-NR-2 Project Management 182 182 187 193 195 195 1,134

3 100-NR-2 Decision Documentation 101 584 0 0 0 0 685

3 100-NR-2 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 308 307 315 326 329 330 1,915

3 100-NR-2 Well Support 63 63 65 67 68 68 394

3 100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting 64 64 66 68 69 69 400

3 100-NR-2 Modifications and Expansions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 100-NR-2 Field Studies and Deployment 56 633 3,448 1,704 180 0 6,021

3 100-NR-2 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 0 12,931 16,152 10,227 3,978 3,491 46,779

2 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 11,452 17,576 14,498 37,807 26,862 12,012 120,207

3 100-HR-3 Project Management 356 355 365 377 381 382 2,216

3 100-HR-3 Decision Documentation 476 306 756 0 0 0 1,538

3 100-HR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 8,984 8,856 6,697 6,919 6,078 6,090 43,624

3 100-HR-3 Well Support 164 164 168 174 176 176 1,022

3 100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 301 575 591 612 616 538 3,233

3 100-HR-3 Modifications and Expansions 121 436 1,843 1,790 851 864 5,905

3 100-HR-3 Field Studies and Deployment 436 346 22 23 23 23 873
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-40

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 100-HR-3 D&D 0 1,324 0 0 0 0 1,324

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 614 5,214 4,056 27,912 18,737 3,939 60,472

2 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 7,052 10,633 6,580 4,808 3,325 3,012 35,410

3 100-FR-3 OU Project Management 94 94 97 100 83 60 528

3 100-FR-3 Decision Documentation 727 480 596 166 0 0 1,969

3 100-FR-3 Remedial Actions (interim and final) 0 1,443 1,988 2,057 2,077 2,081 9,646

3 100-FR-3 Well Support 66 66 68 70 71 71 412

3 100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 65 65 66 69 69 70 404

3 100-FR-3 Modifications and Expansions 4,375 1,107 0 0 0 0 5,482

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 1,725 7,378 3,765 2,346 1,025 730 16,969

2 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 362 6,070 24,249 11,214 10,405 11,131 63,431

3 200-BP-5 Project Management 154 201 207 214 215 217 1,208

3 200-BP-5 Decision Documentation 0 635 7,915 1,125 394 144 10,213

3 200-BP-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 3,602 7,097 5,855 5,912 5,924 28,390

3 200-BP-5 Well Support 200 200 205 212 214 215 1,246

3 200-BP-5 Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 4,872 0 0 0 4,872

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 8 1,432 3,953 3,808 3,670 4,631 17,502

2 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 4,064 5,858 5,021 11,148 3,426 1,988 31,505

3 200-PO-1 Project Management 278 277 285 294 297 298 1,729

3 200-PO-1 Decision Documentation 0 0 1,488 1,441 571 297 3,797

3 200-PO-1 Well Support 315 314 323 334 337 338 1,961

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 3,471 5,267 2,925 9,079 2,221 1,055 24,018

2 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 8,289 5,522 3,285 3,137 2,957 4,173 27,363

3 200-UP-1 Project Management 203 202 208 215 217 218 1,263

3 200-UP-1 Decision Documentation 2,145 1,026 273 216 0 0 3,660

3 200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 5,203 3,538 2,281 2,396 2,419 3,539 19,376

3 200-UP-1 Well Support 116 116 119 123 124 125 723

3 200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 475 357 269 112 113 114 1,440

3 200-UP-1 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-41

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 200-UP-1 Modifications and Expansions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 147 283 135 75 84 177 901

2 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 42,462 57,178 50,039 32,650 30,239 30,191 242,759

3 200-ZP-1 Project Management 362 359 369 382 384 388 2,244

3 200-ZP-1 Decision Documentation 2,581 2,281 3,043 2,614 2,639 2,645 15,803

3 200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 26,331 27,793 24,891 24,690 24,580 24,631 152,916

3 200-ZP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 394 427 439 454 458 459 2,631

3 200-ZP-1 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-ZP-1 Modifications and Expansions 12,794 22,270 18,525 0 0 0 53,589

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 4,048 2,772 4,510 2,178 2,068 15576

2 200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,340 1,322 5,034 1,413 1,576 1,579 12,264

3 200-PW-1 Project Management 234 233 239 248 250 250 1,454

3 200-PW-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 1,062 1,057 4,158 1,124 1,292 1,295 9,988

3 200-PW-1 Well Support 16 0 0 0 0 0 16

3 200-PW-1 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-PW-1 Operable Unit 28 32 637 41 34 34 806

2 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 4,946 3,945 6,662 3,396 2,663 1,991 23,603

3 300-FF-5 Project Management 274 273 280 290 293 293 1,703

3 300-FF-5 Decision Documentation 707 0 0 0 0 0 707

3 300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 300-FF-5 Wells Support 94 94 97 100 101 101 587

3 300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting 700 698 717 742 749 751 4,357

3 300-FF-5 Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 3,341 0 0 0 3,341

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 3,171 2,880 2,227 2,264 1,520 846 12,908

2 Regulatory Decisions 962 6,160 3,134 1,724 558 4 12,542

3 B/C Cribs and Trenches Area Remediation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-CW-1/3 Gable Mountain 57 0 0 0 0 0 57

3 200-CW-2/4/5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-TW-1/2 Scavenged Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-42

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-14. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated). (6 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 200-PW-2/4 Uranium-Rich Process 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-PW-1 Pu-Rich Waste Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-LW-1/2 200A Chem Lab Waste Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-UR-1 Unplanned Releases Waste Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-SW-1/2 Solid Waste Disposal Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-IS-1 Tanks, Lines, Pits and Boxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-BP1-1 Hanford Prototype Barrier 157 0 0 0 0 0 157

3 Burial Ground Sampling and Analysis 748 24 0 0 0 0 772

3 Model Group DQO/SAPs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-MW-1 Misc. Waste Group Closure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 200-CS-1 Chemical Sewer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Regulatory Decisions 0 6,136 3,134 1,724 558 4 11,556

2 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 9,537 10,268 2,243 7,349 0 0 29,397

3 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 9,119 9,840 0 0 0 0 18,959

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests 418 428 2,243 7,349 0 0 10,438

2 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Deep Vadose Zone Decision Documentation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Deep Vadose Zone 

Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 58,545 41,556 48,952 31,523 31,907 29,229 241,712

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 58,545 41,556 48,952 31,523 31,907 29,229 241,712

Total 220,937 260,192 278,174 244,820 236,195 199,174 1,439,492

CENRTC = capital equipment not related to construction.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

DQO = data quality objective.

GM = groundwater monitoring.

GRP = Groundwater Remediation Project.

IFW = Integrated Field Work.

OU = operable unit.

PA = performance assessment.

PBS = performance baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

SAP = Sampling and Analysis Plan.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-43

D.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD (PBS RL-0040) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table D-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Regulatory Decisions Central Plateau Project Management Provides for overall management function in support of 

the nuclear facility D&D mission on the Central Plateau.

Central Plateau Engineering Studies Provides for cross-cutting engineering and technical 

studies and trade-off evaluations necessary to optimize 

design and execution for Central Plateau facility and 

waste site remediation/restoration with consideration of 

groundwater and vadose zone remediation and ongoing 

operations.

Emergency Response for 

Facility/Waste Site ESH&Q or 

Remediation – FY 2014 to FY 2048

Includes the tasks necessary to address aging facility or 

waste site conditions that are above and beyond 

anticipated operational and maintenance plans. 

Activities may include hazard removal, RTD, 

stabilization, or increased S&M of waste sites; or D&D 

or increased S&M of buildings. Activities are focused 

on unplanned or unforeseen facility or waste site 

conditions impacting safety, human health, or 

environment (e.g., major equipment failure, spread of 

contamination, structural failure).

Canyon ROD Planning activity that supports workscope in four 

Central Plateau zones (PUREX, B Plant, REDOX, 

T Plant) and a ROD for below-grade remediation of 

PFP; includes characterization, alternatives analysis, 

feasibility study/proposed plan development, document 

review cycles with Regulators, public comment, 

comment resolution, and disposition determination 

(primarily by CERCLA ROD) for the canyons.

Zone Environmental 

Remediation

For each closure zone, provides for remediation definition, remediation of pipelines, installation of 

barriers, utility relocations, post-ROD confirmatory sampling, S&M/O&M of installed barriers, 

and zone closure activities. Potential waste site remediation range includes no action, in situ 

treatment (e.g., grouting), monitored natural attenuation, capping, RTD, or combinations of these 

techniques. Buildings and structures are assumed to undergo D4 activities, including demolition to 

slab-on-grade. Below-grade portions will be addressed through the waste site cleanup. Actual 

remedial actions will be determined through the appropriate decision process and applied through a 

geographical implementation strategy. The information in this table is a summary of the planning 

assumptions. 

Zone 1, 200-E Admin Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure.

Zone 2, 200-E Ponds Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure. This is the largest remediation zone on the 

Central Plateau. This zone also constitutes a 

considerable portion of the newly-defined Outer Zone 

under DOE/RL-2009-81. 

Zone 3, 200-W Ponds Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-44

Table D-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Zone 4, B Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and pipelines that will be addressed through zone 

closure. This zone also contains a tank farm and will 

require remedial coordination with the tank farm cleanup 

efforts. 

Zone 5, B Plant Zone This zone contains a canyon (B Plant), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, and pipelines that will be 

addressed through zone closure.

Zone 6, C Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. This zone also contains a tank 

farm (C Farm) and will require remedial coordination 

with the tank farm cleanup efforts.

Zone 7, CSB Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 8, ERDF Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 9, ETF Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 10, PFP Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. 

Zone 11, PUREX Zone This zone contains a canyon (PUREX), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 12, REDOX Zone This zone contains a canyon (REDOX), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 13, S/U Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

and utility relocations that will be addressed through 

zone closure. This zone also contains tank farms and 

will require remedial coordination with the tank farm 

cleanup efforts.

Zone 14, Semi-Works Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. 

Zone 15, Solid Waste Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 16, T Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites and buildings and 

structures that will be addressed through zone closure. 

This zone also contains tank farms and will require 

remedial coordination with the tank farm cleanup efforts.

Zone 17, T Plant Zone This zone contains a canyon (T Plant), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure.

Zone 18, U Plant Zone This zone contains a canyon (U Plant), waste sites, 

buildings and structures, pipelines, and utility relocations 

that will be addressed through zone closure.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-45

Table D-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Zone 19, WM Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure.

Zone 20, WTP/A Farm Zone This zone contains waste sites, buildings and structures, 

pipelines, and utility relocations that will be addressed 

through zone closure. This zone also contains tank 

farms and will require remedial coordination with the 

tank farm cleanup efforts.

Zone 21, IDF Zone This zone contains waste sites that will be addressed 

through zone closure.

Zone 22, NRDWL/BC Control Zone This zone contains waste sites and pipelines that will be 

addressed through zone closure.

Zone 23, 100 Area This zone contains buildings and structures that will be 

addressed through zone closure.

Zone 24, 600 Area This zone contains buildings and structures that will be 

addressed through zone closure.

Zone 25, 300 Area This zone does not currently have any identified scope in 

the lifecycle plan. Cleanup is assumed to be 

accomplished through RL-0041.

Zone 26, 400 Area This zone contains buildings and structures that will be 

addressed through zone closure.

Surveillance and 

Maintenance and Min-Safe 

for Facilities and Waste 

Sites

100 Area S&M Scope includes CERCLA 5-year reviews, visual 

surveillance, surface maintenance, maintain facilities

and waste sites in minimum safe condition to protect 

personnel and the environment, documentation, 

environmental protection, ISMS, nuclear safety, 

occupational safety and health, QA, emergency 

preparedness, radiation protection, safeguards and 

security, baseline controls, and training. 

200 Area S&M

400 Area S&M

600 Area S&M

300 Area S&M

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0040 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect

costs.

DOE/RL-2009-81, 2009, Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. 

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decommissioning, 

decontamination, and demolition.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ESH&Q = Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

FY = fiscal year.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

ISMS = Integrated Safety Management System.

NRDWL = non-radioactive dangerous waste landfill.

O&M = operation and maintenance.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

QA = quality assurance.

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant).

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, dispose.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

WM = Waste Management

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-46

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Regulatory Decisions 6,344 11,528 20,650 30,235 68,596 91,709 47,835 71,374 73,814 65,583

Zone Environmental Remediation 0 0 1,049 252,621 408,612 553,716 382,804 409,114 651,812 677,222

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 12,667 13,122 13,435 14,192 14,349 13,741 13,590 13,407 13,685 14,788

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 5,282 5,799 55,375 83,163 80,668 75,320 86,073 91,182 91,237

Total 19,011 29,932 40,933 352,423 574,720 739,834 519,549 579,968 830,493 848,830

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Regulatory Decisions 67,908 42,513 38,269 41,001 36,509 32,665 36,629 35,313 29,139 30,168

Zone Environmental Remediation 467,713 425,293 379,911 377,870 336,446 273,611 143,995 71,346 63,252 41,252

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 15,597 16,716 15,594 15,907 16,140 16,715 17,618 18,068 18,589 19,162

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 87,742 78,796 68,433 52,332 57,182 60,937 35,687 26,274 24,445 25,139

Total 638,960 563,318 502,207 487,110 446,277 383,928 233,929 151,001 135,425 115,721

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Regulatory Decisions 30,901 32,277 33,964 32,375 35,760 38,776 41,006 47,551 44,468 63,415

Zone Environmental Remediation 34,463 47,257 39,463 52,398 176,219 224,643 202,548 197,882 334,089 368,482

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 20,788 20,129 20,507 20,924 21,997 24,974 25,367 26,651 24,101 23,815

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 25,980 29,390 29,151 28,023 26,174 41,742 45,100 59,385 89,240 96,578

Total 112,132 129,053 123,085 133,720 260,150 330,135 314,021 331,469 491,898 552,290

Fiscal Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Regulatory Decisions 69,260 53,633 53,394 49,326 59,307 59,878 55,798 61,938 59,860 60,077

Zone Environmental Remediation 422,708 292,125 224,799 157,655 57,715 42,295 118,378 133,582 123,756 107,402

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 25,579 26,249 29,117 30,943 34,436 35,697 35,272 35,482 35,753 13,600

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 95,384 88,192 71,886 61,769 49,827 52,583 72,728 77,318 69,485 52,805

Total 612,931 460,199 379,196 299,693 201,285 190,453 282,176 308,320 288,854 233,884

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061

Regulatory Decisions 64,199 72,805 60,118 62,642 81,337 68,834 71,208 82,912 54,085 24,698

Zone Environmental Remediation 93,621 56,974 233,793 201,511 61,661 57,827 164,154 217,103 119,129 99,296

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 14,201 11,779 10,615 10,890 12,600 12,804 12,118 12,167 9,030 2,512

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 49,295 35,638 51,955 44,460 26,419 27,429 40,391 54,915 34,476 0 

Total 221,316 177,196 356,481 319,503 182,017 166,894 287,871 367,097 216,720 126,506
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-47

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-16. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 Total

Regulatory Decisions 25,350 31,619 34,117 23,260 4,600 2,622,530

Zone Environmental Remediation 128,068 130,266 119,232 68,826 20,123 11,047,082

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 2,825 3,400 3,183 3,252 791 960,630

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 0 0 0 0 2,618,784

Total 156,243 165,285 156,532 95,338 25,514 17,249,026

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

PBS = project baseline summary.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-48

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040

2 Regulatory Decisions 6,344 11,528 20,650 30,235 68,596 91,709 229,062

3 Central Plateau Project Management 5,481 5,572 5,706 10,495 10,608 10,633 48,495

3 Central Plateau Engineering Studies 0 0 0 1,248 1,740 1,744 4,732

3 Emergency Response for Facility/Waste Site ESH&Q or 

Remediation - FY 2014 - FY 2048 0 0 0 6,861 6,958 6,974 20,793

3 Canyon ROD 0 0 0 4,501 4,546 309 9,356

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Decisions and Closure 

Integration 114 206 182 583 823 615 2,523

3 Management Reserve - Decisions and Closure Integration 749 5,750 14,762 6,547 43,921 71,434 143,163

2 Zone Environmental Remediation 0 0 1,049 252,621 408,612 553,716 1,215,998

3 Zone 1 (200-E Admin Zone) 0 0 595 613 985 931 3,124

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 1 (200-E Admin 

Zone) 0 0 226 111 186 2,368 2,891

3 Zone 2 (200-E Ponds Zone) 0 0 0 0 800 1,241 2,041

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 2 (200-E Ponds Zone) 0 0 0 0 46 27 73

3 Zone 3 (200-W Ponds Zone) 0 0 0 2,115 16,183 23,653 41,951

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 3 (200-W Ponds 

Zone) 0 0 29 508 2,866 849 4,252

3 Zone 4 (B Farm Zone) 0 0 0 8,526 35,482 11,431 55,439

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 4 (B Farm Zone) 0 0 0 1,111 11,383 45,618 58,112

3 Zone 5 (B Plant Zone) 0 0 0 0 2,627 0 2,627

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 5 (B Plant Zone) 0 0 0 0 315 49 364

3 Zone 6 (C Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 408 408

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 6 (C Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 73 73

3 Zone 7 (CSB Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 7 (CSB Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Zone 8 (ERDF Zone) 0 0 0 990 3,504 2,801 7,295

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 8 (ERDF Zone) 0 0 0 0 93 286 379

3 Zone 9 (ETF Zone) 0 0 0 6,373 4,237 142 10,752
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-49

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 9 (ETF Zone) 0 0 0 2,812 1,351 2,595 6,758

3 Zone 10 (PFP Zone) 0 0 0 175 628 14,260 15,063

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 10 (PFP Zone) 0 0 0 38 323 6,444 6,805

3 Zone 11 (PUREX Zone) 0 0 0 36,741 155,899 117,537 310,177

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 11 (PUREX Zone) 0 0 0 27,667 12,204 20,739 60,610

3 Zone 12 (REDOX Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 1,142 1,142

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 12 (REDOX Zone) 0 0 0 0 117 167 284

3 Zone 13 (S/U Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 617 617

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 13 (S/U Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 110 110

3 Zone 14 (Semi-Works Zone) 0 0 0 311 0 2,711 3,022

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 14 (Semi-Works 

Zone) 0 0 0 63 0 5,096 5,159

3 Zone 15 (Solid Waste Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 15 (Solid Waste Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Zone 16 (T Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 920 920 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 16 (T Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 165 165

3 Zone 17 (T Plant Zone) 0 0 0 51,497 100,717 148,970 301,184

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 17 (T Plant Zone) 0 0 199 12,067 11,219 83,981 107,466

3 Zone 18 (U Plant Zone) 0 0 0 71,138 31,340 6,218 108,696

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 18 (U Plant Zone) 0 0 0 29,765 4,521 32,750 67,036

3 Zone 19 (WM Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 4,313 4,313

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 19 (WM Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 220 220 

3 Zone 20 (WTP/A Farm Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 20 (WTP/A Farm 

Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Zone 21 (IDF Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 21 (IDF Zone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Zone 22 (NRDWL/BC Control Zone) 0 0 0 0 11,088 13,990 25,078

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 22 (NRDWL/BC 

Control Zone) 0 0 0 0 498 894 1,392
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-50

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-17. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Zone 23 (100 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 23 (100 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Zone 24 (600 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 24 (600 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Zone 26 (400 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Zone 26 (400 Area) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 12,667 13,122 13,435 14,192 14,349 13,741 81,506

3 100 Area S&M 0 0 0 407 411 412 1,230

3 200 Area S&M 10,926 11,318 11,590 11,885 12,005 11,350 69,074

3 400 Area S&M 451 450 460 472 477 478 2,788

3 600 Area S&M 451 450 460 472 477 478 2,788

3 300 Area S&M 560 559 572 587 593 594 3,465

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - S&M and Min-Safe for 

Facilities and Waste Sites 279 345 353 369 386 429 2,161

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 5,282 5,799 55,375 83,163 80,668 230,287

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 5,282 5,799 55,375 83,163 80,668 230,287

Total 19,011 29,932 40,933 352,423 574,720 739,834 1,756,853

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

ESH&Q = environment, safety, health, and quality.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

FY = fiscal year.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

NRDWL = non-radioactive dangerous waste landfill.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant).

ROD = record of decision.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

WM = Waste Management.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-51

D.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS

Scope information for Infrastructure and Services, PBS RL-0040, is presented in Table D-18. 

No additional scope detail is presented here; however, both near-term and remaining estimated 

cleanup cost information is provided. 

Table D-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Infrastructure and 

Services

Occupational 

Medicine

This work element includes occupational medicine; steam systems; legal 

support; land transfers; cleanup baseline, integration, and development; 

radiochemical processing laboratory and 300 Area transition; and real 

property asset management. Steam Systems

Legal Support

Land Transfers

Cleanup Baseline, 

Integration, and 

Development

HAMMER HAMMER This work element includes operations and maintenance activities at the 

HAMMER facility in support of Hanford Site and other training.

Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects

Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects

This work element includes repair and replacement of infrastructure systems 

and provides capital upgrades to the infrastructure, including larger scale 

expense projects. Also included are capital equipment expenditures 

associated with replacements for crane and rigging, electrical utilities, 

biological control, transportation, materials management, Hanford Fire 

Department, and water and sewer utilities.

HAMMER = Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility). The Volpentest HAMMER 

Training and Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-52

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Infrastructure and Services 14,519 15,509 11,353 12,300 6,692 6,763 6,965 7,119 20,734 7,497

HAMMER 7,252 7,259 7,419 7,557 7,771 7,968 8,168 7,997 7,935 7,866

Infrastructure Reliability Projects 21,647 21,103 22,279 23,060 24,001 24,030 24,570 39,710 39,243 36,394

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 8,165 8,885 7,871 6,584 6,718 7,625 10,828 9,333 9,186

Total 43,418 52,036 49,936 50,788 45,048 45,479 47,328 65,654 77,245 60,943

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Infrastructure and Services 7,658 7,596 9,393 8,026 8,169 8,347 8,587 8,715 8,980 9,122

HAMMER 7,767 7,674 7,756 7,703 7,725 7,725 7,702 7,678 7,642 7,598

Infrastructure Reliability Projects 40,638 40,055 32,395 42,275 28,237 24,801 13,996 13,770 14,229 15,133

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 11,572 11,829 11,982 17,165 12,288 12,103 9,957 9,941 9,832 10,277

Total 67,635 67,154 61,526 75,169 56,419 52,976 40,242 40,104 40,683 42,130

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Infrastructure and Services 9,416 9,529 9,708 12,161 10,288 10,454 10,767 10,963 9,501 9,717 

HAMMER 7,551 7,494 7,436 7,366 7,283 7,188 7,016 6,974 6,857 6,723

Infrastructure Reliability Projects 15,150 16,115 15,972 16,472 17,121 19,010 32,151 21,522 22,168 23,014

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 10,013 9,932 9,470 9,078 9,839 14,929 21,525 16,706 11,278 9,163

Total 42,130 43,070 42,586 45,077 44,531 51,581 71,459 56,165 49,804 48,617 

Fiscal Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Infrastructure and Services 9,883 10,237 10,472 10,543 10,840 11,042 14,282 11,573 11,863 12,027 

HAMMER 6,579 6,422 6,247 6,065 5,924 5,846 5,609 5,355 5,073 4,747

Infrastructure Reliability Projects 23,823 24,679 25,677 26,461 18,412 9,278 9,491 9,710 9,933 10,162

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 8,523 10,514 12,647 13,364 11,305 2,810 2,978 2,563 2,161 1,702

Total 48,808 51,852 55,043 56,433 46,481 28,976 32,360 29,201 29,030 28,638 

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061

Infrastructure and Services 12,543 12,739 13,020 13,319 13,653 13,905 14,219 14,491 5,304 9,949

HAMMER 4,381 3,983 3,542 3,051 3,121 3,193 3,266 3,341 3,418 0 

Infrastructure Reliability Projects 10,395 10,634 10,879 11,129 11,385 5,824 5,957 6,094 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 1,500 1,350 766 561 794 808 691 660 980 0 

Total 28,819 28,706 28,207 28,060 28,953 23,730 24,133 24,586 9,702 9,949
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-53

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 Total

Infrastructure and Services 8,513 9,454 10,695 10,090 3,937 575,141

HAMMER 0 0 0 0 0 315,213

Infrastructure Reliability Projects 0 0 0 0 0 980,184

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 0 0 0 0 390,751

Total 8,513 9,454 10,695 10,090 3,937 2,261,289

HAMMER = Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility); also known as the Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-54

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-20. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Infrastructure and Services, PBS RL-0040

2 Infrastructure and Services 14,519 15,509 11,353 12,300 6,692 6,763 67,136

3 Occupational Medicine 2,667 2,739 2,802 2,867 2,944 2,988 17,007

3 Steam Systems 5,615 5,767 5,900 6,036 1,183 1,201 25,702

3 Legal Support 2,082 2,138 2,187 2,238 2,298 2,332 13,275

3 Land Transfers 0 0 0 639 0 0 639

3 Cleanup Baseline, Integration, and Development 4,155 4,267 0 0 0 0 8,422

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - RL-0040 0 598 464 520 267 242 2091

2 HAMMER 7,252 7,259 7,419 7,557 7,771 7,968 45,226

3 HAMMER 7,252 7,259 7,419 7,557 7,771 7,968 45,226

2 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 21,647 21,103 22,279 23,060 24,001 24,030 136,120

3 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 21,647 21,103 22,279 23,060 24,001 24,030 136,120

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 8,165 8,885 7,871 6,584 6,718 38,223

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 8,165 8,885 7,871 6,584 6,718 38,223

Total 43,418 52,036 49,936 50,788 45,048 45,479 286,705

HAMMER = The Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center. Also known as Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility). 

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-55

D.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE PROJECT

(PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table D-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

D4 Closure 100 Area This work element includes D4 of approximately 500 

facilities, provision of utility and surveillance and 

maintenance services during D4, and closure of utilities 

located in the River Corridor. The D4 closure buildings 

are located throughout the River Corridor in the 100, 

300, 400, and 600 Areas of the Hanford Site. Typical 

hazards associated with the buildings include 

radiological contamination (e.g., uranium, mixed fission 

products, activation products, plutonium), chemical 

hazards (e.g., beryllium, asbestos, laboratory 

chemicals), and industrial hazards (e.g., elevated 

working locations, degraded roofs, biological hazards, 

electrical hazards, excavations).

The D4 process includes obtaining regulatory 

approvals; characterizing the hazards and waste; 

deactivating the facility by removing loose hazardous 

materials and equipment; decontaminating the facility 

to allow open-air demolition; and decommissioning the 

facility by disconnecting utilities and services. The 

structure is then demolished using techniques such as 

heavy equipment (e.g., track hoe, processor, loader, 

cranes), explosives, cutting equipment, or other 

methods and the demolition debris is disposed, 

generally to ERDF. Following demolition, samples are 

collected to verify that cleanup criteria are met, and the 

sites are backfilled and revegetated. 

324/327 Area

300 Area Sites

400 Area

Surveillance and Maintenance Scope addresses activities associated with maintaining 

buildings in a safe and compliant manner, including 

performing required surveillances on a periodic basis.

Operate and Close Utilities Scope addresses operating utilities during and to 

support cleanup activities, then closing the utilities once 

they are no longer needed.

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the D4 mission. 

Reactor ISS Closure 100 B/C Area This work element includes removal of reactor area 

buildings and components, leaving the reactor blocks 

intact in interim safe storage. The reactors will then 

undergo surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance for 

a period of time up to 75 years, to allow radionuclides 

to decay. Following this period, the reactor blocks will 

be removed from their current locations and transported 

to the 200 Area for disposal.

100 K Area

100-N Area

Management and Support

Field Remediation 

Closure 

100-B/C Area This work element includes performing CERCLA field 

remediation and closure of contaminated waste sites 

and burial grounds within the River Corridor. This 

includes design and closure; confirmatory sampling; 

remediation of waste sites, liquid waste sites, and burial 

grounds; miscellaneous restoration; and support 

activities. The records of decision for the Field 

100-D Area

100-H Area

100-K Area

100-N Area
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-56

Table D-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

100 Area Remaining Sites Remediation Closure work scope generally identify 

RTD as the preferred alternative. (Records of decision 

are identified in Appendix A of the Lifecycle Report.) 

In addition to RTD, confirmatory sites were identified 

that require sampling to determine the need for RTD. 

Following sampling, these sites either become RTD 

sites or are closed as no-action sites.

Contamination in the waste sites and burial grounds of 

the River Corridor include chemical and radioactive 

constituents, such as asbestos, lead, chromium, carbon 

tetrachloride, strontium, uranium, cesium, and tritium. 

The cleanup process involves sampling and analyzing 

the site to determine the extent and type of 

contamination, excavating contaminated waste 

materials, and restoring the landscape through site 

backfill, grading, and revegetation.

300 Area Sites

400 Area

600 Area

Miscellaneous Restoration This scope addresses cleanup activities associated with 

general materials, such as debris piles, and other items 

that do not require CERCLA or RCRA cleanup, but that 

could present a physical hazard or unpleasant aesthetic

if not addressed. 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the field remediation mission. 

Waste Operations 200 Area Waste Operations This work element includes the transportation, disposal, 

and treatment (if required) of waste from the River 

Corridor cleanup activities, as well as from other 

Hanford Site cleanup operators. Waste operations will 

expand and operate the ERDF, and transition the ERDF 

to a successor operator at the end of the Nuclear Facility 

D&D–River Corridor Closure Project. 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the waste operations mission. 

Final Closure Final Closure This work element includes developing a final strategy; 

preparing an integrated River Corridor work plan for a 

CERCLA baseline risk assessment; preparing a baseline 

risk assessment for the 100 and 300 Areas; conducting a 

risk evaluation for River Corridor areas outside of the 

100 and 300 Areas; conducting orphan site evaluations; 

conducting surface soil surveys; preparing remedial 

action reports; preparing an remedial investigation 

report and a proposed plan for River Corridor source 

areas; and conducting independent closure reviews. 

The scope supports obtaining a proposed “Finding of 

Suitability to Transfer” the Hanford Site’s River 

Corridor to long-term stewardship in accordance with 

CERCLA Section 120(h). 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of 

the final closure mission. 
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-57

Table D-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(3 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Mission Support/ General 

Support

Project Integration This work element consists of functional support and 

business operations necessary to achieve River Corridor 

Closure and field project objectives. This includes 

providing trained and qualified staff, performance 

standards, facilities services, and office supplies. 

General support functions include safety health and 

quality, regulatory and environmental management, 

project integration, project services, engineering 

services, and Office of the Project General Manager.

Project Services

Safety, Health, and Quality

Engineering

Regulatory and Environmental 

Management

Office of the Project General Manager

B Reactor B Reactor The scope includes management and oversight for B 

Reactor facility activities, including planning, directing, 

and providing technical support to maintain, upgrade, 

and preserve the B Reactor Facility in a safe condition.

Nuclear Facility D&D – 

100-K Remediation

100-K Group 2 Remediation Final remediation of waste sites and D4 buildings and 

structures in the 100-K Area will be completed when all 

spent nuclear fuel is removed from the K Basins. The 

scope includes the ISS of the KE and KW reactors 

consistent with the other 100 Area reactors.

100-K Group 1 Remediation

100-K Area Regulatory Closure 

Documents

100-K Group 3 Remediation

KW Deactivation

100-K Area Utilities

100-K Project Management 

KE and KW Reactor ISS

100-K Bioremediation

Site-wide Services Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site 

services and infrastructure, adders, and other indirect 

costs.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ISS = interim safe storage.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-58

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-22. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

D4 Closure 91,835 63,529 46,270 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reactor Interim Safe Storage (ISS) Closure 5,798 3,280 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Field Remediation Closure 113,745 140,376 119,231 91,011 10,214 722 0 0 0 0 

Waste Operations 27,419 33,783 32,734 19,831 0 0 0 0 0 0

Final Closure 4,734 6,120 5,109 10,313 371 403 0 0 0 0

Mission/General Support 46,782 51,505 36,793 19,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect Costs 19,496 52,808 22,152 75,352 0 0 0 0 0 0

Management Reserve - River Corridor 

Closure Contract 2,647 2,691 336 871 894 556 489 882 13 0

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - River 

Corridor Closure Contract 0 2,394 45,555 57,032 110,112 65,705 26,065 9,935 1,141 55

B Reactor 2,454 2,511 2,592 2,641 2,716 2,785 2,855 2,926 0 0

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor 

Closure (100-K Area Remediation) 6,771 25,593 18,113 20,762 18,536 24,862 51,944 42,315 25,336 0

Site-wide Services - RL-0041 8,000 7,368 5,419 5,338 3,841 5,219 12,099 9,604 5,012 0

Total 329,681 391,958 335,054 332,041 146,684 100,252 93,452 65,662 31,502 55

Fiscal Year Total

D4 Closure 230,634

Reactor Interim Safe Storage (ISS) Closure 9,828

Field Remediation Closure 475,299

Waste Operations 113,767

Final Closure 27,050

Mission/General Support 154,970

Indirect Costs 169,808

Management Reserve - River Corridor 

Closure Contract 9,379

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - River 

Corridor Closure Contract 317,994

B Reactor 21,480

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor 

Closure (100-K Area Remediation) 234,232

Site-wide Services - RL-0041 61,900

Total 1,826,341

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

ISS = interim safe storage.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-59

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project, PBS RL-0041

2 D4 Closure 91,835 63,529 46,270 29,000 0 0 230,634

3 D4-100 Area 13,748 10,550 0 0 0 0 24,298

3 D4-324/327 Area 23,000 33,500 35,000 25,000 0 0 116,500

3 D4-300 Area Sites 12,718 8,600 11,270 4,000 0 0 36,588

3 D4-400 Area 3,152 1,385 0 0 0 0 4,537

3 D4-Surveillance and Maintenance 6,083 512 0 0 0 0 6,595

3 D4-Operate and Close Utilities 8,506 626 0 0 0 0 9,132

3 D4-Management and Support 24,628 8,356 0 0 0 0 32,984

2 Reactor Interim Safe Storage (ISS) Closure 5,798 3,280 750 0 0 0 9,828

3 ISS -100 B/C Area 1,121 2,509 750 0 0 0 4,380

3 ISS -100 K Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 ISS -100 N Area 1,184 0 0 0 0 0 1,184

3 ISS -Management and Support 3,493 771 0 0 0 0 4,264

2 Field Remediation Closure 113,745 140,376 119,231 91,011 10,214 722 475,299

3 Field Remediation - 100 B/C Area 8,473 2,232 0 0 0 0 10,705

3 Field Remediation - 100 D Area 3,200 25 0 0 0 0 3,225

3 Field Remediation - 100 F Area 465 0 0 0 0 0 465

3 Field Remediation - 100 H Area 2,389 336 0 0 0 0 2,725

3 Field Remediation - 100 K Area 427 0 0 0 0 0 427

3 Field Remediation - 100 N Area 9,893 346 0 0 0 0 10,239

3 Field Remediation - 100 Area Remaining Sites 20,495 41,223 29,218 10,025 0 0 100,961

3 Field Remediation - 300 Area Sites 22,962 6,214 13 986 984 0 31,159

3 Field Remediation - 400 Area 190 0 0 0 0 0 190

3 Field Remediation - 600 Area 40,500 90,000 90,000 80,000 9,230 722 310,452

3 Field Remediation - Misc Restoration 1,426 0 0 0 0 0 1,426

3 Field Remediation - Management and Support 3,325 0 0 0 0 0 3,325

2 Waste Operations 27,419 33,783 32,734 19,831 0 0 113,767

3 200 Area Waste Operations 23,849 32,137 32,587 19,831 0 0 108,404
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-60

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Waste Operations Management and Support 3,570 1,646 147 0 0 0 5,363

2 Final Closure 4,734 6,120 5,109 10,313 371 403 27,050

3 Final Closure 4,200 5,310 5,076 10,313 371 403 25,673

3 Final Closure Management and Support 534 810 33 0 0 0 1,377

2 Mission/General Support 46,782 51,505 36,793 19,890 0 0 154,970

3 Mission/General Support Project Integration 3,222 204 303 0 0 0 3,729

3 Mission/General Support Project Services 32,992 50,680 35,387 19,890 0 0 138,949

3 Mission/General Support Safety, Health and Quality 4,068 316 505 0 0 0 4,889

3 Mission/General Support Engineering 812 46 65 0 0 0 923

3 Mission/General Support Regulatory and Environmental 

Management 1,102 116 99 0 0 0 1,317

3 Mission/General Support Office of the Project General 

Manager 4,586 143 434 0 0 0 5,163

2 Indirect Costs 19,496 52,808 22,152 75,352 0 0 169,808

2 Management Reserve - River Corridor Closure 

Contract 2,647 2,691 336 871 894 556 7,995

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - River Corridor 

Closure Contract 0 2,394 45,555 57,032 110,112 65,705 280,798

2 B Reactor 2,454 2,511 2,592 2,641 2,716 2,785 15,699

2 Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure (100-K 

Area Remediation) 6,771 25,593 18,113 20,762 18,536 24,862 114,637

3 100-K Group 2 Remediation 0 8,550 59 0 0 230 8,839

3 100-K Group 1 Remediation 249 0 0 0 0 0 249

3 100-K Area Regulatory Closure Documents 0 166 953 4,821 1,694 0 7,634

3 100-K Group 3 Remediation 1,631 96 106 0 0 0 1,833

3 KW Deactivation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 100-K Area Utilities 1,259 1,256 1,067 0 0 0 3,582

3 100-K Project Management 3,632 8,210 8,407 8,621 8,535 8,128 45,533

3 KE and KW Reactor ISS 0 7,315 7,521 7,320 8,307 7,232 37,695

3 100-K Bioremediation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-61

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-23. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041), Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, 

Escalated). (3 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Nuclear Facility D&D – River Corridor Closure 

(100-K Area Remediation) 0 0 0 0 0 9,272 0 

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0041 8,000 7,368 5,419 5,338 3,841 5,219 35,185

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0041 8,000 7,368 5,419 5,338 3,841 5,219 35,185

Total 329,681 391,958 335,054 332,041 146,684 100,252 1,635,670

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ISS = interim safe storage.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-62

D.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Table D-24. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

FFTF Cleanup Maintain Safe and 

Compliant FFTF 

Complex

Provides for monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of the FFTF while the 

facility is in a cold and dark state pending future D&D activities. 

Transition FFTF 

Complex

Provides for the progressive shutdown of facility support systems, including 

sodium, electrical substations, and cooling systems. 

Disposition FFTF 

Sodium

Includes removal of sodium residuals throughout the life of the project, sodium 

shipment and conversion, and the operation of the Sodium Storage Facility. 

Decommission FFTF 

Complex

While the final closure of the FFTF has not yet been determined, the planning 

assumptions include:

• Demolition of all structures within the 400 Area Protected Area, except for 

reactor containment, to at least three feet below grade followed by backfill 

and revegetation; decommissioning waste would be disposed to appropriate 

disposal facilities.

• Removal and disposition of the above-grade containment dome.

• Grouting of the below grade portion of the reactor containment building and 

the reactor vessel.

• Installation of an engineered barrier over the grouted area.

• Installation of monitoring wells for long term monitoring.

FFTF Project 

Management

Provides for management function in support of the project mission. 

Sodium Reaction 

Facility

Provides for the design, construction, and turnover to operations of a new facility 

in the Hanford 400 Area to convert FFTF sodium for use as caustic feed to the 

Waste Treatment Plant. 

Infrastructure 

and Services

Infrastructure and 

Services

This work scope includes activity related to a DOE-RL direct contract. 

Site-wide 

Services

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of indirect costs for site services and infrastructure, 

adders, and other indirect costs.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

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

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-63

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-25. Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal 

Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

FFTF Cleanup 1,669 1,658 1,700 1,742 1,752 1,770 1,905 1,894 2,821 7,381

Infrastructure and Services 41 41 42 43 43 44 47 47 48 49

Site-wide Services - RL-0042 796 489 521 459 372 381 455 440 801 852 

Total 2,506 2,188 2,263 2,244 2,167 2,195 2,407 2,381 3,670 8,282

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

FFTF Cleanup 13,560 36,156 47,613 49,931 60,332 59,288 61,569 66,087 78,543 62,633 

Infrastructure and Services 51 52 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site-wide Services - RL-0042 1,791 6,372 9,353 10,492 11,582 12,061 10,632 12,293 12,218 12,156

Total 15,402 42,580 57,020 60,423 71,914 71,349 72,201 78,380 90,761 74,789

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Total

FFTF Cleanup 79,749 78,455 89,620 95,348 53,220 4,692 961,088

Infrastructure and Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 602

Site-wide Services - RL-0042 11,504 9,330 11,022 11,567 9,585 2,359 159,883

Total 91,253 87,785 100,642 106,915 62,805 7,051 1,121,573

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-64

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-26. 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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042

2 FFTF Cleanup 1,669 1,658 1,700 1,742 1,752 1,770 10,291

3 Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 1,233 1,225 1,255 1,287 1,294 1,308 7,602

3 Transition FFTF Complex 17 17 18 18 18 18 106

3 Disposition FFTF Sodium 112 111 114 117 118 119 691

3 Decommission FFTF Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 FFTF Project Management 307 305 313 320 322 325 1,892

3 Sodium Reaction Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - FFTF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Infrastructure and Services 41 41 42 43 43 44 254

3 Infrastructure and Services 41 41 42 43 43 44 254

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 796 489 521 459 372 381 3,018

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 796 489 521 459 372 381 3,018

Total 2,506 2,188 2,263 2,244 2,167 2,195 13,563

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-65

D.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS

Scope information for Community and Regulatory Support, PBS RL-0100, is presented in 

Table D-27. This PBS is not broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented; 

however, both near-term and remaining estimated cleanup cost information is provided. 

Table D-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Richland Community 

and Regulatory Support

This work element includes DOE-RL support to community activities and regulatory agencies, 

such as the Hanford Advisory Board, the Oregon Department of Energy, the Natural Resource 

Trustee Council, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and other entities through grants, 

permits, and payment of fees.

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

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-66

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-28. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 20,337 25,898 26,573 25,488 25,548 26,124 26,385 26,649 26,915 27,095

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 27,365 27,639 20,811 20,204 20,406 20,610 20,816 21,024 21,234 21,447

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 21,575 21,791 22,009 22,229 22,347 22,570 21,207 20,877 20,689 20,392

Fiscal Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 20,051 19,855 19,954 20,054 19,671 15,384 15,460 15,538 15,615 15,694

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 Total 

Richland Community and 

Regulatory Support 15,772 15,851 15,930 16,010 16,090 16,170 16,251 16,332 16,126 1,016,062

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-67

D.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 D-29. This 

PBS is not broken down to Level 3 scope, and there are no near-term cost details for this PBS 

due to when the work is planned to begin. 

Table D-29. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Infrastructure The scope includes operation and maintenance of site infrastructure following cleanup activities. 

Specific scope will include supplying electrical and water utilities, operating and maintaining 

emergency services (Hanford Fire Department), and maintaining roads as needed to support site 

LTS activities.

Waste Management Scope includes operation and maintenance of 200 Area liquid effluent facilities in support of 

groundwater treatment and monitoring activities.

Site and Environmental 

Monitoring

Scope includes ongoing site and environmental monitoring of groundwater, soil, and the vadose 

zone, and monitoring for public safety and resource protection. 

Post-Closure 

Surveillance and 

Maintenance

Scope includes real estate and site planning, land management, and surveillance and maintenance 

activities for the 100 and 200 Areas.

Environmental 

Compliance

Scope includes activities to ensure environmental compliance and protection.

Stakeholder 

Participation

Scope includes continued support of stakeholder participation through grants, and payment of fees 

in lieu of taxes. 

Management and 

Administration

Scope provides for management and administration of these LTS activities.

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-68

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages)

Fiscal Year 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070

Infrastructure 28,025 27,262 26,521 25,800 25,098 24,415 23,751 23,104 22,477 21,864

Waste Management 93,717 91,168 88,688 86,276 83,929 81,646 79,425 77,265 75,163 73,119

Site and Environmental Monitoring 56,286 54,755 53,266 51,817 50,408 49,036 47,702 46,405 45,143 43,915

Post-Closure S&M 52,383 50,958 49,572 48,224 46,911 45,636 44,395 43,187 42,013 40,869

Environmental Compliance 4,675 4,548 4,424 4,303 4,186 4,073 3,962 3,854 3,749 3,647

Stakeholder Participation 21,280 20,701 20,138 19,590 19,057 18,539 18,035 17,544 17,067 16,603

Management and Administration 21,609 20,985 20,379 19,792 19,223 18,670 18,134 17,614 17,109 16,620

Total 277,975 270,377 262,988 255,802 248,812 242,015 235,404 228,973 222,721 216,637

Fiscal Year 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080

Infrastructure 21,046 20,259 19,500 18,770 19,221 17,713 16,325 15,045 15,407 15,775

Waste Management 70,381 67,746 65,210 62,768 64,275 59,236 54,592 50,312 51,519 52,756

Site and Environmental Monitoring 42,271 40,688 39,165 37,699 38,603 35,577 32,788 30,217 30,942 31,685

Post-Closure S&M 39,699 38,562 37,458 36,386 35,651 34,421 33,245 32,120 31,450 30,803

Environmental Compliance 3,511 3,379 3,253 3,131 3,206 2,955 2,723 2,510 2,570 2,631

Stakeholder Participation 15,981 15,383 14,807 14,252 14,594 13,450 12,396 11,424 11,698 11,979

Management and Administration 16,021 15,444 14,888 14,353 14,476 13,519 12,633 11,811 11,900 11,999

Total 208,910 201,461 194,281 187,359 190,026 176,871 164,702 153,439 155,486 157,628

Fiscal Year 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090

Infrastructure 16,154 16,542 16,092 16,639 17,372 18,310 19,481 20,923 22,680 24,812

Waste Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site and Environmental Monitoring 32,445 33,224 32,320 33,419 34,889 36,774 39,127 42,023 45,553 49,835

Post-Closure S&M 30,179 29,577 28,772 28,482 28,479 28,758 29,325 30,197 31,397 32,958

Environmental Compliance 2,695 2,759 2,684 2,776 2,898 3,054 3,250 3,490 3,783 4,139

Stakeholder Participation 12,266 12,561 12,219 12,635 13,190 13,903 14,793 15,887 17,222 18,841

Management and Administration 6,703 6,689 6,495 6,545 6,661 6,847 7,107 7,451 7,889 8,437

Total 100,442 101,352 98,582 100,496 103,489 107,646 113,083 119,971 128,524 139,022
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-69

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(2 pages)

Fiscal Year Total

Infrastructure 616,383

Waste Management 1,429,191

Site and Environmental Monitoring 1,237,977

Post-Closure S&M 1,112,067

Environmental Compliance 102,818

Stakeholder Participation 468,035

Management and Administration 398,003

Total 5,364,474

PBS = project baseline summary.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.
DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-70

D.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION

The DOE, Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP) manages their assigned cleanup mission 

through the following PBSs (at Level 1):

• Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition, PBS ORP-0014 

• Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant, PBS ORP-0060. 

Scope information for PBS ORP-0014 and PBS ORP-0060 is presented in Chapter 6.0 of the 

Lifecycle Report. No additional scope is presented here. Near-term and estimated cleanup costs

are presented below.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-71

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Base Operations 254,861 263,931 356,555 366,504 367,605 393,976 380,201 491,668 472,975 445,198

Retrieve and Close SSTs 87,367 88,074 62,587 124,749 238,683 225,082 268,002 218,964 126,326 136,401

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 93,886 115,732 149,250 189,060 188,453 226,248 197,347 189,059 187,686 168,954

Supplemental Treatment 8,379 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 314,010 328,815 30,074 23,061

Treat Waste 6,620 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 195,452 411,621 410,079 406,116

Facility Closures 0 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 0 4,604 6,400 2,579

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 33,808 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 62,353 48,354 45,702 45,055

Total 484,920 516,405 666,578 841,029 1,087,674 1,316,067 1,417,366 1,693,084 1,279,242 1,227,364

Fiscal Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Base Operations 466,041 455,013 470,788 496,480 485,865 508,862 567,468 539,960 567,671 548,172

Retrieve and Close SSTs 108,806 71,703 54,898 115,761 115,140 174,473 297,347 206,817 163,133 208,752

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 166,352 175,096 182,990 161,213 151,475 160,483 166,190 163,649 151,105 145,680

Supplemental Treatment 169,656 171,626 176,101 179,975 183,935 187,981 192,117 195,564 200,663 205,078

Treat Waste 413,095 420,508 431,471 440,964 450,665 460,580 470,712 479,159 491,651 502,468

Facility Closures 2,893 5,985 45,140 7,779 4,728 1,394 1,729 1,336 3,214 2,319

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 45,931 47,175 52,460 49,210 51,056 51,332 54,637 58,005 56,796 55,192

Total 1,372,775 1,347,106 1,413,849 1,451,382 1,442,862 1,545,104 1,750,201 1,644,491 1,634,233 1,667,660

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Base Operations 576,550 582,060 632,972 652,033 648,968 628,511 640,206 646,170 557,148 484,417

Retrieve and Close SSTs 266,322 294,811 418,713 470,008 544,391 458,892 456,142 376,011 216,360 175,960

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 146,634 148,180 150,839 157,589 168,245 177,266 204,992 225,126 238,573 265,977

Supplemental Treatment 210,421 214,200 218,044 222,841 225,396 229,445 234,492 239,651 243,952 250,312

Treat Waste 515,560 524,820 534,237 545,990 562,448 572,550 585,146 598,020 608,751 624,622

Facility Closures 1,882 1,844 2,596 11,213 7,983 11,725 4,113 1,326 747 11,530

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 59,837 60,673 65,146 64,184 69,834 71,263 68,816 73,029 70,324 72,943

Total 1,777,206 1,826,588 2,022,547 2,123,858 2,227,265 2,149,651 2,193,908 2,159,333 1,935,853 1,885,761
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-72

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Total

Base Operations 462,563 447,632 439,638 407,393 300,834 261,134 187,890 93,459 62,485 17,611,857

Retrieve and Close SSTs 181,184 104,817 69,822 104,365 52,641 45,307 18,166 0 0 7,346,981

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 295,917 343,051 335,495 409,323 238,259 194,255 85,757 17,388 757 7,133,528

Supplemental Treatment 255,819 260,935 267,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,308,080

Treat Waste 559,604 544,302 528,167 513,673 488,927 500,693 253,327 0 0 15,238,379

Facility Closures 10,195 15,046 13,392 33,132 83,973 43,314 38,195 11,774 3,253 403,661

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 69,655 73,186 73,232 75,827 16,622 12,602 10,295 4,272 2,850 1,981,882

Total 1,834,937 1,788,968 1,726,957 1,543,712 1,181,257 1,057,304 593,630 126,893 69,345 56,024,368

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

PBS = project baseline summary.

DST = double-shell tank.

SST = single-shell tank.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-73

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition, PBS ORP-0014

2 Base Operations 254,861 263,931 356,555 366,504 367,605 393,976 2,003,432

3 Base Operations 79,473 77,175 80,707 88,836 79,520 77,720 483,431

3 DST Space Management 7,353 7,373 23,956 13,627 10,798 18,442 81,549

3 TOC Facility Operations 25,271 28,104 34,726 41,214 43,054 57,124 229,493

3 Tank Farm Upgrades 6,033 10,339 13,626 10,927 21,278 22,186 84,389

3 Project Support 136,731 140,940 203,540 211,900 212,956 218,504 1,124,571

2 Retrieve and Close SSTs 87,367 88,074 62,587 124,749 238,683 225,082 826,542

3 Retrieval/Closure Program 24,396 39,487 23,367 28,756 38,954 101,760 256,720

3 SST Retrieval East Area 58,359 30,155 28,207 51,314 108,421 90,129 366,585

3 SST Retrieval West Area 0 0 0 0 10,018 6,151 16169

3 Closure Program 1,561 1,110 1,675 806 456 627 6,235

3 SST Closure 3,050 17,322 9,339 43,873 80,834 26,415 180,833

2 Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure 93,886 115,732 149,250 189,060 188,453 226,248 962,629

3 WTP Feed Delivery Program 18,068 17,933 20,575 22,203 23,467 24,669 126,915

3 Construct DST Systems 31,571 47,101 59,979 53,872 41,408 40,057 273,988

3 RA - Transfer System Mod Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 DST Retrieval/Closure East Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 DST Retrieval/Closure West Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Immobilization Program 10,679 24,869 22,978 51,315 32,497 54,628 196,966

3 WTP Operational Readiness 3,618 3,543 4,425 4,122 4,221 4,322 24,251

3 Tank Waste Pretreatment Project 5,110 1,459 27,083 31,145 39,387 52,772 156,956

3 Secondary Waste Treatment/ETF 9,724 6,943 14,209 26,402 47,473 49,799 154,550

3 Next Generation Projects 15,117 13,883 0 0 0 0 29,000

2 Supplemental Treatment 8,379 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 676,707

3 Supplemental Treatment 8,379 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 676,707

2 Treat Waste 6,620 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 193,004
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-74

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Waste Treatment Facility (WTP) 6,620 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 193,004

2 Facility Closures 0 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 6,327

3 TFC Facility and Other Closure 0 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 6,327

2 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 33,808 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 244,034

3 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 33,808 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 244,034

Total 484,920 516,405 666,578 841,029 1,087,674 1,316,067 4,912,673

DST = double-shell tank.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

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

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TOC = Tank Operations Contract. 

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-75

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-33. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Pretreatment 340,112 405,343 303,973 210,179 131,306 100,888 76,461 103,515 5,436 1,677,213 

Low-Activity Waste 76,227 65,851 46,715 33,682 80,325 60,474 31,348 42,382 1,208 438,212 

High-Level Waste 184,701 142,609 147,372 134,006 97,297 64,996 64,624 64,501 18,718 918,824 

Balance of Facilities 36,367 57,932 54,965 80,098 52,759 24,728 12,691 10,507 484 330,531

Laboratory 31,998 17,943 28,416 26,726 39,691 28,184 17,030 18,590 1,345 209,923 

Plant Wide 301,875 287,611 266,486 236,250 179,672 132,785 52,156 1,660 0 1,458,495

Total 971,280 977,289 847,927 720,941 581,050 412,055 254,310 241,155 27,191 5,033,198

PBS = project baseline summary.
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-76

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant, PBS ORP-0060

2 Pretreatment 340,112 405,343 303,973 210,179 131,306 100,889 1,491,802

3 Engineering Design - PT 53,925 36,771 6,542 1,425 480 0 99,143

3 Plant Equipment - PT 108,815 103,908 59,259 13,722 8,976 0 294,680

3 Equipment Engineering - PT 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - PT 1,841 997 2,246 2,544 3,444 2,963 14,035

3 Research and Technology - PT 2,819 2,550 0 0 0 0 5,369

3 Plant Material - PT 19,513 33,794 14,222 0 0 0 67,529

3 Startup - PT 174 181 286 10,982 15,768 0 27,391

3 Construction Field Non Manual - PT 14,761 17,182 16,788 13,079 3,427 0 65,237

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Civil 19,137 16,451 21,521 12,360 3,625 0 73,094

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Distribs 5,581 4,204 3,238 2,680 656 77 16,436

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Electrical 2,980 20,269 16,037 18,336 4,395 0 62,017

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Mechanical 3,486 11,243 13,895 9,517 396 0 38,537

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Piping and 

Instrumentation 32,286 53,433 44,843 31,501 7,464 0 169,527

3 Construction Subcontracts - PT 11,256 11,063 23,909 19,368 3,249 0 68,845

3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - PT 30 223 3,664 1,341 0 0 5,258

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - PT 2,726 2,654 4,782 599 3 0 10,764

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - PT 6,091 13,272 8,473 2,358 0 0 30,194

3 Commissioning - PT 1,000 1,267 5,865 18,664 32,688 57,052 116,536

- Fee 14,531 20,913 16,738 17,279 9,343 18.955 78,823

- Contingency 39,157 54,968 41,665 34,424 37,392 21,894 229,500

2 Low-Activity Waste 76,227 65,851 46,715 33,682 80,325 60,474 363,274 

3 Engineering Design - LAW 3,329 1,383 456 194 19 0 5,381

3 Plant Equipment - LAW 13,718 8,874 3,795 0 20,780 95 47,262

3 Equipment Engineering - LAW 418 14 14 14 15 0 475

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - LAW 694 1,290 1,106 1,043 2,386 2,219 8,738

3 Research and Technology - LAW 424 240 232 239 247 0 1,382

3 Plant Material - LAW 1,604 0 0 0 0 0 1,604

3 Startup - LAW 168 212 2,594 8,345 2,136 0 13,455
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-77

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Construction Field Non Manual - LAW 6,750 6,790 5,926 1,318 115 0 20,899

3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW 24,756 25,786 10,424 0 0 0 60,966

3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW - Distribs 2,124 1,613 1,507 1,082 339 40 6,705

3 Construction Subcontracts - LAW 10,329 10,708 1,443 0 0 0 22,480

3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - LAW 345 142 0 0 0 0 487

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - LAW 1,094 1,057 7 0 0 0 2,158

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - LAW 342 520 129 0 0 0 991

3 Commissioning - LAW 788 954 5,363 11,330 29,573 38,461 86,469

- Fee 5,445 761 8,076 914 3,191 10,114 28,501

- Contingency 3,899 5,507 5,643 9,203 21,524 9,545 55,321

2 High-Level Waste 184,701 142,609 147,372 134,006 97,297 64,996 770,981

3 Engineering Design - HLW 14,434 6,086 1,223 1,235 563 20 23,561

3 Plant Equipment - HLW 44,084 32,557 17,137 12,277 725 4,857 111,637

3 Equipment Engineering - HLW 820 22 4 34 177 89 1,146

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - HLW 578 548 1,584 2,209 3,337 2,523 10,779

3 Research and Technology - HLW 300 335 451 370 252 261 1,969

3 Plant Material - HLW 24,244 0 0 0 0 0 24,244

3 Process Engineering and Flowsheet Modeling - HLW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Startup - HLW 147 153 158 255 11,151 5,560 17,424

3 Construction Field Non Manual - HLW 9,322 11,063 11,138 8,868 3,504 0 43,895

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Civil 26,329 17,486 16,757 10,700 3,154 0 74,426

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Distribs 4,878 2,249 2,229 1,679 549 60 11,644

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Electrical 4,021 6,064 7,497 10,714 7,527 0 35,823

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Mechanical 5,574 9,347 9,612 7,449 2,275 0 34,257

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Piping and 

Instrumentation 6,817 9,632 18,916 18,588 6,387 0 60,340

3 Construction Subcontracts - HLW 2,874 4,242 12,477 15,671 4,835 0 40,099

3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - HLW 2,091 5,391 449 14 0 0 7,945

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - HLW 2,083 3,468 2,913 1,082 0 0 9,546

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - HLW 5,299 5,152 6,723 4,306 2,878 0 24,358

3 Commissioning - HLW 617 661 2,341 8,368 15,456 27,350 54,793
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-78

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

- Fee 19,614 8,245 10,079 6,189 6,177 12,324 62,628

- Contingency 10,575 19,908 25,684 23,998 28,350 11,952 120,467

2 Balance of Facilities 36,367 57,932 54,965 80,098 52,759 24,728 306,849

3 Engineering Design - BOF 6,780 3,345 1,080 466 22 25 11,718

3 Plant Equipment - BOF 5,487 11,603 1,980 18,633 0 0 37,703

3 Equipment Engineering - BOF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - BOF 127 516 432 484 502 432 2,493

3 Plant Material - BOF 555 1,067 539 0 0 0 2,161

3 Startup - BOF 815 10,646 11,310 9,153 5,497 0 37,421

3 Construction Field Non Manual - BOF 3,371 3,755 4,752 5,236 3,000 0 20,114

3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF 4,359 7,901 12,661 12,070 5,265 62 42,318

3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF - Distribs 1,057 1,000 1,054 834 301 26 4,272

3 Construction Subcontracts - BOF 2,406 2,718 5,665 4,184 2,709 144 17,826

3 Commissioning - BOF 4,577 5,747 6,414 13,258 22,122 20,996 73,114

- Fee 3,324 3,559 3,034 3,935 1,902 3,510 19,264

- Contingency 3,509 6,075 6,044 11,845 11,439 -4671 38,445

2 Laboratory 31,998 17,943 28,416 26,726 39,691 28,184 172,958 

3 Engineering Design - Lab 1,557 542 66 50 0 0 2,215

3 Plant Equipment - Lab 912 2,460 6,371 1,671 1,398 0 12,812

3 Equipment Engineering - Lab 394 908 148 0 0 0 1,450

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - Lab 208 1,200 691 792 773 689 4,353

3 Research and Technology - Lab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Plant Material - Lab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Startup - Lab 171 1,056 5,507 643 0 0 7,377

3 Construction Field Non Manual - Lab 2,618 1,706 400 0 0 0 4,724

3 Crafts (Construction) - Lab 8,335 2,653 216 0 0 0 11,204

3 Crafts (Construction) - Lab - Distribs 962 249 249 195 66 7 1,728

3 Construction Subcontracts - Lab 6,527 859 0 0 0 0 7,386

3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - Lab 171 0 0 0 0 0 171

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - Lab 583 0 0 0 0 0 583
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-79

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - Lab 78 30 0 0 0 0 108

3 Commissioning - Lab 1,292 4,442 11,657 19,546 28,499 27,408 92,844

- Fee 6,922 356 879 1,089 1,508 4,678 15,432

- Contingency 1,268 1,482 2,232 2,740 7,447 -4,598 10,571

2 Plant Wide 301,875 287,611 266,486 236,250 179,672 132,785 1,404,679

3 Safety Assurance - General 2,857 2,922 3,033 2,678 2,941 2,916 17,347

3 Procurement & Subcontracts Freight - Plant Wide 4,312 2,635 1,529 403 215 115 9,209

3 Project Controls - General 14,261 10,616 9,030 8,145 7,038 5,082 54,172

3 Engineering Design - Plant Wide 8,308 9,301 4,891 3,105 1,001 409 27,015

3 Engineering Design LOE - Plant Wide 10,018 10,613 5,853 5,300 3,729 3,368 38,881

3 Engineering Management - Plant Wide 7,401 7,052 5,957 3,893 297 260 24,860

3 Equipment Engineering - Plant Wide 17,836 10,424 5,518 2,464 228 175 36,645

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - Plant Wide 4,933 5,422 5,115 6,202 4,970 4,318 30,960

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety LOE - Plant Wide 3,240 3,064 3,068 3,358 3,426 2,581 18,737

3 Material Craft Services - Plant Wide 2,557 2,090 1,625 1,108 120 0 7,500

3 Plant Material - Plant Wide 4,339 5,146 0 0 0 0 9,485

3 Procurement & Subcontracts - Procurement - SS 28,813 18,462 11,875 6,555 3,810 1,516 71,031

3 Quality Assurance - General 9,227 8,372 7,646 7,521 6,534 6,464 45,764

3 Process Engineering and Flowsheet Modeling - Plant 

Wide 3,126 1,067 414 701 302 33 5,643

3 Startup - Plant Wide 757 2,607 4,553 4,642 3,268 605 16,432

3 Shared Services - General 56,082 50,131 48,019 43,266 40,787 33,747 272,032

3 Construction Field Non Manual – Shared Services 32,887 33,464 33,731 33,797 26,366 12,316 172,561

3 Crafts (Construction) - SS - Distribs 33,292 33,991 27,051 17,783 -7,386 -6,961 97,770

3 Construction Subcontracts - Plant Wide 6,737 7,456 5,019 4,412 3,494 0 27,118

3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - Plant Wide 2,591 2,751 2,619 0 0 0 7,961

3 Construction Subcontracts - Shared Services - 

Distribs 9,602 4,453 3,958 3,689 1,230 0 22,932

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - Plant Wide 3,264 3,857 3,489 111 0 0 10,721

3 Bulk Material (Civil) - Plant Wide 5,446 6,267 3,015 135 461 0 15,324

3 Bulk Material (Electrical) - Plant Wide 1,964 3,578 4,449 4,608 2 0 14,601
2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-80

DOE/RL-2011-93, Rev. 0 

Table D-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

Fiscal Year

Total

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3 Bulk Material (Piping & Instrumentation) - Plant 

Wide 13 37 108 19 0 0 177

3 Commissioning - General 24,162 38,077 61,336 68,644 72,948 63,420 328,587

3 Project Operations - General 3,850 3,756 3,585 3,711 3,891 2,421 21,214

-- Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

-- Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 971,280 977,289 847,927 720,941 581,050 412,055 4,510,542

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).