Uranium Mill Tailings: Cleanup Continues, but Future Costs Are Uncertain
RCED-96-37
Published: Dec 15, 1995. Publicly Released: Dec 15, 1995.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) program for cleaning up uranium mill tailings, focusing on: (1) the status and cost of DOE surface and groundwater cleanups; and (2) factors that could affect the federal government's costs and liabilities in the future.
Recommendations
Matter for Congressional Consideration
| Matter | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Closed – Implemented
|
Public Law 104-259 states that "the Secretary may continue operation of the disposal site in Mesa County, Colorado (known as the Cheney disposal cell) for receiving and disposing of residual radioactive material from processing sites and of byproduct material from property in the vicinity of the uranium milling site located in Monticello, Utah, until the Cheney disposal cell has been filled to the capacity for which it was designed, or September 30, 2023, whichever comes first." |
| To resolve the issue of DOE lack of authority to complete the groundwater cleanup if the states do not contribute their 10-percent share of costs, 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. |
Closed – Not Implemented
|
P.L. 104-259 did not address this issue. According to DOE, this issue is no longer a concern since it appears that only active remediation sites will require a cost sharing arrangement. The remaining sites' costs are related to site assessment and evaluation costs which are paid by DOE--following DOE's practices used for surface cleanup. In cases where active ground remediation is planned for aquifers located for Indian reservations, the federal government will pay the cost of remediation, because by law, Indian tribes are not required to cost share. DOE no longer thinks that this is an issue as long as the cleanup strategies remain as planned. |
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission | To provide a realistic indication of the future costs for long-term surveillance and maintenance of the Title II sites, the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should direct its staff to consult with DOE to develop an accurate estimate of these costs and what they entail, and use that information to update the minimum one-time charge for basic surveillance. |
Closed – Implemented
NRC and DOE report that they have worked together to develop accurate estimates of long-term maintenance and monitoring costs. Both agencies believe that the minimum one-time fee for basic surveillance will not require updating. However, they recognize that the one time basic charge will vary by site as Title II sites are terminated.
|
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission | To provide a realistic indication of the future costs for long-term surveillance and maintenance of the Title II sites, the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should direct its staff to consult with DOE to develop an accurate estimate of these costs and what they entail, and use that information to determine if routine maintenance will be required at each site, and, if so, incorporate those costs into the minimum charge. |
Closed – Implemented
NRC and DOE have worked together to develop procedures and cost estimates for the one-time charge for basic surveillance. NRC and DOE have agreed to work together to determine the need for routine maintenance, which will be made on a site-by-site basis as remediation is completed.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Environmental monitoringFuture budget projectionsHazardous substancesIndian landsGroundwater contaminationIndustrial wastesIntergovernmental fiscal relationsNuclear waste managementRadioactive waste disposalUraniumWater pollution