Nuclear Regulation: Slow Progress in Identifying and Cleaning Up NRC's
Licensees' Contaminated Sites (Letter Report, 04/24/95, GAO/RCED-95-95).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the effectiveness of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) decommissioning program,
focusing on: (1) NRC progress in identifying all former licensees' sites
that require additional cleanup; (2) NRC progress in ensuring that sites
on its Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) are cleaned up in a
timely manner; and (3) factors that impede the timely cleanup of sites.

GAO found that: (1) NRC has reviewed about 75 percent of its terminated
licenses to identify sites that need additional cleanup and has found 22
sites that exceed its radioactive contamination guidelines; (2) NRC is
seeking additional information on another 895 terminated licenses to
determine if those sites need additional remediation; (3) NRC will not
know the total number of sites that will require additional cleanup
until it completes its review; (4) NRC expects to complete its initial
review in 1996, but it will take several more years to conduct site
inspections to determine contamination levels; (5) although NRC
established SDMP in 1990 to ensure the timely remediation of sites
facing difficult or prolonged cleanups, it has made little progress in
cleaning up those sites; (6) NRC has issued additional regulations that
require licensees to document their activities that could affect
decommissioning operations; (7) the delays in cleaning up contaminated
sites increase the risk of human exposure to radioactive wastes; and (8)
factors that have delayed or halted cleanup at SDMP sites include
difficulties in disposing of large quantities of a certain radioactive
waste, litigation, coordination and negotiations between affected
parties, and time consuming administrative reviews of decommissioning
documents.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-95
     TITLE:  Nuclear Regulation: Slow Progress in Identifying and 
             Cleaning Up NRC's Licensees' Contaminated Sites
      DATE:  04/24/95
   SUBJECT:  Nuclear waste disposal
             Hazardous substances
             Non-government enterprises
             Radioactive pollution
             Obsolete facilities
             Licenses
             Nuclear radiation monitoring
             Independent regulatory commissions
             Site selection
IDENTIFIER:  NRC Site Decommissioning Management Plan
             
**************************************************************************
* 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 the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U.S.  Senate

April 1995

NUCLEAR REGULATION - SLOW PROGRESS
IN IDENTIFYING AND CLEANING UP
NRC'S LICENSEES' CONTAMINATED
SITES

GAO/RCED-95-95

Slow Progress In Cleaning Up NRC's Sites


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

  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  SDMP - Site Decommissioning Management Plan

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



B-260200

April 24, 1995

The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Senator Glenn: 

For years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its
predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, paid little attention to
how licensees using radioactive materials were decommissioning
(cleaning up) their sites after terminating research, manufacturing,
and other operations.  Some sites lingered for years, often decades,
before cleanup was initiated, and at sites where cleanup was
attempted, it was often performed improperly, leaving harmful levels
of radiation.  In response to your concern about the effectiveness of
NRC's decommissioning program, this report addresses NRC's progress
in (1) identifying all former materials licensees' sites that require
additional cleanup and (2) ensuring that sites in NRC's Site
Decommissioning Management Plan--those facing difficult and/or
prolonged decommissioning--are cleaned up in a timely manner.  In
addition, this report discusses factors that impede the timely
cleanup of sites. 


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

NRC has not yet completed its ongoing review to identify sites
requiring additional cleanup.  Through December 1994, an NRC
contractor had reviewed about 29,000 (about 75 percent) of an
estimated 38,500 terminated licenses.  Thus far, NRC has identified
22 sites that exceed its guidelines for radioactive contamination and
therefore require further cleanup.  Documentation for another 895
terminated licenses was inadequate to determine whether the sites
meet NRC's guidelines.  Consequently, as of March 15, 1995, NRC was
in the process of obtaining additional information about the nature
and extent of the contamination resulting from these licenses.  The
total number of sites that could require additional cleanup will not
be known until NRC obtains this information and completes its review
of the remaining 9,500 terminated licenses.  NRC expects that the
contractor's review will be completed in 1996.  However, according to
NRC, it will take several additional years to review the contractor's
work and conduct inspections that may be needed to assess the
contamination at the sites. 

Although most sites with NRC-licensed operations do not experience
difficult or lengthy cleanups, cleaning up other sites is highly
complex and time-consuming for a variety of reasons, including
technical problems related to the disposal of large amounts of
radioactive waste.  In 1990, NRC established the Site Decommissioning
Management Plan to help ensure the timely cleanup of sites facing
difficult and/or prolonged cleanups.  Despite NRC's increased
efforts, however, little progress had been made in cleaning up these
sites.  NRC had estimated that with increased regulatory attention,
the decommissioning of 11 of the 52 Decommissioning Plan sites that
NRC had identified through 1993 would be completed by April 1994. 
However, only three sites were cleaned up by that time.  Progress in
cleaning up most Decommissioning Plan sites is behind schedule. 

A variety of factors has delayed and even halted cleanups at
Decommissioning Plan sites.  For example, at 14 sites large volumes
of thorium waste cannot be disposed of on-site without an exemption
from NRC's requirements, and disposal elsewhere may not be feasible
because of the high cost and limited availability of off-site
disposal facilities.  Litigation, coordination, and negotiations
between affected parties also have delayed cleanups at many sites. 
Finally, lengthy time frames for NRC's review and approval of key
decommissioning documents have contributed to delays at nine of the
sites.  According to NRC officials, delays in cleaning up
Decommissioning Plan sites increase the likelihood, over the long
term, of human exposure to radiation through the further release and
spread of contamination into the environment.  NRC officials and
representatives of the owners of the contaminated sites told us that
the sites do not pose any imminent health or safety risk because
steps have been taken to limit the public's access to the
contaminated areas.  However, eight sites have already experienced
groundwater contamination, and as delays continue, more sites could
experience similar problems. 

This report contains no recommendations. 


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

NRC issues licenses under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
to individuals and entities such as hospitals, research and fuel
cycle facilities, and manufacturers that use radioactive materials. 
The license--termed a "materials license"--permits the licensee to
possess, use, and/or transfer radioactive materials under controlled
conditions intended to limit the public's exposure to harmful
radiation.  According to NRC's August 1994 annual report, NRC
regulates about 6,850 active licenses.  Over 38,000 licenses have
been terminated for sites previously involved in activities related
to radioactive materials.\1

NRC terminates about 350 materials licenses annually.  According to
NRC, the majority of the licensed operations cause little or no
contamination.  As a result, most site cleanups are routine and
generally take less than 4 years to complete.  Cleanups at other
NRC-licensed sites, however, are highly complex, and many have been
under way for an extended period of time--over 20 years in one case. 

At the conclusion of the licensees' operations, NRC currently
requires them to decontaminate their facilities, including land,
buildings, and equipment, to a level that would allow the site to be
used safely for any purpose in the future (unrestricted use).  This
process is known as "decommissioning." Decommissioning generally
involves many steps.  Among other steps, (1) the licensee must
develop a site characterization plan documenting the extent and
location of contamination, (2) NRC must review and approve the
licensee's plan for decommissioning the site, (3) the licensee must
remediate the site and prepare a final site survey documenting the
results, and (4) NRC must conduct a survey to confirm that the site
has been adequately cleaned up before terminating the license. 


--------------------
\1 NRC regulates licenses in the following 21 states:  Alaska,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  With the exception of licenses for fuel
cycle facilities, licenses in the remaining 29 states--about 15,000
licenses--are regulated by the respective state, under agreement with
NRC.  This report primarily addresses issues related to the cleanup
of sites in NRC-regulated states. 


   NRC DOES NOT YET KNOW THE
   NUMBER OF SITES REQUIRING
   ADDITIONAL CLEANUP
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In our 1989 review of NRC's decommissioning procedures and criteria,
we found that NRC had improperly terminated licenses at two of the
eight sites we reviewed.\2 The two sites were released for
unrestricted use despite the presence of radioactive contamination in
excess of NRC's decommissioning guidelines.  Radioactive
contamination at one site was 3 to 320 times higher than the
guidelines allow; at the other site, contamination was 2 to 4 times
higher than NRC allows.  Because of inadequate information, we were
unable to determine whether similar problems existed at the other six
sites.  During congressional deliberations on this topic in August
1989, NRC agreed to (1) review documentation on materials licenses
terminated between 1965 and 1985 to assess whether past operations
had been properly cleaned up and, if not, (2) identify sites
requiring additional cleanup. 

NRC initiated the review in September 1990 and subsequently expanded
it to include all terminated licenses.  According to NRC, contractors
had examined documentation on about 29,000 (about 75 percent) of an
estimated 38,500 terminated licenses through December 1994.  NRC has
determined that 22 of the 29,000 licenses involved sites that exceed
radioactive guidelines for unrestricted use and, consequently,
require additional cleanup.\3 Documentation on another 895 of the
former licenses was inadequate to determine whether the sites meet
NRC's guidelines.\4 As a result, as of March 15, 1995, NRC was in the
process of obtaining additional information about the 895 terminated
licenses using, among other things, the personal knowledge of
cognizant NRC staff, site visits, and states' and former licensees'
records of the affected sites. 

NRC does not expect that a large number of former sites will require
additional cleanup, although the total number of these sites will not
be known for several years.  According to NRC, the contractor will
complete its review of the remaining 9,500 terminated licenses in
1996.  However, NRC officials told us that it will take several more
years to review the contractor's work and conduct any site
inspections that may be needed to assess contamination resulting from
these licenses. 


--------------------
\2 Nuclear Regulation:  NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria
Need to Be Strengthened (GAO/RCED-89-119, May 26, 1989). 

\3 The sites are located in California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and West
Virginia. 

\4 This number includes 494 licensees that NRC authorized to possess
or use radioactive materials in sealed containers.  According to NRC,
sealed sources are not a high priority for further examination
because, in its view, these sources are not likely to result in site
contamination.  However, some of these sealed sources are over 30
years old, and their condition is unknown. 


   LITTLE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE
   IN CLEANING UP SITES UNDER THE
   SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT
   PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

In March 1990, NRC established a program--termed the Site
Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP)--to help ensure the timely
cleanup of sites facing difficult and/or prolonged decommissioning. 
NRC originally identified 40 sites for increased oversight, guidance,
and assistance to help ensure their timely cleanup.  The sites, known
as SDMP sites, were selected on the basis of the personal experience
of the NRC regional and headquarters staff considered most
knowledgeable of and familiar with sites facing problematic cleanups. 
NRC staff included sites within the SDMP program if they met one or
more of the following criteria: 

A licensee's financial ability or willingness to perform the cleanup
was questionable, or other problems existed. 

The site contained large amounts of contaminated soil, unused
settling ponds, or buried waste that could be difficult to dispose
of. 

The site contained unused facilities that had been contaminated for a
long time. 

The license had previously been terminated, but residual
contamination at the site still exceeded NRC's guidelines for
unrestricted use. 

Groundwater at the site was contaminated, or potentially
contaminated, by radioactive waste. 

By 1992, 2 years after the SDMP program was initiated, eight new
sites had been added to the program, and only one site had been
cleaned up and removed from the program.\5

Dissatisfied with the slow pace of cleanups at the SDMP sites, NRC's
management directed its staff to accelerate those cleanups.  As a
result, in April 1992 NRC developed an action plan that, among other
things, (1) summarized NRC's existing guidance and criteria for site
cleanups, (2) established time frames for major decommissioning
milestones, and (3) described the process that NRC would use to
establish schedules for timely site cleanups. 

According to NRC officials, the 1992 action plan represented NRC's
first attempt to explain and formalize its cleanup process.  Before
the 1992 plan, NRC officials said, the decommissioning process was
operated on an adhoc basis.  Site owners lacked clear guidance about
NRC's decommissioning requirements, and NRC staff were unclear about
how they could best fulfill their decommissioning responsibilities. 

Since issuing the 1992 action plan, NRC has taken additional action
to clarify its requirements for decommissioning.  In July 1993, NRC
issued new regulations that required licensees and others who use or
possess radioactive materials to prepare and maintain adequate
documentation on activities that could affect decommissioning at
their sites.  Furthermore, in July 1994 NRC issued regulations that
established time frames for completing decommissioning activities. 
Under the regulations, licensees are required to complete
decommissioning within about 50 to 62 months.  The new regulations
primarily affect the timeliness of decommissioning future sites.  For
example, many SDMP sites have encountered delays resulting from
inadequate information about past operations.  Because little can be
done to reconstruct this information, the new requirement for
adequate recordkeeping will not apply to these sites.  In addition,
according to NRC officials, because many SDMP sites face extenuating
circumstances that necessitate longer cleanups, they may need to be
exempted from the decommissioning time frames. 

To date, NRC's efforts have not resulted in the timely cleanup of
existing SDMP sites.  In fact, little progress has been made.  Since
1990, the number of sites in the SDMP program has fluctuated between
40 and 57.\6 In 1993, NRC projected that a total of 11 SDMP sites
would be cleaned up by April 1994 and, consequently, removed from the
SDMP program.  However, only three sites were cleaned up and removed
from the SDMP program during that period.\7

Furthermore, interim progress toward the final cleanup at most of the
50 sites in the SDMP program in November 1994, is also behind
schedule.  According to NRC officials, since April 1993 NRC has,
among other things, reviewed numerous (1) plans for decommissioning
SDMP sites and (2) reports on the status of decommissioning
activities at the sites.  According to NRC, these efforts represent
substantial progress in remediating SDMP sites.  While progress is
being made at some SDMP sites, our comparison of NRC's October 1993
and November 1994 projections for completing interim decommissioning
activities found that only two sites had completed their planned
activities on schedule.  Decommissioning activities at 31 sites were
projected to exceed their milestones by 2 to 42 months, and 17 of the
31 sites were expected to exceed their milestones by 12 months or
more.  We could not determine whether activities at the remaining 17
sites were on schedule because of changes in the scope of
decommissioning activities between October 1993 and November 1994. 

According to NRC's records, most of the 50 SDMP sites in the program
in November 1994 have large amounts of contaminated soil--up to 10
million cubic feet.  The contamination resulted from a variety of
operations, such as nuclear fuel research, chemical manufacturing,
uranium processing, and landfill disposal activities.  (App.  I
provides additional information about the sites, including the
location and a description of the contamination present at each of
the sites.)


--------------------
\5 Two additional sites were removed from the SDMP program for other
reasons.  Responsibility for cleaning up one of the sites was
transferred to the State of Illinois, and NRC determined that the
other site's cleanup did not require priority regulatory attention. 

\6 According to SDMP program officials, up to 12 other sites meet
NRC's criteria for inclusion in the program.  However, the sites have
not been included in the program because acceptable progress is being
made toward cleanup. 

\7 Two other sites were cleaned up in June and July 1994. 


      POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLEANUP
      DELAYS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

According to NRC officials, delays in cleaning up SDMP sites increase
the likelihood, over the long term, for human exposure to radiation
through the further release and spread of contamination into the
environment.  However, NRC officials and representatives of the
contaminated SDMP sites told us that the sites do not pose any
imminent health or safety risk because controls exist to limit the
public's access to contaminated areas.  For example, they said fences
and posted danger signs have been erected around contaminated
property and buildings.  In addition, they said the public has little
reason to access areas that are obviously contaminated.  However, we
found that the extent of contamination is not always obvious. 
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate how a radioactively contaminated site
appeared in 1976 and in 1994.  Although the site appears to be
cleaner in the 1994 photograph, it is not.  The barrels of chemical
and radioactive waste obvious in the 1976 photograph are still there
but, over time, have been covered by top soil.  And although most
people probably have no reason to access property contaminated with
radioactive waste, the representative for this SDMP site told us that
hunters sometimes enter the property despite fences and signs
alerting them to the danger. 



(See figure in printed edition.)Figure 1:  An SDMP Site in 1976



(See figure in printed edition.)Figure 2:  The Same SDMP Site in 1994

Delays in cleaning up contaminated sites can also result in more
difficult cleanups.  For example, over time, radioactive materials
can seep into the water table beneath a site and contaminate the
groundwater both on and off the site.  Eight SDMP sites have already
contaminated the groundwater, and according to a contractor
performing NRC's review of formerly licensed sites, about 1 percent
of the former sites (nearly 400) may need to be examined for
groundwater contamination.  The spread of radioactive waste through
soil and water also results in more costly cleanups, a factor that
can have a great impact on an owner's ability and willingness to pay
for site cleanups.  Finally, according to NRC, continued cleanup
delays erode the public's confidence in NRC's ability to protect the
public from adverse health and safety consequences. 


   MANY FACTORS IMPEDE THE TIMELY
   CLEANUP OF SDMP SITES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

A variety of factors have delayed and even halted cleanups at the
SDMP sites.  For example, at 14 SDMP sites, large volumes of thorium
waste cannot be disposed of on-site without an exemption from NRC's
existing requirements, and disposal elsewhere may not be practical or
feasible because of the high cost and limited availability of
off-site disposal facilities.  Litigation, coordination, and
negotiations between affected parties also have delayed cleanups at
many SDMP sites.  Finally, lengthy time frames for NRC's review and
approval of key decommissioning documents have contributed to cleanup
delays at nine SDMP sites. 


      MANY SDMP SITES FACE
      DIFFICULTIES IN MEETING
      REGULATORY DISPOSAL
      REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

NRC permits site owners to bury contaminated waste on-site if
radiation levels can be reduced to a point that permits the site to
be used for unrestricted purposes.  If NRC's guidelines for
decommissioning cannot be met through on-site burial, owners may have
to remove the waste and transfer it to a facility licensed to accept
low-level radioactive waste.  However, neither disposal option is
viable for many SDMP sites contaminated with large quantities of
radioactive waste.  Many SDMP sites cannot meet NRC's guidelines for
on-site disposal, yet off-site disposal may not be feasible or
practical because of the limited availability of waste facilities and
the high cost of off-site disposal. 

According to NRC, 30 SDMP sites are contaminated with large amounts
of radioactive waste.  Fourteen of these sites are contaminated with
thorium.  Over time, thorium decays to thallium, a radioactive
isotope which emits gamma rays that can penetrate and harm the body. 
In the past, NRC allowed licensees to bury large quantities of
thorium, subject to restrictions on the future use of the sites.  NRC
eliminated this disposal option in 1992.  Because of the nature and
large quantities of thorium at the 14 sites, radiation doses at the
sites would exceed NRC's guidelines for unrestricted use if the waste
were buried.  According to NRC, it is too early to tell whether the
other 16 sites with large volumes of radioactive waste can meet NRC's
guidelines for on-site disposal because efforts to characterize the
sites are still under way. 

Off-site disposal of large amounts of radioactive waste also may not
be feasible.  Specifically, only one facility in Utah is currently
available to accept large volumes of waste from existing SDMP sites;
however, it cannot accept materials that exceed the specified
concentration levels established for various radioactive materials.\8
According to NRC, access to waste disposal facilities will continue
to be a problem and could even get worse over the next 5 to 10 years
until state-sponsored facilities are available to accept the waste. 
And even when these facilities are available, the manager of the SDMP
program acknowledged that it is uncertain whether the facilities will
accept the quantities of contaminated materials present at some SDMP
sites. 

Off-site disposal also may not be practical because of the costs
involved.  For example, the owner of one site contaminated with
thorium estimated that on-site disposal would cost less than $2
million, compared to between $135 million and $467 million to dispose
of the same waste off-site.  In another case, an SDMP site
representative estimated that on-site disposal of his site's waste
would cost between $1 million and $6 million, compared to over $100
million for off-site disposal.  According to NRC officials, the high
cost of off-site disposal is an important consideration because it
raises concern about the ability and willingness of owners to pay the
costs of decommissioning sites.  For example, as a result of the high
cost of off-site disposal, owners of one site have threatened to
declare bankruptcy if required to transfer their waste off-site.\9
When decommissioning costs exceed an owner's financial capability,
according to NRC officials, NRC has no other recourse but to turn the
site over to the Environmental Protection Agency for cleanup under
the Superfund program. 

NRC is taking action to provide additional disposal options for sites
with radioactive contamination.  In August 1994, NRC solicited views
from interested parties on the appropriateness of revising its
existing regulations to allow site owners to retain private ownership
of their contaminated properties for a 100-year period, subject to
land-use restrictions.  Comments on NRC's proposal were
overwhelmingly negative.  As a result, according to the NRC official
responsible for handling comments on the proposal, NRC staff do not
intend to pursue this regulatory change. 

NRC has also proposed a regulation to replace its existing
decommissioning guidelines.  If adopted, the regulation would permit
site owners to exceed regulatory limits for radioactive contamination
in certain cases, subject to restrictions on the future use of their
properties.  According to NRC, a number of significant issues will
need to be resolved before this regulatory change can be adopted. 
Issues include (1) the amount of radiation that will be allowed at
the sites, (2) whether existing SDMP sites should be held to new
requirements, and (3) the conditions and time frames for returning
sites to unrestricted use. 

Finally, NRC is studying on-site disposal issues at four SDMP sites
contaminated with large volumes of thorium.  When completed, NRC
officials said, the studies may be used to evaluate the
appropriateness of on-site disposal at other sites contaminated with
large volumes of thorium.  NRC expects the studies will take at least
2 years to complete. 


--------------------
\8 Two other facilities are located in South Carolina and Washington;
however, neither facility can currently accept waste from existing
SDMP sites.  The South Carolina facility accepts waste from 8 states
in the Southeast, and the facility in Washington accepts waste from
11 states in the Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions.  None of the
SDMP sites are located within these regions. 

\9 NRC requires its licensees to set aside funds for the subsequent
decommissioning of their sites.  However, in this case the owner was
required to set aside only $750,000--compared to $1.75 million, the
minimum estimated cost of decommissioning the site.  Fourteen SDMP
sites do not have any money set aside for decommissioning primarily
because the sites' activities were unlicensed or the owners' licenses
were terminated before NRC could secure the funding.  In June 1994,
NRC proposed revisions to its existing regulations to help ensure
that funding for decommissioning will be adequate in the future. 


      LITIGATION, COORDINATION,
      AND NEGOTIATIONS HAVE
      DELAYED MANY SDMP SITE
      CLEANUPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Litigation, coordination, and negotiations between affected parties
also have delayed cleanups at many SDMP sites.  According to NRC, for
example, litigation has delayed cleanups at six SDMP sites, including
one case that has been unresolved for more than 5 years.  Litigation
has occurred for a variety of reasons.  For example, owners of one
SDMP site--a sewage treatment facility--have filed a lawsuit against
the owners of another SDMP site involved in the manufacturing of
medical equipment.  According to the owners of the sewage facility,
discharges of radioactive waste in the manufacturer's sewage lines
have contaminated the sewage facility.  According to NRC, outside
parties, such as environmental groups, have also filed lawsuits to
stop or impede cleanups at SDMP sites because of environmental and
health concerns.  Finally, owners of SDMP sites who are embroiled in
disputes about NRC's decommissioning policies and regulations have
filed lawsuits against NRC. 

In addition to litigation, nearly half of the SDMP sites face
management and disposal issues that must be coordinated with other
federal and state agencies that have jurisdiction over specific
aspects of cleanups.  In some cases, coordination requirements are
perfunctory and have little impact on timely site cleanups.  However,
in other cases, particularly when states' requirements differed from
those imposed by NRC, substantial delays have occurred.  For example,
under state regulations the radioactive waste at one SDMP site in
Ohio also must be treated as solid waste.  As a result, even though
the site can meet NRC's requirements for on-site burial, delays have
occurred because of the state's concerns about whether the company's
proposed disposal cell (waste receptacle) complies with the state's
requirements for the disposal of solid waste.  Coordination on this
issue has already contributed to cleanup delays of about 3 years, and
additional delays will occur until the issue is resolved. 

Finally, negotiations between current and previous site owners about
who is responsible for cleaning up SDMP sites have resulted in
delays.  For example, at one SDMP site negotiations between the
former licensee and the current site owner to determine which one is
the responsible party delayed cleanup by at least 2 years;
negotiations between parties at another site delayed cleanup by about
6 months.  According to the manager of the SDMP program, NRC expects
that most future SDMP sites will be identified from NRC's ongoing
review of past cleanups at sites with terminated materials licenses. 
Consequently, negotiations about who is responsible for site cleanups
will likely become a larger issue in the future. 


      LENGTHY TIME FRAMES FOR
      NRC'S REVIEW OF KEY
      DECOMMISSIONING DOCUMENTS
      HAVE RESULTED IN DELAYS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

NRC's lengthy time frames for reviewing and approving key
decommissioning documents, such as site decommissioning plans, also
have contributed to cleanup delays at many SDMP sites.  For example,
according to NRC documentation, excessive time frames for reviewing
and approving documents submitted by SDMP site owners contributed to
delays of between 6 months and 22 months at nine sites during 1993. 
Representatives of owners at 10 of the 14 SDMP sites we contacted
also identified concerns about the timeliness of NRC's reviews. 
Specifically, they said that NRC's reviews were "rarely" or "not
usually" timely.  For example, one representative said that inaction
on his site's application for a materials license was significantly
delaying cleanup at the site.\10 In November 1994, NRC estimated that
the license would be approved in July 1995--2 years after the owner
submitted the application.  Decommissioning activities cannot begin
at the site until the license is approved. 

According to NRC, lengthy time frames for reviewing and approving
decommissioning documents are the result of a variety of factors,
including the availability of staff to perform the reviews.  Several
SDMP site representatives agreed that NRC staffing, particularly
staff turnover, is a problem.  For example, one site owner said that
during a 4-year period, he had to educate three NRC staff who, at
various times, were responsible for overseeing the cleanup of the
site, thereby delaying the cleanup.  In addition, we found that NRC
does not assign staff to work exclusively on the SDMP program or
ensure that priorities are set consistently for SDMP's cleanup
activities.  Instead, the responsibility for overseeing SDMP sites
within NRC has been divided between many headquarters and regional
organizations with varying missions and priorities that, according to
NRC, often have taken precedence over SDMP's program activities. 

According to NRC, it has acted to improve the timeliness of its
document reviews.  For example, because of a recent reorganization
within NRC, additional staff are now available to perform the
reviews.  Furthermore, between October 1994 and December 1994, NRC
tested a system for tracking and assigning staff resources to the
reviews.  Although NRC is currently reviewing the test's results,
early indications are that the system is more costly than can be
justified.  As a result, NRC officials said that they will probably
need to pursue other methods for managing staff resources for SDMP
activities. 


--------------------
\10 Contamination at some of the SDMP sites resulted from unlicensed
and unauthorized activities.  This case involves an unlicensed
landfill that became contaminated by shipments from outside sources. 
Now that the site has radioactive waste, NRC has required the owner
to obtain a license before cleaning up the site. 


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

NRC's efforts to provide increased assistance to sites facing
difficult and lengthy cleanups, while laudable, are unlikely to
resolve the numerous and complex issues encountered at existing SDMP
sites.  Many SDMP site cleanups have been delayed by issues involving
litigation, coordination, and negotiation between affected parties,
which are issues largely beyond NRC's control.  In addition, in the
short term, little can be done to resolve the pressing problems
experienced by sites that cannot meet current decommissioning
guidelines for on-site disposal without an exemption from NRC's
existing requirements.  The limited availability and high cost of
off-site waste disposal facilities may be addressed when
state-sponsored facilities are available to accept the waste. 
However, even when these facilities become available, it is unclear
whether they will be able to accept the types and quantities of
contaminated waste present at a large number of SDMP sites. 

NRC is exploring additional disposal options for sites that cannot
meet its existing requirements.  While additional disposal options
may facilitate decommissioning at many SDMP sites, a wide variety of
difficult issues will need to be thoroughly addressed before any
regulatory change can be adopted.  For example, because sites would
be allowed to have greater concentrations of radioactive
contamination than currently permitted, issues about the possibility
of future waste migration will need to be resolved to ensure that
additional sites do not experience migration problems.  NRC will also
need to ensure that controls at the sites will be adequate over the
long term to safeguard the public from greater exposure to radiation. 

Decommissioning issues are likely to become even more problematic as
the magnitude of NRC's decommissioning effort grows.  NRC's ongoing
review of terminated licenses already has identified 22 sites
requiring additional cleanup.  Another 895 licenses require
additional review to determine if the sites require further cleanup. 
More sites are likely to be identified as NRC completes its review of
the remaining 9,500 licenses. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

On March 15, 1995, we met with NRC officials, including the Deputy
Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and
Operations Support, and the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards to discuss and clarify NRC's written
comments on a draft of our report.  (NRC's written comments are
included as app.  II.) NRC officials agreed that little progress has
been made in removing sites from the SDMP program--the ultimate
objective of the program.  However, they cited several actions by NRC
that they believe will contribute to the eventual cleanup of SDMP
sites.  We have included details on these actions, as appropriate, in
the body of this report.  We have also clarified and updated
information in our draft report on the basis of NRC's comments. 

NRC officials stressed that SDMP sites, such as the one illustrated
in this report, do not represent an immediate hazard to infrequent
intruders.  While all SDMP sites exceed NRC's guidelines for
unrestricted use, they said that an individual's risk of exposure to
radiation would occur only if controls at the sites broke down and
people took up residence or worked at the sites without adequate
precautions.  Furthermore, they said that covering barrels of
contaminated waste with soil, as was done at the site discussed in
this report, helps reduce the overall hazard. 

We agree that health consequences related to an individual's exposure
to radiation are considered a long-term--not an immediate--risk,
provided that an individual's exposure is controlled and limited. 
However, we do not fully agree with NRC's comments about the site
discussed in our report.  As demonstrated in our report, controls can
and do break down.  Furthermore, we believe that it is too early to
assess the health risk associated with this site.  The site, which
was used as a landfill, has not yet been characterized to determine
the extent and nature of contamination.  In addition, records are
incomplete or nonexistent about the (1) sources of contamination, (2)
adequacy of efforts to cover the contaminated waste, and (3)
frequency and duration of any intruder's access to the property. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To assess NRC's progress in identifying former materials licensees'
sites that require additional cleanup, we interviewed contractor
officials performing the work and the NRC manager responsible for
overseeing the review.  We also examined documentation related to the
project, including the contract governing the scope of the work. 

To assess progress in cleaning up the high-priority SDMP sites and to
identify major factors contributing to decommissioning delays in the
21 states in which nuclear materials are regulated by NRC, we
interviewed the manager of the SDMP program and other cognizant
headquarters and regional NRC officials, including 48 project mangers
in three NRC divisions (Low-Level Waste Management and
Decommissioning, Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, and Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety) responsible for providing increased
oversight, guidance, and assistance to SDMP sites during 1993.  We
also contacted owners or their representatives at 14 SDMP sites to
obtain their views about the effectiveness of the SDMP program.  The
sites represent a cross-section of SDMP sites facing difficult
decommissioning issues.  In addition, we reviewed NRC's documentation
of the origin, intent, and goals of the SDMP program, including NRC's
site selection criteria, the 1992 action plan, annual status reports
on the program, and memorandums and policy papers about possible
changes in NRC's decommissioning regulations and policies.  Finally,
we visited five sites in Michigan, Oklahoma, and Ohio to observe the
extent of contamination at some SDMP sites.  We conducted our work
between May 1993 and March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As agreed with your office, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 15 days from the date of this letter.  At that time, we
will send copies to appropriate congressional committees, the
Chairman of NRC, and other interested parties.  We will also make
copies available to others upon request. 

If you have questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes Director, Energy and Science Issues


LIST OF 50 SITES IN THE SDMP
PROGRAM IN NOVEMBER 1994
=========================================================== Appendix I

Name                  Location                      Description of contamination
--------------------  ----------------------------  ----------------------------
AAR Manufacturing     Livonia, MI                   Thorium contamination in
                                                    facility

Advanced Medical      Cleveland, OH                 Cobalt-60 in building and
Systems, Inc.                                       sewer line

Aluminum Company of   Cleveland, OH                 Thorium, depleted uranium in
America (ALCOA)                                     buildings and soil; possible
                                                    thorium burial site

Anne Arundel County/  Baltimore, MD                 Thorium in wood, concrete,
Curtis Bay                                          and soil

(Department of the)   Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD   Depleted uranium in soil
Army

Babcock and Wilcox    Apollo, PA                    Uranium contamination in
                                                    soil

Babcock and Wilcox    Parks Township, PA            Uranium and thorium burial
                                                    site

BP Chemicals,         Lima, OH                      Depleted uranium in ponds
America, Inc.                                       and soil; ponds also contain
                                                    hazardous wastes


Cabot Corp.           Boyertown, PA                 Uranium and thorium
                                                    contaminated slag

Cabot Corp.           Reading, PA                   Uranium and thorium
                                                    contamination in building
                                                    and slag

Cabot Corp.           Revere, PA                    Uranium and thorium
                                                    contaminated slag and soil

Chemetron Corp.,      Newburgh Heights, OH          Depleted uranium in soil and
Bert Avenue                                         waste

Chemetron Corp.,      Newburgh Heights, OH          Depleted uranium in soil and
Harvard Avenue                                      waste

Clevite Corporation   Cleveland, OH                 Uranium in buildings

Dow Chemical Co.      Bay City, MI                  Thorium in slag and soil
                      Midland, MI

Elkem Metals, Inc.    Marietta, OH                  Thorium in buildings

Engelhard Corp.       Plainville, MA                Uranium in soil and
                                                    buildings

Fansteel, Inc.        Muskogee, OK                  Thorium and uranium in soil
                                                    and settling ponds

Frome Investment Co.  Detroit, MI                   Thorium burial site

Hartley and Hartley   Bay County, MI                Thorium and hazardous wastes
Landfill                                            in landfill

Heritage Minerals     Lakehurst, NJ                 Thorium in sand

Horizons, Inc.        Cleveland, OH                 Thorium in buildings

Kaiser Aluminum       Tulsa, OK                     Thorium contamination in
                                                    ponds and ground

Kerr-McGee, Cimarron  Crescent, OK                  Uranium in buildings, soil,
Plant                                               settling ponds

Kerr-McGee, Cushing   Cushing, OK                   Thorium and uranium
Plant                                               contamination

Lake City Army        Independence, MO              Depleted uranium in soil and
Ammunition Plant                                    sand

Magnesium Elektron,   Flemington, NJ                Uranium and thorium in
Inc.                                                sludge

Minnesota Mining and  Pine County, MN               Uranium and thorium burial
Manufacturing Co.                                   sites

Molycorp, Inc.        Washington, PA                Thorium in soil and slag

Molycorp, Inc.        York, PA                      Thorium in soil

Northeast Ohio        Cleveland, OH                 Cobalt-60 in sewage sludge
Regional Sewer                                      and ash
District Southerly
Plant

Nuclear Metals, Inc.  Concord, MA                   Depleted uranium in holding
                                                    basin, soil, and groundwater

Permagrain Products,  Media, PA                     Strontium-90 in building and
Inc.                                                equipment

Pesses Co.            Pulaski, PA                   Thorium in metal scrap and
                                                    soil; hazardous and mixed
                                                    waste also present

RMI Titanium Co.      Ashtabula, OH                 Uranium in building and
                                                    soil; uranium and
                                                    trichloroethylene in
                                                    groundwater

RTI, Inc.             Rockaway, NJ                  Cobalt-60 in soil and burial
                                                    sites

Safety Light Corp.    Bloomsburg, PA                Radium-226, strontium-90,
                                                    and cesium-137 in soil and
                                                    groundwater and tritium in
                                                    groundwater

Schott Glass          Duryea, PA                    Thoriated glass and
Technologies, Inc.                                  refractory tile containing
                                                    small amounts of uranium and
                                                    thorium in landfill

Sequoyah Fuels Corp.  Gore, OK                      Uranium in soil and
                                                    groundwater

Shieldalloy           Cambridge, OH                 Thorium, uranium, and radium
Metallurgical Corp.                                 in slag

Shieldalloy           Newfield, NJ                  Thorium, uranium, and radium
Metallurgical Corp.                                 in slag and soil

Texas Instruments,    Attleboro, MA                 Uranium in soil
Inc.

UNC Recovery Systems  Wood River Junction, RI       Strontium-90 in groundwater

United Technologies/  Middletown, CT                Cesium-137 and cobalt-60
Pratt & Whitney                                     contamination

Watertown Arsenal/    Watertown, MA                 Uranium contamination in
Mall                                                buildings and soil

Watertown GSA         Boston, MA                    Uranium in soil

West Lake Landfill    Bridgeton, St. Louis County,  Radium-226, uranium, and
                      MO                            thorium in landfill

Westinghouse          Madison, PA                   Radioactive waste in
Electric Corporation                                buildings and waste
                                                    retention basins; strontium-
                                                    90 in soil and groundwater

Whittaker Corp.       Greenville, PA                Thorium and uranium in slag

Wyman-Gordon Co.      North Grafton, MA             Thorium in burial sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on pp.  1 and 2. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on p.  2. 

Now on p.  3. 

Now on p.  3. 

Now on p.  3. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on p.  4. 

Now on p.  4. 

Now on p.  4. 

Now on p.  6. 

Now on pp.  6 and 7. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on p.  8. 

Now on p.  8. 

Now on p.  9. 

Now on p.  9. 

Now on p.  10. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on pp.  10 and 11. 

Now on p.  13. 

Now on p.  13. 

Now on pp.  13 and 14. 



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

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

Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director
Gene Aloise, Assistant Director
Philip A.  Olson, Assignment Manager
Kathleen Turner, Adviser

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Mindi G.  Weisenbloom, Senior Attorney

CHICAGO/DETROIT FIELD OFFICE

Anthony A.  Krukowski, Regional Management Representative
Odell W.  Bailey, Jr., Evaluator-in-Charge
Joanna C.  Allen, Evaluator

