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." 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).

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

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.?

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.

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

States and Indian Tribes
Also Participate in Cleanup
Process

DOE's Responsibilities Do
Not End When Cleanup Is
Finished

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 with the disposal of the tailings; the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires DOE 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.

"Or another federal agency designated by the President

Chapter 1
Introduction

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

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.

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

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.