Hanford Past'''PresentFuture

1
HanfordPast...PresentFuture

• Bob Tibbatts
• DOE Richland Operations Office
• Institute of Management Accountants
• December 1, 1999

2
1943 to 1946 World War II - Manhattan Project

• Hanford selected as the site to produce
  plutonium in January 1943
• Remote
• Near railroads
• Abundant water for reactor cooling
• Electricity from dams
• First nuclear reactor constructed in just 13
  months
• Employment swelled to 31,000
• Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Major contractor DuPont

3
1947 to 1963 Massive Expansion

• General Electric (GE) became major contractor in
  late 1946
• Atomic Energy Commission created in 1947
• Eight production reactors in operation by the
  late 1950s
• Energy missions added
• President Eisenhowers Atoms for Peace program
• N-Reactor came online in 1963

4
1964 to 1971 Shutdown of Reactors

• Beginning in 1964, national priorities changed
  and Hanfords production operations were severely
  curtailed
• GE replaced by 8 management and operations (MO)
  contractors in 1965-1966
• Segmentation
• Diversification
• By 1971, only N-Reactor remained in operation

5
1972 to 1985 Multiple Missions

• Nuclear materials production remained the primary
  mission
• Basalt Waste Isolation Project (BWIP) supported
  high level waste repository program
• Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) reactor brought on
  line

6
1986 to 1996 Cleanup Mission

• Consolidation of major contractors from eight to
  four
• 40 years of environmental data released to public
• N Reactor shutdown following Chernobyl accident
• BWIP terminated
• Tri-Party Agreement signed in May 1989
• Environmental cleanup became primary mission
• Beginning in 1995 projected funding less than
  requirements

7
Hanford Site Employment1943 to 1999
8
RL Funding History1989-1999
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
9
FY 1995/1996 Challenge Close the 2.8 Billion
GAP
10
How Can We Bridge the Gap?
More Money
HardTrade-Offs
Efficiencies
11
Hanford Savings Reflect Outputs of Savings
Initiatives
12
WHC/PHMC Indirect CostsFY 1994 to FY 1999
Total Reduction - 42
Dollars in Millions
These numbers are adjusted for accounting and
estimated contract changes, and stated in 1994
dollars in order to show actual cost reductions.
13
1997 to 1999 Contract Reform

• Management and Integration (MI) Contract
• Best in class major subcontractors
• Well-defined scope of work
• Integration
• Between projects
• Site services
• Systems
• Planning and budget
• Improved performance and lower costs
• Fee based on performance

14
Evolution of Fee atRichland Operations Office

• Original MO philosophy - cost plus fixed fee
• Revised MO philosophy - cost plus award fee
• Current philosophy - performance based

15
1997 to 1999 Contract Reform

• Office of River Protection (ORP) created in 1999
• Tank farm operations and maintenance contractor
  transferred from RL to ORP
• Privatization contract for tank waste treatment
• Energy Savings Performance Contract

16
Focused on Outcomes
North Slope
Restore The River Corridor
Reactor Areas
Arid Lands Ecology Reserve
Transition The Central Plateau
Laboratories
Put DOEs Assets To Work For The Future
17
Restore The River CorridorWhats Possible (The
Dream)
WORK
2012
2014
2002
2004
2016
2010
2000
2006
2008
Spent Fuel, Sludge Debris Removed
2005
Waste Sites Addressed
(897)
2011
(8)
Reactors Cocooned (Interim Safe Storage)
2016
Plumes Addressed
?
20XX
Other 100/300 Area Facilities Dispositioned
(150)
2016
Assumes B Reactor becomes a museum
18
Transition The Central Plateau Whats Possible
(The Dream)
WORK
2012
2014
2018
2002
2004
2016
2010
2006
2008
Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivated
2016
Buried TRU/Stored Waste Disposed
(9,200 cu Meters LLMW 38,000 Barrels TRU)
2020
(758)
Waste Sites Addressed
2018
Canyons/Other 200 Area Facilities Dispositioned
2043
Everything Else Vitrification Plant, Canister
Storage Building Active Disposal Operations
2046
19
Put DOEs Assets To Work For The Future There
Is A Future

• National/Global Concerns
• Special Nuclear Material Stabilization,
  Disposition and Protection
• Reactor/Complex Building DD
• Contaminant Movement and Effects
• Waste Management/Disposal
• Protecting Water Resources
• Science and Technology
• Molecular Biology
• Food Production
• Global Warming
• Medical Science
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation
• Energy Supply
• Training
• Information Systems

Assets People Land Water Experience PNNL HAMMER LI
GO Etc.
20
The Dream is Possible Because

• Hanford Workers Have Already Done It
• The Community and Stakeholders Want It
• The Regulators Want It
• Fuel and Waste Disposition Pathways are Defined
• We Have Significant Resources
• Its the Right Thing to Do
• We Have To