Approved for public release
DOE/RL-2012-13

Rev. 0 

2013 HANFORD LIFECYCLE 

SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST 

REPORT 

Date Published 

December 2012 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

P.O. Box 550, MS A7-75

Richland, Washington 99352

Release Approval

By Janis D. Aardal at 2:33 pm, Dec 14, 2012

 Approved for Public Release;

Further Dissemination Unlimited 
DOE/RL-2012-13 

Rev. 0 

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an 

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States 

Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor 

any of their contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party's use 

or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe 

privately owned rights. 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. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect 

those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced from the best available copy. 

Printed in the United States of America
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 Nations, 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 will do, it is just as important to understand 

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

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 document. This report does not substitute for, nor 

preempt, the cleanup decision processes as set forth in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement 

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

requirements.

Background 

On October 25, 20102, 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. 

The 2011 Lifecycle Report (DOE/RL-2010-25) was the first, and was prepared and submitted to 

EPA and Ecology on July 21, 2011. The 2012 Lifecycle Report (DOE/RL-2011-93) was 

submitted to EPA and Ecology on January 17, 2012. 

The 2013 Lifecycle Report information reflects scope, schedule and cost status that is current as 

of August 31, 2012, and the costs shown have been escalated for inflation. Changes that have 

occurred after this date are noted in Section 1.7 and will be incorporated into future reports. 

Public Involvement Process

The TPA agencies will make the 2013 Lifecycle Report available to all interested parties on the 

DOE website at www.hanford.gov. Feedback regarding the 2013 Lifecycle Report will be 

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

 

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.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-2 

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, 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) 2013 to FY 2070, and LTS extends

through FY 2090. Although the time period evaluated in this report ends at 2090, LTS extends 

longer because some waste sites and disposal facilities will have caps that require maintenance

and institutional controls beyond that date. DOE plans on having a presence at Hanford well 

beyond FY 2090. 

This report presents DOE-RL and DOE-ORP configuration controlled planning cases. 

The DOE-ORP planning case is the same as that presented in the 2012 Lifecycle Report. 

The Hanford remaining estimated cleanup costs total approximately $114.8 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., final cleanup decisions, TPA milestone changes or 

infrastructure modernization to support major projects). 

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

in prior reports for selected future cleanup actions. These are summarized in Appendix A, 

Table A-5. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ES-3 

Figure ES-1. Hanford Site Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year (includes both DOE-RL and DOE-ORP). 

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

2013 2020 2027 2034 2041 2048 2055 2062 2069 2076 2083 2090

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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) $0.5 - $0.8

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

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $9.5 - $9.8

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $3.6

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $7.7 - $8.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $14.8 - $18.8

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) $2.6 - $2.7

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.4

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

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

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $55.5

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $4.1

Hanford Site Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $102.1 - $107.5

Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS)2 $5.4

Final Reactor Disposition2 $1.9

DOE-Office of Environmental Management Total Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs $109.4 - $114.8

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

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

D&D= decontamination and decommissioning.

DOE= U.S. Department of Energy.

NM = nuclear materials.

ORP= Office of River Protection.

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 information about 

cleanup alternatives and cost estimates for selected future cleanup actions. For the 2013 

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

decisions are still needed (see Table 1-4). Based on agency values and interests of affected 

stakeholders and Tribal Nations, the TPA agencies selected the cleanup actions to be analyzed 

for this report. A proposed schedule for analyzing remaining cleanup actions is provided in 

Appendix A, Table A-6. 

For the 2013 Lifecycle Report, the TPA agencies determined that cleanup actions associated with 

four Central Plateau source operable units should be evaluated. Table 1-5 and Section 5.7 of this 

Lifecycle Report provide additional details about the four cleanup actions and the basis of 

estimate approach used. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 ........................................ 1-8

1.5 LIFECYCLE REPORT MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS .............................. 1-10

1.6 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN 

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

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

1.7.1 Incorporated Changes ............................................................................ 1-16

1.7.2 Future Report Changes .......................................................................... 1-18

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

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

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

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

2.2 SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST DEFINITION FOR HANFORD SITE 

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

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

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

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

3.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST .......................................... 3-5

3.4 SCOPE AND COSTS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO CLEANUP ............... 3-5

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

4.1 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041) .................................................................................. 4-2

4.2 SNF STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION (PBS RL-0012) ......................... 4-9

4.3 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION .................................................................. 4-13

4.4 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) ......................................................................................... 5-8

5.3 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD

(PBS RL-0040) .................................................................................................. 5-22
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

ii

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

(PBS RL-0042) .................................................................................................. 5-24

5.5 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) ................................................................................................ 5-30

5.6 CENTRAL PLATEAU ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ............... 5-36

5.7 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-CW-1, 

200-CW-3, 200-OA-1 AND 200-WA-1 OPERABLE UNITS COST 

ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ...................................................... 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

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

7.3.1 Infrastructure and Services, HAMMER, and Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects ................................................................................... 7-6

7.3.2 Site-wide Services .................................................................................... 7-7

7.4 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) .............................................. 7-11

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 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. ................................................................................................. 3-5

Figure 3-3. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ......................................... 3-6

Figure 3-4. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Costs by Project Baseline Summary. ................. 3-7

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. ................................................................................. 4-4

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. .............................................. 4-7

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ......................................... 4-8

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

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ................................................................................. 4-9

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

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................... 4-11

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

Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................... 4-12

Figure 4-9. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ..................................... 4-13

Figure 4-10. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal 

Year. ....................................................................................................................... 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
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

iv

Figure 5-6. Overview of Hanford Site Groundwater Remedial Actions. ................................. 5-19

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................ 5-20

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ....................................... 5-21

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

Schedule. ................................................................................................................ 5-23

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

Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................................................... 5-25

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

Cleanup Costs by Work Element. .......................................................................... 5-26

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

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-27

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year. .......................................................... 5-28

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

Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. ..................................................... 5-29

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

Remaining Cleanup Schedule. ............................................................................... 5-31

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. ............................................ 5-34

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

Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. ....................................... 5-35

Figure 5-18. Location of the Central Plateau Waste Sites Included in the Alternative 

Analysis. ................................................................................................................. 5-39

Figure 5-19. ET Capillary and ET Monofill Barrier Layers. .................................................... 5-48

Figure 5-20. Estimated Costs for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable Unit 

Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis by Operable Unit and by 

Planning Case Cleanup Remedy. ........................................................................... 5-50

Figure 5-21. Estimated Costs for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable Unit 

Waste Sites Included in Alternative Analysis by Location/Implementation 

Area. ....................................................................................................................... 5-51

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
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

v 

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 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. ............................ 7-12

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

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

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

Work Element. ........................................................................................................ 7-14
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

vi

TABLES

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

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

Table 1-2. Cleanup Goals Identified for the Hanford Site.1 (2 pages) ....................................... 1-7

Table 1-3. Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-036-01. ............................................................ 1-11

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

Been Made. ............................................................................................................. 1-15

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

Alternative Analyses in 2013 Lifecycle Report. .................................................... 1-16

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. ..................................................................................................................... 2-5

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. DOE’s Time-Phased Cleanup Priorities for Hanford Site Cleanup 

Completion. 1

 ............................................................................................................ 3-4

Table 3-3. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Cost Estimates by PBS. ....................................... 3-8

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

Table 4-2. Reactor Status (2 pages). ........................................................................................... 4-3

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

2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) .................................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-4. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....... 4-10

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

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. (2 pages) ............................................. 5-16

Table 5-5. Central Plateau Soil Operable Unit Remediation. (2 pages) .................................. 5-17

Table 5-6. Summary of Deep Vadose Zone Treatment Technologies Being Tested. .............. 5-18

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 5-23

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. ........................................................................................ 5-27
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

vii

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

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages) ....................................................................... 5-32

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-

WA-1 Operable Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternatives Analysis. (6 

pages) ...................................................................................................................... 5-40

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

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

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

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

Table 7-4. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....................... 7-12
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

viii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

ix

TERMS

ABAR aggregate barrier

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled 

CSB Canister Storage Building 

CSNA confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup action 

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 

ET evapotranspiration 

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)

IBAR individual barrier 

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

LM Legacy Management

LTS long-term stewardship
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

x 

MESC/MNA/IC maintain existing soil cover/monitored natural 

attenuation/institutional controls

MLLW mixed low-level waste

MNA monitored natural attenuation

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NM nuclear materials

NRDAR Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

O&M operations and maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PBS project baseline summary

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 

UPR unplanned release 

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy 

WBS work breakdown structure 

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility

WIDS Waste Information Data System

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WMA waste management area

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility)

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 2013. 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) 2013 to FY 2090. The 2013 Lifecycle Report information 

reflects scope, schedule and cost that is current as of August 31, 2012, and the costs shown have 

been escalated for inflation. Changes that have occurred after this cutoff date are noted in 

Section 1.7 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 in the following sections. 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-2 

1.2.1 Tribal Involvement 

Four Tribal Nations are involved in the Hanford Site cleanup: 

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

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

Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla, 1855. 

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

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

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

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

Hanford lands, and participates in discussions regarding Hanford cleanup. 

Representatives from the Tribal Nations work in a government-to-government relationship with 

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

DOE consults with the Tribal Nations 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 

Hanford Site. 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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).
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 2010, 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 Nations, 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, as well as more than 250 advice letters issued by the HAB

(http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab). These goals help guide all aspects of Hanford Site 

cleanup. Cleanup activities at various areas of the site support the achievement of one or more of 

these goals. These goals help set priorities to apply resources and sequence cleanup efforts for 

the greatest benefit. 

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

people and ecology of the Pacific Northwest. The 50-mile stretch of the river 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 the culture of Native Americans. 

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

Goals for Cleanup

Goal 1: Protect the Columbia River.

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

River.

Goal 3:

Clean up River Corridor waste sites and facilities to:

• Protect groundwater and the Columbia River.

• Shrink the active cleanup footprint to the Central Plateau. 

• Support anticipated future land uses.

Goal 4:

Clean up Central Plateau waste sites and facilities to:

• Protect groundwater and the Columbia River. 

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

• Support anticipated future land uses.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-8 

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

 (2 pages)

Goals for Cleanup

Goal 5:

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

• Safely store tank waste until it is retrieved for treatment

• Safely and effectively immobilize tank waste

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

Goal 6: 

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

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

high-level waste.

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

Goal 8: 

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

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

cleanup activities are completed.

1

 DOE/RL-2009-10, 2012, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Draft Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

1.4.2 Hanford Site Cleanup and Management Areas

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

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

area. 

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

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

600 Areas, and the contiguous lands that extend to the Central Plateau boundaries. This includes 

a considerable land area not directly affected by production operations (non-operational areas). 

The 100 Area contains nine retired plutonium production reactors, numerous support facilities, 

solid and liquid waste disposal sites that have contaminated groundwater and soil. The 

300 Area, located north of the city of Richland, contains fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear 

research and development facilities, and associated solid and liquid waste disposal sites that have 

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

was never used for locating production operations. The non-operational areas are adjacent to the 

100 and 300 Areas and extend to the Central Plateau. 

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

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

groundwater prior to its discharging into the Columbia River. In those instances where remedial 

action objectives are not achievable in a reasonable time frame, or are determined to be 

technically impracticable, programs will be implemented to limit contaminant migration and

prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater. River Corridor cleanup work also relocates 

sources of contamination, which are close to the Columbia River, to the Central Plateau for final 

disposal. The intent is to shrink the footprint of active cleanup to within the 75-square-mile area 

of the Central Plateau by removing excess facilities and remediating waste sites. Cleanup 

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

Monument, where applicable, and the Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0222-F).
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-9 

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

groundwater remedy decisions. These decisions will provide comprehensive coverage for all 

areas within the River Corridor and will incorporate ongoing interim action cleanup activities. 

Cleanup levels will be achieved that support the anticipated land uses of conservation and 

preservation for most of this area and industrial use for the 300 Area. At the conclusion of 

cleanup actions, the federal government will retain ownership of most land in the River Corridor 

and will implement long-term stewardship activities to ensure protection of human health and the 

environment. 

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

Hanford Site, which includes the Inner Area (~10 square miles) and the Outer Area (~65 square 

miles). The Inner Area contains the major nuclear fuel processing, waste management, and 

disposal facilities. The Inner Area will be dedicated to long-term waste management and 

containment of residual contamination. The Outer Area is that portion of the Central Plateau 

outside the boundary of the Inner Area. The Outer Area will be remediated to be protective of 

human health and the environment and the groundwater. Cleanup levels will support future 

reasonably anticipated land uses. Cleanup of the Outer Area is planned to be completed in the 

2016 to 2020 time period as funding allows. Completing cleanup of the Outer Area will shrink 

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

remaining. 

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

sites, surplus facilities, active treatment and disposal facilities, and areas of deep soil 

contamination. Past discharges of more than 450 billion gallons of liquid waste and cooling 

water to the soil have resulted in about 74 square miles of contaminated groundwater. Today, 

some plumes extend far beyond the plateau. Containing and remediating these plumes remains a 

high priority. For areas of groundwater contamination in the Central Plateau, the goal is to 

restore the aquifer to achieve drinking water standards. In those instances where remediation 

goals are not achievable in a reasonable time frame, programs will be implemented to contain the 

plumes, prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater, and evaluate further risk reduction 

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

plume migration until remediation goals are achieved.

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

will remain, both in surface disposal facilities and in subsurface media within portions of the 

Inner Area. DOE’s goal is to minimize the area used for long-term waste management activities 

that require institutional controls to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

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 Inner Area of the Central Plateau. The storage 

tanks range in capacity from about 55,000 to 1,250,000 gallons and contain approximately 

56 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. In some areas, releases from some SST

farms have reached groundwater. DOE expects these impacts to groundwater could increase in 

the future unless near-term actions are taken. Today, actions are being taken to slow the 

movement of those contaminants that were previously released. DOE is also containing and 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-10

recovering those contaminants once they reach groundwater. A key step in reducing the risk that 

tank waste poses to human health and the environment is to retrieve as much waste from SSTs as 

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

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

tank waste facilities, including additional underground tanks, waste transfer lines, the 

242-A Evaporator, and the WTP (under construction) are associated with the Tank Waste 

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

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

Hanford Reach National Monument (Figure 1-2). Much cleanup work has been accomplished 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hanford Site and are not included in the Lifecycle Report. 

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

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

DOE Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP).

3

 DOE-RL manages cleanup of most of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-11

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-12

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.” 

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 will 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”), if available in time to be included in the 

report.

For example, the 2013 Lifecycle Report will be submitted on or before January 31, 2013 (about 

4 months after FY 2013 begins), will take into account what cleanup actions were performed 

using the FY 2012 authorized budget (covering the period from October 1, 2011 to 

September 30, 2012), and the cleanup actions planned based on the approved planning case for 

the remaining lifecycle.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-13

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. If Congressional appropriations do not match assumed future funding then work 

schedule shifts will be shown in future Lifecycle Reports. 

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

based upon assumed future funding limitations and the practical limits of 

project acceleration when developing an executable plan.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental obligations (such as security costs) but shall clearly 

distinguish expenditures for environmental obligations from other 

expenditures.” 

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

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

materials, employee insurance premiums and pension benefits. 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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-14

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

defined with less detailed cost estimates.

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

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

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

such a reasonable upper bound.” 

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

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

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

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

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

cleanup activity.” 

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

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

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

the particular cleanup action.

1.6 CLEANUP DECISIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN 

LIFECYCLE REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

selected cleanup actions in legally binding records. 

In portions of the cleanup, the 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 or a basis of existing estimates. 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? 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-15

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. 

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

River Corridor Cleanup Actions

• Disposition N Reactor.

• Disposition 100 Area K West Basin.

• Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites. 

• Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

• Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

• Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

• Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU to Beneficial 

Use.

• 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.

• Disposition 100 Area former Orchard 

Contaminated Soil Sites (100-OL-1 OU)

Central Plateau Cleanup Actions

• Disposition Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 OU). 

• Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated 

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

OUs). 

• Disposition Below-Grade Portions of Plutonium 

Finishing Plant. 

• Disposition B Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CB-1 OU). 

• Disposition PUREX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CP-1 OU). 

• Disposition PUREX Storage Tunnels (200-CP-1 

OU). 

• Disposition REDOX Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites (200-CR-1 OU). 

• Disposition T Plant Canyon Building/Associated 

Waste Sites. 

• Disposition Cesium/Strontium Capsules. 

• Remediate 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-UP-1 OU) to 

Beneficial Use.

• Restore 200 East Groundwater 

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

Tank Waste Cleanup Actions

• Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm 

Closure. 

• Tank Waste Treatment. 

• Secondary Waste Treatment.

• Double-Shell Tank Closure.

• Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

Closure. 

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

OU = operable unit.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant).
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-16

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 Nations, 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 39 cleanup actions for which final cleanup decisions are still 

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

alternative analyses for these cleanup actions. 

For the 2013 Lifecycle Report, cost estimate alternative analyses have been presented for waste 

sites in four Central Plateau operable units. Table 1-5 lists the cleanup actions for which cost 

estimate information has been provided in this Lifecycle Report. 

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

in 2013 Lifecycle Report.

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

• Remediate Remaining Outer Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 

200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units)

• Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 

Operable Unit)

Because the U.S. Department of Energy planning case range 

of alternatives for these Central Plateau operable unit waste 

sites includes remove, treat and dispose as a significant 

component of the cleanup actions, the Tri-Party agencies 

agreed to document the basis of estimate and key 

assumptions. Cost estimate alternative analysis information 

is presented in Section 5.7 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 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

1.7.1 Incorporated Changes

Written feedback related to the 2011 Lifecycle Report, received from EPA, Ecology, Oregon, the 

HAB, and the public was considered when preparing this report. In addition, written feedback 

related to the 2012 Lifecycle Report received from Ecology, EPA and the public was considered 

when preparing this report. 

The TPA agencies reviewed and considered all feedback received on both reports and reached

agreement on changes that should be incorporated into the 2013 Lifecycle Report. The agencies 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

1-17

discussed ways to address “what-if” scenarios to explore alternate funding and scope priorities in 

addition to using information provided in the Lifecycle Report. 

The comments received on the 2011 and 2012 Lifecycle Reports are available on the DOE 

website at www.hanford.gov. 

Significant changes made in this Lifecycle Report include the following:

1. Updated cost and schedule planning basis for each PBS to incorporate updated scope, 

regulatory changes, and contract changes so this information reflects the DOE-RL and 

DOE-ORP configuration-controlled planning cases that are current as of August 31, 

2012. 

2. Updated cleanup costs in Table ES-1, which clarify Hanford Site and DOE-EM costs.

3. Incorporation of the Hanford Site cleanup completion approach presented in Hanford 

Site Cleanup Completion Framework (DOE/RL-2009-10) in Section 1.4. 

4. Added explanation of cost and/or schedule uncertainty and evaluation of project risk to 

Chapter 2.0 and Appendix D. 

5. Added information regarding final reactor disposition removal to Table ES-1, 

Table 3-3, and new Section 4.3. 

6. Added assumptions to Section 4.4 that Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 

Restoration (NRDAR) studies and litigation will not significantly affect cost or 

schedule at this time. The report does not include scope or cost for activities to resolve 

any NRDAR liability at this time.

7. Clarified that pump-and-treat remedy durations in Table 5-4 are estimates based on 

previous experience and modeling.

8. Added new Section 5.7 to present the cost estimate alternative analysis and the basis of 

estimate approach used in the 2013 Lifecycle Report which captures DOE’s planning 

case remedies for the 200-CW-1, 200-CW-3, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 OU waste sites

in the Central Plateau. 

9. Clarified that “secondary waste treatment” is part of the waste feed delivery/treatment 

planning/DST retrieval/closure work element in Chapter 6.0. 

10. Provided enhanced discussion of assumptions regarding temporary onsite storage of 

high-level vitrified waste in Chapter 6.0. 

11. Revised Section 7.3 to clarify the scope, schedule and cost of Site-wide Services.

12. Revised Section 7.4 Long-Term Stewardship (LTS) to clarify that LTS has started and 

how it will continue under PBS-LTS.

13. Revised Table A-3 to remove “thermal generation of electricity/steam” from the range 

of plausible alternatives for the cesium/strontium capsules. The TPA agencies agreed 

that this is not a cleanup alternative.

14. Revised Table D-12 to clarify that the Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit costs and 

schedule (at this time) are limited to investigation and preparation of regulatory 

decision documents. As the scope of this work element matures, future reports will be 

updated to reflect any changes.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

1-18

1.7.2 Future Report Changes 

The scope, schedule and cost information presented in the 2013 Lifecycle Report is current as of 

August 31, 2012. This section summarizes regulatory decisions and other changes that have 

occurred after the August 31 cutoff date, as well as other pending changes that are not reflected 

in this Lifecycle Report, but will be incorporated in future reports. 

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

The DOE-ORP planning case is the same as that presented in the 2012 Lifecycle Report. 

Any future changes to the planning cases will be incorporated in future reports. 

2. The TPA agencies have discussed revisions to various TPA milestone due dates. The 

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

report. They will be shown in future reports after they have been officially accepted and 

formalized.

3. The TPA agencies established a new operable unit (100-OL-1) in May 2012 to address 

former orchard lands soil contamination in the 100 Areas. This cleanup action has been 

added to Table 1-4 and Table A-6, but the range of plausible alternatives has not been 

developed in Appendix A, Table A-2. 

4. Regulatory decision documents are nearing completion for several River Corridor 

cleanup actions (e.g., 100-K Area, 300 Area) and a record of decision (ROD) for the 

Central Plateau groundwater cleanup action (e.g., 200-UP-1) was issued in September 

2012. The scope, schedule and costs of these decisions will be included in future 

Lifecycle Reports.

5. The Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0391, was issued as a final document in 

December 2012, and DOE will issue a ROD. The scope, schedule and costs associated 

with any decisions provided in the ROD will be included in future Lifecycle Reports. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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.

Uncertainty and Project Risk. Risk management is an essential function of project 

management. Cost and schedule uncertainty are included in the development of the Total Project 

Cost and the approved DOE planning case and are reserved to accommodate additional work 

scope related to risk events that may stem from conditions and events that were not known 

during project planning, and other unanticipated changes or uncertainties. Information provided 

in this Lifecycle Report includes estimates for both cost and schedule uncertainty based on risk 

analysis methods that comply with DOE guidelines and orders. These estimates are identified as 

“cost and/or schedule uncertainty” in the Appendix D tables. 

Uncertainty addresses both cost-based and schedule-based impacts on a project. Cost 

uncertainty is the portion of the project budget that is available for risk uncertainty related to the 

project, but is held outside the contract budget and is part of the government’s planning case 

estimate. Schedule uncertainty is the risk-based, quantitatively derived portion of the overall 

project schedule duration that is estimated to allow for the time-related risk impacts and other 

time-related project uncertainties. 

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

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

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

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

used for work that is outside of the scope of the planning case. 

Uncertainty is calculated based upon DOE risks, which are contained in a centralized risk 

register for each project. The risks are derived from various sources including project team 

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

and are utilized in the calculation of cost uncertainty. 

To identify the required amount of uncertainty, a quantitative risk analysis (using a Monte Carlo 

methodology) is performed using the project schedule, complete with the costs of each work 

activity and applying risks and uncertainty to the schedule. The analysis utilizes stochastic 

modeling to develop a probability distribution and calculate the cost and/or schedule uncertainty 

requirements for the project.

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-4 

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. 

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

PBS Final Reactor Disposition

ORP-0014 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

ORP-0060 Major Construction–Waste Treatment Plant

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

NM = nuclear materials.

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

Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

2-5 

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.

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

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

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

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

Level 2 041.03 Field Remediation Closure

Level 3 041.03.02 Field Remediation – 100 D Area

Level 4 041.03.02.02 Field Remediation – 100-DR-1 

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

Level 6 

 041.03.02.02.06.01 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-32

 041.03.02.02.06.02 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-33

 041.03.02.02.06.04 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-41

 041.03.02.02.06.05 Remediate Burial Ground – 100-D-45

 041.03.02.02.06.06 Remediate Burial Ground – 126-D-2 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

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

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

for the remaining 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). 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

2-6 

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 support cost for the entire 

lifecycle (see Section 7.3). 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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). Includes 

105-KW SNF Basin deactivation 

and removal work scope which 

was shifted from RL-0012 in FY 

2012.

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. 

River 

Corridor 

(Section 4.3)

None None Final Reactor Disposition Disposition of the 100 Area 

production reactors (excluding 

the B Reactor).

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 Sitewide Services

Cleanup of the Central Plateau 

waste sites and facilities, 

including canyon facilities. 

Management, repair, and capital 

upgrades to infrastructure and 

other site-wide services. 

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 2 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.

2 See Section 7.3.2 for the current ongoing LTS program.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

LTS = long-term stewardship. 

NM = nuclear materials.

PBS = project baseline summary.

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

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 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 2019, Final Reactor Disposition complete by FY 2068, Tank Waste 

Cleanup complete by FY 2050, and Central Plateau Cleanup complete by FY 2070. 

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

site-wide services, and LTS. These Mission Support activities align with the cleanup through 

FY 2070. DOE-RL has planned for an LTS period that runs from FY 2060 through FY 2090 as 

part of Mission Support. 

DOE’s cleanup priorities for each of the three primary Hanford Site cleanup components are 

summarized for several time periods in Table 3-2. Because all cleanup work cannot be done at 

the same time, a high priority is placed on activities that provide the greatest benefit to the 

environment and public health (e.g., cleanup of waste sites and groundwater close to the 

Columbia River) and activities that, once they are completed, will free funds for additional 

cleanup (e.g., removal of the Plutonium Finishing Plant [PFP] Complex).

Figure 3-1. Hanford Site Remaining Cleanup Schedule.

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

River Corridor Cleanup

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Long-Term Stewardship*

Final Reactor Disposition

* See Section 7.3.2 for the current Long-Term Stewardship program.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-4 

Table 3-2. DOE’s Time-Phased Cleanup Priorities for Hanford Site Cleanup Completion. 1 

1 From DOE/RL-2009-10. Most of these activities support achievement of a TPA milestone. More detailed scope and schedules are provided in Chapters 4.0 

through 7.0 The FFTF is discussed in Section 5.4.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

3-5 

3.3 HANFORD SITE ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST

The DOE remaining cleanup costs are estimated to be about $114.8 billion to complete the scope 

for the River Corridor, Final Reactor Disposition, Central Plateau, Tank Waste, Mission Support 

activities, and LTS. DOE-RL scope accounts for about $55.2 billion, or about 48 percent of the 

total costs. DOE-ORP scope accounts for about $59.6 billion, or about 52 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.

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 3-3 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.

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 

$55.2 

billion

DOE-ORP

 $59.6 

 billion

Total Remaining

Cost Estimate

FY 2013 - FY 2090

$114.8 billion
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-6 

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

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

2013 2020 2027 2034 2041 2048 2055 2062 2069 2076 2083 2090

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

DOE-RL Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year DOE-ORP Remaining Cleanup Costs by Year
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-7 

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

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

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year

NFD&D = Nuclear Facility D&D

I&S = Infrastructure and Services

NFD&D = Nuclear Facility D&D

I&S = Infrastructure and Services

See Appendix D for cost and schedule data.

NFD&D = Nuclear Facility D&D

I&S = Infrastructure and Services

See Appendix D for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

3-8 

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

Project Work Scope

Estimated Cleanup 

Costs

1

(Billion $)

DOE-RL Total Remaining Estimated Costs $49.8 - $55.2

NM Stabilization and Disposition – PFP (PBS RL-0011) $0.5 - $0.8

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

Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition - 200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) $9.5 - $9.8

Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) $3.6

Soil and Water Remediation - Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) $7.7 - $8.3

Nuclear Facility D&D - Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) $14.8 - $18.8

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) $2.6 - $2.7

Nuclear Facility D&D - River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) $1.4

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

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

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

Final Reactor Disposition $1.9

DOE-ORP Total Remaining Estimated Costs $59.6

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) $55.5

Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) $4.1

Total Remaining Estimated Costs $109.4 - $114.8

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.

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. 

For purposes of this 2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 operating facilities, Fuels and 

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

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

debris sites.

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

remedial activities (excluding final reactor disposition) may extend until FY 2024. 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 has 

been transferred to PBS RL-0041. Section 4.2 discusses the scope of this project. 

Although it is currently not considered to be a project, Final Reactor Disposition will address 

cleanup of the 100 Area surplus production reactors. Section 4.3 discusses the scope of this 

activity.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 12/31/20121

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. 12/31/20202 

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. 12/31/20121

M-016-69 Complete all interim 300 Area remedial actions (300-FF-2 OU waste sites). 09/30/2015

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-089-00 Closure of non-permitted mixed waste units in 324 Building Radiochemical 

Engineering Cells B and D. 09/30/20121

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-093-22 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. 09/30/20151

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

M-016-178 Initiate Deactivation of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/20152

M-016-181 Complete Deactivation, Demolition and Removal of 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 09/30/20192

M-016-186 Initiate Soil Remediation Under 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/20192

SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012)

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

sludge treatment and packaging milestones. 03/31/20152 

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. 09/30/20142

M-016-176 Complete sludge removal from 105-KW Fuel Storage Basin. 12/31/20152

1 In dispute resolution.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

ISS = interim safe storage.

KOP = knock-out pot.

2 At risk.

OU = operable unit.

PBS = project baseline summary.

TBD = to be determined.

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-3 

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. This is an accelerated schedule which 

complies with TPA Milestone M-16-00B (Table 4-1).

Figure 4-1. C Reactor Before Interim Safe 

Storage.

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

Table 4-2. Reactor Status (2 pages). 

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.

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-4 

Table 4-2. Reactor Status (2 pages). 

Reactor Status (as of August 2012) Remaining Activity

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

ISS = interim safe storage.

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. 

PRC River Zone Environmental

Reactor ISS Closure

Field Remediation Closure

Waste Operations

End State/Final Closure

Mission/General Support

D4 Closure

B Reactor

FY2013 FY2015 FY2017 FY2019

See Appendix D Tables D-22 and D-23 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-5 

Table 4-3. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Level 2 Scope Summary. 

(2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

Plateau 

Remediation 

Contract River 

Zone 

Environmental

This work element includes work remaining to complete the 100-K Area remediation 

including the demolition of the K East Basin, disposition of the K East Reactor, and the D4 

of support structures. In the K West Basin, near-term deactivation includes the removal of 

containerized sludge and any found scrap/scrap fuel, and finally the removal of the fuel 

basin (conducted under PBS RL-0012).

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), hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, chemicals), and industrial hazards 

(e.g., elevated working locations, degraded roofs, biological hazards, electrical hazards, 

excavations).

The D4 process includes obtaining regulatory approvals; characterizing 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 (in most cases), the reactor blocks will be removed from their current locations 

and transported to the 200 Area for disposal (see Section 4.3). 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 (liquid waste disposal facilities, burial grounds, burn pits, 

disposal pits, unplanned release sites, and contaminated pipelines) within the River Corridor. 

This includes confirmatory sampling, remediation design, RTD activities, verification 

sampling, and closure documentation. The RODs for the Field Remediation Closure work 

scope generally identify RTD as the preferred alternative. (RODs are identified in 

Appendix C.) In addition to RTD, sites were identified that require confirmatory 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 metals, hexavalent chromium, petroleum related 

compounds, strontium, uranium, and cesium. The cleanup process involves sampling and 

analyzing the site to determine the extent and type of contamination, excavating 

contaminated waste materials, and restoring the landscape through 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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

End State/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 documenting completion of interim remedial actions for each geographic area; 

conducting closure reviews; preparing a remedial investigation/feasibility study and 

proposed plan for six River Corridor source and groundwater areas; and preparing transition 

turnover packages for the six geographic areas for transition to the Hanford Long-Term 

Stewardship Program. 

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.

Site Infrastructure 

& 

Utility/Logistics 

& Transportation 

(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.

Site-wide 

Services 

(RL-0041)

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 7.3.2 

for details.

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. 
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-7 

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

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

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-8 

Figure 4-5. Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-22 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-9 

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. 

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. Once 

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

handed off to another project (PBS RL-0013C, Solid Waste Stabilization and 

Disposition–200 Area) for final disposition to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) or 

other disposal facilities.

• 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 work scope for SNF Stabilization and Disposition Project (PBS RL-0012) is organized into 

the work elements 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. 

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).

Program Management

Facility Operations

Sludge Disposition

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

K Basins O&M

Sludge Treatment Project

See Appendix D Tables D-5 and D-6 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-10

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

Work Element Scope Description

Program 

Management

This work element provides for project management for the 100-K Area work activities.

K Basins Operations 

and Maintenance

This work element includes dose data gathering and analysis; sampling and 

characterization of both radioactive and hazardous waste to maintain compliance within 

the 105-KW Basin (note that 105-KE Basin already has been demolished); and basic 

plant maintenance and general duties 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. 

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, 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.

Sludge Disposition

This work element includes design, procurement, fabrication, installation, testing, 

startup, operation, deactivation, and decontamination of the equipment necessary to treat 

and package the sludge for ultimate disposition at WIPP. This material is K East and 

K West Basins floor sludge and settler tube sludge currently stored in engineered 

containers. The stabilization and packaging of sludge for offsite disposal is part of the 

K Basins CERCLA Interim Remedial Action. Treatment processes and system 

requirements will be developed through the project definition and conceptual design 

phase. 

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0012

Includes proportional share of costs for site-wide services and infrastructure. See 

Section 7.3.2 for details.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-11

Figure 4-7. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

2013

2014

2015

2016

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-12

Figure 4-8. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-5 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-13

4.3 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION

Final Reactor Disposition will address cleanup of the 100 Area surplus production reactors in 

accordance with TPA Milestone M-093-00 (Table 4-1). Disposition of the 100 Area reactors 

(except for B Reactor which has been recommended to Congress for inclusion in a Manhattan 

Project National Historic Park) was one of the cost estimate alternative analyses evaluated in the 

2011 Lifecycle Report (DOE/RL-2010-25).

Currently six of the reactors (C, D, DR, F, H, and N) have been placed in ISS configuration 

(Table 4-2). The KE Reactor is undergoing ISS and the KW Reactor is scheduled to complete 

ISS by FY 2019. After being placed in ISS, the reactors will undergo surveillance, monitoring, 

and maintenance for a period of up to 75 years, to allow radionuclides to decay. Following this 

period, the reactor blocks will be removed from their current locations and transported to the 

Central Plateau Inner Area for disposal. The 2011 Lifecycle Report identified the most plausible 

alternative for the reactors as safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal. This 

alternative was developed and evaluated in a final environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(DOE/EIS-0119F) and in a subsequent engineering evaluation (DOE/RL-2005-45, Surplus 

Reactor Final Disposition Engineering Evaluation). In September 1993, DOE issued 58 FR 

48509, Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, which implements the recommendation for safe storage 

followed by deferred one-piece removal of the surplus reactors. N Reactor was not included in 

the EIS because it was not available for decommissioning at the time of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) EIS and ISS was approved through the CERCLA 

process. Final disposition of N Reactor will be determined by a subsequent NEPA or CERCLA 

decision process. In the planning case presented in this report, N Reactor is assumed to undergo 

safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal.

Figure 4-9 presents the remaining cleanup schedule and Figure 4-10 provides the remaining 

estimated costs by fiscal year. The schedule is based on a 14-year implementation period for the 

one-piece removal work and completion of reactor removal by FY 2068 based on the ROD issue 

date of 1993 and a maximum 75-year storage period; therefore, reactor removal must start by 

FY 2054. The estimated $1.9 billion to complete Final Reactor Disposition by FY 2068 is the 

escalated $676 million removal cost (in 2010 constant dollars) presented in Table 4-5 of the 2011 

Lifecycle Report. 

Figure 4-9. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Cleanup Schedule.

Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Cleanup Schedule 

After undergoing surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance for a period of up to 75 years to allow radionuclidesto 

decay, the reactor blocks will be removed from their current locations and transported to the Central Plateau Inner 

Area for disposal.

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

FY2054 FY2056 FY2058 FY2060 FY2062 FY2064 FY2066 FY2068

Final Reactor Disposition

See Appendix D Table D-32 for cost and schedule data.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-14

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

Figure 4-10. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2054

2056

2058

2060

2062

2064

2066

2068

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

4-15

4.4 RIVER CORRIDOR CLEANUP ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

In planning for the Hanford Site lifecycle, there are uncertainties that are analyzed to estimate 

potential scope, schedule and cost changes. The following assumptions 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 impact costs or schedules.

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operating facilities will need to be 

available to support Office of Science missions. 

• The NRDAR and risk assessment litigation brought by the Yakama Nation will not 

significantly affect cost or schedule.

• The Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council activities, including studies and NRDAR 

and restoration process will not significantly affect cost or schedule. 

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 interim sludge storage and no pretreatment for the sludge is 

needed before transfer. Subsequent treatment and packaging of the sludge will be done by 

work scope in PBS RL-0013C. 

• Post-CERCLA ROD treatability studies and focused feasibility studies will not affect the 

sludge treatment process.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

4-16

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 74 square miles that exceeds drinking water standards (DOE/RL-2011-118, 

Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2011). A significant portion of the 

contamination remains in the soil column above the water table and poses a potential threat to 

groundwater. Interim and final groundwater treatment is in place for contaminant plumes in the 

200 West Area and in several locations in the 100 Areas. The ROD for the large carbon 

tetrachloride plume in the 200 West Area (200-ZP-1 OU) was signed in 2008 (EPA 2008, 

Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington) 

and operation of the expanded 200 West Pump-and-Treat Facility began in FY 2012. The ROD 

for plutonium- and cesium-contaminated soil sites (200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5 OUs) was 

signed in FY 2011 (EPA 2011, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-CW-5 

and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units). 

The Central Plateau cleanup is organized into the following three principal components 

(DOE/RL-2009-10):

• Inner Area – that footprint of the Central Plateau that will be dedicated to long-term 

waste management and containment of residual contamination and will remain under 

federal ownership and control for as long as a potential hazard exists. The Inner Area 

contains the majority of Hanford’s active waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. 

The Inner Area also includes hundreds of waste sites, surplus facilities, many miles of 

buried pipelines, tank farms, and large canyon facilities. Cleanup of the Inner Area will 

make this footprint as small as practical.

• Outer Area – defined as all areas of the Central Plateau beyond the boundary of the Inner 

Area. It is DOE’s intent to clean up the Outer Area to a level comparable to the River 

Corridor (i.e., suitable for unrestricted surface use under continued Federal ownership 

and control and consistent with DOE’s anticipated future land use of 

conservation/mining). Contaminated soil and debris removed as part of Outer Area 

cleanup will be placed within the Inner Area for final disposal. Completion of cleanup 

for the approximately 65-square-mile Outer Area will shrink the active footprint of 

cleanup for the Central Plateau to the Inner Area.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-2 

• Groundwater and Deep Vadose Zone Remediation – DOE’s goal is to restore Central 

Plateau groundwater to its beneficial uses (Table 1-2, Goal 2), unless restoration is 

determined to be technically impracticable. An important element of groundwater 

protection and remediation is to develop and implement ways to protect groundwater 

from continuing influx of contaminants from the deep vadose zone. 

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. Cleanup of the Central Plateau is in the early phases of the regulatory 

decision process; however, 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 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

Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford 

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Nuclear Facility D&D-FFTF Project

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-3 

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP, PBS RL-0011

M-083-44 

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. 

09/30/20151 

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. 03/31/2013 

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

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
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-4 

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

Milestone Description Compliance Date

M-091-01A

Complete the conceptual design for acquisition of capabilities and/or 

acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing facilities, 

and/or modification of planned facilities necessary for retrieval, 

designation, storage, and treatment/processing prior to disposal of all 

Hanford Site RH TRUM waste and TRUM waste in large containers

(in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable 

storage). In addition, submit a milestone change package (based on 

the conceptual design) for annual construction milestones for the 

planned facilities necessary for retrieval, storage, and treatment / 

processing of all Hanford Site RH TRUM waste and large container 

CH TRUM waste.

09/30/2016

M-091-01B

Complete the definitive design for acquisition of capabilities and/or 

acquisition of new facilities, modification of existing facilities, 

and/or modification of planned facilities necessary for retrieval, 

designation, storage, and treatment/processing prior to disposal of all 

Hanford Site RH TRUM waste and TRUM waste in large containers

(in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in retrievable 

storage). In addition, submit a milestone change package 

documenting any substantial variations, based on the definitive 

design, from annual construction milestones finalized pursuant to M091-01A.

09/30/2018

M-091-40 Complete the retrieval and designation of CH retrievably stored 

waste in burial grounds 218-W-4B, 218-W-3A, and 218-E-12B. 09/30/2016

M-091-41 Complete retrieval and designation of RH retrievably stored waste

(regardless of package size, including the 200 Area caissons). 12/31/2018

M-091-41A Complete retrieval of non-caisson RH, retrievably stored waste. 09/30/20161

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.

09/30/20171 

M-091-43 

Complete the treatment of large container CH MLLW and RH

MLLW (in aboveground storage as of June 30, 2009 and in 

retrievable storage) to applicable LDR treatment standards in 

compliance with WAC 173-303-140.

09/30/20171 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-5 

Table 5-1. Central Plateau Cleanup Key Tri-Party Agreement Milestones. (3 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-015-95 Submit RI/FS work plan for the 100-OL-1 OU to EPA and Ecology 04/30/2013

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-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. 04/30/2013 

1 At Risk.

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.

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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-6 

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

The 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 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. 

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. PFP facility transition is planned to be complete in 

FY 2016 per TPA Milestone M-083-00A (Table 5-1). Cost and/or schedule uncertainty extends 

the schedule beyond FY 2016. 

Table 5-2 provides a summary of the scope of each of these work elements. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-7 

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

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 maintains 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.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0011

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 

7.3.2 for details.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NM = nuclear material.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

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. 

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

See Appendix D Tables D-2 and D-3 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-8 

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. 

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 date 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. 
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-9 

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-2 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-11

The major chemical contaminants present in Hanford Site groundwater include carbon 

tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, cyanide, nitrate, and trichloroethene. Major radioactive 

contaminants include iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium. Other 

groundwater contaminants that exceed drinking water standards in several Hanford Site areas but 

are of limited extent include fluoride, metals (arsenic, nickel), volatile organic compounds 

(benzo(a)pyrene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, methylene chloride), and radioactive contaminants 

(carbon-14, cesium-137, gross alpha, gross beta) (DOE/RL-2011-118).

The Groundwater Project has three major objectives (DOE/RL-2002-59, Hanford Site 

Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation): 

• Take actions necessary to prevent degradation of the groundwater. 

• Remediate groundwater to restore it to beneficial use where practicable and to protect the 

Columbia River. 

• Monitor groundwater to identify emerging problems and guide the remediation process. 

To be successful, the Groundwater Project needs to obtain sufficient characterization data, 

evaluate performance of early actions, and develop remedial action objectives. The Hanford Site 

is divided into 10 groundwater OUs. Groundwater monitoring activities are also required by the

Atomic Energy Act, CERCLA, and the Draft Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit (Site-Wide 

Permit), Revision 9 (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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-12

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. 

An active pump-and-treat system put in place in the 200-ZP-1 OU under an interim ROD

was replaced by a new larger pump-and-treat system in FY 2012 to 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 and ROD. 

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. 

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; through FY 2065 this work is part of PBS RL-0030 and after that it 

transfers to PBS-LTS).
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-13

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. 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).

*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

See Appendix D Tables D-13 and D-14 for cost and schedule data.

FY2013 FY2017 FY2021 FY2025 FY2029 FY2033 FY2037 FY2041 FY2045 FY2049 FY2053 FY2057 FY2061 FY2065

Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration

Integration and Assessments

Integrated Field Work

Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments

Groundwater Operable Units Decision Documents and Remediation*

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit

Drilling

Project Management
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-14

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.

Drilling

This work element includes planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling and 

well decommissioning for Hanford Site wells according to project-specific requirements. 

This includes drilling wells to Washington State standards and preparing all required 

submittals and notifications required by State law and providing well-related information 

for Hanford Site databases. Aspects of drilling include technical coordination, 

procurement, labor, subcontracts, materials, and equipment for project planning; 

documentation; field support during drilling; and project closeout to support drilling 

wells for groundwater monitoring and optimization of groundwater treatment systems.

Project Management

This work element includes program management oversight; business management and 

integration; project control and integration; engineering and maintenance; environmental, 

safety, health and quality; and technical support.

Integrated Field 

Work

This work element includes services, infrastructure, material, equipment, labor, and 

contracts that are used to plan, support, and perform field work. It includes non-OU

related well maintenance, monitoring, and reporting. Major elements include operations 

and maintenance, training, field equipment purchases, unanticipated field work, and 

maintenance, monitoring, and reporting for wells that are not aligned with a specific OU. 

Groundwater 

Monitoring and 

Performance 

Assessments

This work element includes:

• Operation, maintenance, sampling, and dismantlement of the Modutanks that are 

used for disposal of groundwater from 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 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 and 

Closure Integration

This work element includes planning, management, characterization, documentation, and 

other associated activities necessary to complete the remedial decision process for each 

closure zone, including closure plans for RCRA TSD sites. Specific activities include 

RI/FSs, proposed plans, closure plans, engineering evaluation/cost analyses, DQOs, 

sampling and analysis plans, RODs, and other documents and activities leading to 

remedial decisions and remediation planning. Following completion of assessment 

activities through decision documentation (e.g., ROD or closure plan), completion of the 

remedial design/remedial action work plan and waste site/facility remediation and/or 

closure will be addressed under Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford 

(PBS RL-0040). The reorganization of Central Plateau OUs resulting from the 

October 2010 TPA changes to Central Plateau Cleanup is summarized in Table 5-5.

Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests 

This work element involves conducting the deep vadose zone treatability test(s) in 

accordance with the Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central 

Plateau (DOE/RL-2007-56), conducting cross-cutting engineering and technical studies 

necessary to support decision-making for Central Plateau remediation of the Deep 

Vadose Zone OU, and evaluating tradeoffs associated with remedial action decisions. 

The initial work phase focuses on conducting laboratory work and numerical modeling to 

address uncertainties associated with the technology and employing the technology in the 

deep vadose zone. The second phase involves the design and implementation of 

treatability testing in the field at carefully selected locations using one or more 

technologies depending on the success of the initial testing. Technologies to be tested 

include desiccation, in situ gaseous reduction, multi-step geochemical manipulation, 

grout injection, soil flushing and surface barriers as described in Table 5-6.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 

OU

This work element addresses mitigation of the contamination present at the Hanford Site 

in the deep vadose zone. The initial actions planned for this OU are field studies and 

deployment activities and 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; 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.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0030

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 7.3.2

for details.

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.

Table 5-4. Groundwater Operable Unit Remediation. (2 pages)

Groundwater 

Operable Unit Current Remedial Action Planning Assumption Remedial Action

Estimated Period of 

Remediation1

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
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-17

Table 5-4. Groundwater Operable Unit Remediation. (2 pages)

Groundwater 

Operable Unit Current Remedial Action Planning Assumption Remedial Action

Estimated Period of 

Remediation1

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-12 Soil vapor extraction Soil vapor extraction Through FY 2043

300-FF-5 Monitoring and 

institutional controls

Install polyphosphate 

barrier Through FY 2024

1

Estimates based on previous experience with interim record of decision remedial actions and groundwater 

modeling, and exclude subsequent long-term monitoring under PBS RL-0030 or PBS RL-LTS. 2

200-PW-1 is a source operable unit above the 200-ZP-1 groundwater operable unit.

Table 5-5. Central Plateau Soil Operable Unit Remediation. (2 pages)

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-18

Table 5-5. Central Plateau Soil Operable Unit Remediation. (2 pages)

New Operable Units (October 2010) Changes to Previous Operable Units

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). 

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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-19

Figure 5-6. Overview of Hanford Site Groundwater Remedial Actions.

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-20

Figure 5-7. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 2033 2037 2041 2045 2049 2053 2057 2061 2065

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-21

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-8. Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-13 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-22

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, 

pipelines, and miscellaneous sites (e.g., debris piles), and utilities to ensure appropriate 

protectiveness has been provided for the cleanup. 

To accomplish the Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040), the following major 

objectives have been established:

• Perform safe S&M of facilities and waste sites pending remediation. 

• Integrate planning and execution activities with other Central Plateau projects. 

• Remediate waste sites. 

• 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-23

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 

and Closure 

Integration

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.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0040

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 7.3.2

for details.

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 and Closure Integration 

Zone Environmental Remediation 

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 

See Appendix D Tables D-16 and D-17 for cost and schedule data.

FY2013 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040 FY2045 FY2050 FY2055 FY2060 FY2065 FY2070
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-24

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. 

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 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. 
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-25

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-10. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$150

$300

$450

$600

$750

$900

2013 2019 2025 2031

2037

2043

2049

2055

2061

2067

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0B 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-26

Figure 5-11. Central Plateau Remediation Project (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-16 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-27

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.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0040

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 7.3.2

for details.

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. 

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 will be based on the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement and a record of decision.

FFTF Cleanup

Infrastructure Services

FY2010 FY2015 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

See Appendix D Tables D-25 and D-26 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-28

Figure 5-13. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Estimated Costs by Fiscal Year.

$0

$40

$80

$120

$160

2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-29

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-14. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Remaining Estimated Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-25 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-30

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. This could 

include seeking land disposal restrictions variance approvals, expanding commercial 

treatment facilities permit limits and construction and operation of additional onsite 

treatment capabilities.

• Obtain processing capabilities to 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. 

• Stored underground TRU waste will be retrieved and disposed. 

• 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. 

• Low-Level Burial Grounds (including the mixed waste trenches) will be closed and 

transferred to Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) for final 

disposition and remedial action. 

• ERDF will be operated to provide solid waste treatment and disposal services in support 

of Hanford Site cleanup after completion of the Nuclear Facility D&D–River Corridor 

Closure Project (PBS RL-0041). 

• IDF will be closed according to the closure plan requirements in the Dangerous Waste 

Permit (WA7890008967). Closure will follow completion of tank waste vitrification.

• Operate liquid waste retention/transfer facilities to support the Office of Science mission 

in the 300 Area. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-31

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. 

FY2013 FY2017 FY2021 FY2025 FY2029 FY2041 FY2049 FY2053 FY2065

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.

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF)

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)

Project Management

Capsule Storage and Disposition

Canister Storage Building (CSB)

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment

TRU Repackaging

T-Plant

Central Waste Complex (CWC)

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches

TRU Disposition

Sludge Disposition

Liquid Effluent Facilities

TRU Retrieval

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP)

Solid Waste Base Operations

See Appendix D Tables D-8 and D-9 for cost and schedule data.

SNF Disposition

FY2033 FY2037 FY2045 FY2057 FY2061
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-32

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 

Disposition

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

including alternative methods for treatment and disposal of orphan waste. 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 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. 

TRU Repackaging

This work element provides funding for WIPP production, TRU repacking operations at 

T Plant and WRAP (or a commercial facility), TRU program support for repackaging, 

and RH/large packaging capabilities.

Waste Receiving and 

Processing (WRAP) 

Facility 

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. From FY 2019 to FY 2049 DOE-ORP will operate these facilities as part of 

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/Double-Shell Tank Retrieval/Closure under 

PBS ORP-0014.

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.

Solid Waste Base 

Operations

This work element provides for the minimum staffing to maintain a viable waste 

management program and to capture those waste support activities that are essentially 

fixed cost in nature. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

TRU Disposition

This work element provides funding and resources for the TRU Program’s coordination 

with the Central Characterization Project (CCP) to certify TRU waste according to the 

WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria. This work element also provides funding to perform 

Hanford WIPP closeout activities, TRU waste characterization activities at the direction 

or guidance of the CCP and to establish shipping capabilities for RH TRU waste and 

additional CH TRU waste shipping capabilities.

SNF Disposition

This work element includes design and construction of a Fuel Preparation Facility, 

turnover of the facility to operations, and level of effort support to the DOE Office of 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program 

activities.

Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches

This work element includes operation of the mixed waste disposal trenches and the 

design, construction, and other activities necessary to add operational layers in the 

trenches to maintain their ready-to-serve status and to place temporary caps on the 

trenches.

Sludge Disposition

The scope includes activities to stabilize and package the sludge from the 105-KW Basin 

for final disposition to WIPP or other disposal facilities, including Phase 2 treatment and 

packaging shutdown and deactivation of needed equipment, and management and 

support.

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0013C

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 7.3.2

for details.

CCP = Central Characterization Project.

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. 

LERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility.

LLW = low-level waste.

MLLW = mixed low-level waste.

PBS = project baseline summary.

RH = remote handled.

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-34

Figure 5-16. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Fiscal Year. 

$0

$150

$300

$450

$600

$750

2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 2033 2037 2041 2045 2049 2053 2057 2061 2065

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-35

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

Figure 5-17. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Remaining Estimated Cleanup Costs by Work Element. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-8 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-36

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. 

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. 

• 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 (ABAR) will be utilized. The 

ABARs are assumed to cover canyons or other large facilities and adjacent waste sites or 

to cover multiple adjacent waste sites. 

• Removal excavations are assumed to be 15 feet below grade for planning and estimating 

purposes. Decision documents will identify the actual removal excavation criteria (soil 

cleanup level or excavation depth) for waste sites. 

For Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042), the following 

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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-37

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. Current planning has shipping of TRU waste 

until FY 2030.

5.7 CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP ACTION - REMEDIATE 200-CW-1, 200-CW3, 200-OA-1 AND 200-WA-1 OPERABLE UNITS COST ESTIMATE 

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

This section provides more in-depth information about selected Central Plateau cleanup actions 

for which final decisions have not yet been made. Section 1.6 discusses the overall process for 

identifying cleanup actions, defining the range of plausible alternatives, and preparing reasonable 

upper bound cost estimates. Appendix A describes remaining cleanup actions for the Hanford 

Site, including others associated with the Central Plateau. The TPA agencies determined that the 

2013 Lifecycle Report should analyze the Central Plateau cleanup actions identified in 

Appendix A, Table A-3 as: Remediate Remaining Outer Area Contaminated Soil Sites 

(200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units) and Remediate Remaining 200 West 

Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 Operable Unit) (DOE/RL-2010-49). 

The 200-CW-1 Operable Unit waste sites consist primarily of large-area cooling-water ponds 

and ditches that are primarily located in the geographic Outer Area around the perimeter of the 

200 Areas. The cooling-water ponds tend to be shallow waste sites that received large volumes 

of steam condensate, cooling water, and chemical sewer waste.

The 200-CW-3 Operable Unit includes 16 remaining waste sites located in the 200 North Area of 

the Outer Area that were included in the interim action ROD for the 100 and 200 Area remaining 

sites (EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) and Hanford 100-Area (USDOE) 

EPA ID: WA1890090078 and WA3890090076, OU(s) 15 & 27, Benton County, WA, 

07/15/1999). Four of the waste sites were cleaned up in calendar year 2007 while the remaining 

12 were addressed between 2009 and 2011. The 200-CW-3 Operable Unit Interim Remedial 

Action Report (DOE/RL-2011-58) documents completion of the remedial action, including costs 

and achievement of interim action remedial action objectives, so the 200-CW-3 Operable Unit 

waste sites were excluded from this alternative analysis.

The 200-OA-1 Operable Unit was created in 2010 as part of the geographic closure goals on the 

Central Plateau in accordance with TPA Change Number C-09-07. The 200-OA-1 Operable 

Unit contains waste sites located in the geographic Outer Area that were not assigned to the 

200-CW-1 or 200-CW-3 Operable Units. This operable unit includes sites that received liquid 

wastes from the PUREX Plant, T, S, and B Plants as well as waste sites that were not associated 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-38

directly with the nuclear weapons production byproducts or waste streams but supported past 

military, industrial, infrastructure, and support functions. 

The 200-WA-1 Operable Unit also was created in 2010 as part of the geographic closure goals 

on the Central Plateau in accordance with TPA Change Number C-09-07. The 200-WA-1 

Operable Unit contains waste sites located within the 200 West Inner Area of the Central 

Plateau. This operable unit contains many different types of waste sites including cribs, dumping 

areas, French Drains, injection/reverse wells, septic tanks, trenches, and unplanned releases.

Waste sites assigned to the 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable Units in the Waste 

Information Data System (WIDS) database as of May 23, 2012, were included in the analysis. 

Interim actions have previously been approved for selected waste sites in the 200-OA-1 and 

200-WA-1 Operable Units that were previously assigned to the 200-MG-1 and 200-MG-2 

Operable Units (e.g., DOE/RL-2009-37, DOE/RL-2009-53, TPA-CN-390). Waste sites with a 

completed interim action were excluded from the analysis. In addition, waste sites with the 

following classification or reclassification status in WIDS were also excluded from the analysis:

• Interim closed out – Due to actions taken, a waste management unit meets cleanup 

standards specified in an interim action ROD or action memorandum, but for which a 

final ROD has not been issued. 

• Closed out – Due to actions taken, a waste management unit meets applicable cleanup 

standards or closure requirements. 

• Not accepted (proposed) – A temporary classification indicating a WIDS site has been 

recommended to be classified as 'Not Accepted', but the review process has not been 

completed. Sites that are ‘Not Accepted’ indicate an assessment has been made that a 

WIDS site is not a waste management unit and is not within the scope of Tri Party 

Agreement Action Plan, Section 3.1 - this classification requires lead regulatory agency 

review.

• No action – A site does not require any further remedial action under RCRA Corrective 

Action, CERCLA, or other cleanup standards based on an assessment of quantitative data 

collected for the site.

• Rejected – A site does not require remediation under RCRA Corrective Action, 

CERCLA, or other cleanup standards based on qualitative information such as a review 

of historical records, photographs, drawings, walkdowns, ground penetrating radar scans, 

and shallow test pits.

Of the remaining 190 waste sites in this analysis, cleanup has been partially completed at one 

waste site in the 200-OA-1 Operable Unit. During August 2009 through July 2011, 

approximately 483,000 tons of contaminated soil was removed from a 140-acre area of waste site 

UPR-200-E-83, also known as the BC Controlled Area, at a cost of approximately $34.5 million 

(DOE/RL-2011-101). Only the remaining estimated cleanup cost for this waste site is included in 

this analysis. Figure 5-18 shows the location of the waste sites included in the alternative 

analysis. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-39

Figure 5-18. Location of the Central Plateau Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. 

The CERCLA remedial investigation/feasibility study process is not complete for these operable 

units. To support development of a range of plausible alternatives and describe a reasonable 

upper bound cleanup alternative, the TPA agencies participated in working sessions in 2010 and 

2011. The range of cleanup alternatives identified at that time for these operable units includes 

remove, treat and dispose (RTD), monitored natural attenuation (MNA), and capping with longterm monitoring and institutional controls (see Appendix A, Table A-3). In subsequent 

meetings, the TPA agencies considered that a range of cleanup alternatives with a significant 

RTD component would describe the reasonable upper bound alternative for these operable unit 

waste sites. Because the DOE planning case includes a significant RTD component, the TPA 

agencies agreed that this alternative analysis would document the DOE planning case range of 

alternatives, costs and schedule for cleanup of the waste sites in these operable units. 

The DOE planning case cleanup remedies were developed to be protective of human health and 

the environment based on information for each waste site such as physical dimensions, historic 

use, and a conceptual model of the nature and extent of contamination. For many of these waste 

sites the conceptual contaminant model is shallow or readily addressed contamination, making 

them candidates for an RTD cleanup remedy in keeping with the preference for RTD presented 

in HAB Consensus Advice #173, “Central Plateau Values.” In addition to RTD, the DOE 

planning case cleanup remedies include maintain existing soil cover/monitored natural 

attenuation/institutional controls (MESC/MNA/IC), confirmatory sampling to support no further 

cleanup action is needed (CSNA), and individual barriers (IBAR) (or caps) over waste sites or 

aggregate barriers (ABAR) over processing facilities and nearby waste sites or groups of waste 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-40

sites. The DOE planning case cleanup remedies for these operable unit waste sites are 

summarized in Table 5-10. 

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. (6 pages)

Waste Site Code Waste Site Type Operable 

Unit

Location / 

Implementation 

Area

DOE Planning Case 

Cleanup Remedy

216-A-25 Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC & RTD

216-B-3 Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC

216-B-3A RAD Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area CSNA

216-B-3B RAD Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area CSNA

216-B-3C RAD Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area CSNA

216-S-16P Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area IBAR

216-S-17 Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area ABAR

216-U-10 Pond 200-CW-1 Outer Area ABAR

216-U-11 Ditch 200-CW-1 Outer Area IBAR

216-U-9 Ditch 200-CW-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC

UPR-200-W-124 Unplanned Release 200-CW-1 Outer Area ABAR

200 CP Depression/Pit (nonspecific) 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

200-E-1 Dumping Area 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

200-E-126-PL-A Radioactive Process Sewer 200-OA-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC

200-E-127-PL-A Radioactive Process Sewer 200-OA-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC

200-E-2 Unplanned Release 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

200-E-46 Dumping Area 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

200-E-7 Septic Tank 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

200-W ADB Coal Ash Pit 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

200-W BP Burn Pit 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

200-W-102-PL Radioactive Process Sewer 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

200-W-3 Dumping Area 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

200-W-64 Foundation 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

216-B-3-1 Ditch 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

216-B-3-2 Ditch 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

216-B-3-3 Ditch 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

216-N-8 Pond 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

216-S-10D Ditch 200-OA-1 BOIA 200W MESC/MNA/IC

216-S-10P Pond 200-OA-1 Outer Area ABAR

216-S-11 Pond 200-OA-1 Outer Area ABAR

216-S-16D Ditch 200-OA-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC

216-T-1 Ditch 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

216-W-LWC Crib 200-OA-1 Outer Area IBAR

2607-W1 Septic Tank 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-41

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. (6 pages)

Waste Site Code Waste Site Type Operable 

Unit

Location /

Implementation 

Area

DOE Planning Case 

Cleanup Remedy

2607-WL Septic Tank 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

600 OCL Sanitary Landfill 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

600-227 Foundation 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

600-66 Dumping Area 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

600-71 Burn Pit 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

CTFN 2703-E Drain/Tile Field 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

OCSA Foundation 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

UPR-200-E-11 Unplanned Release 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

UPR-200-E-83 Contamination Migration 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

UPR-200-W-58 Unplanned Release 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

UPR-200-W-70 Unplanned Release 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

UPR-200-W-8 Unplanned Release 200-OA-1 Outer Area CSNA

UPR-600-12 Unplanned Release 200-OA-1 Outer Area MESC/MNA/IC

UPR-600-20 Contamination Migration 200-OA-1 Outer Area RTD

200-W-1 Mud Pit 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

200-W-101 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 Redox CSNA

200-W-106 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-11 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

200-W-118 Injection/Reverse Well 200-WA-1 U Plant CSNA

200-W-12 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-14 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

200-W-2 Spoils Pile/Berm 200-WA-1 Redox CSNA

200-W-21 Pump Station 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

200-W-22 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

200-W-42 Radioactive Process Sewer 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

200-W-51 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

200-W-53 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W MESC/MNA/IC

200-W-54 Contamination Migration 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W ABAR

200-W-55 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

200-W-6 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-63 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-67 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-71 Trench 200-WA-1 U Plant CSNA

200-W-75 Experiment/Test Site 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

200-W-77 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

200-W-80 Spoils Pile/Berm 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

200-W-81 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1

200 West 

Landfill 1 RTD
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-42

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. (6 pages)

Waste Site Code Waste Site Type Operable 

Unit

Location /

Implementation 

Area

DOE Planning Case 

Cleanup Remedy

200-W-82 Product Piping 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-83 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

200-W-85 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

200-W-86 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant MESC/MNA/IC

200-W-87 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

200-W-89 Foundation 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

200-W-9 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 T Plant ABAR

200-W-90 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 

200 West 

Landfill 1 ABAR

200-W-92 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

207-S Retention Basin 200-WA-1 Redox IBAR

207-SL Retention Basin 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

207-T Retention Basin 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

207-U Retention Basin 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

207-Z Retention Basin 200-WA-1 PFP CSNA

216-S-1&2 Crib 200-WA-1 Redox IBAR

216-S-12 Trench 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

216-S-14 Trench 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-S-18 Trench 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

216-S-20 Crib 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

216-S-22 Crib 200-WA-1 Redox CSNA

216-S-23 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W IBAR

216-S-25 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W IBAR

216-S-4 French Drain 200-WA-1 Outer Area CSNA

216-S-5 Crib 200-WA-1 Outer Area ABAR

216-S-6 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W ABAR

216-S-7 Crib 200-WA-1 Redox IBAR

216-S-8 Trench 200-WA-1 Redox CSNA

216-SX-2 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-T-10 Trench 200-WA-1 T Plant CSNA

216-T-11 Trench 200-WA-1 T Plant CSNA

216-T-12 Trench 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-T-13 Trench 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

216-T-2 Injection/Reverse Well 200-WA-1 T Plant MESC/MNA/IC

216-T-20 Trench 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-T-27 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W ABAR

216-T-28 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W ABAR

216-T-29 French Drain 200-WA-1 T Plant ABAR
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-43

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. (6 pages)

Waste Site Code Waste Site Type Operable 

Unit

Location /

Implementation 

Area

DOE Planning Case 

Cleanup Remedy

216-T-31 French Drain 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

216-T-33 Crib 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

216-T-34 Crib 200-WA-1 T Plant IBAR

216-T-35 Crib 200-WA-1 T Plant IBAR

216-T-36 Crib 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-T-4-1D Ditch 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-T-8 Crib 200-WA-1 T Plant IBAR

216-T-9 Trench 200-WA-1 T Plant CSNA

216-U-1&2 Crib 200-WA-1 U Plant IBAR

216-U-12 Crib 200-WA-1 U Plant IBAR

216-U-13 Trench 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W ABAR

216-U-14 Ditch 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W MESC/MNA/IC

216-U-15 Trench 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

216-U-16 Crib 200-WA-1 U Plant MESC/MNA/IC

216-U-17 Crib 200-WA-1 U Plant MESC/MNA/IC

216-U-3 French Drain 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

216-U-4 Injection/Reverse Well 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

216-U-4A French Drain 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

216-U-4B French Drain 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

216-U-5 Trench 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

216-U-6 Trench 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

216-U-7 French Drain 200-WA-1 U Plant ABAR

216-U-8 Crib 200-WA-1 U Plant IBAR

216-Z-13 French Drain 200-WA-1 PFP CSNA

216-Z-14 French Drain 200-WA-1 PFP CSNA

216-Z-15 French Drain 200-WA-1 PFP ABAR

216-Z-16 Crib 200-WA-1 PFP IBAR

216-Z-17 Trench 200-WA-1 PFP ABAR

216-Z-4 Trench 200-WA-1 PFP RTD

216-Z-6 Crib 200-WA-1 PFP RTD

216-Z-7 Crib 200-WA-1 PFP ABAR

218-W-8 Burial Vault 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

218-W-9 Burial Ground 200-WA-1 Redox IBAR

231-W-151 Receiving Vault 200-WA-1 PFP RTD

241-T-361 Settling Tank 200-WA-1 T Plant IBAR

241-U-361 Settling Tank 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

2607-W3 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-44

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. (6 pages)

Waste Site Code Waste Site Type Operable 

Unit

Location /

Implementation 

Area

DOE Planning Case 

Cleanup Remedy

2607-W4 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

2607-W5 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 U Plant MESC/MNA/IC

2607-W6 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

2607-W7 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 U Plant CSNA

2607-W8 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 PFP CSNA

2607-W9 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

2607-WC Septic Tank 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

2607-WZ Septic Tank 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

2607-Z Septic Tank 200-WA-1 PFP CSNA

2607-Z1 Septic Tank 200-WA-1 PFP CSNA

270-W Neutralization Tank 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

600-70 Dumping Area 200-WA-1 ERDF CSNA

UPR-200-W-101 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant CSNA

UPR-200-W-103 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 PFP ABAR

UPR-200-W-111 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

UPR-200-W-112 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

UPR-200-W-116 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

UPR-200-W-117 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-118 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant ABAR

UPR-200-W-138 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-14 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

UPR-200-W-162 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant ABAR

UPR-200-W-165 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

UPR-200-W-166 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

UPR-200-W-19 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant MESC/MNA/IC

UPR-200-W-23 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 PFP RTD

UPR-200-W-3 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-33 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD & ABAR

UPR-200-W-36 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 Redox CSNA

UPR-200-W-39 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-4 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-41 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

UPR-200-W-44 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

UPR-200-W-46 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 Redox RTD

UPR-200-W-48 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-51 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 S-SX Farm CSNA

UPR-200-W-55 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant ABAR
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-45

Table 5-10. DOE Planning Case Cleanup Remedies for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit Waste Sites Included in the Alternative Analysis. (6 pages)

Waste Site Code Waste Site Type Operable 

Unit

Location /

Implementation 

Area

DOE Planning Case 

Cleanup Remedy

UPR-200-W-60 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-63 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W CSNA

UPR-200-W-65 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-67 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 T Plant CSNA

UPR-200-W-71 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1

200 West 

Landfill 1 ABAR

UPR-200-W-73 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 T Plant RTD

UPR-200-W-78 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 U Plant ABAR

UPR-200-W-99 Unplanned Release 200-WA-1 BOIA 200W RTD

ABAR = aggregate barrier. 

BOIA 200W = Balance of Inner Area 200 West. 

CSNA = confirmatory sampling no action. 

IBAR = individual barrier. 

MESC/MNA/IC = maintain existing soil cover/monitored natural attenuation/institutional controls. 

OCSA = Old Central Shop Area.

RTD = remove, treat, dispose. 

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant. 

Redox = Reduction-Oxidation Facility. 

UPR = Unplanned release.

The specific cleanup actions to be taken for closing each waste site will be determined through 

the regulatory decision process and as part of remedial design activities. The DOE planning case 

cleanup remedies for each waste site were also developed based on the following assumptions. 

• Closure of waste sites located adjacent to a processing facility or underground tank will 

occur as part of implementation of closure actions performed on those closure elements. 

• The waste sites will be closed through implementation of one, or a combination of, the 

following actions: 

− RTD— Remove, treat, and dispose is assumed for waste sites where the 

contamination is expected to be shallow or readily addressed, or where remedial 

investigations are expected to indicate that sufficient radioactive material and/or 

hazardous chemical contamination is present and removal will be needed to protect 

the groundwater or the environment. 

− MESC/MNA/IC— Maintain existing soil cover/monitored natural 

attenuation/institutional controls is assumed for waste sites that may contain 

concentrations of radioactive material contamination and/or hazardous chemical 

contamination that are below regulatory action, concern, or limits, and/or already 

have a stabilized surface that is protective.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-46

− CSNA—Confirmatory sampling with no further cleanup action is assumed for waste 

sites where risk to the groundwater or risk to workers, the public, and the 

environment resulting from human or biological intrusion is considered to be very 

limited.

− IBAR or ABAR—Individual barriers or aggregate barriers are assumed for waste 

sites where contamination may exist in the vadose zone in sufficient quantity to be a 

groundwater and/or environmental concern. Some waste sites may need limited 

removal of high concentrations of contaminants (“hot spot” removal), concrete, 

pipelines or tanks prior to barrier construction. Voids are assumed to be filled as 

needed before barrier placement to minimize the potential for subsidence. 

Contiguous or adjacent waste sites are assumed to be placed under an aggregate 

barrier. For example, aggregate barriers over canyons or other large facilities may 

also be placed over nearby waste sites.

For waste sites with an assumed RTD cleanup remedy, the planning case basis of estimate 

includes the following work items: 

• Prepare Waste Site D&D Plan

• Prepare Waste Forecast

• Prepare Safety Documentation

• Conduct Remedial Design Review 

• Hazardous Material & Radiological 

Survey 

• Characterization Plan

• Characterization Work 

• Characterization Report

• Mobilization of Personnel & Equipment 

• Mobilize & Set Up Temporary Trailers

• Waste Sites – RTD – Decontamination 

Pad

• Overburden Soil Samples 

• Contaminated Soil Samples

• Air Sampling

• Overburden Soil Removal 

• Contaminated Soil Removal

• Contaminated Soil Blending (if needed 

for minimizing radiological dose to 

workers)

• Hauling Contaminated Soil to ERDF 

plus cost of disposal 

• Certification Samples

• Backfill with Borrow Source Material 

• Backfill with Overburden Material

• Revegetation – application of seed

• Site Supervision Personnel 

• Construction Oversight Personnel 

• Medical Surveys

• Dosimetry

• Project Management.

For waste sites with an assumed MESC/MNA/IC cleanup remedy, the planning case basis of 

estimate includes the following work items: 

• Prepare Waste Site D&D Plan

• Prepare Waste Forecast

• Prepare Safety Documentation

• Conduct Remedial Design Review 

• Hazardous Material & Radiological 

Survey 

• Characterization Plan

• Characterization Work

• Characterization Report

• Mobilization of Personnel & Equipment 

• Mobilize & Set Up Temporary Trailers

• Medical Surveys

• Dosimetry

• Project Management

• S&M. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-47

Depending on the conceptual contaminant model and physical details of each waste site, the 

MESC/MNA/IC basis of estimate also may include the following items: cultural resources 

review, remediation design, concrete structure demolition, excavation of clean and contaminated 

soil, tank demolition, steel pipe and/or concrete removal, in process sampling, 

overburden/stockpile sampling, confirmation sampling, waste load out, waste transportation, 

treatment and disposal, backfill, revegetation and usage-based services.

For waste sites with an assumed CSNA cleanup remedy, the planning case basis of estimate 

includes the following work items: 

• Project Management - Field remediation project management and associated office 

complex expenses. 

• Prepare Sampling Work Plan - Prepare instructions, prepare site-specific Waste 

Management Plan, prepare and issue Excavation Permit/Cultural Survey, confirm interim 

hazard classification criteria screen, document no asbestos work permit required, prepare 

Environmental Radiological Survey Task Instruction, prepare sample authorization 

form/field sampling report, prepare S/C change notice (C/N), review S/C documentation, 

prepare sample readiness checklist, and conduct sampling readiness. 

• Confirmatory Sample Design - Prepare sample design, technical editing, internal review, 

incorporate internal review comments, resolve comments, and DOE and regulator 

signoff. 

• Field collection of samples, laboratory analysis and materials. Sample analysis and 

collection costs are based on an assumed six samples per waste site. 

• Data validation and closeout. 

• Medical Surveys. 

• Dosimetry. 

For waste sites with an assumed IBAR or ABAR cleanup remedy, the planning case basis of 

estimate includes the following work items: 

• Prepare Waste Site D&D Plan

• Prepare Waste Forecast

• Prepare Safety Documentation

• Conduct Remedial Design Review 

• Hazardous Material & Radiological 

Survey 

• Characterization Plan

• Characterization Work

• Characterization Report

• Mobilize & Set Up Temporary Trailers

• Waste Sites - BarriersDecontamination Pad 

• Mobilization of Personnel & 

Equipment 

• Construction of barrier 

• Replanting of native vegetation at the 

completion of barrier remediation work 

• Medical Surveys

• Dosimetry

• Project Management

• S&M. 

Some waste sites with an assumed IBAR or ABAR cleanup remedy may need limited removal of 

high concentrations of contaminants (“hot spot” removal), concrete, pipelines or tanks prior to 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-48

barrier construction. Likewise, some waste sites may need backfilling of voids with grout prior 

to barrier construction. These activities are included in the cost estimates for individual waste 

sites, as necessary, based on the conceptual site model and physical details of each waste site.

For cost estimating purposes the IBAR or ABAR barriers are assumed to be either 

evapotranspiration (ET) capillary or ET monofill barriers with the layers shown in Figure 5-19. 

It was assumed that 30% of the barriers would need the 12-inch thick broken basalt biological 

intrusion layer, so a 4-inch thick layer was included in the cost of all barriers. All barriers are 

assumed to have slopes of 2 horizontal:1 vertical (2H:1V) on all sides and the slopes are covered 

with 12 inches of fractured basalt with silt. Revegetation of the barrier, including all disturbed 

areas, stockpile, staging areas, and access roads, includes planting with native dry-land grass and 

sagebrush seedlings. 

Figure 5-19. ET Capillary and ET Monofill Barrier Layers. 

The S&M activities are applied to waste sites with MESC/MNA/IC, IBAR or ABAR as the 

assumed cleanup remedy. This work includes the following: 

• CERCLA 5-Year Review evaluation of completed remediation. 

• Annual Area Visual Survey - The visual survey will check for burrowing animals, 

damage to barrier, invasive vegetation, vegetation maturation, density, etc., global 

positioning satellite coordinates of any damage observed, and global positioning satellite

coordinates of alignment walked (so that alignment can be verified each year to avoid 

wearing a “path” of damage on the barrier). 

• Annual Area Surface Maintenance - The surface maintenance work includes, replacing 

lost soil due to erosion by wind and rain, addition of rip-rap to stabilize slopes, vegetation 

replacement/enhancement, cap thickening to change observed performance (e.g., 

inaccuracies in modeling may have underestimated required thickness), and shaping 

surface to route runoff to more desirable pathways. 

Key assumptions for the DOE planning case basis also include: 

1. Central Plateau remediation will be completed by geographic zones to promote 

optimization and integration of project activities. The remedial actions will be performed 

in accordance with action memoranda and RODs.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-49

2. Contaminated soil waste and demolition debris can be disposed in onsite facilities (i.e. 

ERDF).

3. Current and future land use is industrial-exclusive for the 200 Areas as defined by the 

Hanford Site Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement Record of 

Decision (64 FR 61615). 

4. Beneficial use of groundwater is precluded for the foreseeable future. 

5. Active institutional control of the Hanford Site will be maintained at least through 2150. 

6. Nominally, RTD excavations will not exceed 15 feet below grade. For RTD sites, 5% of 

the quantity of contaminated soil removed is assumed to require blending for worker 

radiological protection using 8 parts clean soil to 1 part contaminated soil.

7. Deep vadose zone contamination can be addressed via an engineered surface barrier or 

natural attenuation. 

8. The scope of work for MESC/MNA/IC waste site remediation includes the placement of 

a 2-foot thick layer of clean soil over the existing surface.

9. Fill material is assumed to come from an onsite borrow source and the silt loam is 

assumed to come from Area C (located about 2 miles south of the 200 West Area). 

Basalt, sand and pea gravel are assumed to come from an offsite commercial source. 

Extraction of materials from on site borrow sources will comply with the Final Hanford 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0222-F) and 

implementing plans for industrial minerals (Draft Industrial Mineral Resources 

Management, DOE/RL-2000-61); biological resources (Hanford Site Biological 

Resources Management Plan, DOE/RL-96-32; Hanford Site Biological Resources 

Mitigation Strategy, DOE/RL-96-88); and cultural resources (Hanford Cultural 

Resources Management Plan, DOE/RL-98-10).

The DOE planning case cost estimates for each waste site were prepared using waste site 

remediation models in Microsoft Excel. The input quantities are based on a conceptual site 

model developed for each waste site using available information and the judgment of DOE 

technical subject matter experts. The estimates also are based on observed crews and production 

rates for similar waste site remediation work in the River Corridor with some modifications 

based on Central Plateau remediation work. The cost estimates are in FY 2012 constant dollars 

and have not been escalated. 

Because ABARs cover other facilities or waste sites that are not included in this alternative 

analysis, the cost estimate for waste sites with an assumed ABAR remedy was based on the ratio 

of the waste site area to the entire ABAR area. The cost estimate includes S&M costs for some 

waste sites with MESC/MNA/IC, IBAR or ABAR as the assumed cleanup remedy through 

FY 2018. After FY 2018, the S&M costs in the DOE planning case were developed for each 

Central Plateau geographic closure zone rather than for each individual waste site. Because 

these S&M costs cannot be readily apportioned to individual waste sites they were not included 

in the cost estimates presented in this analysis. Similarly the site-wide S&M costs for the period 

FY 2060 to FY 2090 are included in PBS RL-LTS (see Appendix D, Table D-30) but they also 

cannot be readily apportioned to the waste sites in this analysis so they were not included in the 

cost estimates presented herein. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-50

Figure 5-20 summarizes the estimated costs for the waste sites included in this alternative

analysis by operable unit and by planning case cleanup remedy. Figure 5-21 summarizes the 

estimated costs for the waste sites included in this alternative analysis by 

location/implementation area. This analysis does not include all of the waste sites within each 

location/implementation area so the estimated costs do not represent the total cleanup cost for 

each location/implementation area. The implementation areas are the geographic closure zones 

from the Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy (DOE/RL-2009-81).

Figure 5-20. Estimated Costs for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable Unit Waste Sites Included in

the Alternative Analysis by Operable Unit and by Planning Case Cleanup Remedy. 

200-CW-1, 

$21,099,537

200-OA-1, 

$54,866,915

200-WA-1, 

$69,531,957

Total Cost by Operable Unit

Total Cost $145,498,409

3%

2%

68%

13%

14%

Total Cost by Planning Case Cleanup Remedy

CSNA

MESC/MNA/IC

RTD

IBAR

ABAR

Cleanup Remedy Cost

CSNA $4,961,231

MESC/MNA/IC $3,237,669

RTD $98,262,686

IBAR $19,188,754

ABAR $19,848,069

Total $145,498,409
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

5-51

Figure 5-21. Estimated Costs for 200-CW-1, 200-OA-1 and 200-WA-1 Operable Unit Waste Sites Included in 

Alternative Analysis by Location/Implementation Area. 

Location/Implementation Area Cost

200 West (2W) Landfill 1 $416,295

Balance of Inner Area (BOIA) 200W $25,692,220

Environmental Restoration Storage Facility (ERDF) $94,259

Outer Area $77,037,587

Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) $1,419,850

Reduction-Oxidation (Redox) Facility $22,743,662

S-SX Farm $100,000

T Plant $6,495,160

U Plant $11,499,377

Total $145,498,409

Total Cost by Location/Implementation 

Area1

2W Landfill 1

BOIA 200W

ERDF

Outer Area

PFP

Redox

S-SX Farm

T Plant

U Plant

1This analysis does not include all of the waste sites within each area. Implementation areas are from 

the Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy (DOE/RL-2009-81). 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

5-52

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 56 million gallons4 of mixed waste contained in Hanford Site 

waste tanks, and closure of all the tanks and associated facilities. The RPP work scope consists 

of two major elements:

• Safely manage the radioactive mixed waste stored in the Hanford Site’s underground 

storage tanks. This work element is conducted under Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste 

Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014). 

• Design, construct, and commission the WTP, which will treat and immobilize tank 

wastes into a vitrified glass form. This work element is conducted under Major 

Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060). 

Figure 6-1 illustrates the relationships between the various activities and integration of the 

elements for retrieval of the waste from the tanks, treatment to reduce hazards, and disposal. 

The RPP is comprised of the tank farms and WTP systems - nearly 200 interrelated waste 

storage, transfer, treatment, transportation, and disposal facilities. The RPP and these facilities 

are an important element of the DOE mission to protect the Columbia River. This chapter 

describes the RPP mission and scope as presented in 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. 5

 ORP will be evaluating the need for potential changes to the RPP 

baseline, and future baseline changes will be reflected in the Lifecycle Report. 

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 

1944 to 1989, the separations processes yielded millions of gallons of highly radioactive and 

 

4 This is the volume of tank waste as of April 2012, reported in Waste Tank Summary Report for Month Ending April 30, 2012

(HNF-EP-0182). The 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-2 

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 the entire HLW fraction 

contained in the tank farms. Approximately one-third of the low-activity waste (LAW)

fraction will be immobilized in the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility.

• Developing and deploying supplemental treatment capability to treat the remaining twothirds 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 

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. 

Double-Shell Tank

Radionuclides Chemicals

Radionuclides

Cesium

Technetium

Iodine

Cesium

Technetium

Strontium (Trace)

Transuranics (Trace)

Not to Scale

Not to Scale

StrontiumTransuranics

Strontium Plutonium

Technetium

Nitrates

Nitrites

Phosphates

Aluminates

Carbonates

Sulfates

Hydroxides

Oxides

Phosphates

Sulfates

Aluminum

Silicon

Iron

Uranium

Zirconium

Sodium

Chemicals

Single-Shell Tank

Nitrates

Nitrites

Phosphates

Aluminates

Carbonates

Sulfates

Sodium

Hydroxides

Oxides

Phosphates

Aluminum

Silicon

Iron

Bismuth

Uranium

Zirconium

Vapor

Air with Small Amounts of

Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide,

Ammonia and Water Vapor

Vapor

Air with Small Amounts of

Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide,

Ammonia and Water Vapor

Supernatant Liquid

Slurry

Sludge

Saltcake & Interstitial Liquid

Sludge
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-5 

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

DOE will submit the Hanford Tank Waste Supplemental Treatment Technologies 

Report. 10/31/2014

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-062-45

Negotiate a one-time supplemental treatment selection and milestones. 

Every 6 years, within 6 months of the issuance of the last revision of the system 

plan, the parties will negotiate tank waste retrieval sequencing and milestones, and 

milestones for installation of infrastructure to feed tank waste from the DST system 

to the tank waste treatment system for the next 8 years.

04/30/2015; 

every 6 

years 

thereafter

M-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

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. 

FY2013 FY2020 FY2027 FY2034 FY2041 FY2048

Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition

FY2055

Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-062-31-T01

Complete final design and submit a complete RCRA Part B permit modification 

request for Enhanced WTP and/or Supplemental Vitrification Treatment Facility 

based on the M-062-45 decision.

04/30/2016

D-00A-14 Pretreatment facility construction substantially complete. 12/31/2017

D-00A-171 Hot start of WTP. 12/31/2019

M-045-85

Complete negotiations of HFFACO interim milestones for closure of the remaining 

WMAs (including a schedule for 200 West Area closures, the submittal of closure 

plans and risk assessments, and final closure dates for each WMA).

01/31/2022

D-00B-041 Complete retrieval of tank wastes from the nine SSTs selected to satisfy 

D-00B-021

. 09/30/2022

M-062-34-T01 Complete hot commissioning of Supplemental Treatment Vitrification Facility 

and/or WTP Enhancements. 12/30/2022

D-00A-011 Achieve initial plant operations for the WTP. 12/31/2022

M-047-00 Complete work necessary to provide facilities for management of secondary waste 

from the WTP. 12/31/2022

M-045-70 Complete waste retrieval from all remaining SSTs. Retrieval standards and 

completion definitions are provided in 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. 

The DOE-ORP’s cleanup strategy focuses on achieving significant environmental risk reduction 

by the retrieval and treatment of Hanford’s tank waste and the closure of the tank farms to 

protect the Columbia River. The primary accomplishments for FY 2013 involve continuing 

preparation of the Tank Farms to provide waste streams to the WTP upon hot commissioning. 

Work also continues on construction of the WTP. Completion and commissioning is driven by 

the Consent Decree milestones. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

6-7 

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. 

Table 6-2. Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition (PBS ORP-0014) 

Level 2 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

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.

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

Cleanup Schedule

Through the course of this project, risks posed by 56 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

FY2013 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

See Appendix D Tables D-33 and D-34 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. (2 pages)

Work Element Scope Description

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. This work element also includes treatment of 

secondary wastes generated during handling and processing of tank wastes.

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

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Section 

7.3.2 for details. 

DST = double-shell tank.

ORP = Office of River Protection.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Figure 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. 
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-9 

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2017 2021 2025 2029

2033

2037

2041

2045

2049

Costs (Billion $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-33 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 Facility

High-Level Waste Facility

Balance of Facilities

Laboratory

Plant Wide

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020

See Appendix D Tables D-35 and D-36 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 (e.g., project controls, engineering design and management, 

environmental, nuclear safety, construction services) as well as a proportional share of 

costs for site services and infrastructure (see Section 7.3.2). 

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. 
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-13

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-35 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 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 

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.6

• 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, 

and will be acceptable for disposal at the WIPP (a number of conditions, including 

approval of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part B Permit Class III permit 

modification, would need to be satisfied prior to disposal at WIPP). 

• CH-TRU waste treatment and packaging process capability will be available in FY 2015 

to support TRU tank waste retrieval.

 

6 ORP recognizes delays in the availability of a national geologic repository by April 2023 as a key uncertainty, and 

continues to assess potential actions to mitigate this uncertainty. For example, one option being considered is 

development of a capability to receive and temporarily store IHLW canisters in Interim Hanford Storage, with the 

IHLW canisters subsequently retrieved and transported to the Hanford Shipping Facility in preparation for shipment 

to a national repository when it becomes available. Interim Hanford Storage could be expandable in modules up to a 

maximum capacity of 16,000 canisters, which would accommodate the number of IHLW canisters currently 

projected for the WTP. This and other potential mitigating actions are being evaluated, but they are not yet reflected 

in the RPP baseline schedule and cost.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

6-16

• 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.

• 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 site-wide 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), 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

* See Section 7.3.2 for the current Long-Term Stewardship program.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 

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

FY2013 FY2018 FY2024 FY2030 FY2036 FY2042 FY2048 FY2054 FY2060

Safeguards and Security

See Appendix D Table D-11 for cost and schedule data.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-3 

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

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

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2013 2018

2023

2028

2033

2038

2043

2048

2053

2058

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 

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. 

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

See Appendix D Table D-28 for cost and schedule data.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-5 

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2018 2023

2028

2033

2038

2043

2048

2053

2058

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 

7.3.1 Infrastructure and Services, HAMMER, and Infrastructure 

Reliability Projects

Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) provides cost-effective infrastructure and site 

services that are essential to accomplishing the Hanford Site environmental cleanup mission. 

These essential services cover a broad spectrum and range from the basic to highly-specialized 

services that reflect the complexity and scale of the Hanford Site environmental cleanup 

mission. 

The work scope for Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) is organized into the work 

elements shown in Figure 7-6, which also presents the remaining cleanup schedule. The scope 

description for these work elements is provided in Table 7-3. 

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

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

Work Element Scope Description

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, facilities, biological control, network and 

telecommunications, transportation, materials management, Hanford Fire Department, 

and water and sewer utilities.

HAMMER This work element includes operations and maintenance activities at the HAMMER 

facility in support of Hanford Site and other training.

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.

Reliability Projects

HAMMER

Sitewide Services

See Appendix D Tables D-19 and D-20 for cost and schedule data.

Infrastructure and Services

FY2013 FY2020 FY2025 FY2030 FY2035 FY2040 FY2045 FY2050 FY2055 FY2060 FY2065 FY2070
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-7 

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

Site-wide Services – 

RL-0040

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. This work 

element includes emergency services (safeguards and security, fire and emergency 

response, emergency management), environmental integration services (site-wide safety 

standards, environmental integration, public safety and resource protection, radiological 

site services, and Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility analytical services), 

information management (information management planning and controls, information 

systems, content and records management, infrastructure/cyber security, information 

resources/content management, and information support services), site infrastructure and

utilities/logistics and transportation (roads and grounds, biological services, electrical 

services, water/sewer services, facility services, transportation, mail, property 

systems/acquisitions, railroad services, technical services, energy management, work 

management, land and facilities management), support functions (business operations, 

human resources, safety, health and quality), and portfolio management (portfolio 

planning, analysis and performance, project acquisition and support, and independent 

assessment and analysis).

Infrastructure and 

Services

This work element includes occupational medicine; steam systems; contract closeout and 

acquisition team; legal support; land transfers; cleanup baseline, integration, and 

development; acquisition of natural gas utility service and other small contracts. 

HAMMER = Volpentest HAMMER Training and 

Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.

Figure 7-7 presents the remaining estimated costs for Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) 

by fiscal year and Figure 7-8 presents the remaining estimated costs by work element. 

7.3.2 Site-wide Services

The Site-wide Services program provides direct operations support to DOE-RL, DOE-ORP and 

their contractors with cost-effective infrastructure and site services integral and necessary to 

accomplish the environmental cleanup mission. The scope includes five primary functions: 

• Safety, Security and Environment 

• Site Infrastructure and Utilities

• Site Business Management

• Information Resources and Content Management 

• Portfolio Management. 

Under the Safety, Security and Environment function, both Safeguards and Security (PBS RL0020) and HAMMER (PBS RL-0040, Section 7.3.1) are funded through their respective projects 

and not through site-wide services. Other work elements under the Safety, Security and 

Environment function include: 

• Fire and Emergency Response Services

• Emergency Operations

• Site Safety Standards

• Radiological Assistance Program

• Environmental Regulatory Management

• Public Safety & Resource Protection

• Radiological Site Services.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

2013 2019 2025

2031

2037

2043

2049

2055

2061

2067

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-9 

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

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

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2013

2019

2025

2031

2037

2043

2049

2055

2061

2067

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-19 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-10

The work elements under the Site Infrastructure and Utilities function include: 

• Analytical Services (e.g., the Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility [WSCF])

• Biological Control 

• Facility Services

• Transportation 

• Railroad Services

• Roads and Grounds 

• Utilities (water, electricity)

• Sewer Systems

• Sanitary Waste Management and Disposal. 

The work elements under the Site Business Management function include: 

• Real Property Asset Management

• Property Systems/Acquisition & Materials Management

• Sponsorship, Management & Administration of Employee Pension and Other Benefit 

Plans

• Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act/Workers 

Compensation 

• External Affairs and Other Interactions

• Mail Services

• Reproduction, Correspondence Control & Multi-Media. 

As part of Real Property Asset Management, DOE-RL has established the LTS program to 

provide planning and interim execution of LTS for portions of the Hanford Site as they are 

cleaned up and before they are transferred to the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM). The 

current LTS program is part of PBS RL-0040 Infrastructure and Services until it is transferred to 

LM – this future LTS program under LM is referred to as PBS RL-LTS in this report. The scope 

of the current and future LTS program is described in Section 7.4. 

The work elements under the Information Resources and Content Management function include: 

• Strategic Planning and Program Management

• Telecommunications

• Information Systems 

• Content (Records) Management.

The work elements under the Portfolio Management function include: 

• Hanford Portfolio Planning, Analysis and Performance Assessment 

• Project Acquisition and Support, and 

• Independent Analysis and Assessments. 

The costs for Site-wide Services are allocated across the DOE-RL and DOE-ORP project PBSs 

so no separate cost graphs are shown for this service program. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

7-11

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. Administration of the institutional controls activities will be 

required for portions of the Hanford Site to ensure protection of human health and the 

environment. As portions of the site are cleaned up, they are managed in accordance with the 

Hanford Site Long-Term Stewardship Program, as described in DOE/RL-2010-35, Hanford 

Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, under PBS RL-0040 Infrastructure and Services (see 

Section 7.3.2). When all of the cleanup actions defined by decision documents are completed, 

the Hanford Site will be turned over to DOE-LM. This PBS element pertains to the LM 

management activities at the Hanford Site.

LTS refers to all activities necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment 

following completion of cleanup, disposal, or stabilization at a site or a portion of a site. LTS

includes engineered and institutional controls designed to contain or to prevent exposures to 

residual contamination and waste, such as surveillance activities, 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 current Hanford Site LTS Program (Section 7.3.2) manages the geographic areas for which 

cleanup has been completed in accordance with the post-cleanup requirements specified in the 

associated decision documents. These decisions include, but are not limited to, the CERCLA 

RODs and RCRA post-closure plans. In addition to managing the post-cleanup completion 

obligations, the Hanford Site LTS Program manages 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 Nation treaties, DOE directives, and Hanford Site 

procedures. The planning basis for the Hanford Site LTS Program scope integrates stewardship 

and institutional controls elements into the program from present day to 2060. 

The scope, schedule, and costs of LTS and institutional controls, to the extent predictable, have 

been included in this Lifecycle Report for the period from 2060 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 cleanup 

decisions are made and LTS requirements and institutional controls are refined, more specific 

information will be included in this Lifecycle Report. Figure 7-9 presents the remaining 

schedule and Table 7-4 provides a summary of the scope. 

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 extend from FY 2060 

through FY 2090. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-12

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

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.

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

FY2060 FY2065 FY2070 FY2075 FY2080 FY2085 FY2090 FY2095

Management and Administration

Scale dates represent start of fiscal year

See Appendix D Table D-30 for cost and schedule data.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

7-13

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

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

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

Costs (Million $)

Fiscal Year

See Appendix D, Table D-30 for cost and schedule data.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 scope, schedule and cost information used to prepare the report will be 

“locked down.” 

For the 2013 Lifecycle Report, August 31, 2012, 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 2013 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 

regulatory decision making, which will be conducted following the applicable statutory and 

regulatory programs. 

The Lifecycle Report does not include resources that may be required to accomplish significant 

restoration of natural resources related to any liability of the United States for NRDAR. 

Several non-DOE entities operate and manage property on the Hanford Site, typically under 

lease agreements with DOE. Examples include: 

• Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utility companies that oversee the Columbia 

Generating Station nuclear power reactor. 

• Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, operated by a consortium of the 

California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

• State of Washington, which in turn leases land to US Ecology, Inc., a private firm that 

operates burial grounds for commercial low-level radioactive waste. 

Operation, maintenance, and any subsequent future cleanup associated with activities at these 

facilities are subject to the terms and conditions of the leases (and/or other agreements) in place 

between the operating entities and DOE. Potential environmental liabilities for these and similar 

non-DOE operations are not currently considered to be part of the Hanford Site cleanup, and so 

are not included in the DOE-EM program. Consequently, lifecycle scope, schedule and cost for 

these non-DOE operations are not included in the Lifecycle Report. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

8-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 

58 FR 48509, 1993, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 

Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, Vol 58, No. 178, 

pp 48509. September 16, 1993. 

64 FR 61615, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, Vol 64, No. 218, pp 61615, 

November 12, 1999. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009, Public Law 111-5, as amended. 123 Stat. 115 

et seq.

Atomic Energy Act, 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2011, et seq. 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

DOE 2010, Roadmap for EM’s Journey to Excellence, Rev. 0, 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/EIS-0119F, 1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement Decommissioning of Eight 

Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE/EIS-0222-F, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 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/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C. 

DOE/RL-96-32, 2000, Hanford Site Biological Resources Management Plan, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-96-88, 2003, Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-98-10, 2003, Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan, Rev. 0, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2000-61, 2001, Draft Industrial Mineral Resources Management, Rev. 0, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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-2005-45, 2005, Surplus Reactor Final Disposition Engineering Evaluation, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-2006-57, 2008, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Supplemental Remedial Investigation 

Activities at Model Group 5, Large-Area Ponds, Waste Sites Located Within the 200-CW-1 

Operable Unit, Rev. 0, REISSUE, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2007-56, 2008, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central 

Plateau, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-10, 2012, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Draft Rev. 1, 

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-2009-53, 2010, Removal Action Work Plan for 48 Waste Sites in the 200-MG-1 

Operable Unit, Rev. 1, 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. 1, 

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

DOE/RL-2010-49, 2011, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan 200-WA-1 and 

200-BC-1 Operable Units, Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2011-58, 2011, 200-CW-3 Operable Unit Interim Remedial Action Report, Rev. 0, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

9-3 

DOE/RL-2011-93, 2012 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, Rev. 0, 

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

DOE/RL-2011-101, 2011, On Scene Coordinator Report FY2010 and FY2011: BC controlled 

Area (Waste Site UPR-200-E-83) Located in the 200-OA-1 Operable Unit on the Hanford 

Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington. 

DOE/RL-2011-118, 2012, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2011, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

Ecology, EPA and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended. 

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

EPA, 2011, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 

200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-01/119, 2001, Declaration of the 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. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) and Hanford 100-Area (USDOE) 

EPA ID: WA1890090078 and WA3890090076, OU(s) 15 & 27, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, 

114 Stat. 1654A-38. 

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. 

HNF-EP-0182, 2012, Waste Tank Summary Report for Month Ending April 30, 2012, Rev. 289, 

Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington. 

HNF-EP-0924, 1997, History and Stabilization of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) 

Complex, Hanford Site, Rev. 0, Fluor Hanford, Richland, Washington. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Public Law 91-190, 42 USC 4321, et 

seq.

ORP-11242, 2009, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 

ORP-11242, 2011, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev. 6, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

9-4 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261, 

112 Stat. 1921. 

TRAC-0151-VA, 1991, Historical Perspective of Radioactively Contaminated Liquid and Solid 

Wastes Discharged or Buried in the Ground at Hanford, Westinghouse Hanford Company, 

Richland, Washington. 

Treaty with the Nez Perces, 1855, 12 Stat. 957, June 11, 1855, Ratified March 8, 1859, 

Proclaimed April 29, 1859. 

Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla, 1855, 12 Stat. 945, June 9, 1855, Ratified 

March 8, 1859, Proclaimed April 11, 1859. 

Treaty with the Yakama, 1855, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951, Ratified March 8, 1859, Proclaimed 

April 18, 1859. 

WA7890008967, 2011, Draft Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit (Site-Wide Permit), 

Revision 9, , Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington. 

WAC 173-303-140, “Land Disposal Restrictions,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-i 

APPENDIX A 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP ACTIONS AND PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 .......................................26

A.3 RATIONALE AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR ANNUAL SELECTION 

OF CLEANUP ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED .............................................................28

A.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................34

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. 

(7 pages) ...................................................................................................................... 6

Table A-3. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Central Plateau. 

(11 pages) .................................................................................................................. 13

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 

pages) ......................................................................................................................... 24

Table A-5. Summary of Completed Cleanup Action Alternatives. ............................................. 30
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-iv

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-v 

TERMS 

ABAR aggregate barrier 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CSNA confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup action 

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

D4 deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DST double-shell tank 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

ESD explanation of significant differences 

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility 

FBSR fluidized bed steam reforming 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

HLW high-level waste 

IBAR individual barrier 

IC institutional controls 

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility 

ILAW immobilized low-activity waste 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISS interim safe storage 

LAW low-activity waste 

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility 

MESC maintain existing soil cover 

MNA monitored natural attenuation 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRDWL Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill 

P&T pump-and-treat 

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PUREX Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant) 

RAO remedial action objective 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

REDOX Reduction-Oxidation Facility (S Plant) 

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study 

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

ROD record of decision 

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-vi

TC&WM EIS Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement 

TPA Tri-Party Agreement 

TRU transuranic 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WESF Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility 

WRAP Waste Receiving and Processing Plant 

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 N Reactor

 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

 Disposition of 100 Area former Orchard Contaminated Soil Sites (100-OL-1 Operable Unit)

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
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 Buildings and Facilities Within Fast Flux Test Facility Complex

 Disposition Remaining Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

 Remediate Contaminated Deep Vadose Zone (200-DV-1 Operable Unit)

 Restore 200 West Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-6 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-1a

1 River Corridor – Disposition N Reactor

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents 

In September 1993, DOE issued 58 FR 48509, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” which implements the recommendation for safe 

storage followed by deferred one-piece removal of the surplus reactors. N Reactor was not included in the EIS as 

it was not available for decommissioning at the time of the NEPA EIS and interim safe storage was approved 

through the CERCLA process. Final disposition of N Reactor will be determined by a subsequent NEPA or 

CERCLA decision process.

 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.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Demolition of the reactor block in ISS, and transport of the reactor block, intact on a tractor transporter, from 

the present 100 Area location to the 200 West Area for disposal.

 Safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance; at the end of the 

safe storage period, demolition of the reactor block and transport of the reactor block, intact on a tractor 

transporter, from the present 100 Area location to the 200 West Area for disposal.

 Safe storage for a period of up to 75 years of surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance; at the end of the 

safe storage period, demolition of the reactor buildings and piece by piece dismantlement of the reactor core 

and transport of radioactive waste to the 200 West Area for burial.

 Demolition of the reactor buildings and SSE and filling voids beneath and around the reactor block, the 

reactor block, adjacent shield walls, and the spent fuel storage basin together with the contained radioactivity, 

gravel, and grout covered to a depth of at least 5 meters with a mound containing earth and gravel.

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-2 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

An interim ROD, ROD amendment, and action memorandum are in place for the removal, treatment, and interim 

onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable Unit, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 DOE and EPA, 2004, Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment and Disposal 

of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 4.

 EPA, 2005, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Remove, treat, and transfer sludge for interim storage at T Plant; transfer fuel scrap for interim storage at 

Canister Storage Building; D4 K West Basin and ancillary structures; remediate below-grade portions 

consistent with 100 Area contaminated soil sites.*

* May require removal of K Reactors to access below-grade contaminated soils. K East Basin was demolished 

in 2009.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-7 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-3 River Corridor – Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Interim RODs, ROD amendments, ESDs, and Annual Fact Sheets (100 Area “Plug-In” and Candidate Waste Sites 

for Fiscal Year 2010) are in place to remove contaminated soil, structures, debris, and burial grounds using the 

observational and plug-in approaches with onsite 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.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs* and applicable closure performance standards**; backfill, 

contour, and revegetate excavations. (Note: The 100 Area interim RODs for waste sites will be covered by 

the six final RODs for the River Corridor currently being worked through a final RI/FS process.)

If residual contamination remains after cleanup actions are completed, cleanup work will transition to 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-8 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 pages)

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, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Install P&T 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 P&T.

 EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Expand P&T system in 100-KR-4; transition to surveillance and maintenance for post-treatment groundwater 

monitoring.

 Continue operation of P&T 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-9 

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 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 

P&T and physical barriers. An in situ apatite barrier and phytoremediation treatability tests are being evaluated 

for use in the cleanup of strontium-90 in groundwater.

 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 R. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and D. Butler, Washington State 

Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, September 23.

 EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable Unit 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit 

Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 WAC 173-340, “Model Toxics Control Act -- Cleanup,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, 

Washington.

– WAC 173-340-720, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-10

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 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 P&T 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, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Expand P&T 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, "Groundwater Cleanup Standards."

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Install P&T 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-11

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: RC-5 River Corridor – Disposition 300 Area Facilities Retained By PNNL

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

Action memoranda are in place for the remaining 300 Area buildings and facilities, and DOE anticipates 

extending those cleanup decisions to include the PNNL-retained facilities once their operations end. DOE 

considers D&D of buildings and other structures to be final cleanup decisions if the facility is removed in 

accordance with an applicable action memorandum. The Removal Action Work Plan will need to be modified to 

address PNNL retained facilities once PNNL declares the facilities as surplus. Alternatives do not need to be 

considered where such D&D has been completed. Decision documents for D&D of 300 Area buildings and 

facilities that may have future application for the PNNL-retained facilities are listed here.

 DOE and EPA, 2005, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, January 20.

 DOE and EPA, 2006, “Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, May 16.

 DOE and EPA, 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 no earlier than 2023), D4 all buildings and 

facilities; remediate 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-12

Table A-2. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – River Corridor. (7 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, “Groundwater 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.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RI/FS = remedial investigation/feasibility study.

ROD = record of decision.

RTD = remove, treat, and dispose.

SSE = safe storage enclosure.

WAC = Washington Administrative Code.

1 RC-1 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area Reactors (Except B Reactor) was removed from the Lifecycle Report in response to comments 

that the 1993 National Environmental Policy Act ROD is considered a final action (see Appendix C, Table C-3)
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-13

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 onsite disposal at ERDF. Future cleanup decisions for remaining soil sites will be included in decision 

documents (e.g., action memoranda, RODs).

 EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 

100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 

200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 EPA, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim Remedial 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

 DOE/RL-2009-86, 2010, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 RTD contaminated soil sites to achieve RAOs comparable to 100 Areas; backfill, contour, and revegetate 

excavations.

 RTD all sites except ponds; allow monitored natural attenuation for large pond sites with presence of existing 

vegetated soil covers.

 Allow monitored natural attenuation to proceed for all sites 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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 

onsite 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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 

onsite 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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 

onsite 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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, Draft 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 per appropriate Removal Action Work Plan; if needed, remediate below-grade portions.

 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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-UP-1

Operable Unit)

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. The proposed plan for the 200-UP-1 

Groundwater Operable Unit remedy was issued in July 2012.

 DOE/RL-2010-05, 2012, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Richland, Washington, Rev. 0, July.

 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, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards.”

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Expand 200-ZP-1 extraction, treatment and injection capacity; install extraction and transfer system for 

200-UP-1; operate 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 P&T, monitored 

natural attenuation, and hydraulic containment to address technetium-99, uranium, and iodine-129 contamination 

within different time periods.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-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, “Groundwater 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.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant).

RAO = remedial action objective.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-24

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-1 Tank Waste – Tank Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank Farm Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

In the February 26, 1997 Federal Register, DOE decided to retrieve and treat tank waste (62 FR 8693). Further 

decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Retrieve SST wastes (assumes two retrieval technologies) to meet milestones in the Consent Decree 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-25

Table A-4. Summary of Cleanup Actions and Plausible Alternatives – Tank Waste. (2 pages)

CLEANUP 

ACTION: TW-4 Tank Waste – Double-Shell Tank Closure

Cleanup Decision Summary and Relevant Decision Documents

No cleanup decisions have been made. Decisions have been deferred to future decision-making processes.

Range of Plausible Alternatives

 Retrieve DST wastes consistent with TPA; 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, 2011, Draft Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit,(Site-Wide Permit) Revision 9, 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, 2011, Draft Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit, (Site-Wide Permit), Revision 9, as amended, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington.

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.

SALDS = State-Approved Land Disposal Site.

SST = single-shell tank.

TC&WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-26

The TPA agencies determined that the 2013 Lifecycle Report should analyze the Central Plateau 

cleanup actions identified in Appendix A, Table A-3 as: 1) Remediate Remaining Outer Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units), and 

2) Remediate Remaining 200 West Inner Area Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 Operable 

Unit). The TPA agencies considered that a range of cleanup alternatives with a significant 

Remove, Treat and Dispose (RTD) component would describe the reasonable upper bound 

alternative for these operable unit waste sites. Because the DOE planning case includes a 

significant RTD component, the TPA agencies agreed that this alternatives analysis would 

document the DOE planning case range of alternatives, costs and schedule for cleanup of the 

waste sites in these operable units. The alternatives analysis is presented in Section 5.7 of this 

Lifecycle Report. 

A.2.2 DOE’S APPROACH FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES AND DESCRIBING 

THE REASONABLE UPPER BOUND 

TPA Milestone M-036-01 refers to a “reasonable upper bound” with respect to presenting 

information about cleanup alternatives, but the milestone does not include a ready definition for 

“reasonable upper bound.” To ensure the Lifecycle Report provides information that meets the 

requirement and intent of the milestone, DOE has relied on the following conceptual framework. 

The reasonable upper bound for a range of alternatives or alternative costs describes a cleanup 

action alternative that most people can agree: 

 Is near or at the maximum feasible extent of the available engineered solutions. 

 Provides an acceptable level of health and environmental protection when complete. 

 Is appropriate relative to the effort expended and the benefits achieved. 

Applying this concept presumes the ability to satisfy several related and dependent conditions: 

 First, that mutual agreement can be achieved among responsible individuals who have 

sufficient information available to them, and are able to objectively consider the relevant 

science and applicable standards within the context of fiscal and public policy 

considerations. 

 Second, that potential health and environmental concerns are sufficiently understood, and 

that an alternative will be effective at reducing the potential concerns as claimed. 

 Last, that an alternative exists that bounds the upper range of a set of choices, and this 

upper-bounding alternative can provide tangible advantages that the other available 

choices would not. 

DOE will apply these conditions and the framework outlined above in the process of analyzing 

alternatives and identifying the reasonable upper bound for the cleanup actions that are evaluated 

in-depth in the Lifecycle Report. 

The purpose of analyzing and selecting alternatives is to formally evaluate alternative project 

solutions (e.g., designs) so that the alternative that best meets the project need is selected. 

DOE has applied a systematic process for individual cleanup actions to more definitively 

describe a range of plausible alternatives; identify a reasonable upper bound for that range of 

alternatives; and develop schedule and cost information associated with implementing that upper 

bounding cleanup alternative. For the process followed for the cost estimate alternative analyses, 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-27

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. 

 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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-28

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 

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-29

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. 

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 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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-30

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

Record of Decision; 

Decommissioning of Eight 

Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington (58 FR 48509)

Central Plateau – Remediate 

200-SW-2 Operable Unit

Barriers - $823

Remove, Treat, Dispose of Waste - $16,614

TBD

2012 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2011-93)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis

(Million $) Final Decision Reference

Tank Waste Cleanup Action – Tank 

Retrieval and Single-Shell Tank 

Farm Closure

1 – Baseline Case - $59,900

2 – TRU Waste to WTP - $61,600

3 – FBSR for supplemental treatment -

$58,100

4 – WTP delay with +10% vitrification 

capacity - $66,000

5 – 2020 Vision One System - $58,000

6 – WTP delay with new DST farm -

$68,700

7 – Enhanced tank waste strategy - $57,300

8 – Accelerated SST retrievals - $62,800

9 – Early U Farm closure - $59,600

10 – Slow SST retrievals - $60,800

TBD

Tank Waste Cleanup Action – Tank 

Waste Treatment

TBD

Tank Waste Cleanup Action –

Secondary Waste Treatment

TBD

2013 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT (DOE/RL-2012-13)

Cleanup Action Cost Estimate Alternative Analysis

(Million $) Final Decision Reference

Central Plateau - Remediate 

Remaining Outer Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-OA-1, 

200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3 Operable 

Units)

The DOE planning case cleanup remedies 

for the 190 waste sites evaluated includes:

RTD - $98.3

CSNA - $4.9

MESC/MNA/IC - $3.2

IBAR - $19.2

ABAR - $19.8

Total - $145.4

TBD

Central Plateau - Remediate 

Remaining 200 West Inner Area 

Contaminated Soil Sites (200-WA-1 

Operable Unit)

TBD

ABAR = aggregate barrier.

CSNA = confirmatory sampling to support no further cleanup 

action.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

DST = double-shell tank.

FBSR = fluidized bed steam reformer.

IBAR = individual barrier.

IC = institutional controls.

MESC = maintain existing soil cover.

MNA = monitored natural attenuation.

RTD = remove, treat and dispose.

SST = single-shell tank.

TBD = to be determined.

TRU = transuranic.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Considering the criteria described above and 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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-31

Table A-6 presents this schedule along with an explanation of the rationale for analyzing 

alternatives in the recommended Lifecycle Report year. 

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

2014 HANFORD LIFECYCLE SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST REPORT

Cleanup Actions Rationale/Bases for Analyzing Alternatives This Report Year

 Central Plateau – Disposition B Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CB-1 

Operable Unit)

 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites (200-CP-1 

Operable Unit)

 Central Plateau – 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 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 the 2015 Lifecycle Report, decide whether 

alternatives should be analyzed based on status of final cleanup 

decision making.

 River Corridor – Disposition 100 Area former 

orchard contaminated soil sites (100-OL-1 

Operable Unit

TPA Milestone M-015-95 requires RI/FS work plan submittal by 

April 30, 2013. It may be reasonable to develop alternatives in 

the 2015 Lifecycle Report that could benefit future planning and 

budget requests.

 Central Plateau – Disposition FFTF Complex It is expected that the TC&WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) will 

address decisions related to this cleanup action and that a final 

ROD will be issued before 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 work plan 

submittal by December 31, 2017. It may be reasonable to 

develop alternatives after 2015 that could benefit future planning 

and budget requests.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-32

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

 Central Plateau – Disposition

Cesium/Strontium Capsules

TPA Milestone M-092-05 requires DOE to determine a 

disposition path and establish interim milestones for the 

cesium/strontium capsules by June 30, 2017. Capsules are 

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 the 

cesium/strontium capsules. Prior to developing the 2017 

Lifecycle Report, decide whether development of alternatives 

would benefit future planning and budget requests.

 Central Plateau – Restore 200 West

Groundwater to Beneficial Use (200-UP-1

Operable Units)

An interim action Record of Decision was issued in September 

2012 that superseded the previous 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 

decisions. 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 until 2023, 

which is the assumed date to start closure and disposition of the 

facilities. Earlier analysis of alternatives would be premature and 

not needed for out-year budget planning.

 Central Plateau (Outer Area) – Disposition 

Remaining Outer Area Buildings and 

Facilities (200-OA-1 Operable Unit)

The few remaining structures in the Outer Area do not present 

imminent or significant threats to health or the 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 2016 are not 

likely to contribute more useful information for out-year budget 

planning.

 Central Plateau – Disposition PUREX Storage 

Tunnels (200-CP-1 Operable Unit)

TPA Milestone M-085-20A requires DOE to submit an RI/FS 

Work Plan for the 200-CP-1 OU by September 30, 2015. Prior to 

development of the 2017 Lifecycle Report, decide whether 

development of alternatives would benefit future planning and 

budget requests.

 Central Plateau – Disposition T Plant Canyon 

Building/Associated Waste Sites

 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities

 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities

These facility operations are integral to the long-term cleanup 

mission and will continue well after 2020. Any likely cleanup 

actions are not expected for at least 20+ years in the future so 

earlier analyses would be premature and not needed before 2018

for out-year budget planning.

 Central Plateau – Disposition Remaining 

Buildings and Facilities Within FFTF 

Complex

 Central Plateau –Disposition Any Remaining 

Inner Area Buildings and Facilities

Continuing with the current planning bases and uncertainties is 

sufficient for health and environmental protection and for scope 

and budget planning prior to 2018. Information about conditions 

after other cleanup actions have occurred (e.g., disposition of 

FFTF) would be insufficient for useful analyses. It would be 

premature to analyze alternatives for these cleanup actions before 

the 2018 Lifecycle Report.

 Tank Waste – Double-Shell Tank Closure 

 Tank Waste – WTP Closure

Closure is not expected to begin any sooner than 2034 (for DST

closure) and 2050 (for WTP closure). No imminent or significant 

health or environmental concerns have been identified that need 

to be addressed. Earlier planning and budget development would 

be unnecessary and could probably not account credibly for 

future decisions and conditions.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-33

Table A-6. Anticipated Schedule for Detailed Analyses of Cleanup Action Alternatives. (4 pages)

CLEANUP ACTIONS FOR WHICH ALTERNATIVES WOULD NOT BE ANALYZED

River Corridor – B Reactor Preservation

B Reactor has been designated a National Historic Landmark so no cleanup actions are anticipated. Minor conditioning 

and maintenance activities will be performed consistent with National Park Service decision making under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321) and/or National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470).

River Corridor - 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).

River Corridor - Disposition 100 Area K West Basin

River Corridor - Remediate 100 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

River Corridor - Restore 100-BC-5 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-KR-4 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-NR-2 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-HR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Restore 100-FR-3 Groundwater Operable Unit to Beneficial Use

River Corridor - Remediate 300 Area Contaminated Soil Sites

River Corridor - Restore 300 Area Groundwater to Beneficial Use

The TPA agencies agreed that for cleanup actions that are close to having final decisions there would be little value in 

presenting cost estimate alternatives analysis in the Lifecycle Report. Since the 100 Area K West Basin clean up action 

was limited to only one alternative (Table A-2) the agencies also agreed to remove this cleanup action from the 

alternatives analysis in the Lifecycle Report.

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.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-34

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). 

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, 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, 2004, “Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment 

and Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, May 25.

DOE and EPA, 2005, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, January 20. 

DOE and EPA, 2006, “Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, 

Washington, May 16. 

DOE and EPA, 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/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/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-35

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-2009-37, 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-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-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 R. Izatt, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and D. Butler, Washington State Department of 

Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, September 23. 

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 

2 vols., as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental 

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

EPA, 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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-36

EPA, 2004a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100 Area Remaining Sites Interim 

Remedial Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2004b, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2005, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Amendment, Declaration, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 100 K Area K Basins, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2007, Explanation of Significant Difference for the Interim Action Record of Decision for 

the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-2, and 100-KR-2 

Operable Units (100 Area Burial Grounds), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-37

EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining 

Sites ROD, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/524, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 300-FF-5 Record of 

Decision, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable 

Unit Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 

100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

A-38

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department 

of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 

200-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. 

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, 2011, Draft Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit (Site-Wide Permit), 

Revision 9, 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, “Groundwater Cleanup Standards,” Washington Administrative Code, 

Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-i 

APPENDIX B 

APPLICATION OF KEY TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Public Involvement
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

B-2 

Community Relations Plan (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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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, Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Public Involvement 

Community Relations Plan, 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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-i 

APPENDIX C 

HANFORD SITE CLEANUP DECISIONS 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 ..................................................................................................................31

TABLES 

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages) ........................... 7

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages) .................................................................. 15

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) .................................................................................................................... 27
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 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 

P&T pump-and-treat 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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) 

(42 USC 6901) that require the consideration of various alternatives before selecting cleanup 

actions. In some cases, the agencies develop interim or partial decisions that enable cleanup 

work to proceed pending the ability to make final decisions (e.g., to alleviate urgent concerns, 

acquire better information, develop technological advances, obtain needed funding). 

The TPA is the primary legal framework that 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, 2011, 

Draft Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit (Site-Wide Permit), Revision 9,).

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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. Under 40 CFR 300, “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan,” DOE is the lead agency with lead agency responsibilities by both the 

National Contingency Plan and Executive Order 12580. EPA is the lead regulatory agency 

under the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) and oversees the cleanup activities conducted under 40 

CFR 300. EPA also has certain oversight authorities granted through CERCLA and the TPA. 

The most common documentation used to implement cleanup decisions under CERCLA includes 

the following. 

CERCLA ROD. The CERCLA ROD is a public document, developed from information 

generated during the remedial investigation/feasibility study that explains which 

remediation alternatives will be used to clean up a site. 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: 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-5 

Final Status Permit. A final status permit includes explicit descriptions of the 

conditions and requirements that must be met by a facility at which TSD of regulated 

hazardous waste (or dangerous waste, in Washington State) occur. A TSD facility may 

receive a final status permit even though it is closed and not operating, if there are 

ongoing caretaking activities that must be maintained after closure (i.e., during the 

post-closure care period). At the Hanford Site, a single final status permit covers the 

entire Hanford Site, but it is being issued in phases because of the number of TSD 

facilities that exist. The final status permit includes decisions about how Federal and 

State statutes, regulations, and guidance have been interpreted and applied to the specific 

activities conducted at each TSD facility. 

Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Some Hanford Site TSD facilities have closed or may close 

before they are covered under the final status permit. In such cases, a closure plan must 

be prepared to describe the activities necessary to close the TSD facility and address any 

remaining dangerous wastes. If dangerous waste will remain after closure, a post-closure 

plan is also required to address residual contamination. Ecology must approve closure 

and post-closure plans before they are implemented, and in the process decisions will be 

made and included in the closure/post-closure plans about how to close the TSD facility 

and, where required, conduct post-closure care. 

Corrective Action. Corrective actions, to clean up releases from RCRA TSD facilities, 

may be required before a final status permit is issued. Decisions about the degree and 

methods for cleanup will be made and implemented through a corrective action plan that 

is approved by Ecology. 

In addition to RCRA, there are numerous other programs, authorized under existing Federal and 

State statutes and regulations that require permits, licenses and other approvals that can affect 

cleanup at the Hanford Site. These other decision documents establish, among other conditions, 

limits on emissions of radionuclides and other hazardous constituents to the air, water, and 

ground. Section 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, 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-6 

Presidential Proclamations, Congressional Acts, judicial orders and decrees, and other types of 

Federal and State decisions that may affect Hanford Site cleanup. 

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 after the decision title in 

the first column. 

In addition to decisions that have been made, whether final or not, there are many cleanup 

decisions that are yet to be made for the Hanford Site. By definition, the absence of a decision 

means there is not a final cleanup decision. It would not be possible to develop an exhaustive list 

of all the decisions that still need to be made to complete the Hanford cleanup mission. 

However, as these decisions are reached, they will be incorporated into this section of the 

Lifecycle Report. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-7 

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area (EPA/ROD/R10-93/063) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 1100

Date Approved: Sep-93

Initial Decision: Cap Horn Rapids Landfill; offsite disposal of PCB-contaminated soils; offsite incineration of bis (2-

ethylhexyl) phthalate contaminated soils; monitored natural attenuation of groundwater contamination.

Revision Title 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.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (EPA/ROD/R10-

95/100) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Jan-95

Initial Decision: Initial construction of two cells; maximum size of 1.6 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-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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.

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.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit Superfund Site, Benton County, Washington

(EPA 2008) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West; 200-ZP-1 OU

Date Approved: Sep-08

Initial Decision: 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.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/151) FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 100; 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 OUs

Date Approved: Feb-96

Initial Decision: No action.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-96/134)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100; 100-H, 100-K

Date Approved: Mar-96

Initial Decision: Interim action to remove hexavalent chromium from groundwater; 30 extraction wells; ion 

exchange treatment; reinject treated effluent; monitor; institute 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 P&Ts remain in 

operation.

Explanation of Significant Difference for 

the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision (EPA 2002)

ESD Oct-02 Provides justification for increased 

schedule 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.

Record of Decision

Title: Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, (EPA/ROD/R10-96/143)

Note: The ROD is only FINAL for the 300-FF-1 OU; it is an interim action for 300-FF-5 OU.

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 300; 300-FF-1 and 300-FF-5 OUs

Date Approved: Jul-96

Initial Decision: 300-FF-1: 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-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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.

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 plutonium-contaminated 

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.

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.

Record of Decision for Interim Remedial 

Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site

200-UP-1 Operable Unit (EPA 2012)

Interim 

Action ROD

Sep-12 Supersedes the previous interim action 

ROD (Feb-97) and ESD (Feb-09). Includes 

groundwater extraction and treatment 

(with flow path control through injection 

of treated water) in combination with 

monitored natural attenuation for 

technetium-99, uranium, chromium (total 

and hexavalent), nitrate, carbon 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-11

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

tetrachloride and tritium; hydraulic 

containment and further treatment 

technology evaluation for iodine-129; 

remedy performance monitoring and 

institutional controls.

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.

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, 

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-12

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Washington (EPA 2005a) grouting in place some of the basin debris 

followed by removal along with the 

removal of the basins. 

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-99/112)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD

Area: 100-N

Date Approved: Sep-99

Initial Decision: 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 P&T system.

Explanation of Significant Differences 

for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 

Operable Units Interim Remedial Action 

Record of Decision, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington (EPA 

2011a)

ESD Mar-11 Adds 45 additional waste sites in the 100-

NR-1 OU for remediation by RTD 

(characterized per the 100-N Area 

sampling and analysis plan) and increases 

the total cost 38% to $67,510,386.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-13

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

Record of Decision

Title: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Declaration, U.S. Department of Energy 100 Area, 100-NR-1 

Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (EPA/ROD/R10-00/120)

ROD Type: CERCLA Interim Action ROD for 2 RCRA TSDs and an associated site

Area: 100-N

Date Approved: Jan-00

Initial Decision: RTD of 116-N-1 and 116-N-3 Cribs with ERDF disposal; backfill and revegetate; any pipelines 

will be removed or sampled and left in place based on sample results.

Revision Title 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.

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.

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 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-14

Table C-1. CERCLA Records of Decision and Associated Changes. (8 pages)

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 

Unit, 618-10 Burial Ground (EPA 

2011b)

ESD Aug-11 Modified remedy to allow for necessary 

treatment of liquid waste in bottles, up to 

1 gallon per bottle, to occur in trays within 

the excavation area in accordance with an 

approved work plan.

Record of Decision

Title: Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative), Hanford Site, Washington (EPA 2005b)

FINAL

ROD Type: CERCLA Final ROD

Area: 200 West

Date Approved: Oct-05

Initial Decision: 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.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-15

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“618-9 Burial Ground 

Expedited Response Action, 

Phase I Project Plan”

(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.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: 316-5 Process 

Trenches, U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington”

(CCN 9103432) 

Jul-91 ERA The Action Memorandum (AM) provides for excavation 

of soil from the 316-5 Process Trenches and interim 

stabilization pending further remedial action as part of 

the 300-FF-1 OU. This AM was initially not a final 

action; however, the ROD for 300-FF-1 OU, which 

covers these trenches, is a final CERCLA action.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal for 200 West Area 

Carbon Tetrachloride Plume”

(CCN 9200423)

Jan-92 ERA The AM identifies installation of a soil vapor extraction

system with granular activated carbon recovery and 

offsite granular activated carbon regeneration at 

216-Z-1A initially followed by systems at 216-Z-18 and 

216-Z-9. While this ERA is not a final decision; a final 

decision has been made through the CERCLA remedial 

process for 200-ZP-1 OU.

“Action Memorandum 

Approval: Sodium 

Dichromate Barrel Landfill, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(CCN 9307470)

Mar-93 ERA The AM identifies excavation and disposal of drums and 

homestead debris from the landfill with sampling of any 

other wastes encountered during excavation; the 

expedited reaction would result in cleanup of the landfill 

to unrestricted levels.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; Riverland Site, 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington” (CCN 9305567)

Jun-93 ERA The AM provides for cleanup of the Riverland Site, part 

of the 100-IU-1 OU, through excavation to address 

pesticide and hydrocarbon contamination, ordnance 

survey and removal, and sandblasting to decontaminate 

concrete.

“Action Memorandum: North 

Slope (Wahluke Slope) 

Expedited Response Action 

Cleanup Plan, U.S. 

Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA”

(Ecology and EPA 1994a)

Mar-94 ERA The AM provides for mitigation of physical hazards, 

excavation of the worst-case landfill, characterization of 

the other landfills, and if needed, excavation of other 

landfills based on characterization results; includes 

investigation and as needed, mitigation of ordinance 

burial pits. As stated in the AM, the intent of this action 

is to provide for the final removal action taken at the 

100-IU-3 OU (the Wahluke Slope).
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-16

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum, 

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

NPL,100-IU-3 Operable Unit 

(Wahluke Slope), Hanford 

Site, Adams, Grant, and 

Franklin Counties, 

Washington” (Ecology and 

DOE 1997)

Jul-97 TCRA The AM addresses contaminated soils and drums at the 

2,4-D Burial Ground in the 200-IU-3 OU. The removal 

action includes excavation of dioxin-contaminated soil 

for offsite disposal; bioremediation of 2,4-D 

contaminated soil; and excavation, cleaning, and 

disposal of the drums to ERDF. Under the 1994 AM for 

the Wahluke Slope, the 2,4-D Burial Ground was only 

identified for sampling. Subsequently, additional 

contamination was found, prompting this additional 

AM. Completion of this AM action allows continuation 

of the deletion process for the OU from the NPL.

“Action Memorandum; 

N Springs Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA”

(Ecology and EPA 1994b)

Sep-94 ERA The AM identifies a P&T system combined with a 

vertical barrier for implementation at N Springs. These 

systems comprise a component of the overall cleanup of 

N Springs but were also intended to provide additional 

information to the ongoing CERCLA and RCRA 

processes. This ERA is not a final decision.

“Action Memorandum: 

Expedited Response Action 

Proposal; 100-BC-1 

Demonstration Project; 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Hanford Site; Richland, 

Washington” (EPA and 

Ecology 1995)

Jun-95 ERA The AM allows contaminated soils from waste sites 

116-B-4, 116-B-5, and 116-C-1 to be excavated and 

temporarily stored in a safe fashion pending the start of 

ERDF operations; the actions under this AM would also 

provide additional information to support remedial 

design, including cost information, for the 100-BC-1 

OU. The ERA was not intended as a final decision; the 

100-BC-1 OU has been incorporated into an interim 

ROD and is undergoing a final ROD process.

“Action Memorandum, 183-H 

Solar Evaporation Basin 

Waste Expedited Response 

Action Cleanup Plan”

(CCN 040739)

Nov-96 ERA The AM identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 

183-H Solar Evaporation Basin waste generated through 

cleanup activities. 

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 200 

West Area, Central Waste 

Complex, 183-H Solar 

Evaporation Basin Waste, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al.

2003)

Jun-03 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM allows for the treatment and disposal to ERDF 

of wastes generated during the RCRA closure of 183-H 

basins

“Action Memorandum, N 

Area Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup 

Plan” (CCN 038546)

Nov-96 ERA The AM identifies ERDF as the disposal location for 

contaminated sediment and debris from the Emergency 

Dump Basin, facility deactivation waste, and 

environmental investigation waste from the 100-N Area.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-17

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum; 

100-B/C Area Ancillary 

Facilities and the 

108-F Building Removal 

Action, U.S. Department of 

Energy Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA” (EPA 1997)

Jan-97 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies D4 with ERDF disposal for the 

following facilities in the 100-B and 100-F Areas: 

111-B, 115-B, 118-C-4, 119-B, 105-C reactor waste, 

and 108-F. B Reactor and the ISS of 105-C Reactor are 

not included in the AM. This action is considered final 

for the ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the 

reactor. Additional decisions are expected on the reactor 

core that is in ISS.

“Action Memorandum: 

Removal Action at the 233-S 

Plutonium Concentration 

Facility, United States

Department of Energy 

(USDOE) Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington”

(DOE and EPA 1997)

Mar-97 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies decontamination and demolition as 

the preferred alternative for the 233-S and 233-SA 

buildings, including subsurface systems and structures to 

a depth of 3 ft (further actions beyond the 3-ft depth 

would be deferred to the associated source OU). Waste 

meeting the criteria would be disposed to ERDF; other 

waste would be disposed as appropriate.

“Action Memorandum:

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL), 

105-F and 105-DR Reactor 

Buildings and Ancillary 

Facilities, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington”

(CCN 059689)

Jul-98 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-F and 105-DR reactor 

cores and decontamination and demolition for the 

reactor components up to the cores and for the 116-D, 

116-DR, 117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary facilities. 

Demolition will extend generally to 3 ft below ground 

level; however, substructures and/or soil beneath the 

facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be excavated. 

This action is considered final for the ancillary facilities 

and demolished portions of the reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores that are in 

ISS.

“Action Memorandum:

USDOE Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List, 100-N 

Area Ancillary Facilities; 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-18

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum: United 

States Department of Energy 

Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL); 105-D 

and 105-H Reactor Facilities 

and Ancillary Facilities; 

Hanford Site; Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and 

Ecology 2000)

Dec-00 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-F and 105-DR 

Reactor cores and decontamination and demolition for 

the reactor components up to the cores and for the 

116-D, 116-DR, 117-DR, and 119-DR ancillary 

facilities. Demolition will extend generally to 3 ft below 

ground level; however, substructures and/or soil beneath 

the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be 

excavated. This action is considered final for the 

ancillary facilities and demolished portions of the 

reactors. Additional decisions are expected on the 

reactor cores that are in ISS.

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 

Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List (NPL), 105-B 

Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington”

(DOE and EPA 2001)

Dec-01 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM identifies appropriate actions at B Reactor to 

mitigate the threat to Site workers, public health or 

welfare or the environment by removing hazardous 

substances from the facility; these actions are consistent 

with increased public access to the reactor building; 

surveillance and maintenance activities would continue. 

Any wastes generated during the mitigation activities 

would be disposed to ERDF.

“Action Memorandum; U.S. 

Department of Energy, 200 

Area, Burial Ground 

218-W-4C Waste Retrieval, 

Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE et al.

2004)

Apr-04 TCRA The AM provides for the treatment and disposal of 

low-level and mixed low-level waste at ERDF from the 

M-091 TRU retrieval activities at the 218-W-4C Burial 

Ground. TRU is excluded from the AM.

“Action Memorandum: 

Request for Time Critical 

Response for Treatment and 

Disposal of Sludge from the 

105-K East North Loadout Pit, 

USDOE Hanford Site” (DOE 

and EPA 2004)

Jun-04 TCRA The AM requires the treatment of 105-K East North 

Loadout Pit waste prior to temporary storage at Hanford 

and ultimate disposal at WIPP. 

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time Critical Removal 

Action for the 224-B 

Plutonium Concentration 

Facility (DOE/RL-2004-36)

Jun-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 224-B 

Facility, removing equipment and associated piping, 

decontaminating the structure and/or stabilizing the 

contamination, demolishing the structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the 

area. Samples will be used to determine the need for 

additional cleanup of the remaining slab and any 

subsurface soils; however, these cleanup actions are not 

included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-19

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“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 

0093881)

Nov-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the remaining contaminated 

equipment to be removed and the building 

decontaminated, stabilized, and dismantled leaving the 

building slab, which will be addressed under a future 

CERCLA action.

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities 

(DOE/RL-2004-67)

Dec-04 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the non-radiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the U Plant 

Ancillary Facilities, removing equipment and associated 

piping, decontaminating the structures and/or stabilizing 

the contamination, demolishing the structures to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the area 

around U Plant. The AM provides of listing of the 

specific facilities included. Slabs and underlying soils 

would be addressed as needed through future CERCLA 

actions.

“Action Memorandum #1 for 

the 300 Area Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2005a)

Jan-05 Non–

timecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 72 buildings and 

structures in the northern part of the 300 Area with D4 

wastes going to ERDF. An additional 10 buildings and 

structures were included in the EE/CA that supports the 

AM; however, those buildings and structures were 

demolished and found to have no hazardous materials 

prior to the AM.

“Action Memorandum #2 for 

the 300 Area Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2006a)

May-06 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of the 324 and 327 

Buildings and ancillary facilities in the 300 Area with 

D4 wastes going to ERDF. The AM provides a list of 

the ancillary facilities. In general, slabs and subsurface 

structures would be removed along with about 1 m of 

surrounding soil; however, on a case-by-case basis, the 

slabs and/or below-grade structures and soils can be 

deferred to CERCLA actions associated with the 

300-FF-2 OU.

“Action Memorandum #3 for 

the 300 Area Facilities,”

(DOE and EPA 2006b)

Nov-06 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action 

The AM provides for the D4 of 110 buildings and 

structures in the southern part of the 300 Area with D4 

wastes going to ERDF. An additional 30 buildings and 

structures were included in the EE/CA that supports the 

AM; however, those buildings and structures are not 

included in the AM because DOE has identified 

alternative uses for them.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-20

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

“Action Memorandum; United 

States Department of Energy, 

100 Area, 105-N Reactor 

Facility and 109-N Heat 

Exchanger Building, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, 

Washington” (DOE and 

Ecology 2005)

Mar-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the D&D of portions of the 105-N 

and 109-N facilities and construction of a protective 

cover over the 105-N Reactor block and the 109-N

steam generator cells and pipe gallery, placing them into 

ISS; waste would generally be disposed to ERDF. The 

final D&D of these facilities would be conducted in the 

future to allow for decay of radionuclides in the reactor 

block. AM identifies the ISS period as 64 years. This 

action is considered final for the demolished portions of 

the reactor and heat exchange building. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor core and building 

that are in ISS.

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.

“Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 100-K Area 

Ancillary Facilities” (DOE 

and EPA 2005b)

Jun-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the D4 of 27 buildings and 

structures in the northern part of the 100-K Area with 

D4 wastes going to ERDF. In general, slabs and 

subsurface structures would be removed along with 

about 1 m of surrounding soil; however, on a 

case-by-case basis, the slabs and/or below-grade 

structures and soils can be deferred to CERCLA actions 

associated with the 100-KR-1 and 100-KR-2 source 

OUs.

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 224-T 

Plutonium Concentration 

Facility (DOE/RL-2004-68)

Jun-05 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 224-T 

Facility, removing equipment and associated piping, 

decontaminating the structure and/or stabilizing the 

contamination, demolishing the structure to slab, 

disposing of the waste generated, and stabilizing the 

area. Samples will be used to determine the need for 

additional cleanup of the remaining slab and any 

subsurface soils; however, these cleanup actions are not 

included in the AM, but deferred to future activities.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-21

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

Action Memorandum for the 

Time-Critical Removal Action 

for Support Activities to 

200-UW-1 Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2005-71)

Sep-05 TCRA The AM provides for activities in support of the U 

Canyon barrier construction, including removal of part 

of the 200-W-42 pipeline, rerouting TEDF line and 

stabilizing/removing a waste water line; complete or 

partial removal of a concrete slab; removal and sealing 

of 3 vent risers; and relocation of miscellaneous markers 

or utilities. The TCRA was used to accelerate work 

consistent with weather conditions and to take advantage 

of availability of specialize resources. This action is not 

considered final; the decision process is ongoing for the 

waste sites in the U Plant Area. The U Plant barrier 

ROD, however, is considered final.

“Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 105-KE and 

105-KW Reactor Facilities 

and Ancillary Facilities”

(DOE and EPA 2007)

Jan-07 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM identifies ISS for the 105-KE and 105-KW 

Reactor cores and decontamination and demolition for

the reactor components up to the cores and for the 

remaining buildings and structures in the 100-K Area. 

Subsurface structures will generally be removed to 3 ft 

below ground level; however, substructures and/or soil 

beneath the facilities that exceed cleanup levels will be 

evaluated through source OU cleanup activities. This 

action is considered final for the ancillary facilities and 

demolished portions of the reactors. Additional 

decisions are expected on the reactor cores that are in 

ISS.

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the Northern Part 

of the BC Controlled Area 

(UPR-200-E-83) 

(DOE/RL-2008-21)

May-08 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for the removal, treatment as needed, 

and disposal, generally to ERDF, of UPR-200-E-83 

Zone A soils to a depth of 6 inches, or until PRGs are 

met, and Zone B soils in areas of elevated radioactivity 

above PRGs. Excavation activities must consider old 

growth vegetation and avoid destruction of existing 

plant life. 

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 212-N, -P and 

-R Facilities 

(DOE/RL-2008-80)

May-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for removing the nonradiological and 

radiological hazardous substances from the 212-N, -P, 

and -R Facilities by removing equipment and associated 

piping, decontaminating the structures and/or stabilizing 

the contamination, demolishing each basin and 

underlying soils to a depth of 1 m, disposing of the 

waste generated, and stabilizing the surrounding area. 

Samples will be collected from the underlying soils to 

evaluate the need for additional cleanup activities 

Action Memorandum for the 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for the 212-N, 212-P, 

and 212-R Facilities, 

Addendum 1: Disposition of 

Railcars 

(DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1)

Dec-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for D4 of 16 railcars located in 

200 North Area with disposal to ERDF and includes an 

option to evaluate some of the cars for movement to the 

B Reactor for preservation. The AM identifies a 

pathway for addressing contaminated soils either by 

removal at the time of D4 or transfer to another OU for 

continued CERCLA action.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-22

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 11 Waste Sites in 

200-MG-1 Operable Unit

(DOE/RL-2009-48)

Jul-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for cleanup of 11 waste sites in the

100-MG-1 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (8 sites) or a removal, 

treatment, disposal alternative (3 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

Should the confirmatory sites not meet cleanup levels, 

they will then be addressed by the RTD alternative. 

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 37 Waste Sites in 

the 200-MG-1 Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2009-86)

Apr-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for cleanup of 37 waste sites in the 

100-MG-1 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (21 sites) or a removal, 

treatment, disposal alternative (16 sites). Cleanup levels 

will be consistent with existing 100 Area cleanup levels. 

Should the confirmatory sites not meet cleanup levels, 

they will then be addressed by the RTD alternative. The 

remainder of the 200-MG-1 OU sites are not included in 

the AM because contamination may exceed 15 ft below 

ground surface; they will be address through the 

CERCLA remedial process.

Investigation-Derived Waste 

Purgewater Management 

Action Memorandum 

(DOE/RL-2009-39)

Aug-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for additional purgewater 

management capacity by relining an existing unit and 

installing up to 3 new units, each with leak-detection 

systems. The purgewater management units will be 

operated in compliance with requirements, monitored 

during operations, and disassembled and dispositioned 

to appropriate requirements following the operational 

period. 

Action Memorandum for 

Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action for 200-MG-2 

Operable Unit 

(DOE/RL-2009-37)

Oct-09 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM provides for cleanup of 34 waste sites in the 

100-MG-2 OU using either a confirmatory sampling/no 

further action alternative (16 sites) or an RTD 

alternative (18 sites). Should the confirmatory sites not 

meet cleanup levels, they will then be addressed by the 

RTD alternative. The remainder of the 200-MG-2 OU 

sites are not included in the AM because contamination 

may exceed 15 ft below ground surface; they will be 

address through the CERCLA remedial process. 

Action Memorandum for 

General Hanford Site 

Decommissioning Activities 

(DOE/RL-2010-22)

Apr-10 Nontimecritical 

removal 

action

The AM establishes D4 for excess industrial buildings 

and structures and cleanup of miscellaneous debris; 

provides for removal of contaminated soil or evaluation 

of contaminated soils for inclusion as a waste site 

through WIDS; identifies ERDF as the preferred 

disposal location for wastes meeting ERDF disposal 

criteria; allows for the possibility of using certain wastes 

in other remedial actions, such as fill material beneath 

barriers; and allows for incorporation of additional, 

similar buildings and structures into the AM.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-23

Table C-2. CERCLA Action Memoranda. (9 pages)

Title Date Type of 

Action Removal Action/Decision

Action Memorandum for 

Decontamination, 

Deactivation, 

Decommissioning, and 

Demolition (D4) Activities for 

200 East Tier 2 

Buildings/Structures

(DOE/RL-2010-102)

Feb-11 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.

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.

P&T = pump-and-treat.

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-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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

Draft Hanford Facility Dangerous 

Waste Permit(Site-Wide Permit), 

Revision 9, (WA7890008967) (last 

modified September 30, 2009)

FINAL

The Washington State Department of 

Ecology issued a Draft Hanford Facility 

Dangerous Waste Permit, Revision 9, 

for public review and comment. The 

public comment period on the draft 

permit was from May 1, 2012, through 

October 22, 2012. Until the Department 

of Ecology reaches a final decision, 

Revision 8C of the Dangerous Waste 

Permit remains in effect.

This dangerous waste permit, for the treatment, storage, and disposal of 

dangerous waste at the Hanford Facility, is the RCRA Permit for the 

Hanford Facility. The permit allows a step-wise permitting process of 

the Hanford Facility to ensure the proper implementation of the TPA. In 

order to accomplish this, the permit consists of six parts. 

Part I, Standard Conditions

Part II, General Facility Conditions 

Part III, Unit-Specific Conditions for Final Status Operations

Part IV, Unit-Specific Conditions for Corrective Action 

Part V, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units Undergoing Closure

Part VI, Unit-Specific Conditions for Units in Post-Closure

Record of Decision: Decommissioning 

of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington 

(58 FR 48509).

FINAL

In December 1992, the DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) on Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 

Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0119F). 

The final EIS analyzed alternatives for decommissioning eight watercooled, graphite-moderated plutonium-production reactors, located along 

the Columbia River in Washington State. The eight reactors (B, C, D, 

DR, F, H, KE and KW), operated between the years 1944 and 1971, and 

have been retired from service. The alternatives analyzed in the EIS 

included the no action, immediate one-piece removal, safe storage 

followed by deferred one-piece removal, safe storage followed by 

deferred dismantlement, and in situ decommissioning alternatives.

The record of decision (ROD) was signed September 10, 1993, (58 FR 

48509, September 16, 1993). The ROD documented the DOE decision 

for safe storage followed by deferred one-piece removal of the eight 

surplus reactors.

DOE prepared a supplemental analysis to the EIS in July 2010 

(Supplemental Analysis, Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 

Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington [DOE/EIS-0119FSA-01]) to broaden the possible decommissioning approach, retaining 

the one-piece removal option and including the option for immediate 

dismantlement. DOE determined that the proposed action is not a 

substantial change to the alternatives previously analyzed in the EIS so a 

supplement to DOE/EIS-0119F or new EIS is not needed.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit No. PSD-X80-14, issued to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10

FINAL

Covers emission of NOx to the atmosphere from the Plutonium Uranium 

Extraction Plant and the Uranium-Trioxide Plant. No expiration date.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

FINAL

Covers operations on the Hanford Site having a potential to emit airborne 

emissions. The permit provides a compilation of applicable Clean Air 

Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401) requirements 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 WA-002591-7, Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit

FINAL

Authorizes discharge of water from 100 Area facilities to the Columbia 

River from Outfall 004 in accordance with discharge point, effluent 

limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions. Effective 

December 1, 2009 through July 31, 2014.

Permit WAR10B90F, Clean Water Act 

of 1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System General Permit

FINAL

Authorizes storm water discharges associated with construction activities 

from the Hanford Site to the Columbia River in accordance with a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan. No expiration date is specified; the 

estimated project completion date identified in the most recent Notice of 

Intent is May 27, 2014.

Permit CR-IU005, Clean Water Act of 

1977 – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit

FINAL

Allows wastewater from the Environmental Molecular Sciences 

Laboratory to be discharged to the city of Richland’s wastewater 

treatment facility.

Permit ST 4500, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows treated wastewater from the Effluent Treatment Facility to be 

discharged to the State-Approved Land Disposal Site. This permit 

expired August 1, 2005, and has not been reissued. The old permit will 

remain in effect until the new permit is issued.

Permit ST 4501, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows for the discharge of cooling water and other primarily 

uncontaminated wastewater from 400 Area facilities to two ponds 

located north-northeast of the 400 Area perimeter fence. This permit was 

effective October 1, 2003, and expired on October 1, 2008. It remains in 

effect pending proposed consolidation into Permit ST 4511.

Permit ST 4502, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows treated effluent from the 200-East and 200-West Areas to be 

discharged to the 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. This 

permit expired in May 2005 and remains in effect pending reissuance. A 

draft revised Permit ST0004502 underwent public review and comment 

in November 2011 and is awaiting final Ecology action.

Permit ST 4507, Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Allows domestic wastewater to be discharged to the 100-N Area sewage 

lagoon. This permit expired in May 2002. A renewal application was

submitted allowing the old permit will remain in effect. The current 

lagoon is being replaced with a new non-discharging lagoon (see Permit 

ST0045514) and upon closure Permit ST 4507 would be terminated.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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 ST 4511 , Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

FINAL

Consolidation of permits: ST 4508, ST 4509, and ST 4510. This 

Categorical State Waste Discharge Permit authorizes the discharge of 

wastewater from maintenance, construction, and hydrotesting activities 

and allows for cooling water, condensate, and industrial storm water 

discharges at the Hanford Site. This permit was issued February 16, 

2005 and was set to expire February 16, 2010. A renewal application 

was submitted to Ecology in August 2009, and a supplemental request 

was submitted in April 2010 to incorporate Permit ST 4501 as well. The 

renewal application is awaiting Ecology action.

Permit ST0045514 , Washington State 

Department of Ecology – State 

Wastewater Permit

A new non-discharging, lined evaporative lagoon is being constructed 

northeast of the 200 West Area for treatment of domestic wastewater. A 

draft permit has been prepared, public review and comment was received 

in May and June of 2012, and final Ecology action is pending.

Permit WAG-50-5180, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Sand and Gravel General Permit

FINAL

Permit for wastewater discharges associated with handling sand and 

gravel for the Concrete Batch Plant in the 200-East Area. Effective 

October 1, 2010 through October 1, 2015.

Permit WAG-50-5181, Washington 

State Department of Ecology – State 

Sand and Gravel General Permit

FINAL

Permit for wastewater discharges associated with Pit 30 Quarry 

operations in the 200-East Area. Effective October 1, 2010 through 

October 1, 2015.

Large Onsite Sewage Systems (LOSS) 

“Permit to Operate” HAN099

FINAL

Lists systems in the various areas

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Wells

Hanford has a number of UIC wells – storm water, non-storm water and 

septic systems. The Mission Support Contractor maintains the inventory 

and locations of active and inactive wells.

Table 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 ft3in each of the 100-series 

tanks, 30 ft3in each of the 200-series tanks, or the limit of waste retrieval 

technology capability.

Work to Be Performed 

Section IV.A.3

M-062-21

Under this decree, initial plant operations is defined as, over a rolling period 

of at least three months leading to the milestone date, operating the WTP to 

produce high-level waste glass at an average rate of at least 4.2 metric tons 

of glass/day, and low-activity waste glass at an average rate of at least 21 

metric tons of glass/day.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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 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.

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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

FINAL

This Act directed DOE to characterize and evaluate the Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, site for suitability as a potential repository for disposal of 

commercial spent nuclear fuel and HLW. The act also directed the President 

to evaluate the need for a separate repository for HLW resulting from atomic 

energy defense activities. On April 30, 1985, President Reagan completed 

this evaluation, the result of which was that high-level waste from atomic 

energy defense activities may be disposed of in the proposed repository 

along with spent nuclear fuel. After passage by the U.S. House of 

Representatives and U.S. Senate, on July 23, 2002, President Bush signed 

House Joint Resolution 87 approving the site at Yucca Mountain for the 

development of a repository for the disposal of HLW and spent nuclear fuel, 

pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

As indicated in the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget request, the 

Administration intends to terminate the Yucca Mountain program while 

developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives. Notwithstanding the decision 

to terminate the Yucca Mountain program, DOE remains committed to 

meeting its obligations to manage and ultimately dispose of HLW and spent 

nuclear fuel. The Administration directed the establishment of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (Commission) to evaluate 

alternative approaches for meeting these obligations. The Commission 

submitted its final report to the Secretary of Energy in January 2012. The 

Commission did not evaluate Yucca Mountain or any other location and 

recommended a waste management approach to resolve the current impasse, 

which has eight key elements:

1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste 

management facilities.

2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste 

management program and empowered with the authority and resources to 

succeed.

3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the 

purpose of nuclear waste management.

4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.

5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.

6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal 

facilities when such facilities become available.

7. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and 

for workforce development.

8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste 

management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

of 1992

FINAL

This Act, enacted on October 6, 1992, amended RCRA, Section 6961 and 

other sections and requires DOE to prepare plans that develop treatment 

capacity for mixed waste stored or generated at each facility, except for those 

facilities subject to a permit that establishes a schedule for treatment of such 

waste or an existing agreement or order governing the treatment of such 

waste to which the State is a party. The host state and/or EPA must approve 

each plan. The State of Washington, EPA, and DOE had an existing plan 

(i.e., the TPA) addressing compliance with the storage prohibition for mixed 

waste at the time this law was enacted. Therefore, Hanford was not required 

to develop a new plan. A violation of the TPA may concurrently be a 

violation of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 (i.e., the State of 

Washington may seek judicial enforcement under RCRA (42 USC 6901).

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act

(Public Law 102-579).

FINAL

The act withdrew land from the public domain for the purposes of creating 

and operating WIPP, the geologic repository in New Mexico designated as 

the national disposal site for defense transuranic waste. In addition to 

establishing the location for the facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act also defines the characteristics and amount of waste that will 

be disposed of at the facility. The amendments to the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant Land Withdrawal Act exempt waste designated by the Secretary of 

Energy for disposal at WIPP from the RCRA land disposal restrictions. 

However, these amendments do not exempt mixed transuranic waste from 

other RCRA requirements. WIPP does have an RCRA permit and can accept 

mixed transuranic waste. On May 15, 2003, EPA Region 6 approved DOE’s 

request to dispose of transuranic waste and mixed transuranic waste 

containing PCBs at WIPP subject to certain “conditions of approval.”

Spent Fuel Settlement Agreement

(No. CV-91-0035-S-EJL and 

No. CV-91-0054-S-EJL), 

October 17, 1995

This agreement allows INL to receive spent nuclear fuel and mixed waste 

from off site and establishes schedules for the treatment of existing highlevel waste, transuranic waste, mixed waste, and removal of spent nuclear 

fuel from the State. 

Consent Decree for Stabilization of 

SSTs at Hanford Site between U.S. 

Department of Energy and 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology (No. CT-99-5076-EFS) 

September 29, 1999

FINAL

This consent decree established a court-enforceable, technically sound 

schedule for pumping liquid nuclear waste from the remaining 29 

unstabilized SSTs. The key elements of the consent decree included: 

Pumping the tanks that pose the greatest environmental risk first, thus 

providing additional protection for the Columbia River and public 

health.

Accelerating the schedule for pumping so that 98 percent of 

approximately 23.5 million liters (6.2 million gallons) of remaining 

pumpable liquid is removed by September 30, 2003, with the final 

2 percent scheduled to be removed by September 30, 2004 (this was 

completed).

Increasing DOE funding to a level that supports successful execution of 

the new schedule for tank stabilization.

Work under the consent decree has been completed and the court has 

terminated the consent decree.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 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

Presidential Proclamation 7319,

Establishment of the Hanford Reach 

National Monument (June 9, 2000)

FINAL

This proclamation set apart and reserved the Hanford Reach National 

Monument to protect all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by 

the United States within the boundaries of the monument area. The lands 

reserved consist of approximately 195,000 acres, and are appropriated and 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or 

other disposition under the public land laws. The monument is to be 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under existing agreements 

with DOE. DOE retains its responsibilities under applicable environmental 

laws, including the remediation of hazardous substances or the restoration of 

natural resources at the Hanford Site.

Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

(November 6, 2000).

FINAL

This Executive Order supplements “Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and states that 

each executive department and agency shall consult, to the greatest extent 

practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with Tribal Nations prior to 

taking actions that affect Federally recognized tribal governments. This order 

also states that each executive department and agency shall assess the impact 

of Federal government plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal trust 

resources and ensure that tribal government rights and concerns are 

considered during the development of such plans, projects, programs, and 

activities.

U.S. Department of Interior 

Announcement, National Historic 

Landmark, August 19, 2008.

Hanford’s B Reactor, has been designated a National Historic Landmark by 

the U.S. Department of Interior. Since then, efforts have continued to 

include B Reactor in a new National Historical Park and on September 20, 

2012, a majority of members of the House of Representatives voted in favor 

of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act, H.R. 5987. However, 

the bill failed to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to pass under 

suspension of House Rules.

Consent Decree and Tri-Party 

Agreement Settlement Package, 

order signed October 25, 2010, 

settling State of Washington v. Chu, 

United States District Court, Eastern 

District of Washington, 

Case No. CV-08-5085-FVS

The Consent Decree and TPA Settlement Package imposes milestones for 

the construction, commissioning, and startup of the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP), as well as continued retrieval of waste from 

Hanford’s SSTs. Significant milestones in the Consent Decree require DOE 

to meet deadlines for the WTP’s facilities to keep construction on pace; start 

treating tank waste through the WTP by 2019; achieve initial plant 

operations by 2022; retrieve the waste from the remaining 10 tanks in the 

“C” tank farm by 2014; identify nine other SSTs to retrieve waste from by 

2014; and finish retrieving the waste from those nine other tanks by 2022. 

The Consent Decree also covers reporting requirements for waste retrievals 

from SSTs, regulatory coordination, and a process to resolve disputes 

between the agencies.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-31

Table C-5. Other Federal and State Decisions Affecting Hanford Site Cleanup Mission. (5 pages)

Other Federal/State Decision Summary of Decision

Settlement Agreement between the 

State of Washington and the U.S. 

Department of Energy (No. 2:

03CV-05018-AAM

January 6, 2006)

FINAL

Prior to the issuance of the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 

Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, 

Washington (HSW EIS) (DOE/EIS-0286F) and record of decision 

(69 FR 39449, “Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 

Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level 

Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste for 

Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant”), 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 Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

(DOE/EIS-0391) has been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until 

that time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decisionmaking, and DOE will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain 

limited exemptions as specified in the agreement.

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

HLW = high-level waste.

HSW EIS = Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 

Hazardous) Waste Program 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Richland, Washington.

INL = Idaho National Laboratory.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976.

SST = single-shell tank.

TPA = Tri-Party Agreement.

WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WTP = Waste Treatment Plant.

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.

58 FR 48509, 1993, “Record of Decision: Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 

Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Federal Register, December 16. 

59 FR 22951, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments,” Federal Register, May 4. 

64 FR 61615, 1999, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, November 12. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-32

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. 

CCN 038546, 1996, “Action Memorandum, N Area Waste Expedited Response Action Cleanup Plan” 

(letter to R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington 

State Department of Ecology from L.L. Piper), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington, November 7. 

CCN 040739, 1996, “Action Memorandum, 183-H Solar Evaporation Basin Waste Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup Plan” (letter to R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology from L.L. Piper, 

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

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, November 26. 

CCN 059689, 1998, “Action Memorandum: USDOE Hanford 100 Area National Priorities List 

(NPL); 105-F and 105-DR Reactor Buildings and Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site; 

Benton County, Washington,” Washington State Department of Ecology, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington, July 14. 

CCN 9100749, 1991, “618-9 Burial Ground Expedited Response Action, Phase I Project Plan, 

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

February 13.

CCN 9103432, 1991, “Action Memorandum Approval: 316-5 Process Trenches, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (letter to W. Bixby, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from C.E. Findley and 

R. Stanley), Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Seattle, Washington, July 15. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-33

CCN 9307470, 1993, “Action Memorandum Approval: Sodium Dichromate Barrel Landfill, 

U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to L.E. Little, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith and R. 

Stanley), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Richland, Washington, March 8. 

CCN 0093881, 2004, “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Non-Time Critical Removal Action Memorandum for Removal of the 

232-Z Contaminated Waste Recovery Process Facility from the Plutonium Finishing 

Plant” (letter to M.A. Wilson, Washington State Department of Ecology from K.A. 

Klein), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

November 5. 

Clean Air Act of 1977, 42 USC 7401, et seq. 

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC 1251, et seq. 

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

42 USC 9601, et seq. 

Consent Decree between the State of Washington and the U.S. Department of Energy, order 

signed January 6, 2006, in State of Washington v. Bodman, Civil Action No. 2: 

03CV-05018-AAM. 

Consent Decree 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, “Action Memorandum: Removal Action at the 233-S Plutonium 

Concentration Facility, United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, March 24. 

DOE and EPA, 2000, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 300 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL), 331-A Virology Laboratory Building, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, February 15. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-34

DOE and EPA, 2001, “Action Memorandum; U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford 100 Area 

National Priorities List (NPL) 105-B Reactor Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, December 27. 

DOE and EPA, 2004, “Action Memorandum: Request for Time Critical Response for Treatment 

and Disposal of Sludge from the 105-K East North Loadout Pit, USDOE Hanford Site,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 4. 

DOE and EPA, 2005a, “Action Memorandum #1 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, January 20. 

DOE and EPA, 2005b, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

100-K Area Ancillary Facilities,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, June 7. 

DOE and EPA, 2006a, “Action Memorandum #2 for the 300 Area Facilities,” U.S. Department 

of Energy, Richland Operations Office and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington. 

DOE and EPA, 2006b, “Action Memorandum #3 for the 300 Area Facilities, DOE/RL-2005-87” 

Letter Number 07-AMRC-0046, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, November 30. 

DOE and EPA, 2007, “Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

105-KE and 105-KW Reactor Facilities and Ancillary Facilities”, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 100-K Area Cleanup Project Manager and U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, January 4. 

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

DOE, EPA, and Ecology, 1998, “Action Memorandum; USDOE Hanford 100 Area National 

Priorities List, 100-N Area Ancillary Facilities; Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Richland, Washington, December 17. 

DOE, EPA, and Ecology, 2003, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 West 

Area, Central Waste Complex, 183-H Solar Evaporation Basin Waste, Hanford Site, 

Benton County, Washington,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Richland, Washington, June 25. 

DOE, EPA, and Ecology, 2004, “Action Memorandum: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Area, 

Burial Ground 218-W-4C Waste Retrieval, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington,” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, April 19. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-35

DOE/EIS-0119F-SA-01, 2010, Supplemental Analysis, Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/EIS-0286F, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program 

Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/EIS-0391, 2009, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tank Closure and Waste 

Management for the Hanford Site, Richland Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2004-36, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the 

224-B Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2004-67, 2004, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

U Plant Ancillary Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2004-68, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

224-T Plutonium Concentration Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2005-13, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Above-Grade 

Structures Non-time Critical Removal Action, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2005-71, 2005, Action Memorandum for the Time-Critical Removal Action for Support 

Activities to 200-UW-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2008-21, 2008, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

Northern Part of the BC Controlled Area (UPR-200-E-83), Rev. 0, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2008-80, 2009, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for the 

212-N, -P and –R Facilities, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2008-80-ADD1, 2010, Action Memorandum for the Non-Time Critical Removal Action 

for the 212-N, 212-P, and 212-R Facilities, Addendum 1: Disposition of Railcars, 

Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-37, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

200-MG-2 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-39, 2009, Investigation-Derived Waste Purgewater Management Action 

Memorandum, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington. 

DOE/RL-2009-48, 2009, Action Memorandum for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action for 

11 Waste Sites in 200-MG-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-36

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. 

Ecology and EPA, 1994a, “Action Memorandum: North Slope (Wahluke Slope) Expedited 

Response Action Cleanup Plan, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” 

(letter to R. Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from 

D. Butler, Washington State Department of Ecology and R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency), Washington State Department of Ecology, Kennewick, Washington, 

March 17. 

Ecology and EPA, 1994b, “Action Memorandum; N Springs Expedited Response Action 

Cleanup Plan, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to R. 

Izatt, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from R.F. Smith, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and D. Butler, Washington State Department of 

Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, September 23. 

EPA and Ecology, 1995, “Action Memorandum: Expedited Response Action Proposal; 

100-BC-1 Demonstration Project; U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site; Richland, 

Washington” (letter to L.K. McClain, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental 

Restoration from R.F. Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and M.A. Wilson, 

Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Richland, Washington, June 27. 

EPA, 1997, “Action Memorandum; 100-B/C Area Ancillary Facilities and the 108-F Building 

Removal Action, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, Richland, WA” (letter to 

J.M. Bruggeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office from D. 

Faulk), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Hanford Project Office, 

Richland, Washington, January 29. 

EPA, 2002, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable Unit Record of 

Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-37

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. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-38

EPA, 2009e, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 300-FF-2 Operable Unit Interim 

Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2010a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Record of Decision for the USDOE 

Hanford 1100 Area Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA, 2010b, U.S. Department of Energy, 100-NR-1 and NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site - 

100 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary 

and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2011a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable 

Units Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2011b, Explanation of Significant Differences, Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-2 Operable 

Unit, 618-10 Burial Ground, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2011c, Record of Decision, Hanford 200 Area, Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 

200-PW-3 and 200-PW-6 Operable Units Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA, 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund 

Site,200-UP-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-97/044, 1997, Amendment to the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 

100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-97/101, 1997, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-99/038, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/AMD/R10-00/122, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site – 100 Area, Benton 

County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and 

Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-39

EPA/AMD/R10-02/030, 2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility, Hanford Site – 200 Area, Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of 

Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-96/145, 1996, USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington, Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/045, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100 Area Remaining 

Sites ROD, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-IU-6 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/505, 2000, USDOE Hanford 300 Area, 300-FF-1 Operable Unit, Hanford 

Site, Benton County, Washington Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-00/524, 2000, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 300-FF-5 Record of 

Decision, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-03/605, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-NR-1 Operable 

Unit Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Interim Action Record of Decision and 

100-NR-1/100-NR-2 Operable Unit Interim Action Record of Decision, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ESD/R10-03/606, 2003, Explanation of Significant Difference for the 100-HR-3 Operable 

Unit Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-93/063, 1993, Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 1100 Area, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/100, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the Environmental 

Restoration Disposal Facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, Declaration of the Interim Record of Decision for the 

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-95/126, 1995, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 

100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-40

EPA/ROD/R10-96/134, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-HR-3 and 

100-KR-4 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/143, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 300-FF-1 and 

300-FF-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-96/151, 1996, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 

100-IU-4, and 100-IU-5 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 

200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 

100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 

100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, 

Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/059, 1999, Declaration of the Record of Decision for the 100-KR-2 Operable 

Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, 

Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-99/112, 1999, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 100-NR-1 and 

100-NR-2 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and 

U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

EPA/ROD/R10-00/120, 2000, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision Declaration, 

U.S. Department of Energy 100 Area, 100-NR-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton 

County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. 

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. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-41

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. 

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, 2011, Draft Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit (Site-Wide Permit), 

Revision 9, 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-2012-13, Rev. 0

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

C-42

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-i 

APPENDIX D 

HANFORD ESTIMATED CLEANUP COST AND SCHEDULE STATUS 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-iii

CONTENTS 

D.1 RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION..................................................................................................................2

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 ......................................................................5

D.1.3 SOLID WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION–200 AREA 

(PBS RL-0013C) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS .........................................9

D.1.4 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY (PBS RL-0020) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................23

D.1.5 SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION–GROUNDWATER / VADOSE 

ZONE (PBS RL-0030) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..............................25

D.1.6 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–REMAINDER OF HANFORD 

(PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................41

D.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE 

AND COST DETAILS ..........................................................................................48

D.1.8 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D-RIVER CORRIDOR CLOSURE 

PROJECT (PBS RL-0041) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ........................52

D.1.9 NUCLEAR FACILITY D&D–FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY PROJECT 

(PBS RL-0042) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................59

D.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 

(PBS RL-0100) SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........................................62

D.1.11 LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP (PBS RL-LTS) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................64

D.1.12 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS ..........67

D.2 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY 

INFORMATION................................................................................................................67

TABLES 

Table D-1. NM Stabilization and Disposition–PFP (PBS RL-0011) Level 3 Scope 

Summary. .................................................................................................................... 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). ............................. 3

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) ............................ 3

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

(3 pages) ...................................................................................................................... 5

Table D-5. SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012) Remaining Lifecycle 

Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................. 7
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 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) ................................... 7

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 

3 Scope Summary. (6 pages) ...................................................................................... 9

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). (4 pages) ................................................................................................. 15

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) ......................................................................................................................... 20

Table D-10. Safeguards and Securities (PBS RL-0020) Level 2 Scope Summary. .................... 23

Table D-11. Safeguards and Security (PBS RL-0020) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ............................................... 24

Table D-12. Soil and Water Remediation–Groundwater/Vadose Zone (PBS RL-0030) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (5 pages) ........................................................................ 25

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). (6 pages) ............................................................................................... 30

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). 

(5 pages) ................................................................................................................... 36

Table D-15. Nuclear Facility D&D–Remainder of Hanford (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 

Scope Summary. (3 pages) ..................................................................................... 41

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) ................................................................................................................. 44

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). (2 pages) ......... 46

Table D-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 

pages) ....................................................................................................................... 48

Table D-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule 

and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ......................................... 50

Table D-20. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, 

Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). ........................................................... 51

Table D-21. Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project (PBS RL-0041) 

Level 3 Scope Summary. (3 pages) ........................................................................ 52

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). ................................................................................................................. 55
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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) ................................................................................................................... 56

Table D-24. Nuclear Facility D&D–Fast Flux Test Facility Project (PBS RL-0042) Level 

3 Scope Summary. ................................................................................................... 59

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). .............................................................................................................. 60

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). ....... 61

Table D-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 3 

Scope Summary. ...................................................................................................... 62

Table D-28. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100), Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Levels 2 and 3, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ................................................................................. 63

Table D-29. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Level 2 Scope Summary. ....................... 64

Table D-30. Long-Term Stewardship (PBS RL-LTS) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and 

Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (2 pages) ............................... 65

Table D-31. Final Reactor Disposition Level 2 Scope Summary. ............................................... 67

Table D-32. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by 

Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). .......................................................... 67

Table D-33. 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) ...................................................................... 68

Table D-34. 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) ........................................................................................ 70

Table D-35. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining 

Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated) ....... 72

Table D-36. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term 

Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). (4 pages) ....... 73
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-vi

This page intentionally left blank. 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-vii 

TERMS 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

BOF Balance of Facilities 

CCP Central Characterization Project 

CENRTC capital equipment not related to construction 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CH contact-handled 

CSB Canister Storage Building 

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 

G&A general and administrative 

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 

KPS KOP Processing System 

LAW low-activity waste 
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-viii 

LERF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility 

LLBG low-level burial ground 

LOE level of effort 

LTS Long-Term Stewardship 

MCO multi-canister overpack 

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 

RTS Retention/Transfer System 

S&M surveillance and maintenance 

SAP sampling and analysis plan 

SNF spent nuclear fuel 

SST single-shell tank

STP Sludge Treatment Project 

STSC Sludge Transfer Storage Container 

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

WDOH Washington Department of Health 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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, 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. 

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] 2013) and a period of approximately 

5 more years. Due to the complexity of the Level 3 schedules, the information is reported in 

table format with costs by year. The start and finish of each Level 3 work element is reflected by 

the initial and final years that include costs. 

Information for each 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 are presented from FY 2013 through the final 

year of the lifecycle for all PBSs. PBS RL-LTS extends from FY 2060 through FY 2090. 

A near-term cost and schedule table at Level 3 by fiscal year that extends for 

approximately 5 years. 

Risk management is an essential function of project management. Cost and schedule uncertainty 

are included in the development of the Total Project Cost and the approved U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) planning case, and are reserved to accommodate additional work scope related to 

risk events that may stem from conditions and events that were not known during project 

planning, and other unanticipated changes or uncertainties. Information provided in this 

Lifecycle Report includes estimates for both cost and schedule uncertainty based on risk analysis 

methods that comply with DOE guidelines and orders. These estimates are identified as “cost 

and/or schedule uncertainty” in the tables in this appendix. Additional information about 

uncertainty and project risk is included in Section 2.1.2. 

 

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-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-2 

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 

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 

Final Reactor Disposition. 

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.

Level 2 Work 

Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Maintain Safe and 

Compliant PFP

Maintain Safe and Compliant 

PFP

Provides safety, emergency management, OSHA, fire protection 

programs, environmental management and administration, 

permitting, NEPA support, ensures the facility configuration 

minimizes risks, protects the environment, and remains in a safe 

and compliant condition, provides resources to manage and 

implement the PFP maintenance program, and provides special 

projects to safely sustain required facility capabilities.

Disposition PFP 

Facility

Disposition PFP Facility Addresses progressive deactivation and dismantling of systems, 

components, and structures in compliance with CERCLA 

process and resulting in established criteria (i.e., clean-slab-ongrade). Activities include necessary maintenance during D&D 

and activities to maintain temporary safe configurations.

PFP Closeout Activities

Project Management 

and Support

Project Management and 

Support

Provides for management functions, including management and 

technical/engineering support to the project mission.

Site-wide Services –

RL-0011 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure. See Table D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-2 and D-3 for schedule and budget information.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. 

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.

NM = nuclear materials.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-3

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP 25,243 28,572 8,814 168 0 0 62,797

Disposition PFP Facility 95,070 128,823 157,310 144,110 90,154 57,309 672,776

Project Management and Support 2,460 7,135 1,692 0 0 0 11,287

Usage-Based Services Distributions 2,899 3,026 1,952 0 0 0 7,877

Usage-Based Services, G&A, Direct Distribution 10,695 10,603 5,347 202 0 0 26,846

Site-wide Services 12,468 37,990 15,000 562 0 0 66,020

Total 148,834 216,149 190,115 145,042 90,154 57,309 847,604

G&A= General and Administrative.

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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

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

2 Maintain Safe and Compliant PFP 25,243 28,572 8,814 168 0 0 62,797

3 Maintain Safe and Compliance PFP 28,823 27,871 8,594 164 0 0 65,452

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Maintain Safe and Compliant 0 701 220 4 0 0 926

3 Productivity Challenge Adjustment -3,580 0 0 0 0 0 -3,580

2 Disposition PFP Facility 95,070 128,823 157,310 144,110 90,154 57,309 672,776

3 Disposition PFP Facility 102,742 90,802 42,939 2,500 0 0 238,983

3 PFP Closeout Activities 0 0 0 591 0 0 591

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Disposition PFP Facility 0 38,022 114,371 141,018 90,154 57,309 440,874

3 Productivity Challenge Adjustment -7,673 0 0 0 0 0 -7,673

2 Project Management and Support 2,460 7,135 1,692 0 0 0 11,287

3 Project Management & Support 7,064 6,959 1,651 0 0 0 15,673

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management & Support 0 176 41 0 0 0 218
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-4

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 Productivity Challenge Adjustment -4,604 0 0 0 0 0 -4,604

2 Usage-Based Services Distributions 2,899 3,026 1,952 0 0 0 7,877

3 Assessments for MSC Services to PRC 2,899 2,951 1,904 0 0 0 7,754

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - UBS Distributions 0 75 48 0 0 0 123

2 Usage-Based Services G&A, Direct Distribution 10,695 10,603 5,347 202 0 0 26,846

3 Fee and Management Reserve 10,695 10,603 5,347 202 0 0 26,846

2 Site-wide Services 12,468 37,990 15,000 562 0 0 66,020

3 Site-wide Services 6,057 33,303 12,957 485 0 0 52,802

3 Fee and Management Reserve 6,718 4,687 2,043 77 0 0 13,525

3 Productivity Challenge -307 0 0 0 0 0 -307

Total 148,834 216,149 190,115 145,042 90,154 57,309 847,604

G&A = General and Administrative.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

UBS = usage-based services.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-5 

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. (2 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Program Management 100-K Area Project Management This work element provides for overarching project 

management for the 100-K Area work activities.

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 

decontamination and decommissioning (D&D); includes 

support to preventative maintenance, operation of equipment, 

system walk downs, daily routines, management oversight, 

review and approve work package, and safety inspections.

Facility Operations 100-K Facility Operations and 

Support

Provides infrastructure maintenance support for non-reactor 

buildings (e.g., janitorial services, project support, direct 

supervision, sampling support, corrective maintenance, 

modifications); includes activities to operate all support 

facilities required to maintain 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; heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning units; fire systems, etc.) at 

KE, KW, and CVDF; and management of the National 

Pollution Discharge Environmental System at 100-K Area;

also provides for field operations for waste handling support 

for waste flows not specific to sludge treatment and D&D, 

including waste characterization and designation, planning, 

preparation of waste management plans, waste area operations, 

and shipment documentation and coordination. 

Sludge Treatment 

Project (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.

Process Containerized Sludge This work element includes designing and testing a system to 

retrieve, package, and transport the sludge being stored in 

engineered containers in the KW Basin to an interim storage

facility on the Central Plateau; procuring the Containerized 

Sludge Retrieval and transportation system; modifications to 

the existing 105 KW Facility and the construction of a new 

facility, including installation of all equipment necessary in the 

KW Facility and the new Annex; readiness and startup 

activities; retrieving sludge from the engineered containers in 

the KW Basin, loading the sludge into Sludge Transfer Storage 

Containers (STSC), transporting the STSCs to T Plant, 

receiving the STSCs at T Plant and placing them into interim 

storage; nuclear safety support; containerized sludge testing; 

sludge sampling and analysis; performing sludge treatment 

and packaging; T Plant modifications including project 

management, clear deck as required and clean out cells, 

modify additional cells, and update safety documentation.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-6 

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

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Sludge Disposition Sludge Disposition This work element includes design, procurement, fabrication, 

installation, testing, startup, operation, D&D of the equipment 

necessary to treat and package the sludge for ultimate 

disposition at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. This material is 

KE Basin and KW Basin floor sludge and settler tube sludge 

currently stored in engineered containers. The stabilization and 

packaging of sludge for offsite disposal is part of the K Basins 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1986 Interim Remedial Action. Treatment 

processes and system requirements will be developed through 

the project definition and conceptual design phase.

Site-wide Services –

RL-0012 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure. See Table D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-5 and D-6 for schedule and budget information.

ALARA = as low as reasonably achievable.

CVDF = Cold Vacuum Drying Facility.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

PBS = project baseline summary.

STP = Sludge Treatment Project.

STSC = Sludge Transfer Storage Container
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-7

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Program Management 2,468 2,461 0 0 4,930

K Basins Operations and Maintenance 8,962 12,743 9,941 3,285 34,931

Facility Operations 7,625 7,183 5,245 1,742 21,796

Sludge Treatment Project 51,721 53,637 31,401 19,612 156,370

Sludge Disposition 0 58,950 45,058 0 104,008

Usage-Based Services Distributions 3,730 3,727 3,841 1,941 13,239

RL-12 Usage-Based Services, General and

Administrative, and Direct Distribution

5,134 4,584 5,472 1,561 16,751

Site-wide Services - RL-0012 29,014 36,996 21,873 2,115 89,997

Total 108,655 180,281 122,831 30,255 442,021

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

2013 2014 2015 2016

1 SNF Stabilization and Disposition (PBS RL-0012)

2 Program Management 2,468 2,461 0 0 4,930

3 100K Area Project Management 2,411 2,401 0 0 4,811

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Program Management 58 61 0 0 119

2 K Basins Operations and Maintenance 8,962 12,743 9,941 3,285 34,931

3 KW Basin 12,389 12,311 9,510 3,203 37,414

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Basins Operations & 

Maintenance -3,427 432 432 81 -2,482

2 Facility Operations 7,625 7,183 5,245 1,742 21,796

3 100K Facility Operations & Support 7,625 6,937 5,029 1,694 21,285

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Facility Operations 0 246 216 48 510

2 Sludge Treatment Project 51,721 53,637 31,401 19,612 156,370

3 Management and Support 5,060 5,040 4,698 2,110 16,908

3 Process Containerized Sludge 50,876 35,944 12,287 3,348 102,456
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-8

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016

3 Cost and or Schedule Uncertainty - Sludge Treatment Project -4,215 12,652 14,416 14,154 37,007

2 Sludge Disposition 0 58,950 45,058 0 104,008

3 Sludge Disposition 0 58,950 45,058 0 104,008

2 Usage-Based Services Distributions 3,730 3,727 3,841 1,941 13,239

3 Assessments for MSC Services to PRC 3,730 3,635 3,746 1,893 13,005

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - UBS Distributions 0 92 94 48 234

2 UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 5,134 4,584 5,472 1,561 16,751

3 Fee and Management Reserve 5,134 4,584 5,472 1,561 16,751

2 Site-wide Services – RL-0012 29,014 36,996 21,873 2,115 89,997

3 Site-wide Services – RL-0012 29,014 36,996 21,873 2,115 89,997

Total 108,655 180,281 122,831 30,255 442,021

G&A = General and Administrative.

KW = K West.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

UBS = usage-based services.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-9 

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. 

(6 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.

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. Also includes various corrective 

maintenance tasks, facility modifications, or capital 

projects that are necessary to continue safe, cost-effective, 

and compliant operations throughout the operating life of 

the facility.

200 Area Interim Storage 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-10

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(6 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Mixed Low-Level Waste 

(MLLW) Treatment

Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-91-

42 (MLLW)

Prepare M-91-42 MLLW packages in aboveground 

storage at SWOC facilities (including the Waste Retrieval 

Project) for treatment, as required to meet regulatory 

requirements. This scope includes the management of 

offsite commercial MLLW treatment/disposal contracts, 

as well as the receipt of MLLW packages into the Onsite 

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches for disposal once the 

treatment has been completed and the packages have been 

determined to be land disposal restriction compliant.

Development of alternative methods for treatment and 

disposal of orphan waste may include seeking land 

disposal restrictions variance approvals, expanding 

commercial treatment facilities permit limits and 

construction and operation of additional onsite treatment 

capabilities.

M-91-43 (MLLW) Prepare large MLLW containers and remote handled 

packages in aboveground storage at Solid Waste 

Operations Complex facilities or retrieved from the LowLevel Burial Grounds for treatment, as required to meet 

regulatory requirements. This scope includes the 

management of offsite commercial MLLW treatment 

contracts, as well as the receipt of MLLW packages into 

the onsite Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches for disposal 

once the treatment has been completed and the package 

determined to be land disposal restriction compliant.

Other Treatment Activities This scope includes the identification and disposition of 

low-level waste packages in aboveground storage at Solid 

Waste Operation Complex facilities to meet rad waste 

storage compliance requirements. Disposition of these 

containers includes onsite and offsite processing and/or 

treatment activities. As such, this scope also includes the 

management of offsite commercial contracts. This scope 

includes final disposition of the processed containers 

(e.g., the management of receipt into appropriate disposal 

facility).

MLLW Project Management This scope includes the managing and maintenance of the 

MLLW treatment and disposal project as well as the 

management of offsite commercial MLLW 

treatment/disposal contracts. It also includes the receipt 

of MLLW packages into the Onsite Mixed Waste 

Disposal Trenches for disposal once the treatment has 

been completed and the packages have been determined 

to be land disposal restriction compliant.

TRU Retrieval CH Waste Retrieval Operations Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD 

facility of CH suspect TRU waste from LLBGs 

218-W-4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B.

RH Waste Retrieval Operations Provides for retrieval, designation, and transfer to a TSD 

facility of RH suspect TRU waste from LLBGs 218-W4C, 218-W-4B, 218-E-12B, and 218-W-3B.

TRU Repackaging TRU Repackaging Provides for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant production, TRU 

repacking operations at T Plant and WRAP, TRU 

program support for repack, and RH/large packaging 

Capabilities. It includes staffing, contracts and 

consumables directly related to operations.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-11

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(6 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

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.

WRAP Min Safe Operations 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.

Central Waste Complex

(CWC)

CWC Provides for the services necessary to maintain the CWC 

in a ready-to-serve status (base operations) for the interim 

storage of LLW, MLLW, TRU waste and waste receipts 

from DOE-RL approved generators.

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.

CWC Transition Following operations, CWC will be transitioned to a 

condition ready for D&D.

Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-12

Table D-7. Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition–200 Area (PBS RL-0013C) Level 3 Scope Summary. 

(6 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

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. From FY2019 to FY2049 DOE-ORP will 

operate these facilities as part of Waste Feed 

Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure

under PBS ORP-0014.

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.

300 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities 

Base Operations

Provides for maintenance of the 300 Area Treated 

Effluent Disposal Facility (310 TEDF) until it is 

transferred to decommissioning activities, surveillance 

and maintenance of the 340 Waste Handling Facility (340 

Facility) until it is transferred to decommissioning 

activities, and operation of the 310 Retention/Transfer 

System (310 RTS) which receives, samples, and disposes

of liquid effluents generated in the 300 Area to the city of 

Richland sewer system.

Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF)

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.

IDF-East 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.

Solid Waste Base 

Operations

Solid Waste Ready to Serve Provides for the minimum staffing to maintain a viable 

waste management program and to capture those waste 

support activities that are essentially fixed cost in nature.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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. 

(6 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

TRU Disposition Central Characterization Project (CCP) 

Support

Provides resources to develop and maintain an interface 

with Hanford site generators and the CCP to perform 

TRU Certification activities. Includes support for 

generators of TRU waste to define the CH and RH waste 

volumes and packaging requirements and resources to 

perform WIPP closeout activities to the current Hanford 

WIPP Program.

Establish Shipping Capability This work element includes modifications to an existing 

CWC 2404 series structure to provide an additional or 

alternative CH shipping capabilities and establishing RH 

shipping capabilities, including all capital funded 

activities.

TRU Shipping Provides for the WRAP facility to support TRU waste 

characterization in support of the CCP, including staffing, 

overtime and consumables directly related to providing 

waste containers and operating equipment under the 

guidance or control of CCP.

Spent Nuclear Fuel 

(SNF) Disposition

Fuel Prep Facility This work element includes design, construction and 

turnover to operations of a Fuel Preparation Facility to 

repackage fuel stored at the 200 Area Interim Storage 

Area into DOE Standard Canisters that satisfy repository 

acceptance requirements. The facility will include a 

shielded hot cell and remote welding capabilities.

Offsite SNF Disposition This work element includes Hanford Site activities to 

facilitate final disposition of Hanford SNF inventories at 

a National Repository including compliance document 

review, technical and programmatic interface with 

National Spent Nuclear Fuel and Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, SNF data package 

compliance, and planning for SNF disposition.

Mixed Waste Disposal 

Trenches

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base 

Operations

Provides 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 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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 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. 

(6 pages)

Level 2 Work Element Level 3 Work Element Scope Summary

Site-wide Services –

RL-0013C 

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure. See Table D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-8 and D-9 for schedule and budget information.

CCP = Central Characterization Project.

CENRTC= capital equipment not related to 

construction.

CH = contact-handled.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility.

ETF = Effluent Treatment Facility.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

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.

RTS = Retention/Transfer System.

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.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-15

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Canister Storage Building 5,005 7,765 6,483 6,554 6,622 6,935 9,626 9,578 9,020 9,961

Capsule Storage & Disposition 6,506 6,448 14,178 54,946 31,402 15,915 31,337 36,791 9,957 11,051

Central Waste Complex 5,395 14,476 9,673 9,569 9,716 10,248 13,137 13,540 14,300 14,318

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 39 1,591 3,363 3,995 2,543 806 11,448 6,910 11,130 831

Integrated Disposal Facility 825 1,195 4,976 893 364 380 4,525 4,377 4,490 4,619

Liquid Effluent Facilities 20,186 20,988 264 1,240 2,043 725 0 0 0 0

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 0 0 102 13,823 8,576 7,507 546 562 576 593

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 596 599 617 623 2,739 5,132 2 0 0 0

Site-wide Services 43,464 27,434 36,734 82,572 83,603 92,970 53,885 45,947 46,309 36,009

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 1,943 4,080 7,640 15,761 17,968 17,241 0 0 0 0

Project Management -PBS RL-0013 13,708 12,532 13,134 13,924 14,289 15,378 26,521 27,352 28,062 28,868

Sludge Disposition 0 0 9,315 113,711 244,174 153,823 34,112 50,658 51,914 54,781

SNF Disposition 260 263 3,693 22,891 39,745 34,735 39,421 35,597 36,505 5,209

Solid Waste Base Operations 2,871 2,904 2,994 3,018 3,064 3,195 0 0 0 0

T-Plant 14,306 14,439 15,722 18,915 19,359 26,711 22,934 23,634 24,237 24,925

TRU Disposition 2,046 209 1,264 33,397 47,610 44,301 42,164 38,766 39,784 40,934

TRU Repackaging 0 0 26,824 90,189 66,226 46,553 1,440 634 646 661

TRU Retrieval 0 406 11,641 116,772 98,027 58,064 19,757 4,067 119 0

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-0013 8,008 7,265 9,269 10,813 10,772 11,520 0 0 0 0

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 3,015 5,052 12,245 19,056 12,083 19,511 21,358 4 0 0

Total 128,173 127,648 190,132 632,664 720,926 571,650 332,212 298,418 277,051 232,760

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Canister Storage Building 8,382 8,704 8,746 8,243 8,530 9,730 9,063 9,127 9,983 10,296

Capsule Storage & Disposition 23,783 23,964 2,575 265 276 302 10,033 14,209 15,241 16,050

Central Waste Complex 14,635 15,144 7,632 8,418 8,220 8,587 8,823 8,936 5,909 5,487

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 156 161 164 167 174 180 186 190 198 202

Integrated Disposal Facility 4,722 8,246 22,529 39,994 10,580 5,646 5,679 5,741 6,071 6,172

Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 606 628 638 661 681 711 728 741 780 796
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-16

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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)

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services 33,554 57,791 55,232 61,692 53,325 63,263 66,484 61,489 55,993 52,564

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management -PBS RL-0013 29,517 30,654 31,034 19,187 7,916 8,281 8,508 8,664 9,116 9,308

Sludge Disposition 56,017 26,478 113,156 18,196 0 0 0 0 0 0

SNF Disposition 4,769 4,955 5,024 5,225 5,392 5,645 10,060 10,236 10,826 11,036

Solid Waste Base Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T-Plant 25,481 92,927 107,638 101,035 104,144 108,557 111,448 113,430 118,384 120,951

TRU Disposition 41,860 43,491 44,096 45,859 47,320 49,544 50,758 51,647 0 0

TRU Repackaging 674 692 708 724 741 758 772 793 32,013 9,295

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 244,156 313,836 399,171 309,667 247,298 261,204 282,543 285,203 264,517 242,159

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Canister Storage Building 10,741 11,090 12,265 15,760 17,544 7,905 7,879 8,350 8,274 8,953

Capsule Storage & Disposition 14,424 12,073 8,668 6,294 4,971 5,379 2,870 2,309 1,855 1,317

Central Waste Complex 5,721 5,944 6,680 23,580 0 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 210 219 224 219 230 265 297 275 256 259

Integrated Disposal Facility 6,476 6,681 6,862 6,582 7,006 8,043 8,889 8,418 7,875 8,015

Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 830 855 877 852 903 1,015 1,111 1,063 1,004 1,021

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services 61,485 65,353 65,942 43,381 28,620 34,852 25,330 18,528 11,431 10,622

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management -PBS RL-0013 9,739 10,056 10,317 9,917 10,615 12,036 13,293 12,613 11,813 12,006

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SNF Disposition 11,551 11,925 12,245 11,752 24,740 28,297 31,307 29,682 27,629 28,054

Solid Waste Base Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T-Plant 126,200 130,554 134,240 127,784 41,112 45,416 5,342 433 974 494
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-17

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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)

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 247,377 254,750 258,322 246,121 135,742 143,208 96,318 81,670 71,110 70,740

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052

Canister Storage Building 9,965 10,881 8,027 7,395 4,681 4,216 2,276 1,668 440 0

Capsule Storage & Disposition 676 483 280 133 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 313 306 289 295 309 6,745 7,419 343 0 0

Integrated Disposal Facility 9,590 9,412 8,839 5,122 5,514 5,449 1,988 1,877 2,054 960

Liquid Effluent Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96,050 92,745 94,041

Mixed Low Level Waste Treatment 1,199 1,182 1,126 1,153 1,202 1,262 1,399 1,338 1,425 1,253

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services 8,871 7,089 4,855 3,571 3,685 5,168 5,954 19,104 19,518 16,842

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management -PBS RL-0013 14,386 14,066 13,300 13,625 14,224 14,998 16,837 15,913 17,025 16,932

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SNF Disposition 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solid Waste Base Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T-Plant 4,138 4,570 5,027 5,633 4,350 2,522 2,513 3,844 3,972 2,017

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 49,273 47,990 41,742 36,928 33,964 40,359 38,386 140,136 137,178 132,044
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-18

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062

Canister Storage Building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capsule Storage & Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Integrated Disposal Facility 741 218 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Liquid Effluent Facilities 97,917 103,710 118,231 125,530 130,755 122,857 113,397 33,106 23,320 13,004

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 1,305 826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services 15,926 11,816 8,657 11,183 14,824 15,695 10,510 0 0 0

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management -PBS RL-0013 16,992 16,736 16,618 18,003 19,759 20,413 18,657 0 0 0

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SNF Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solid Waste Base Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T-Plant 1,841 2,664 1,719 1,353 540 461 315 14 0 0

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 134,722 135,970 145,235 156,069 165,878 159,425 142,879 33,120 23,320 13,004

Fiscal Year 2063 2064 2065 Total

Canister Storage Building 0 0 0 326,664

Capsule Storage & Disposition 0 0 0 386,962

Central Waste Complex 0 0 0 248,089

Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 0 0 0 62,909

Integrated Disposal Facility 0 0 0 268,648

Liquid Effluent Facilities 13,303 6,974 7,134 1,237,519

Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment 0 0 0 63,454
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-19

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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)

Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 0 0 0 10,309

Site-wide Services 0 0 0 1,659,127

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 64,634

Project Management -PBS RL-0013 0 0 0 746,842

Sludge Disposition 0 0 0 926,337

SNF Disposition 0 0 0 508,803

Solid Waste Base Operations 0 0 0 18,047

T-Plant 0 0 0 1,869,219

TRU Disposition 0 0 0 665,050

TRU Repackaging 0 0 0 280,345

TRU Retrieval 0 0 0 308,853

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-0013 0 0 0 57,648

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 0 0 0 92,324

Total 13,303 6,974 7,134 9,801,782

G&A = General and Administrative.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TRU = transuranic.

UBS = usage-based services.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-20

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

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

2 Project Management 13,708 12,532 13,134 13,924 14,289 15,378 82,966

3 Project Management 12,091 12,147 12,792 13,519 13,895 14,971 79,415

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management 1,617 386 342 405 394 407 3,551

2 Capsule Storage and Disposition 6,506 6,448 14,178 54,946 31,402 15,915 129,395

3 WESF Base Operations 6,353 6,289 6,483 16,001 12,875 6,915 54,916

3 Cesium/Strontium Capsule Disposition 0 0 7,349 23,791 18,100 8,548 57,788

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Capsule Storage and 

Disposal

153 159 346 15,154 427 452 16,691

2 Canister Storage Building (CSB) 5,005 7,765 6,483 6,554 6,622 6,935 39,363

3 Canister Storage Building 4,853 7,544 6,264 6,330 6,437 6,684 38,112

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - CSB 152 221 218 224 185 251 1,251

2 Mixed Low-Level Waste (MLLW) Treatment 0 0 102 13,823 8,576 7,507 30,011

3 M-91-42 (MLLW) 0 0 0 4,745 7,216 6,223 18,184

3 M-91-43 (MLLW) 0 0 0 716 460 197 1,373

3 Other Treatment Activities 0 0 0 144 30 0 174

3 MLLW Project Management 0 0 100 351 357 371 1,178

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - MLLW Treatment 0 0 3 7,867 514 719 9,102

2 TRU Retrieval 0 406 11,641 116,772 98,027 58,064 284,908

3 Contact-Handled Waste Retrieval Operations 0 0 3,667 86,693 53,557 46,426 190,343

3 Remote-Handled Waste Retrieval Operations 0 0 7,393 18,849 28,937 5,297 60,476

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - TRU Retrieval of Stored 

Waste

0 406 581 11,229 15,533 6,340 34,089

2 TRU Repackaging 0 0 26,824 90,189 66,226 46,553 229,795

3 TRU Repackaging 0 0 25,145 82,521 51,398 43,516 202,580

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - TRU Repackaging 0 0 1,679 7,669 14,828 3,038 27,214

2 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP) 3,015 5,052 12,245 19,056 12,083 19,511 70,962

3 WRAP Base Operations 0 0 7,406 7,290 7,409 0 22,105

3 WRAP Transition 0 2,045 0 0 0 10,063 12,108

3 Min-Safe Operation 2,944 2,927 4,275 4,319 4,390 0 18,855

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - WRAP 71 81 565 7,446 284 9,448 17,895
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-21

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2 T-Plant 14,306 14,439 15,722 18,915 19,359 26,711 109,451

3 T-Plant Base Operations 13,969 13,999 15,318 14,523 14,698 15,335 87,842

3 T-Plant Upgrades 0 0 0 3,805 4,164 10,449 18,418

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - T-Plant 337 440 403 587 497 927 3,191

2 Central Waste Complex (CWC) 5,395 14,476 9,673 9,569 9,716 10,248 59,078

3 CWC Base Operations 4,455 13,110 8,803 8,852 8,987 9,438 53,645

3 Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds 709 1,145 644 497 505 525 4,025

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - CWC 231 222 226 220 224 285 1,408

2 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) 39 1,591 3,363 3,995 2,543 806 12,337

3 ERDF Cell Expansion 0 7 3,091 2,361 2,387 734 8,580

3 ERDF Interim Cover 0 1,381 0 1,438 0 0 2,819

3 ERDF Operations 38 81 38 39 39 49 284

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - ERDF 1 122 234 157 117 23 654

2 Liquid Effluent Facilities 20,186 20,988 264 1,240 2,043 725 45,445

3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Base Operations 19,698 20,295 20,363 20,576 20,896 5,315 107,143

3 200 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Upgrades 288 520 -20,304 -19,516 -19,508 -4,919 -63,439

3 300 Area Liquid Effluent Facilities Base Operations 200 173 205 180 211 190 1,159

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Liquid Effluent 

Facilities

0 0 0 0 443 139 582

2 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) 825 1,195 4,976 893 364 380 8,634

3 IDF Operations 338 330 341 344 350 363 2,066

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - IDF 487 865 4,636 549 14 17 6,568

2 Solid Waste Base Operations 2,871 2,904 2,994 3,018 3,064 3,195 18,046

3 Solid Waste Ready to Serve 2,803 2,813 2,899 2,929 2,977 3,093 17,514

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Solid Waste Base 

Operations

68 91 95 89 87 102 532

2 TRU Disposition 2,046 209 1,264 33,397 47,610 44,301 128,827

3 CCP Support 0 0 0 0 568 591 1,159

3 Establish Shipping Capability 2,046 209 1,106 33,364 43,629 43,024 123,378

3 TRU Shipping 0 0 0 0 2,920 0 2,920

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - TRU Disposition 0 0 159 33 492 687 1,371
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-22

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2 Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Disposition 260 263 3,693 22,891 39,745 34,735 101,589

3 Fuel Prep Facility 0 0 2,947 2,974 3,020 3,144 12,085

3 Offsite SNF Disposition 246 248 255 19,412 36,216 31,064 87,441

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - SNF Disposition 14 15 491 505 510 528 2,063

2 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches 596 599 617 623 2,739 5,132 10,305

3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Base Operations 582 583 601 607 617 641 3,631

3 Mixed Waste Disposal Trenches Upgrades 0 0 0 0 2,018 4,257 6,275

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Mixed Waste Disposal 

Trenches

14 16 16 15 104 234 399

2 Sludge Disposition 0 0 9,315 113,711 244,174 153,823 521,024

3 Sludge Disposition 0 0 9,315 113,711 231,214 147,193 501,433

3 Cost and or Schedule Uncertainty - Sludge Treatment 0 0 0 0 12,961 6,630 19,591

2 Usage Based Services (UBS) Distributions 8,008 7,265 9,269 10,813 10,772 11,520 57,648

3 Assessments for MSC Services to PRC 3,214 2,518 3,073 4,218 4,093 4,411 21,527

3 Assessments -Other Provided Services to PRC 4,606 4,489 5,950 6,191 6,336 6,745 34,317

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - UBS Distributions 189 258 247 404 343 364 1,805

2 UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 1,943 4,080 7,640 15,761 17,968 17,241 64,633

3 PRC Fee and Management Reserve 1,943 4,080 7,640 15,761 17,968 17,241 64,633

2 Site-Wide Services 43,464 27,434 36,734 82,572 83,603 92,970 366,777

Total 128,174 124,648 182,726 625,371 713,518 571,654 2,346,091

CCP = Central Characterization Project.

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

CWC = Central Waste Complex.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

G&A = General and Administrative.

IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

MLLW = Mixed Low-Level Waste.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

PBS = project baseline summary.

SNF = spent nuclear fuel.

TRU = transuranic.

UBS = usage-based services.

WESF = Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

WRAP = Waste Receiving and Processing (Facility).
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-23

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.

NOTE: See Table D-11 for schedule and budget information.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-24

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Safeguards and Security 64,127 67,290 66,789 69,215 70,051 76,970 101,003 62,876 64,780 66,650

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Safeguards and Security 68,428 70,806 71,795 74,657 77,031 80,639 82,941 84,064 88,893 90,261

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Safeguards and Security 94,828 98,281 100,920 96,133 103,104 54,320 59,809 57,183 53,367 54,217

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052

Safeguards and Security 64,503 63,127 60,251 61,708 64,162 67,201 75,335 71,646 76,910 77,799

Fiscal Year 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059

Safeguards and Security 80,987 79,873 79,400 85,837 93,981 97,060 89,059

Total 3,560,265
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-25

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 Management and Reporting

Environmental Databases

Value Engineering Studies

Systematic Planning Integration

Drilling 100-KR-4 Drilling Planning, coordinating, and implementing well drilling 

and well decommissioning for Hanford Site wells 

according to project-specific requirements. 100-NR-2 Drilling

100-HR-3 Drilling

200-BP-5 Drilling

200-PO-1 Drilling

200-UP-1 Drilling

200-ZP-1 Drilling

200-PW-1 Drilling

TPA M-24-00 Well Drilling

Miscellaneous Well Drilling

Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells

100-BC-5 Well Drilling 

100-FR-3 Well Drilling

300-FF-5 Well Drilling

Deep Vadose Zone

Project Management Project Management and Support Planning, management direction, evaluation, and 

management system outputs for this PBS.

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 – GRP Field Work Projects

IFW – Field Equipment Purchases 

(CENRTC)

RL-30 Spare Parts
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-26

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 Scope includes operation, maintenance, sampling, and 

dismantlement of the Modutanks used for disposal of 

groundwater from onsite well sampling and 

maintenance; management, oversight, and performance

of borehole and geophysical logging; groundwater 

sampling, water level monitoring, laboratory analysis, 

data management, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting 

for RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facilities, 

CERCLA OUs, and other permitted facilities and sites; 

operation and maintenance of the Hanford Geotechnical 

Sample Library which is the repository for historical 

sediment, core, and other soil and sediments samples 

used for scientific studies including laboratory studies, 

bench tests, conceptual model development, and fate 

and transport evaluations for contaminant migration; 

well maintenance; and development of an updated soil 

survey map of the Hanford Site.

Geophysical Sciences and Logging

Groundwater Lab Analysis and Data 

Management

Groundwater Sample Collection

Hanford Geotechnical Sample Library

Groundwater Data Evaluation and 

Reporting

Well Maintenance, Monitoring and 

Reporting

Hanford Soil Survey

100-BC-5 Operable 

Unit

100-BC-5 Operable Unit Project 

Management

Scope includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, and field studies and 

deployment.

100-BC-5 CERCLA Process

Implementation

100-BC-5 Remedial Actions - Interim 

and Final

100-BC-5 Well Support

100-BC-5 Monitoring and Reporting

100-BC-5 Field Studies and 

Deployment

100-KR-4 Operable 

Unit

100-KR-4 Operable Unit Project 

Management

Scope includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, and final deactivation 

and decommissioning of remedy components.

100-KR-4 CERCLA Process 

Implementation

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 D&D 

100-NR-2 Operable 

Unit

100-NR-2 Project Management Scope includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, and final deactivation 

and decommissioning of remedy components.

100-NR-2 CERCLA Process 

Implementation

100-NR-2 Remedial Actions - Interim 

and Final

100-NR-2 Well Support

100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting

100-NR-2 D&D
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-27

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, 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 D&D

100-FR-3 Operable 

Unit

100-FR-3 OU Project Management Scope includes project management, CERCLA process 

implementation for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, and monitoring and reporting.

100-FR-3 CERCLA Process 

Implementation

100-FR-3 Remedial Actions - Interim 

and Final

100-FR-3 Well Support

100-FR-3 Monitoring and Reporting

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, remedial actions, and well 

support.

200-PO-1 Decision Documentation

200-PO-1 Remedial Actions - Interim 

and Final

200-PO-1 Well Support

200-UP-1 Operable 

Unit

200-UP-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, remedial actions, 

well support, monitoring and reporting, and final 

deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components.

200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

200-UP-1 Well Support

200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting

200-UP-1 D&D
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 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

200-ZP-1 Operable 

Unit

200-ZP-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, remedial actions, 

and final deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components.

200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions - Interim

and Final

200-ZP-1 D&D

200-PW-1 Operable 

Unit

200-PW-1 Project Management Scope includes project management, remedial actions, 

and final deactivation and decommissioning of remedy 

components.

200-PW-1 Remedial Actions - Interim 

and Final

200-PW-1 D&D

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 300-FF-5 Project Management Scope includes project management, decision 

documents for final remedy, remedial actions, well 

support, monitoring and reporting, and field studies and 

deployment.

300-FF-5 Decision Documentation

300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim 

and Final)

300-FF-5 Well Support

300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting

300-FF-5 Field Studies and

Deployment

Regulatory Decisions 

and Closure Integration 

1

B/C Cribs and Trenches Area 

Remediation 200-BC-1

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-TW-1/PW-5 Scavenged Waste

200-PW-2/4 Uranium-Rich Process

200-PW-1/3/6 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

Burial Ground Sampling and Analysis

Closure Zones

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 Operable Unit The Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit will address 

mitigation of the contamination present at the Hanford 

Site in the deep vadose zone. The initial actions

planned for this OU are the development of the decision 

documents, field studies, and deployment activities. 

Deep Vadose Zone Decision 

Documentation
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 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

Deep Vadose Zone Field Studies and 

Deployment

Other tasks for this OU, such as remedial action 

planning and implementation; well support activities; 

monitoring and reporting support; OU modifications and 

expansions; and final deactivation and decommissioning 

of the OU remediation activities at the conclusion of the 

project, will be included following the decision process.

Site-wide Services –

RL-0030

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure. See Table D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-13 and D-14 for schedule and budget information.

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.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-30

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 452 4,652 13,631 13,972 1,501 1,391 2,637 2,713 2,784 17,181

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 748 3,013 2,249 679 515 253 2,734 2,733 2,816 2,912

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 6,510 15,017 19,196 10,260 11,469 12,471 15,110 2,899 1,544 2,473

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 8,174 28,843 40,557 35,538 31,060 32,124 6,510 6,774 5,557 4,936

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 5,397 16,259 3,891 2,406 5,924 4,940 14,104 14,377 13,981 9,718

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 929 7,418 14,539 6,582 7,900 9,364 11,030 12,223 4,264 4,419

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 335 9,792 4,013 13,233 1,205 583 979 1,269 611 490

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,541 1,527 1,968 1,995 2,263 2,584 2,045 2,106 2,647 2,563

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 569 2,117 3,230 38,698 35,805 40,643 3,344 3,538 890 977

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 10,391 11,053 11,011 11,233 13,606 10,853 21,874 21,859 22,947 58,570

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 5,932 44,261 31,357 31,910 29,040 25,071 1,981 2,305 13,823 13,507

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 22,986 5,167 7,186 3,115 3,500 41,045 59,879 80,804 59,062

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 1,748 2,050 1,836 942 470 468 658 19,265 7,984 0

Drilling 13,350 37,150 41,494 19,776 16,307 19,400 6,884 5,369 4,747 10,637

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

20,890 21,152 18,730 20,312 20,028 23,494 17,742 17,431 18,188 18,679

Integrated Field Work 7,513 7,265 7,036 7,040 7,403 7,676 12,742 13,131 13,489 13,845

Integration and Assessments 11,453 10,171 12,264 12,233 15,224 12,698 16,463 16,880 17,413 15,856

Site-wide Services 52,588 64,479 59,255 40,138 54,619 44,406 34,238 42,834 45,789 49,820

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 3,927 4,243 17,262 26,055 181,823 3,906 0 37,094 22,236 2,825

Fee and Management Reserve 6,229 6,227 6,258 6,602 7,777 8,124 0 0 0 0

Project Management 5,689 8,277 8,524 8,627 9,141 9,491 14,501 14,952 15,340 10,875

UBS Distribution 5,587 5,487 5,758 8,907 7,772 6,639 2 2 1 2

Total 169,954 333,440 329,226 324,323 463,967 280,078 226,624 299,632 297,854 299,348
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-31

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 17,568 18,252 3,101 3,208 1,332 284 290 295 311 315

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 1,011 297 279 293 311 331 345 325 392 345

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 2,369 2,712 2,758 658 331 343 297 303 393 352

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 27,388 3,937 41,523 10,608 5,362 449 7,424 347 462 294

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 4,442 4,548 4,650 4,774 4,873 4,991 5,106 5,117 5,176 5,294

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 3,910 3,527 3,223 2,575 2,400 2,088 1,784 1,167 898 562

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 483 481 848 518 559 571 561 989 620 638

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 3,691 2,284 126 132 136 142 146 148 157 185

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 6,385 587 510 486 458 464 442 449 499 502

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 30,011 25,171 25,684 26,745 67,750 28,863 29,226 30,073 31,261 79,363

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 13,542 8,297 245 253 260 270 276 282 294 300

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 18,913 1,632 1,081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drilling 10,286 8,982 8,163 13,107 7,144 7,817 7,394 7,371 8,318 6,959

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

19,129 19,818 19,966 20,813 21,152 22,093 22,655 23,149 24,362 24,759

Integrated Field Work 14,151 14,354 14,610 12,737 13,157 11,861 12,134 12,307 6,943 7,053

Integration and Assessments 16,036 16,563 17,020 17,555 18,601 19,113 19,568 19,672 20,776 21,770

Site-wide Services 33,253 32,038 25,089 29,043 40,640 31,459 32,303 30,017 33,326 46,825

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 1,023 970 287 328 1,039 9 9 9 10 10

Fee and Management Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management 11,121 11,058 11,299 11,738 12,099 8,735 8,923 9,125 4,523 4,662

UBS Distribution 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2

Total 234,712 175,508 180,466 155,573 197,606 139,886 148,883 141,150 138,722 200,191
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-32

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 330 341 352 340 362 412 455 432 403 406

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 392 404 343 354 357 436 465 414 443 384

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 415 354 357 390 394 490 468 434 464 389

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 272 183 187 312 345 290 255 230 317 242

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 5,419 5,559 5,673 5,795 5,934 6,102 6,239 6,370 6,501 6,668

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 437 457 502 487 608 568 557 530 557 494

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 672 666 1,181 672 733 831 878 1,448 806 797

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 118 122 125 120 129 147 162 154 143 145

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 502 477 489 525 433 486 481 298 317 335

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 33,729 34,604 35,696 34,306 36,685 3,818 3,908 4,121 4,260 3,633

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 311 321 328 323 339 370 398 388 375 383

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drilling 7,578 7,218 7,412 767 249 494 2 2 934 290

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

25,899 26,720 27,579 26,448 27,977 32,524 36,424 33,757 31,466 31,981

Integrated Field Work 7,391 7,436 7,739 7,319 7,871 8,954 9,879 9,318 8,733 8,852

Integration and Assessments 21,955 22,633 23,063 22,196 23,734 26,785 29,787 28,121 26,570 26,761

Site-wide Services 36,229 38,497 38,923 24,829 31,300 29,697 38,522 28,414 17,392 16,137

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 10 11 11 12,113 5,057 1,473 68 0 0 0

Fee and Management Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management 4,888 4,688 4,810 4,630 4,951 5,604 6,209 5,900 5,520 5,631

UBS Distribution 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 4

Total 146,552 150,693 154,773 141,930 147,461 119,483 135,159 120,332 105,208 103,534
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-33

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 485 483 458 462 482 511 569 537 578 587

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 493 524 448 530 456 498 587 520 637 556

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 573 477 452 590 307 296 268 27 159 142

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 383 246 234 351 260 225 140 139 317 147

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 6,830 6,979 7,125 7,309 7,461 7,638 7,832 8,018 8,190 8,377

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 630 613 598 619 831 789 701 666 725 742

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 970 928 1,526 929 959 1,021 1,103 1,053 1,163 1,160

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 389 332 313 382 397 412 398 377 460 468

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 2,545 1,172 2,622 4,583 2,859 1,370 3,550 4,362 2,008 1,170

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 431 429 418 429 444 462 500 488 514 523

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drilling 475 2 2 1,173 312 442 2 2 1,425 349

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

38,256 37,538 35,461 36,283 37,910 39,978 44,692 42,400 45,302 46,056

Integrated Field Work 10,618 10,370 9,805 10,084 10,526 11,147 12,462 11,755 12,587 12,850

Integration and Assessments 30,406 29,429 27,800 25,828 26,026 27,276 30,565 28,995 31,145 31,592

Site-wide Services 31,187 24,945 17,227 15,859 16,104 16,991 23,192 15,870 17,711 15,333

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fee and Management Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management 6,685 6,591 6,208 6,351 6,631 6,963 7,853 7,411 7,981 8,062

UBS Distribution 6 7 8 5 5 7 7 7 7 7

Total 131,363 121,064 110,706 111,764 111,970 116,025 134,420 122,627 130,910 128,122
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-34

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 612 603 596 648 711 735 671 9 0 0

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 615 622 577 659 678 757 643 7 0 0

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 23 57 61 3,898 1,214 8,467 1,120 1,146 1,172 0

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 267 145 150 156 181 187 173 20 0 0

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 8,574 8,785 8,956 9,176 9,405 9,624 9,815 9,787 0 0

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 778 706 699 759 875 955 843 55 32 2

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 1,218 1,166 1,162 1,257 1,386 1,431 1,313 77 0 0

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 493 419 416 450 525 522 478 23 0 0

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 1,154 0 0 0 1,517 0 0 0 0 0

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 542 541 542 576 616 634 603 238 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drilling 325 2 2 2 80 82 84 86 0 0

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

47,913 47,408 47,258 50,874 55,854 57,698 52,786 1,964 0 0

Integrated Field Work 13,317 13,170 13,037 14,114 15,518 16,031 14,653 416 0 0

Integration and Assessments 32,861 32,263 32,263 34,851 38,079 39,332 36,026 1,733 0 0

Site-wide Services 14,582 10,864 8,019 10,359 13,732 14,538 9,736 0 0 0

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fee and Management Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project Management 8,455 8,278 8,291 8,958 9,594 10,127 9,212 223 228 0

UBS Distribution 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 131,734 125,029 122,030 136,737 149,965 161,121 138,155 15,786 1,432 2
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-35

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (6 pages)

Fiscal Year 2063 2064 2065 Total

100-BC-5 Operable Unit 0 0 0 119,436

100-FR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 36,381

100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 0 0 132,068

100-KR-4 Operable Unit 0 0 0 304,222

100-NR-2 Operable Unit 0 0 0 350,107

200-BP-5 Operable Unit 0 12 11 118,640

200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 67,285

200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 29,751

200-UP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 152,190

200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 0 0 791,219

300-FF-5 Operable Unit 0 0 0 235,672

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 0 0 304,369

Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 0 0 0 35,421

Drilling 0 0 0 290,448

Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

0 0 0 1,480,948

Integrated Field Work 0 0 0 512,402

Integration and Assessments 0 0 0 1,115,404

Site-wide Services 0 0 0 1,398,348

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 0 0 0 321,809

Fee and Management Reserve 0 0 0 41,216

Project Management 0 0 0 385,633

UBS Distribution 0 0 0 40,288

Total 0 12 11 8,263,253

UBS = usage-based services.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-36

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (5 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Soil and Water Remediation-Groundwater/Vadose Zone, PBS RL-0030

2 Integration and Assessments 11,453 10,171 12,264 12,233 15,224 12,698 74,043

3 Strategic Integration 636 640 660 668 675 704 3,984

3 Technical Integration 1,332 1,318 3,193 2,582 3,970 3,117 15,513

3 Remediation Decision Support 199 201 220 529 407 483 2,039

3 Remediation Science and Technology 5,070 2,813 2,335 2,129 2,164 2,248 16,760

3 Sample Management and Reporting 1,998 2,079 2,218 2,723 2,540 2,413 13,972

3 Environmental Databases 1,933 1,926 2,240 2,393 2,432 2,118 13,043

3 Value Engineering Studies 0 352 363 367 0 0 1,083

3 Systematic Planning Integration 468 562 771 585 501 520 3,407

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – Integration and Assessment -183 279 264 256 2,535 1,095 4,246

2 Drilling 13,350 37,150 41,494 19,776 16,307 19,400 147,480

3 100-KR-4 Drilling 2,296 9,158 13,524 1,279 1,300 1,351 28,908

100-NR-2 Drilling 0 0 0 1,584 241 1,351 3,176

3 100-HR-3 Drilling 2,399 9,267 13,670 625 635 660 27,256

3 200-BP-5 Drilling 0 0 832 0 3,151 0 3,982

3 200-PO-1 Drilling 0 0 1,038 1,395 0 1,282 3,716

3 200-UP-1 Drilling 916 11,450 6,714 0 -478 -60 18,542

3 200-ZP-1 Drilling 4,623 4,726 262 4,186 4,446 4,370 22,614

3 200-PW-1 Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 502 502

3 M-24-00 Well Drilling 1,960 51 1,007 1,038 1,408 1,463 6,927

3 Miscellaneous Well Drilling 588 585 603 609 619 643 3,648

3 Decommission Non-Tank Farm Wells 0 0 0 2,928 2,973 3,358 9,260

3 100-BC-5 Well Drilling 0 919 3,579 4,133 0 3,738 12,370

3 100-FR-3 Well Drilling 0 0 0 498 0 524 1,023

3 300-FF-5 Well Drilling 0 0 0 1,014 1,031 0 2,045

3 Deep Vadose Zone 569 815 0 240 0 0 1,624

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Drilling 0 179 265 246 981 219 1,890

2 Project Management 5,689 8,277 8,524 8,627 9,141 9,491 49,750

3 Project Management and Support 5,689 8,157 8,406 8,493 8,632 8,969 48,346

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Project Management 0 120 119 133 509 522 1,403
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-37

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (5 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2 Integrated Field Work (IFW) 7,513 7,265 7,036 7,040 7,403 7,676 43,933

3 IFW - Operations and Maintenance 7,269 6,677 6,659 6,729 6,839 7,105 41,278

3 IFW - Field Equipment Purchases (CENRTC) 0 217 0 0 0 0 217

3 Spare Parts 244 238 246 165 168 175 1,236

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - IFW 0 133 131 145 397 396 1,202

2 Groundwater Monitoring and Performance Assessments 20,890 21,152 18,730 20,312 20,028 23,494 124,614

3 Modutanks 538 544 561 567 576 592 3,377

3 Geophysical Sciences and Logging 2,568 2,519 2,596 2,623 2,666 4,186 17,158

3 Groundwater Lab Analysis and Data Management 7,198 7,054 5,846 5,907 6,004 6,238 38,247

3 Groundwater Sample Collection 5,713 5,752 4,149 4,193 4,261 4,427 28,495

3 Hanford Geotechnical Sample Library 148 145 149 151 154 160 907

3 Groundwater Data Evaluation and Reporting 2,303 2,310 2,516 2,570 2,137 2,540 14,376

3 Well Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting 2,423 2,418 2,499 2,518 2,559 2,659 15,076

3 Hanford Soil Survey 0 0 0 1,355 826 850 3,031

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Groundwater Monitoring and 

Performance Assessments

0 410 420 428 845 1,843 3,946

2 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 452 4,652 13,631 13,972 1,501 1,391 35,597

3 100-BC-5 Operable Unit Project Management 192 194 147 149 151 157 990

3 100-BC-5 CERCLA Process Implementation 259 237 0 0 0 0 496

3 100-BC-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 3,140 13,382 13,690 1,120 1,146 32,478

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-BC-5 Operable Unit 0 1,082 101 133 229 88 1,633

2 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 8,174 28,843 40,557 35,538 31,060 32,124 175,574

3 100-KR-4 Project Management 312 315 272 275 279 290 1,742

3 100-KR-4 CERCLA Process Implementation 477 75 0 0 0 0 552

3 100-KR-4 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 6,170 20,765 28,770 23,416 23,826 24,687 127,634

3 100-KR-4 Monitoring and Reporting 268 405 174 176 179 186 1,388

3 100-KR-4 Modifications and Expansions 947 911 891 824 963 1,001 5,537

3 100-KR-4 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 148 148

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-KR-4 Operable Unit 0 6,373 10,450 10,848 5,813 5,813 38,572

2 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 5,397 16,259 3,891 2,406 5,924 4,940 38,818

3 100-NR-2 Project Management 250 193 171 139 130 135 1,017
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-38

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (5 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 100-NR-2 CERCLA Process Implementation 581 271 0 0 0 0 852

3 100-NR-2 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 4,520 13,415 1,298 345 351 364 20,293

3 100-NR-2 Monitoring and Reporting 46 43 43 39 40 41 252

3 100-NR-2 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 314 314

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-NR-2 Operable Unit 0 2,337 2,379 1,883 5,404 4,086 16,089

2 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 6,510 15,017 19,196 10,260 11,469 12,471 74,923

3 100-HR-3 Project Management 348 349 360 363 369 384 2,173

3 100-HR-3 Decision Documentation 405 348 0 0 126 131 1,011

3 100-HR-3 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 5,007 13,325 17,928 8,962 9,133 9,428 63,783

3 100-HR-3 Monitoring and Reporting 192 290 136 138 140 146 1,042

3 100-HR-3 Modifications and Expansions 558 549 566 571 581 603 3,428

3 100-HR-3 D&D 0 0 0 0 0 717 717

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-HR-3 Operable Unit 0 157 206 225 1,119 1,063 2,770

2 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 748 3,013 2,249 679 515 253 7,458

3 100-FR-3 Operable Unit Project Management 192 194 147 149 151 157 990

3 100-FR-3 CERCLA Process Implementation 556 193 0 0 0 0 749

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 100-FR-3 Operable Unit 0 2,626 2,102 531 363 96 5,718

2 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 929 7,418 14,539 6,582 7,900 9,364 46,732

3 200-BP-5 Project Management 185 187 193 195 198 206 1,165

3 200-BP-5 Decision Documentation 647 759 315 452 77 0 2,250

3 200-BP-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 0 0 3,716 6,310 10,026

3 200-BP-5 Field Studies and Deployment 96 0 0 0 0 0 96

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-BP-5 Operable Unit 0 6,472 14,031 5,935 3,910 2,848 33,196

2 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 335 9,792 4,013 13,233 1,205 583 29,468

3 200-PO-1 Project Management 185 187 193 195 198 206 1,165

3 200-PO-1 Decision Documentation 150 428 293 89 0 0 960

200-PO-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 0 0 0 84 116 82 282

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-PO-1 Operable Unit 0 9,177 3,527 12,865 890 295 27,062

2 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 569 2,117 3,230 38,698 35,805 40,643 121,064

3 200-UP-1 Project Management 210 0 0 69 71 73 423

3 200-UP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 292 2,093 3,212 38,606 35,560 40,559 120,322
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-39

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (5 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 200-UP-1 Monitoring and Reporting 68 0 0 0 0 0 68

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-UP-1 Operable Unit 0 24 19 22 175 11 251

2 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 10,391 11,053 11,011 11,233 13,606 10,853 68,048

3 200-ZP-1 Project Management 408 246 419 423 429 448 2,374

3 200-ZP-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 9,983 9,547 9,569 10,107 11,267 9,399 59,773

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-ZP-1 Operable Unit 0 1,259 1,023 704 1,911 1,005 5,902

2 200-PW-1 Operable Unit 1,541 1,527 1,968 1,995 2,263 2,584 11,878

3 200-PW-1 Project Management 205 205 490 498 508 524 2,430

3 200-PW-1 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 1,336 1,281 1,430 1,445 1,469 1,767 8,728

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 200-PW-1 Operable Unit 0 41 48 51 286 294 720

2 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 5,932 44,261 31,357 31,910 29,040 25,071 167,571

3 300-FF-5 Project Management 281 284 293 296 301 313 1,768

3 300-FF-5 Decision Documentation 417 27 0 0 0 0 444

3 300-FF-5 Remedial Actions (Interim and Final) 5,144 30,869 19,955 20,845 21,772 22,639 121,224

3 300-FF-5 Monitoring and Reporting 359 199 204 206 210 218 1,396

3 300-FF-5 Field Studies and Deployment -269 -319 -10 0 0 0 -598

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - 300-FF-5 Operable Unit 0 13,201 10,914 10,563 6,757 1,902 43,337

2 Regulatory Decisions and Closure Integration 3,927 4,243 17,262 26,055 181,823 3,906 234,737

3 Burial Ground Sampling and Analysis 0 0 0 15,092 0 0 15,092

3 Closure Zones 1,669 3,804 17,191 10,952 181,817 3,901 219,334

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Regulatory Decisions 2,258 439 71 12 6 6 311

2 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 1,748 2,050 1,836 942 470 468 7,514

3 Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Tests 1,748 1,980 1,836 942 14 0 6,520

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Deep Vadose Zone 

Treatability Tests

0 71 0 0 455 468 994

2 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 22,986 5,167 7,186 3,115 3,500 41,955

Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit 0 266 392 397 403 419 1,877

3 Deep Vadose Zone Decision Documentation 0 272 1,433 1,552 187 210 3,654

Deep Vadose Zone Field Studies and Deployment 0 0 3,341 5,237 0 0 8,578

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Deep Vadose Zone Operable 

Unit

0 22,448 0 0 2,526 2,872 27,846
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-40

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (5 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2 UBS Distributions -PBS RL-30 5,587 5,487 5,758 8,907 7,772 6,639 40,150

3 Assessments for MSC Services to PRC 5,529 5,317 5,601 8,697 7,688 6,567 39,399

3 Assessments for Other Provided Services to PRC 58 171 157 210 84 71 751

2 PRC Fee and Management Reserve 6,229 6,227 6,258 6,602 7,777 8,124 41,217

3 PRC Fee and Management Reserve 6,229 6,227 6,258 6,602 7,777 8,124 41,217

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 52,588 64,479 59,255 40,138 54,619 44,406 301,590

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0030 38,693 64,479 59,255 40,138 54,619 44,406 301,590

Total 169,954 333,440 329,226 324,323 463,967 280,078 1,900,988

CENRTC= capital equipment not related to construction.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning. 

G&A = General and Administrative.

IFW = Integrated Field Work.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

PBS = performance baseline summary.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-41

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 and 

Closure Integration

Central Plateau Program

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 

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).

Below Slab Remediation ROD 

Non-Canyon Facilities

Includes preparation of a feasibility study, proposed plan, and 

ROD for remediation of the non-canyon facility slabs.

Hazard Reduction Provides the necessary resources and equipment to establish 

and execute hazard reduction in advance of scheduled facility 

D&D.

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 process. 

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 newlydefined 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.

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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-42

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 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.

Zone 19, Waste Management

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.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-43

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 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 (and Misc.) 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.

Outer Area This includes the demolition of structures, remediation of 

waste sites, construction of barriers, and closure of the zone. 

Scope includes deactivation of existing structures as 

applicable, formal evaluation (Facility Decommissioning 

Evaluation) of deactivated structures to determine if and 

which CERCLA decommissioning path is appropriate, 

generation of regulatory and work documents as applicable, 

demolition of structures, remediation of waste sites and 

pipelines, closure of wells not required for future monitoring, 

construction of barriers, O&M, utility relocations, closure of 

the zone, and post-ROD confirmatory sampling.

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. See Table D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-16 and D-17 for schedule and budget information.

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.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-44

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 12,388 9,155 9,478 9,513 9,692 10,034 13,069 13,431 13,742 13,992

Site-wide Services 230 5,767 39,442 45,680 43,172 42,163 62,400 60,892 66,222 72,787

Regulatory Decisions & Closure Integration 1,319 10,160 10,479 20,572 26,205 28,006 23,405 21,362 21,815 22,441

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 644 670 2,653 5,351 8,742 3,803 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions - PBS RL-40 935 904 1,377 3,228 6,513 8,355 0 0 0 0

Zone Environmental Remediation 110 0 157,560 340,551 356,362 260,137 386,932 346,865 332,873 357,607

Total 15,627 26,656 220,989 424,895 450,686 352,497 485,806 442,550 434,652 466,826

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 14,965 14,636 14,862 15,454 15,953 16,670 17,130 20,605 21,774 23,269

Site-wide Services 82,725 54,153 60,445 44,990 41,611 34,754 30,219 24,804 37,374 32,476

Regulatory Decisions & Closure Integration 22,946 23,749 23,362 24,170 24,934 26,071 26,731 27,193 28,717 29,270

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions - PBS RL-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zone Environmental Remediation 477,696 207,176 243,319 142,638 116,628 81,040 62,086 66,931 69,026 70,842

Total 598,332 299,714 341,987 227,252 199,126 158,535 136,166 139,533 156,891 155,858

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 23,212 23,953 24,611 23,633 25,259 28,707 31,684 31,159 30,724 31,534

Site-wide Services 32,288 30,359 27,209 65,564 69,353 59,734 55,399 72,065 89,183 88,196

Regulatory Decisions & Closure Integration 30,583 31,557 32,406 31,200 33,269 37,798 41,705 39,657 37,072 37,655

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions - PBS RL-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zone Environmental Remediation 63,586 68,746 92,956 449,198 363,797 250,407 277,059 387,732 580,787 668,461

Total 149,670 154,616 177,183 569,596 491,678 376,647 405,847 530,613 737,767 825,847

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 36,164 35,455 33,512 34,293 35,812 37,587 11,553 10,897 8,390 8,334

Site-wide Services 67,341 72,214 79,277 77,183 71,652 63,416 48,867 38,689 29,345 28,451

Regulatory Decisions & Closure Integration 44,979 44,128 41,711 42,724 44,625 46,954 52,552 49,887 53,404 54,222

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions - PBS RL-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zone Environmental Remediation 471,916 595,849 505,735 459,992 414,740 319,953 188,087 227,513 310,302 281,370

Total 620,400 747,646 660,236 614,192 566,829 467,910 301,058 326,986 401,441 372,377
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-45

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 8,551 8,437 8,333 9,065 9,916 8,499 4,988 2,983 2,944 2,751

Site-wide Services 23,007 24,065 22,707 20,454 14,287 13,569 24,703 46,250 0 0

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 56,468 55,637 55,252 59,818 65,341 67,765 62,013 37,029 37,291 36,347

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UBS Distributions - PBS RL-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zone Environmental Remediation 258,385 314,737 418,531 321,770 228,945 239,421 405,422 160,826 103,958 41,041

Total 346,412 402,876 504,823 411,107 318,489 329,255 497,126 247,088 144,193 80,138

Fiscal Year 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Total

S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 2,605 2,331 2,132 1,770 1,247 551 147 10 893,547

Site-wide Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,237,134

Regulatory Decisions/Closure Integration 35,220 33,826 29,778 25,999 17,944 8,001 1,904 271 1,956,896

UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,863

UBS Distributions - PBS RL-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,313

Zone Environmental Remediation 36,828 27,491 28,182 11,361 6,304 8,799 3,199 866 13,670,631

Total 74,653 63,648 60,092 39,130 25,495 17,350 5,250 1,148 18,801,384

G&A = General and Administrative.

PBS = project baseline summary.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

UBS = usage-based services.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-46

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Remainder of Hanford, PBS RL-0040

2 Regulatory Decisions & Closure Integration 1,319 10,160 10,479 20,572 26,205 28,006 98,070

3 Central Plateau Project Management 1,104 1,106 3,426 10,787 14,097 15,318 45,838

3

Emergency Response for Facility/Waste Site ESH&Q or 

Remediation - FY 2014 - FY 2048

468 8,779 6,705 6,765 6,869 7,150 36,736

3 Hazard Reduction 0 0 0 2,211 3,560 4,280 10,051

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Decisions and Closure 

Integration

-253 275 348 810 1,679 1,257 5,446

2 Zone Environmental Remediation 110 0 157,560 340,551 356,362 260,137 1,114,762

3 200-E Admin Zone 0 0 0 161 0 0 161

3 200-E Ponds Zone 0 0 0 164 0 0 164

3 200-W Ponds Zone in Industrial Exclusive Zone 0 0 860 91,751 46,053 23,951 162,615

3 B Farm Zone 0 0 896 908 1,083 956 3,844

3 B Plant Zone 0 0 2,970 3,001 3,217 3,170 12,359

3 C Farm Zone 0 0 0 0 110 59 169

3 CSB Zone 0 0 0 163 0 0 163

3 ERDF Zone 0 0 26 26 194 28 274

3 ETF Zone 0 0 0 3 164 0 167

3 PFP Zone 0 0 10,027 27,581 58,730 50,794 147,133

3 PUREX Zone 0 0 50,464 74,431 64,380 30,392 219,666

3 REDOX Zone 0 0 359 758 368 383 1,868

3 S/U Farm Zone 0 0 1,108 1,184 1,087 1,130 4,508

3 Semi-Works Zone 0 0 21,275 10,556 15,245 1,101 48,177

3 Solid Waste Zone 0 0 19,319 19,521 19,880 27,506 86,226

3 T Farm Zone 0 0 1,774 1,930 1,848 1,893 7,446

3 T Plant Zone 0 0 4,253 4,418 4,400 4,539 17,611

3 U Plant Zone 0 0 1,788 44,646 100,448 60,063 206,945

3 Waste Management Zone 0 0 21,518 21,803 22,206 22,968 88,495

3 WTP/A Farm Zone 0 0 888 898 912 1,120 3,818

3 600 Area (and Misc.) 0 0 0 17,052 0 0 17,052

3 400 Area 0 0 0 0 141 27 168
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-47

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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). (2 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 Outer Area 110 0 20,034 19,598 15,896 30,095 85,734

2 S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 12,388 9,155 9,478 9,513 9,692 10,034 60,263

3 S&M and Min-Safe for Facilities and Waste Sites 8,430 8,762 9,108 9,190 9,323 9,689 55,021

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - S&M and Min-Safe for 

Facilities and Waste Sites

3,958 392 370 323 369 348 5,242

2 Usage-Based Services Distributions -PBS RL-40 935 904 1,377 3,228 6,513 8,355 21,316

3 Assessments for OHC Services to PRC 894 871 1,326 3,087 6,087 7,908 20,173

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - UBS Distributions 41 33 51 141 426 447 1,139

2 UBS, G&A, and Direct Distribution 644 670 2,653 5,351 8,742 3,803 21,863

3 PRC Fee and Management Reserve 644 670 2,653 5,351 8,742 3,803 21,863

2 Site-wide Services 230 5,767 39,442 45,680 43,172 42,163 176,454

3 Site-wide Services 230 5,767 39,442 45,680 43,172 42,163 176,454

Total 15,627 26,656 220,989 424,895 450,686 352,497 1,491,349

CSB = Canister Storage Building.

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.

OHC = Other Hanford Contractor.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PFP = Plutonium Finishing Plant.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

PUREX = Plutonium Uranium Extraction (Plant).

REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant).

ROD = record of decision.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

UBS = usage-based services.

WM = Waste Management.

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-48

D.1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (PBS RL-0040) SCHEDULE AND 

COST DETAILS 

Table D-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Level 2 

Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Infrastructure 

and Services

Occupational 

Medicine

This work element includes occupational medicine; steam systems; contract closeout and 

acquisition team; legal support; land transfers; cleanup baseline, integration, and 

development; acquisition of natural gas utility service; and other small contracts.

Steam 

Systems

Contract 

Closeout 

Legal Support

Land 

Transfers

Cleanup 

Baseline, 

Integration,

and 

Development

Acquisition 

Team

Acquisition of 

Natural Gas 

Utility Service

Small 

Contracts

HAMMER

Ready to 

Serve

HAMMER

Ready to 

Serve

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. This includes

construction and capital equipment expenditures associated with replacements for biological 

control, crane and rigging, electrical system, facilities, Hanford Fire Department, network and 

telecommunications, sewer system, studies and estimates, transportation – CENTRC, 

transportation system, water system, emerging facility and infrastructure upgrades and other 

infrastructure reliability projects.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-49

Table D-18. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Level 3 Scope Summary. (2 pages)

Level 2 

Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Site-wide 

Services –

RL-0040

Site-wide

Services 

Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. This work element 

includes emergency services (safeguards and security, fire and emergency response, 

emergency management), environmental integration services (site-wide safety standards, 

environmental integration, public safety and resource protection, radiological site services, 

and Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility analytical services), information 

management (information management planning and controls, information systems, content 

and records management, infrastructure/cyber security, information resources/content 

management, and information support services), site infrastructure and utilities/logistics and

transportation (roads and grounds, biological services, electrical services, water/sewer 

services, facility services, transportation, mail, property systems/acquisitions, railroad 

services, technical services, energy management, work management, land and facilities 

management), support functions (business operations, human resources, safety, health and

quality), and portfolio management (portfolio planning, analysis and performance, project 

acquisition and support, and independent assessment and analysis).

NOTE: See Tables D-19 and D-20 for schedule and budget information.

CENTRC = capital equipment not related to construction.

HAMMER = Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility). The Volpentest HAMMER 

Training and Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-50

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-19. Infrastructure and Services (PBS RL-0040) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

HAMMER 7,022 7,173 7,256 7,460 7,592 7,790 7,106 7,330 7,522 6,318

Reliability Projects 17,148 8,437 13,798 58,295 62,765 66,946 71,958 65,627 16,198 15,489

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 572 3,820 4,828 10,948 10,042 15,680 16,713 15,998 5,327 4,720

Infrastructure and Services 47,124 44,980 45,107 66,476 67,580 58,330 32,997 27,878 27,233 14,552

Total 71,865 64,410 70,989 143,178 147,978 148,747 128,774 116,833 56,280 41,078

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

HAMMER 6,483 6,774 6,880 7,193 6,206 6,506 6,674 6,795 7,241 6,087

Reliability Projects 16,274 16,366 15,349 15,653 16,718 17,209 18,473 17,611 18,589 19,683

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 4,154 5,860 5,542 6,314 6,598 7,752 8,241 7,278 9,098 8,427

Infrastructure and Services 10,145 9,991 11,949 10,212 10,452 10,688 10,889 14,216 14,561 14,941

Total 37,055 38,990 39,720 39,372 39,973 42,155 44,277 45,900 49,489 49,138

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

HAMMER 6,368 6,599 6,786 6,495 5,568 6,365 7,072 6,697 6,207 4,773

Reliability Projects 20,587 21,337 21,844 19,825 20,548 18,903 17,897 16,356 16,874 16,094

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 9,855 10,508 10,542 6,168 7,796 9,706 11,445 8,173 5,427 4,491

Infrastructure and Services 15,271 12,194 14,633 12,873 13,104 13,422 13,730 12,159 12,488 12,775

Total 52,080 50,638 53,805 45,361 47,015 48,396 50,144 43,385 40,996 38,134

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052

HAMMER 5,711 5,625 5,266 5,424 3,814 3,994 4,515 4,288 4,617 2,305

Reliability Projects 16,381 16,726 16,554 16,458 17,500 18,453 20,818 19,639 21,196 21,415

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 7,811 6,470 4,597 4,306 4,151 4,392 6,020 4,116 4,619 3,635

Infrastructure and Services 13,069 13,423 13,623 13,936 14,314 14,701 14,980 16,843 17,168 17,637

Total 42,972 42,243 40,039 40,124 39,778 41,540 46,333 44,886 47,600 44,991

Fiscal Year 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062

HAMMER 2,412 2,372 2,332 2,549 3,239 3,459 3,142 0 0 0

Reliability Projects 22,335 21,938 21,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 3,460 2,573 1,897 233 357 391 261 0 0 0

Infrastructure and Services 18,042 18,457 18,890 19,348 19,706 20,246 20,704 18,566 18,146 17,453

Total 46,249 45,340 44,856 22,130 23,302 24,096 24,107 18,566 18,146 17,453

Fiscal Year 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Total

HAMMER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267,402

Reliability Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,010,000

Site-wide Services - RL-0040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301,309

Infrastructure and Services 17,015 16,020 13,755 12,110 7,465 3,866 1,984 218 1,094,636

Total 17,015 16,020 13,755 12,110 7,465 3,866 1,984 218 2,673,346

HAMMER = Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility); also known as the Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-51

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Infrastructure and Services, PBS RL-0040

2 Infrastructure and Services 47,124 44,980 45,107 66,476 67,580 58,330 329,598

3 Occupational Medicine 12,656 12,948 13,245 13,562 13,849 14,168 80,428

3 Steam Systems 5,881 6,017 6,155 6,322 6,416 6,564 37,355

3 Legal Support 4,092 4,186 2,868 2,945 2,989 3,058 20,138

3 Land Transfers 623 637 652 669 0 0 2,581

3 Cleanup Baseline, Integration, and Development 4,353 4,453 4,555 4,678 4,748 4,857 27,645

3 Natural Gas Line 4,092 1,047 1,071 21,904 22,408 11,416 61,938

3 Small Contracts 13,414 13,723 14,039 14,364 14,690 15,027 85,257

3

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Infrastructure and 

Services

2,012 1,971 2,523 2,031 2,479 3,240 14,256

2 Reliability Projects 17,148 8,437 13,798 58,295 62,765 66,946 227,389

3 Electrical System 10,250 5,756 0 4,381 6,722 12,321 39,431

3 Facility System Reliability Projects 0 0 0 12,272 16,957 7,765 36,995

3 Network and Telecommunication Reliability Project 3,099 0 0 13,735 9,912 6,654 33,400

3 Sewer System Reliability Projects 0 0 0 2,372 2,241 6,359 10,972

3 Transportation System 0 0 0 12,641 10,123 18,912 41,676

3 Water System Reliability Projects 1,514 0 0 5,372 10,855 9,827 27,568

3 Emerging Facility and Infrastructure Upgrades 0 0 11,314 0 0 0 11,314

3 Infrastructure Reliability Projects 0 0 0 5,179 2,970 1,921 10,071

3 Management Reserve 2,285 2,681 2,483 2,342 2,984 3,187 15,962

2 HAMMER Ready to Serve 7,022 7,173 7,256 7,460 7,592 7,790 44,292

3 HAMMER Ready to Serve 7,022 7,173 7,256 7,460 7,592 7,790 44,292

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 572 3,820 4,828 10,948 10,042 15,680 45,889

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0040 572 3,820 4,828 10,948 10,042 15,680 45,889

Total 71,865 64,410 70,989 143,178 147,978 148,747 643,034

HAMMER = The Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center. Also known as Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (Facility). 

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-52

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), hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, 

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

locations, degraded roofs, biological hazards, electrical hazards, 

excavations).

The D4 process includes obtaining regulatory approvals; 

characterizing 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.

Future Requests for 

Equitable Adjustments

Addresses increased D4 closure scope related to changed 

conditions such as encountering more contamination than 

anticipated. 

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 to allow the reactor source term radionuclides to 

decay. Following this period (in most cases), the reactor blocks 

will be removed from their current locations and transported to the 

Inner Area for disposal as part of Final Reactor Disposition.

Although the final end state of N Reactor has not been determined, 

the planning case is to disposition it the same as the other reactors.

Management and Support
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-53

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

Field Remediation 

Closure

100-B/C Area This work element includes performing CERCLA field 

remediation and closure of contaminated waste sites (liquid waste 

disposal facilities, burial grounds, burn pits, disposal pits, 

unplanned release sites, and contaminated pipelines) within the 

River Corridor. This includes confirmatory sampling, remediation 

design, remove/treat/dispose (RTD) activities, verification 

sampling, and closure documentation. The records of decision for 

the Field Remediation Closure work scope generally identify RTD 

as the preferred alternative. (Records of decision are identified in 

Appendix C 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 

metals, hexavalent chromium, petroleum related compounds, 

strontium, uranium, and cesium. The cleanup process involves 

sampling and analyzing the site to determine the extent and type of 

contamination, excavating contaminated waste materials, and 

restoring the landscape through site backfill, grading, and 

revegetation.

100-D Area

100-F Area

100-H Area

100-K Area

100-N Area

100 Area Remaining Sites

300 Area Sites

600 Area

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of the field 

remediation mission.

Future Requests for 

Equitable Adjustments

Addresses increased Field Remediation Closure scope related to 

changed conditions such as encountering more contamination than 

anticipated.

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.

Future Requests for 

Equitable Adjustments

Addresses increased Waste Operations scope related to changed 

conditions such as encountering more contamination than 

anticipated.

End State/Final Closure End State/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 documenting 

completion of interim remedial actions for each geographic area; 

conducting closure reviews; preparing an RI/FS and Proposed Plan 

for six River Corridor source and groundwater areas; and preparing 

transition turnover packages for the six geographic areas for 

transition to the Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program. 

Management and Support Scope provides for management function in support of the final 

closure mission.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-54

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

Site Infrastructure & 

Utility/Logistics & 

Transportation

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.

PRC River Zone 

Environmental

100-K Area Regulatory 

Closure Documents

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 Group 2 Remediation

100-K Group 3 Remediation

KW Deactivation

105KE & 105KW Reactor 

Disposition

100-K Project Management 

Site-wide Services Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and 

infrastructure. See Table D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-22 and D-23 for schedule and budget information.

CERCLA= Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act.

D&D = decontamination and 

decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, 

decommissioning, and demolition.

ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

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.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-55

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Management Reserve – Nuclear Facility D&DRiver Corridor995 990 985 933 609 583 0 5,096

D4 Closure 91,242 62,161 18,793 0 0 0 0 172,196

End State/Final Closure 7,664 51 0 371 403 0 0 8,488

Field Remediation Closure 67,382 51,909 50,424 10,675 658 0 0 181,048

ISS-Reactor Closure 2,728 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,728

Mission Support/General Support 8,268 4,057 980 0 0 0 0 13,306

Site-wide Services 23,138 23,207 14,182 14,621 9,767 10,702 210 95,826

Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - Nuclear 

Facility D&D–River Corridor

11,175 0 12,883 20,656 20,952 22,754 12,940 101,360

WCH Indirect Costs - Nuclear Facility D&D–

River Corridor

14,279 92,501 142,079 0 0 0 0 248,859

PRC River Zone Environmental 53,717 75,445 47,965 79,798 63,046 47,751 0 367,722

Site Infrastructure & Utility/Logistics & 

Transportation

2,114 2,173 2,237 2,295 1,054 1,089 1,047 12,008

UBS Distributions -PBS RL-41 1,750 2,217 2,919 3,952 2,363 1,227 0 14,429

Waste Operations 60,226 69,473 6,273 0 0 0 0 135,972

Total 344,679 384,184 299,720 133,301 98,852 84,106 14,197 1,359,038

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

G&A = General and Administrative.

ISS = interim safe storage.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

UBS = usage-based service.

WCH = Washington Closure Hanford.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-56

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-River Corridor Closure Project, PBS RL-0041

2 PRC River Zone Environment 53,717 75,445 47,965 79,798 63,046 47,751 367,722

3 100-K Area Regulatory Closure Documents 0 226 54 55 55 269 659

3 100-K Group 1 Remediation 30,073 51,837 18,566 28,332 1,494 0 130,301

3 100-K Group 2 Remediation 191 951 5 623 83 17 1,871

3 100-K Group 3 Remediation 5,305 4,980 206 313 6,675 2,755 20,235

3 KW Deactivation 401 3,977 15,929 41,113 43,252 25,834 130,506

3 105-KE & 105-KW Reactor Disposition 9,680 5,394 4,595 508 5,407 15,512 41,096

3 100-K Project Management 7,292 6,957 7,745 7,682 5,336 2,336 37,348

3 PRC Fee 774 1,122 866 1,174 743 1,039 5,719

2 UBS Distributions 1,750 2,217 2,919 3,952 2,363 1,227 14,429

3 Assessments for MSC Services to PRC 1,750 2,217 2,919 3,952 2,363 1,227 14,429

2 Management Reserve – Nuclear Facility D&D-River 

Corridor Closure Project

995 990 985 933 609 583 5,096

3 CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company

Management Reserve

995 990 985 933 609 583 5,096

2 Site-wide Services 23,138 23,207 14,182 14,621 9,767 10,702 95,617

3 Site-wide Services 23,138 23,207 14,182 14,621 9,767 10,702 95,617

2 D4 Closure 91,242 62,161 18,793 0 0 0 172,196

3 D4-100 Area 15,516 0 0 0 0 0 15,516

3 D4-324/327 Area (does not include 300-296 

remediation)

20,460 45,001 0 0 0 0 65,461

3 D4-300 Area Sites 32,514 5,111 57 0 0 0 37,683

3 D4-400 Area 1,432 0 0 0 0 0 1,432

3 D4-S&M 512 0 0 0 0 0 512

3 D4-Operate and Close Utilities 626 0 0 0 0 0 626

3 Future Requests for Equitable Adjustments 3,581 10,465 18,735 0 0 0 32,781

3 D4-Management and Support 16,601 1,584 0 0 0 0 18,184

2 ISS-Reactor Closure 2,728 0 0 0 0 0 2,728

3 ISS-100 B/C Area 1,957 0 0 0 0 0 1,957
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-57

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 ISS-Management and Support 771 0 0 0 0 0 771

2 Field Remediation Closure 67,382 51,909 50,424 10,675 658 0 181,048

3 Field Remediation - 100 B/C Area 3,904 0 0 0 0 0 3,904

3 Field Remediation.- 100 D Area 1,488 1,280 1,016 0 0 0 3,784

3 Field Remediation - 100 F Area 7 0 0 0 0 0 7

3 Field Remediation - 100 H Area 2,058 0 0 0 0 0 2,058

3 Field Remediation - 100 K Area 816 45 0 0 0 0 862

3 Field Remediation - 100 N Area 661 8 0 0 0 0 668

3 Field Remediation - 100 Area Remaining Sites 899 0 0 0 0 0 899

3 Field Remediation - 300 Area Sites (does not include 

300-296 remediation)

6,116 14 1,067 1,057 0 0 8,254

3 Field Remediation - 600 Area 15,398 19,127 24,539 9,618 658 0 69,340

3 Future Requests for Equitable Adjustments in 

Development (does not include 300-296 remediation)

11,344 1,450 585 0 0 0 13,379

3 Future Requests for Equitable Adjustments (does not 

include 300-296 remediation)

24,322 29,961 23,173 0 0 0 77,456

3 Field Remediation - Management and Support 370 24 44 0 0 0 437

2 Waste Operations 60,226 69,473 6,273 0 0 0 135,972

3 200 Area Waste Operations 56,240 49,447 6,216 0 0 0 111,494

3 Future Requests for Equitable Adjustments 0 19,012 0 0 0 0 19,012

3 Management and Support 3,986 1,013 467 0 0 0 5,465

2 End State/Final Closure 7,664 51 0 371 403 0 8,488

3 End State/Final Closure 6,766 18 0 371 403 0 7,557

3 Management and Support 898 33 0 0 0 0 931

2 Mission Support/General Support (MS/GS) 8,268 4,057 980 0 0 0 13,305

3 MS/GS-Project Integration 1,033 482 116 0 0 0 1,632

3 MS/GS-Project Services 3,050 1,821 440 0 0 0 5,311

3 MS/GS-Safety, Health and Quality 1,665 803 194 0 0 0 2,663

3 MS/GS-Engineering 231 103 25 0 0 0 359

3 MS/GS-Regulatory and Environmental Management 577 157 38 0 0 0 771
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-58

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 MS/GS-Office of the Project Gen. Manager 1,712 691 168 0 0 0 2,570

2 WCH Indirect Costs 14,279 92,501 142,079 0 0 0 248,859

3 WCH Performance & Incentive Fee 11,226 84,029 142,079 0 0 0 53,510

3 Pension 3,053 8,473 0 0 0 0 11,526

2 Site Infrastructure & Utility/Logistics & 

Transportation

2,114 2,173 2,237 2,295 1,054 1,089 10,962

3 B Reactor 1,957 2,008 2,064 2,114 865 891 9,899

3 B Reactor Management Reserve 158 165 173 181 189 198 1,063

2 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 11,175 0 12,883 20,656 20,952 22,754 88,420

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 11,175 0 12,883 20,656 20,952 22,754 88,420

Total 344,679 384,184 299,720 133,301 98,852 84,106 1,344,842

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

ISS = interim safe storage.

D4 = deactivation, decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition.

KE = K East.

KW = K West.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.

UBS = usage-based service.

WCH = Washington Closure Hanford.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-59

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 

Services

Infrastructure Services This work scope includes activity related to a DOE-RL direct contract.

Site-wide 

Services

Site-wide Services Includes proportional share of costs for site services and infrastructure. See Table 

D-18 for details.

NOTE: See Tables D-25 and D-26 for schedule and budget information.

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

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

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-60

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

FFTF Cleanup 1,729 1,818 1,876 1,891 1,924 1,998 30,932 29,888 30,146 23,795

Site-wide Services 684 525 499 319 280 428 6,520 6,087 5,710 3,420

Usage-Based Services G&A Direct 127 133 134 106 103 143 0 0 0 0

Infrastructure Services 116 119 121 124 127 129 135 138 141 144

Usage-Based Services Distribution 8 8 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0

Total 2,664 2,603 2,638 2,450 2,443 2,708 37,587 36,113 35,997 27,360

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

FFTF Cleanup 61,872 50,508 64,260 69,514 63,056 66,272 67,777 120,348 50,799 58,875

Site-wide Services 10,259 11,075 13,673 16,878 15,546 19,153 17,653 29,679 15,686 9,232

Usage-Based Services G&A Direct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Infrastructure Services 147 151 116 119 121 124 126 0 0 0

Usage-Based Services Distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 72,278 61,734 78,049 86,510 78,723 85,549 85,556 150,027 66,485 68,107

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 Total

FFTF Cleanup 51,102 36,024 32,894 5,175 924,473

Site-wide Services 7,543 383 1 0 191,232

Usage-Based Services G&A Direct 0 0 0 0 746

Infrastructure Services 0 0 0 0 2,198

Usage-Based Services Distribution 0 0 0 0 52

Total 58,645 36,407 32,895 5,175 1,118,702

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

G&A = General and Administrative.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-61

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Nuclear Facility D&D-Fast Flux Test Facility Project, PBS RL-0042

2 FFTF Cleanup 1,729 1,818 1,876 1,891 1,924 1,998 11,340

3 Maintain Safe and Compliant FFTF Complex 1,772 1,762 1,816 1,835 1,865 1,938 10,988

3 Transition FFTF Complex 7 7 7 7 7 7 41

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - FFTF -50 50 53 50 52 54 311

2 Infrastructure Services 116 119 121 124 127 129 735

3 Infrastructure Services 115 118 120 123 126 129 731

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty – RL Directed 1 1 1 1 1 0 4

2 UBS Distribution 8 8 9 9 9 9 52

3 Assessments for MSC Services to PRC 8 8 9 9 9 9 52

3 Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty - UBS 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

2 UBS G&A and Direct Distribution 127 133 134 106 103 143 746

3 PRC Fee and Management Reserve 127 133 134 106 103 143 746

2 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 684 525 499 319 280 428 2,735

3 Site-wide Services - RL-0042 684 525 499 319 280 428 2,735

Total 2,664 2,603 2,638 2,450 2,443 2,708 15,506

D&D = decontamination and decommissioning.

FFTF = Fast Flux Test Facility.

G&A = General and Administrative.

MSC = Mission Support Contract.

PBS = project baseline summary.

PRC = Plateau Remediation Contract.

UBS = usage-based services.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-62

D.1.10 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT (PBS RL-0100) 

SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Table D-27. Richland Community and Regulatory Support (PBS RL-0100) Level 3 Scope Summary.

Level 2 Work 

Element

Level 3 Work 

Element Scope Summary

Richland 

Community and 

Regulatory 

Support

Community 

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, Washington State Department of Health, and other entities 

through grants, permits, and payment of fees. Includes studies for Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment but does not include significant restoration of natural 

resources to resolve any liability of the United States for Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment and Restoration.

Washington

Department of 

Health (WDOH) 

Oversight Grant

Oregon Department 

of Energy Grant

Washington Military 

Grant

Payment in Lieu of 

Taxes

Washington

Department of 

Ecology RCRA 

Mixed Waste Fee

WDOH Air 

Emissions

Miscellaneous 

Permits and Fees

Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment

Hanford Advisory 

Board

Natural Resource 

Trustee Council

NOTE: See Table D-28 for schedule and budget information.

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

PBS = project baseline summary.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

WDOH = Washington Department of Health.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-63

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Community and Regulatory 

Support 19,357 24,583 25,211 25,333 24,523 25,087 25,338 25,592 25,761 26,019

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Community and Regulatory 

Support 26,279 19,711 19,124 19,315 19,509 19,704 19,901 20,100 20,301 20,421

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Community and Regulatory 

Support 20,625 20,831 21,040 21,150 21,361 21,575 21,791 22,009 22,123 22,344

Fiscal Year 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052

Community and Regulatory 

Support 22,568 22,794 23,022 23,141 23,372 23,606 23,842 24,081 24,321 24,565

Fiscal Year 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 Total

Community and Regulatory 

Support 24,810 25,058 25,309 25,562 25,818 26,076 26,337 1,080,298

PBS = project baseline summary.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

 2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-64

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.

NOTE: See Table D-30 for schedule and budget information.

LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-65

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069

Environmental Compliance 4,565 4,441 4,320 4,203 4,088 3,977 3,869 3,764 3,661 3,562

Infrastructure 27,367 26,623 25,900 25,194 24,510 23,843 23,194 22,563 21,950 21,352

Management and Administration 25,036 24,355 23,692 23,048 22,421 21,811 21,218 20,641 20,079 19,533

Post-Closure S&M 51,155 49,764 48,410 47,093 45,812 44,566 43,354 42,175 41,028 39,912

Site and Environmental Monitoring 54,967 53,472 52,017 50,602 49,226 47,887 46,584 45,318 44,085 42,886

Stakeholder Participation 20,781 20,216 19,666 19,131 18,611 18,104 17,612 17,133 16,667 16,214

Waste Management 91,520 89,031 86,609 84,254 81,962 79,732 77,564 75,454 73,402 71,405

Total 275,391 267,902 260,614 253,525 246,630 239,920 233,395 227,048 220,872 214,864

Fiscal Year 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079

Environmental Compliance 3,428 3,300 3,176 3,058 3,131 2,885 2,659 2,451 2,510 2,570

Infrastructure 20,554 19,784 19,042 18,331 18,770 17,298 15,942 14,693 15,045 15,407

Management and Administration 18,802 18,098 17,420 16,768 17,170 15,824 14,584 13,440 13,763 14,093

Post-Closure S&M 38,418 36,979 35,594 34,262 35,084 32,333 29,799 27,463 28,122 28,796

Site and Environmental Monitoring 41,280 39,734 38,247 36,815 37,699 34,743 32,019 29,509 30,217 30,942

Stakeholder Participation 15,606 15,022 14,460 13,918 14,252 13,135 12,105 11,156 11,424 11,698

Waste Management 68,732 66,158 63,681 61,297 62,768 57,847 53,312 49,132 50,312 51,519

Total 206,820 199,075 191,620 184,449 188,874 174,065 160,420 147,844 151,393 155,025

Fiscal Year 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089

Environmental Compliance 2,631 2,695 2,621 2,684 2,749 2,815 2,882 2,951 3,022 3,095

Infrastructure 15,775 16,154 15,715 16,092 16,479 16,874 17,279 17,694 18,118 18,553

Management and Administration 9,156 9,376 9,121 9,339 9,564 9,793 10,028 10,270 10,517 10,770

Post-Closure S&M 29,488 30,195 29,374 30,079 30,801 31,540 32,297 33,072 33,866 34,679

Site and Environmental Monitoring 31,685 32,445 31,562 32,320 33,096 33,891 34,703 35,536 36,389 37,263

Stakeholder Participation 11,979 12,266 11,933 12,219 12,512 12,813 13,120 13,435 13,757 14,088

Waste Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 20

Total 100,714 103,131 100,326 102,733 105,201 107,726 110,309 112,965 115,682 118,468
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-66

DOE/RL-2012-13, 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 2090 Total

Environmental Compliance 3,169 100,932

Infrastructure 18,998 605,093

Management and Administration 11,029 490,759

Post-Closure S&M 35,511 1,131,021

Site and Environmental Monitoring 38,157 1,215,296

Stakeholder Participation 14,426 459,459

Waste Management 28 1,395,759

Total 121,318 5,398,319

S&M = surveillance and maintenance.
DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev. 0 

2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report 

D-67

D.1.12 FINAL REACTOR DISPOSITION SCHEDULE AND COST DETAILS 

Scope information for Final Reactor Disposition is presented in Table D-31. This work is not 

broken down to Level 3 details, so no additional scope is presented and there are no near-term 

cost details due to when the work is planned to begin. 

Table D-31. Final Reactor Disposition Level 2 Scope Summary.

Work Element Scope Description

Final Reactor 

Disposition

This work element includes final reactor disposition of the 100 Area surplus production reactors

(except for B Reactor which has been recommended to Congress for inclusion in a Manhattan 

Project National Historic Park). Following a safe storage period of up to 75 years final reactor 

disposition would include demolition of the interim safe storage enclosure and transport of each of 

the eight reactor blocks intact on a tractor-transporter from its present location in the 100 Areas to 

the Central Plateau Inner Area for disposal. Following reactor removal, the site formerly occupied 

by each reactor would be backfilled, graded, and seeded. Although the final end state of N Reactor 

has not been determined, the planning case is to disposition it the same as the other reactors.

NOTE: See Table D-32 for schedule and budget information.

Table D-32. Final Reactor Disposition Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, by Fiscal Year 

($1,000, Escalated). 

Fiscal Year 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058

Final Reactor Disposition 18,811 37,623 37,623 56,434 94,057

Fiscal Year 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063

Final Reactor Disposition 94,057 131,679 282,170 282,170 282,170

Fiscal Year 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068

Final Reactor Disposition 188,113 188,113 94,057 56,434 37,623

Total 1,881,134

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.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-68

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-33. 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Base Operations 263,931 356,555 366,504 367,605 393,976 380,201 491,668 472,975 445,198 466,041

Facility Closures 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 0 4,604 6,400 2,579 2,893

Retrieve and Close SSTs 88,074 62,587 124,749 238,683 225,082 268,002 218,964 126,326 136,401 108,806

Supplemental Treatment 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 314,010 328,815 30,074 23,061 169,656

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 62,353 48,354 45,702 45,055 45,931

Treat Waste 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 195,452 411,621 410,079 406,116 413,095

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 115,732 149,250 189,060 188,453 226,248 197,347 189,059 187,686 168,954 166,352

Total 516,405 666,578 841,029 1,087,674 1,316,067 1,417,366 1,693,084 1,279,242 1,227,364 1,372,775

Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Base Operations 455,013 470,788 496,480 485,865 508,862 567,468 539,960 567,671 548,172 576,550

Facility Closures 5,985 45,140 7,779 4,728 1,394 1,729 1,336 3,214 2,319 1,882

Retrieve and Close SSTs 71,703 54,898 115,761 115,140 174,473 297,347 206,817 163,133 208,752 266,322

Supplemental Treatment 171,626 176,101 179,975 183,935 187,981 192,117 195,564 200,663 205,078 210,421

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 47,175 52,460 49,210 51,056 51,332 54,637 58,005 56,796 55,192 59,837

Treat Waste 420,508 431,471 440,964 450,665 460,580 470,712 479,159 491,651 502,468 515,560

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 175,096 182,990 161,213 151,475 160,483 166,190 163,649 151,105 145,680 146,634

Total 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 1,777,206

Fiscal Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Base Operations 582,060 632,972 652,033 648,968 628,511 640,206 646,170 557,148 484,417 462,563

Facility Closures 1,844 2,596 11,213 7,983 11,725 4,113 1,326 747 11,530 10,195

Retrieve and Close SSTs 294,811 418,713 470,008 544,391 458,892 456,142 376,011 216,360 175,960 181,184

Supplemental Treatment 214,200 218,044 222,841 225,396 229,445 234,492 239,651 243,952 250,312 255,819

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 60,673 65,146 64,184 69,834 71,263 68,816 73,029 70,324 72,943 69,655

Treat Waste 524,820 534,237 545,990 562,448 572,550 585,146 598,020 608,751 624,622 559,604

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 148,180 150,839 157,589 168,245 177,266 204,992 225,126 238,573 265,977 295,917

Total 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 1,834,937
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-69

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-33. 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 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Total

Base Operations 447,632 439,638 407,393 300,834 261,134 187,890 93,459 62,485 17,356,996

Facility Closures 15,046 13,392 33,132 83,973 43,314 38,195 11,774 3,253 403,661

Retrieve and Close SSTs 104,817 69,822 104,365 52,641 45,307 18,166 0 0 7,259,614

Supplemental Treatment 260,935 267,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,299,701

Tank Operations Contract - ORP 

Project Support 73,186 73,232 75,827 16,622 12,602 10,295 4,272 2,850 1,948,074

Treat Waste 544,302 528,167 513,673 488,927 500,693 253,327 0 0 15,231,759

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment 

Planning/DST Retrieval/Closure 343,051 335,495 409,323 238,259 194,255 85,757 17,388 757 7,039,642

Total 1,788,968 1,726,957 1,543,712 1,181,257 1,057,304 593,630 126,893 69,345 55,539,447

DST = double-shell tank.

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

PBS = project baseline summary.

SST = single-shell tank.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-70

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-34. 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition, PBS ORP-0014

2 Base Operations 263,931 356,555 366,504 367,605 393,976 380,201 2,128,771

3 Base Operations 77,175 80,707 88,836 79,520 77,720 83,444 487,402

3 DST Space Management 7,373 23,956 13,627 10,798 18,442 12,382 86,578

3 TOC Facility Operations 28,104 34,726 41,214 43,054 57,124 35,537 239,760

3 Tank Farm Upgrades 10,339 13,626 10,927 21,278 22,186 12,434 90,789

3 Project Support 140,940 203,540 211,900 212,956 218,504 236,404 1,224,243

2 Retrieve and Close SSTs 88,074 62,587 124,749 238,683 225,082 268,002 1,007,178

3 Retrieval/Closure Program 39,487 23,367 28,756 38,954 101,760 82,909 315,233

3 SST Retrieval East Area 30,155 28,207 51,314 108,421 90,129 81,952 390,178

3 SST Retrieval West Area 0 0 0 10,018 6,151 77,784 93,953

3 Closure Program 1,110 1,675 806 456 627 437 5,111

3 SST Closure 17,322 9,339 43,873 80,834 26,415 24,920 202,703

2

Waste Feed Delivery/Treatment Planning/DST 

Retrieval/Closure

115,732 149,250 189,060 188,453 226,248 197,347 1,066,090

3 WTP Feed Delivery Program 17,933 20,575 22,203 23,467 24,669 24,879 133,726

3 Construct DST Systems 47,101 59,979 53,872 41,408 40,057 44,232 286,650

3 Immobilization Program 24,869 22,978 51,315 32,497 54,628 33,770 220,057

3 WTP Operational Readiness 3,543 4,425 4,122 4,221 4,322 4,426 25,060

3 Tank Waste Pretreatment Project 1,459 27,083 31,145 39,387 52,772 45,406 197,253

3 Secondary Waste Treatment/ETF 6,943 14,209 26,402 47,473 49,799 44,635 189,461

3 Next Generation Projects 13,883 0 0 0 0 0 13,883

2 Supplemental Treatment 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 314,010 982,338

3 Supplemental Treatment 8,546 44,243 97,424 213,596 304,519 314,010 982,338

2 Treat Waste 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 195,452 381,835

3 Waste Treatment Facility (WTP) 6,832 19,834 20,310 33,995 105,413 195,452 381,835

2 Facility Closures 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 0 6,327

3 TFC Facility and Other Closure 0 8 3,484 1,923 912 0 6,327
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-71

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-34. 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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 62,353 272,579

3 Tank Operations Contract - ORP Project Support 33,290 34,101 39,498 43,420 59,917 62,353 272,579

Total 516,405 666,578 841,029 1,087,674 1,316,067 1,417,366 5,845,118

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.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-72

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-35. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Remaining Lifecycle Schedule and Costs, Level 2, 

by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated).

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Analytical Laboratory 17,943 28,416 26,726 39,691 28,184 17,030 18,590 1,345 177,925

Balance of Facilities 57,932 54,965 80,098 52,759 24,728 12,691 10,507 484 294,164

High-Level Waste 142,609 147,372 134,006 97,297 64,996 64,624 64,501 18,718 734,123

Low-Activity Waste 65,851 46,715 33,682 80,325 60,474 31,348 42,382 1,208 361,985

Plant Wide 287,611 266,486 236,250 179,672 132,785 52,156 1,660 0 1,156,620

Pretreatment 405,343 303,973 210,179 131,306 100,888 76,461 103,515 5,436 1,337,101

Total 977,289 847,927 720,941 581,050 412,055 254,310 241,155 27,191 4,061,918

PBS = project baseline summary.
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-73

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-36. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Major Construction - Waste Treatment Plant, PBS ORP-0060

2 Pretreatment Facility 405,343 303,973 210,179 131,306 100,888 76,461 1,228,150

3 Engineering Design - PT 36,771 6,542 1,425 480 0 0 45,218

3 Plant Equipment - PT 103,908 59,259 13,722 8,976 0 0 185,865

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - PT 997 2,246 2,544 3,444 2,963 2,214 14,408

3 Research and Technology - PT 2,550 0 0 0 0 0 2,550

3 Plant Material - PT 33,794 14,222 0 0 0 0 48,016

3 Startup - PT 181 286 10,982 15,768 0 0 27,217

3 Construction Field Non Manual - PT 17,182 16,788 13,079 3,427 0 0 50,476

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Civil 16,451 21,521 12,360 3,625 0 0 53,957

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Distribs 4,204 3,238 2,680 656 77 0 10,855

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Electrical 20,269 16,037 18,336 4,395 0 0 59,037

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Mechanical 11,243 13,895 9,517 396 0 0 35,051

3 Crafts (Construction) - PT - Piping and Instrumentation 53,433 44,843 31,501 7,464 0 0 137,241

3 Construction Subcontracts - PT 11,063 23,909 19,368 3,249 0 0 57,589

3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - PT 223 3,664 1,341 0 0 0 5,228

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - PT 2,654 4,782 599 3 0 0 8,038

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - PT 13,272 8,473 2,358 0 0 0 24,103

3 Commissioning - PT 1,267 5,865 18,664 32,688 57,052 33,196 148,732

- Fee 20,913 16,738 17,279 9,343 18,955 29,886 113,114

- Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 54,968 41,665 34,424 37,392 21,841 11,165 201,455

2 Low-Activity Waste Facility 65,851 46,715 33,682 80,325 60,474 31,348 318,395

3 Engineering Design - LAW 1,383 456 194 19 0 0 2,052

3 Plant Equipment - LAW 8,874 3,795 0 20,780 95 (23,362)1

10,182

3 Equipment Engineering - LAW 14 14 14 15 0 0 57

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - LAW 1,290 1,106 1,043 2,386 2,219 1,642 9,686

3 Research and Technology - LAW 240 232 239 247 0 0 958

3 Startup - LAW 212 2,594 8,345 2,136 0 0 13,287

3 Construction Field Non Manual - LAW 6,790 5,926 1,318 115 0 0 14,149

3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW 25,786 10,424 0 0 0 0 36,210
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-74

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-36. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 Crafts (Construction) - LAW - Distribs 1,613 1,507 1,082 339 40 0 4,581

3 Construction Subcontracts - LAW 10,708 1,443 0 0 0 0 12,151

3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - LAW 142 0 0 0 0 0 142

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - LAW 1,057 7 0 0 0 0 1,064

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - LAW 520 129 0 0 0 0 649

3 Commissioning - LAW 954 5,363 11,330 29,573 38,461 41,717 127,398

- Fee 761 8,076 914 3,191 10,114 18,304 41,360

- Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 5,507 5,643 9,203 21,524 9,545 (6,953) 44,469

2 High-Level Waste Facility 142,609 147,372 134,006 97,297 64,996 64,624 650,904

3 Engineering Design - HLW 6,086 1,223 1,235 563 20 0 9,127

3 Plant Equipment - HLW 32,557 17,137 12,277 725 4,857 (13,880) 53,673

3 Equipment Engineering - HLW 22 4 34 177 89 0 326

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - HLW 548 1,584 2,209 3,337 2,523 1,969 12,170

3 Research and Technology - HLW 335 451 370 252 261 135 1,804

3 Startup - HLW 153 158 255 11,151 5,560 0 17,277

3 Construction Field Non Manual - HLW 11,063 11,138 8,868 3,504 0 0 34,573

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Civil 17,486 16,757 10,700 3,154 0 0 48,097

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Distribs 2,249 2,229 1,679 549 60 0 6,766

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Electrical 6,064 7,497 10,714 7,527 0 0 31,802

3 Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Mechanical 9,347 9,612 7,449 2,275 0 0 28,683

3

Crafts (Construction) - HLW - Piping and 

Instrumentation 9,632 18,916 18,588 6,387 0 0 53,523

3 Construction Subcontracts - HLW 4,242 12,477 15,671 4,835 0 0 37,225

3 Liner Plate and Vessel Const Subcontract - HLW 5,391 449 14 0 0 0 5,854

3 Special Protective Coating Const Subcontract - HLW 3,468 2,913 1,082 0 0 0 7,463

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - HLW 5,152 6,723 4,306 2,878 0 0 19,059

3 Commissioning - HLW 661 2,341 8,368 15,456 27,350 41,118 95,294

- Fee 8,245 10,079 6,189 6,177 12,324 26,596 69,610

- Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 19,908 25,684 23,998 28,350 11,952 8,686 118,578

2 Balance of Facilities 57,932 54,965 80,098 52,759 24,728 12,691 283,173

3 Engineering Design - BOF 3,345 1,080 466 22 25 0 4,938
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-75

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-36. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 Plant Equipment - BOF 11,603 1,980 18,633 0 0 0 32,216

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - BOF 516 432 484 502 432 280 2,646

3 Plant Material - BOF 1,067 539 0 0 0 0 1,606

3 Startup - BOF 10,646 11,310 9,153 5,497 0 0 36,606

3 Construction Field Non Manual - BOF 3,755 4,752 5,236 3,000 0 0 16,743

3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF 7,901 12,661 12,070 5,265 62 0 37,959

3 Crafts (Construction) - BOF - Distribs 1,000 1,054 834 301 26 0 3,215

3 Construction Subcontracts - BOF 2,718 5,665 4,184 2,709 144 0 15,420

3 Commissioning - BOF 5,747 6,414 13,258 22,122 20,996 16,768 85,305

- Fee 3,559 3,034 3,935 1,902 3,510 2,195 18,135

- Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 6,075 6,044 11,845 11,439 (467) (6,552) 28,384

2 Analytical Laboratory 17,943 28,416 26,726 39,691 28,184 17,030 157,990

3 Engineering Design - Lab 542 66 50 0 0 0 658

3 Plant Equipment - Lab 2,460 6,371 1,671 1,398 0 0 11,900

3 Equipment Engineering - Lab 908 148 0 0 0 0 1,056

3 Environmental and Nuclear Safety - Lab 1,200 691 792 773 689 561 4,706

3 Startup - Lab 1,056 5,507 643 0 0 0 7,206

3 Construction Field Non Manual - Lab 1,706 400 0 0 0 0 2,106

3 Crafts (Construction) - Lab 2,653 216 0 0 0 0 2,869

3 Crafts (Construction) - Lab - Distribs 249 249 195 66 7 0 766

3 Construction Subcontracts - Lab 859 0 0 0 0 0 859

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - Lab 30 0 0 0 0 0 30

3 Commissioning - Lab 4,442 11,657 19,546 28,499 27,408 22,960 114,512

- Fee 356 879 1,089 1,508 4,678 2,997 11,507

- Cost and/or Schedule Uncertainty 1,482 2,232 2,740 7,447 (4,598) (9,488) (185)

2 Plant Wide 287,611 266,486 236,250 179,672 132,785 52,156 1,154,960

3 Safety Assurance - General 2,922 3,033 2,678 2,941 2,916 3,011 17,501

3 Procurement & Subcontracts Freight - Plant Wide 2,635 1,529 403 215 115 12 4,909

3 Project Controls - General 10,616 9,030 8,145 7,038 5,082 3,015 42,926

3 Engineering Design - Plant Wide 9,301 4,891 3,105 1,001 409 36 18,743

3 Engineering Design LOE - Plant Wide 10,613 5,853 5,300 3,729 3,368 2,394 31,257
2013 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report

D-76

DOE/RL-2012-13, Rev.

0

Table D-36. Major Construction – Waste Treatment Plant (PBS ORP-0060) Near-Term Schedule and Costs, Level 3, by Fiscal Year ($1,000, Escalated). 

(4 pages)

Schedule 

Level Scope

Fiscal Year

Total

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3 Engineering Management - Plant Wide 7,052 5,957 3,893 297 260 0 17,459

3 Equipment Engineering - Plant Wide 10,424 5,518 2,464 228 175 176 18,985

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety - Plant Wide 5,422 5,115 6,202 4,970 4,318 5,738 31,765

3 Environmental & Nuclear Safety LOE - Plant Wide 3,064 3,068 3,358 3,426 2,581 2,546 18,043

3 Material Craft Services - Plant Wide 2,090 1,625 1,108 120 0 0 4,943

3 Plant Material - Plant Wide 5,146 0 0 0 0 0 5,146

3 Procurement & Subcontracts - Procurement - SS 18,462 11,875 6,555 3,810 1,516 770 42,988

3 Quality Assurance - General 8,372 7,646 7,521 6,534 6,464 3,488 40,025

3

Process Engineering and Flowsheet Modeling - Plant 

Wide 1,067 414 701 302 33 913 3,430

3 Startup - Plant Wide 2,607 4,553 4,642 3,268 605 0 15,675

3 Shared Services - General 50,131 48,019 43,266 40,787 33,747 25,670 241,620

3 Construction Field Non Manual – Shared Services 33,464 33,731 33,797 26,366 12,316 4,923 144,597

3 Crafts (Construction) - SS - Distribs 33,991 27,051 17,783 (7,386) (6,961) 0 64,478

3 Construction Subcontracts - Plant Wide 7,456 5,019 4,412 3,494 0 0 20,381

3 CB&I Construction Subcontract - Plant Wide 2,751 2,619 0 0 0 0 5,370

3 Construction Subcontracts - Shared Services - Distribs 4,453 3,958 3,689 1,230 0 0 13,330

3 Intermech Construction Subcontract - Plant Wide 3,857 3,489 111 0 0 0 7,457

3 Bulk Material (Civil) - Plant Wide 6,267 3,015 135 461 0 0 9,878

3 Bulk Material (Electrical) - Plant Wide 3,578 4,449 4,608 2 0 0 12,637

3

Bulk Material (Piping & Instrumentation) - Plant 

Wide 37 108 19 0 0 0 164

3 Commissioning - General 38,077 61,336 68,644 72,948 63,420 (2,146) 302,279

3 Project Operations - General 3,756 3,585 3,711 3,891 2,421 1,610 18,974

Total 977,289 847,927 720,941 581,050 412,055 254,310 3,793,574

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).

SS = shared services.