Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

May 2002 WASTE CLEANUP

Status and 

Implications of DOE’s 

Compliance 

Agreements 

GAO-02-567 
Page i GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6 

Compliance Agreements Are of Three Main Types 7 

Most Milestone Dates Have Been Met, but Meeting Milestones Is 

Not a Good Measure of Cleanup Progress 9 

DOE’s Budget Request Does Not Identify the Funding Needed to 

Meet Compliance Requirements 15 

Compliance Agreements Are Site Specific and Do Not Allow for 

Managing Risks across DOE Sites 18 

Compliance Agreements Were Not a Barrier to Past Management 

Improvements, but Impact on February 2002 Initiative Is Unclear 22 

Conclusions 26 

Agency Comments 27 

Appendix I Compliance Orders and Agreements Affecting DOE’s 

Environmental Management Cleanup Program 29 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 48 

Appendix III Scope and Methodology 49 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51 

Tables 

Table 1: Types of DOE Compliance Agreements and Related 

Schedule Milestones 8 

Table 2: Information on Compliance Agreement Milestones at 

DOE’s Six Largest Cleanup Sites 11 

Table 3: Number of Compliance Agreement Missed Milestones and 

Monetary Penalties Paid at DOE Sites 13 

Table 4: Cost of Meeting Compliance Requirements under Two 

Different Budget Scenarios at Four DOE Sites, Fiscal Year 

2002 17 

Contents 
Page 1 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

May 30, 2002 

The Honorable James C. Greenwood 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Department of Energy (DOE) spends between $6 billion and $7 billion 

annually to store, clean up, and monitor nuclear and hazardous waste at 

its sites around the country. This waste is primarily a result of more than 

50 years of producing material for the nation’s nuclear weapons program. 

It ranges from millions of gallons of high-level liquid radioactive waste in 

underground storage tanks to solvents, oils, and hazardous chemicals in 

covered pits and trenches. At many of its sites, DOE has had difficulty 

making significant progress on the cleanup, particularly for the most 

dangerous wastes. Until recently, DOE’s plan for cleaning up every site 

was expected to cost a total of about $220 billion and take at least 

70 years. 

The processes that govern the cleanup at DOE’s nuclear waste sites are 

complicated, involving multiple laws, agencies, and administrative steps. 

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for much 

of the actual cleanup activity, which is carried out primarily under two 

federal laws—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). 

CERCLA addresses the cleanup of hazardous substances at inactive or 

abandoned sites, some of which are listed on the National Priorities List of 

the nation’s most serious hazardous waste sites; RCRA regulates the 

treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and the cleanup of 

hazardous waste released from covered facilities. Various federal and state 

agencies have jurisdiction over environmental and health issues involved 

with the cleanup and are therefore involved in regulating and overseeing 

DOE’s activities. Over the years, much of the cleanup activity has been 

implemented under compliance agreements between DOE and these 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

agencies.1 Compliance agreements provide for establishing legally 

enforceable schedule milestones that govern the work to be done. 

Regulators and DOE can negotiate to amend or modify the agreements, 

including extending or eliminating milestone dates. Regulators can also 

impose monetary or other penalties for missing milestones. Some 

agreements cover virtually all cleanup activities at a site, while others 

cover just a portion of the activities. Most of DOE’s major sites have more 

than one agreement in place. 

Because the compliance agreements are so varied and numerous, their 

effect on DOE’s cleanup program can be difficult to ascertain. You asked 

us to address four questions with regard to these agreements: 

• What are the major types of compliance agreements? 

• What progress is DOE making in complying with milestones specified in 

the agreements? 

• To what extent is the cost to comply with these agreements reflected in 

the DOE budget submitted to the Congress? 

• To what extent do these agreements allow DOE to prioritize work across 

sites according to the relative risk posed by the various wastes? 

As we were conducting our work, the Secretary of Energy announced a 

new DOE initiative aimed at improving management of the cleanup 

program, shortening the program’s life by at least 30 years, and reducing 

program costs by at least $100 billion. Under this initiative, DOE would 

accelerate cleanup projects at some sites; revise other cleanup plans, such 

as reclassifying certain waste to different risk categories to speed cleanup 

and reduce cost; and concentrate funding more on cleanup and less on 

maintenance and non-cleanup activities. Because the detailed proposals to 

come from this initiative were still being developed at the time of this 

 1

 In this report, we use the term “compliance agreement” or “agreement” to mean any 

legally enforceable document containing milestones defining cleanup activities that DOE 

must achieve by specified or ascertainable dates. The term includes, but is not limited to, 

Federal Facility Agreements, Interagency Agreements, settlement agreements, consent 

orders, and compliance orders. It does not include federal and state environmental 

requirements that are not implemented by compliance agreements. Also, some cleanup 

work is required in certain of DOE’s RCRA permits that authorize waste treatment 

operations. We did not include RCRA permits in our study because (1) the great majority of 

DOE’s cleanup work is covered by compliance agreements and (2) cleanup work required 

by RCRA permits is generally also included under the compliance agreements at those 

sites. Also in this report, we use the term “regulators” to mean those federal and state 

agencies that are parties to DOE’s compliance agreements. 
Page 3 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

report, we cannot determine specifically how the existing compliance 

agreements will affect DOE’s ability to implement the new initiative. As 

agreed with your office, however, we do offer some general observations 

about the possible implications of compliance agreements on DOE’s 

efforts to improve its cleanup program. 

Among the steps taken to respond to this request, we administered a 

questionnaire to DOE’s sites with compliance agreements. We also 

conducted fieldwork at DOE headquarters and four of the department’s 

largest environmental management program offices—the Richland, Idaho, 

Oak Ridge, and Savannah River operations offices. For a complete 

discussion of our scope and methodology, see appendix III. 

There are three main types of compliance agreements governing cleanup 

at DOE’s sites: (1) agreements required by CERCLA to address cleanup of 

federal sites on EPA’s National Priorities List of the nation’s most serious 

hazardous waste sites or by RCRA to address treatment and storage of 

mixed hazardous and radioactive waste at DOE facilities, (2) courtordered agreements resulting from lawsuits initiated primarily by states, 

and (3) other agreements, such as state administrative orders enforcing 

state hazardous waste management laws, that do not fall into the first two 

categories. The 70 compliance agreements we identified are in place at 23 

DOE waste cleanup sites, which together account for about 74 percent of 

DOE’s projected total cleanup costs. Many large DOE installations, such as 

the Hanford site in Washington State and the Savannah River site in South 

Carolina, have all three types of agreements. In total, the 70 agreements 

contain almost 7,200 separate milestones, which range from requiring a 

specific cleanup activity, such as remediating groundwater contamination 

in a given area, to requiring that a step be completed that will contribute to 

eventual cleanup, such as obtaining a permit. 

Through the end of fiscal year 2001, DOE had completed more than 4,500 

milestones, although for several reasons, the number of milestones 

completed is not a good measure of cleanup progress. First, many of the 

milestones are administrative in nature, such as issuing a report. Second, 

some agreements allow for adding more milestones as time goes on, and 

because the total number of milestones associated with those agreements 

is not yet known, the relative progress made is difficult to determine. 

Finally, many of the milestones not yet due involve some of the most 

technically complex and costly cleanup work to be undertaken. DOE met 

the original milestone date for about 80 percent of the completed 

milestones. When DOE missed a schedule milestone, regulators seldom 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

exercised their authority to impose penalties and they almost always 

renegotiated milestone deadlines if DOE requested that they do so. 

Regulators sometimes required DOE to perform additional work sooner 

than had been planned in addition to or instead of paying a monetary 

penalty. Regulators at the four sites we visited indicated that while they 

generally have been willing to be collaborative and flexible about changing 

milestone dates thus far, adequate funding of the cleanup program was 

essential to their continued flexibility. At one site we visited, we found 

indications that DOE’s concerns about making progress led it to choose 

not to pursue potentially less expensive ways to accomplish certain tasks, 

because these alternatives would cause DOE to miss a sensitive or 

significant milestone. 

The cost of complying with these agreements is not specifically identified 

in the DOE budget submitted to the Congress. Individual DOE sites 

include the cost of compliance when preparing their initial budget 

requests, but as DOE headquarters officials adjust individual site estimates 

to reflect national priorities and to reconcile various competing demands, 

the final budget request does not identify what portion of the request is 

intended to address compliance requirements. DOE is not required to 

develop or present this information to the Congress. The President’s 

budget typically states that the DOE funding requested is sufficient to 

substantially comply with compliance agreements, but does not state the 

amount of funding needed for compliance. Even if it were possible to 

identify this amount in the final budget, the figure would have limited 

significance, because sites’ compliance estimates are based primarily on 

the expected size of the budget. If the funding sites receive is insufficient 

to accomplish all of the compliance activities planned for that year, sites 

must decide which activities to defer to future years. In contrast, if sites 

receive more funding than anticipated in a particular year, they have an 

opportunity to increase the amount of money spent on compliance 

requirements. 

Compliance agreements are site-specific and are not intended to provide a 

mechanism for DOE to use in prioritizing risks among the various sites. 

The agreements reflect local DOE and community priorities for addressing 

environmental contamination at individual sites and were not developed to 

consider environmental risk from a DOE-wide perspective. DOE has made 

several attempts to develop a risk-based methodology across its sites, but 

has not succeeded because of problems such as its failure to integrate any 

of the approaches into the decision-making process. Rather than prioritize 

risk across sites, DOE has attempted to provide a relatively stable amount 

of funding at each site from year to year and generally allow local DOE 
Page 5 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

managers and the community to determine the priorities for sequencing 

work at each site. However, DOE’s current initiative for improving the 

program calls for such a risk-based approach. A central component of this 

approach includes developing risk-reduction priorities and concentrating 

its efforts on activities that contribute to risk reduction. DOE’s 

environmental management program is currently evaluating how best to 

proceed in developing the risk-based strategy. Because this effort is 

currently underway, it is too early to determine if it will yield results that 

regulators and other stakeholders at the various sites can accept as 

reliable. 

Compliance agreements have not been a barrier to previous DOE 

management improvement initiatives, but it is not clear if the compliance 

agreements will be used to oppose DOE’s latest initiative, which could 

have a potentially greater impact on cleanup approaches and funding 

levels than prior initiatives. DOE’s past management improvement 

initiatives generally have not involved significant changes in cleanup 

approach or significant reductions in funding at individual sites. For 

example, DOE’s contract reform initiative did not prescribe technical 

changes to cleanup approaches and the privatization initiative did not 

result in significant reductions in funding. Regulators generally supported 

these initiatives, saying that they support efforts to implement faster, less 

costly ways to reduce the environmental risks at the sites, as long as 

DOE’s approach did not reduce funding for individual sites. DOE’s recent 

initiative, however, has the potential to alter the funding balance among 

DOE sites. In some cases it involves potential changes in technology or 

approach that would result in leaving more waste on site than currently 

planned and thus could significantly reduce cleanup costs. In other cases 

it could allocate funding using a greater emphasis on risk reduction, which 

could shift funding among sites. Regulators told us that they would be 

opposed to receiving reduced funding at their individual sites and might 

not be willing to modify the compliance agreements to further extend 

schedule milestones. DOE generally did not involve the regulators in 

developing its reform initiative, but is now coordinating with regulators as 

it develops implementation strategies for each site. Therefore, it is too 

early to tell if the regulators will support these changes to site cleanup 

programs. 

We provided a copy of our draft report to DOE for review and comment. 

DOE responded that our draft report accurately presented information on 

the current status of compliance agreements and generally agreed with the 

findings of the report. DOE’s complete comments are presented in 

appendix II. 
Page 6 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

DOE is responsible for a nationwide complex of facilities created during 

World War II and the Cold War to research, produce, and test nuclear 

weapons. Much of the complex is no longer in productive use, but 

contains vast quantities of nuclear and hazardous waste and other 

materials related to the production of nuclear material. Since the 1980s, 

DOE has been planning and carrying out activities around the complex to 

clean up, contain, safely store, and dispose of these materials. It is a 

daunting challenge, involving the development of complicated 

technologies, costing about $220 billion, and expecting to take 70 years or 

longer. DOE has reported completing its cleanup work at 74 of the 114 

sites in the complex, but those were small and the least difficult to deal 

with. The sites remaining to be cleaned up present enormous challenges to 

DOE. 

DOE’s cleanup program is carried out primarily under two environmental 

laws: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the Resource Conservation 

Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. Under section 120 of CERCLA, EPA 

must, where appropriate, evaluate hazardous waste sites at DOE’s 

facilities to determine whether the waste sites qualify for inclusion on the 

National Priorities List, EPA’s list of the nation’s most serious hazardous 

waste sites. For each facility listed on the National Priorities List, section 

120(e) (2) of CERCLA requires DOE to enter into an interagency 

agreement with EPA for the completion of all necessary remedial actions 

at the facility. The interagency agreement must include, among other 

things, the selection of and schedule for the completion of the remedial 

action. Interagency agreements are revised, as necessary, to incorporate 

new information, adjust schedules, and address changing conditions. 

These agreements often include the affected states as parties to the 

agreements. These agreements may be known as Federal Facility 

Agreements or Tri-Party Agreements. Under amendments to RCRA 

contained in section 105 of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, 

DOE generally must develop site treatment plans for its mixed-waste 

sites.2

 These plans are submitted for approval to states authorized by EPA 

to perform regulatory responsibilities for RCRA within their borders or to 

EPA if the state does not have the required authority. Upon approval of the 

treatment plans, the state or EPA must issue an order requiring 

 2

 Mixed wastes are wastes that contain both radioactive materials subject to the Atomic 

Energy Act and hazardous wastes, such as degreasing solvents. 

Background 
Page 7 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

compliance with the approved plan. The agreements are generally known 

as Federal Facility Compliance orders. 

DOE carries out its cleanup program through the Assistant Secretary for 

Environmental Management and in consultation with a variety of 

stakeholders. The Assistant Secretary directs DOE’s cleanup program at 

those sites under her direct control, including Hanford, Washington; Idaho 

Falls, Idaho; Savannah River, South Carolina; Rocky Flats, Colorado; and 

Fernald, Ohio; and is also responsible for the cleanup programs at other 

DOE sites, including Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Nevada Test Site, Nevada; 

and Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico. Many other 

stakeholders are involved in the cleanup. These include the federal EPA 

and state environmental agencies, county and local governmental 

agencies, citizen groups, advisory groups, Native American tribes, and 

other organizations. In most cases, DOE’s regulators are parties to the 

compliance agreements.3

 Other stakeholders advocate their views through 

various public involvement processes including site-specific advisory 

boards. 

The 70 compliance agreements at DOE sites vary greatly but can be 

divided into three main types: (1) 29 are agreements specifically required 

by CERCLA to address cleanup of federal sites on EPA’s national priorities 

list of the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites or by RCRA to address the 

management of hazardous waste or mixed radioactive and hazardous 

waste at DOE facilities, (2) 6 are court-ordered agreements resulting from 

lawsuits initiated primarily by states, and (3) 35 are other agreements, 

including state administrative orders enforcing state hazardous waste 

management laws. All of DOE’s major sites have at least one compliance 

agreement in place, and many of these sites have all three types of 

agreements. Regardless of type, the agreements all contain enforceable 

milestones that DOE has agreed to meet. Collectively, as of December 

2001, the 70 agreements had almost 7,200 schedule milestones.4

 The 

milestones range from completing a report or obtaining a permit to 

 3

 In a few instances, other stakeholders have become signatories to compliance agreements 

in the settlement of ongoing litigation brought against DOE. 

4

 Five of the agreements containing 130 milestones were completed and are no longer 

active. For the remaining agreements, the number of milestones will increase over time 

because some of the agreements provide for setting milestone dates periodically over the 

life of the agreements rather than trying to establish all of the milestone dates at the 

beginning of the agreements. 

Compliance 

Agreements Are of 

Three Main Types 
Page 8 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

finishing small cleanup actions or major cleanup projects. Table 1 shows, 

for each type of agreement, the number of sites and the number of 

schedule milestones they contain. See appendix I for a complete list of the 

70 compliance agreements and information on the schedule milestones 

they contain. 

Table 1: Types of DOE Compliance Agreements and Related Schedule Milestones 

Type of agreement 

Number of 

agreements Number of sites 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestones 

Agreements specifically 

required to implement 

CERCLA and RCRA 

requirements 

29 20 5,251 

Court-ordered agreements 

resulting from lawsuits 

6 6 146 

All other agreements 35 12 1,789 

Total 70 23a 7,186 

a

The numbers in this column do not add because many DOE sites have more than one agreement. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

Agreements of the first type—those specifically required by CERCLA or by 

RCRA—are in effect at all of DOE’s major sites. They tend to cover a 

relatively large number of cleanup activities and have the majority of 

schedule milestones that DOE must meet. Even within this category of 

agreements, however, the number of milestones in a particular agreement 

varies widely. For example, the Tri-Party Agreement at the Hanford site, 

which implements both CERCLA and RCRA requirements, contains 951 

milestones, and more milestones will be added in the future. The 

agreement addresses nearly all of the cleanup work and many 

administrative processes to be completed at the site over the next 70 

years. At another site, the agreement implementing CERCLA requirements 

at DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, contains 63 

milestones and more milestones will be added in the future. This 

agreement also addresses most of the cleanup activities that will occur at 

that site. Several factors can influence the number of milestones in an 

agreement, including the extent of environmental contamination and the 

preferences of the regulators. 

Agreements that implement court-ordered settlements exist at only a few 

DOE sites, tend to be focused on a specific issue or concern, and have 

fewer associated schedule milestones. These agreements are typically 

between DOE and states. The issues addressed by the agreements ranged 
Page 9 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

from treating high-level waste so it could be disposed of outside the state 

to submitting permit applications for treating, storing, and disposing of 

hazardous wastes in specific locations. For example, at the Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, a settlement agreement 

containing 33 milestones was signed that, among other things, established 

a schedule for removing used (“spent”) nuclear fuel from Idaho. The 

agreement was between DOE, the state of Idaho, and the U.S. Navy, 

because spent nuclear fuel from Navy ships is stored at the Idaho Falls 

site. The settlement agreement resolved a long-standing dispute between 

Idaho and DOE about shipping waste in and out of the state. 

The remaining agreements are based on either federal or state 

environmental laws and address a variety of purposes, such as cleaning up 

spills of hazardous waste or remediating groundwater contamination, and 

have a wide-ranging number of milestones. For example, an agreement at 

DOE’s Fernald, Ohio, site contains only four milestones and addresses 

neutralizing and removing hazardous waste at the site. In contrast, an 

agreement at the Nevada Test Site contains 464 milestones and addresses 

identifying locations of potential contamination and implementing 

corrective actions and also implementing specific sampling and 

monitoring requirements. 

DOE reported completing 4,558 of the 7,186 milestones in these 

agreements as of December 2001, about 80 percent of them by the time 

originally scheduled in the agreements. Many of the milestones completed 

either have been administrative, such as issuing a report, or have involved 

completing some kind of step in the cleanup process, such as conducting 

certain tests. Although such process steps may be important in arriving at 

eventual cleanup, it is unreliable to use them to judge how much has been 

accomplished in actually cleaning up the sites. When DOE misses a 

milestone, regulators have several options, including negotiating a new 

date or assessing a penalty. Thus far, regulators have generally been 

willing to negotiate extensions when DOE found itself unable to complete 

a milestone on time, approving about 93 percent of DOE’s requests for 

milestone changes. In 13 cases, regulators (generally the EPA) took 

enforcement actions for not meeting a milestone date. The 13 enforcement 

actions resulted in DOE making $1.8 million in monetary payments and 

about $4 million in other penalties (such as added work requirements), 

and were for problems such as delaying the construction of a mixed-waste 

laboratory or the selection of a method to remove and treat contamination 

from soil. At the sites we visited, regulators said that so far, they had been 

willing to take a collaborative and flexible approach to extending 

Most Milestone Dates 

Have Been Met, but 

Meeting Milestones Is 

Not a Good Measure 

of Cleanup Progress 
Page 10 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

milestones. However, regulators said that they generally were unwilling to 

extend milestones just to accommodate lower funding levels by DOE. At 

one site, we found instances in which this concern had grown to the point 

that DOE decided to adhere to a sensitive milestone rather than to propose 

using a less expensive approach that would have taken longer. 

DOE reported completing about two-thirds of the 7,186 milestones 

contained in its compliance agreements as of December 2001. Of the 

4,558 milestones completed, 3,639, or about 80 percent, were finished by 

the original due date for the milestone. The remainder of the completed 

milestones were finished either after the original due date had passed or 

on a renegotiated due date, but DOE reported that the regulators 

considered the milestones to be met. Currently, DOE has agreed to 

complete at least 2,400 additional milestones in the future. However, the 

actual number of milestones DOE will need to complete will likely be 

higher, as milestones will be added with changes in cleanup strategies or 

as new work is identified.5

Most of the milestones DOE must meet are contained in the compliance 

agreements at its six largest sites—Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho Falls, 

Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge, and Fernald. These six DOE sites are important 

because about two-thirds of DOE’s cleanup funding goes to them. These 

sites reported completing a total of 2,901 of their 4,262 milestones and met 

the original completion date for the milestones an average of 79 percent of 

the time. As table 2 shows, this percentage varied from a high of 95 

percent at Rocky Flats to a low of 47 percent at Savannah River. Besides 

the 1,334 milestones currently yet to be completed, additional milestones 

will be added in the future. 

 5

 The total number of milestones remaining to be completed cannot be determined because 

the number of milestones changes over time as milestones are added, dropped, or 

combined. 

DOE Completed Most 

Schedule Milestones on 

Time 
Page 11 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

Table 2: Information on Compliance Agreement Milestones at DOE’s Six Largest Cleanup Sites 

Dollars in millions 

Site and state 

Current EM 

lifecycle cleanup 

estimate 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesa

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original dateb

Percent of 

completed 

milestones 

meeting original 

due date 

Hanford (including Office of 

River Protection), Washington 

$62,097 1,080 825 743 90 

Savannah River, South Carolina 37,809 714 556 264 47 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 27,881 428 334 312 93 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 8,456 846 513 360 70 

Rocky Flats, Colorado 7,705 119 62 59 95 

Fernald, Ohio 3,341 1,075 611 558 91 

a

The total number of milestones is not yet known because at some sites, many milestones will be 

added in the future as cleanup strategies change, new schedules are set, and new work is defined. 

b

The number of milestones completed on the original due date is the total of all milestones 

satisfactorily completed by the original date DOE agreed to with regulators. Those milestones 

completed on other than the original due date were generally not considered missed milestones 

because the milestone dates were either extended or renegotiated with regulators. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

For several reasons DOE’s success in completing milestones on time is not 

a good measure of progress in cleaning up the weapons complex. 

Specifically: 

• Many of the milestones do not indicate what cleanup work has been 

accomplished. For example, many milestones require completing an 

administrative requirement that may not indicate what, if any, actual 

cleanup work was performed. At DOE’s six largest sites, DOE officials 

reported that about 73 percent of the 2,901 schedule milestones completed 

were tied to administrative requirements, such as obtaining a permit or 

submitting a report. 

• Some agreements do not have a fixed number of milestones, and 

additional milestones are added over time as work scope is more fully 

defined. For example, one of Idaho’s compliance agreements establishes 

milestones for remedial activities after a record of decision6

 has been 

signed for a given work area. Four records of decision associated with the 

 6

 A record of decision is a document used to select the method of remedial action to be 

implemented at a site following the completion of a feasibility study or an environmental 

impact statement. 

Number of Completed 

Milestones Is Not a Good 

Measure of DOE’s Cleanup 

Progress, but Milestones 

Are Useful to Regulators 
Page 12 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

agreement have not yet been approved. Their approval will increase the 

number of enforceable milestones required under that agreement. Because 

the total number of milestones associated with those types of agreements 

is not yet known, DOE’s overall progress in accomplishing the cleanup is 

difficult to determine. 

• Many of the remaining milestones are tied to DOE’s most expensive and 

challenging cleanup work, much of which still lies ahead. Approximately 

two-thirds of the estimated $220 billion cost of cleaning up DOE sites will 

be incurred after 2006. DOE has reported that the cleanup activities 

remaining to be done present enormous technical and management 

challenges, and considerable uncertainties exist over the final cost and 

time frame for completing the cleanup. 

Although schedule milestones are of questionable value as a measure of 

cleanup progress, the milestones do help regulators track DOE’s activities. 

Regulators at the four sites we visited said that the compliance agreements 

they oversee and the milestones associated with those agreements provide 

a way to bring DOE into compliance with existing environmental laws and 

regulations. They said the agreements also help to integrate the 

requirements that exist under various federal laws and allow regulators to 

track annual progress against DOE’s milestone commitments. 

Regulators have generally been flexible in agreeing with DOE to change 

milestone dates when the original milestone cannot be met. DOE received 

approval to change milestone deadlines in over 93 percent of the 1,413 

requests made to regulators. Only 3 percent of DOE’s requests were 

denied. Regulators at the four sites we visited told us they prefer to be 

flexible with DOE on accomplishing an agreement’s cleanup goals. For 

example, they generally expressed willingness to work with DOE to 

extend milestone deadlines when a problem arises due to technology 

limitations or engineering problems. Because regulators have been so 

willing to adjust milestones, DOE officials reported missing a total of only 

48 milestones, or about 1 percent of milestones that have been completed. 

Even in those few instances where DOE missed milestone deadlines and 

regulators were unwilling to negotiate revised dates, regulators have 

infrequently applied penalties available under the compliance agreements. 

DOE reported that regulators have taken enforcement actions only 13

times since 1988 when DOE failed to meet milestone deadlines. These 

enforcement actions resulted in DOE paying about $1.8 million in 

monetary penalties, as shown in table 3. 

Regulators Have Generally 

Been Willing to 

Accommodate Delayed or 

Missed Milestones 
Page 13 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

Table 3: Number of Compliance Agreement Missed Milestones and Monetary

Penalties Paid at DOE Sites 

Site and state 

Milestones 

missed 

Enforcement 

actions taken

Monetary penalty 

paid 

Hanford, Washington 13 2 $100,000 a

Idaho Falls, Idaho 4 2 970,000 b

Portsmouth, Ohio 2 2 292,000 

Fernald, Ohio 7 3 250,000 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 2 2 100,000 

Rocky Flats, Colorado 2 2 100,000 

Total 30 13 $1,812,000 

a

Hanford regulators recently levied a monetary penalty of $5,000 for the first week and $10,000 for 

each additional week that DOE missed a July 31, 2001, milestone to start construction of a waste 

treatment facility. However, regulators said they will cancel the penalty if DOE meets a new milestone 

date set for the end of this year. Therefore, this monetary penalty is not included in table 3. 

b

In April 2002, DOE agreed to pay $800,000 for missing a milestone requiring submission of scope of 

work documents for one of the site’s waste burial sites. As of the time of this report, DOE had not yet 

paid the penalty. Therefore, this monetary penalty is not included in table 3. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

In addition to or instead of regulators assessing monetary penalties, 

several DOE sites agreed to other arrangements valued at about $4 million. 

For example, for missing a milestone to open a transuranic7

 waste storage 

facility at the Rocky Flats site, the site agreed to provide a $40,000 grant to 

a local emergency planning committee to support a chemical safety in 

schools program. At the Oak Ridge site, because of delays in operating a 

mixed waste incinerator, site officials agreed to move up the completion 

date for $1.4 million worth of cleanup work already scheduled. Also, at 

three sites—Paducah, Kentucky; Lawrence Livermore Main Site, 

California; and Nevada Test Site, Nevada—the regulators either did not 

impose penalties for missed milestones or the issue was still under 

discussion with DOE. 

While the consequences so far of not meeting schedule milestones have 

been few, regulators at individual sites may be less tolerant if DOE’s level 

of effort declines at their site. Regulators at the four sites we visited told 

us while they were willing to renegotiate milestone deadlines for technical 

uncertainties, they were far less inclined to be flexible if delays occurred 

 7

 Transuranic waste contains man-made radioactive elements with atomic numbers higher 

than that of uranium, such as plutonium. 

Regulators May Be Less 

Flexible if Level of Effort 

Declines 
Page 14 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

because DOE did not provide the funding needed to accomplish work by 

the dates agreed to in the compliance agreements. The federal and state 

regulators told us that they prefer to be flexible and work with DOE to 

renegotiate milestone deadlines that will allow DOE to develop 

appropriate strategies to accomplish the work. However, these regulators 

also noted that a lack of funding was not a valid reason for DOE to avoid 

meeting its compliance requirements. 

At DOE’s Idaho Falls site, DOE has chosen not to pursue potentially less 

expensive ways to accomplish cleanup work in order to comply with a 

court-ordered milestone for shipment of wastes off-site. For example, 

DOE agreed with its regulators to characterize and prepare for shipment 

off-site about 15,000 barrels of untreated transuranic waste by December 

31, 2002. This milestone is part of an agreement that also allows separate 

shipments of spent nuclear fuel from navy ships to be received at DOE’s 

Idaho Falls site. According to a February 1999 report by its inspector 

general, DOE could save about $66 million by deferring the processing and 

shipment off-site of the transuranic waste until a planned on-site treatment 

facility was completed, thus reducing the waste volume and cost to 

prepare it for shipment.8

 But doing so would have caused DOE to miss the 

deadline set in the site’s compliance agreement to ship the waste from the 

state. Although missing the deadline carries no monetary penalties under 

this agreement, missing it would allow the state to suspend shipments of 

DOE spent nuclear fuel into the Idaho site for storage. To avoid this 

possibility, DOE decided not to wait until March 2003 or later, when DOE 

estimated a new treatment facility would be operational to prepare the 

waste for shipment at a substantially reduced cost. Instead, DOE chose to 

comply with the milestone to characterize, repackage, and ship the waste 

without treatment, even though it was the more expensive option. 

 8 Although DOE generally agreed with the cost savings presented in the inspector general’s 

report in 1999, DOE is now stating that the inspector general’s analysis of cost savings was 

incomplete because the analysis did not consider additional costs associated with 

suspending spent nuclear fuel shipments. 
Page 15 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

The president’s budget proposal for DOE, which is the version of the DOE 

budget submitted to the Congress, does not specifically identify the cost of 

complying with compliance agreements. DOE is not required to provide 

this information. As part of formulating their budget requests for DOE 

headquarters, individual DOE sites go through a process that includes 

developing compliance estimates.9

 However, in the process that DOE 

headquarters uses to finalize the DOE-wide budget request, the site-level 

estimates become absorbed without specific identification into broader 

budget considerations that revolve around DOE-wide funding availability 

and other needs. As DOE headquarters officials adjust the budget amounts 

in the process of reconciling various competing funding needs, the final 

budget submitted to the Congress has, with few exceptions, no clear 

relationship to the amounts sites estimated were needed to fund 

compliance requirements. Even if it were possible to trace this 

relationship in the final budget, the figure would have limited significance, 

because sites’ compliance cost estimates are based primarily on the 

expected size of the budget. If the funding sites receive is insufficient to 

accomplish all of the compliance activities planned for that year, sites 

must decide which activities to defer to future years. If sites receive more 

funding than anticipated in a particular year, they have an opportunity to 

increase the amount of money spent on compliance requirements. 

The president’s budget submitted to the Congress does not provide 

information on the amount of funding requested for DOE’s compliance 

requirements. DOE sites prepare budget estimates that include compliance 

cost estimates and submit them for consideration by DOE headquarters. 

DOE headquarters officials evaluate individual site estimates and combine 

them into an overall DOE-wide budget, taking into account broader 

considerations and other priorities that DOE must address as part of the 

give and take of the budget process. The budget sent to the Congress has 

summary information on DOE’s programs and activities, but it provides no 

information on the portion of the budget needed to fund compliance 

requirements. DOE is not required to develop or present this information 

to the Congress. The president’s budget typically states that the DOE 

funding requested is sufficient to substantially comply with compliance 

 9

 Sites develop estimates of the compliance cost associated with compliance agreements, 

as well as federal, state, or local laws and regulations. In this report, compliance costs are 

limited to those costs associated with DOE’s compliance agreements. 

DOE’s Budget 

Request Does Not 

Identify the Funding 

Needed to Meet 

Compliance 

Requirements 

Cost of Compliance 

Requirements Is Not 

Identified in the Budget 

Submitted to the Congress 
Page 16 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

agreements, but the total amount of funding needed for compliance is not 

developed or disclosed. 

Officials at DOE headquarters told us that they did not think information 

on funding to meet compliance requirements was needed in the 

president’s budget. They noted that budget guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget does not require DOE to develop or present 

information on the cost of meeting compliance requirements, and they 

said doing so for the thousands of milestones DOE must meet would be 

unnecessarily burdensome. They said their approach has been to allocate 

funds appropriated by the Congress and make it the sites’ responsibility to 

use the funds in a way that meets the compliance agreement milestones 

established at the site level. 

Although DOE is not required to identify its compliance costs in the 

budget request that goes to the Congress, DOE does develop this 

information at the site level. This occurs because many of the compliance 

agreements require DOE to request sufficient funding each year to meet all 

of the requirements in the agreements. Also, DOE must respond to 

Executive Order 12088, which directs executive agencies to ensure that 

they request sufficient funds to comply with pollution control standards. 

Accordingly, each year DOE’s sites develop budget estimates that also 

identify the amount needed to meet compliance requirements. 

The sites’ process in developing these compliance estimates shows that a 

compliance estimate is a flexible number. DOE sites develop at least two 

budget estimates each year, and each estimate includes an amount 

identified as compliance requirements. Two budget estimates typically 

completed by the sites each year are the “full requirements” estimate and 

the “target” estimate. The full requirements estimate identifies how much 

money a site would need to accomplish its work in what site officials 

consider to be the most desirable fashion. The target estimate reflects a 

budget strategy based primarily on the amount of funding the site received 

the previous year and is considered a more realistic estimate of the 

funding a site can expect to receive. For each of these budget estimates, 

DOE sites also include an estimate of their compliance costs. As a result of 

this process, DOE sites usually have different estimates of their 

compliance costs for the same budget year. Table 4 shows how the 

compliance cost estimates related to compliance agreements changed 

under different budget scenarios. 

Compliance Estimates at 

the Site Level Mainly 

Reflect Anticipated Budget 

Levels 
Page 17 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

Table 4: Cost of Meeting Compliance Requirements under Two Different Budget 

Scenarios at Four DOE Sites, Fiscal Year 2002

Dollars in millions 

Full requirements estimate Target estimate 

DOE Site Compliance a Total Compliance a Total 

Hanford 

Richland $429.6 $958.4 $265.5 $721.8 

River 

Protection 

987.1 1,149.7 685.2 838.0 

Idaho Falls 366.6 643.1 313.6 540.6 

Savannah 

River 

294.5 1,411.1 288.4 1,268.5 

Oak Ridge 424.6 741.7 405.5 668.3 

a

The compliance amounts in this column show only the funding associated with meeting requirements 

contained in compliance agreements. It does not include (1) estimates of the funding needed to 

comply with requirements in federal, state, or local environmental laws and regulations that are not 

part of a compliance agreement or (2) the funding DOE estimates is necessary to maintain minimal 

site infrastructure, security, and safety requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

The multiple estimates of compliance costs developed by DOE sites 

indicate that DOE sites have alternative ways of achieving compliance in 

any given year. When we asked DOE officials to explain how the sites can 

have different estimates of the cost of meeting compliance requirements in 

the same year, they said that how much DOE plans to spend on 

compliance activities each year varies depending on the total amount of 

money available. Because many of the compliance milestones are due in 

the future, sites estimate how much compliance activity is needed each 

year to meet the future milestones. If sites anticipate that less money will 

be available, they must decide what compliance activities are critical for 

that year and defer work on some longer-term milestones to future years. 

On the other hand, if more money is available, sites have an opportunity to 

increase spending on compliance activities earlier than absolutely 

necessary. 

DOE is concerned that deferring activities that support milestones in 

future years may cause future milestones to be missed or renegotiated. In 

general, the sites’ target estimates and actual funding received have been 

below the sites’ full requirements estimates. DOE officials in headquarters 

and the sites we visited are concerned that recurring years of funding 

below the “full requirements” level could result in a growth of future 

funding needs that eventually may cause DOE to fail to meet milestone 

dates and/or require it to renegotiate the milestones. As an alternative to 
Page 18 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

receiving more funding, DOE occasionally is able to identify operational 

efficiencies that accomplish the work for less money. DOE officials also 

acknowledged that DOE’s current initiative to reassess its overall cleanup 

approach may result in identifying alternative cleanup approaches that 

could eliminate the need to perform some of the future cleanup work that 

has been deferred. 

Compliance agreements are site-specific and are not intended as a way to 

manage environmental risks across DOE’s many sites. The agreements 

generally reflect cleanup priorities established by local stakeholders and 

set out a sequence for accomplishing the work. Risk is one factor 

considered in sequencing the cleanup work at the sites, but other factors 

such as demonstrating cleanup progress and reducing the overall cost of 

maintaining facilities are also considered. DOE has not developed a 

comprehensive, relative ranking of the risks that it faces across its sites; as 

a result, it has no systematic way to make decisions among sites based on 

risk. DOE has tried to develop such a methodology in the past but has 

been unsuccessful in doing so. Instead, DOE has provided relatively stable 

funding to its sites each year and generally allowed local stakeholders to 

determine their priorities for sequencing work at the sites. This approach 

may change: the department’s recently announced initiative to improve the 

performance of the environmental management program includes, as a key 

step, developing a risk-based cleanup strategy. DOE is currently evaluating 

how best to proceed in developing the risk-based strategy. 

DOE’s compliance agreements focus on environmental issues at specific 

sites. Because they are site-specific and do not include information on the 

risks being addressed, the agreements do not provide a means of 

prioritizing among sites and, therefore, do not provide a basis for decisionmaking across all DOE sites. For example, a compliance agreement at 

Savannah River focuses on achieving compliance with applicable CERCLA 

and RCRA requirements but does not specify the level of risks being 

addressed by specific cleanup activities. 

In developing the compliance agreements, risk is only one of several 

factors considered in setting agreement milestones. Other factors include 

the preferences and concerns of local stakeholders, business and technical 

risk, the cost associated with maintaining old facilities, and the desire to 

achieve demonstrable progress on cleanup. The schedules for when and in 

what sequence to perform the cleanup work reflect local DOE and 

Compliance 

Agreements Are Site 

Specific and Do Not 

Allow for Managing 

Risks across DOE 

Sites 

Compliance Agreements 

Do Not Provide a Basis for 

Setting Cleanup Priorities 

across DOE Sites 
Page 19 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

stakeholder views on these and other factors. For example, Savannah 

River regulators told us that they were primarily concerned that DOE 

maintain a certain level of effort linked to the compliance agreement and 

they expected DOE to schedule this work to most efficiently clean up the 

site. DOE developed a decision model to determine how to allocate its 

cleanup dollars at Savannah River to achieve this efficiency. A group of 

outside reviewers assessing the system at the request of site management 

concluded that the model was so strongly weighted to efficiency that it 

was unlikely that serious risks to human health or the environment could 

alter the sequencing of work. DOE officials said they revised the model so 

that serious risks receive greater emphasis. 

In response to concerns expressed by the Congress and others about the 

effectiveness of the cleanup program, DOE has made several attempts to 

develop a national, risk-based approach to cleanup. As early as 1993, the 

Congress was urging DOE to develop a mechanism for establishing 

priorities among competing cleanup requirements. In 1995, we reported 

that unrealistic cleanup plans had impeded DOE’s progress and that DOE 

needed to adopt a national risk-based cleanup strategy. DOE’s efforts to do 

so occurred over several years. For example, 

• In 1995, DOE developed risk data sheets as part of the budget 

development process. First used to develop the budget estimate for fiscal 

year 1998, the risk data sheets were used to assign scores based on such 

elements as public and worker health and environmental protection. The 

approach suffered from data limitations, poor definitions of the activities, 

inconsistent scoring of risk, and inadequate involvement with 

stakeholders. Finally, in 1997 DOE abandoned this effort. 

• In 1997, DOE established risk classifications as part of its project baseline 

summaries.10 The project baseline summaries contained a component that 

addressed each project’s environmental risk. However, DOE did not have 

a clear basis for classifying risks, and the effort was not implemented 

consistently or generally accepted by DOE field staff. After 1998, this 

information was no longer developed. 

• In 1999, DOE pilot tested the use of site risk profiles at 10 DOE offices. 

The profiles were intended to provide risk information about the sites, 

make effective use of existing data at the sites, and incorporate 

 10 These summaries are used to estimate the funding needs and planned activities over the 

life of a project. 

DOE’s Past Attempts to 

Develop a Risk-based 

Approach to Cleanup Were 

Unsuccessful 
Page 20 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

stakeholder input. However, reviewers found that the site profiles failed to 

adequately address environmental or worker risks because the risks were 

not consistently or adequately documented. In 2001, DOE eliminated a 

support group responsible for assisting the sites with this effort, and the 

risk profiles are generally no longer being developed or used. 

A 1999 DOE-funded study to evaluate its efforts to establish greater use of 

risk-based decision making concluded that none of the attempts had been 

successful.11 Common problems identified by the study included poor 

documentation of risks and inconsistent scoring of risks between sites. 

The study reported that factors contributing to the failure of these efforts 

included a lack of consistent vision about how to use risk to establish 

work priorities, the lack of confidence in the results by DOE personnel, 

the unacceptability of the approaches to stakeholders at the sites, and 

DOE’s overall failure to integrate any of the approaches into the decisionmaking process. However, the study concluded that the use of risk as a 

criterion for cleanup decision-making across DOE’s sites was not only 

essential, but was feasible and practical, given an appropriate level of 

commitment and effort by DOE. 

Without a national, risk-based approach to cleanup in place, DOE’s budget 

strategy has been to provide stable funding for individual sites and let the 

sites determine what they needed most to accomplish. For example, over 

the last 5 years, funding for Savannah River has ranged from $1.1 billion to 

$1.2 billion and Rocky Flats received from $621 million to $665 million.12

DOE’s Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and 

Budget told us that this approach allowed sites to allocate their funding 

based on their site-specific risk, compliance, and closure objectives. 

 11 Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Peer Review of the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Use of Risk in Its Prioritization Process, (New Brunswick, NJ: Dec. 

15, 1999). 

12 The two operations offices with substantial increases--Richland (from $951 million to 

$1.7 billion) and Oak Ridge (from $516 million to $726 million)--reflect particular issues 

that emerged in the last couple of years at those offices. At Hanford, funding has increased 

primarily to build the $4 billion plant to vitrify high-level tank wastes while at Oak Ridge 

funding was increased to deal with revelations about longstanding problems at the 

Paducah and Portsmouth Uranium Enrichment plants. 
Page 21 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

DOE plans to shift its cleanup program to place greater focus on rapid 

reduction of environmental risk. In February 2002, DOE released a report 

describing numerous problems with the environmental management 

program and recommending a number of corrective actions.13 The report 

concluded that, among other things, the cleanup program was not based 

on a comprehensive, coherent, technically supported risk prioritization; it 

was not focused on accelerating risk reduction; and it was not addressing 

the challenges of uncontrolled cost and schedule growth. The report 

recommended that DOE, in consultation with its regulators, move to a 

national strategy for cleanup. In addition, the report noted that the 

compliance agreements have failed to achieve the expected risk reduction 

and have sometimes not focused on the highest risk. The report 

recommended that DOE develop specific proposals and present them to 

the states and EPA with accelerated risk reduction as the goal. 

DOE’s new initiative provides additional funds for cleanup reform and is 

designed to serve as an incentive to sites and regulators to identify 

accelerated risk reduction and cleanup approaches. DOE’s fiscal year 2003 

budget request includes a request for $800 million for this purpose. 

Moreover, the Administration has agreed to support up to an additional 

$300 million if needed for cleanup reforms. The set-aside would come 

from a reduction in individual site funding levels and an increase in the 

overall funding level for the cleanup program. The money would be made 

available to sites that reach agreements with federal and state regulators 

on accelerated cleanup approaches. Sites that do not develop accelerated 

programs would not be eligible for the funds. As a result, sites that do not 

participate could receive less funding than in past years. One initial 

response has been at Hanford, where DOE and the regulators signed a 

letter of intent in March 2002 to accelerate cleanup at the site by 35 years 

or more. DOE and the regulators agreed to consider the greatest risks first 

as a principle in setting cleanup priorities. They also agreed to consider, as 

targets of opportunity for accelerated risk reduction, 42 potential areas 

identified in a recent study at the site. While accelerating the cleanup may 

hold promise, Hanford officials acknowledged that much technical, 

regulatory, and operational work is required to actually implement the 

proposals in the new approach. 

 13 U.S. Department of Energy, A Review of the Environmental Management Program, 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002). 

DOE’s Current Initiative to 

Improve the Cleanup 

Program Has Identified 

Accelerated Risk 

Reduction as a Central 

Theme 
Page 22 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

DOE is proceeding with the selection and approval of accelerated 

programs at the sites, as well as identifying the funding for those 

accelerated programs. At the same time, DOE is considering how to best 

develop a risk-based cleanup strategy. DOE’s Assistant Secretary for 

Environmental Management said that in developing the risk-based 

approach, DOE should use available technical information, existing 

reports, DOE’s own knowledge, and common sense to make risk-based 

decisions. Because DOE’s approach to risk assessment is under 

development, it is unclear how effective it will be or whether in 

implementing it, DOE will be able to overcome the barriers encountered 

during past efforts to formalize a risk-assessment process. In the interim, 

DOE headquarters review teams were evaluating the activities at each site 

and were qualitatively incorporating risk into those evaluations. 

Compliance agreements have not been a barrier to previous DOE 

management improvements, but it is not clear if the agreements will be 

used to oppose proposed changes stemming from the February 2002 

initiative. In the past, DOE has tried other management initiatives, within 

the framework of the compliance agreements. These initiatives generally 

have not involved significant changes in cleanup approach or the potential 

for significant reductions in funding at individual sites. We found no 

evidence that the compliance agreements were a barrier to implementing 

such initiatives or were a factor in their success or failure. Instead, the 

agreements have been used primarily to hold DOE accountable, through 

enforceable milestones, for cleaning up environmental hazards using 

whatever management strategy DOE employed to do so. 

The outcome could be different if regulators at individual sites perceive 

DOE’s latest initiative as an attempt to reduce the level of cleanup activity 

at the sites. Although DOE generally did not involve regulators in 

developing its February 2002 initiative to implement faster, risk-based 

cleanup of its sites, based on our discussions with regulators at several 

sites, it is unlikely that the compliance agreements would be a barrier to 

the initiative, as long as DOE’s approach is consistent with environmental 

laws and results in no reduction in funding at individual sites. However, 

the discussions indicated that DOE could encounter opposition if its 

realignment of cleanup priorities results in a site’s receiving significantly 

less funding and therefore accomplishing considerably less work than 

called for in the agreement. Parties to the compliance agreements 

indicated that if this occurs, they may not be willing to negotiate with DOE 

to extend schedule milestones further. In addition, it is unclear if 

regulators will use the compliance agreements to resist other aspects of 

Compliance 

Agreements Were Not 

a Barrier to Past 

Management 

Improvements, but 

Impact on February 

2002 Initiative Is 

Unclear 
Page 23 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

DOE’s initiative, such as reclassifying waste to different risk categories in 

order to increase disposal options. 

DOE has implemented or tried to implement a number of management 

initiatives in recent years to improve its performance and address 

uncontrolled cost and schedule growth. For example, in 1994 it launched 

its contract reform initiative, in 1995 it established its privatization 

initiative, and in 1998 it implemented its accelerated path-to-closure 

initiative. These initiatives affected how DOE approached the cleanup 

work, the relationship DOE had with its contractors, and in some cases the 

schedule for completing the work. Based on reviewing past evaluations of 

these initiatives and discussions with DOE officials, it appears that DOE 

proceeded with these initiatives without significant resistance or 

constraints as a result of the compliance agreements. For example: 

• DOE’s contract reform initiative involved a number of separate efforts, 

including greater use of fixed-price contracts and performance-based 

contracts, and a shift to greater use of management and integrating 

contracts that encourage using a greater number of specialized 

contractors and an integrating contractor to coordinate the various 

activities. DOE has implemented these reforms at many of its sites, 

including all of its large cleanup sites. Although the overall result of DOE’s 

contract reform initiative is difficult to measure, the various contracting 

reforms occurred within the framework of the existing cleanup 

approaches reflected in the compliance agreements in effect at those 

sites.14

• DOE’s privatization initiative was intended to reduce the cost of cleanup 

by attracting “best in class” contractors with fixed-price contracts that 

required contractors to design, finance, build, own, and operate treatment 

facilities and to receive payments only for successfully treating DOE’s 

wastes. Although this approach required substantially different 

contracting and financing arrangements and there was considerable 

uncertainty about its eventual success, DOE implemented privatization 

projects at a number of its major sites, even though doing so sometimes 

required delaying or renegotiating near-term milestones in the compliance 

agreements. For example, to implement a privatization contract for the 

Hanford tank waste project, DOE renegotiated several milestones with its 

 14 We currently have a review underway to assess the results of DOE’s contract reform 

initiatives. 

Compliance Agreements 

Have Not Been a Barrier to 

DOE’s Past Management 

Initiatives 
Page 24 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

regulators. The state of Washington and EPA eventually agreed to the 

changes, even though they had concerns about DOE’s approach. This 

privatization project failed a few years later, stemming primarily from 

significant cost growth, poor contractor performance, and inadequate 

DOE management. 

• DOE’s path-to-closure initiative was aimed at developing more efficient 

ways to conduct cleanup and, as a result, accelerate cleanup and closure 

of DOE sites. DOE’s goal was to clean up 41 of its 53 remaining 

contaminated sites by 2006. It proceeded to establish new cleanup and 

closure goals at many of its sites within the framework of the existing 

compliance agreements. For example, the planned closure of the Rocky 

Flats site was changed from 2010 to 2006 through a revision of the project 

baseline and award of a new closure contract.15 State of Colorado and EPA 

regulators supported those changes, even though they were not consistent 

with milestone dates in the site agreement. 

Regulators at the DOE sites we visited acknowledged that compliance 

agreements have not been a barrier to DOE’s management improvement 

initiatives. They said that although the agreements hold DOE accountable 

for its cleanup responsibilities, the agreements do not prescribe how DOE 

should manage its program. Several milestones in the compliance 

agreements have been renegotiated because DOE wanted to incorporate 

changes in its management approach with a resulting effect on specific 

projects. For example, DOE’s spent nuclear fuel project at Hanford is an 

effort to stabilize about 2,100 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel 

stored in aging basins and move the stabilized fuel farther from the 

Columbia River. Regulators agreed to revised interim milestones for the 

work after DOE proposed changes that would save money and reduce the 

risk of radiation exposure to workers. 

DOE’s management reform initiative is in the early stages and site-specific 

strategies are only beginning to emerge. DOE has begun discussions with 

officials in several states to implement this accelerated initiative. 

However, because DOE’s cleanup reform initiative is in its early stages, it 

is unclear how the site compliance agreements will affect implementation 

 15 For a discussion of the Rocky Flats Closure Contract, see U.S. General Accounting 

Office, Nuclear Cleanup: Progress Made at Rocky Flats, but Closure by 2006 Is Unlikely, 

and Costs May Increase, GAO-01-284 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2001). 

Effect of Compliance 

Agreements on Current 

Management Initiative Is 

Unclear 
Page 25 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

of DOE’s latest cleanup reforms. For example, it is not yet known how 

many sites will participate in DOE’s initiative and how many other sites 

will encounter cleanup delays because of reduced funding. 

Parties to the agreements at the sites we visited were supportive of DOE 

efforts to improve management of the cleanup program, but expressed 

some concerns about proposals stemming from the February 2002 review 

of the program. They said that DOE’s efforts to accelerate cleanup and 

focus attention on the more serious environmental risks are welcomed 

and encouraged because such initiatives are consistent with the 

regulators’ overall goals of reducing risks to human health and the 

environment. Most regulators added, however, that DOE generally had not 

consulted with them in developing its reform initiative and the regulators 

were concerned about being excluded from the process. They also said 

that DOE’s initiative lacked specifics and that they had numerous 

questions about the criteria DOE will use to select sites and the process 

DOE will follow at those sites to develop an implementation plan to 

accelerate cleanup and modify cleanup approaches. Most regulators said 

they would not view as favorable any attempt by DOE to avoid appropriate 

waste treatment activities or significantly delay treatment by reducing 

funding available to sites. In such a case, these regulators are likely to 

oppose DOE’s initiative. They told us that they most likely would not be 

willing to renegotiate milestones in the compliance agreements if doing so 

would lead to delays in the cleanup program at their sites. In addition, 

these regulators said that if DOE misses the milestones after reducing the 

funding at individual sites, they would enforce the milestones in the 

compliance agreements. 

The effect of compliance agreements on other aspects of DOE’s initiative, 

especially its proposal to reclassify waste into different risk categories to 

increase disposal options, is also unclear. Some of the proposed changes 

in waste treatment, such as eliminating the need to vitrify at least 75 

percent of the high-level waste, which could result in disposing of more of 

the waste at DOE sites, would signal major changes in DOE assumptions 

about acceptable waste treatment and disposal options. For example, DOE 

is considering the possibility of reclassifying much of its high-level waste 

as low-level mixed waste or transuranic waste based on the risk 

attributable to its actual composition.16 Most of the high-level waste is 

 16 Currently, DOE classifies this high-level waste based on the treatment process that 

created the waste. 
Page 26 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

located at DOE’s Hanford site. In addition, DOE officials at Hanford are 

considering relaxing the requirement to transport a portion of its 

transuranic waste to New Mexico, allowing instead for disposal on-site. 

While these options could reduce treatment and disposal costs and time 

frames, DOE would need to obtain regulatory and stakeholder agreement 

to alter key commitments. These types of changes in treatment approach 

would require modifications to current compliance agreements. It is 

unclear whether DOE’s regulators will be supportive of these changes. At 

Hanford, the regulators have agreed to discuss these types of changes in 

cleanup strategy. However, at all four sites we visited, regulators said that, 

although they supported DOE efforts to improve its operations, they also 

wanted DOE to meet its compliance commitments. The regulators 

commented that it is unclear how DOE’s proposed initiatives will be 

implemented, what technologies will be considered, and whether the 

changes will result in reduced cost and accelerated cleanup while 

adequately protecting human health and the environment. 

DOE generally did not seek input from site regulators or other 

stakeholders when developing its latest initiative. DOE’s review team 

leader said that at the time the review team visited individual sites, the 

team had not formulated its conclusions or recommendations and so did 

not seek regulator input. Furthermore, the team leader said that, during 

the review, internal discussions were being held within DOE about 

improving ineffective cleanup processes, such as contracting procedures. 

To include regulators on the review team during these discussions, 

according to the team leader, could have created the impression that the 

criticism of DOE processes was regulator driven rather than reflecting the 

views of DOE and contractor staff. According to the Associate Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Budget, since the proposals coming 

from the review team were made public in February, DOE has held 

discussions with regulators at all sites and headquarters about 

implementing the proposals. 

DOE carries out its cleanup program in a complex legal and regulatory 

environment. Compliance agreements are one mechanism used to 

organize these legal and regulatory requirements and set priorities for 

cleanup at specific sites. As such, the agreements are not a useful tool, nor 

were they intended to be, for managing DOE’s cleanup program from a 

national, system-wide perspective. 

It is unclear if compliance agreements will be a potential barrier to DOE’s 

current national cleanup reform initiative. This initiative involves placing a 

Conclusions 
Page 27 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

greater focus on rapidly reducing environmental risks and, as a result, 

restructuring how DOE allocates its funding for cleanup across its sites. In 

some cases DOE is also considering dramatically different cleanup 

approaches than regulators and other stakeholders have come to expect. 

DOE’s compliance agreements could be a potential barrier to these 

changes, particularly at those sites where funding may be reduced as a 

result of implementing the new initiatives or where a significantly different 

approach is being proposed. 

DOE faces two main challenges in going forward with its initiative. The 

first is following through on its plan to develop and implement a riskbased method to prioritize its various cleanup activities. Given past failed 

attempts to implement a risk-based approach to cleanup, management 

leadership and resolve will be needed to overcome the barriers 

encountered in past attempts. The second challenge for DOE is following 

through on its plan to involve regulators in site implementation plans. 

DOE generally did not involve states and regulatory agencies in the 

development of its management improvement initiative. Regulators have 

expressed concerns about the lack of specifics in the initiative, how 

implementation plans will be developed at individual sites, and about 

proposals that may delay or significantly alter cleanup strategies. 

Addressing both of these challenges will be important to better ensure that 

DOE’s latest management improvement initiative will achieve the desired 

results of accelerating risk reduction and reducing cleanup costs. 

We provided a copy of our draft report to the Department of Energy for 

review and comment. DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management responded that our draft report accurately presented 

information on the current status of compliance agreements, and generally 

agreed with the findings of the report. In addition, DOE provided technical 

clarifications and corrections to our report, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

We performed our review from July 2001 through May 2002 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of 

Energy. We will also make copies available to others on request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

Agency Comments 
Page 28 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions or need 

additional information, please call me at (202) 512-3841. Other staff 

contributing to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

(Ms.) Gary L. Jones 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 29 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

This appendix presents information provided by DOE and from a 

questionnaire we administered to each of the operations offices that have 

sites with compliance agreements. The agreements are categorized into 

three types: “1” indicates agreements specifically required by section 

120(e) (2) of CERCLA or by RCRA (as amended by section 105 of the 

Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992), “2” indicates court-ordered 

agreements resulting from lawsuits, “3” indicates all other agreements. We 

defined a “compliance agreement” as a legally enforceable agreement 

between DOE and another party or parties that contained enforceable 

milestones defining cleanup activities that DOE must achieve by specified 

or ascertainable dates and that are funded by DOE’s EM program. 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Albuquerque Operations Office 

Los Alamos 

National 

Laboratory 

Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Order; 

10/4/1995 

1 Store, treat, and 

dispose of 

covered mixed 

wastes at the 

laboratory

(incorporates 

Site Treatment 

Plan) 

DOE; New 

Mexico 

Environment 

Department; 

University of 

California 

Los Alamos 129 72 70 

National 

Laboratory, 

New Mexico 

$2,188 

Consent 

Agreement; 

12/10/1993d

3 Implement 

remedial action 

plan and 

compliance 

schedule for 

storage of mixed 

waste 

DOE; University 

of California; 

New Mexico 

Environment 

Department 

3 3 3 

Chicago Operations Office 

Brookhaven 

National 

Laboratory, 

New York 

$361 

Brookhaven 

National 

Laboratory 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement; 

2/28/1992 

1 Establish a 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

developing, 

implementing, 

and monitoring 

appropriate 

response 

actions at the 

site; integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

New York State 

Department of 

Environmental 

Conservation 

63 47 23 

Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 30 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Idaho Operations Office 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

and Consent 

Order for the 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

Laboratory; 

12/9/1991 

1 Establish 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

implementing 

cleanup actions 

in accordance 

with CERCLA, 

RCRA, and the 

Idaho 

Hazardous 

Waste Act; 

integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

state of Idaho 

154 123 109 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

Laboratory 

Consent 

Order; 

11/1/1995 

1 Resolve mixed 

waste storage 

violations, and 

commit to 

implement the 

Site Treatment 

Plan, which is 

incorporated by 

reference 

DOE; Idaho 

Department of 

Health and 

Welfare 

100 63 55 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

and 

Environmental 

Laboratory, 

Idaho 

$27,881 

Settlement 

agreement in 

Public 

Services 

Company of 

Colorado v. 

Batt and 

United States 

v. Batt; 

10/16/1995 

2 Treat spent fuel, 

high-level waste, 

and transuranic 

wastes in Idaho 

so as to allow 

disposal outside 

the state 

DOE; U.S. 

Department of 

the Navy; state 

of Idaho 

33 22 22 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 31 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

and 

Environmental 

Laboratory 

Consent 

Order; 

4/23/1999 

3 Resolve alleged 

violations of 

federal and state 

hazardous 

waste 

requirements, 

including 

generation, 

treatment, 

storage, and 

disposal of 

these wastes 

DOE; Idaho 

Department of 

Health and 

Welfare 

31 31 31 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

Laboratory 

Consent 

Order; 

4/3/1992 

3 Resolve alleged 

violations, 

including 

storage of mixed 

waste 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Idaho 

Department of 

Health and 

Welfare 

64 62 62 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

and 

Environmental 

Laboratory 

Consent 

Order; 

1/25/2001d

3 Resolve alleged 

violations of 

federal and state 

hazardous 

waste 

management 

requirements 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Idaho 

Department of 

Health and 

Welfare 

14 14 14 

Consent 

Order; 

6/14/2000 

3 Resolve 

potential 

violations of 

state hazardous 

waste 

management 

laws 

DOE; Idaho 

Department of 

Health and 

Welfare 

32 19 19 

Pinellas, 

Florida 

$266 

Remediation 

Agreement for 

the Four and 

One-Half Acre 

Site in Largo, 

Pinellas 

County, 

Florida; 

3/12/2001 

3 Remediate 

contaminated 

groundwater 

DOE; Florida 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection 

3 2 2 

Maxey Flats, 

Kentucky 

$14 

Consent 

Decree in 

United States 

v. U.S. 

Ecology; 

4/18/1996 

2 Fund, design, 

and implement 

cleanup actions 

at the Maxey 

Flats Superfund 

site 

DOE; U.S. 

Department of 

Justice; U.S. 

EPA; 

Commonwealth 

of Kentucky 

7 5 5 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 32 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Monticello, 

Utah 

$128 

Monticello 

Site: 

Monticello 

Vicinity 

Properties 

National 

Priorities List 

Site and 

Monticello 

Millsite Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

Pursuant to 

CERCLA 

Section 120; 

12/22/1988 

1 Ensure 

environmental 

impacts 

associated with 

past and present 

activities will 

have 

appropriate 

response 

actions taken 

and completed 

as necessary to 

protect the 

public health 

and the 

environment; 

integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Utah 

Department of 

Health 

61 50 46 

Nevada Operations Office 

Nevada Test 

Site Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Act Consent 

Order; 

3/27/1996 

1 Treat mixed 

waste stored at 

the site—adopts 

by reference the 

Site Treatment 

Plan 

DOE; Nevada 

Division of 

Environmental 

Protection 

Nevada Test 69 68 55 

Site, Nevada 

$3,318 

Nevada Test 

Site Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

and Consent 

Order; 

5/10/1996 

3 Identify sites of 

potential historic 

contamination 

and implement 

proposed 

corrective 

actions based 

on public health 

and 

environmental 

considerations 

DOE; U.S. 

Department of 

Defense; state 

of Nevada 

464 178 176 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 33 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Mutual 

Consent 

Agreement 

between the 

State of 

Nevada and 

the 

Department of 

Energy for the 

Storage of 

Low-Level 

Land Disposal 

Restricted 

Mixed Waste; 

1/14/1994 

3 Store and 

manage mixed 

low-level waste 

generated by 

site 

characterization 

and cleanup 

actions at the 

Nevada Test 

Site 

DOE; Nevada 

Division of 

Environmental 

Protection 

12 12 10 

Settlement 

Agreement for 

Transuranic 

Mixed Waste 

Storage at the 

Nevada Test 

Site; 

6/23/1992 

3 Store mixed 

transuranic 

waste at Area 5 

Radioactive 

Waste 

Management 

Site 

DOE; Nevada 

Division of 

Environmental 

Protection 

11 11 11 

Ohio Operations Office 

Fernald 

Environmental 

Management 

Project 

Consent 

Agreement as 

amended 

under 

CERCLA 

sections 120 

and 106(a); 

9/20/1991 

1 Establish a 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

developing, 

implementing, 

and monitoring 

appropriate 

response 

actions at the 

site; integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

Fernald, Ohio DOE; U.S. EPA 290 75 63 

$3,341 

Fernald 

Environmental 

Management 

Project 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

10/4/1995 

1 Establish Site 

Treatment Plan 

covering storage 

and treatment of 

mixed wastes 

and 

management of 

remediation 

wastes 

DOE; Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

73 60 58 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 34 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

1988 

Resource 

Conservation 

and Recovery 

Act/Clean 

Water Act 

Consent 

Decree; 

12/2/1988 

amended 

1/22/93 

2 Implement 

compliance with 

hazardous 

waste 

requirements 

and control 

wastewater and 

runoff 

DOE; U.S. 

Department of 

Justice; state of 

Ohio 

40 39 35 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

9/7/2000 

3 Monitor 

groundwater 

DOE; Fernald 

Environmental 

Management 

Project 

135 24 24 

Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Agreement; 

7/18/1986 

3 Establish initial 

remedial 

measures and 

remedial 

investigations 

and bring facility 

into compliance 

with Clean Air 

Act and RCRA 

DOE; U.S. EPA 258 222 222 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

9/10/1993d

3 Monitor 

groundwater 

DOE; Fernald 

Environmental 

Restoration 

Management 

Corporation; 

Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

36 36 2 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

12/27/1994d

3 Neutralize and 

remove 

hazardous 

waste 

DOE; Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

4 4 3 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

6/4/1996 

3 Integrate the 

Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency RCRA 

hazardous 

waste closure 

requirements 

into the 

remediation 

requirements of 

CERCLA 

DOE; Fernald 

Environmental 

Restoration 

Management 

Corporation; 

Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

57 29 29 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 35 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Director’s 

Findings and 

Orders; 

6/26/1987 

3 Manage storm 

water and 

wastewater 

DOE; Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

2 2 2 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement for 

Control & 

Abatement of 

Radon-222 

Emissions; 

11/14/1991 

3 Control and 

abate Radon222 emissions 

DOE; U.S. EPA 180 120 120 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

10/4/1995 

1 Store and treat 

mixed waste; 

approve Site 

Treatment Plan 

DOE; Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

Mound, Ohio 79 71 71 

$1,413 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

Region V and 

the State of 

Ohio Federal 

Facility 

Agreement; 

7/15/1993 

1 Ensure 

environmental 

impacts 

associated with 

past and present 

activities will 

have 

appropriate 

response 

actions taken 

and completed 

as necessary to 

protect the 

public health 

and the 

environment; 

integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency; U.S. 

EPA 

92 38 37 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 36 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

West Valley 

Demonstration 

Project 

Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Act 

Administrative 

Consent 

Order; 

8/27/1996 

1 Establish 

commitments for 

compliance with 

Site Treatment 

Plan for mixed 

waste storage 

and generation; 

develop 

framework to 

treat mixed 

wastes to meet 

land disposal 

restriction 

requirements; 

and store 

current and 

projected mixed 

wastes 

DOE; New York 

State 

Department of 

Environmental 

Conservation 

85 80 80 

Administrative 

Order on 

Consent 

Docket No. II 

RCRA3008(h)-I 92-

0202; 3/5/1992 

3 Protect human 

health and the 

environment 

from hazardous 

waste releases 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

New York State 

Energy 

Research and 

Development 

Authority; New 

York State 

Department of 

Environmental 

Conservation 

12 12 12 

West Valley, 

New York 

$2,361 

Stipulation 

Agreement—

Remedial 

Action Plan 

R9-4756-99-

03, Biovent 

Stipulation 

Agreement; 

3/19/1999 

3 Clean up and 

remove 

underground 

storage tank 

petroleum 

releases 

DOE; New York 

State 

Department of 

Environmental 

Conservation 

4 3 3 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 37 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Oakland Operations Office 

Energy 

Technology 

and 

Engineering 

Center, 

California 

$197 

Energy 

Technology 

and 

Engineering 

Center Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Act Order 

Hazardous 

Waste Control 

Act #95/96-

019; 10/6/1995 

1 Store and treat 

mixed wastes at 

the center; 

incorporates 

Site Treatment 

Plan by 

reference 

DOE; California 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

48 38 35 

General 

Atomics, 

California 

$15 

General 

Atomics 

Compliance 

Act Order 

Hazardous 

Waste Control 

Act #95/96-

017; 

10/6/1995d

1 Store and treat 

mixed wastes at 

General 

Atomics; 

incorporates 

Site Treatment 

Plan by 

reference 

DOE; California 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

73 61 59 

Lawrence 

Berkeley 

National 

Laboratory, 

California 

$82 

Lawrence 

Berkeley 

National 

Laboratory 

Compliance 

Act Order 

Hazardous 

Waste Control 

Act #95/96-

016; 

10/6/1995e

1 Store and treat 

mixed waste at 

the laboratory 

DOE; California 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

235 96 82 

Laboratory for 

EnergyRelated Health 

Research, 

California 

$41 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement for 

the Laboratory 

for EnergyRelated Health 

Research; 

12/8/1999 

1 Establish a 

schedule for 

implementing 

cleanup actions 

in accordance 

with CERCLA, 

RCRA, and 

state law; 

integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; California 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency; Central 

Valley Regional 

Water Quality 

Control Board; 

California 

Department of 

Health Services 

21 14 14 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 38 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Act Order for 

Lawrence 

Livermore 

National 

Laboratory 

(Main Site) 

Hazardous 

Waste Control 

Act #96/97-

5002; 

2/24/1997 

1 Store and treat 

mixed waste at 

the laboratory; 

carry out Site 

Treatment Plan 

DOE; California 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

Lawrence 271 63 55 

Livermore 

National 

Laboratory 

(Main Site), 

California 

$652 

Lawrence 

Livermore 

National 

Laboratory 

(Main Site) 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

Under 

CERCLA 

Section 120; 

11/1/1988 

1 Establish a 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

developing, 

implementing, 

and monitoring 

appropriate 

response 

actions at the 

site; integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

California 

Department of 

Health Services 

343 202 174 

Lawrence 

Livermore 

National 

Laboratory 

Site 300 

(life-cycle cost 

included in 

Main Site) 

Lawrence 

Livermore 

National 

Laboratory 

Site 300 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement, 

Administrative 

Docket No. 92-

16; 

6/29/1992 

1 Establish a 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

developing, 

implementing, 

and monitoring 

appropriate 

response 

actions at the 

site; integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

California 

Department of 

Toxic 

Substances 

Control; Central 

Valley Regional 

Water Quality 

Control Board 

196 115 92 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 39 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Oak Ridge Operations Office 

Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

Compliance 

Order, Case 

No. 95-0514; 

9/26/1995 

1 Implement the 

Site Treatment 

Plan 

(incorporated by 

reference) and 

set schedules 

for treating and 

storing mixed 

waste 

DOE; 

Tennessee 

Department of 

Environment 

and 

Conservation 

Oak Ridge 94 81 78 

Reservation, 

Tennessee 

$8,456 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement for 

the Oak Ridge 

Reservation, 

DOE/OR1014; 

11/18/1991 

(effective date 

1/1/1992) 

1 Establish a 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

developing, 

implementing, 

and monitoring 

appropriate 

response 

actions at the 

site; integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Tennessee 

Department of 

Environment 

and 

Conservation 

752 432 282 

In the Matter of 

the U.S. 

Department of 

Energy's 

Paducah 

Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement; 

2/1/1998 

1 Implement 

CERCLA 

response 

actions and 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Kentucky 

Natural 

Resources and 

Environmental 

Protection 

Cabinet 

Paducah, 113 69 54 

Kentucky 

$1,523 

U.S. DOE v. 

Natural 

Resources 

Environmental 

Protection 

Cabinet, 

Agreed Order, 

No. DWM30039-042; 

9/10/1997 

1 Require 

compliance with 

the approved 

Site Treatment 

Plan 

DOE; Kentucky 

Natural 

Resources and 

Environmental 

Protection 

Cabinet; 

Kentucky 

Department for 

Environmental 

Protection 

156 50 50 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 40 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

 Toxic 

Substances 

Control Act 

Uranium 

Enrichment 

Federal 

Facilities 

Compliance 

Agreement; 

2/20/1992 

3 Establish a plan 

to bring uranium 

enrichment 

plants into 

compliance with 

Toxic 

Substances 

Control Act and 

polychlorinated 

biphenyl 

regulations 

DOE; U.S. EPA 28 15 15 

Portsmouth 

Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant 

Director’s Final 

Findings and 

Orders; 

10/4/1995 

1 Approve Site 

Treatment Plan 

for treatment of 

mixed 

hazardous 

waste 

DOE; Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

62 37 16 

State of Ohio 

v. DOE, Civil 

Action No. C2 

89-732; 

9/1/1989 

2 Clean up and 

manage 

hazardous and 

mixed waste, 

polychlorinated 

biphenyls, and 

water pollutants 

at Portsmouth 

DOE; State of 

Ohio; U.S. 

Department of 

Justice 

8 8 6 

Administrative 

Consent 

Order, In the 

Matter of U.S. 

DOE: 

Portsmouth 

Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant, 

No. OH7-890-

008-983; 

8/12/1997 

3 Establish 

oversight roles 

for U.S. EPA 

and Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency for 

cleanup under 

the 9/1/1989 

consent decree 

No. C2-89-732 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Ohio 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

212 191 49 

Portsmouth, 

Ohio 

$3,012 

Toxic 

Substances 

Control Act 

Uranium 

Enrichment 

Federal 

Facilities 

Compliance 

Agreement; 

2/20/1992 

3 Bring DOE’s 

former and 

active uranium 

enrichment 

plants into 

compliance with 

Toxic 

Substances 

Control Act and 

polychlorinated 

biphenyl 

regulations 

DOE; U.S. EPA 6 2 2 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 41 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Weldon 

Spring, 

Missouri 

$428 

Weldon Spring 

Site Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

under 

CERCLA 

section 104, 

Docket No. 

CERCLA-VII85-F-0057; 

8/22/1986 

3 Perform 

CERCLA 

removal and 

remedial actions 

DOE; U.S. EPA 58 44 36 

Rocky Flats Field Office 

Final Rocky 

Flats Cleanup 

Agreement; 

7/19/1996 

1 Establish the 

framework for 

cleaning up 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology Site; 

coordinate 

DOE’s cleanup 

obligations 

under various 

statutes 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Colorado 

Department of 

Public Health 

and 

Environment 

62 38 37 

Compliance 

Order on 

Consent No. 

99-09-24-01; 

10/27/1999 

amended 

4/10/2001 

1 Replace 

previous 

consent orders 

for mixed 

residues; 

establish 

requirements for 

mixed residues 

management 

DOE; Kaiser-Hill 

Co., LLC; 

Colorado 

Department of 

Public Health 

and 

Environmentf

 

5 4 3 

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Technology 

Site, Colorado 

$7,705 

Order 

Requiring 

Compliance 

with Site 

Treatment 

Plan 

Compliance 

Order No. 95-

10-03-01; 

10/3/1995 

1 Approve and 

require 

compliance with 

the Site 

Treatment Plan 

for mixed waste 

DOE; Colorado 

Department of 

Public Health 

and 

Environment 

38 8 8 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 42 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Compliance 

Order on 

Consent No. 

97-08-21-01; 

09/11/97 

3 Establish 

compliance 

requirements 

and schedules 

for 

implementation 

of management 

of hazardous 

wastes and 

hazardous 

waste portion of 

mixed waste 

located in 

equipment, 

tanks, or 

ancillary tank 

equipment at the 

facility 

DOE; Kaiser-Hill 

Company, LLC; 

Colorado 

Department of 

Public Health 

and 

Environment 

10 8 7 

Compliance 

Order on 

Consent No. 

97-08-21-02; 

9/4/1997 

3 Establish 

compliance 

requirements 

and schedules 

for 

implementation 

of waste 

management 

plans and 

resolve 

violations of 

regulations 

DOE; Kaiser-Hill 

Company, LLC; 

Colorado 

Department of 

Public Health 

and 

Environment 

4 4 4 

Richland Operations Office/Office of River Protection 

Hanford, 

Washington 

$62,097 

Hanford 

Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

and Consent 

Order, (TriParty 

Agreement); 

5/15/1989 

amended 

12/1998 

1 Establish a 

procedural 

framework and 

schedule for 

developing, 

implementing, 

and monitoring 

appropriate 

response 

actions at the 

site; integrate 

CERCLA 

response 

actions with 

RCRA corrective 

action 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

Washington 

Department of 

Ecology 

951 725 649 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 43 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Consent 

Decree, CT99-5076-EFS; 

9/30/1999 

amended 

9/19/2000 

2 Resolve issues 

concerning 

missed 

milestones in 

federal facility 

agreement of 

5/15/1989; 

establish a 

schedule for 

pumping liquid 

radioactive 

waste from 

single shell 

tanks into 

double shell 

tanks for storage 

and treatment. 

Amendment set 

deadline for 

DOE to award a 

contract for 

design and 

construction of a 

waste treatment 

facility 

DOE; 

Washington 

Department of 

Ecology; 

Attorney 

General of 

Washington; 

U.S. 

Department of 

Justice 

38 21 21 

Federal 

Facility 

Compliance 

Agreement for 

Radionuclide 

National 

Emission 

Standards for 

Hazardous Air 

Pollutants; 

2/7/1994 

3 Perform 

activities needed 

to bring Hanford 

site into 

compliance with 

the Clean Air 

Act and its 

implementing 

regulations 

DOE; U.S. EPA 91 79 73 

Savannah River Operations Office 

Savannah 

River Site, 

South Carolina 

$37,809 

Consent Order 

95-22-HW; 

9/29/1995 

1 Implement the 

Site Treatment 

Plan; update 

plan annually; 

notify the South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control of new 

mixed waste 

streams 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

74 26 26 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 44 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

SRS Federal 

Facility 

Agreement 

under Section 

120 of 

CERCLA; 

1/15/1993 

1 Establish 

requirements for 

remedial action 

under CERCLA 

and integrate 

CERCLA 

response with 

corrective action 

measures 

required by 

RCRA permit 

DOE; U.S. EPA; 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

562 455 163 

Consent 

Decree Civil 

Action No. 

1:85-2583-6; 

5/26/1988 

2 Obtain permit, 

submit closure 

plan, conduct 

groundwater 

monitoring, 

close, and 

provide post 

closure care for 

certain facilitates 

at the Savannah 

River Plant 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control; U.S. 

Department of 

Justice; Natural 

Resources 

Defense 

Council; Energy 

Research 

Foundation; 

Assistant U.S. 

Attorney of the 

District of South 

Carolina; South 

Carolina League 

of Women 

Voters; Georgia 

Conservancy 

20 20 20 

Consent Order 

99-155-W; 

10/11/1999 

3 Modify 

compliance 

schedule for 

Clean Water Act 

National 

Pollution 

Discharge 

Elimination 

System permit 

to provide 

additional time 

for construction 

and modification 

of treatment 

facilities 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control; 

Westinghouse 

Savannah River 

Company 

3 2 2 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 45 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Consent Order 

99-21-HW; 

7/13/1999 

3 Establish 

remediation 

schedules to 

meet objectives 

of corrective 

action plans to 

remediate 

groundwater 

contamination 

as required by 

South Carolina 

permit 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

5 5 5 

Consent Order 

99-41-HW; 

9/28/1999 

3 Close 

incinerator tank; 

identify and 

manage 

previously 

unidentified 

waste 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control; 

Westinghouse 

Savannah River 

Company 

6 6 6 

Settlement 

Agreement 87-

27-SW; 

5/1/1987 

amended 

6/15/1989 

3 Submit revised 

part B permit 

applications 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

5 5 5 

Settlement 

Agreement 87-

52-SW; 

11/10/1987 

amended 

5/9/1991 and 

10/5/1995 

3 Submit revised 

part B permit 

application for 

mixed waste 

management 

facility; 

amendments 

required 

submission of 

further revised 

part B 

applications to 

address lowlevel radioactive 

waste disposal 

facility and 

groundwater 

contamination 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

6 6 6 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 46 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

Settlement 

Agreement 91-

51-SW; 

8/26/1991 

3 Refrain from 

further disposal 

of solvent rags 

in low-level 

radioactive 

waste disposal 

facility and 

sanitary landfill; 

apply for permit 

and submit 

closure plans for 

the facilities 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

10 10 10 

Administrative 

Consent Order 

85-70-SW; 

11/7/1985 

3 Establish course 

of action to 

achieve 

compliance with 

South Carolina 

hazardous 

waste 

management 

regulations, 

including 

installing 

monitoring wells 

and continuing 

groundwater 

assessments 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

7 7 7 

Consent Order 

01-193-W, 

01-063-A; 

8/24/2001 

3 For industrial 

solid waste 

landfill, comply 

with water and 

air permit 

requirements; 

submit 

corrective action 

plan to address 

remediation of 

petroleum 

hydrocarbons; 

submit a 

monitoring 

program 

DOE; 

Westinghouse 

Savannah River 

Company; 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

5 4 4 

Consent 

Agreement 

97-05-SW; 

3/24/1997 

3 For industrial 

solid waste 

landfill, submit 

characterization 

report and 

permit 

application 

DOE; South 

Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

5 5 5 
Appendix I: Compliance Orders and 

Agreements Affecting DOE’s Environmental 

Management Cleanup Program 

Page 47 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

In millions of constant 2001 dollars 

Site and 

current lifecycle cleanup 

cost 

Agreement 

name and 

date signeda

Agreement 

categoryb

Activities 

covered by the 

agreement 

Parties to the 

agreement 

Number of 

enforceable 

milestonesc

Number of 

milestones 

completed 

Number of 

milestones 

completed on 

original date 

 Consent 

Agreement 

97-27-SW; 

5/21/1997 

3 For industrial 

solid waste 

landfill, submit 

characterization 

report and 

permit 

application 

DOE; 

Westinghouse 

Savannah River 

Company; 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

6 5 5 

Total 7,186 4,558 3,639 

a

If an agreement was signed on multiple dates by the various parties, the latest date was used in this 

appendix. 

b

The agreements are divided into three types: 1 = agreements specifically required by section 120(e) 

(2) of CERCLA or by RCRA (as amended by section 105 of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 

1992); 2 = court-ordered agreements resulting from lawsuits; 3 = all other agreements. 

c

The number of enforceable milestones may change over the life of an agreement, as milestones are 

deleted or added to address new work scope. 

d

This agreement has been completed. 

e

Site was transferred to DOE’s Office of Science and receives no further environmental management 

funding. 

f

Originally the parties to this agreement were DOE; Kaiser-Hill Co., LLC; Safe Sites of Colorado, LLC; 

Rocky Mountain Remediation Services, LLC; Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment. The amendment removed subcontractors Rocky Mountain Remediation Services and 

Safe Sites of Colorado from the compliance order after the new closure contract with Kaiser-Hill was 

established. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy 

Page 48 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 

Page 49 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

To determine the types of compliance agreements and what progress DOE 

is making in meeting milestone commitments, we administered a 

questionnaire to all DOE sites with compliance agreements funded by 

DOE’s Environmental Management program. We defined a “compliance 

agreement” as a legally enforceable agreement between DOE and another 

party or parties that contained enforceable milestones defining cleanup 

activities that DOE must achieve by specified or ascertainable dates and 

that are funded by DOE’s EM program. To determine the universe of 

compliance agreements, we obtained a list of all EM-funded compliance 

agreements from DOE. We also compared this list to EM sites listed on the 

EPA’s National Priorities List, which are required to have compliance 

agreements implementing CERCLA requirements. We discussed these 

agreements with staff from the DOE Chief Counsel’s office and the EM 

program to validate both the number of sites with agreements and the 

number of agreements. We removed from our study any agreement that 

did not contain enforceable milestones that DOE was required to meet. In 

addition, we did not include RCRA permits in our universe because (1) the 

great majority of DOE’s cleanup work is covered under compliance 

agreements and very little of that work is required under RCRA permits 

and (2) cleanup activities required as a condition of RCRA permits are 

generally also included in compliance agreements at DOE sites. 

Some of the compliance agreements we identified had been subsequently 

amended or replaced by other agreements. We included in the universe 

milestones from the original agreements if they were unique to those 

agreements and not repeated in the subsequent agreements. In addition, 

five of the agreements are no longer active because all the milestones 

associated with the agreements had been completed. We included those 

agreements and their milestones in our study. For each DOE site having 

one or more compliance agreement, we requested, for each agreement, 

information on the type of agreement, the scope of cleanup activities 

covered by the agreement, and information on the schedule milestones in 

the agreement. We also asked officials at each site to verify that the list of 

compliance agreements for their site was complete. We did not 

independently verify the accuracy of the information provided by each 

DOE site, but at the four sites we visited, we selectively tested the 

reasonableness of the information by reviewing site records and 

discussing compliance agreements with DOE officials. At some sites, DOE 

officials were unable to provide exact numbers, especially concerning the 

number of milestone dates that had been changed and the number of 

milestones that would be completed in the future. In these cases, DOE 

officials said the information provided represented their best estimates. 

Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 

Page 50 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

To determine the extent that compliance with DOE agreements is 

reflected in the DOE budget submitted to the Congress, we reviewed 

numerous budget formulation documents at DOE sites and at DOE 

headquarters, budgeting guidance and standards, and we analyzed 

information from DOE’s integrated planning and budgeting system. We 

visited four of DOE’s largest environmental management program 

offices—the Richland, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River operations 

offices—to document how these offices include compliance agreement 

requirements in their budget submittals to DOE headquarters. Although 

sites develop estimates of the compliance costs associated with 

compliance agreements as well as federal, state, or local environmental 

laws and regulations, in this report, compliance costs are limited to those 

costs associated with DOE’s compliance agreements. To determine how 

DOE headquarters uses site budget submittals, including compliance 

requirements, in its final budget submittal to the Congress, we reviewed 

budget documentation and interviewed officials at DOE’s headquarters 

office of the environmental management program and the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

To identify whether compliance agreements could be used to prioritize 

cleanup work across DOE sites, we reviewed the compliance agreements, 

interviewed DOE headquarters and site staff involved in the EM program 

to determine how environmental risks are considered in carrying out the 

cleanup program, and discussed the agreements with federal and state 

regulators at the four sites we visited. We also reviewed various studies 

and reports prepared by DOE and other organizations that discussed riskbased decision-making in the EM program. 

To assess the implications of compliance agreements on DOE’s initiatives 

to improve its EM program, we discussed the initiatives with DOE 

managers and staff in headquarters, including the leader of DOE’s 

February 2002 report, A Review of the Environmental Management

Program. We also reviewed the proposal coming out of that report and 

discussed it with staff at the four field offices we visited as well as the 

regulators we interviewed about those sites. In addition, we reviewed 

other related documents and reports as well as reports issued by us and 

others on past EM management reform initiatives attempted or 

implemented by DOE. 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Page 51 GAO-02-567 Waste Cleanup 

Bill Swick (206) 287-4800 

In addition to the person named above Chris Abraham, Doreen Feldman, 

Rachel Hesselink, Rich Johnson, Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Tom Perry, Ilene 

Pollack, Laura Shumway, and Stan Stenersen made key contributions to 

this report. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360114) 
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help 

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the 

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values 

of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs