Uranium Mill Tailings: Status and Future Costs of Cleanup (Testimony,
02/28/96, GAO/T-RCED-96-85).

Energy Department (DOE) efforts to clean up contamination arising from
decades of processing uranium ore as part of the nation's nuclear
weapons and energy programs have grown in both size and cost since the
project began in 1979. If the surface cleanup is completed in 1998, it
will have cost $2.3 billion and will have taken nearly eight years
longer and cost $621 million more than DOE expected. This 37-percent
growth in costs has arisen from the discovery that more properties were
contaminated than anticipated, the need to clean up more contamination
than expected at some sites, and unexpected changes in the cleanup
strategies in response to state and local concerns. Several issues could
affect the government's future cleanup costs. One issue is what the
final costs for cleaning up groundwater will be. Another issue is the
extent and the cost of DOE's role in the future disposal of tailings in
the Grand Junction, Colorado, area. Finally, the one-time charge
assessed to owners and operators for the long-term custody of sites that
were still active when the Uranium Mill Tailings Act was passed has not
been updated and does not reflect DOE's current estimates of
surveillance and maintenance costs at these sites.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-96-85
     TITLE:  Uranium Mill Tailings: Status and Future Costs of Cleanup
      DATE:  02/28/96
   SUBJECT:  Uranium
             Nuclear waste management
             Radioactive waste disposal
             Water pollution control
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
             Environmental monitoring
             Hazardous substances
             Environmental policies
             Cost sharing (finance)
             Fines (penalties)
IDENTIFIER:  Grand Junction (CO)
             DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project
             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m.  EST
Wednesday
February 28, 1996

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS - STATUS AND
FUTURE COSTS OF CLEANUP

Statement by Bernice Steinhardt,
Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-96-85

GAO/RCED-96-85


(302187)


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


============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our recent report on the
Department of Energy's (DOE) cleanup of contamination that resulted
from decades of processing uranium ore as part of the nation's
nuclear weapons and energy program.\1 This program has been conducted
under the authority of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978 (P.L.  95-604), which required the government to clean up
inactive sites and required private owners/operators to clean up
sites that were active at the time.  Our work reviewed (1) the status
and cost of DOE's cleanup program and (2) factors that could affect
the federal government's costs in the future.  Although the act
directed that the cleanup be completed by March 1990, the Congress
subsequently extended this deadline twice.  As you know, Mr. 
Chairman, DOE's authority to continue the cleanup of surface
contamination under this program expires on September 30, 1996, and
the Department is currently seeking to extend this deadline through
fiscal year 1998. 

In summary, Mr.  Chairman, DOE's cleanup project has grown in both
size and cost since it began in 1979.  If the surface cleanup is
completed in 1998, it will have cost $2.3 billion; it will have taken
nearly 8 years longer and cost $621 million more than DOE originally
expected.\2 This 37-percent growth in costs has resulted from, among
other things, the discovery of a greater number of contaminated
properties than originally anticipated, the need to clean up more
contamination than expected at some sites, and unexpected changes in
the cleanup strategies that DOE has made in response to state and
local concerns. 

Several issues that will affect the government's future cleanup costs
are currently unresolved.  One issue is what the final costs for
cleaning up groundwater will be.  DOE initiated its efforts to clean
up groundwater (which are not subject to the 1996 deadline) in 1991
and currently estimates completion in about 2014, at a cost of at
least $147 million.  These costs depend on which cleanup strategies
DOE ultimately selects and whether states pay their share of the
costs.  Another issue is the extent and cost of DOE's role in the
future disposal of tailings in the Grand Junction, Colorado, area. 
Finally, the one-time charge assessed to owners/operators for the
long-term custody of sites that were still active when the Uranium
Mill Tailings Act was passed has not been updated and does not
reflect DOE's current estimates of surveillance and maintenance costs
at these sites.  As noted in our report, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) needs to ensure that it collects enough funds from
private owners/operators of these sites to pay for their long term
custody so that the U.S.  taxpayer will not have to bear the burden
of any shortfall. 

Before we discuss these issues in detail, we would like to provide
some background information on the program. 


--------------------
\1 Uranium Mill Tailings:  Cleanup Continues, but Future Costs Are
Uncertain (GAO/RCED-96-37, Dec.  15, 1995). 

\2 These amounts, as well as all others cited in this testimony, have
been converted to present value, 1995 dollars. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

During the three decades in which uranium was used in the
government's nuclear weapons and energy programs, 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 in the late
1960s, 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.  Because the tailings were not disposed of properly,
they were spread by wind, water, and human intervention, thus
contaminating properties beyond the mill sites.  In some communities,
the tailings were used as building materials for homes, schools,
office buildings, and roads because at the time the health risks were
not commonly known.  The tailings and waste liquids from uranium ore
processing also contaminated the groundwater. 

Tailings from the ore processing resulted in radioactive
contamination at about 50 sites (located mostly in the southwestern
United States) and at 5,276 nearby properties.  The most hazardous
constituent of uranium mill tailings is radium.  Radium produces
radon, a radioactive gas whose decay products can cause lung cancer. 
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 the tailings include arsenic,
molybdenum, and selenium. 

DOE's cleanup authority was established by the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978.  Title I of the act governs the
cleanup of uranium ore processing sites that were already inactive at
the time the legislation was passed.  These 24 sites are referred to
as Title I sites.  Under the act, DOE is to clean up the Title I
sites, as well as nearby properties that were contaminated.  In doing
so, DOE works closely with the affected states and Indian tribes. 
DOE pays for most of this cleanup, but the affected states contribute
10 percent of the costs for remedial actions. 

Title II of the act covers the cleanup of sites that were still
active when the act was passed.  These 26 sites are referred to as
Title II sites.  Title II sites are cleaned up mostly at the expense
of the private companies that own and operate them.  They are then
turned over to the federal government for long-term custody.  Before
a Title II site is turned over to the government, NRC works with the
sites' owners/operators to make sure that sufficient funds will be
available to cover the costs of long-term monitoring and maintenance. 

The cleanup of surface contamination consists of four key steps:  (1)
identifying the type and extent of contamination; (2) obtaining a
disposal site; (3) developing an action plan, which describes the
cleanup method and specifies the design requirements; and (4)
carrying out the cleanup using the selected method.  Generally, the
primary cleanup method consists of enclosing the tailings in a
disposal cell--a containment area that is covered with compacted clay
to prevent the release of radon and then topped with rocks or
vegetation. 

Similarly, the cleanup of groundwater contamination consists of
identifying the type and extent of contamination, developing an
action plan, and carrying out the cleanup using the selected method. 
According to DOE, depending on the type and extent of contamination,
and the possible health risks, the appropriate method may be (1)
leaving the groundwater as it is, (2) allowing it to cleanse itself
over time (called natural flushing), or (3) using an active cleanup
technique such as pumping the water out of the ground and treating
it. 

Mr.  Chairman, we now return to the topics discussed in our report: 
the status and cost of DOE's surface and groundwater cleanup and the
factors that could affect the federal government's costs in the
future. 


   STATUS AND COST OF DOE'S
   CLEANUP PROJECT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Since our report was issued on December 15, 1995, DOE has made
additional progress in cleaning up and licensing Title I sites.  As
of February 1996, DOE's surface cleanup was complete at 16 of the 24
Title I sites, under way at 6 additional sites, and on hold at the
remaining 2 sites.\3 Of the 16 sites where DOE has completed the
cleanup, 4 have been licensed by NARC as meeting the standards of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Ten of the other 12 sites are
working on obtaining such a license, and the remaining two sites do
not require licensing because the tailings were relocated to other
sites.  Additionally, DOE has completed the surface cleanup at about
97 percent of the 5,276 nearby properties that were also
contaminated.  Although DOE expects to complete the surface cleanup
of the Title I sites by the beginning of 1997, it does not expect all
of Narc activities to be completed until the end of 1998.  As for the
cleanup of groundwater at the Title I sites, DOE began this task in
1991 and currently estimates completion in about 2014. 

Since its inception in 1979, DOE's project for cleaning up the Title
I sites has grown in size and in cost.  In 1982, DOE estimated that
the cleanups would be completed in 7 years and that only one pile of
tailings would need to be relocated.  By 1992, however, the
Department was estimating that the surface cleanup would be completed
in 1998 and that 13 piles of tailings would need to be relocated. 
The project's expansion was caused by several factors, including

  -- the development of EPA's new groundwater protection standards;

  -- the establishment or revision of other federal standards
     addressing such things as the transport of the tailings and the
     safety of workers; and

  -- the unexpected discovery of additional tailings, both at the
     processing sites and at newly identified, affected properties
     nearby. 

In addition, DOE made changes in its cleanup strategies to respond to
state and local concerns.  For example, at the Grand Junction,
Colorado, site the county's concern about safety led to the
construction of railroad transfer facilities and the use of both rail
cars and trucks to transport contaminated materials.  The cheaper
method of simply trucking the materials would have routed extensive
truck traffic through heavily populated areas. 

Along with the project's expansion came cost increases.  In the early
1980s, DOE estimated that the total cleanup cost--for both the
surface and groundwater--would be about $1.7 billion.  By November
1995, this estimate had grown to $2.4 billion.  DOE spent $2 billion
on surface cleanup activities through fiscal year 1994 and expects to
spend about $300 million more through 1998.\4

As for groundwater, DOE has not started any cleanup.  By June 1995,
the Department had spent about $16.7 million on site characterization
and various planning activities.  To make the cleanup as
cost-effective as it can, DOE is proposing to leave the groundwater
as it is at 13 sites, allow the groundwater to cleanse itself over
time at another 9 sites, and to use an active cleanup method at 2
locations in Monument Valley and Tuba City, Arizona.  The final
selection of cleanup strategies depends largely on DOE's reaching
agreement with the affected states and tribes.  At this point,
however, DOE has yet to finalize agreements on any of the groundwater
cleanup strategies it is proposing.  At the time we issued our
report, the cleanups were projected to cost at least another $130
million using the proposed strategies, and perhaps as much as $202
million.  More recently, a DOE groundwater official has indicated
that the Department could reduce these costs by shifting some of the
larger costs to earlier years; reducing the amounts built into the
strategies for contingencies, and using newer, performance-based
contracting methods. 


--------------------
\3 The State of North Dakota, in which these 2 sites are located, has
asked DOE to "delist" its sites, or drop them from the program,
claiming that the sites present minimal risk to the public and
environment and that the state legislature was not likely to
appropriate funds for the state's share of the cleanup cost. 
According to DOE, if the state did not pay its 10-percent share, the
Department would notify the Congress that it would not complete the
planned remedial actions.  As of February 1996, DOE had not made a
final decision on the North Dakota sites. 

\4 For the surface cleanup costs, fiscal year 1994 data were the most
recent available. 


   DOE'S FUTURE COSTS ARE
   UNCERTAIN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Once all of the sites have been cleaned up, the federal government's
responsibilities, and the costs associated with them, will continue
far into the future.  What these future costs will amount to is
currently unknown and will depend largely on how three issues are
resolved.  First, because the effort to clean up the groundwater is
in its infancy, its final scope and cost will depend largely on the
remediation methods chosen and the financial participation of the
affected states.  It is too early to know whether the affected states
or tribes will ultimately persuade DOE to implement more costly
remedies than those the Department has proposed or whether any of the
technical assumptions underlying DOE's proposed strategies will prove
to be invalid.  If either of these outcomes occurs, DOE may implement
more costly cleanup strategies than it has proposed, thereby
increasing the final cost of the groundwater cleanup.  DOE has
already identified five sites where it believes it may have to
implement more expensive alternatives than the ones it initially
proposed. 

In addition, the final cost of the groundwater cleanup depends on the
affected states' ability and willingness to pay their share of the
cleanup costs.  According to a DOE official, Pennsylvania, Oregon,
and Utah may not have funding for the groundwater cleanup program. 
DOE believes that it is prohibited from cleaning up the contamination
if the states do not pay their share.  Accordingly, as we noted in
our report, we believe that the Congress may want to consider whether
and under what circumstances DOE can complete the cleanup of the
sites if the states do not provide financial support. 

Second, DOE may incur further costs to dispose of uranium mill
tailings that are unearthed in the future in the Grand Junction,
Colorado, area.  DOE has already cleaned up the Grand Junction
processing site and over 4,000 nearby properties, at a cost of about
$700 million.  Nevertheless, in the past, 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 will likely
unearth these tailings, resulting in a potential public health hazard
if the tailings are mishandled.  In response to this problem, DOE is
working with NRC and Colorado officials to develop a plan for
temporarily storing the tailings as they are unearthed and
periodically transporting them to a nearby disposal cell--referred to
as the Cheney cell, located near the city of Grand Junction--for
permanent disposal.  Under this plan, the city or county would be
responsible for hauling the tailings to the disposal cell, and DOE
would be responsible for the cost of placing the tailings in the
cell.  The plan envisions that a portion of the Cheney disposal cell
would remain open, at an annual cost of several hundred thousand
dollars.  When the cell is full, or after a period of 20 to 25 years,
it would be closed.  However, DOE does not currently have the
authority to implement this plan because the law requires that all
disposal cells be closed upon the completion of the surface cleanup. 
Accordingly, we suggested in our report that the Congress might want
to consider whether DOE should be authorized to keep a portion of the
Cheney disposal cell open to dispose of tailings that are unearthed
in the future in this area. 

Finally, DOE's costs for long-term care are still somewhat uncertain. 
DOE will ultimately be responsible for long-term custody, that is,
the surveillance and maintenance, of both Title I and Title II sites,
but the Department only bears the financial responsibility for these
activities at Title I sites.  For Title II sites, the
owners/operators are responsible for funding the long-term
surveillance and maintenance.  Although NRC's minimum one-time charge
to site owners/operators is supposed to be sufficient to cover the
cost of long-term custody so that they, not the federal government,
bear these costs in full, NRC has not reviewed its estimate of basic
surveillance costs since 1980, and DOE is currently estimating that
basic monitoring will cost about 3 times more than NRC estimates. 
Moreover, while DOE maintains that ongoing routine maintenance will
be needed at all sites, NRC's charge does not provide any amount for
ongoing maintenance.  In light of the consequent potential shortfall
in maintenance funds, our report recommended that NRC and DOE work
together to update the charge for basic surveillance and determine if
routine maintenance will be required at each site.  On the basis of
our recommendations, NRC officials agreed to reexamine the charge and
determine the need for routine maintenance at each site.  They also
said that they are working with DOE to clarify the Department's role
in determining the funding requirements for long-term custody. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement.  We will be
pleased to answer any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have. 


*** End of document. ***