Uranium Mill Tailings: Cleanup Continues, But Future Costs Are Uncertain
(Chapter Report, 12/15/95, GAO/RCED-96-37).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of
Energy's (DOE) program for cleaning up uranium mill tailings, focusing
on: (1) the status and cost of DOE surface and groundwater cleanups; and
(2) factors that could affect the federal government's costs and
liabilities in the future.

GAO noted that: (1) DOE intends to complete the cleanup of surface and
groundwater contamination sites by 2014, at a cost of more than $2.4
billion; (2) out of 24 sites, surface cleanup is complete at 15, under
way at 7, and idle at 2; (3) surface cleanup costs total around $2
billion to date and may be completed in 1998 at an additional cost of
$300 million; (4) DOE postponed its groundwater cleanup until 1991
because of its focus on surface cleanup and a delay in the Environmental
Protection Agency's final groundwater standards; (5) DOE has not reached
an agreement with any of the affected states or tribes to develop
cleanup strategies or financial support; (6) DOE will need another $147
million to clean up the affected groundwater sites; (7) the costs and
completion dates of the cleanups depend on whether DOE keeps a disposal
site open to dispose of future unearthed tailings and whether states
contribute 10 percent of the groundwater cleanup expenses; and (8) the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not updated the minimum charge for
owners of Title II sites to reflect the cost of basic surveillance and
maintenance.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-37
     TITLE:  Uranium Mill Tailings: Cleanup Continues, But Future Costs 
             Are Uncertain
      DATE:  12/15/95
   SUBJECT:  Uranium
             Radioactive waste disposal
             Indian lands
             Hazardous substances
             Nuclear waste management
             Environmental monitoring
             Water pollution
             Industrial wastes
             Future budget projections
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
IDENTIFIER:  Grand Junction (CO)
             DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project
             Superfund Program
             EPA National Priorities List
             DOE Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program
             
**************************************************************************
* 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

December 1995

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS - CLEANUP
CONTINUES, BUT FUTURE COSTS ARE
UNCERTAIN

GAO/RCED-96-37

Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings

(302136)


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

  DOE - Department of Energy
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  UMTRA - Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action project

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


B-261528

December 15, 1995

Congressional Recipients

As part of our basic legislative responsibilities, we reviewed the
costs and current status of the Department of Energy's (DOE) program
for cleaning up uranium mill tailings, conducted under the authority
of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (P.L. 
95-604).  Although the act directed that the cleanup be completed by
March 1990, the Congress subsequently extended this deadline twice. 
Because the current legislative authority expires on September 30,
1996, we are providing this report in anticipation of congressional
deliberations on reauthorizing this program.  The act made DOE the
primary federal agency for managing the program and assigned
regulatory responsibilities to the Environmental Protection Agency
and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

This report contains matters for consideration by the Congress
concerning DOE's authority under the program.  It also contains a
recommendation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission aimed at
improving the accuracy of the one-time charge made to owner/operators
to ensure that this charge fully covers future costs at their sites. 

Please call me on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
I. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy and
 Science Issues


List of Recipients

The Honorable Mark O.  Hatfield
Chairman
The Honorable Robert C.  Byrd
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Frank H.  Murkowski
Chairman
The Honorable J.  Bennett Johnston
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate

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

The Honorable Pete V.  Domenici
Chairman
The Honorable J.  Bennett Johnston
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Pete V.  Domenici
Chairman
The Honorable Wendell H.  Ford
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable William S.  Cohen
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
 Management and the District of Columbia
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman
The Honorable David R.  Obey
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Thomas J.  Bliley, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable John D.  Dingell
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

The Honorable William F.  Clinger, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Cardiss Collins
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

The Honorable John T.  Myers
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Bevill
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Schaefer
Chairman
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

The Honorable David M.  McIntosh
Chairman
The Honorable Collin C.  Peterson
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth,
 Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Decades of processing uranium ore for use in the government's nuclear
weapons and energy programs resulted in the accumulation of
radioactive wastes at about 50 ore processing sites and about 5,000
nearby properties in various states and on some Indian tribal lands. 
When the government's need for uranium for defense purposes dwindled
in the late 1960s, many of the processing operations ceased, and huge
piles of contaminated mill tailings (a sand-like by-product of ore
processing) were left in place and spread to nearby properties,
posing potential health risks.  Accordingly, the Congress enacted the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, which authorized
the Department of Energy (DOE) to clean up contamination at the
processing sites.  In 1979, DOE developed its Uranium Mill Tailings
Remedial Action project.  This project has two key components: 
cleanup of the surface and cleanup of the groundwater. 

Because DOE's authority for the surface cleanup will expire at the
end of fiscal year 1996, GAO is providing the Congress with
information on (1) the status and cost of DOE's surface and
groundwater cleanups and (2) factors that could affect the federal
government's costs and liabilities in the future. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 authorized
the cleanup of the nation's uranium ore processing sites.  Title I of
the act governs the cleanup of sites that were already inactive at
the time the legislation was enacted (referred to in this report as
Title I sites); title II covers the cleanup of sites that were still
active at that time (referred to as Title II sites).  Under the act,
DOE is to clean up the Title I sites and nearby properties affected
by the contamination, mostly at its expense, but the affected states
are to contribute 10 percent of the actual cost of the remedial
actions.  The Title II sites are to be cleaned up mostly at the
expense of the private companies that own and operate them and then
turn them over to the federal government or states for long-term
custody.  Before a Title II site is turned over to federal or state
custody, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for
entering into financial arrangements with the owners/operators that
provide sufficient funds to cover the costs of necessary long-term
monitoring and maintenance at the sites. 

After studying the 24 Title I sites that required cleanup, DOE
established priorities--high, medium, and low--for cleaning up the
sites, based on the severity of their potential risk to public
health.  DOE used these priorities to help determine the order in
which cleanup would begin at the sites. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

DOE anticipates completing the cleanup of both surface and
groundwater contamination from uranium mill tailings by about 2014 at
a cost of over $2.4 billion.\1 At DOE's 24 Title I sites, surface
cleanup is complete at 15 sites, is under way at another 7, and has
not yet started at the remaining 2.  Approximately 5,000 nearby
properties, including homes, schools, and businesses, have also been
cleaned up.  The cost of the surface cleanup to date totals about $2
billion.  The Department anticipates that, if provided a 2-year
extension of its authority for the surface cleanup, it can complete
its responsibilities in 1998 at an additional cost of about $300
million.  DOE is currently seeking reauthorization of its surface
cleanup program through fiscal year 1998.  Because the Department
initially focused on the surface cleanup and because of a delay in
the issuance of EPA's final groundwater standards, DOE postponed the
start of its groundwater cleanup until 1991.  Since then, the
Department has primarily studied the sites and developed groundwater
cleanup strategies.  It has not reached agreement with the affected
states and tribes on the cleanup strategies to be used or reaffirmed
the states' financial support for the project.  However, on the basis
of its proposed "least-cost" strategies, DOE estimates that its
efforts to clean up the groundwater will cost at least another $147
million. 

Various factors could affect the future federal costs and ultimate
completion dates of both the surface and groundwater cleanups.  Among
these factors are whether (1) DOE will keep open a portion of one
disposal site to dispose of tailings unearthed during future work on
roads and utilities and (2) the affected states will provide their
10-percent share of the groundwater cleanup expenses.  Depending on
their outcome, these factors could add millions of dollars and years
of work to the cleanup effort.  Furthermore, the assumptions that
underlie NRC's minimum charge to the owners/operators of the Title II
sites for long-term surveillance has not been reviewed and updated to
reflect the current cost of basic surveillance and does not include
the cost of the routine, ongoing maintenance that may be needed at
each site. 


--------------------
\1 All dollars are present-value 1995 dollars, unless otherwise
noted. 


   GAO'S ANALYSIS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      STATUS AND COST OF SURFACE
      AND GROUNDWATER CLEANUPS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

After several schedule extensions and increases in the project's
costs, DOE currently plans to complete its surface cleanup
responsibilities in 1998, at a total cost of about $2.3 billion.  For
the most part, DOE has completed the surface cleanup at those sites
that posed the greatest potential health risk to the public (e.g.,
sites located near major population centers).  At most of the other
sites, DOE's cleanup efforts are well under way. 

In January 1995, DOE estimated that the total cost of the surface
cleanup at the Title I sites will be about $2.3 billion, or $621
million more than it estimated for cleanup in 1982.  The increase in
the cost of the surface cleanup was caused by unexpected growth in
the project's size and complexity.  According to DOE officials, this
growth came through several avenues.  For example, changes in federal
requirements resulted in additional work and costs for DOE.  To
comply with new groundwater standards, in particular, DOE had to
change the location and design of many waste disposal cells
(containment areas where the tailings are enclosed and stored). 
Furthermore, as its cleanup work progressed, DOE identified more
contamination than its original surveys had projected--more in terms
of both the quantity of tailings and the number of nearby properties
that needed to be cleaned up. 

DOE's groundwater cleanup work began in 1991, and by June 1995 the
Department had spent about $16.7 million on planning and developing
its strategies for the cleanup.  DOE's next step is to consider the
views of the affected states and Indian tribes and select the final
methods that will be used to clean up the groundwater at each site. 
If the least-cost strategies that DOE has proposed are adopted, the
Department anticipates completing its groundwater cleanup in about
2014, at a minimum cost of about $147 million. 


      FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT
      PROJECT'S FUTURE COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

Various factors may affect the project's future costs.  For example,
one factor that could affect these costs is how the project resolves
the issue of what to do with the mill tailings in Grand Junction,
Colorado, which are now buried under streets and utility corridors,
but which may be unearthed during future excavations for repairs. 
One possible solution is to keep a portion of the Grand Junction
site's disposal cell open to deposit any tailings that are unearthed
during such repairs.  However, according to DOE, it would need
legislative authority to keep a portion of the cell open after its
authority for the surface cleanup has expired.  Furthermore, keeping
a portion of the cell open could result in additional costs of
several hundred thousand dollars annually over the next 20 years. 

Regarding groundwater cleanup, DOE does not know whether the states
will be willing and able to provide their 10-percent share of the
cost of the remedial actions.  One state has already voiced concern
that its legislators may not provide funding for the groundwater
cleanup.  If the states do not provide their share of these costs,
DOE believes it does not have the congressional authority to proceed
with the cleanup. 

Finally, NRC's minimum charge for long-term surveillance is based on
the assumption that the annual cost of surveillance will be $5,300
per site (in 1995 dollars).  NRC's charge has not been revised and
updated since the basis for the charge was developed in 1980.  DOE
estimates that the current cost of annual surveillance is $16,000 per
site (in 1995 dollars).  In addition, DOE estimates that the cost of
annual maintenance at each site will be about $5,000 (in 1995
dollars), but NRC's minimum charge was based on the assumption that
ongoing maintenance would not be required. 


   MATTERS FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO is raising matters for the Congress's consideration concerning
(1) the Department of Energy's lack of authority to keep open a
portion of the Colorado disposal cell and (2) whether and under what
circumstances the Department can complete the cleanups when the
states do not contribute their share of the cleanup costs.  The
complete text of these matters for congressional consideration is
found in chapter 3. 


   RECOMMENDATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

To provide a realistic indication of the future costs of long-term
monitoring and maintenance, GAO recommends that the Commissioners of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct its staff to consult with
the Department of Energy to develop an accurate estimate of these
costs and what they entail, and use that information to (1) update
the minimum one-time charge for basic surveillance and (2) determine
whether routine maintenance will be required at each site, and, if
so, incorporate the cost for such maintenance into the minimum
charge. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for their review and comment.  Officials from all three
agencies expressed general agreement with the report's findings. 

GAO met with officials of the Department of Energy, including the
Office Director, Office of Southwestern Area Programs, who generally
agreed with the report's findings and provided technical
clarifications that have been incorporated into the report where
appropriate.  The Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Director,
Federal Guidance, from the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, also
generally agreed with the report's findings and provided technical
clarifications that have been incorporated where appropriate. 

GAO met with officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
including the Chief of the High-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery
Projects Branch, who generally agreed with the report's findings. 
However, in commenting on the report's recommendations, these
officials said that they are not certain that the assumptions NRC
used to estimate the one-time charge for basic surveillance are
invalid; however, they are reexamining the issue.  These officials
fully agreed with the report's recommendation to determine if routine
maintenance will be required at each site and incorporate any
resulting costs into the one-time charge.  According to these
officials, they have taken a number of steps, described in chapter 3,
to ensure that this recommendation will be successfully implemented. 
Technical clarifications provided by these officials have also been
incorporated into the report where appropriate. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

At over 50 sites, mostly in the southwestern United States,
widespread contamination of both land and groundwater resulted from
uranium ore processing operations that took place from the early
1940s throughout the 1960s.  During that period, most of the nation's
uranium mining and milling (ore processing) activities were conducted
by private companies for the Atomic Energy Commission (the Department
of Energy's predecessor).  Uranium ore was crushed and processed for
use in developing weapons and in the emerging nuclear energy
industry.  But for every ounce of uranium that was extracted from
ore, 99 ounces of waste were produced in the form of mill tailings--a
finely ground, sand-like material.  By the time the government's need
for uranium peaked, tons of mill tailings had been produced at the
processing sites.  After fulfilling their government contracts, many
companies closed down their uranium mills and left large piles of
tailings at the mill sites. 

The abandoned piles of uranium mill tailings contain radioactive
wastes and other hazardous materials that had been used in the
uranium extraction process.  Despite the potential health risks, some
mill operators left the piles of tailings uncovered and exposed to
the elements.  As a result, the tailings were spread--by wind, water,
and human intervention--thus contaminating properties beyond the
mill.  In some communities, citizens used the tailings as building
materials for homes, schools, office buildings, and roads because the
health risks were not commonly known.  Disposal of the tailings and
the contaminated liquids from uranium processing resulted in
contamination of the groundwater.  In addition, because the piles of
tailings were exposed to weather, in some cases the leaching effects
of rain and snowmelt also contaminated the groundwater.  Figure 1.1
shows how groundwater becomes contaminated. 

   Figure 1.1:  Uranium Processing
   Cycle Showing Impact on
   Groundwater

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

By the late 1960s, radiological research had determined that the
abandoned mill sites posed a potential hazard to public health. 
Exposure to radioactive substances may cause cancer and other
diseases, as well as genetic damage.  The most hazardous constituent
of uranium mill tailings is radium, which is radioactive.  Radium
produces radon, a radioactive gas whose decay products can cause lung
cancer.  In effect, the amount of radon released from a pile of
tailings remains constant for about 80,000 years.  Tailings also emit
gamma radiation, which can increase the incidence of cancer and
genetic risks.  Other potentially hazardous substances in tailings
include arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium.  The concentrations of
these materials found in the tailings vary by site, ranging from 2 to
more than 100 times the amounts naturally existing in soil.  Concerns
about the potential long-term adverse health effects of exposure to
uranium mill tailings led to engineering and radiological studies
that identified many abandoned uranium mill sites and nearby
properties in need of cleanup. 


   URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION
   CONTROL ACT OF 1978 REQUIRED
   CLEANUP OF TAILINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

In November 1978, to provide a comprehensive regulatory scheme for
the safe disposal of uranium mill tailings, the Congress passed the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (P.  L.  95-604). 
Title I of the act governed the cleanup of mill sites that were
already inactive when the legislation was passed, referred to in this
report as Title I sites; Title II governed the control and cleanup of
milling operations that were still active at that time, referred to
in this report as Title II sites.  The act made DOE primarily
responsible for the cleanup of the Title I sites and the
operators/owners of the Title II sites responsible for cleaning up
their own sites. 

The act assigned responsibilities to three agencies:  the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy
(DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  EPA was directed
to establish standards for the cleanup and disposal of contaminated
material from both inactive and active uranium processing sites. 
Under the act, as amended, EPA was to consider factors such as the
risk to public health, safety, and the environment, and the
environmental and economic costs of applying its standards.  In
January 1983, EPA issued standards for remedial actions at the Title
I sites.  Later that same year, EPA issued standards governing the
Title II sites.  These standards, except those concerning
groundwater, were essentially identical to those adopted for the
Title I sites.\1 In part, these standards limit the release of radon
gas into the environment and require that the disposal method be
designed to control radiological hazards "for up to one thousand
years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at
least two hundred years."

Under the act, DOE was required to clean up all the Title I sites to
EPA's standards.  The act created a plan of federal and state
cooperation in which the federal government, in conjunction with
those states where the Title I sites were located, would enter into
cooperative agreements for cleaning up the sites.  The act directed
DOE and the participating state, with the concurrence of NRC, to
jointly select the method and perform the cleanup.  The states are
responsible for 10 percent of the actual cost of remedial actions. 

NRC, working with EPA, was required to establish regulations
governing the control and cleanup of the mill tailings and land at
the Title II sites.  These sites, generally owned and operated by
private companies, are licensed by NRC or by the state in which they
are located.  NRC was to ensure that its regulations conformed to
EPA's general standards and to implement and enforce those standards. 
Generally, once these sites are cleaned up, they will be turned over
to DOE for long-term monitoring and maintenance. 

NRC is also responsible for ensuring that before the federal
government takes custody of a Title II site,\2 it makes financial
arrangements with the owners/operators that are adequate to cover the
costs for any necessary long-term monitoring and maintenance.  Such
arrangements are to ensure that the owners/operators, not the federal
government, bear these costs. 


--------------------
\1 Both sets of standards were challenged by several parties in the
U.S.  Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  The Court
upheld all aspects of the standards except the groundwater standards
for the Title I sites.  In 1987, EPA proposed new groundwater
standards for these sites.  Final groundwater standards were not
issued until January 1995. 

\2 State governments may elect to assume custody of the Title II
sites.  However, DOE does not expect any states to assume this
responsibility. 


   DOE IS MANAGING CLEANUP OF
   TITLE I SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

Under title I of the act, in 1979 DOE established its Uranium Mill
Tailings Remedial Action project (UMTRA) to manage the cleanup and
disposal of the tailings at the 22 inactive mill sites designated in
the act and at 2 additional sites located in North Dakota that DOE
designated.\3 In managing the cleanup of these 24 sites, DOE is
responsible for all decisions about the project, for reviewing and
supervising work done by its contractors, and for coordinating the
cleanup with the affected states, Indian tribes, and local
governments. 

For each of the sites, DOE assessed the potential health hazard to
the public from the tailings and, on the basis of this assessment,
established a cleanup priority for the site of either high, medium,
or low.  DOE used these priorities to help determine the order in
which the cleanup would begin at the various sites.  However, the
priority ranking was not intended to prevent work from being
initiated at the lower-priority sites before all the work was
completed at the higher-priority sites.  Although the cleanup
priority was based on the risk to the public, all sites, regardless
of this risk, must be cleaned up to the same standards.  Figure 1.2
shows the 24 Title I sites, by priority. 

   Figure 1.2:  Location and
   Ranking of Title I Sites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Department of Energy.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

DOE estimated that over 91 percent of the potential radiological
health risks occurred at the nine sites that it had designated as
high priority.  In turn, the six medium-priority sites represented
about 8 percent of the radiological health risks, and the nine
low-priority sites posed less than 1 percent of the risks.  DOE
believed that the greatest health risks were at the 5,000-plus
properties in the vicinity of the sites--homes, schools, and other
buildings contaminated by tailings and referred to by DOE as
"vicinity properties"--because the likelihood of exposure to radon is
greatest when radon gas is concentrated in enclosed structures. 

Two years after passing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act, the Congress established a different method of setting the
cleanup priorities.  Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or Superfund, potentially
hazardous waste sites are screened to determine those whose
contamination and risk are serious enough to warrant their inclusion
on the National Priorities List.  This list is composed of sites
considered to present the most serious threats to public health and
the environment.  Once a site has been included on the list, however,
its relative risk does not routinely play a part in determining the
site's priority for cleanup.  Other factors, such as how long a site
has been on the list, have influenced the cleanup priority.\4

Under UMTRA, DOE pays most of the costs of cleaning up the Title I
sites, and the owners/operators of the Title II sites generally pay
completely for the cleanup of their sites.\5 Under Superfund,
hazardous waste generators and transporters, as well as a site's
owners/operators, are potentially responsible for either cleaning the
site up or reimbursing the government for its cleanup efforts. 


--------------------
\3 Unlike most of the other Title I sites, the two North Dakota sites
were not uranium mill processing sites.  Rather, both were sites at
which uraniferous lignite (brown coal containing uranium) was burned
in the 1960s.  Uranium-rich ash from the kiln process was loaded into
rail cars at the sites and transported to uranium mills in Colorado
and New Mexico.  Ash-contaminated soil remained at the sites. 

\4 Uranium mill tailings sites that are being cleaned up by DOE under
Title I are exempt from Superfund. 

\5 P.L.  102-486 requires DOE to reimburse these owners/operators for
the cost of the remedial actions attributable to mill tailings
generated as in conjunction with sales to the United States. 
However, the total reimbursement for all owners/operators has a
maximum limit. 


      EXTENT OF SURFACE AND
      GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT
      TITLE I SITES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

The extent of surface and groundwater contamination varied greatly
among the 24 Title I sites.  In the aggregate, about 3,900 acres of
ground were contaminated with uranium mill tailings and other
contaminants, ranging from 21 acres at the Spook, Wyoming, site to
612 acres at the Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, site (including areas
contaminated by windblown material).  Furthermore, these 24 Title I
sites contained about 39 million cubic yards of surface contaminants,
ranging from 58,000 cubic yards at the Belfield, North Dakota, site
to over 5.7 million cubic yards at the Falls City, Texas, site. 

The groundwater at many Title I sites is also contaminated with
radioactive and other elements, such as metals and nitrates.  These
contaminants can pose risks to human health if the contaminated
groundwater is used for drinking water.  Although the groundwater is
not currently serving as drinking water at any of the Title I sites,
groundwater constitutes an important source of drinking water in much
of the arid Southwest, where most of these sites are located.  For
example, according to EPA, nearly half of the drinking water consumed
in Arizona and New Mexico and 20-30 percent of the water consumed in
Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and Texas is groundwater. 

DOE estimates that approximately 4.7 billion gallons of groundwater
at the Title I sites is contaminated, but this estimate does not
include all sites.\6 Milling operations at the Mexican Hat, Utah, and
Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, sites introduced contaminated water into
geological formations that did not previously contain water, but
contamination of naturally occurring groundwater has not been
observed at these two sites.  At 21 of the other sites, however,
seepage of contaminated water has affected naturally occurring
groundwater.  At the site with the highest level of groundwater
contamination--Monument Valley, Arizona--an estimated 750 million
gallons of groundwater were contaminated.  The Lowman, Idaho, site is
the only UMTRA site where groundwater contamination is not related to
the mill processing operations.  Furthermore, the groundwater
contamination at that site does not exceed EPA's standards. 


--------------------
\6 This estimate is not complete because DOE has found that the level
of contamination at some sites is difficult to quantify. 


      WHAT SURFACE CLEANUP ENTAILS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

The cleanup of surface contamination consists of four key steps:  (1)
identifying, or characterizing, the type and extent of contamination;
(2) selecting and acquiring a disposal site; (3) developing a
remedial action plan, which describes the proposed cleanup method and
specifies the requirements for the conceptual design and construction
of the disposal cell (a containment area where the tailings are
enclosed and stored); and (4) carrying out the selected remedial
action.  DOE and the affected states work together to select the
disposal sites, taking into consideration factors such as the size
and density of nearby populations and the existence of flood plains. 
Thus, the uranium mill site and the disposal site are not always the
same.  According to DOE, most of the off-site disposal sites are on
federally owned land.  However, if the selected disposal site is
privately owned, the state in which the site is located acquires
title to the land (except for sites on Indian lands, which remain
with the tribe). 

Before acquiring a disposal site, DOE generally completes a site
characterization study.  If disposal is to be on-site, this study
identifies the type and extent of contamination at the site, as well
as the geological structure and other features of the disposal site
that may affect the placement or design of the disposal cell.\7

While the site characterization study proceeds, DOE concurrently
conducts the environmental assessments required by the National
Environmental Policy Act and prepares the remedial action plan.  This
plan describes the proposed remedial action and lists the
requirements for the design and construction of the disposal cell. 
NRC must concur with the final remedial action plan and with any
subsequent changes to it. 

Finally, the surface remedial action is performed according to
requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R.  192 and DOE's approved remedial
action plan.  A contractor manages the day-to-day remedial action. 
Generally, the primary remedial action consists of containing the
tailings in a disposal cell.  First, the tailings are placed in the
containment area, covered with compacted clay to prevent the release
of radon, and then topped with rocks or a vegetative covering.  When
the surface cleanup is completed, DOE prepares a report to certify
that the cleanup was completed in accordance with all applicable
requirements.  NRC reviews and, if it agrees, concurs with the
certification of the remedial action.  DOE then prepares a long-term
surveillance plan.  NRC reviews the plan, and if it approves the
plan, issues an acceptance letter to DOE, thus bringing the site
under a general license for long-term care.  Once NRC has licensed a
site, the site is transferred into DOE's custody for long-term
surveillance and maintenance.  Figure 1.3 is a diagram of a disposal
cell. 

   Figure 1.3:  Diagram of a
   Disposal Cell

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Department of Energy


--------------------
\7 According to DOE, there should be no contamination to characterize
at the relocated sites. 


      STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES
      ALSO PARTICIPATE IN CLEANUP
      PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.3

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires that the
affected states participate fully in the cleanup of the Title I sites
and that affected Indian tribes be consulted, as appropriate, in the
performance of the remedial action on their lands.  The involvement
of each affected state and tribe is defined through a cooperative
agreement with DOE.  This agreement establishes the funding, actions
involving real estate, and requirements for the technical reviews
necessary to perform the remedial action. 

Each affected state is responsible for providing 10 percent of the
cost of the remedial action for each of its sites and, if necessary,
for acquiring title to the processing or disposal site.  When the
remedial action is complete, the state is required to transfer
ownership of the disposal site (if it owns the site) to the federal
government.  Indian tribes are not responsible for paying any of the
costs but participate in selecting disposal sites and proposing
remedial actions. 


      DOE'S RESPONSIBILITIES DO
      NOT END WHEN CLEANUP IS
      FINISHED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.4

DOE's responsibilities do not end with the disposal of the tailings;
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires DOE\8 to
monitor and maintain the sites to ensure their integrity over the
long term.  After each Title I site has been cleaned up and NRC has
licensed it, the site is transferred to DOE's Long-Term Surveillance
and Maintenance Program.  DOE will be responsible for long-term
surveillance and maintenance not only at the Title I sites but also
at most, if not all, of the Title II sites. 


--------------------
\8 Or another federal agency designated by the President. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

The objectives of our review were to provide the Congress with
information on (1) the status and cost of DOE's surface and
groundwater cleanups and (2) factors that could affect the federal
government's costs and liabilities in the future. 

To determine the status and cost of the surface cleanup program, we
interviewed officials and reviewed documents on budget and status
from several DOE offices:  the Office of Southwestern Area Programs
(in Germantown, Maryland), the Office of Environment/Project
Management (in Albuquerque, New Mexico), the Uranium Mill Tailings
Remedial Action Project Office (in Albuquerque, New Mexico), and the
Grand Junction Projects Office (in Grand Junction, Colorado).  We
also interviewed several DOE project managers responsible for the
sites.  In addition, we interviewed numerous DOE contract specialists
and reviewed the documents they maintained. 

In addition to DOE officials, we also interviewed officials of and
reviewed documents from NRC's High-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery
Projects Branch and Office of State Programs (in Rockville,
Maryland).  We also interviewed an official and reviewed documents
from EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.  To obtain a state and
local perspective, we also interviewed officials from Colorado, New
Mexico, and Pennsylvania.  We visited sites located in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania; Rifle, Colorado; and Grand Junction, Colorado.  We also
visited several vicinity properties located near the site in Grand
Junction. 

To determine the status and cost of the groundwater cleanup
activities at the Title I sites, we interviewed officials and
reviewed planning and budgetary documents for groundwater cleanup at
DOE's Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office.  In
addition, we interviewed NRC officials from the High Level Waste and
Uranium Recovery Projects Branch who have regulatory authority for
the groundwater program.  We also interviewed officials from EPA's
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

To identify factors that could affect the federal government's costs
and liabilities in the future, we interviewed officials and reviewed
documents at DOE's Office of Southwestern Area Programs, Office of
Environment/Project Management, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
Project Office, and Grand Junction Projects Office.  (The Grand
Junction Projects Office will be responsible for DOE's long-term
surveillance and maintenance program as well as for DOE's groundwater
program.) We also requested and received letters from DOE's Deputy
General Counsel and NRC's General Counsel.  In addition, we
interviewed officials of NRC's High Level Waste and Uranium Recovery
Projects Branch who are responsible for regulating both the Title I
and II sites.  We also interviewed Colorado state officials about
long-term concerns they have about the tailings in Grand Junction,
Colorado.  Finally, we interviewed representatives of the National
Mining Association (formerly the American Mining Congress), a major
trade association that represents many owners/operators of the Title
II sites. 

We conducted our review between January 1995 and November 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE, NRC, and EPA and
discussed the information in the draft report with officials from
each agency.  Officials from all three agencies generally agreed with
the report's findings and provided technical clarifications that we
have incorporated as appropriate.  Additional details on the
agencies' comments are contained in chapter 3. 


UMTRA PROJECT HAS GROWN IN SIZE
AND COST
============================================================ Chapter 2

Since its inception in 1979, the UMTRA project has grown in both size
and cost.  The surface cleanup at the Title I sites is almost
complete, but it took DOE nearly 8 years longer than expected and
cost 37 percent more than the agency anticipated.  The schedule
changes and cost increases resulted from several factors, including
unexpected quantities and locations of tailings, changes in federal
regulatory requirements, and state and local concerns.  As for the
cleanup of the groundwater at the Title I sites, efforts have only
recently begun.  DOE initiated groundwater cleanup at the Title I
sites in 1991 and currently estimates completion in about 2014, at a
cost of at least $147 million.\1


--------------------
\1 These amounts, as well as all others in this chapter, have been
converted to present-value 1995 dollars. 


   SURFACE CLEANUP IS NEARLY
   COMPLETE BUT HAS TAKEN LONGER
   AND COST MORE THAN ANTICIPATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

DOE is currently seeking reauthorization of the surface cleanup
program through fiscal year 1998, or 8 years past the act's original
deadline.  When it was enacted in 1978, the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act directed DOE to complete the cleanup of the
Title I sites by March 1990 (7 years after EPA's standards became
effective).  The deadline for the surface cleanup was later extended
through fiscal year 1994, and then still later, through 1996.\2
According to DOE, these extensions were necessary because of growth
in the program's size and complexity.  The Department currently
expects that its surface cleanup will be completed by the beginning
of 1997.  DOE is working with NRC to expedite the licensing process
so that all of the work is completed by the end of 1998. 

As of October 1995, the surface cleanup was complete at 15 of the 24
Title I sites, was under way at 7 additional sites, and was being
planned at another 2 sites.  Of the 15 sites where DOE has completed
cleanup, 3 have been licensed by NRC as meeting EPA's standards.  Ten
of the other 12 sites are working on obtaining an NRC license (e.g.,
preparing paperwork for submission to NRC or undergoing NRC's review
or inspection).\3 Additionally, DOE has completed the surface cleanup
at about 97 percent of the 5,276 nearby properties--which DOE terms
vicinity properties--included in the program as of October 1995. 

In January 1995, DOE estimated that the total cost of the surface
cleanup at the Title I sites will be about $2.3 billion,\4 or $621
million (37 percent) more than it estimated in 1982.  Through fiscal
year 1994, expenditures for the surface cleanup already totaled about
$2 billion, and DOE expects to spend another $300 million in
completing this cleanup.  Of the total projected cost of $2.3
billion, DOE expects to spend about 22 percent cleaning up the
vicinity properties and the rest on cleaning up the 24 Title I
sites.\5 Through fiscal year 1995, the states will have contributed
$99.9 million, and they are expected to spend another $29.6 million
through the completion of the program as their share of the cleanup
costs. 

Table 2.1 summarizes the status and cost of the surface cleanup at
the Title I sites and vicinity properties. 




                                    Table 2.1
                     
                      Status and Cost of Surface Cleanup at
                            Title I Sites, by Location


        Actual
             /
        estima
           ted   Volume of
          date  contaminat
            of          ed                      Number
        comple   materials                          of  Expenses  Estima
          ting         (in                      vicini   through     ted   Total
Site/   remedi   thousands    Acres of  Dispos      ty    fiscal   costs  projec
Locati      al    of cubic  contaminat   al on  proper      year  remain     ted
on      action      yards)     ed land   site?    ties      1994     ing   costs
------  ------  ----------  ----------  ------  ------  --------  ------  ------
High priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durang    5/91       2,534         127      No     130  $ 119.11  $ 1.25       $
 o,                                                                       120.36
 Color
 ado
Grand       8/       4,655         114      No  4,381<    654.03   92.05  746.07
 Junct    94\b                                    /s\c
 ion,
 Color
 ado
Gunnis     11/         719          68      No      12     82.38   12.31   94.69
 on,      95\d
 Color
 ado
Rifle,      5/       4,135         326      No     112    117.62   46.18  163.80
 Color    96\d
 ado
 (2
 sites
 )
Shipro   11/86       1,600         130     Yes      15     51.65    0.47   52.12
 ck,
 New
 Mexic
 o
Canons   12/85         226          79     Yes     163    136.79    0.17  136.96
 burg,
 Penns
 ylvan
 ia\\e
Salt      6/89       2,710         128      No     118    204.34    1.15  205.48
 Lake
 City,
 Utah
Rivert    9/90       1,793         140      No      42     92.07    0.06   92.14
 on,
 Wyomi
 ng

Medium priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuba      5/90         785         327     Yes       1     53.52    0.77   54.29
 City,
 Arizo
 na
Naturi      9/         547         247      No      37     31.40   39.50   70.90
 ta,      97\d
 Color
 ado
Ambros    7/95       3,759         612     Yes       5     54.35    9.03   63.37
 ia
 Lake,
 New
 Mexic
 o
Lakevi   11/89         926         116      No       8     62.03    0.11   62.14
 ew,
 Orego
 n
Falls     7/94       5,764         593     Yes      13     68.63    1.91   70.54
 City,
 Texas
Mexica    2/95       2,810         250     Yes      11     79.99    6.54   86.53
 n
 Hat,
 Utah

Low priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monume    3/94         942          83      No       4     38.30    1.05   39.35
 nt
 Valle
 y,
 Arizo
 na
Maybel      1/       3,500         214     Yes      11     23.03   32.93   55.96
 l,       97\d
 Color
 ado
Slick      12/         573         139      No      13     23.09   30.95   54.04
 Rock,    96\d
 Color
 ado
 (2
 sites
 )
Lowman    6/92         128          30     Yes      38     28.84    0.02   28.86
 ,
 Idaho
Belfie     12/          58          31      No       7     20.64   20.94   41.58
 ld,      96\d
 North
 Dakot
 a\f
Bowman     12/         128          71     Yes       1      1.09    1.56    2.65
 ,        96\d
 North
 Dakot
 a\f
Green    12/89         382          48     Yes      17     39.25    0.34   39.58
 River,
 Utah
Spook,    9/89         315          21     Yes       2     20.33    0.05   20.39
 Wyomi
 ng

Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgemo     Not         Not         Not     Not     135     13.43       0   13.43
 nt,    availa   available   available  applic
 South     ble                            able
 Dakot
 a\g
================================================================================
Total               38,989       3,894           5,276  2,015.91  299.34  2,315.
                                                                              23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a All dollars are adjusted to present-value 1995 dollars. 

\b Processing site only. 

\c Includes 115 vicinity properties that were cleaned up under Grand
Junction's remedial action program. 

\d Anticipated completion date. 

\e Includes contaminated materials from the vicinity property in the
Burrell, Pennsylvania, area. 

\f The collection of costs at the Belfield and Bowman sites was not
consistent during fiscal years 1980-94; sometimes the costs for both
sites were included in the totals for one site, and sometimes the
costs were split.  However, the combined costs are correct. 

\g The UMTRA project is responsible for cleaning up the vicinity
properties only--the former uranium mill site in Edgemont is owned
and was cleaned up by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the late
1980s. 

As the table shows, among all of DOE's cleanup sites, the Grand
Junction, Colorado, location stands out in several respects.  Its
projected cleanup costs are by far the highest, as would be expected
since it had the second greatest volume of contaminated material and
the greatest number of vicinity properties that needed cleanup. 

The table also shows that the cost of cleaning up the high-priority
locations was generally higher than the cost of cleaning up the
medium-priority locations, which in turn was higher than the cost of
cleaning up the low-priority locations.  About 70 percent of the
total projected costs will be incurred at the high-priority
locations, about 18 percent at the medium-priority locations, and
about 12 percent at the low-priority locations.  On average, the
projected cleanup cost is $179.1 million for a high-priority
location, $68 million for a medium-priority location, and $31.4
million for a low-priority location. 

In general, at those locations where the tailings were taken off-site
for disposal, the costs were greater than they were at the sites
where the tailings were kept on-site.  Averaged over all locations,
the estimated cost of off-site disposal is about $130 million per
location, compared with about $55.6 million per location for on-site
disposal. 

With work completed at 15 of the 24 Title I sites, the bulk of the
expenditures for surface cleanup have already been made, as shown in
table 2.1.  The estimated remaining costs make up only 13 percent of
the projected total cost.  For the most part, DOE has completed the
surface cleanup at those sites that posed the greatest potential
health risk to the public (e.g., sites located near major population
centers).  At most of the other sites, DOE's cleanup efforts are well
under way. 


--------------------
\2 Although DOE, through its 1992 planning process, requested that
the program be authorized through fiscal year 1998, the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 provided authorization only through 1996. 

\3 According to DOE officials, unlike the other sites, the sites at
Monument Valley, Arizona, and Riverton, Wyoming, will not be licensed
because the tailings were relocated to either a Title I or a Title II
site. 

\4 In DOE's accounting system, this amount is reported as $1.47
billion in what DOE terms "escalated" dollars. 

\5 While DOE's budget system accounts for the two largest cost
components of the cleanup at vicinity properties, it cannot fully
itemize all these costs.  As a result, according to DOE, the 22
percent of the total project cost that DOE expects to spend for
cleaning up these properties is understated to a small extent. 


   SEVERAL FACTORS INCREASED COST
   OF DOE'S SURFACE CLEANUP
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

As DOE's surface cleanup at the Title I sites grew in size and
complexity, its costs increased.  In 1982, DOE estimated that the
entire cleanup effort would cost about $1.7 billion, but by 1992, its
estimate had risen to $2.3 billion.\6 On the basis of studies it
conducted in 1990 and 1992, DOE identified several factors that
contributed to the cost increases.  Among these factors were the (1)
development of EPA's new standards to protect groundwater; (2)
establishment or revision of other federal standards addressing such
things as the transport of the tailings and the safety of workers;
(3) unexpected discovery of additional tailings, both at processing
sites and at newly discovered vicinity properties; and (4) changes
made in cleanup strategies in response to state and local concerns. 
DOE has concluded that to varying degrees, each of these factors
caused additional work, thus increasing costs. 


--------------------
\6 The 1982 estimate assumed that the cleanups would be completed in
7 years and that only one pile of tailings would need to be
relocated.  However, the 1992 estimate assumed that the surface
cleanup would be completed in 1998 and that 13 piles of tailings
would need to be relocated.  The two estimates, while different in
some respects, are the best cost estimates that DOE had available. 


      COMPLIANCE WITH EPA'S
      GROUNDWATER STANDARDS
      REQUIRED CHANGES IN SURFACE
      CLEANUP STRATEGIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

One of the major factors that DOE identified as driving up the cost
of its surface cleanups was EPA's establishment of groundwater
standards, which were proposed in 1987 and finalized in January 1995. 
EPA developed these standards specifically for the UMTRA project.\7
The standards addressed the likely types and levels of contamination
associated with all of the sites.\8

The groundwater standards, which were applicable to all the Title I
sites, set the maximum levels of contaminants allowed in the
groundwater. 

To comply with EPA's new standards, DOE had to ensure that each of
its surface cleanup strategies would prevent the uranium and other
contaminants in the tailings from entering and contaminating the
groundwater underlying the site.\9 DOE had to demonstrate compliance
with the revised groundwater standards on the basis of numerical
limits.  Thus, at six sites, DOE either (1) removed the tailings to
an off-site location rather than disposing of them on-site as planned
or (2) changed the location of a planned disposal cell.  For example,
for the site at Naturita, Colorado, DOE plans to relocate the
contaminated materials off-site because of their close proximity to
the groundwater.  DOE estimates that relocating the tailings from
that site increased the cleanup cost by about $12 million (in the
years of the expenditure).  In addition, at five other sites, DOE had
to redesign a disposal cell and/or the cell's cover to comply with
the new standards.  At the Grand Junction, Colorado, site for
example, DOE changed the location of the site and redesigned the
disposal cell and its cover, resulting in a cost increase of about
$48 million between fiscal years 1983 and 1992 (in the years of the
expenditure). 


--------------------
\7 According to DOE, until the standards were finalized, it treated
the proposed standards as final after 1987, as directed by section
275 of the Atomic Energy Act. 

\8 The law required that the standards established under title I of
the act provide protection that is consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended.  However, EPA's groundwater
standards provided some flexibility; for example, allowing the
groundwater to cleanse itself through natural flushing until the
contaminants gradually decreased. 

\9 Also, as discussed later, to comply with the new groundwater
regulations, DOE had to clean up groundwater that had already been
contaminated. 


      COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER
      FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ALSO
      INCREASED COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

Changes in other federal agencies' regulations required DOE to
undertake additional cleanup activities and also resulted in cost
increases.  According to DOE, the Department had to comply with
federal transportation requirements and health and safety
requirements for workers.  For example, because the tailings are
residual radioactive material (which is classified as a hazardous
material), DOE had to comply with the Department of Transportation's
regulations governing the transport of hazardous waste.  According to
DOE, complying with the regulations added approximately $11 million
(in the years of the expenditure), or $1.75 per cubic yard of
tailings, to the cleanup cost at the Grand Junction, Colorado
site.\10 To comply with transportation requirements that mandated
various inspections, DOE, among other things, hired a full-time
transportation compliance officer, provided additional training for
truck drivers on handling hazardous material, and purchased
additional insurance. 

Furthermore, under the requirements for hazardous materials, DOE also
had to follow the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, among others.  For example, DOE had to provide
full-time employees with a 40-hour training course on operations
involving hazardous materials.  DOE estimates that providing such
training added about $600,000 (in the years of the expenditure) to
the cost of cleaning up four Title I sites. 


--------------------
\10 DOE notes that because of the experience it gained at the Grand
Junction site, the cost increases at other sites should be less than
$1 per cubic yard of tailings. 


      DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL
      TAILINGS AND VICINITY
      PROPERTIES LED TO ADDITIONAL
      WORK AND INCREASED COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

The cleanup costs also increased because of the unexpected discovery
of additional tailings at the sites.  DOE's 1982 cost estimate was
based on the assumption that about 19.3 million cubic yards of
tailings would need to be cleaned up at the sites.  By April 1995,
this amount had doubled to 39 million cubic yards.  According to DOE,
the amount increased because the initial site characterization
studies were limited.  In addition, DOE had not anticipated the
requirements it would need to meet when heavy metals and thorium were
found at the sites.  At some sites, these requirements increased the
total amount of material to be cleaned up, which in turn increased
the size of the needed disposal cell and the associated costs. 

The vicinity properties also contributed to increased costs.  As at
many of the processing sites, DOE found more tailings than
anticipated at some of the vicinity properties.  For example, in
Grand Junction, Colorado, the amount of tailings at the vicinity
properties increased from an estimate of 747,000 cubic yards to
almost 2 million cubic yards.  Furthermore, additional vicinity
properties were discovered, requiring cleanup work not included in
the original estimate.  In the early 1980s, DOE estimated that a
total of 4,875 vicinity properties would need to be cleaned up.  By
October 1995, remedial actions were planned for 5,276 vicinity
properties--an increase of about 8 percent. 


      STATE AND LOCAL CONCERNS
      RESULTED IN CHANGES IN
      CLEANUP STRATEGIES, THUS
      INCREASING COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4

State and local entities' concerns also affected the cleanup
strategies selected and the attendant costs.  For example, at the
Grand Junction site, the local county's concern about safety led to
the use of a train-and-truck method of transporting contaminated
materials, rather than a cheaper truck-only method.  Local officials
wanted a transport system that avoided routing extensive truck
traffic through heavily populated areas.  The train-and-truck method
required the construction of railroad transfer facilities and the
manufacture of specially equipped containers.  According to a DOE
estimate, changing to the train-and-truck method cost an additional
$28 million (in 1995 dollars) at the Grand Junction site. 

The change to the train-and-truck method at the Grand Junction site
also caused DOE to delay remedial action at three other Title I
sites.  According to a DOE program official, the additional
unanticipated costs at the Grand Junction site required DOE to
temporarily stop work at the Mexican Hat and Monument Valley sites
and postpone planned work at the Ambrosia Lake site.  DOE suspended
work at the Mexican Hat and Monument Valley sites from February 1990
through December 1990, at an estimated cost of about $5 million (in
1995 dollars).  According to DOE, at the Ambrosia Lake site, the
remedial action was delayed by over a year, from April 1990 until
July 1991, costing about $1.6 million (in 1995 dollars).  In total,
the change to the train-and-truck method at Grand Junction resulted
in additional expenditures of about $34 million (in 1995 dollars). 

In addition, according to an analysis by DOE, concerns expressed by
the state and by local communities influenced DOE to change from
on-site disposal to more costly off-site disposal at several
locations, including Grand Junction and Gunnison, Colorado; Salt Lake
City, Utah; and Riverton, Wyoming.  These changes resulted in cost
increases because they required additional site characterization and
engineering, as well as additional construction activity. 

DOE has construed the states' role as that of a full partner in
selecting and performing the remedial action for each site.  Although
DOE believed that it was necessary to make the changes discussed
above in response to the states' concerns, DOE program officials
acknowledge that the changes did result in some additional
expenditures. 


   GROUNDWATER CLEANUP IS IN
   PLANNING STAGES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

DOE began work on its groundwater cleanup in 1991.  Currently, DOE
expects to complete its groundwater cleanup by 2014, at an estimated
cost of at least $147 million, if the cleanup methods DOE has
proposed are used.  DOE's stated goal is to protect human health and
the environment at the Title I sites by cleaning up the groundwater
to EPA's standards.  Although DOE has targeted potential groundwater
cleanup strategies for the sites, it has yet to reach a final
agreement with the affected tribes and states on what strategies will
ultimately be used. 

According to DOE officials, the Department will pursue those
strategies that will enable it to comply with regulatory requirements
at the least cost.  Thus, wherever possible, DOE will either take no
remedial action (leave the groundwater as it is) or allow the
groundwater to cleanse itself through passive remediation (natural
flushing) over time.  Where necessary, DOE will use active
remediation, such as pumping the groundwater out of the ground and
treating it.  DOE's proposed groundwater strategies call for taking
no action at 13 sites, employing passive remediation at 9 sites, and
using active remediation at 2 sites. 


      STATUS AND COST OF DOE'S
      GROUNDWATER CLEANUP
      ACTIVITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1

DOE's groundwater cleanup effort is just beginning.  Although EPA
issued groundwater standards in 1983, the U.S.  Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit remanded the standards to EPA.  In 1987, EPA
proposed new standards to replace those remanded.  In 1988, Public
Law 100-616 authorized DOE to clean up the groundwater at the Title I
sites without any time limitation.  DOE planned its groundwater
program while the proposed rules were in effect.  DOE began its
groundwater cleanup effort in 1991.  In January 1995, EPA published
its final groundwater standards.  Because the law established no
deadline for completing the groundwater cleanup and because EPA had
not issued its final standards, DOE delayed its efforts so it could
concentrate instead on completing the surface cleanup, which had a
fixed completion deadline.  According to a Department official, DOE
believed at the time that the groundwater cleanup would be expensive
and lengthy.  In addition, DOE believed it would have been
inappropriate to begin the groundwater cleanup before the groundwater
standards were finalized. 

As of June 1995, DOE had spent about $16.7 million on activities
related to the groundwater cleanup.  Most of these expenditures were
for (1) technical and management support, such as planning
activities, and (2) site characterization, such as studying the
extent and type of contamination and assessing the associated health
risk.  Although the groundwater cleanup had not been completed at any
of the Title I sites as of November 1995, DOE is forecasting that its
sites will meet EPA's groundwater standards by 2014.  On the basis of
the cleanup strategies it will propose to the affected states and
Indian tribes, DOE estimates that the groundwater cleanup will cost
at least $147 million. 

As a major step in implementing its proposed cleanup strategies, DOE
intends to modify its existing cooperative agreements with the
affected states and Indian tribes to more explicitly address
groundwater issues.  DOE intends to modify these agreements to
reflect the needed funding, actions concerning real estate, and
technical reviews necessary to perform the chosen remedial action. 
As of October 1995, DOE had not completed any modifications to the
agreements with the affected parties. 

In addition to modifying the cooperative agreements, DOE plans to
obtain comments from the affected states and Indian tribes on a major
planning document\11 that provides the framework for the groundwater
cleanup program, as well as on other technical documents.\12 Once DOE
has received comments from the affected states, tribes, and citizens
on these documents, it plans to draft a remedial action plan for each
site. 


--------------------
\11 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Uranium Mill
Tailings Remedial Action Groundwater Project, draft, DOE. 

\12 These documents include the site work plans, which provide
detailed characterization of the sites and environmental assessments. 


      DOE'S PROPOSED CLEANUP
      STRATEGIES ARE BASED ON RISK
      ASSESSMENT AND APPLICABLE
      EPA STANDARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.2

DOE is currently formulating groundwater cleanup strategies that will
comply with EPA's standards, on the basis of health and environmental
risk assessments and the potential use of the water.  According to
EPA's groundwater standards, DOE should apply the most cost-effective
cleanup remedies available to meet these standards at each site.  The
standards establish concentration limits for those contaminants
expected to be found in the groundwater as a result of uranium
processing at the sites.  According to DOE, EPA set the following
four standards for DOE's use: 

  Maximum concentration limits.  This standard is intended to protect
     human health and the environment from the many contaminants that
     can occur at a site.  For each contaminant, the standard
     establishes a maximum concentration limit.  For a site to meet
     this standard, these limits cannot be exceeded. 

  Alternate concentration limits.  Under this standard, contamination
     levels can be higher than those allowed under the standard for
     maximum concentration limits.  DOE may apply to NRC to use the
     alternate standard if it can demonstrate that human health and
     the environment are still protected, even though the
     contamination levels exceed the maximum concentration levels. 

  Background level.  This standard may apply at sites where nearby
     water, while not contaminated by contaminants resulting from
     uranium processing, is of naturally poor quality (e.g., because
     of high levels of mineral concentration).  If the contaminants
     have not reached the maximum concentration levels or if the
     quality of the background water exceeds the maximum
     concentration levels, DOE may choose to clean up the groundwater
     only to the background level standard. 

  Supplemental standards.  This standard may apply at sites under
     special circumstances, such as the following:  (1) the
     groundwater is not a current or potential source of drinking
     water because of its poor quality or limited quantity, (2) the
     groundwater cleanup would cause more harm than good to the
     environment, or (3) the cleanup is not technically feasible.  In
     such cases, DOE may apply to NRC to use the supplemental
     standards and leave the groundwater as it is. 


      DOE'S PROPOSED CLEANUP
      STRATEGIES VARY CONSIDERABLY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.3

After assessing the applicability of EPA's various groundwater
standards at each site, DOE developed proposed cleanup strategies for
24 sites.  These proposed strategies are (1) no further action at 13
sites, (2) passive remediation at 9 sites, and (3) active measures to
clean up the contamination at the 2 remaining sites.\13 When no
health risk is demonstrated, DOE may decide that no cleanup action is
necessary.  Or, depending on its assessment of risk, DOE may decide
to use a passive cleanup, such as a natural flushing approach.  At
sites where DOE believes that it is necessary to protect health and
the environment, the Department may initiate a more active cleanup
strategy, such as pumping and treating the groundwater.  Regardless
of the strategy it chooses, DOE must obtain NRC's concurrence. 

At 13 sites, DOE believes that no groundwater cleanup activities are
warranted and so has proposed no further action at these sites.  If
DOE's proposal is accepted, the cost of the groundwater activities at
these 13 sites will be primarily for activities such as studying the
sites (e.g., to identify the type and level of contamination),
holding public meetings, and working with NRC.  DOE believes that its
proposal to take no further action at these 13 sites will comply with
EPA's groundwater standards as long as the groundwater contamination
does not exceed the background levels or maximum concentration
limits, or as long as supplemental standards are applicable on the
basis of limited use of the groundwater.\14

"No further action" can mean one of three things, which DOE breaks
down as follows: 

  The site's groundwater is not contaminated.  DOE characterizes this
     condition, which has occurred at one of the Title I sites, as
     "no further action."

  The groundwater is contaminated, but conditions at the site warrant
     the use of the supplemental standards or alternate concentration
     limits.  DOE characterizes this condition, which has occurred at
     six sites, as "no further action, compliance demonstration."

  Insufficient data on groundwater were collected at the site during
     the surface cleanup, so that additional data must be collected
     to demonstrate that the supplemental standards should be used. 
     DOE characterizes this condition, which has occurred at six
     sites, as "demonstrate compliance through additional
     characterization."

DOE believes that nine sites are candidates for passive remediation,
or natural flushing.  Although the cleanup of the groundwater
contamination at these nine sites may take up to 100 years to
complete, DOE estimates that, except for long-term monitoring, its
work will be completed by 2014.  By that time, DOE will need to show
that the cleanup of the groundwater is occurring at such a rate that
the cleanup will be completed within 100 years. 

As noted above, passive remediation means performing no cleanup and
instead relying on natural flushing.  Natural flushing cleans
groundwater through the process of dilution.  Over time, as the
groundwater flows through the aquifer, the concentration of
contaminants gradually decreases.  EPA's regulations require
monitoring to verify the movement of contaminants in the groundwater
and the related reduction in contamination.  DOE plans to continue
monitoring the sites for 30 years and then demonstrate through its
groundwater models that the process will result, within 100 years, in
a level of cleanliness that meets the applicable EPA standard. 

DOE believes that natural flushing is a viable cleanup strategy when
(1) it will protect human health and the environment, (2) it will
reduce the concentration of contaminants to a level below that
prescribed by the standards in less than 100 years, and (3) the
groundwater is not used for and is not expected to be used for
drinking water.  If natural flushing is chosen, access to the
contaminated groundwater must be restricted through means such as
monitoring and controlling the site's boundaries and developing and
enforcing land-use policies. 

According to a DOE official, the federal government has never used
natural flushing as a cleanup strategy.  However, EPA believes that
natural flushing is a viable alternative when (1) water use and
ecological considerations are not affected and (2) the cleanup will
occur in less than 100 years.  Furthermore, EPA believes that
institutional controls, if enforced by governmental entities or
installed with a high degree of permanence, can be relied upon for up
to 100 years. 

Finally, at some sites a passive compliance strategy may not comply
with the applicable EPA standards, may not adequately protect human
health or the environment, or may not be accepted by the public or
the affected community.  Under these circumstances, DOE will propose
an active strategy for the groundwater cleanup.  For example, DOE may
propose (1) pumping out the contaminated groundwater, treating it,
and discharging it on the surface or (2) adding nutrients to the
groundwater to promote bacterial growth that will break down the
contaminants into nonhazardous elements (known as bioremediation). 

DOE believes that two sites--Monument Valley and Tuba City,
Arizona--are candidates for active remediation because natural
flushing at these sites would not clean the groundwater within 100
years.  These two sites are located on lands belonging to the Navajo
and Hopi Indian tribes.  According to DOE officials, tribal officials
are supporting active remediation of the groundwater.  In addition,
although the groundwater is not currently being consumed by people,
the contaminants associated with the groundwater at both sites could
cause death if ingested by infants. 


--------------------
\13 Because the proposals shown are DOE's projections and are for
planning purposes only, they are subject to agreements reached with
the affected states and tribes and the completion of the final
site-specific documents. 

\14 Groundwater may be classified as "limited use" if the total
dissolved solids exceed 10,000 milligrams per liter, if there is
widespread ambient contamination that cannot be cleaned up using
treatment methods reasonably employed in public water supply systems,
or if the quantity of water available is less than 150 gallons per
day. 


DOE'S FUTURE COSTS ARE UNCERTAIN
============================================================ Chapter 3

The ultimate extent and cost of DOE's surface and groundwater
cleanups depends on the resolution of a number of issues.  First,
while the surface cleanup of the Title I sites is completed or
progressing at the majority of the sites, it will not be completed by
the end of fiscal year 1996, when DOE's legislative cleanup authority
expires.  Second, because the groundwater cleanup is in its early
planning stages, as discussed in chapter 2, its final scope and cost
depend largely on the methods chosen to conduct the cleanup and the
financial participation of the affected states.  If DOE's proposed
least-cost approaches are not chosen, the project's costs will
increase accordingly.  In the event that any state is unwilling or
unable to share the cost of the groundwater cleanup, DOE will notify
the Congress that it cannot complete the cleanup in those locations. 
Third, if the Congress provides for disposal of additional tailings
in Grand Junction, Colorado that are unearthed in the future, DOE
will incur added costs.  Finally, NRC's regulations specify that it
make a one-time minimum charge to the owners/operators of Title II
sites of $250,000 in 1978 dollars ($530,000 in 1995) to pay for the
basic surveillance costs at each site.  This amount has not been
reviewed and updated since 1980 and excludes any amount for ongoing
maintenance.  DOE's estimates of the annual costs of surveillance and
maintenance at the sites indicate that NRC's expected minimum charge
may be understated. 


   VARIOUS FACTORS MAY AFFECT
   SCHEDULE AND COST OF SURFACE
   CLEANUP AT TITLE I SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Although DOE plans to complete most of its surface cleanup by the end
of fiscal year 1996--when its legislative cleanup authority
expires--the Department believes it unlikely that work at some sites
can be completed by then.  At those sites, DOE anticipates it could
complete the cleanup by early 1997.  The licensing of these sites
will continue into 1998 and DOE has established a goal of completing
all licensing activities by the end of 1998.  However, NRC officials
are less optimistic that all the licensing will be completed by this
date. 


      COMPLETION OF SURFACE
      CLEANUP DEPENDS ON RESOLVING
      PROBLEMS AT FIVE SITES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1

According to a DOE official, if the Department receives a 2-year
extension of its cleanup authority, it can complete the surface
cleanup of all the Title I sites by the beginning of 1997.  Work has
already been completed at 15 sites, and at another 4 sites, cleanup
is progressing on schedule and completion is expected before the end
of fiscal year 1996.  For example, at the two Rifle, Colorado, sites,
hauling of the tailings is complete, the radon barrier will be
completed in October 1995, and the disposal cell's rock cover should
be in place by May 1996, as scheduled.  The cleanup at two other
sites (Gunnison and Maybell, Colorado) is scheduled for completion in
November 1995 and January 1997, respectively.  At the remaining five
sites, however, progress has been hampered by outstanding issues. 

At the Naturita, Colorado, site, the cleanup is scheduled for
completion during fiscal year 1997, contingent on NRC's concurrence
with DOE's site cleanup and disposal plan for the site, which DOE
hopes to obtain in December 1995.  Work at the Naturita site was
delayed when DOE, in response to public pressure, changed the
location of the disposal cell.  Once a new location was selected,
work began on the disposal cell's design, but construction of the
disposal cell cannot begin until NRC concurs with the plan. 
Accordingly, in an attempt to speed the process, DOE skipped the
first two steps of its typical three-step process for obtaining NRC's
concurrence.  The first two steps essentially involve obtaining NRC's
early review of the preliminary plans.  Because it skipped the early
review steps, however, DOE is less certain than it has been in other
cases that NRC will accept the plan without major modifications.  Yet
DOE must obtain NRC's concurrence by December 1995 in order to begin
construction in the spring of 1996 and complete the cleanup of the
site in 1997.  According to NRC officials, the Commission received
the remedial action plan for this site on November 14, 1995.  As a
result, although NRC is giving this review a high priority, because
of the late submission of the documentation, NRC cannot guarantee
completion of the review by the end of 1995. 

The cleanup of the two sites located at Slick Rock, Colorado, has
also been slowed by problems with a subcontractor's performance. 
Work at the two sites began during the spring of 1995.  However, the
subcontractor's poor performance resulted in slow progress, and in
October 1995 a decision was made to terminate the contract.  DOE
estimates it will cost about $4.6 million (in 1995 dollars) to
terminate the project and rebid the work.\1 As of September 1995, the
project was 6 months behind schedule.  Nonetheless, DOE currently
expects the cleanup at this site to be completed in fiscal year 1997,
as projected. 

Finally, DOE's schedule for completing the cleanup could also be
affected by its decision on whether to clean up the two North Dakota
sites or "de-list" them (drop them from the program).  As indicated
in chapter 1, DOE added these two sites to the original list of 22
Title I sites early in the program.\2

However, in March 1995 the North Dakota State Department of Health
and Consolidated Laboratories requested that DOE remove the two sites
from the program because North Dakota's legislature was not likely to
appropriate funds for the state's 10-percent share of the cleanup
costs.  The state also felt that there would be minimal risk to the
public and environment if the sites were not cleaned up and that the
benefits associated with the cleanup were not commensurate with the
costs. 

As of October 1995, DOE had made no decision about de-listing the
sites but had initiated the process that could lead to doing so.  If
DOE ultimately decides to de-list the two sites, the schedule would
not be affected since the sites would no longer be part of the
program.  However, if the sites are not de-listed and the state is
willing to pay its share of the cleanup costs, the work at the sites
may not be completed by the end of 1997.  According to DOE officials,
preparation for remedial action at the two sites would have had to
begin by mid-September 1995 in order to complete the cleanup by the
end of fiscal year 1997. 

If North Dakota does not pay its share of the cleanup costs, DOE
believes it would not have the authority to complete its cleanup. 
According to DOE, if a state cannot pay its 10-percent share of the
costs, the Department would notify the Congress that it could not
complete the remedial actions planned in that state. 

DOE officials told us that the Department has a goal of completing
all licensing of the Title I sites by the end of 1998 and is working
closely with NRC to meet this goal.  However, NRC officials are less
than optimistic that the Commission will be able to license all the
sites by then because of their workload at the Title II sites. 

By late spring of 1996, if its authority has not been extended beyond
the end of fiscal year 1996, DOE plans to start shutting down its
work at those sites where the cleanup is not complete.  Doing so,
however, would be costly.  According to a DOE official, the
activities required to shut down a site (e.g., completing the
paperwork required to terminate contracts and release or reassign
employees, paying penalties to contractors, covering exposed
tailings, and fencing work sites) would cost at least $15 million (in
1995 dollars) at four sites:  Maybell, Naturita, and the two Slick
Rock sites.  Furthermore, the costs would be even higher if DOE
starts, and then subsequently needs to stop the cleanup work at the
two North Dakota sites. 


--------------------
\1 These costs are for the extended opening of the field office at
Slick Rock, the rebidding of the contract, and attorneys' fees. 

\2 According to DOE's Deputy General Counsel, by authorizing the
Secretary to use discretion in adding to the list of sites designated
by the Congress, the act implicitly authorizes the use of discretion
in reconsidering how such sites are designated if additional
information comes to light.  Thus, if these two sites were not
properly designated in 1979, DOE could revoke their designation. 


      DOE MAY FACE ADDED COSTS AT
      CHENEY DISPOSAL CELL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2

DOE is working with NRC and the state of Colorado to develop a
long-term radon management plan for disposing of tailings unearthed
in the Grand Junction, Colorado, area, in future years.  About a
million cubic yards of tailings were used in burying utility lines
and constructing roads in the area and remain today under the utility
corridors and road surfaces.  In future years, utility and road
repairs and replacements will likely cause tailings to be unearthed,
resulting in a potential public health hazard if the tailings are
mismanaged. 

In response to this problem, DOE is working with NRC and Colorado
officials to develop a plan that calls for temporarily storing the
tailings as they are unearthed and periodically transporting them to
the nearby disposal cell (the Cheney cell located near Grand
Junction, Colorado) for permanent disposal.  The city or county would
be responsible for hauling the tailings to the cell, and DOE would be
responsible for the cost of placing the tailings in the cell.  Under
the plan, a portion of the Cheney disposal cell would remain open, at
an annual cost of several hundred thousand dollars.  This portion of
the cell would remain open until it is full or for a period of 20 to
25 years, according to a program official. 

Because the law requires that all disposal cells be closed upon
completion of the surface cleanup work, DOE does not have the
authority to implement this plan without congressional approval to
keep a portion of the Cheney cell open as far into the future as
necessary. 


   UNCERTAINTIES MAY INCREASE
   SCOPE AND COST OF GROUNDWATER
   CLEANUP
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

As discussed in chapter 2, DOE is developing a groundwater cleanup
strategy that meets EPA's standards while using the least-cost
approaches wherever possible.  However, DOE is uncertain whether the
affected states and Indian tribes will agree with its proposed
approaches and, if not, to what extent their disagreement will
influence DOE's choices.  DOE plans to negotiate the selection of
groundwater strategies with the affected states and tribes. 
Historically DOE has construed the states' role as that of a full
partner in selecting and performing remedial actions.  However,
according to DOE, it has not allowed and does not plan to allow the
states and tribes to exercise veto authority over the selection of
the remedy. 

Until DOE (1) modifies its cooperative agreements with the affected
states and tribes to incorporate groundwater activities and (2)
finalizes the documents pertaining to each site, such as site
characterization studies and environmental assessments, the
Department cannot be sure what it will cost to complete the
groundwater cleanup.  As of October 1995, DOE was negotiating with
the state of Texas to modify its cooperative agreement and
incorporate provisions for complying with the groundwater program. 
Texas has tentatively accepted the proposed modification to its
cooperative agreement, and DOE plans to use the modified Texas
cooperative agreement as a model for other states.  However, DOE does
not know if other states will accept such modifications.  According
to DOE, it is premature to speculate on how a state's refusal to
modify the cooperative agreement could affect the Department's
strategy for the groundwater cleanup. 

DOE estimates that implementing its proposed strategies for the
groundwater cleanup would cost at least $147 million.  This cost
estimate, however, is based in large part on the technical
assumptions underlying the selected strategies.  As a result, the
final cost is difficult to project because the technical assumptions
may be proven invalid by the future testing and monitoring that DOE
plans to conduct.  According to a DOE official, examples of these
assumptions are the (1) rate of speed that contaminant particles move
through the aquifer and (2) volume of contaminants in the aquifer. 
According to EPA,\3

"[t]he cleanup of groundwater is a large-scale undertaking for which
there is relatively little long-term experience." EPA also noted that
the condition of the groundwater at the Title I sites varies greatly
and that the "engineering experience with some of the required
remedial actions is limited."

While it has targeted the least-cost strategies for cleaning up the
groundwater at each site, DOE has identified five sites where it
believes there is a 50-percent chance that a more expensive
alternative may be required.  DOE may choose a more expensive
alternative because (1) the affected states or Indian tribes, through
negotiations, may influence the Department to select a more expensive
alternative because of their disagreement over DOE's proposed cleanup
strategy or (2) future studies by DOE may prove that the technical
assumptions are invalid.  As a result, for each of these five sites,
DOE has identified an alternative strategy that, although more
expensive, may address concerns raised by the affected entities or
possible technical problems. 

DOE estimates that implementing the more expensive alternative
approaches at these five sites would cost an additional $72 million,
thus raising the total cost of its share of the groundwater cleanup
to $219 million.  According to DOE officials, however, the Department
is looking for ways to reduce the cost of the groundwater cleanup. 

In addition, although the states are to pay 10 percent of the cost of
remedial actions, DOE has not yet specified when the states would
begin to share in these costs.  If DOE decides that for groundwater
cleanup, as for the surface cleanup, the states will share only in
the cost of the groundwater remediation plans and remedial action
(and not such items as administrative costs), then the states'
estimated total cost share would be about $1 million, according to
DOE. 

Finally, some states may not have funds to pay their share of the
groundwater cleanup cost.  According to a DOE official, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, and Utah may not have funding for the groundwater program.  A
Colorado official has also indicated that the state legislature may
not provide funding unless it can be shown that the contaminated
groundwater poses a serious health risk. 

According to DOE, if the states do not provide funds for their share
of the costs, it would not have the legislative authority to clean up
the sites.  The Department has not finalized any contingency plans in
the event that the states are unable to pay their share but is
considering a variety of options, including offsets and in-kind
services from the states (e.g., equipment and construction services)
in lieu of financial support.  However, if an adequate solution is
not found, DOE maintains that it will not clean up the affected sites
without congressional authorization. 


--------------------
\3 Discussed in EPA's Jan.  11, 1995, groundwater standards. 


   DOE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
   LONG-TERM CUSTODY OF TITLE I
   AND II SITES, BUT UNCERTAINTY
   SURROUNDS COSTS OF LONG-TERM
   CARE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

DOE's responsibilities for the Title I sites do not end when the
surface and groundwater cleanups are complete.  DOE will be
responsible for the long-term custody (i.e., surveillance and routine
maintenance) of both Title I and II sites.\4 The Department estimates
that its long-term custodial activities for about 45 Title I and II
sites will cost about $60 million (in 1995 dollars) between 1995 and
2030.\5 While DOE is financially responsible for the long-term
custody of the Title I sites, NRC's regulations require the
owners/operators of the Title II sites to pay the long-term costs
associated with routine maintenance and surveillance for their sites. 
The underlying assumptions on which these regulations are based have
not been updated and may not reflect current cost estimates for
long-term surveillance and maintenance. 


--------------------
\4 DOE will also acquire long-term custody of about 10 other sites
that were contaminated by activities conducted in support of the
nation's nuclear energy programs.  These sites include former
government facilities for nuclear power research, development, and
production. 

\5 Although DOE has developed cost estimates only through 2030, its
long-term custody responsibility will continue indefinitely. 


      DOE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
      CUSTODY OF TITLE I AND II
      SITES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1

Over the coming years, DOE is expected to acquire long-term custody
of its Title I sites and most or all of the Title II sites.  DOE
estimates that, after 2010, it will be responsible for monitoring and
maintaining 19 Title I sites\6 and 26 Title II sites.  Although
states have the option of assuming long-term custody of the
cleaned-up Title II sites, DOE does not expect that any states will
choose to do so.  Accordingly, DOE expects to acquire custody of all
26 Title II sites.  DOE has estimated that it will spend $60 million
(in 1995 dollars) between fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 2030 on
its responsibilities for long-term custody at the Title I and II
sites.  (DOE has not projected its costs past 2030.)


--------------------
\6 The total number of disposal cells is lower than the number of
Title I sites because in some cases tailings from two sites were
combined and disposed of in the same cell. 


      NRC'S MINIMUM CHARGE FOR
      LONG-TERM SURVEILLANCE COSTS
      HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED AND
      UPDATED AND DOES NOT INCLUDE
      ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2

Under the act, NRC is responsible for ensuring that before the
federal government takes custody of a Title II site, it makes
financial arrangements with the owners/operators adequate to cover
the costs of long-term custody so that they, not the federal
government, bear these full costs.  Under its regulations,\7 NRC, is
to collect a one-time charge from the owner/operator of each site
"such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual real interest rate, the
collected funds will yield interest in an amount sufficient to cover
the annual costs of site surveillance." The money is to be paid to
the General Treasury of the United States before the site's license
is terminated.\8

NRC's regulations specify a minimum one-time charge to cover
long-term surveillance costs.  If it is determined that the sites'
surveillance or control requirements are significantly greater than
general surveillance requirements, a larger charge could be made.  In
1980, NRC estimated that the minimum annual surveillance charge per
site would be $2,500 in 1978 dollars (or $5,300 in 1995 dollars). 
Using a real interest rate of 1 percent, a fund of $250,000 per site
in 1978 dollars--$530,000 in 1995 dollars--would provide continuous
interest income to cover the estimated annual costs.  At that time,
NRC expected that the only cost for long-term surveillance would be
the cost of the time and effort involved in government inspectors'
visits to sites (i.e., travel time, inspections, and preparation and
follow-up for the inspections). 

NRC's minimum charge for surveillance was based on the assumption
that ongoing maintenance would not be necessary.  However, the
regulations provide that the maintenance costs could be added to the
charge.  According to NRC, some routine maintenance--such as
repairing fences, filling in minor erosion, or eliminating
rodents--is recognized in the regulations as a possibility for all
sites.  If NRC determines on the basis of site evaluations that
maintenance will be necessary, additional funds may be required. 

DOE, which will take custody of the sites, has a different view of
the minimum annual surveillance cost and the need for routine
maintenance.  On the basis of its experience with the Title I sites,
DOE estimates that minimum annual cost of surveillance at the Title
II sites will consist, in 1995 dollars, of (1) $6,000 for an annual
inspection and, if necessary, a follow-up inspection and (2) $10,000
to prepare an annual inspection report.  DOE officials acknowledge
that the costs for annual site inspection and report preparation have
been decreasing.  As the number of licensed Title I and II sites
increases, inspection visits can be combined because many of the
sites are located near each other. 

DOE also believes that annual routine maintenance will be required at
each Title II site and will cost $5,000 (in 1995 dollars) annually. 
Maintenance, according to DOE's guidance,\9

includes both "routine" (scheduled) and "unscheduled" activities. 
Among the scheduled activities are mowing grass, maintaining access
or perimeter roads, and removing accumulated weeds or debris. 
Unscheduled maintenance will be conducted as needed for purposes such
as preventing animal burrows or deep-rooted vegetation from entering
a disposal cell.  Thus, DOE estimates that the combined annual
surveillance and maintenance costs will be $21,000 (in 1995
dollars).\10 According to NRC officials, however, DOE's $21,000
estimate is provided without a basis and therefore cannot be verified
as accurate. 

If DOE's estimate of the minimum annual surveillance costs and the
need for routine maintenance is correct, the minimum charge cited in
NRC's regulations will not yield sufficient income to cover the
annual costs.  To update NRC's calculation of the amount the
operators will have to pay in order to cover these costs, we used the
1-percent real annual interest rate specified in NRC's regulations
and DOE's estimates of annual costs--$16,000 for surveillance or
$21,000 (in 1995 dollars) for surveillance and maintenance.\11
According to our calculations, $1.6 million (in 1995 dollars) would
be needed to cover annual costs of $16,000, and $2.1 million would be
needed to cover annual costs of $21,000.  As noted earlier, the
one-time charge based on NRC's 1980 estimates would amount to only
$530,000 (in 1995 dollars) and yield $5,300 annually. 


--------------------
\7 10 C.F.R.  Pt.  40, App.  A (1995). 

\8 If the state in which the site is located chooses to assume
responsibility for the site's long-term custody, then the money is
paid to the state's treasury. 

\9 Guidance for Implementing the UMTRA Project Long-term Surveillance
Program, DOE, Sept.  1992. 

\10 DOE expects that the annual surveillance costs will be the same
for both Title I and II sites.  Although DOE has projected its
surveillance costs over the next 30 years, its responsibility for
surveillance extends into perpetuity. 

\11 NRC used a 1-percent interest rate because that was the average
rate over the period 1951-79. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

DOE has completed much of its surface cleanup at the Title I sites
but will not finish the cleanup by its legislatively mandated
deadline of September 30, 1996.  To complete the surface cleanup
work, DOE will need at least a 2-year congressional renewal of its
surface cleanup authority.  DOE is currently seeking reauthorization
of the surface cleanup program through fiscal year 1998.  However,
costs will continue after the surface cleanup has been completed. 

DOE is uncertain about the ultimate cost of its groundwater cleanup
program, which is now only in its infancy.  It is too early to know
whether the affected states or tribes will ultimately persuade DOE to
implement more costly remedies than the strategies the Department has
proposed.  DOE is also unsure about the validity of the technical
assumptions underlying its proposed strategies.  As a result, DOE may
ultimately choose more expensive cleanup strategies, increasing the
final cost of the groundwater cleanup by as much as $72 million. 
However, until DOE, the states, and the affected Indian tribes have
reached a final agreement and more is known about the accuracy of
DOE's technical assumptions about the proposed methods, the final
cost of the groundwater cleanup cannot be ascertained. 

Furthermore, DOE has yet to determine whether the states are willing
and able to pay their share of the cost of the groundwater cleanup. 
Because DOE believes that it is prohibited from cleaning up
contamination without the states' full financial participation, if
the states do not provide their 10-percent share of the cleanup cost,
DOE will not move forward on the cleanup without congressional
authorization. 

In addition to the cost of the groundwater cleanup, DOE may incur
further costs to dispose of tailings that are unearthed in the future
in the Grand Junction, Colorado, area.  DOE's disposal of such
tailings, however, will be contingent upon obtaining congressional
authority to do so. 

The basis for NRC's minimum long-term surveillance charge has not
been updated and does not reflect DOE's current estimates of what it
will cost to provide annual surveillance and maintenance.  NRC has
not reviewed its estimate of basic surveillance costs since 1980, and
DOE is currently estimating that basic monitoring will cost about
three times more than NRC estimates.  Moreover, while DOE maintains
that ongoing, routine maintenance will be needed at all sites, NRC's
minimum charge does not provide any amount for ongoing maintenance. 


   MATTERS FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

The Congress may wish to consider authorizing DOE to keep a portion
of the Cheney disposal cell open to dispose of tailings that are
unearthed in the future in the Grand Junction, Colorado, area.  In
addition, to resolve the issue of DOE's lack of authority to complete
the groundwater cleanup if the states do not contribute their
10-percent share of costs, the Congress may wish to consider whether
and under what circumstances DOE can complete the cleanup of the
sites when the states do not provide financial support. 


   RECOMMENDATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

To provide a realistic indication of the future costs for long-term
surveillance and maintenance of the Title II sites, we recommend that
the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct its
staff to consult with the Department of Energy to develop an accurate
estimate of these costs and what they entail, and use that
information to (1) update the minimum one-time charge for basic
surveillance and (2) determine if routine maintenance will be
required at each site, and, if so, incorporate those costs into the
minimum charge. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:7

In addition to the technical corrections provided by DOE, EPA, and
NRC officials, NRC commented on our recommendation that the
Commission update its one-time charge for basic surveillance and
determine the need for routine maintenance at each site.  NRC
believes that our recommendation to update the minimum one-time
charge for basic surveillance presumes that the initial assumptions
it used in developing its basic charge for surveillance may no longer
be valid.  NRC is not certain that these assumptions are invalid but
is nonetheless reexamining the issue. 

NRC officials fully agreed with our recommendation to determine the
need for routine maintenance at each site and incorporate any
resulting costs.  These officials cited several steps the Commission
is taking to ensure that the recommendation will be implemented. 
They said that the Commission and DOE are preparing a working
procedure that both agencies will use in the licensing
process--including how NRC will determine long-term funding for the
sites and what role DOE will play.  NRC is also developing a
procedure to follow in granting a license, including guidance on how
to determine the amount needed for long-term funding and on the
information needed to justify this funding amount.  Finally, NRC
plans to discuss long-term funding requirements with the
owners/operators of the Title II sites and with DOE. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix I

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

Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director
Kathy Hale, Senior Evaluator
Michael Sagalow, Senior Evaluator
Mehrzad Nadji, Assistant Director-Economic Analysis Group
Phyllis Turner, Communications Analyst


   OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

Doreen S.  Feldman, Assistant General Counsel
Mindi G.  Weisenbloom, Senior Attorney


   DENVER FIELD OFFICE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Ronald Guthrie, Assistant Director
James Charlifue, Evaluator-in-Charge
Pam Tumler, Communications Analyst


   DETROIT FIELD OFFICE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Joanna Allen, Staff Evaluator


*** End of document. ***