AUDIT

REPORT

GROUNDWATER MONITORING

ACTIVITIES AT

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

FACILITIES

FEBRUARY 2000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES

DOE/IG-0461
February 22, 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

FROM: Gregory H. Friedman (Signed)

Inspector General

SUBJECT: INFORMATION : Report on "Groundwater Monitoring Activities at Department of

Energy Facilities"

BACKGROUND 

As a result of activities associated with the production of defense-related nuclear materials, about 600 billion gallons

of groundwater have been contaminated at Department of Energy (Department) facilities located throughout the

United States. The majority of the contamination is located at the Hanford Reservation, Savannah River Site, Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation,

and Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. The contaminants include solvents, fuels, explosives, metals, and

radioactive materials.

To comply with groundwater regulations and to detect the release of contamination, the Department monitored

groundwater at 31 sites. Monitoring activities included well installation, sampling operations, and laboratory

analyses. These activities cut across several program offices; however, the Offices of Defense Programs and

Environmental Management were most involved. We estimated that the Department expended about $51 million

on these monitoring activities during Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 and expected to spend about $57 million in FY 2000.

Millions more will be spent since monitoring activities at Department locations are to continue for many years.

Given current and future Departmental expenditures for groundwater monitoring, this audit was initiated to

determine whether these activities were conducted in an economic manner.

RESULTS OF AUDIT 

The audit disclosed that some Departmental sites had not adopted innovative technologies and approaches to

groundwater monitoring, specifically relating to well installation, sampling operations, and laboratory analyses.

Thus, groundwater monitoring activities were not being conducted as economically as possible. We found that

information on innovative techniques was not effectively disseminated, evaluated for applicability, and implemented

when appropriate. Furthermore, no single Headquarters organization was assigned overall responsibility for

ensuring that groundwater activities Departmentwide were as cost effective as possible. As a result, opportunities

to reduce operating costs by about $3.6 million annually and to improve groundwater monitoring efficiencies were

not realized.
-2-

We recommended that the Department designate a Headquarters organization to ensure that field elements are aware

of and utilize "best practices" in groundwater monitoring activities. Responsibilities should include, at a minimum,

assembling information on innovative technologies and expediting the adoption of such technologies at all Department

sites, if appropriate. This organization should also help facilitate the integration of groundwater activities at both the

facility and site level. While local preferences need to be recognized, the Department's facilities should avail

themselves of the "best practices" in groundwater monitoring procedures throughout the complex.

During the course of the audit, management officials informed the Office of Inspector General that the adoption of

some technologies was beyond the control of program managers; that technical analyses are needed to determine the

appropriateness of innovative technologies before final decisions are made; and that such judgments must be made

by qualified individuals with the approval of regulatory bodies. We recognized these constraints and, therefore,

placed final determinations on what economies should be implemented beyond the scope of this review.

MANAGEMENT REACTION 

Management generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and indicated that corrective actions were

being taken or had been planned. However, this response did not specifically indicate which Headquarters

organization had been assigned overall responsibility for future Departmentwide groundwater monitoring activities.

See Appendix 3 of this report.

Attachment

cc: Deputy Secretary

 Under Secretary
TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Overview 

Introduction And Objective......................................................................1

Conclusions And Observations.................................................................1

Groundwater Monitoring Activities 

Details Of Finding....................................................................................3

Recommendations And Comments.........................................................10

Appendices 

1. Scope And Methodology..................................................................12

2. Related Reports................................................................................13

3. Assistant Secretary Comments..........................................................15

Groundwater Monitoring Activities At Department of Energy Facilities
Page 1

Overview

The Department estimates that activities associated with the production of

nuclear materials for use in defense related activities have contaminated

about 600 billion gallons of groundwater at facilities located throughout the

United States. The majority of the contam- ination is located at the Hanford

Reservation, Savannah River Site, Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

Reservation, and Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. The

contaminants include solvents, fuels, explosives, metals, and radioactive

materials.

To comply with groundwater regulations and detect the release of

contaminants, the Department monitored groundwater quality at 31 sites.

Groundwater monitoring activities included well installation, sampling

operations, and laboratory analyses. Management and operating contractors

that carried out this work were administered by Department field offices.

Although these activities cut across several programmatic offices, the Offices

of Defense Programs and Environmental Management funded the

preponderance of the groundwater activities at the facilities reviewed. We

estimated that the Department expended about $51 million on these

monitoring activities during Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 and expected to spend

about $57 million in FY 2000. Millions more will be spent as monitoring

activities at Department locations are expected for many years in the future.

Prior Office of Inspector General (OIG), General Accounting Office, and

internal reviews identified problems with the Department's groundwater

monitoring activities. These reviews identified management problems related

to well-drilling technologies, groundwater monitoring activities, quality control

procedures for groundwater samples, and integration of groundwater

activities. A listing of OIG and other related reports is set forth in Appendix

2.

The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Department's

groundwater monitoring activities were being conducted in an economic

manner.

The Department's groundwater monitoring activities were not being

conducted as economically as they could have been since some sites had not

adopted innovative technologies and approaches to well installation, sampling

INTRODUCTION AND

OBJECTIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND

OBSERVATIONS

Introduction And Objective/

Conclusions And Observations
Page 2

operations, and laboratory analyses. This occurred in part because

innovative groundwater monitoring techniques adopted by some sites had not

been effectively disseminated, evaluated for applicability at other sites, and

implemented. Furthermore, no single organization was assigned overall

responsibility for groundwater activities Departmentwide or held accountable

for program cost effectiveness. As a result, opportunities to reduce

operating costs by about $3.6 million annually and improve groundwater

monitoring efficiencies were not realized.

To improve the cost effectiveness of groundwater activities, the Department

should designate a Headquarters organization to ensure that field elements

are aware of and utilize "best practices" in groundwater monitoring activities.

Responsibilities should include, at a minimum, assembling information on

innovative technologies and expediting the adoption of such technologies at

other Department sites where appropriate. This organization should also

help facilitate the integration of groundwater monitoring activities at facilities

throughout the Department.

In our opinion, the matters discussed in this report should be considered

when preparing the yearend assurance memorandum on internal controls.

______(Signed)________

 Office of Inspector General

Conclusions And Observations
Page 3

The Department can reduce the cost of its groundwater monitoring activities

by implementing innovative approaches to well installation, sampling

operations, and laboratory analyses. A review of current practices disclosed

that some sites had adopted cost savings opportunities, while other sites had

not.

Well Installation 

A review of FY 1999 well installation costs indicated that such costs ranged

from about $3,500 to $213,750 per well. Several factors that affected these

installation costs included depth, drilling methods, and construction materials.

When control of such factors was feasible and exercised, well installation

costs were reduced. Several examples were identified and are discussed

below.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore) expended on average

about $40,857 for well installation while Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (Berkeley), located about 38 miles away, expended about

$10,600 per well. Livermore spent substantially more because it

constructed wells with 5 to 12-inch diameter well casings. Berkeley, on the

other hand, constructed wells with 2-inch diameter casings. The smaller

diameter wells cost less since drilling time was reduced. Livermore officials

advised that the primary reason for installing larger diameter wells was

sampler preference. Berkeley also used inexpensive polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) casings in its wells.

The Nevada Test Site (Nevada) reduced its well installation costs by

controlling its drilling schedule. Initially, well drilling activities at the site were

shut down on the weekends. Subsequently, officials determined that savings

were possible if well drilling operations were continuous until drilling was

completed. This approach substantially reduced well installation costs by

eliminating shutdown and startup times. A Nevada Operations Office official

estimated total savings of $312,000 by using this approach for the six wells

scheduled to be drilled at the facility in FY 1999. In FY 1999 about 600

wells were planned to be drilled by the 31 Department sites.

Another indication that sites did not always implement cost-saving

technologies was illustrated in a 1994 Office of Environmental Management

study. The study reported opportunities for cost reductions related to

oversight of well installation activities, drilling services, construction materials,

Groundwater Monitoring Activities

Innovative Approaches

Not Always Implemented

Details Of Finding
Page 4

program management, and regulatory strategy. Because of restaffing and

mission changes initiated in FY 1995, only some recommendations from the

study to improve operations and reduce costs were implemented.

Sampling Operations 

As many as six different techniques were used across the Department to

collect groundwater samples. Many program activities used the more costly

and traditional three-well purging method to collect samples. Some sites,

however, used innovative and less costly methods such as the low-volume

sampling (micropurging) method or the Easy Pump©. Further, at the sites

visited, sampling frequencies varied from every 14 days to once every 3

years. As a result, sampling costs varied by thousands of dollars depending

on the methodology and the frequency of sampling.

Sampling Techniques 

The three-well volume purging sampling technique was the choice used at

many sites. This technique, the most expensive, required purging volumes of

at least three well casings of water from the well before a sample was

collected. Because of the potential for contaminants, this wastewater often

required treatment that was costly. For example, Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory (Idaho) officials estimated it would cost about

$67,500 to treat 900 gallons of wastewater ($75 per gallon) generated

through FY 2000 using this technique.1

Two alternatives to the three-well volume purging sampling methods required

substantially less purging and therefore less wastewater. Officials at one site

estimated that the amount of wastewater was reduced by 98 percent with

micropurging. Another alternative, the Easy Pump© method, required no

purging prior to sampling. Both methods reduced labor hours required for

well sampling by as many as 48 hours in some cases. It was estimated that

the average labor cost for sampling was $60 per hour. Thus the reduction in

labor time could reduce sampling costs by about $3,000 per well.

Additionally, sampling reliability was not affected using these alternative

methods.

______________________________

1

 Efforts to reduce these costs are being explored with state and Federal regulators.

Details Of Finding
Page 5

Some program activities at the same facility also used different methods to

collect samples. For example, at the Oak Ridge Reservation (Oak Ridge),

Defense Programs and Environmental Management funded activities used the

micropurging method to collect samples, while the Office of Science activity

used the three-well volume purging method. According to Oak Ridge

officials, sampling time using the micro-purging method required an average

of 45 minutes as compared to as much as 48 hours using the traditional

three-well purging method. Additionally, using the micropurging method

reduced the volumes of wastewater generated at one well from 182 to 3

gallons and reduced operating costs by about $200,000 annually. After

discussing these differences with Office of Science officials at Oak Ridge, we

were advised that micropurging would be considered in the future.

Contrasts also existed at two Department sites operated by the University of

California. Livermore developed and used the patented Easy Pump© method

to collect samples. This method was believed to be more cost effective than

the micropurging method since it produced even less wastewater and

required considerably less sampling time. Further, sampling reliability was

not affected. Despite the economies available from either of the other two

methods, Berkeley continued to use the traditional three-well volume purging

method for all its sampling because of personal preferences relating to

sample reliability. Livermore was the only site in the Department complex

that used the Easy Pump© technique.

Sampling Frequency 

Sampling frequencies, which significantly impacted sampling costs, varied

from bi-weekly to once every 3 years. No general rule existed governing

sampling frequency. In most cases, the frequency schedule for collecting

samples was determined and agreed upon by the Department and other

Federal agencies and state regulators. However, over time and with

appropriate approval, sampling frequencies could be adjusted to reduce

costs depending on factors such as the stability of sample readings. A

scientific computerized methodology to aid in adjusting sampling frequencies

was available; however, this technology was used infrequently. Moreover, at

least one site continued to sample in accordance with original frequency

schemes even though there was no evidence of contamination. Such

sampling frequency may not have been necessary.

Details Of Finding
Page 6

In 1992 Livermore, with state approval, adjusted sampling frequency at

many of its wells with the aid of the Cost-Effective Sampling (CES)

methodology. This methodology was an algorithm program that performed a

computer-based trend analysis to help determine proper sampling frequency.

Based on CES information, Livermore reduced the number of samples taken

by 40 percent and realized annual savings of $390,000 in sampling, data

management, and analysis.

Although the CES approach was available to all Department sites, we found

no other instances where it was actively used to adjust sampling frequencies.

The majority of sites advised that professional judgment was used to make

decisions regarding sampling frequencies. In the case of the Naval Reactors

Facility at Idaho, no adjustments had been made in sampling frequencies in

spite of the fact that no contaminants had been detected in the samples. This

activity sampled all its wells quarterly and had done so since the wells were

installed. When questioned, officials advised that they would consider

changing the sampling frequency next year. In FY 1999 the Naval Reactors

Facility at Idaho spent about $95,000 for sampling and laboratory analyses

and expected to spend a similar amount in FY 2000. Adjusting sampling

frequencies could save some portion of the FY 2000 expenditures. Officials

at two other sites also advised that the CES approach could be useful in

determining sampling frequencies.

Laboratory Analyses 

Average fees for sampling and laboratory analysis ranged from $349 to

$8,760 per well. The primary reasons for such variances were the sampling

frequency and the number and type of contaminants to be tested for in each

sample; however, decisions regarding the procurement of laboratory services

also impacted these costs. In some instances, these decisions did not appear

to be the most economical.

For example, Nevada used an onsite laboratory to perform sample analyses

even though a cost comparison showed that these services were substantially

higher than offsite services. Specifically, a cost comparison completed by

the contractor determined that the weighted average cost for a sampling

analysis was $196 for the onsite laboratory, compared to $134 for the offsite

laboratory. Had Nevada used offsite services, direct analyses costs could

have been reduced by over $300,000 annually. Nevada officials advised

that the decision to use onsite services was based in part on the desire to

maintain the capability onsite. Similarly, one program organization at Oak

Ridge competitively procured its laboratory analysis services through its

Details Of Finding
Page 7

Sample Management Office. Two other program organizations at the same

facility, on the other hand, procured laboratory analysis services from the

onsite lab even though its costs were higher. Conversely, Argonne National

Lab-West at Idaho initially procured analysis services through the Sample

Management Office but achieved about $50,000 in savings after procuring

laboratory services independently.

In another example, Livermore competitively procured analysis services from

offsite laboratories but limited the selection to those laboratories within a

100-mile radius of the site. According to officials, this limitation was

necessary to keep samples containing volatile organic compounds cold prior

to testing. We noted that other sites used laboratories well beyond 100

miles by packing their samples in dry ice and shipping overnight. Geographic

constraints may exclude more cost-competitive laboratories.

 __________________________

The OIG recognized that some of the cost variances were beyond the

control of program managers; however, it appeared that many of the more

economical technologies were adaptable to other sites. Officials at the sites

visited agreed that some technologies could be implemented. In regard to

laboratory analyses of samples, we were advised that the number of offsite

laboratories has been decreasing over the last 2 years. The effect of this

change was not yet clear. However, quality and price was expected to

increase. The OIG also recognized that further management study and

technical analyses are needed to address analytic concerns and determine the

appropriate use of innovative technologies before final decisions are made.

These types of decisions require the exercising of technical judgments by

qualified individuals possessing scientific knowledge and the approval of

regulatory reviewers. Therefore, final determinations on what economies

should be implemented by the Department were beyond the scope of this

review.

Federal regulations require the Department, as owner and operator of

hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, to monitor

groundwater at its facilities to ensure compliance with regulations and detect

the release of contaminants. Department of Energy Order 5400.1 provides

Groundwater Monitoring

Requirements

Details Of Finding
Page 8

policy and guidance on how to fulfill these requirements and establish a

Groundwater Protection Management Program. The Order prescribes that

such a program be established to correct existing problems, minimize risks to

the environment, and anticipate problems before they occur. This Order also

provides that efforts to meet environmental obligations be carried out

consistently across the complex and among all field organizations and

programs.

Department Order 413.1 requires that all operations be conducted in a costeffective manner. Federal resources are to be managed effectively and

efficiently to achieve intended program results and are to be protected from

waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Further, the Government Performance

and Results Act requires the creation of long-range strategic plans that define

organizations' missions and form the basis for performance measurement.

The Department's groundwater monitoring activities were not conducted in

the most economic manner because no single organization at each facility and

Headquarters was assigned overall responsibility and held accountable for

program cost effectiveness. Specifically, no organization had been assigned

responsibility for collecting and disseminating information on cost saving

improvements from innovative groundwater monitoring techniques. Further,

no organization was responsible for analyzing and evaluating

Departmentwide groundwater monitoring data to identify trends in water

quality. Such information was needed to meet environmental and economic

obligations to be carried out across the Department complex.

At Headquarters, the Offices of Environment, Safety and Health and

Environmental Management were the primary programmatic organizations

involved with groundwater monitoring activities. Both had limited oversight

responsibilities and neither had been assigned overall responsibility for the

Department's groundwater monitoring activities. Environment, Safety and

Health's responsibility was limited to providing guidance on groundwater

monitoring policies to the field. Environmental Management focused

primarily on solving groundwater issues brought to their attention by sites

requesting assistance. Neither office had the authority to proactively

coordinate groundwater monitoring economies and activities in the field.

Furthermore, no organization had been assigned responsibility to collect and

analyze funding and other groundwater monitoring information.

Consequently, Department officials did not know the amount of funds

dedicated to groundwater activities.

Overall Responsibility

Not Assigned

Details Of Finding
Page 9

At the facility level, groundwater monitoring activities were not sufficiently

integrated, which caused activities to be less efficient and economical.

Several program activities at each facility funded and conducted groundwater

monitoring activities. While the goal at most facilities was to integrate all

activities, in some cases, these program offices acted independently of each

other. No one person or office had been given overall responsibility to

ensure the integration of groundwater monitoring activities.

For example, three program offices--Environmental Management, Defense

Programs, and Office of Science--conducted groundwater activities at the

Oak Ridge facility. While Environmental Management and Defense

Programs coordinated their activities to some extent, no one office was

assigned responsibility for the entire facility. We were advised by the Oak

Ridge Operations Office that the facility was working towards integrating all

groundwater activities. At Idaho one individual was designated to integrate

most portions of the Laboratory's groundwater activities. This integration

process, however, did not include the Argonne National Laboratory-West

and the Naval Reactor Facility. Further, Idaho officials advised that full

integration is not expected to be completed for 10 years. However, there is

coordination among all site activities.

During the audit we discussed the need for more centralized management of

groundwater activities at both the field sites and Headquarters. Site officials

agreed that a spokesperson was needed at the Headquarters level to

coordinate these activities, interface with the Environmental Protection

Agency, and to address budget matters pertaining to groundwater monitoring

activities. We also discussed the apparent need for a more viable method to

disseminate technical innovations and resolve different technical opinions.

We were advised that technical meetings were held periodically to present

innovations to their peers. However, these meetings were ad hoc in nature

and no followup of technology implementation was made.

Savings and increased efficiencies in groundwater activities can be realized

by assigning overall responsibility for groundwater activities, implementing

innovative technologies where appropriate, and improving the decision

making process. The exact amount of Departmentwide savings that could be

realized by implementing identified cost saving improvements could not be

determined. However, we estimated that the Department could save about

$3.6 million annually by implementing innovative technologies relating to well

Opportunities To

Reduce Cost

Details Of Finding
Page 10

installation, sampling operations, and laboratory analyses. For example, as

much as $300,000 could be saved if Nevada procured laboratory services

competitively. Another $3.3 million could be saved if the remaining sites

achieved a similar rate of savings as the sites visited. An additional one-time

savings of $67,500 could be realized if Idaho modified sampling techniques

at selected wells. Given that Departmentwide groundwater monitoring

activities are expected to continue for many years, millions of dollars in

additional savings may be possible. Nevertheless, such savings and benefits

will not be fully realized until groundwater monitoring responsibilities are

assigned at each facility and at the Headquarters level and innovative

technologies are effectively implemented.

We recommend that the Chair, Field Management Council:

1. Designate a Headquarters office to be responsible and accountable for

groundwater monitoring activities. This office should:

a. Accumulate information on such activities as well installation,

sampling techniques and frequency, and laboratory analysis

costs that will be used to identify potential best practices. Data

on monitoring results and overall costs should also be collected

and used to develop trends in water quality.

b. Communicate "best practices" to all sites and ensure they are

fully evaluated and implemented where appropriate.

c. Establish a peer review group composed of experts from the

field and Headquarters to aid in the technical analysis and

adoption of best practices.

d. Expedite the integration of groundwater monitoring activities at

Department facilities.

2. Direct Managers of field offices to:

a. Give priority attention to integrating groundwater monitoring

activities at the facilities for which they have responsibility.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations And Comments
Page 11

b. Evaluate available innovative technologies for applicability at

each site and implement if appropriate.

c. Re-evaluate the make or buy decisions for determining whether

the laboratory analyses of groundwater samples are being

performed on the most economical and effective basis in view

of the quality and quantity of laboratories throughout the

country.

Management generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and

indicated that corrective actions were being taken or had been planned. See

Appendix 3 of this report.

Actions taken and planned were generally responsive to the

recommendations. However, the response did not specifically indicate which

Headquarters organization had been assigned overall responsibility for

Departmentwide groundwater monitoring activities and would be

accountable for program cost effectiveness in the future. Such a designation

is necessary to ensure the timeliness of technical judgments and regulatory

approvals.

MANAGEMENT

REACTION

AUDITOR

COMMENTS

Recommendations And Comments
Page 12

The audit was performed from January to November 1999 at Headquarters.

Fieldwork was conducted at three sites at the Oak Ridge Reservation,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, two sites at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, and the Nevada Test Site.

To accomplish the audit objective, we:

• analyzed budget and other data received from an Information Collection

Survey sent to all Department sites that perform groundwater monitoring;

• interviewed Environmental Management and Environment, Safety and

Health personnel at Headquarters that either currently or previously

participated in groundwater monitoring activities;

• interviewed field personnel specializing in groundwater monitoring; and

• reviewed laws and regulations related to groundwater monitoring.

The audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards for performance audits. It included tests of internal

controls and compliance with laws and regulations to the extent necessary to

satisfy the audit objective. Accordingly, we assessed management controls

to ensure the Department's activities were being conducted in an economic

manner. Because our audit was limited, it would not necessarily have

disclosed all internal control deficiencies that may have existed at the time of

our audit. We did not conduct a reliability assessment of computerprocessed data because only a very limited amount of such data was used

during the audit. There were no performance measures specifically

applicable to the audit objective. Environmental Management officials

waived the exit conference.

Appendix 1

SCOPE

METHODOLOGY

Scope And Methodology
Page 13

REPORTS RELATED TO GROUNDWATER MONITORING 

Since 1983, the Office of Inspector General, General Accounting Office, and Department of Energy program

offices had issued at least eight reports identifying opportunities for the Department to improve its groundwater

monitoring activities. Listed below is a synopsis of the issues addressed in those reports.

Office Of Inspector General Reports :

• Audit of Richland Operations Office Site Characterization Program, (DOE/IG-0368, March 20, 1995).

Richland agreed to have 80 percent of low-level waste sample analyses performed within 25 miles of Hanford

which increased sample analysis costs by about $46 million. Economic analyses of the alternatives were not

prepared as required.

Audit of the Groundwater Remediation Plans at the Savannah River Site, (ER-B-96-02, June 11, 1996).

The site did not have a Land Use Plan showing the intended future uses of land and groundwater. Without such

a plan, groundwater in certain areas was classified at a higher cleanup level than might have been necessary.

• Audit of Groundwater Monitoring at Hanford, (WR-B-97-03, November 11, 1996). Richland's

groundwater program was mission essential but was not performed at the least cost to the Department. Work

performed by the principle contractors overlapped, resulting in duplicative groundwater monitoring activities.

• Audit of the Savannah River Site's Quality Control Program for Groundwater Sampling,

(DOE/IG-0405, May 20, 1997). The contractor required more quality control analyses than necessary to

ensure that groundwater sampling results were accurate and precise.

General Accounting Office Reports :

• Federal and State Efforts to Protect Ground Water, (GAO/RCED 84-80, February 21, 1984). GAO

concluded that a comprehensive national groundwater protection policy did not exist; however, six Federal

laws addressed specific contamination problems. The extent of the problem was unknown because no

comprehensive national database or monitoring program existed.

• Nuclear Waste: Hanford's Well-Drilling Costs Can Be Reduced, (GAO/RCED-93-71, March 1993).

Hanford site contractors had implemented many of the cost-savings measures to reduce well drilling costs

included in a 1990 study, but other actions were still needed that included: (1) adopting, where appropriate,

faster and less expensive well drilling technologies; (2) using the well-drilling program's work force more

efficiently; and (3) centralizing the management of the well drilling program to improve its effectiveness.

Appendix 2

Related Reports
Page 14

• Department of Energy: Information on the Tritium Leak and Contractor Dismissal at the Brookhaven

National Laboratory, (GAO/RCED-98-26, November 4, 1997). Groundwater samples revealed

concentrations of tritium that were twice the allowable federal drinking water standards. Officials concluded

that tritium had been leaking from a reactor storage pool for as long as 12 years without the Department's or

Brookhaven National Laboratory's knowledge. The resulting controversy about both Brookhaven National

Laboratory's handling of the tritium leak and perceived lapses in the Department's oversight led to termination

of the contractor in May 1997.

Office Of Environmental Management Study :

• Well Installation and Abandonment Study: Key Observations and Summary Report; November 1994.

Significant cost variability occurred within the Department of Energy system in well installation costs.

Related Reports
Page 15

Appendix 3

Assistant Secretary Comments
IG Report No. DOE/IG-0461 

CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM

The Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its products. We wish to

make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers' requirements, and, therefore, ask that you consider

sharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form, you may suggest improvements to enhance the

effectiveness of future reports. Please include answers to the following questions if they are applicable to you:

1. What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or procedures of the audit

would have been helpful to the reader in understanding this report?

2. What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have been included in this report to

assist management in implementing corrective actions?

3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report's overall message more clear to

the reader?

4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the issues discussed in this report

which would have been helpful?

Please include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should we have any questions about

your comments.

Name _____________________________ Date __________________________

Telephone _________________________ Organization ____________________

When you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector General at

(202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to:

Office of Inspector General (IG-1)

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

ATTN: Customer Relations

If you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of Inspector General, please

contact Wilma Slaughter at (202) 586-1924.
The Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly and cost effective

as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the Internet at the following alternative

address:

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General, Home Page

http://www.ig.doe.gov

Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the

Customer Response Form attached to the report.