Nuclear Waste: Much Effort Needed to Meet Federal Facility Compliance
Act's Requirements (Letter Report, 05/17/94, GAO/RCED-94-179).

The Federal Facility Compliance Act requires the Energy Department (DOE)
to (1) submit plans for treating mixed wastes, which contain radioactive
and hazardous material, to host states or to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); (2) get approval of the treatment plans from
the states or EPA; and (3) enter into legal orders requiring DOE to
comply with the approved plans.  If DOE fails to meet an October 1995
deadline, it will be subject to fines of up to $25,000 per day for each
violation of restrictions against storing untreated mixed wastes.
Because DOE is months away from developing draft and proposed site
treatment plans, it is too early to tell if DOE, the states, and EPA
will be able to resolve technical and policy issues, negotiate final
site treatment plans, and sign compliance orders in time to meet the
deadline.  However, considering the amount of work that remains and the
time available to finish it, if DOE either misses its milestones for
preparing the draft and final site treatment plans or if the draft and
plans do not adequately resolve mixed waste treatment, characterization,
and disposal issues, the likelihood of missing the deadline increases.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-179
     TITLE:  Nuclear Waste: Much Effort Needed to Meet Federal Facility 
             Compliance Act's Requirements
      DATE:  05/17/94
   SUBJECT:  Nuclear waste disposal
             Compliance
             Reporting requirements
             Nuclear waste management
             Wastewater treatment
             Radioactive wastes
             Nuclear waste storage
             Energy research
             Environmental policies
             Environmental legislation
IDENTIFIER:  California
             Colorado
             Idaho
             Illinois
             Kentucky
             Missouri
             Nevada
             New Mexico
             New York
             Ohio
             South Carolina
             Tennessee
             Texas
             Iowa
             New Jersey
             Pennsylvania
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

May 1994

NUCLEAR WASTE - MUCH EFFORT NEEDED
TO MEET FEDERAL FACILITY
COMPLIANCE ACT'S REQUIREMENTS

GAO/RCED-94-179

Meeting FFCA Requirements


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE - Department of Energy
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  FFCA - Federal Facility Compliance Act
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NGA - National Governors' Association
  RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  TSCA - Toxic Substances and Control Act

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-256920

May 17, 1994

The Honorable Max S.  Baucus
Chairman
The Honorable John H.  Chafee
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment
 and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable John D.  Dingell
Chairman
The Honorable Carlos J.  Moorhead
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives

The Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), enacted on October 6,
1992, substantially changed how the Department of Energy (DOE)
manages wastes containing radioactive and hazardous material--known
as mixed wastes--that are generated or stored at DOE facilities. 
FFCA requires that, by October 1995, DOE submit plans to develop and
operate technologies and facilities for treating its mixed wastes to
host states that are authorized to regulate hazardous material or to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), obtain the states' or
EPA's approval of the treatment plans, and enter into legal orders
that require the Department to comply with the approved plans. 
Otherwise, after October 1995, DOE is subject to fines of up to
$25,000 per day under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) for each violation of RCRA's restrictions against storing
untreated mixed wastes. 

FFCA also requires that we report on, among other things, (1) DOE's
progress with submitting treatment plans and entering into compliance
orders; (2) DOE's efforts to characterize,\1 develop technologies
for, and provide the capacity to treat mixed wastes; and (3) the
additional actions needed to completely implement the act.\2 Because
DOE has over 1,500 mixed waste streams\3 at 50 sites, the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works and House Committee on
Energy and Commerce agreed that in order to evaluate DOE's efforts to
manage and treat mixed wastes, we should evaluate DOE's progress on a
judgmentally selected group of individual mixed waste streams at
several key sites--specifically the Fernald, Ohio; Idaho Falls,
Idaho; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, sites. 


--------------------
\1 Characterizing wastes can involve several techniques to better
understand the radioactive and hazardous chemicals that are present
and how to treat them.  These techniques generally involve analyzing
historical records and laboratory samples to identify the material
used and the by-products generated by an activity or industrial
process. 

\2 As agreed with the committees, we did not address two additional
requirements of FFCA.  See appendix V of the report for further
information on these requirements. 

\3 A waste stream is a collection of waste materials that have
similar physical or chemical characteristics.  It can be an
administrative designation of similar wastes that are generated by
several of DOE's activities or the waste that is generated by one
activity. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of April 1994, DOE had submitted to the states and EPA preliminary
site treatment plans that identify thousands of treatment options for
the Department's mixed wastes and had started to evaluate the
technical feasibility and cost of these options.  DOE had not
submitted a proposed site treatment plan that identifies specific
treatment technologies and schedules to any state or EPA for its
review and approval and does not expect to do so until February 1995. 
DOE has devoted relatively less attention to developing proposed
language for compliance orders under FFCA than it has devoted to
developing site treatment plans. 

DOE has made limited progress in developing the capacity to treat
mixed waste streams at its Fernald, Idaho Falls, and Oak Ridge sites. 
Since October 1991, DOE has developed new capacity to treat only 1 of
the sites' 34 largest waste streams.  DOE's progress with the waste
streams has been limited by (1) insufficient information concerning
the wastes' radioactive and hazardous characteristics and alternative
treatment technologies for the wastes and (2) DOE's general
preference to defer construction of new treatment facilities until
after the Department, the states, and EPA negotiate site treatment
plans required by FFCA. 

DOE, the states, and EPA must complete several tasks and resolve
numerous technical and policy issues if they are to meet the act's
October 1995 target date.  Because DOE is months away from developing
the site treatment plans that will address these issues, it is too
early to tell if DOE, the states, and EPA will be able to resolve the
issues, negotiate final site treatment plans, and enter into
compliance orders by October 1995.  However, considering the amount
of work that remains and the time available to complete this work, if
DOE misses its internal milestones for preparing the site treatment
plans, the likelihood of missing FFCA's October 1995 deadline
increases. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Mixed wastes can take a variety of forms and are found at facilities
throughout the DOE complex.  For example, mixed wastes include
radioactive sludge containing toxic metals that DOE extracted from
waste-holding ponds, a solution of uranium and hazardous chemicals
left in equipment when DOE shut down the equipment, and radioactively
contaminated lead shielding used during tests of nuclear fuels.  In
an April 1993 interim report on its mixed waste inventory, DOE
estimated that 50 sites in 22 states store about 600,000 cubic meters
of such wastes.  Over the next 5 years, DOE's operations, waste
management, and cleanup activities in the 22 states could generate an
additional 920,000 cubic meters of mixed wastes. 

The Congress enacted FFCA to (1) resolve any questions about DOE's
immunity to the imposition of fines for violating federal, state, and
local solid and hazardous waste requirements and (2) accelerate DOE's
efforts to comply with RCRA's requirements for the hazardous
components of mixed wastes.  FFCA provides DOE with a 3-year grace
period to negotiate the final treatment plans and enter into
compliance orders with the states and EPA, during which time DOE will
be immune from fines for accumulating untreated mixed wastes.  After
October 1995, DOE will be immune from RCRA's fines for storing
untreated mixed wastes only if the Department adheres to the approved
final site treatment plans and compliance orders.  Appendix I
elaborates on RCRA's requirements for mixed wastes and DOE's
historical efforts to meet these requirements.  Appendix II
summarizes FFCA's key milestones for developing mixed waste treatment
plans and compliance orders by October 1995. 

Within DOE, the Office of Environmental Management has organized a
task force to implement FFCA and has signed a cooperative agreement
with the National Governors' Association (NGA) to facilitate
discussions on FFCA between DOE and the 22 states that host a DOE
facility with mixed wastes.  Appendix III identifies the 16 states
that have been authorized by EPA to directly approve the site
treatment plans and issue compliance orders under FFCA and the 6
states where EPA retains this authority. 


   DOE INTENDS TO SUBMIT PROPOSED
   SITE TREATMENT PLANS DURING
   EARLY 1995
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

After consulting with the states and EPA, DOE adopted a
multiple-stage process to gradually build consensus among the states
and EPA on national options for treating DOE's mixed waste inventory. 
In keeping with this process, DOE has not submitted a proposed site
treatment plan to any state or EPA for its review and approval and
does not expect to do so until February 1995. 


      DOE'S PROCESS FOR COMPLYING
      WITH FFCA EMPHASIZES SEVERAL
      ITERATIONS OF TREATMENT
      PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

During each of the 3 years between FFCA's October 1992 enactment and
its October 1995 deadline, DOE has developed and will develop
increasingly detailed site treatment plans.  Specifically, according
to DOE's schedule for complying with the act, the process involves
the following stages: 

  In October 1993, DOE submitted to the states and EPA preliminary
     site treatment plans, which DOE called conceptual site treatment
     plans.  These plans were intended to provide a starting point
     for discussions between DOE, the states, and EPA on how to treat
     DOE's mixed wastes by identifying all technological options. 

  By August 1994, DOE sites will issue draft site treatment plans
     that will narrow down the options presented in the conceptual
     site treatment plans to one or more preferred treatment options
     for each waste stream.  The draft site treatment plans will also
     identify the facilities that DOE could build to treat these
     streams and the tentative location, size, and cost of these
     treatment facilities. 

  By February 1995, DOE sites will submit proposed site treatment
     plans to states and EPA for their review and approval.  The
     plans are to include schedules for developing technologies and
     for operating any combination of local, regional, or national
     mixed waste treatment facilities. 

  From February 1995 through October 1995, the states and EPA will
     receive public comments on DOE's proposed site treatment plans
     and incorporate these comments into the proposed plans.  By
     October 1995, DOE, the states, and EPA will negotiate any final
     changes to the proposed site treatment plans, approve final site
     treatment plans, and enter into compliance orders. 

DOE's plan for implementing FFCA's requirements states that, between
each of these stages, DOE headquarters and sites will meet regularly
with the states and EPA to obtain their perspective on technological
options, treatment issues, and compliance orders.  DOE's process for
implementing FFCA's requirements also includes the development of a
national inventory of DOE's mixed waste streams and technologies and
summaries of the sites' conceptual, draft, and proposed plans that
DOE, the states, and EPA can use to analyze mixed waste
transportation and treatment issues. 


      DOE HAS MET SEVERAL OF
      FFCA'S EARLY MILESTONES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

DOE has met several milestones for the first 18 months of FFCA's
implementation and has begun developing draft site treatment plans. 
In April 1993, DOE published an interim inventory report that
identified the radiological and hazardous characteristics of its
1,500 mixed waste streams, the facilities that DOE sites planned to
build to treat these wastes, and the 267 technology development
projects that DOE had funded to improve mixed waste technologies. 
Using this inventory information, DOE sites published, in October
1993, 48 conceptual site treatment plans that identified all possible
on- and off-site options for treating the sites' mixed wastes.\4 In
total, the 48 conceptual plans identified 30,000 options for treating
DOE's 1,500 mixed waste streams. 

Since publishing the conceptual site treatment plans and in
accordance with its implementation plan for FFCA, DOE has met with
state representatives to hear their reactions to DOE's mixed waste
activities and to develop a framework for developing the August 1994
draft site treatment plans.  As a result of these meetings and
internal reviews of the proposed framework, DOE decided that sites
will use a two-step process for developing the draft plans.  Sites
will start the process by (1) identifying the mixed waste streams
that are sufficiently characterized to allow for the selection of
preferred treatment technologies and (2) discussing the preferred
treatment options with regulatory agencies.  Once agreements are
reached with the regulatory agencies for these well-characterized
streams, DOE sites will identify and discuss treatment options for
streams that are not sufficiently characterized or for which there
are no proven treatment technologies.  As of April 1994, DOE sites
had submitted a list of well-characterized streams and their
preferred treatment options to headquarters and were discussing the
options with state and EPA officials. 

DOE has devoted less attention to developing proposed language for
the compliance orders under FFCA, partly because the Department's
FFCA task force staff believe that DOE, the states, and EPA cannot
write compliance orders until after DOE develops the proposed site
treatment plans.  DOE's FFCA task force staff believe that, during
the first year after the Congress passed FFCA, it was more important
to prepare FFCA's mandated schedule for submitting proposed site
treatment plans and the mixed waste inventory report and to start
developing the technical details of the site treatment plans than it
was to start developing the legal framework for implementing the
plans.  In December 1993, DOE established an FFCA working group to
begin evaluating alternative legal language to propose to the states
and EPA for compliance orders.  As of April 1994, DOE headquarters,
the Idaho Field Office, and the West Valley, New York, Project Office
had agreed to discuss alternative language for the pilot compliance
orders under FFCA with Idaho and New York state officials,
respectively, and FFCA staff had met twice to discuss lessons learned
from DOE's past experience with interagency compliance orders.  Also,
NGA has organized an FFCA subgroup of representatives from the
National Association of Attorneys General and states' attorney
general offices to examine DOE-related mixed waste issues.  NGA also
held one telephone conference call to discuss the subgroup's
potential objectives and contributions to the development of final
site treatment plans and compliance orders. 


--------------------
\4 According to DOE, 2 of the 50 sites that store or generate mixed
wastes do not have to prepare site treatment plans and compliance
orders.  Under section 3021(b)(5) of FFCA, the state of Washington
has waived the requirement for DOE's Hanford, Washington, site to
prepare a site treatment plan because DOE's Tri-Party Agreement with
the state and EPA already includes schedules for mixed waste
treatment.  DOE is not preparing a site treatment plan for its Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico because DOE expects to receive a
"no migration variance" from EPA to operate the facility, which would
allow DOE to store mixed waste without violating RCRA's storage
prohibition. 


      MEETING OTHER FFCA
      MILESTONES HAS BEEN MORE
      DIFFICULT THAN DOE EXPECTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Although DOE has met some of its internal FFCA milestones, it has
missed others.  According to the director of DOE's FFCA task force,
DOE has missed some FFCA milestones because DOE underestimated the
amount of time needed to develop national data on mixed waste
inventories and treatment options. 

Specifically, DOE took 3-1/2 months longer than expected to develop a
national summary of the 48 conceptual site treatment plans.  In a
September 1993 schedule of activities to implement FFCA, DOE
projected that it would submit the summary to EPA and the states by
the end of November 1993, 1 month after releasing the conceptual site
treatment plans.  However, DOE did not publish the 1,300- page
national summary until March 11, 1994.  According to the FFCA task
force director, DOE underestimated the time needed to receive
consistent data from 48 diverse field sites, verify the accuracy of
the data, and write the summary report.  Also, when DOE estimated
that it would take 1 month to publish the report, it had not firmly
defined the report's objectives and outline. 

DOE has also taken 4 months longer than expected to respond to the
states' and EPA's requests to expand the April 1993 interim mixed
waste inventory.  Commenting on the interim inventory, the states and
EPA generally questioned the validity of the historical information
that DOE had used to characterize waste streams and the Department's
determination that existing technology could adequately treat
specific streams.  Responding to these comments, DOE requested, in
September 1993, that its field staff provide additional information
to headquarters within 1-1/2 months so that DOE could provide the
expanded information to the states by mid-December 1993.  As of April
1994, DOE headquarters still had not received and verified the
expanded inventory information from all sites.  DOE has published
partial data for 25 sites rather than delay releasing the information
until all sites had responded.  Again, the FFCA task force director
attributed the delays to DOE's difficulty in getting 48 sites to
provide consistent information in a short time frame. 

DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management and DOE's FFCA
task force director believe that despite the delays in preparing the
summary and expanded inventory information, the Department will be
able to meet its internal August 1994 and February 1995 milestones
for the draft and proposed site treatment plans, respectively. 
However, DOE officials acknowledge that meeting the milestones for
the draft and proposed site treatment plans will be difficult because
DOE has many tasks to complete. 


   DOE FIELD SITES ARE TREATING A
   LIMITED NUMBER OF MIXED WASTE
   STREAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

After decades of activities involving nuclear weapons and nuclear
research activities, DOE's Fernald, Idaho Falls, and Oak Ridge sites
store thousands of cubic meters of mixed wastes in drums and tanks,
and in other structures.  Unless DOE properly stores, treats, and
disposes of the wastes, the radioactive and hazardous material in
them can potentially contaminate soil and groundwater and threaten
public health and safety. 


      THREE DOE SITES HAVE
      COMPLETED PRELIMINARY
      ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR WASTE
      STREAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

For the 34 large waste streams at Fernald, Idaho Falls, and Oak Ridge
that we reviewed, from October 1991 through April 1994, DOE improved
its overall understanding of the streams' characteristics and
treatment options.  DOE is also treating 3 of the 34 streams. 
Appendix IV elaborates on the status of the 34 streams. 

However, the DOE sites did not significantly increase their capacity
for treating the streams.  Since October 1991, DOE has developed new
capacity to treat only 1 of the 34 waste streams.  DOE's Fernald site
has converted existing equipment to treat uranium nitrate waste that
remained in the equipment after DOE stopped production at Fernald. 
DOE is treating two streams--liquid wastes and oils containing
radioactive material--at an Oak Ridge facility that mixes liquid
waste with concrete and at the site's Toxic Substances and Control
Act (TSCA) incinerator.  DOE built these two treatment facilities
during the late 1980s. 


      REASONS WHY DOE IS NOT
      TREATING MORE MIXED WASTE
      STREAMS VARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

DOE has not developed new treatment capacity for and is not treating
more of the waste streams at the three sites for several reasons. 
The primary reason is that, because DOE assigned a low priority to
treating mixed wastes before FFCA was passed, DOE did not have
sufficient information in 1991 to begin building, testing, or
operating new treatment facilities.  For example, DOE's Oak Ridge
site had characterized the liquid waste and radioactive oil streams
sufficiently to begin treating these two streams; however, the DOE
sites had not developed sufficient characterization information for
32 streams to decide which alternative treatment technologies the
Department should develop.\5

Another reason why DOE has not made more progress since October 1991
in developing new mixed waste treatment capacity is that DOE
considered the 2-1/2 years since October 1991 as a planning period to
reexamine the Department's mixed waste construction plans while it
developed site treatment plans with the states and EPA.  DOE has
continued designing and constructing a limited number of mixed waste
treatment facilities at sites with large inventories of mixed wastes,
such as Hanford and Savannah River, on a case-by-case basis. 
However, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management told us
that unless a site's large inventory of mixed wastes makes it obvious
that a treatment facility will be needed, she has been reluctant to
begin designing and constructing new mixed waste facilities until
after DOE, the states, and EPA negotiate final site treatment plans
and enter into compliance orders. 

DOE officials recognize that the Department has more detailed
characterization information and a better understanding of
technological alternatives for some mixed waste streams than it does
for others and expect that the final site treatment plans and
compliance orders will reflect these different levels of
understanding.  For example, DOE expects that its final site
treatment plans will contain (1) well-defined schedules for building
and operating facilities for streams that are well-characterized and
have clear treatment alternatives, and (2) for other streams,
less-detailed plans that will define how DOE intends to characterize
the streams, evaluate alternative technologies, and select the final
treatment technologies. 


--------------------
\5 From 1987 through 1991, DOE had characterized and treated a pond
sludge waste stream at Oak Ridge that we reviewed.  However, because
DOE was not sure that the treated waste met RCRA's land disposal
restrictions, DOE closed the treatment facility in 1991 and decided
to further characterize the stream before selecting a treatment that
would meet RCRA's disposal requirements. 


   CONSIDERABLE EFFORT REMAINS TO
   COMPLETE SITE TREATMENT PLANS
   AND COMPLIANCE ORDERS BY
   OCTOBER 1995
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DOE, the states, and EPA must complete several tasks and resolve
numerous technical and policy issues before the organizations can
submit and approve final site treatment plans and enter into
compliance orders.  The states and EPA officials that we contacted
are cautiously optimistic that these steps can be completed and that
issues can be resolved by October 1995. 


      ACTIONS ARE NEEDED TO
      COMPLETE PLANS AND ORDERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

DOE, the states, and EPA have several critical steps they must
complete to arrive at final plans and enter into compliance orders
under FFCA by October 1995.  Between April 1994 and October 1995,
DOE, the states, and EPA must (1) develop and review draft site
treatment plans that will identify a more limited number of treatment
options for waste streams than the conceptual site treatment plans
identified; (2) agree on the size and location of proposed treatment
facilities and on steps to develop treatment technologies so that DOE
can present milestones for these activities in the proposed site
treatment plans; (3) negotiate mutually acceptable changes to DOE's
proposed site treatment plans that may result from the states',
EPA's, and the public's review of proposed site treatment plans; and
(4) enter into compliance orders to implement the final site
treatment plans. 

DOE's Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management and Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Waste Management recognize that completing
the site treatment plans and entering into compliance orders on time
will be difficult.  These officials informed us that they intend to
become more involved in the FFCA process as DOE, the states, and EPA
begin to negotiate site treatment plans and language for compliance
orders.  For example, as of April 1994, DOE's Deputy Assistant
Secretary and the FFCA task force had briefed the Assistant Secretary
about once every 4 months on the Department's FFCA strategy and
progress.  During a February 1994 briefing, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary and Assistant Secretary agreed to meet monthly to discuss
DOE's development of draft site treatment plans and issues that could
affect the progress of proposed and final site treatment plans and
compliance orders. 


      NUMEROUS ISSUES NEED TO BE
      RESOLVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Through their meetings with DOE, comments on DOE's mixed waste
inventory report, and discussions with us, the states and EPA have
identified five technical and policy issues that are central to the
national discussions of mixed wastes.  Based on our discussions with
13 states that have authority to approve final site treatment plans
and issue compliance orders and three EPA regional offices that will
approve final site treatment plans and issue compliance orders for
states that do not have the authority,\6 table 1 indicates the number
of states and EPA regional offices that believe these issues are
important. 



                           Table 1
           
             Issues That Are Central to National
             Discussions of Mixed Waste Plans and
                      Compliance Orders

                                            Number of states
                                             and EPA offices
                                             that considered
Issue                                     issues important\a
----------------------------------------  ------------------
Treatment of mixed wastes generated in                    14
 other states
Accuracy of DOE's characterization data                   13
Mixed waste disposal facilities and                       12
 schedules
Selection of mixed waste treatment                        10
 technologies
Size of mixed waste treatment facilities                   9
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total number of states and EPA offices possible equals 16. 

In various NGA meetings, states with DOE sites that have the largest
inventories of mixed wastes, such as Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Washington, have expressed a strong preference for using local
facilities to treat wastes that are already stored on their sites and
a preference not to treat waste generated in other states.  For
example, at a January 1994 NGA meeting, Tennessee's FFCA
representative commented that the state is uncomfortable with an
informal DOE proposal that Tennessee treat mixed wastes generated at
nearby sites in Kentucky and Ohio.  However, states with DOE sites
that have relatively small volumes of mixed wastes, such as
Pennsylvania and Texas, believe that building treatment facilities in
their state may not be economical and prefer that DOE treat their
wastes at sites in other states.  States with large DOE inventories
of mixed wastes are willing to consider that economies of scale may
compel DOE to ship some wastes out-of-state but insist that, in each
case, DOE's proposed site treatment plans must prove that this is the
most economical and environmentally acceptable treatment alternative. 

Several states, such as California, Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and
Tennessee, have also emphasized that accurate characterization of
mixed wastes at DOE sites is essential if DOE is to select
technologies and determine the size of facilities to effectively and
economically treat the wastes.  However, states disagree on how much
characterization DOE sites need to complete before the states can
approve site treatment plans and issue compliance orders required by
FFCA.  Idaho is generally confident in the quality of DOE's initial
characterization data for streams at its site and contends that DOE's
final site treatment plan for Idaho need only to include an
acceptable plan for developing more detailed characterization
information.  Colorado, Ohio, and Tennessee officials believe that,
for their states, DOE needs to develop additional waste
characterization information to determine more precisely the volume
of mixed wastes that needs to be treated and to select treatment
technologies for their final site treatment plans. 

Finally, states are concerned that, because FFCA does not require DOE
to develop plans for disposing of mixed wastes, the proposed site
treatment plans may not discuss facilities and schedules for
disposing of the mixed wastes that will remain after treatment.  At a
March 1994 NGA meeting, several states commented that they would not
approve DOE's proposed site treatment plans if the proposed plans do
not include a plan to dispose of mixed wastes.  For example, Nevada
believes that the proposed site treatment plans should (1) identify
the specific facilities that DOE will use to dispose of mixed wastes
and (2) include schedules for building and operating disposal
facilities.  Other states, such as California, Idaho, South Carolina,
and Tennessee, agree that the proposed site treatment plans should
discuss DOE's disposal plans. 


--------------------
\6 The 13 states were California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,
Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.  The three EPA regional offices will
approve site treatment plans and issue compliance orders for Iowa,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 


      STATES AND EPA ARE
      CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT
      MEETING OCTOBER 1995
      DEADLINE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

Considering the number and types of issues that the organizations
have to resolve, many state and EPA officials that we contacted are
cautiously optimistic that they will be able to approve FFCA plans
and issue compliance orders by October 1995.  States such as Idaho
and Tennessee believe that they can individually work through the
technical and policy issues with DOE and agree on plans and enter
into compliance orders by October 1995 to treat their own mixed
wastes.  However, these and other states with large DOE inventories
generally recognize that (1) they will have to consider options for
treating other states' mixed wastes before approving final treatment
plans and (2) their ability to reach agreements on treating other
states' mixed wastes will depend on complicated discussions and
trade-offs between the states.  For example, a state may be willing
to consider being the site of a regional mixed waste treatment
facility and accepting out-of-state wastes if another state is
willing to dispose of the mixed wastes that remain after treatment. 

As of April 1994, the states and EPA had not started to discuss the
types of trade-offs that will be needed before they approve final
site treatment plans and enter into compliance orders.  State and EPA
officials believe discussions of potential trade-offs cannot begin in
earnest until DOE submits the draft site treatment plans. 


      DOE'S FFCA TASK FORCE IS
      PARTIALLY ADDRESSING STATES'
      AND EPA'S CONCERNS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4

DOE has several initiatives to resolve the states' and EPA's
concerns.  For example, as a result of the states' and EPA's
preference for on-site treatment of locally generated wastes, DOE
revised its framework for analyzing sites' treatment options and
agreed to examine on-site treatment options before the sites consider
off-site options.  DOE's FFCA task force is also meeting with the
states to identify potential locations for disposal facilities and
has agreed to work with the states to develop a strategy for
disposing of mixed wastes. 

These initiatives have not resolved all issues involving FFCA that
are important to the states and the EPA officials that we contacted. 
As of April 1994, DOE, the states, and EPA had not agreed on a
consistent definition of how much characterization information is
enough to negotiate site treatment plans and enter into compliance
orders.  DOE also has not reached agreement with the states and EPA
on the type of waste disposal information that the states and EPA
will accept in the final site treatment plans. 

DOE's Assistant Secretary has asked that the Department's FFCA task
force involve states' attorneys general more extensively in DOE's
development of final site treatment plans and proposed compliance
orders and begin negotiating compliance orders that could serve as
pilots for final orders.  By starting negotiations on orders with one
or more states, DOE hopes to gain experience with negotiating
compliance orders under FFCA and be able to better judge whether the
Department can negotiate mutually agreeable orders with the states by
October 1995.  Although the states have the authority to issue
unilateral compliance orders that require DOE to implement mixed
waste treatment schedules, the Assistant Secretary wants to negotiate
mutually agreeable language for the compliance orders whenever
possible. 

The Assistant Secretary also told us that he tentatively supports the
concept of issuing separate proposed and final site treatment plans
for streams that are well- characterized and have treatment
technologies available if the alternative would enable DOE, the
states, and EPA to meet FFCA's October 1995 deadline.  Conceptually,
it may be easier and quicker for DOE to negotiate agreements on
well-characterized streams because the states or EPA would already
agree on the streams' hazardous and radioactive components and
preferred treatment options.  The organizations could then
concentrate on negotiating the details of DOE's plans for defining
the characteristics and technological options for the streams that
are not as well characterized or for which there are no available
treatment technologies.  However, the Assistant Secretary believes
that there is a good likelihood that DOE, the states, and EPA will
meet FFCA's October 1995 deadline and has not instructed DOE's FFCA
task force to test the merits of any specific alternatives for
developing proposed and final site treatment plans. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Because DOE is months away from developing draft and proposed site
treatment plans, it is too early to tell if DOE, the states, and EPA
will be able to resolve technical and policy issues, negotiate final
site treatment plans, and sign compliance orders by October 1995. 
However, considering the amount of work that remains and the time
available to complete this work, if DOE either misses its milestones
for preparing the draft and final site treatment plans or if the
draft and final site treatment plans do not adequately resolve mixed
waste treatment, characterization, and disposal issues, the
likelihood of missing the October 1995 deadline increases. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To improve the likelihood that DOE, the states, and EPA will meet
FFCA's October 1995 deadline, we recommend that the Secretary of
Energy evaluate and implement, if appropriate, alternatives for
meeting the deadline.  These alternatives should include (1)
preparing proposed and final site treatment plans for
well-characterized waste streams and (2) beginning negotiations on
these plans with the states and EPA before preparing proposed and
final site treatment plans for streams that are not well-
characterized. 


      AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We discussed this report with DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Waste Management, the director of DOE's FFCA task force, and staff of
DOE's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. 
These officials agreed that the report accurately described the
status of the Department's efforts to implement FFCA and the
remaining actions that have to be completed by October 1995.  They
observed that there may be some drawbacks to preparing separate site
treatment plans for streams that are well-characterized and for
streams that are less understood if the alternative includes
negotiating separate compliance orders for well-characterized and
less-understood streams.  These potential drawbacks include the
following:  (1) The states and EPA may not be willing to enter into
compliance orders for well-characterized streams that do not include
schedules to better characterize streams that are less understood,
and (2) developing multiple compliance orders for each mixed waste
site increases the administrative burden of approving proposed
language for compliance orders. 

We believe that DOE needs to test acceptable alternatives to the
current approach for developing proposed and final site treatment
plans before February 1995 in case the Department misses its
milestones for preparing the plans.  By testing alternatives that
states and EPA will consider, DOE can be better prepared to implement
an alternative approach if it appears that the Department, the
states, and EPA will not meet the October 1995 deadline. 

As agreed with your office we did not obtain written comments from
DOE on the report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2

We performed our work from July 1993 through April 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix V
provides detailed information on our scope and methodology. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Energy; and the Director, Office of
Management and Budget.  We will make copies available to others upon
request. 

This work was performed under the direction of Victor S.  Rezendes,
Director, Energy and Science Issues, who may be reached at (202)
512-3841 if you or you staff have any questions.  Major contributors
to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Keith O.  Fultz
Assistant Comptroller General


DOE'S HISTORICAL EFFORTS TO
IMPLEMENT RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT'S REQUIREMENTS
FOR MIXED WASTES
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
in 1976 to minimize threats to public health and the environment
associated with improper storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous wastes.  However, until 1987, the Department of Energy
(DOE) took the position that its storage and disposal of hazardous
and mixed wastes from nuclear weapons activities were exempt from
RCRA and the Department followed its own standards for managing the
wastes.  Historically, DOE has stored and disposed of radioactive and
mixed wastes at federally licensed commercial sites or in DOE-owned
landfills, trenches, and above-ground vaults. 

In May 1987, responding to an earlier federal court decision and to
guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, DOE agreed that RCRA applied to the
hazardous components of the Department's mixed wastes.  As a result,
DOE sites that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous and mixed wastes
must (1) obtain permits under RCRA to operate waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; (2) meet RCRA's record-keeping and
labeling requirements; and (3) comply with RCRA's 1984 land disposal
restrictions.  The restrictions preclude DOE from disposing of
hazardous and mixed wastes unless the wastes can be pretreated to
comply with EPA's standards or pretreated by an EPA-approved
treatment technology.  The restrictions also allow DOE to store
untreated hazardous and mixed wastes only long enough to accumulate
sufficient waste to operate treatment and disposal facilities. 

DOE's transition from internal waste storage and disposal
requirements to RCRA's requirements has been slow and difficult.  In
1987, when DOE accepted RCRA's jurisdiction over the Department's
mixed wastes, DOE did not know the quantities and hazardous
characteristics of the mixed wastes stored at its sites, and had not
developed treatment facilities that could meet RCRA's land disposal
requirements.  Since 1987, DOE has continued to store mixed wastes
while it planned the construction of treatment facilities and
developed treatment technologies--despite RCRA's 1984 restrictions
that allow DOE to store only limited quantities of untreated mixed
wastes. 


KEY MILESTONES FOR DEVELOPING
PLANS AND COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER
THE FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
ACT
========================================================== Appendix II

Key FFCA milestones            Legislated time frame
-----------------------------  -----------------------------
President signed FFCA.         Oct. 1992.

DOE submitted national         Apr. 1993.
inventory of mixed wastes,
treatment capacities, and
technologies.

DOE sites submit proposed      No date specified.
site treatment plans to host
state or EPA.

Host state or EPA (1)          Within 6 months of when DOE
requests public comments and   submits each proposed plan.
(2) approves, approves with
modifications, or disapproves
DOE's proposed treatment
plans for sites within the
state.

Host state or EPA issues       After the state or EPA
compliance orders under FFCA   approves sites' final
for one or more sites within   treatment plans.
each state.

DOE loses sovereign immunity   Oct. 1995--unless a DOE site
to fines for sites storing     is complying with an approved
untreated mixed wastes.        final site treatment plan and
                               compliance order.
------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

FFCA = Federal Facility Compliance Act. 


ORGANIZATIONS WITH AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE MIXED WASTE PLANS AND
ORDERS MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL
FACILITY COMPLIANCE ACT
========================================================= Appendix III

States with approval           States for which EPA has
authority                      approval authority
-----------------------------  -----------------------------
California                     Hawaii

Colorado                       Iowa

Connecticut                    Maine

Florida                        New Jersey

Idaho                          Pennsylvania

Illinois                       Virginia

Kentucky

Missouri

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

Ohio

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Washington
------------------------------------------------------------

STATUS OF LARGE MIXED WASTE
STREAMS AT DOE'S FERNALD, IDAHO
FALLS, AND OAK RIDGE SITES
========================================================== Appendix IV

Table IV.1 presents the status of the 34 streams at the three DOE
sites we reviewed.  As of April 1994, DOE's Fernald, Ohio; Idaho
Falls, Idaho; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, sites had completed
preliminary characterization and evaluation of each of the 34 waste
streams.  Preliminary evaluation refers to DOE's initial efforts to
understand the type of wastes and how to treat the
wastes--specifically, it includes DOE's efforts to identify the
radioactive and hazardous material within a mixed waste stream and
DOE's efforts to identify the technology that EPA has determined is
the best available for treating the waste to meet RCRA's land
disposal requirements. 



                          Table IV.1
           
              Status of 34 Large DOE Mixed Waste
                   Streams as of April 1994

                                    Number
                                        of    Number
                                   streams        of  Number
                          Number  completi   streams      of
                              of        ng  completi  stream
                          stream  prelimin        ng       s
                               s       ary  detailed   being
                          review  evaluati  evaluati  treate
DOE site                      ed        on        on       d
------------------------  ------  --------  --------  ------
Fernald                       10        10         4       1
Idaho Falls                   12        12         0       0
Oak Ridge                     12        12         2       2
Total                         34        34         6       3
------------------------------------------------------------
The sites had also completed detailed evaluation of waste stream
characteristics and technologies for 6 of the 34 streams and is
treating 3 of the 6 streams.  Detailed evaluation includes DOE's
efforts to (1) refine its knowledge of mixed waste streams by either
collecting additional information on how DOE generated the wastes or
by analyzing waste samples, (2) evaluate alternative technologies,
(3) demonstrate the more promising alternatives, and (4) select a
specific treatment technology. 


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix V

To evaluate DOE's progress in submitting the treatment plans and
entering into compliance orders under the Federal Facility Compliance
Act (FFCA), we reviewed DOE's April 1993 national inventory of mixed
waste streams and technologies, minutes of weekly meetings between
DOE headquarters and field officials that discussed the status of the
Department's efforts to prepare FFCA site treatment plans and
proposed orders, and DOE planning documents that described the
Department's methodology for preparing conceptual and draft site
treatment plans.  We also discussed DOE's process for developing the
plans and proposed compliance orders and potential changes to this
process with DOE headquarters and field officials. 

To evaluate DOE's efforts to characterize, develop technologies for,
and provide treatment capacity for mixed wastes, we interviewed DOE
and contractor officials and documents pertaining to mixed wastes at
DOE's Fernald, Idaho Falls, and Oak Ridge sites to (1) select the
largest streams at each site; (2) determine the change in status
between October 1991 and April 1994 of DOE's characterization,
technology assessment, and treatment efforts for the individual
streams that we had selected; and (3) identify the reasons why DOE
had not made more progress with these streams.  We selected DOE's
Fernald, Idaho Falls, and Oak Ridge sites for our work because the
Department's April 1993 interim mixed waste inventory indicated that
the sites either stored or would generate large amounts of mixed
wastes during the next 5 years.  The mixed waste streams we selected
included streams with different physical, chemical, and radioactive
characteristics. 

To determine the additional actions needed to meet FFCA's October
1995 deadline, we reviewed DOE's plans for developing and obtaining
approval of site treatment plans and proposed compliance orders,
identified technical and policy issues that could impede the states'
and EPA's approval of the plans and orders, and attended DOE and
National Governors' Association meetings that discussed DOE's and the
states' views on these issues.  We evaluated the importance of mixed
waste technical and policy issues and the general likelihood that
DOE, the states, and EPA would approve the plans and compliance
orders by October 1995 by interviewing representatives of regulatory
agencies or the governor's office in 13 states that have authority to
approve plans and issue compliance orders and by interviewing EPA
mixed waste specialists who will approve site treatment plans and
issue compliance orders for 3 states that do not have this authority. 
We also contacted representatives of the National Association of
Attorneys General and the attorney general's office in four states
with large DOE mixed waste inventories to (1) evaluate how these
representatives are involved in DOE's process for complying with FFCA
and (2) identify potential opportunities for more extensively
involving states' attorneys general in the development of plans and
orders under FFCA. 

As agreed with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, we did not address
items (C) and (D) of Section 3021(c)(2) of FFCA, which required us to
evaluate the quality of DOE's site treatment plans and to identify
any recurring problems with the Department's plans.  We could not
meet these requirement because, as discussed in the report, as of
April 1994, DOE had not submitted any site treatment plans to the
states or EPA.  We performed our review from July 1993 through April
1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Jim Wells, Associate Director
James Noï¿½l, Assistant Director
Robert P.  Lilly, Evaluator-in-Charge
Richard E.  Iager, Senior Evaluator
Earl P.  Williams, Jr., Reports Analyst

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Susan W.  Irwin, Attorney-Advisor

ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE

John M.  Gates, Senior Evaluator
Karen B.  Thompson, Staff Evaluator

CINCINNATI REGIONAL OFFICE

James E.  Fuquay, Senior Evaluator
Michael J.  Enriquez, Senior Evaluator

