United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

December 1995 URANIUM MILL

TAILINGS

Cleanup Continues, but

Future Costs Are

Uncertain

GAO/RCED-96-37

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-261528 

December 15, 1995

Congressional Recipients

As part of our basic legislative responsibilities, we reviewed the costs and current status of the

Department of Energy’s (DOE) program for cleaning up uranium mill tailings, conducted under

the authority of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-604). Although

the act directed that the cleanup be completed by March 1990, the Congress subsequently

extended this deadline twice. Because the current legislative authority expires on

September 30, 1996, we are providing this report in anticipation of congressional deliberations

on reauthorizing this program. The act made DOE the primary federal agency for managing the

program and assigned regulatory responsibilities to the Environmental Protection Agency and

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This report contains matters for consideration by the Congress concerning DOE’s authority

under the program. It also contains a recommendation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

aimed at improving the accuracy of the one-time charge made to owner/operators to ensure that

this charge fully covers future costs at their sites.

Please call me on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to

this report are listed in appendix I.

Sincerely yours,

Victor S. Rezendes

Director, Energy and

 Science Issues
B-261528 

List of Recipients

The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski

Chairman

The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

Chairman

The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

Chairman

The Honorable Wendell H. Ford

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

Page 2 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
B-261528 

The Honorable William S. Cohen

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

 Management and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman

The Honorable David R. Obey

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable William F. Clinger, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable Cardiss Collins

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable John T. Myers

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Bevill

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Schaefer

Chairman

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Power

Committee on Commerce

House of Representatives

Page 3 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
B-261528 

The Honorable David M. McIntosh

Chairman

The Honorable Collin C. Peterson

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Economic Growth,

 Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

Page 4 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Executive Summary

Purpose Decades of processing uranium ore for use in the government’s nuclear

weapons and energy programs resulted in the accumulation of radioactive

wastes at about 50 ore processing sites and about 5,000 nearby properties

in various states and on some Indian tribal lands. When the government’s

need for uranium for defense purposes dwindled in the late 1960s, many of

the processing operations ceased, and huge piles of contaminated mill

tailings (a sand-like by-product of ore processing) were left in place and

spread to nearby properties, posing potential health risks. Accordingly, the

Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,

which authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to clean up

contamination at the processing sites. In 1979, DOE developed its Uranium

Mill Tailings Remedial Action project. This project has two key

components: cleanup of the surface and cleanup of the groundwater.

Because DOE’s authority for the surface cleanup will expire at the end of

fiscal year 1996, GAO is providing the Congress with information on (1) the

status and cost of DOE’s surface and groundwater cleanups and (2) factors

that could affect the federal government’s costs and liabilities in the

future.

Background The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 authorized the

cleanup of the nation’s uranium ore processing sites. Title I of the act

governs the cleanup of sites that were already inactive at the time the

legislation was enacted (referred to in this report as Title I sites); title II

covers the cleanup of sites that were still active at that time (referred to as

Title II sites). Under the act, DOE is to clean up the Title I sites and nearby

properties affected by the contamination, mostly at its expense, but the

affected states are to contribute 10 percent of the actual cost of the

remedial actions. The Title II sites are to be cleaned up mostly at the

expense of the private companies that own and operate them and then

turn them over to the federal government or states for long-term custody.

Before a Title II site is turned over to federal or state custody, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for entering into financial

arrangements with the owners/operators that provide sufficient funds to

cover the costs of necessary long-term monitoring and maintenance at the

sites.

After studying the 24 Title I sites that required cleanup, DOE established

priorities—high, medium, and low—for cleaning up the sites, based on the

severity of their potential risk to public health. DOE used these priorities to

help determine the order in which cleanup would begin at the sites.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Executive Summary

Results in Brief DOE anticipates completing the cleanup of both surface and groundwater

contamination from uranium mill tailings by about 2014 at a cost of over

$2.4 billion.1

 At DOE’s 24 Title I sites, surface cleanup is complete at 15

sites, is under way at another 7, and has not yet started at the remaining 2.

Approximately 5,000 nearby properties, including homes, schools, and

businesses, have also been cleaned up. The cost of the surface cleanup to

date totals about $2 billion. The Department anticipates that, if provided a

2-year extension of its authority for the surface cleanup, it can complete

its responsibilities in 1998 at an additional cost of about $300 million. DOE

is currently seeking reauthorization of its surface cleanup program

through fiscal year 1998. Because the Department initially focused on the

surface cleanup and because of a delay in the issuance of EPA’s final

groundwater standards, DOE postponed the start of its groundwater

cleanup until 1991. Since then, the Department has primarily studied the

sites and developed groundwater cleanup strategies. It has not reached

agreement with the affected states and tribes on the cleanup strategies to

be used or reaffirmed the states’ financial support for the project.

However, on the basis of its proposed “least-cost” strategies, DOE estimates

that its efforts to clean up the groundwater will cost at least another

$147 million.

Various factors could affect the future federal costs and ultimate

completion dates of both the surface and groundwater cleanups. Among

these factors are whether (1) DOE will keep open a portion of one disposal

site to dispose of tailings unearthed during future work on roads and

utilities and (2) the affected states will provide their 10-percent share of

the groundwater cleanup expenses. Depending on their outcome, these

factors could add millions of dollars and years of work to the cleanup

effort. Furthermore, the assumptions that underlie NRC’s minimum charge

to the owners/operators of the Title II sites for long-term surveillance has

not been reviewed and updated to reflect the current cost of basic

surveillance and does not include the cost of the routine, ongoing

maintenance that may be needed at each site.

1

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

Page 6 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Executive Summary

GAO’s Analysis

Status and Cost of Surface

and Groundwater

Cleanups

After several schedule extensions and increases in the project’s costs, DOE

currently plans to complete its surface cleanup responsibilities in 1998, at

a total cost of about $2.3 billion. For the most part, DOE has completed the

surface cleanup at those sites that posed the greatest potential health risk

to the public (e.g., sites located near major population centers). At most of

the other sites, DOE’s cleanup efforts are well under way.

In January 1995, DOE estimated that the total cost of the surface cleanup at

the Title I sites will be about $2.3 billion, or $621 million more than it

estimated for cleanup in 1982. The increase in the cost of the surface

cleanup was caused by unexpected growth in the project’s size and

complexity. According to DOE officials, this growth came through several

avenues. For example, changes in federal requirements resulted in

additional work and costs for DOE. To comply with new groundwater

standards, in particular, DOE had to change the location and design of

many waste disposal cells (containment areas where the tailings are

enclosed and stored). Furthermore, as its cleanup work progressed, DOE

identified more contamination than its original surveys had

projected—more in terms of both the quantity of tailings and the number

of nearby properties that needed to be cleaned up.

DOE’s groundwater cleanup work began in 1991, and by June 1995 the

Department had spent about $16.7 million on planning and developing its

strategies for the cleanup. DOE’s next step is to consider the views of the

affected states and Indian tribes and select the final methods that will be

used to clean up the groundwater at each site. If the least-cost strategies

that DOE has proposed are adopted, the Department anticipates completing

its groundwater cleanup in about 2014, at a minimum cost of about

$147 million.

Factors That May Affect

Project’s Future Costs

Various factors may affect the project’s future costs. For example, one

factor that could affect these costs is how the project resolves the issue of

what to do with the mill tailings in Grand Junction, Colorado, which are

now buried under streets and utility corridors, but which may be

unearthed during future excavations for repairs. One possible solution is

to keep a portion of the Grand Junction site’s disposal cell open to deposit

any tailings that are unearthed during such repairs. However, according to

Page 7 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Executive Summary

DOE, it would need legislative authority to keep a portion of the cell open

after its authority for the surface cleanup has expired. Furthermore,

keeping a portion of the cell open could result in additional costs of

several hundred thousand dollars annually over the next 20 years.

Regarding groundwater cleanup, DOE does not know whether the states

will be willing and able to provide their 10-percent share of the cost of the

remedial actions. One state has already voiced concern that its legislators

may not provide funding for the groundwater cleanup. If the states do not

provide their share of these costs, DOE believes it does not have the

congressional authority to proceed with the cleanup.

Finally, NRC’s minimum charge for long-term surveillance is based on the

assumption that the annual cost of surveillance will be $5,300 per site (in

1995 dollars). NRC’s charge has not been revised and updated since the

basis for the charge was developed in 1980. DOE estimates that the current

cost of annual surveillance is $16,000 per site (in 1995 dollars). In addition,

DOE estimates that the cost of annual maintenance at each site will be

about $5,000 (in 1995 dollars), but NRC’s minimum charge was based on the

assumption that ongoing maintenance would not be required.

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

GAO is raising matters for the Congress’s consideration concerning (1) the

Department of Energy’s lack of authority to keep open a portion of the

Colorado disposal cell and (2) whether and under what circumstances the

Department can complete the cleanups when the states do not contribute

their share of the cleanup costs. The complete text of these matters for

congressional consideration is found in chapter 3.

Recommendation To provide a realistic indication of the future costs of long-term

monitoring and maintenance, GAO recommends that the Commissioners of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct its staff to consult with the

Department of Energy to develop an accurate estimate of these costs and

what they entail, and use that information to (1) update the minimum

one-time charge for basic surveillance and (2) determine whether routine

maintenance will be required at each site, and, if so, incorporate the cost

for such maintenance into the minimum charge.

Agency Comments GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of Energy,

Environmental Protection Agency, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Page 8 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Executive Summary

for their review and comment. Officials from all three agencies expressed

general agreement with the report’s findings.

GAO met with officials of the Department of Energy, including the Office

Director, Office of Southwestern Area Programs, who generally agreed

with the report’s findings and provided technical clarifications that have

been incorporated into the report where appropriate. The Environmental

Protection Agency’s Deputy Director, Federal Guidance, from the Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air, also generally agreed with the report’s findings

and provided technical clarifications that have been incorporated where

appropriate.

GAO met with officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including

the Chief of the High-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch,

who generally agreed with the report’s findings. However, in commenting

on the report’s recommendations, these officials said that they are not

certain that the assumptions NRC used to estimate the one-time charge for

basic surveillance are invalid; however, they are reexamining the issue.

These officials fully agreed with the report’s recommendation to

determine if routine maintenance will be required at each site and

incorporate any resulting costs into the one-time charge. According to

these officials, they have taken a number of steps, described in chapter 3,

to ensure that this recommendation will be successfully implemented.

Technical clarifications provided by these officials have also been

incorporated into the report where appropriate.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Contents

Executive Summary 5

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Required

Cleanup of Tailings

14

DOE Is Managing Cleanup of Title I Sites 15

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 21

Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has

Grown in Size and

Cost

23

Surface Cleanup Is Nearly Complete but Has Taken Longer and

Cost More Than Anticipated

23

Several Factors Increased Cost of DOE’s Surface Cleanup 27

Groundwater Cleanup Is in Planning Stages 30

Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs

Are Uncertain

36

Various Factors May Affect Schedule and Cost of Surface

Cleanup at Title I Sites

36

Uncertainties May Increase Scope and Cost of Groundwater

Cleanup

39

DOE Is Responsible for Long-Term Custody of Title I and II Sites,

but Uncertainty Surrounds Costs of Long-Term Care

42

Conclusions 44

Matters for Congressional Consideration 45

Recommendation 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46

Appendix Appendix I: Major Contributors to This Report 48

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

Location

25

Figures Figure 1.1: Uranium Processing Cycle Showing Impact on

Groundwater

13

Figure 1.2: Location and Ranking of Title I Sites 16

Figure 1.3: Diagram of a Disposal Cell 20

Page 10 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Contents

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action project

Page 11 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

At over 50 sites, mostly in the southwestern United States, widespread

contamination of both land and groundwater resulted from uranium ore

processing operations that took place from the early 1940s throughout the

1960s. During that period, most of the nation’s uranium mining and milling

(ore processing) activities were conducted by private companies for the

Atomic Energy Commission (the Department of Energy’s predecessor).

Uranium ore was crushed and processed for use in developing weapons

and in the emerging nuclear energy industry. But for every ounce of

uranium that was extracted from ore, 99 ounces of waste were produced

in the form of mill tailings—a finely ground, sand-like material. By the time

the government’s need for uranium peaked, tons of mill tailings had been

produced at the processing sites. After fulfilling their government

contracts, many companies closed down their uranium mills and left large

piles of tailings at the mill sites.

The abandoned piles of uranium mill tailings contain radioactive wastes

and other hazardous materials that had been used in the uranium

extraction process. Despite the potential health risks, some mill operators

left the piles of tailings uncovered and exposed to the elements. As a

result, the tailings were spread—by wind, water, and human

intervention—thus contaminating properties beyond the mill. In some

communities, citizens used the tailings as building materials for homes,

schools, office buildings, and roads because the health risks were not

commonly known. Disposal of the tailings and the contaminated liquids

from uranium processing resulted in contamination of the groundwater. In

addition, because the piles of tailings were exposed to weather, in some

cases the leaching effects of rain and snowmelt also contaminated the

groundwater. Figure 1.1 shows how groundwater becomes contaminated.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Uranium Processing Cycle Showing Impact on Groundwater

Precipitation

Groundwater Flow

Groundwater


Contaminants

Mill Processing


Building

Tailings Slurry

Tailings Pile

Source: Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

By the late 1960s, radiological research had determined that the

abandoned mill sites posed a potential hazard to public health. Exposure

to radioactive substances may cause cancer and other diseases, as well as

genetic damage. The most hazardous constituent of uranium mill tailings is

radium, which is radioactive. Radium produces radon, a radioactive gas

whose decay products can cause lung cancer. In effect, the amount of

radon released from a pile of tailings remains constant for about 80,000

years. Tailings also emit gamma radiation, which can increase the

Page 13 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

incidence of cancer and genetic risks. Other potentially hazardous

substances in tailings include arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium. The

concentrations of these materials found in the tailings vary by site, ranging

from 2 to more than 100 times the amounts naturally existing in soil.

Concerns about the potential long-term adverse health effects of exposure

to uranium mill tailings led to engineering and radiological studies that

identified many abandoned uranium mill sites and nearby properties in

need of cleanup.

Uranium Mill Tailings

Radiation Control Act

of 1978 Required

Cleanup of Tailings

In November 1978, to provide a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the

safe disposal of uranium mill tailings, the Congress passed the Uranium

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (P. L. 95-604). Title I of the act

governed the cleanup of mill sites that were already inactive when the

legislation was passed, referred to in this report as Title I sites; Title II

governed the control and cleanup of milling operations that were still

active at that time, referred to in this report as Title II sites. The act made

DOE primarily responsible for the cleanup of the Title I sites and the

operators/owners of the Title II sites responsible for cleaning up their own

sites.

The act assigned responsibilities to three agencies: the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC). EPA was directed to establish standards for

the cleanup and disposal of contaminated material from both inactive and

active uranium processing sites. Under the act, as amended, EPA was to

consider factors such as the risk to public health, safety, and the

environment, and the environmental and economic costs of applying its

standards. In January 1983, EPA issued standards for remedial actions at

the Title I sites. Later that same year, EPA issued standards governing the

Title II sites. These standards, except those concerning groundwater, were

essentially identical to those adopted for the Title I sites.1

 In part, these

standards limit the release of radon gas into the environment and require

that the disposal method be designed to control radiological hazards “for

up to one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any

case, for at least two hundred years.”

Under the act, DOE was required to clean up all the Title I sites to EPA’s

standards. The act created a plan of federal and state cooperation in which

1

Both sets of standards were challenged by several parties in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the

Tenth Circuit. The Court upheld all aspects of the standards except the groundwater standards for the

Title I sites. In 1987, EPA proposed new groundwater standards for these sites. Final groundwater

standards were not issued until January 1995.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

the federal government, in conjunction with those states where the Title I

sites were located, would enter into cooperative agreements for cleaning

up the sites. The act directed DOE and the participating state, with the

concurrence of NRC, to jointly select the method and perform the cleanup.

The states are responsible for 10 percent of the actual cost of remedial

actions.

NRC, working with EPA, was required to establish regulations governing the

control and cleanup of the mill tailings and land at the Title II sites. These

sites, generally owned and operated by private companies, are licensed by

NRC or by the state in which they are located. NRC was to ensure that its

regulations conformed to EPA’s general standards and to implement and

enforce those standards. Generally, once these sites are cleaned up, they

will be turned over to DOE for long-term monitoring and maintenance.

NRC is also responsible for ensuring that before the federal government

takes custody of a Title II site,2

 it makes financial arrangements with the

owners/operators that are adequate to cover the costs for any necessary

long-term monitoring and maintenance. Such arrangements are to ensure

that the owners/operators, not the federal government, bear these costs.

DOE Is Managing

Cleanup of Title I

Sites

Under title I of the act, in 1979 DOE established its Uranium Mill Tailings

Remedial Action project (UMTRA) to manage the cleanup and disposal of

the tailings at the 22 inactive mill sites designated in the act and at 2

additional sites located in North Dakota that DOE designated.3

 In managing

the cleanup of these 24 sites, DOE is responsible for all decisions about the

project, for reviewing and supervising work done by its contractors, and

for coordinating the cleanup with the affected states, Indian tribes, and

local governments.

For each of the sites, DOE assessed the potential health hazard to the

public from the tailings and, on the basis of this assessment, established a

cleanup priority for the site of either high, medium, or low. DOE used these

priorities to help determine the order in which the cleanup would begin at

the various sites. However, the priority ranking was not intended to

2

State governments may elect to assume custody of the Title II sites. However, DOE does not expect

any states to assume this responsibility.

3

Unlike most of the other Title I sites, the two North Dakota sites were not uranium mill processing

sites. Rather, both were sites at which uraniferous lignite (brown coal containing uranium) was burned

in the 1960s. Uranium-rich ash from the kiln process was loaded into rail cars at the sites and

transported to uranium mills in Colorado and New Mexico. Ash-contaminated soil remained at the

sites.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

prevent work from being initiated at the lower-priority sites before all the

work was completed at the higher-priority sites. Although the cleanup

priority was based on the risk to the public, all sites, regardless of this risk,

must be cleaned up to the same standards. Figure 1.2 shows the 24 Title I

sites, by priority.

Figure 1.2: Location and Ranking of Title I Sites

High


Medium


Low

Priority

Canonsburg

Riverton


Rifle (2 sites)


Spook


Belfield


Bowman


Gunnison


Durango

Tuba City


Mexican Hat


Monument Valley


Shiprock


Ambrosia Lake

Slick Rock (2 sites)


Falls City

Maybell


Salt Lake City


Green River


Grand Junction


Naturita


Lowman

Lakeview


Source: Department of Energy.

DOE estimated that over 91 percent of the potential radiological health

risks occurred at the nine sites that it had designated as high priority. In

Page 16 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

turn, the six medium-priority sites represented about 8 percent of the

radiological health risks, and the nine low-priority sites posed less than

1 percent of the risks. DOE believed that the greatest health risks were at

the 5,000-plus properties in the vicinity of the sites—homes, schools, and

other buildings contaminated by tailings and referred to by DOE as “vicinity

properties”—because the likelihood of exposure to radon is greatest when

radon gas is concentrated in enclosed structures.

Two years after passing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act,

the Congress established a different method of setting the cleanup

priorities. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or Superfund, potentially

hazardous waste sites are screened to determine those whose

contamination and risk are serious enough to warrant their inclusion on

the National Priorities List. This list is composed of sites considered to

present the most serious threats to public health and the environment.

Once a site has been included on the list, however, its relative risk does

not routinely play a part in determining the site’s priority for cleanup.

Other factors, such as how long a site has been on the list, have influenced

the cleanup priority.4

Under UMTRA, DOE pays most of the costs of cleaning up the Title I sites,

and the owners/operators of the Title II sites generally pay completely for

the cleanup of their sites.5

 Under Superfund, hazardous waste generators

and transporters, as well as a site’s owners/operators, are potentially

responsible for either cleaning the site up or reimbursing the government

for its cleanup efforts.

Extent of Surface and

Groundwater

Contamination at Title I

Sites

The extent of surface and groundwater contamination varied greatly

among the 24 Title I sites. In the aggregate, about 3,900 acres of ground

were contaminated with uranium mill tailings and other contaminants,

ranging from 21 acres at the Spook, Wyoming, site to 612 acres at the

Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, site (including areas contaminated by

windblown material). Furthermore, these 24 Title I sites contained about

39 million cubic yards of surface contaminants, ranging from 58,000 cubic

yards at the Belfield, North Dakota, site to over 5.7 million cubic yards at

the Falls City, Texas, site.

4

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

5

P.L. 102-486 requires DOE to reimburse these owners/operators for the cost of the remedial actions

attributable to mill tailings generated as in conjunction with sales to the United States. However, the

total reimbursement for all owners/operators has a maximum limit.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The groundwater at many Title I sites is also contaminated with

radioactive and other elements, such as metals and nitrates. These

contaminants can pose risks to human health if the contaminated

groundwater is used for drinking water. Although the groundwater is not

currently serving as drinking water at any of the Title I sites, groundwater

constitutes an important source of drinking water in much of the arid

Southwest, where most of these sites are located. For example, according

to EPA, nearly half of the drinking water consumed in Arizona and New

Mexico and 20-30 percent of the water consumed in Utah, Colorado,

Idaho, and Texas is groundwater.

DOE estimates that approximately 4.7 billion gallons of groundwater at the

Title I sites is contaminated, but this estimate does not include all sites.6

Milling operations at the Mexican Hat, Utah, and Ambrosia Lake, New

Mexico, sites introduced contaminated water into geological formations

that did not previously contain water, but contamination of naturally

occurring groundwater has not been observed at these two sites. At 21 of

the other sites, however, seepage of contaminated water has affected

naturally occurring groundwater. At the site with the highest level of

groundwater contamination—Monument Valley, Arizona—an estimated

750 million gallons of groundwater were contaminated. The Lowman,

Idaho, site is the only UMTRA site where groundwater contamination is not

related to the mill processing operations. Furthermore, the groundwater

contamination at that site does not exceed EPA’s standards.

What Surface Cleanup

Entails

The cleanup of surface contamination consists of four key steps:

(1) identifying, or characterizing, the type and extent of contamination;

(2) selecting and acquiring a disposal site; (3) developing a remedial action

plan, which describes the proposed cleanup method and specifies the

requirements for the conceptual design and construction of the disposal

cell (a containment area where the tailings are enclosed and stored); and

(4) carrying out the selected remedial action. DOE and the affected states

work together to select the disposal sites, taking into consideration factors

such as the size and density of nearby populations and the existence of

flood plains. Thus, the uranium mill site and the disposal site are not

always the same. According to DOE, most of the off-site disposal sites are

on federally owned land. However, if the selected disposal site is privately

owned, the state in which the site is located acquires title to the land

(except for sites on Indian lands, which remain with the tribe).

6

This estimate is not complete because DOE has found that the level of contamination at some sites is

difficult to quantify.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Before acquiring a disposal site, DOE generally completes a site

characterization study. If disposal is to be on-site, this study identifies the

type and extent of contamination at the site, as well as the geological

structure and other features of the disposal site that may affect the

placement or design of the disposal cell.7

While the site characterization study proceeds, DOE concurrently conducts

the environmental assessments required by the National Environmental

Policy Act and prepares the remedial action plan. This plan describes the

proposed remedial action and lists the requirements for the design and

construction of the disposal cell. NRC must concur with the final remedial

action plan and with any subsequent changes to it.

Finally, the surface remedial action is performed according to

requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. 192 and DOE’s approved remedial action

plan. A contractor manages the day-to-day remedial action. Generally, the

primary remedial action consists of containing the tailings in a disposal

cell. First, the tailings are placed in the containment area, covered with

compacted clay to prevent the release of radon, and then topped with

rocks or a vegetative covering. When the surface cleanup is completed,

DOE prepares a report to certify that the cleanup was completed in

accordance with all applicable requirements. NRC reviews and, if it agrees,

concurs with the certification of the remedial action. DOE then prepares a

long-term surveillance plan. NRC reviews the plan, and if it approves the

plan, issues an acceptance letter to DOE, thus bringing the site under a

general license for long-term care. Once NRC has licensed a site, the site is

transferred into DOE’s custody for long-term surveillance and maintenance.

Figure 1.3 is a diagram of a disposal cell.

7

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

Page 19 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.3: Diagram of a Disposal Cell

  

  yyyyyyy yyyyyyy yyyyyyy

Buttress Buttress

Rock Erosion Layer

Contaminated Material

Drainage Ditch

Radon Barrier

Filter Layer

Recontoured


Groundline

Drainage Ditch

Source: Department of Energy

States and Indian Tribes

Also Participate in Cleanup

Process

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires that the affected

states participate fully in the cleanup of the Title I sites and that affected

Indian tribes be consulted, as appropriate, in the performance of the

remedial action on their lands. The involvement of each affected state and

tribe is defined through a cooperative agreement with DOE. This agreement

establishes the funding, actions involving real estate, and requirements for

the technical reviews necessary to perform the remedial action.

Each affected state is responsible for providing 10 percent of the cost of

the remedial action for each of its sites and, if necessary, for acquiring title

to the processing or disposal site. When the remedial action is complete,

the state is required to transfer ownership of the disposal site (if it owns

the site) to the federal government. Indian tribes are not responsible for

paying any of the costs but participate in selecting disposal sites and

proposing remedial actions.

DOE’s Responsibilities Do

Not End When Cleanup Is

Finished

DOE’s responsibilities do not end with the disposal of the tailings; the

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires DOE8

 to monitor and

maintain the sites to ensure their integrity over the long term. After each

Title I site has been cleaned up and NRC has licensed it, the site is

transferred to DOE’s Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program.

8

Or another federal agency designated by the President.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

DOE will be responsible for long-term surveillance and maintenance not

only at the Title I sites but also at most, if not all, of the Title II sites.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to provide the Congress with

information on (1) the status and cost of DOE’s surface and groundwater

cleanups and (2) factors that could affect the federal government’s costs

and liabilities in the future.

To determine the status and cost of the surface cleanup program, we

interviewed officials and reviewed documents on budget and status from

several DOE offices: the Office of Southwestern Area Programs (in

Germantown, Maryland), the Office of Environment/Project Management

(in Albuquerque, New Mexico), the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

Project Office (in Albuquerque, New Mexico), and the Grand Junction

Projects Office (in Grand Junction, Colorado). We also interviewed several

DOE project managers responsible for the sites. In addition, we interviewed

numerous DOE contract specialists and reviewed the documents they

maintained.

In addition to DOE officials, we also interviewed officials of and reviewed

documents from NRC’s High-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects

Branch and Office of State Programs (in Rockville, Maryland). We also

interviewed an official and reviewed documents from EPA’s Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air. To obtain a state and local perspective, we also

interviewed officials from Colorado, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. We

visited sites located in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Rifle, Colorado; and

Grand Junction, Colorado. We also visited several vicinity properties

located near the site in Grand Junction.

To determine the status and cost of the groundwater cleanup activities at

the Title I sites, we interviewed officials and reviewed planning and

budgetary documents for groundwater cleanup at DOE’s Uranium Mill

Tailings Remedial Action Project Office. In addition, we interviewed NRC

officials from the High Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects

Branch who have regulatory authority for the groundwater program. We

also interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.

To identify factors that could affect the federal government’s costs and

liabilities in the future, we interviewed officials and reviewed documents

at DOE’s Office of Southwestern Area Programs, Office of

Environment/Project Management, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

Page 21 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Project Office, and Grand Junction Projects Office. (The Grand Junction

Projects Office will be responsible for DOE’s long-term surveillance and

maintenance program as well as for DOE’s groundwater program.) We also

requested and received letters from DOE’s Deputy General Counsel and

NRC’s General Counsel. In addition, we interviewed officials of NRC’s High

Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch who are responsible

for regulating both the Title I and II sites. We also interviewed Colorado

state officials about long-term concerns they have about the tailings in

Grand Junction, Colorado. Finally, we interviewed representatives of the

National Mining Association (formerly the American Mining Congress), a

major trade association that represents many owners/operators of the

Title II sites.

We conducted our review between January 1995 and November 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE, NRC, and EPA and discussed

the information in the draft report with officials from each agency.

Officials from all three agencies generally agreed with the report’s findings

and provided technical clarifications that we have incorporated as

appropriate. Additional details on the agencies’ comments are contained in

chapter 3.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

Since its inception in 1979, the UMTRA project has grown in both size and

cost. The surface cleanup at the Title I sites is almost complete, but it took

DOE nearly 8 years longer than expected and cost 37 percent more than the

agency anticipated. The schedule changes and cost increases resulted

from several factors, including unexpected quantities and locations of

tailings, changes in federal regulatory requirements, and state and local

concerns. As for the cleanup of the groundwater at the Title I sites, efforts

have only recently begun. DOE initiated groundwater cleanup at the Title I

sites in 1991 and currently estimates completion in about 2014, at a cost of

at least $147 million.1

Surface Cleanup Is

Nearly Complete but

Has Taken Longer and

Cost More Than

Anticipated

DOE is currently seeking reauthorization of the surface cleanup program

through fiscal year 1998, or 8 years past the act’s original deadline. When it

was enacted in 1978, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

directed DOE to complete the cleanup of the Title I sites by March 1990 (7

years after EPA’s standards became effective). The deadline for the surface

cleanup was later extended through fiscal year 1994, and then still later,

through 1996.2

 According to DOE, these extensions were necessary because

of growth in the program’s size and complexity. The Department currently

expects that its surface cleanup will be completed by the beginning of

1997. DOE is working with NRC to expedite the licensing process so that all

of the work is completed by the end of 1998.

As of October 1995, the surface cleanup was complete at 15 of the 24 Title

I sites, was under way at 7 additional sites, and was being planned at

another 2 sites. Of the 15 sites where DOE has completed cleanup, 3 have

been licensed by NRC as meeting EPA’s standards. Ten of the other 12 sites

are working on obtaining an NRC license (e.g., preparing paperwork for

submission to NRC or undergoing NRC’s review or inspection).3

 Additionally,

DOE has completed the surface cleanup at about 97 percent of the 5,276

nearby properties—which DOE terms vicinity properties—included in the

program as of October 1995.

1

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

dollars.

2

Although DOE, through its 1992 planning process, requested that the program be authorized through

fiscal year 1998, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 provided authorization only through 1996.

3

According to DOE officials, unlike the other sites, the sites at Monument Valley, Arizona, and

Riverton, Wyoming, will not be licensed because the tailings were relocated to either a Title I or a Title

II site.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

In January 1995, DOE estimated that the total cost of the surface cleanup at

the Title I sites will be about $2.3 billion,4

 or $621 million (37 percent)

more than it estimated in 1982. Through fiscal year 1994, expenditures for

the surface cleanup already totaled about $2 billion, and DOE expects to

spend another $300 million in completing this cleanup. Of the total

projected cost of $2.3 billion, DOE expects to spend about 22 percent

cleaning up the vicinity properties and the rest on cleaning up the 24 Title I

sites.5

 Through fiscal year 1995, the states will have contributed

$99.9 million, and they are expected to spend another $29.6 million

through the completion of the program as their share of the cleanup costs.

Table 2.1 summarizes the status and cost of the surface cleanup at the

Title I sites and vicinity properties.

4

In DOE’s accounting system, this amount is reported as $1.47 billion in what DOE terms “escalated”

dollars.

5

While DOE’s budget system accounts for the two largest cost components of the cleanup at vicinity

properties, it cannot fully itemize all these costs. As a result, according to DOE, the 22 percent of the

total project cost that DOE expects to spend for cleaning up these properties is understated to a small

extent.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

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

Cleanup costs (in millions of

dollars)a

Site/Location

Actual/

estimated

date of

completing

remedial

action

Volume of

contaminated

materials (in

thousands of

cubic yards)

Acres of

contaminated

land

Disposal

on site?

Number

of

vicinity

properties

Expenses

through

fiscal year

1994

Estimated

costs

remaining

Total

projected

costs

High priority

Durango, Colorado 5/91 2,534 127 No 130 $ 119.11 $ 1.25 $ 120.36

Grand Junction, Colorado 8/94b 4,655 114 No 4,381c 654.03 92.05 746.07

Gunnison, Colorado 11/95d 719 68 No 12 82.38 12.31 94.69

Rifle, Colorado (2 sites) 5/96d 4,135 326 No 112 117.62 46.18 163.80

Shiprock, New Mexico 11/86 1,600 130 Yes 15 51.65 0.47 52.12

Canonsburg,

Pennsylvaniae 12/85 226 79 Yes 163 136.79 0.17 136.96

Salt Lake City, Utah 6/89 2,710 128 No 118 204.34 1.15 205.48

Riverton, Wyoming 9/90 1,793 140 No 42 92.07 0.06 92.14

Medium priority

Tuba City, Arizona 5/90 785 327 Yes 1 53.52 0.77 54.29

Naturita, Colorado 9/97d 547 247 No 37 31.40 39.50 70.90

Ambrosia Lake, New

Mexico 7/95 3,759 612 Yes 5 54.35 9.03 63.37

Lakeview, Oregon 11/89 926 116 No 8 62.03 0.11 62.14

Falls City, Texas 7/94 5,764 593 Yes 13 68.63 1.91 70.54

Mexican Hat, Utah 2/95 2,810 250 Yes 11 79.99 6.54 86.53

Low priority

Monument Valley,

Arizona 3/94 942 83 No 4 38.30 1.05 39.35

Maybell, Colorado 1/97d 3,500 214 Yes 11 23.03 32.93 55.96

Slick Rock, Colorado (2

sites) 12/96d 573 139 No 13 23.09 30.95 54.04

Lowman, Idaho 6/92 128 30 Yes 38 28.84 0.02 28.86

Belfield, North Dakotaf 12/96d 58 31 No 7 20.64 20.94 41.58

Bowman, North Dakotaf 12/96d 128 71 Yes 1 1.09 1.56 2.65

Green River, Utah 12/89 382 48 Yes 17 39.25 0.34 39.58

Spook, Wyoming 9/89 315 21 Yes 2 20.33 0.05 20.39

(continued)

Page 25 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

Cleanup costs (in millions of

dollars)a

Site/Location

Actual/

estimated

date of

completing

remedial

action

Volume of

contaminated

materials (in

thousands of

cubic yards)

Acres of

contaminated

land

Disposal

on site?

Number

of

vicinity

properties

Expenses

through

fiscal year

1994

Estimated

costs

remaining

Total

projected

costs

Other

Edgemont,

South Dakotag

Not

available

Not

available

Not

available

Not

applicable 135 13.43 0 13.43

Total 38,989 3,894 5,276 2,015.91 299.34 2,315.23

aAll dollars are adjusted to present-value 1995 dollars.

bProcessing site only.

cIncludes 115 vicinity properties that were cleaned up under Grand Junction’s remedial action

program.

dAnticipated completion date.

eIncludes contaminated materials from the vicinity property in the Burrell, Pennsylvania, area.

f

The collection of costs at the Belfield and Bowman sites was not consistent during fiscal years

1980-94; sometimes the costs for both sites were included in the totals for one site, and

sometimes the costs were split. However, the combined costs are correct.

gThe UMTRA project is responsible for cleaning up the vicinity properties only—the former

uranium mill site in Edgemont is owned and was cleaned up by the Tennessee Valley Authority in

the late 1980s.

As the table shows, among all of DOE’s cleanup sites, the Grand Junction,

Colorado, location stands out in several respects. Its projected cleanup

costs are by far the highest, as would be expected since it had the second

greatest volume of contaminated material and the greatest number of

vicinity properties that needed cleanup.

The table also shows that the cost of cleaning up the high-priority

locations was generally higher than the cost of cleaning up the

medium-priority locations, which in turn was higher than the cost of

cleaning up the low-priority locations. About 70 percent of the total

projected costs will be incurred at the high-priority locations, about 18

percent at the medium-priority locations, and about 12 percent at the

low-priority locations. On average, the projected cleanup cost is

$179.1 million for a high-priority location, $68 million for a

medium-priority location, and $31.4 million for a low-priority location.

In general, at those locations where the tailings were taken off-site for

disposal, the costs were greater than they were at the sites where the

Page 26 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

tailings were kept on-site. Averaged over all locations, the estimated cost

of off-site disposal is about $130 million per location, compared with about

$55.6 million per location for on-site disposal.

With work completed at 15 of the 24 Title I sites, the bulk of the

expenditures for surface cleanup have already been made, as shown in

table 2.1. The estimated remaining costs make up only 13 percent of the

projected total cost. For the most part, DOE has completed the surface

cleanup at those sites that posed the greatest potential health risk to the

public (e.g., sites located near major population centers). At most of the

other sites, DOE’s cleanup efforts are well under way.

Several Factors

Increased Cost of

DOE’s Surface

Cleanup

As DOE’s surface cleanup at the Title I sites grew in size and complexity, its

costs increased. In 1982, DOE estimated that the entire cleanup effort

would cost about $1.7 billion, but by 1992, its estimate had risen to

$2.3 billion.6

 On the basis of studies it conducted in 1990 and 1992, DOE

identified several factors that contributed to the cost increases. Among

these factors were the (1) development of EPA’s new standards to protect

groundwater; (2) establishment or revision of other federal standards

addressing such things as the transport of the tailings and the safety of

workers; (3) unexpected discovery of additional tailings, both at

processing sites and at newly discovered vicinity properties; and

(4) changes made in cleanup strategies in response to state and local

concerns. DOE has concluded that to varying degrees, each of these factors

caused additional work, thus increasing costs.

Compliance With EPA’s

Groundwater Standards

Required Changes in

Surface Cleanup Strategies

One of the major factors that DOE identified as driving up the cost of its

surface cleanups was EPA’s establishment of groundwater standards,

which were proposed in 1987 and finalized in January 1995. EPA developed

these standards specifically for the UMTRA project.7

 The standards

addressed the likely types and levels of contamination associated with all

6

The 1982 estimate assumed that the cleanups would be completed in 7 years and that only one pile of

tailings would need to be relocated. However, the 1992 estimate assumed that the surface cleanup

would be completed in 1998 and that 13 piles of tailings would need to be relocated. The two

estimates, while different in some respects, are the best cost estimates that DOE had available.

7

According to DOE, until the standards were finalized, it treated the proposed standards as final after

1987, as directed by section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Page 27 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

of the sites.8 The groundwater standards, which were applicable to all the

Title I sites, set the maximum levels of contaminants allowed in the

groundwater.

To comply with EPA’s new standards, DOE had to ensure that each of its

surface cleanup strategies would prevent the uranium and other

contaminants in the tailings from entering and contaminating the

groundwater underlying the site.9 DOE had to demonstrate compliance with

the revised groundwater standards on the basis of numerical limits. Thus,

at six sites, DOE either (1) removed the tailings to an off-site location rather

than disposing of them on-site as planned or (2) changed the location of a

planned disposal cell. For example, for the site at Naturita, Colorado, DOE

plans to relocate the contaminated materials off-site because of their close

proximity to the groundwater. DOE estimates that relocating the tailings

from that site increased the cleanup cost by about $12 million (in the years

of the expenditure). In addition, at five other sites, DOE had to redesign a

disposal cell and/or the cell’s cover to comply with the new standards. At

the Grand Junction, Colorado, site for example, DOE changed the location

of the site and redesigned the disposal cell and its cover, resulting in a cost

increase of about $48 million between fiscal years 1983 and 1992 (in the

years of the expenditure).

Compliance With Other

Federal Requirements Also

Increased Costs

Changes in other federal agencies’ regulations required DOE to undertake

additional cleanup activities and also resulted in cost increases. According

to DOE, the Department had to comply with federal transportation

requirements and health and safety requirements for workers. For

example, because the tailings are residual radioactive material (which is

classified as a hazardous material), DOE had to comply with the

Department of Transportation’s regulations governing the transport of

hazardous waste. According to DOE, complying with the regulations added

approximately $11 million (in the years of the expenditure), or $1.75 per

cubic yard of tailings, to the cleanup cost at the Grand Junction, Colorado

site.10 To comply with transportation requirements that mandated various

8

The law required that the standards established under title I of the act provide protection that is

consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the requirements of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. However, EPA’s groundwater standards provided some

flexibility; for example, allowing the groundwater to cleanse itself through natural flushing until the

contaminants gradually decreased.

9

Also, as discussed later, to comply with the new groundwater regulations, DOE had to clean up

groundwater that had already been contaminated.

10DOE notes that because of the experience it gained at the Grand Junction site, the cost increases at

other sites should be less than $1 per cubic yard of tailings.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

inspections, DOE, among other things, hired a full-time transportation

compliance officer, provided additional training for truck drivers on

handling hazardous material, and purchased additional insurance.

Furthermore, under the requirements for hazardous materials, DOE also

had to follow the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, among others. For example, DOE had to provide full-time

employees with a 40-hour training course on operations involving

hazardous materials. DOE estimates that providing such training added

about $600,000 (in the years of the expenditure) to the cost of cleaning up

four Title I sites.

Discovery of Additional

Tailings and Vicinity

Properties Led to

Additional Work and

Increased Costs

The cleanup costs also increased because of the unexpected discovery of

additional tailings at the sites. DOE’s 1982 cost estimate was based on the

assumption that about 19.3 million cubic yards of tailings would need to be

cleaned up at the sites. By April 1995, this amount had doubled to

39 million cubic yards. According to DOE, the amount increased because

the initial site characterization studies were limited. In addition, DOE had

not anticipated the requirements it would need to meet when heavy metals

and thorium were found at the sites. At some sites, these requirements

increased the total amount of material to be cleaned up, which in turn

increased the size of the needed disposal cell and the associated costs.

The vicinity properties also contributed to increased costs. As at many of

the processing sites, DOE found more tailings than anticipated at some of

the vicinity properties. For example, in Grand Junction, Colorado, the

amount of tailings at the vicinity properties increased from an estimate of

747,000 cubic yards to almost 2 million cubic yards. Furthermore,

additional vicinity properties were discovered, requiring cleanup work not

included in the original estimate. In the early 1980s, DOE estimated that a

total of 4,875 vicinity properties would need to be cleaned up. By

October 1995, remedial actions were planned for 5,276 vicinity

properties—an increase of about 8 percent.

State and Local Concerns

Resulted in Changes in

Cleanup Strategies, Thus

Increasing Costs

State and local entities’ concerns also affected the cleanup strategies

selected and the attendant costs. For example, at the Grand Junction site,

the local county’s concern about safety led to the use of a train-and-truck

method of transporting contaminated materials, rather than a cheaper

truck-only method. Local officials wanted a transport system that avoided

routing extensive truck traffic through heavily populated areas. The

Page 29 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

train-and-truck method required the construction of railroad transfer

facilities and the manufacture of specially equipped containers. According

to a DOE estimate, changing to the train-and-truck method cost an

additional $28 million (in 1995 dollars) at the Grand Junction site.

The change to the train-and-truck method at the Grand Junction site also

caused DOE to delay remedial action at three other Title I sites. According

to a DOE program official, the additional unanticipated costs at the Grand

Junction site required DOE to temporarily stop work at the Mexican Hat

and Monument Valley sites and postpone planned work at the Ambrosia

Lake site. DOE suspended work at the Mexican Hat and Monument Valley

sites from February 1990 through December 1990, at an estimated cost of

about $5 million (in 1995 dollars). According to DOE, at the Ambrosia Lake

site, the remedial action was delayed by over a year, from April 1990 until

July 1991, costing about $1.6 million (in 1995 dollars). In total, the change

to the train-and-truck method at Grand Junction resulted in additional

expenditures of about $34 million (in 1995 dollars).

In addition, according to an analysis by DOE, concerns expressed by the

state and by local communities influenced DOE to change from on-site

disposal to more costly off-site disposal at several locations, including

Grand Junction and Gunnison, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; and

Riverton, Wyoming. These changes resulted in cost increases because they

required additional site characterization and engineering, as well as

additional construction activity.

DOE has construed the states’ role as that of a full partner in selecting and

performing the remedial action for each site. Although DOE believed that it

was necessary to make the changes discussed above in response to the

states’ concerns, DOE program officials acknowledge that the changes did

result in some additional expenditures.

Groundwater Cleanup

Is in Planning Stages

DOE began work on its groundwater cleanup in 1991. Currently, DOE

expects to complete its groundwater cleanup by 2014, at an estimated cost

of at least $147 million, if the cleanup methods DOE has proposed are used.

DOE’s stated goal is to protect human health and the environment at the

Title I sites by cleaning up the groundwater to EPA’s standards. Although

DOE has targeted potential groundwater cleanup strategies for the sites, it

has yet to reach a final agreement with the affected tribes and states on

what strategies will ultimately be used.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

According to DOE officials, the Department will pursue those strategies

that will enable it to comply with regulatory requirements at the least cost.

Thus, wherever possible, DOE will either take no remedial action (leave the

groundwater as it is) or allow the groundwater to cleanse itself through

passive remediation (natural flushing) over time. Where necessary, DOE

will use active remediation, such as pumping the groundwater out of the

ground and treating it. DOE’s proposed groundwater strategies call for

taking no action at 13 sites, employing passive remediation at 9 sites, and

using active remediation at 2 sites.

Status and Cost of DOE’s

Groundwater Cleanup

Activities

DOE’s groundwater cleanup effort is just beginning. Although EPA issued

groundwater standards in 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth

Circuit remanded the standards to EPA. In 1987, EPA proposed new

standards to replace those remanded. In 1988, Public Law 100-616

authorized DOE to clean up the groundwater at the Title I sites without any

time limitation. DOE planned its groundwater program while the proposed

rules were in effect. DOE began its groundwater cleanup effort in 1991. In

January 1995, EPA published its final groundwater standards. Because the

law established no deadline for completing the groundwater cleanup and

because EPA had not issued its final standards, DOE delayed its efforts so it

could concentrate instead on completing the surface cleanup, which had a

fixed completion deadline. According to a Department official, DOE

believed at the time that the groundwater cleanup would be expensive and

lengthy. In addition, DOE believed it would have been inappropriate to

begin the groundwater cleanup before the groundwater standards were

finalized.

As of June 1995, DOE had spent about $16.7 million on activities related to

the groundwater cleanup. Most of these expenditures were for

(1) technical and management support, such as planning activities, and

(2) site characterization, such as studying the extent and type of

contamination and assessing the associated health risk. Although the

groundwater cleanup had not been completed at any of the Title I sites as

of November 1995, DOE is forecasting that its sites will meet EPA’s

groundwater standards by 2014. On the basis of the cleanup strategies it

will propose to the affected states and Indian tribes, DOE estimates that the

groundwater cleanup will cost at least $147 million.

As a major step in implementing its proposed cleanup strategies, DOE

intends to modify its existing cooperative agreements with the affected

states and Indian tribes to more explicitly address groundwater issues. DOE

Page 31 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

intends to modify these agreements to reflect the needed funding, actions

concerning real estate, and technical reviews necessary to perform the

chosen remedial action. As of October 1995, DOE had not completed any

modifications to the agreements with the affected parties.

In addition to modifying the cooperative agreements, DOE plans to obtain

comments from the affected states and Indian tribes on a major planning

document11 that provides the framework for the groundwater cleanup

program, as well as on other technical documents.12 Once DOE has received

comments from the affected states, tribes, and citizens on these

documents, it plans to draft a remedial action plan for each site.

DOE’s Proposed Cleanup

Strategies Are Based on

Risk Assessment and

Applicable EPA Standards

DOE is currently formulating groundwater cleanup strategies that will

comply with EPA’s standards, on the basis of health and environmental risk

assessments and the potential use of the water. According to EPA’s

groundwater standards, DOE should apply the most cost-effective cleanup

remedies available to meet these standards at each site. The standards

establish concentration limits for those contaminants expected to be

found in the groundwater as a result of uranium processing at the sites.

According to DOE, EPA set the following four standards for DOE’s use:

• Maximum concentration limits. This standard is intended to protect

human health and the environment from the many contaminants that can

occur at a site. For each contaminant, the standard establishes a maximum

concentration limit. For a site to meet this standard, these limits cannot be

exceeded.

• Alternate concentration limits. Under this standard, contamination levels

can be higher than those allowed under the standard for maximum

concentration limits. DOE may apply to NRC to use the alternate standard if

it can demonstrate that human health and the environment are still

protected, even though the contamination levels exceed the maximum

concentration levels.

• Background level. This standard may apply at sites where nearby water,

while not contaminated by contaminants resulting from uranium

processing, is of naturally poor quality (e.g., because of high levels of

mineral concentration). If the contaminants have not reached the

maximum concentration levels or if the quality of the background water

11Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

Groundwater Project, draft, DOE.

12These documents include the site work plans, which provide detailed characterization of the sites

and environmental assessments.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

exceeds the maximum concentration levels, DOE may choose to clean up

the groundwater only to the background level standard.

• Supplemental standards. This standard may apply at sites under special

circumstances, such as the following: (1) the groundwater is not a current

or potential source of drinking water because of its poor quality or limited

quantity, (2) the groundwater cleanup would cause more harm than good

to the environment, or (3) the cleanup is not technically feasible. In such

cases, DOE may apply to NRC to use the supplemental standards and leave

the groundwater as it is.

DOE’s Proposed Cleanup

Strategies Vary

Considerably

After assessing the applicability of EPA’s various groundwater standards at

each site, DOE developed proposed cleanup strategies for 24 sites. These

proposed strategies are (1) no further action at 13 sites, (2) passive

remediation at 9 sites, and (3) active measures to clean up the

contamination at the 2 remaining sites.13 When no health risk is

demonstrated, DOE may decide that no cleanup action is necessary. Or,

depending on its assessment of risk, DOE may decide to use a passive

cleanup, such as a natural flushing approach. At sites where DOE believes

that it is necessary to protect health and the environment, the Department

may initiate a more active cleanup strategy, such as pumping and treating

the groundwater. Regardless of the strategy it chooses, DOE must obtain

NRC’s concurrence.

At 13 sites, DOE believes that no groundwater cleanup activities are

warranted and so has proposed no further action at these sites. If DOE’s

proposal is accepted, the cost of the groundwater activities at these 13

sites will be primarily for activities such as studying the sites (e.g., to

identify the type and level of contamination), holding public meetings, and

working with NRC. DOE believes that its proposal to take no further action

at these 13 sites will comply with EPA’s groundwater standards as long as

the groundwater contamination does not exceed the background levels or

maximum concentration limits, or as long as supplemental standards are

applicable on the basis of limited use of the groundwater.14

13Because the proposals shown are DOE’s projections and are for planning purposes only, they are

subject to agreements reached with the affected states and tribes and the completion of the final

site-specific documents.

14Groundwater may be classified as “limited use” if the total dissolved solids exceed 10,000 milligrams

per liter, if there is widespread ambient contamination that cannot be cleaned up using treatment

methods reasonably employed in public water supply systems, or if the quantity of water available is

less than 150 gallons per day.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

“No further action” can mean one of three things, which DOE breaks down

as follows:

• The site’s groundwater is not contaminated. DOE characterizes this

condition, which has occurred at one of the Title I sites, as “no further

action.”

• The groundwater is contaminated, but conditions at the site warrant the

use of the supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits. DOE

characterizes this condition, which has occurred at six sites, as “no further

action, compliance demonstration.”

• Insufficient data on groundwater were collected at the site during the

surface cleanup, so that additional data must be collected to demonstrate

that the supplemental standards should be used. DOE characterizes this

condition, which has occurred at six sites, as “demonstrate compliance

through additional characterization.”

DOE believes that nine sites are candidates for passive remediation, or

natural flushing. Although the cleanup of the groundwater contamination

at these nine sites may take up to 100 years to complete, DOE estimates

that, except for long-term monitoring, its work will be completed by 2014.

By that time, DOE will need to show that the cleanup of the groundwater is

occurring at such a rate that the cleanup will be completed within 100

years.

As noted above, passive remediation means performing no cleanup and

instead relying on natural flushing. Natural flushing cleans groundwater

through the process of dilution. Over time, as the groundwater flows

through the aquifer, the concentration of contaminants gradually

decreases. EPA’s regulations require monitoring to verify the movement of

contaminants in the groundwater and the related reduction in

contamination. DOE plans to continue monitoring the sites for 30 years and

then demonstrate through its groundwater models that the process will

result, within 100 years, in a level of cleanliness that meets the applicable

EPA standard.

DOE believes that natural flushing is a viable cleanup strategy when (1) it

will protect human health and the environment, (2) it will reduce the

concentration of contaminants to a level below that prescribed by the

standards in less than 100 years, and (3) the groundwater is not used for

and is not expected to be used for drinking water. If natural flushing is

chosen, access to the contaminated groundwater must be restricted

Page 34 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 2 

UMTRA Project Has Grown in Size and Cost

through means such as monitoring and controlling the site’s boundaries

and developing and enforcing land-use policies.

According to a DOE official, the federal government has never used natural

flushing as a cleanup strategy. However, EPA believes that natural flushing

is a viable alternative when (1) water use and ecological considerations

are not affected and (2) the cleanup will occur in less than 100 years.

Furthermore, EPA believes that institutional controls, if enforced by

governmental entities or installed with a high degree of permanence, can

be relied upon for up to 100 years.

Finally, at some sites a passive compliance strategy may not comply with

the applicable EPA standards, may not adequately protect human health or

the environment, or may not be accepted by the public or the affected

community. Under these circumstances, DOE will propose an active

strategy for the groundwater cleanup. For example, DOE may propose

(1) pumping out the contaminated groundwater, treating it, and

discharging it on the surface or (2) adding nutrients to the groundwater to

promote bacterial growth that will break down the contaminants into

nonhazardous elements (known as bioremediation).

DOE believes that two sites—Monument Valley and Tuba City,

Arizona—are candidates for active remediation because natural flushing at

these sites would not clean the groundwater within 100 years. These two

sites are located on lands belonging to the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes.

According to DOE officials, tribal officials are supporting active

remediation of the groundwater. In addition, although the groundwater is

not currently being consumed by people, the contaminants associated

with the groundwater at both sites could cause death if ingested by

infants.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

The ultimate extent and cost of DOE’s surface and groundwater cleanups

depends on the resolution of a number of issues. First, while the surface

cleanup of the Title I sites is completed or progressing at the majority of

the sites, it will not be completed by the end of fiscal year 1996, when

DOE’s legislative cleanup authority expires. Second, because the

groundwater cleanup is in its early planning stages, as discussed in

chapter 2, its final scope and cost depend largely on the methods chosen

to conduct the cleanup and the financial participation of the affected

states. If DOE’s proposed least-cost approaches are not chosen, the

project’s costs will increase accordingly. In the event that any state is

unwilling or unable to share the cost of the groundwater cleanup, DOE will

notify the Congress that it cannot complete the cleanup in those locations.

Third, if the Congress provides for disposal of additional tailings in Grand

Junction, Colorado that are unearthed in the future, DOE will incur added

costs. Finally, NRC’s regulations specify that it make a one-time minimum

charge to the owners/operators of Title II sites of $250,000 in 1978 dollars

($530,000 in 1995) to pay for the basic surveillance costs at each site. This

amount has not been reviewed and updated since 1980 and excludes any

amount for ongoing maintenance. DOE’s estimates of the annual costs of

surveillance and maintenance at the sites indicate that NRC’s expected

minimum charge may be understated.

Various Factors May

Affect Schedule and

Cost of Surface

Cleanup at Title I Sites

Although DOE plans to complete most of its surface cleanup by the end of

fiscal year 1996—when its legislative cleanup authority expires—the

Department believes it unlikely that work at some sites can be completed

by then. At those sites, DOE anticipates it could complete the cleanup by

early 1997. The licensing of these sites will continue into 1998 and DOE has

established a goal of completing all licensing activities by the end of 1998.

However, NRC officials are less optimistic that all the licensing will be

completed by this date.

Completion of Surface

Cleanup Depends on

Resolving Problems at Five

Sites

According to a DOE official, if the Department receives a 2-year extension

of its cleanup authority, it can complete the surface cleanup of all the Title

I sites by the beginning of 1997. Work has already been completed at 15

sites, and at another 4 sites, cleanup is progressing on schedule and

completion is expected before the end of fiscal year 1996. For example, at

the two Rifle, Colorado, sites, hauling of the tailings is complete, the radon

barrier will be completed in October 1995, and the disposal cell’s rock

cover should be in place by May 1996, as scheduled. The cleanup at two

other sites (Gunnison and Maybell, Colorado) is scheduled for completion

Page 36 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

in November 1995 and January 1997, respectively. At the remaining five

sites, however, progress has been hampered by outstanding issues.

At the Naturita, Colorado, site, the cleanup is scheduled for completion

during fiscal year 1997, contingent on NRC’s concurrence with DOE’s site

cleanup and disposal plan for the site, which DOE hopes to obtain in

December 1995. Work at the Naturita site was delayed when DOE, in

response to public pressure, changed the location of the disposal cell.

Once a new location was selected, work began on the disposal cell’s

design, but construction of the disposal cell cannot begin until NRC concurs

with the plan. Accordingly, in an attempt to speed the process, DOE

skipped the first two steps of its typical three-step process for obtaining

NRC’s concurrence. The first two steps essentially involve obtaining NRC’s

early review of the preliminary plans. Because it skipped the early review

steps, however, DOE is less certain than it has been in other cases that NRC

will accept the plan without major modifications. Yet DOE must obtain

NRC’s concurrence by December 1995 in order to begin construction in the

spring of 1996 and complete the cleanup of the site in 1997. According to

NRC officials, the Commission received the remedial action plan for this

site on November 14, 1995. As a result, although NRC is giving this review a

high priority, because of the late submission of the documentation, NRC

cannot guarantee completion of the review by the end of 1995.

The cleanup of the two sites located at Slick Rock, Colorado, has also

been slowed by problems with a subcontractor’s performance. Work at the

two sites began during the spring of 1995. However, the subcontractor’s

poor performance resulted in slow progress, and in October 1995 a

decision was made to terminate the contract. DOE estimates it will cost

about $4.6 million (in 1995 dollars) to terminate the project and rebid the

work.1

 As of September 1995, the project was 6 months behind schedule.

Nonetheless, DOE currently expects the cleanup at this site to be

completed in fiscal year 1997, as projected.

Finally, DOE’s schedule for completing the cleanup could also be affected

by its decision on whether to clean up the two North Dakota sites or

“de-list” them (drop them from the program). As indicated in chapter 1,

DOE added these two sites to the original list of 22 Title I sites early in the

1

These costs are for the extended opening of the field office at Slick Rock, the rebidding of the

contract, and attorneys’ fees.

Page 37 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

program.2 However, in March 1995 the North Dakota State Department of

Health and Consolidated Laboratories requested that DOE remove the two

sites from the program because North Dakota’s legislature was not likely

to appropriate funds for the state’s 10-percent share of the cleanup costs.

The state also felt that there would be minimal risk to the public and

environment if the sites were not cleaned up and that the benefits

associated with the cleanup were not commensurate with the costs.

As of October 1995, DOE had made no decision about de-listing the sites

but had initiated the process that could lead to doing so. If DOE ultimately

decides to de-list the two sites, the schedule would not be affected since

the sites would no longer be part of the program. However, if the sites are

not de-listed and the state is willing to pay its share of the cleanup costs,

the work at the sites may not be completed by the end of 1997. According

to DOE officials, preparation for remedial action at the two sites would

have had to begin by mid-September 1995 in order to complete the cleanup

by the end of fiscal year 1997.

If North Dakota does not pay its share of the cleanup costs, DOE believes it

would not have the authority to complete its cleanup. According to DOE, if

a state cannot pay its 10-percent share of the costs, the Department would

notify the Congress that it could not complete the remedial actions

planned in that state.

DOE officials told us that the Department has a goal of completing all

licensing of the Title I sites by the end of 1998 and is working closely with

NRC to meet this goal. However, NRC officials are less than optimistic that

the Commission will be able to license all the sites by then because of their

workload at the Title II sites.

By late spring of 1996, if its authority has not been extended beyond the

end of fiscal year 1996, DOE plans to start shutting down its work at those

sites where the cleanup is not complete. Doing so, however, would be

costly. According to a DOE official, the activities required to shut down a

site (e.g., completing the paperwork required to terminate contracts and

release or reassign employees, paying penalties to contractors, covering

exposed tailings, and fencing work sites) would cost at least $15 million

(in 1995 dollars) at four sites: Maybell, Naturita, and the two Slick Rock

sites. Furthermore, the costs would be even higher if DOE starts, and then

2

According to DOE’s Deputy General Counsel, by authorizing the Secretary to use discretion in adding

to the list of sites designated by the Congress, the act implicitly authorizes the use of discretion in

reconsidering how such sites are designated if additional information comes to light. Thus, if these two

sites were not properly designated in 1979, DOE could revoke their designation.

Page 38 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

subsequently needs to stop the cleanup work at the two North Dakota

sites.

DOE May Face Added

Costs at Cheney Disposal

Cell

DOE is working with NRC and the state of Colorado to develop a long-term

radon management plan for disposing of tailings unearthed in the Grand

Junction, Colorado, area, in future years. About a million cubic yards of

tailings were used in burying utility lines and constructing roads in the

area and remain today under the utility corridors and road surfaces. In

future years, utility and road repairs and replacements will likely cause

tailings to be unearthed, resulting in a potential public health hazard if the

tailings are mismanaged.

In response to this problem, DOE is working with NRC and Colorado

officials to develop a plan that calls for temporarily storing the tailings as

they are unearthed and periodically transporting them to the nearby

disposal cell (the Cheney cell located near Grand Junction, Colorado) for

permanent disposal. The city or county would be responsible for hauling

the tailings to the cell, and DOE would be responsible for the cost of

placing the tailings in the cell. Under the plan, a portion of the Cheney

disposal cell would remain open, at an annual cost of several hundred

thousand dollars. This portion of the cell would remain open until it is full

or for a period of 20 to 25 years, according to a program official.

Because the law requires that all disposal cells be closed upon completion

of the surface cleanup work, DOE does not have the authority to implement

this plan without congressional approval to keep a portion of the Cheney

cell open as far into the future as necessary.

Uncertainties May

Increase Scope and

Cost of Groundwater

Cleanup

As discussed in chapter 2, DOE is developing a groundwater cleanup

strategy that meets EPA’s standards while using the least-cost approaches

wherever possible. However, DOE is uncertain whether the affected states

and Indian tribes will agree with its proposed approaches and, if not, to

what extent their disagreement will influence DOE’s choices. DOE plans to

negotiate the selection of groundwater strategies with the affected states

and tribes. Historically DOE has construed the states’ role as that of a full

partner in selecting and performing remedial actions. However, according

to DOE, it has not allowed and does not plan to allow the states and tribes

to exercise veto authority over the selection of the remedy.

Page 39 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

Until DOE (1) modifies its cooperative agreements with the affected states

and tribes to incorporate groundwater activities and (2) finalizes the

documents pertaining to each site, such as site characterization studies

and environmental assessments, the Department cannot be sure what it

will cost to complete the groundwater cleanup. As of October 1995, DOE

was negotiating with the state of Texas to modify its cooperative

agreement and incorporate provisions for complying with the groundwater

program. Texas has tentatively accepted the proposed modification to its

cooperative agreement, and DOE plans to use the modified Texas

cooperative agreement as a model for other states. However, DOE does not

know if other states will accept such modifications. According to DOE, it is

premature to speculate on how a state’s refusal to modify the cooperative

agreement could affect the Department’s strategy for the groundwater

cleanup.

DOE estimates that implementing its proposed strategies for the

groundwater cleanup would cost at least $147 million. This cost estimate,

however, is based in large part on the technical assumptions underlying

the selected strategies. As a result, the final cost is difficult to project

because the technical assumptions may be proven invalid by the future

testing and monitoring that DOE plans to conduct. According to a DOE

official, examples of these assumptions are the (1) rate of speed that

contaminant particles move through the aquifer and (2) volume of

contaminants in the aquifer. According to EPA,

3

 “[t]he cleanup of

groundwater is a large-scale undertaking for which there is relatively little

long-term experience.” EPA also noted that the condition of the

groundwater at the Title I sites varies greatly and that the “engineering

experience with some of the required remedial actions is limited.”

While it has targeted the least-cost strategies for cleaning up the

groundwater at each site, DOE has identified five sites where it believes

there is a 50-percent chance that a more expensive alternative may be

required. DOE may choose a more expensive alternative because (1) the

affected states or Indian tribes, through negotiations, may influence the

Department to select a more expensive alternative because of their

disagreement over DOE’s proposed cleanup strategy or (2) future studies by

DOE may prove that the technical assumptions are invalid. As a result, for

each of these five sites, DOE has identified an alternative strategy that,

although more expensive, may address concerns raised by the affected

entities or possible technical problems.

3

Discussed in EPA’s Jan. 11, 1995, groundwater standards.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

DOE estimates that implementing the more expensive alternative

approaches at these five sites would cost an additional $72 million, thus

raising the total cost of its share of the groundwater cleanup to

$219 million. According to DOE officials, however, the Department is

looking for ways to reduce the cost of the groundwater cleanup.

In addition, although the states are to pay 10 percent of the cost of

remedial actions, DOE has not yet specified when the states would begin to

share in these costs. If DOE decides that for groundwater cleanup, as for

the surface cleanup, the states will share only in the cost of the

groundwater remediation plans and remedial action (and not such items

as administrative costs), then the states’ estimated total cost share would

be about $1 million, according to DOE.

Finally, some states may not have funds to pay their share of the

groundwater cleanup cost. According to a DOE official, Pennsylvania,

Oregon, and Utah may not have funding for the groundwater program. A

Colorado official has also indicated that the state legislature may not

provide funding unless it can be shown that the contaminated

groundwater poses a serious health risk.

According to DOE, if the states do not provide funds for their share of the

costs, it would not have the legislative authority to clean up the sites. The

Department has not finalized any contingency plans in the event that the

states are unable to pay their share but is considering a variety of options,

including offsets and in-kind services from the states (e.g., equipment and

construction services) in lieu of financial support. However, if an adequate

solution is not found, DOE maintains that it will not clean up the affected

sites without congressional authorization.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

DOE Is Responsible

for Long-Term

Custody of Title I and

II Sites, but

Uncertainty

Surrounds Costs of

Long-Term Care

DOE’s responsibilities for the Title I sites do not end when the surface and

groundwater cleanups are complete. DOE will be responsible for the

long-term custody (i.e., surveillance and routine maintenance) of both

Title I and II sites.4

 The Department estimates that its long-term custodial

activities for about 45 Title I and II sites will cost about $60 million (in

1995 dollars) between 1995 and 2030.5

 While DOE is financially responsible

for the long-term custody of the Title I sites, NRC’s regulations require the

owners/operators of the Title II sites to pay the long-term costs associated

with routine maintenance and surveillance for their sites. The underlying

assumptions on which these regulations are based have not been updated

and may not reflect current cost estimates for long-term surveillance and

maintenance.

DOE Will Be Responsible

for Custody of Title I and II

Sites

Over the coming years, DOE is expected to acquire long-term custody of its

Title I sites and most or all of the Title II sites. DOE estimates that, after

2010, it will be responsible for monitoring and maintaining 19 Title I sites6

and 26 Title II sites. Although states have the option of assuming long-term

custody of the cleaned-up Title II sites, DOE does not expect that any states

will choose to do so. Accordingly, DOE expects to acquire custody of all 26

Title II sites. DOE has estimated that it will spend $60 million (in 1995

dollars) between fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 2030 on its

responsibilities for long-term custody at the Title I and II sites. (DOE has

not projected its costs past 2030.)

NRC’s Minimum Charge for

Long-Term Surveillance

Costs Has Not Been

Reviewed and Updated and

Does Not Include Routine

Maintenance

Under the act, NRC is responsible for ensuring that before the federal

government takes custody of a Title II site, it makes financial

arrangements with the owners/operators adequate to cover the costs of

long-term custody so that they, not the federal government, bear these full

costs. Under its regulations,7 NRC, is to collect a one-time charge from the

owner/operator of each site “such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual

real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an amount

sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance.” The money is to

4

DOE will also acquire long-term custody of about 10 other sites that were contaminated by activities

conducted in support of the nation’s nuclear energy programs. These sites include former government

facilities for nuclear power research, development, and production.

5

Although DOE has developed cost estimates only through 2030, its long-term custody responsibility

will continue indefinitely.

6

The total number of disposal cells is lower than the number of Title I sites because in some cases

tailings from two sites were combined and disposed of in the same cell.

7

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

Page 42 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

be paid to the General Treasury of the United States before the site’s

license is terminated.8

NRC’s regulations specify a minimum one-time charge to cover long-term

surveillance costs. If it is determined that the sites’ surveillance or control

requirements are significantly greater than general surveillance

requirements, a larger charge could be made. In 1980, NRC estimated that

the minimum annual surveillance charge per site would be $2,500 in 1978

dollars (or $5,300 in 1995 dollars). Using a real interest rate of 1 percent, a

fund of $250,000 per site in 1978 dollars—$530,000 in 1995 dollars—would

provide continuous interest income to cover the estimated annual costs.

At that time, NRC expected that the only cost for long-term surveillance

would be the cost of the time and effort involved in government

inspectors’ visits to sites (i.e., travel time, inspections, and preparation and

follow-up for the inspections).

NRC’s minimum charge for surveillance was based on the assumption that

ongoing maintenance would not be necessary. However, the regulations

provide that the maintenance costs could be added to the charge.

According to NRC, some routine maintenance—such as repairing fences,

filling in minor erosion, or eliminating rodents—is recognized in the

regulations as a possibility for all sites. If NRC determines on the basis of

site evaluations that maintenance will be necessary, additional funds may

be required.

DOE, which will take custody of the sites, has a different view of the

minimum annual surveillance cost and the need for routine maintenance.

On the basis of its experience with the Title I sites, DOE estimates that

minimum annual cost of surveillance at the Title II sites will consist, in

1995 dollars, of (1) $6,000 for an annual inspection and, if necessary, a

follow-up inspection and (2) $10,000 to prepare an annual inspection

report. DOE officials acknowledge that the costs for annual site inspection

and report preparation have been decreasing. As the number of licensed

Title I and II sites increases, inspection visits can be combined because

many of the sites are located near each other.

DOE also believes that annual routine maintenance will be required at each

Title II site and will cost $5,000 (in 1995 dollars) annually. Maintenance,

according to DOE’s guidance,9

 includes both “routine” (scheduled) and

8

If the state in which the site is located chooses to assume responsibility for the site’s long-term

custody, then the money is paid to the state’s treasury.

9

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

Page 43 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

“unscheduled” activities. Among the scheduled activities are mowing

grass, maintaining access or perimeter roads, and removing accumulated

weeds or debris. Unscheduled maintenance will be conducted as needed

for purposes such as preventing animal burrows or deep-rooted vegetation

from entering a disposal cell. Thus, DOE estimates that the combined

annual surveillance and maintenance costs will be $21,000 (in 1995

dollars).10 According to NRC officials, however, DOE’s $21,000 estimate is

provided without a basis and therefore cannot be verified as accurate.

If DOE’s estimate of the minimum annual surveillance costs and the need

for routine maintenance is correct, the minimum charge cited in NRC’s

regulations will not yield sufficient income to cover the annual costs. To

update NRC’s calculation of the amount the operators will have to pay in

order to cover these costs, we used the 1-percent real annual interest rate

specified in NRC’s regulations and DOE’s estimates of annual costs—$16,000

for surveillance or $21,000 (in 1995 dollars) for surveillance and

maintenance.11 According to our calculations, $1.6 million (in 1995 dollars)

would be needed to cover annual costs of $16,000, and $2.1 million would

be needed to cover annual costs of $21,000. As noted earlier, the one-time

charge based on NRC’s 1980 estimates would amount to only $530,000 (in

1995 dollars) and yield $5,300 annually.

Conclusions DOE has completed much of its surface cleanup at the Title I sites but will

not finish the cleanup by its legislatively mandated deadline of

September 30, 1996. To complete the surface cleanup work, DOE will need

at least a 2-year congressional renewal of its surface cleanup authority.

DOE is currently seeking reauthorization of the surface cleanup program

through fiscal year 1998. However, costs will continue after the surface

cleanup has been completed.

DOE is uncertain about the ultimate cost of its groundwater cleanup

program, which is now only in its infancy. It is too early to know whether

the affected states or tribes will ultimately persuade DOE to implement

more costly remedies than the strategies the Department has proposed.

DOE is also unsure about the validity of the technical assumptions

underlying its proposed strategies. As a result, DOE may ultimately choose

more expensive cleanup strategies, increasing the final cost of the

10DOE expects that the annual surveillance costs will be the same for both Title I and II sites. Although

DOE has projected its surveillance costs over the next 30 years, its responsibility for surveillance

extends into perpetuity.

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

Page 44 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

groundwater cleanup by as much as $72 million. However, until DOE, the

states, and the affected Indian tribes have reached a final agreement and

more is known about the accuracy of DOE’s technical assumptions about

the proposed methods, the final cost of the groundwater cleanup cannot

be ascertained.

Furthermore, DOE has yet to determine whether the states are willing and

able to pay their share of the cost of the groundwater cleanup. Because

DOE believes that it is prohibited from cleaning up contamination without

the states’ full financial participation, if the states do not provide their

10-percent share of the cleanup cost, DOE will not move forward on the

cleanup without congressional authorization.

In addition to the cost of the groundwater cleanup, DOE may incur further

costs to dispose of tailings that are unearthed in the future in the Grand

Junction, Colorado, area. DOE’s disposal of such tailings, however, will be

contingent upon obtaining congressional authority to do so.

The basis for NRC’s minimum long-term surveillance charge has not been

updated and does not reflect DOE’s current estimates of what it will cost to

provide annual surveillance and maintenance. NRC has not reviewed its

estimate of basic surveillance costs since 1980, and DOE is currently

estimating that basic monitoring will cost about three times more than NRC

estimates. Moreover, while DOE maintains that ongoing, routine

maintenance will be needed at all sites, NRC’s minimum charge does not

provide any amount for ongoing maintenance.

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

The Congress may wish to consider authorizing DOE to keep a portion of

the Cheney disposal cell open to dispose of tailings that are unearthed in

the future in the Grand Junction, Colorado, area. In addition, to resolve the

issue of DOE’s lack of authority to complete the groundwater cleanup if the

states do not contribute their 10-percent share of costs, the Congress may

wish to consider whether and under what circumstances DOE can complete

the cleanup of the sites when the states do not provide financial support.

Recommendation To provide a realistic indication of the future costs for long-term

surveillance and maintenance of the Title II sites, we recommend that the

Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct its staff to

consult with the Department of Energy to develop an accurate estimate of

these costs and what they entail, and use that information to (1) update

Page 45 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Chapter 3 

DOE’s Future Costs Are Uncertain

the minimum one-time charge for basic surveillance and (2) determine if

routine maintenance will be required at each site, and, if so, incorporate

those costs into the minimum charge.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In addition to the technical corrections provided by DOE, EPA, and NRC

officials, NRC commented on our recommendation that the Commission

update its one-time charge for basic surveillance and determine the need

for routine maintenance at each site. NRC believes that our

recommendation to update the minimum one-time charge for basic

surveillance presumes that the initial assumptions it used in developing its

basic charge for surveillance may no longer be valid. NRC is not certain that

these assumptions are invalid but is nonetheless reexamining the issue.

NRC officials fully agreed with our recommendation to determine the need

for routine maintenance at each site and incorporate any resulting costs.

These officials cited several steps the Commission is taking to ensure that

the recommendation will be implemented. They said that the Commission

and DOE are preparing a working procedure that both agencies will use in

the licensing process—including how NRC will determine long-term

funding for the sites and what role DOE will play. NRC is also developing a

procedure to follow in granting a license, including guidance on how to

determine the amount needed for long-term funding and on the

information needed to justify this funding amount. Finally, NRC plans to

discuss long-term funding requirements with the owners/operators of the

Title II sites and with DOE.

Page 46 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Page 47 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Appendix I 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director

Kathy Hale, Senior Evaluator

Michael Sagalow, Senior Evaluator

Mehrzad Nadji, Assistant Director-Economic Analysis Group

Phyllis Turner, Communications Analyst

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Doreen S. Feldman, Assistant General Counsel

Mindi G. Weisenbloom, Senior Attorney

Denver Field Office Ronald Guthrie, Assistant Director

James Charlifue, Evaluator-in-Charge

Pam Tumler, Communications Analyst

Detroit Field Office Joanna Allen, Staff Evaluator

(302136) Page 48 GAO/RCED-96-37 Costs to Clean Up Uranium Mill Tailings
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100