Nuclear Waste: Corps of Engineers' Progress in Cleaning Up 22 Nuclear
Sites (Letter Report, 02/26/99, GAO/RCED-99-48).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Army Corps of
Engineers' Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP),
focusing on the: (1) Corps' cost and schedule estimates for cleaning up
the FUSRAP sites; (2) Corps' progress in meeting milestones for site
cleanups, FUSRAP staffing levels, and environmental document
preparation; and (3) transition of the program from the Department of
Energy (DOE) to the Corps.
GAO noted that: (1) when the Corps took over the program, it reviewed
DOE's cost and schedule estimates for the 22 sites, visited the sites,
and developed new cost and schedule estimates for each; (2) the Corps'
cost estimates, in total, are higher than estimates previously developed
by DOE; (3) the Corps estimated that it would cost up to $2.25 billion
and would take until after 2004 to complete cleanup at all sites; (4)
however, there is potential for the $2.25 billion estimate to increase
in the future because no proven technology is available to clean up one
site and characterization is incomplete for others; (5) DOE had
estimated that it would cost up to $1.5 billion and would take until as
late as 2006 to complete the cleanup; (6) an examination of the
individual cost estimates, however, shows that much of the difference
between DOE's and the Corps' estimates can be attributed to two sites
where new information became available after the program was transferred
or the scope of the cleanup alternatives was changed; (7) since the
program was transferred to the Corps in October 1997, the Corps has
achieved or exceeded its milestones for planned cleanup activities at 16
of the 22 sites; (8) the Corps did not achieve one or more of its
milestones at five sites, and one site did not have any milestones for
fiscal year (FY) 1998; (9) to accomplish its goals for the program, in
FY 1998, the Corps had 71 full-time equivalents involved in program
management and support; (10) in regard to completing the environmental
documentation necessary to begin removal and remedial work, the Corps
has made considerable progress, including issuing two Records of
Decision and five Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessments that provide
detailed plans for site cleanups; (11) during the program's transition
from DOE to the Corps, the Corps established transition teams and worked
with departmental officials to transfer the 22 sites; (12) when the
program was transferred, several issues remained unresolved; (13) only
one issue remains to be formally resolved, specifically, which agency
should be accountable for property management for the sites while they
are in the program; and (14) attempts to resolve this issue through
negotiation of a memorandum of understanding between the Corps and DOE
are ongoing.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-99-48
TITLE: Nuclear Waste: Corps of Engineers' Progress in Cleaning Up
22 Nuclear Sites
DATE: 02/26/99
SUBJECT: Interagency relations
Nuclear waste management
Radioactive wastes
Cost analysis
Nuclear facilities
Strategic planning
Environmental policies
Radioactive waste disposal
IDENTIFIER: DOE Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Army Corps of Engineers Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of
Representatives
February 1999
NUCLEAR WASTE - CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' PROGRESS IN CLEANING UP
22 NUCLEAR SITES
GAO/RCED-99-48
Nuclear Waste
(141234)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOE - Department of Energy
GAO - General Accounting Office
FUSRAP - Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-281654
February 26, 1999
The Honorable Tom Bliley
Chairman, Committee on
Commerce
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) was
created in the mid-1970s to clean up radiological contamination
resulting from the early development of nuclear weapons. The
Department of Energy (DOE) was responsible for FUSRAP until October
1997, when responsibility for the program was transferred to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). FUSRAP currently consists of 22
sites and was funded at $140 million in both fiscal years 1998 and
1999.
At your request, this report discusses (1) the Corps' cost and
schedule estimates for cleaning up the FUSRAP sites; (2) the Corps'
progress in meeting milestones for site cleanups, FUSRAP staffing
levels, and environmental document preparation; and (3) the
transition of the program from DOE to the Corps.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
When the Corps took over the program, it reviewed the Department of
Energy's cost and schedule estimates for the 22 sites, visited the
sites, and developed new cost and schedule estimates for each. The
Corps' cost estimates, in total, are higher than estimates previously
developed by the Department. The Corps estimated that it would cost
up to $2.25 billion and would take until after 2004 to complete
cleanup at all sites. However, there is potential for the $2.25
billion estimate to increase in the future because no proven
technology is available to clean up one site and characterization is
incomplete for several others. The Department had estimated that it
would cost up to $1.5 billion and would take until as late as 2006 to
complete the cleanup. An examination of the individual cost
estimates, however, shows that much of the difference between the
Department's and the Corps' estimates can be attributed to two sites
where new information became available after the program was
transferred and/or the scope of the cleanup alternatives was changed.
Since the program was transferred to the Corps in October 1997, the
Corps has achieved or exceeded its milestones for planned cleanup
activities at 16 of the 22 sites. The Corps did not achieve one or
more of its milestones at five sites, and one site did not have any
milestones for fiscal year 1998. To accomplish its goals for the
program, in fiscal year 1998, the Corps had 71 full-time equivalents
involved in program management and support. In regard to completing
the environmental documentation necessary to begin removal and
remedial work, the Corps has made considerable progress, including
issuing two Records of Decision and five Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Assessments that provide detailed plans for site cleanups.
During the program's transition from the Department of Energy to the
Corps, the Corps established transition teams and worked with
departmental officials to transfer the 22 sites. When the program
was transferred, several issues remained unresolved. Currently, only
one issue remains to be formally resolved, specifically, which agency
should be accountable for property management for the sites while
they are in the program. Attempts to resolve this issue through
negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps and
the Department are ongoing.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
DOE began FUSRAP in 1974 to address radiological contamination at
sites operated by the Manhattan Engineering District and the Atomic
Energy Commission, both predecessor agencies to DOE. During the
1940s through 1960s, work was performed at numerous locations within
the United States as part of the nation's nuclear weapons program.
Storing, transporting, sampling, mining and milling, machining, and
processing radioactive materials that were used to make nuclear
weapons created sites that became contaminated with uranium, thorium,
radium, and their decay products, as well as nonradioactive
materials.
In general, these sites were cleaned up or released for use under the
guidelines in effect when the work was completed. However, those
guidelines were not as strict as those in effect today, and
radiological contamination in excess of current guidelines remained
at a number of sites. To date, 46 sites have been included in
FUSRAP. After reviewing several hundred sites, DOE originally
identified 41 sites for inclusion in FUSRAP. According to DOE, these
sites were included because they had met several criteria, including
the following: (1) they had been involved in processing or handling
radioactive materials owned by the government, (2) DOE determined
that it had authority over the sites, and (3) there was significant
or potential radioactive contamination. In addition to the sites
identified by DOE, the Congress assigned five sites to DOE for
remediation, and the Department placed them in FUSRAP because of
their similarity with or proximity to sites in the program. By 1997,
DOE had completed the cleanup of 24 sites, leaving 22 sites in
Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey,
New York, and Ohio, as shown in table 1.
Table 1
FUSRAP Sites, Locations, and Estimated
Cost to Complete
(Dollars in millions)
Corps of Engineers Estimated cost to
District Site Location complete
----------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
Baltimore W.R. Grace Baltimore, Md. $39.6-$53.3
Buffalo Ashland 1 Tonawanda, N.Y. 28.7
Buffalo Ashland 2 Tonawanda, N.Y. 14.4
Buffalo Bliss & Laughlin Buffalo, N.Y. 0.3
Steel
Buffalo Linde Tonawanda, N.Y. 33.2
Buffalo Niagara Falls Lewiston, N.Y. 285.0-434.5
Storage Site
Buffalo Seaway Tonawanda, N.Y. 10.2
Buffalo Luckey Luckey, Ohio 157.3-179.9
Buffalo Painesville Painesville, Ohio 10.3
New England CE Site Windsor, Conn. 40.7-99.3
New England Ventron Beverly, Mass. 0.07
New England Shpack Landfill Norton/Attleboro, 0.03
Mass.
New York Maywood Maywood, N.J. 266.2-304.8
New York Middlesex Sampling Middlesex, N.J. 46.6
Plant
New York Wayne Interim Wayne, N.J. 56.1-79.9
Storage Facility
New York Colonie Colonie, N.Y. 24.3
Philadelphia Dupont Chambers Deepwater, N.J. 16.5
Works
St. Louis Madison Madison, Ill. 1.8-3.0
St. Louis St. Louis Airport St. Louis, Mo. 123.4-179.5
Site
St. Louis St. Louis Airport St. Louis, Mo. 85.9-122.0
Site, Vicinity
Properties\a
St. Louis St. Louis Downtown St. Louis, Mo. 55.0-167.2
Site
St. Louis Hazelwood Interim Hazelwood, Mo. 114.0-214.0
Storage Site and
Latty Ave.
Properties
Total $1,409.6-$2,022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The cost estimate range shows the Corps' baseline and
conservative estimates. In cases where only one estimate is shown,
the baseline and conservative estimates were identical. The total of
the individual site costs differs from the Corps' total cleanup cost
estimate of $1.56 billion (baseline) and $2.25 billion (conservative)
because the individual site cost estimates are in October 1997
dollars and the total cleanup costs are adjusted for inflation.
\a A vicinity property is a property near the original site that
contains residual radioactive material from the site. Typically, the
material migrated by wind or rain runoff, or was hauled for backfill.
In general, activities at these properties involve the removal of
contaminated soil.
Source: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
Report to Congress, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Mar. 1998).
In October 1997, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 1998 (P.L. 105-62) transferred responsibility for
the administration and execution of FUSRAP from DOE to the Corps. At
that time, about $582 million had been spent for cleaning up sites
since the program's inception. Funding for FUSRAP for fiscal year
1998 was $140 million (compared with the funding levels of about $70
million per year during the last few years that DOE managed the
program).
The conference report on the legislation transferring FUSRAP directed
the Corps to review the cost and schedule for each cleanup site. In
March 1998, the Corps issued a report to Congress on the status and
future of FUSRAP. The Corps included two cost and schedule
estimates--baseline and conservative. The baseline estimates assumed
cleanup levels consistent with future restricted or industrial land
use, while the conservative estimates assumed cleanup levels
consistent with future residential land use at all sites. Both the
baseline and conservative estimates assumed unconstrained funding.
Whether the baseline or conservative assumptions are closer to the
cleanup that is actually implemented will depend on the results of
the Corps' risk analysis and coordination with the Environmental
Protection Agency and state and local representatives.
CORPS' COST AND SCHEDULE
ESTIMATES DIFFER FROM DOE'S AND
MAY CHANGE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Soon after FUSRAP was transferred, the Corps developed cost and
schedule estimates for each FUSRAP site. In comparison to prior cost
and schedule estimates prepared by DOE, the Corps' cost estimates, in
total, are higher. The Corps estimated that it would cost up to
$2.25 billion and would take until after 2004 to complete cleanup at
all sites. DOE had estimated that it would cost up to $1.5 billion
and would take until as late as 2006 to complete cleanup. An
examination of the individual cost estimates, however, shows that
much of the difference between DOE's and the Corps' estimates can be
attributed to two FUSRAP sites where new information became available
after the program was transferred and/or the scope of cleanup
alternatives was changed. At several sites, the extent of
contamination is unknown, and, at one site, a treatment technology or
disposal site may not be available. For those sites, the Corps'
current cost and schedule estimates are probably not accurate and can
be expected to increase as more information is developed.
CORPS BASED COST AND
SCHEDULE ESTIMATES ON DOE'S
PRIOR WORK, BUT MADE
REVISIONS AT SOME SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
The Corps' cost and schedule estimates were generally based on DOE's
site characterizations, scope of work, and estimates and do not
differ significantly from DOE's estimates at most of the 22 sites.
Corps officials told us that this was because the Corps either agreed
with DOE's plan or did not have sufficient knowledge and information
about a site to deviate from DOE's plan. For example, within the
Buffalo (N.Y.) District, the Corps' report to Congress identified
planned efforts at the Ashland 1 site during fiscal year 1998 that
were very similar to those planned for by DOE in its June 1997
accelerated plan.\1 Ashland 1 is a 10.8-acre site in Tonawanda, New
York, that was used to store wastes from uranium processing.
Contamination on the site is from uranium, radium, and thorium and
the decay products associated with those elements. To estimate the
site's cleanup costs and schedule, the Corps used site
characterization data compiled while the program was under DOE. Just
as DOE had planned, the Corps plans to remove about 29,000 cubic
yards of contaminated material. When completed, the site will be
available for industrial use.
The cost or schedule estimates for some sites were based on the
Corps' judgment that the scope of the cleanup would have to be
altered. For example, the Seaway site (located in Tonawanda, N.Y.)
is a 93-acre landfill that includes 16 acres that are contaminated
with uranium, thorium, and radium. DOE officials informed us that
they had reached a tentative agreement with local officials to leave
buried material in place. Other material in the landfill that was
accessible would be assessed to determine if removal was required.
DOE's $250,000 cost estimate and 1999 closure date for the site
assumed that no further remedial action was necessary. The Corps
reviewed this information and determined that additional remedial
action may be necessary. The Corps listed several options for
remediating the site and estimated that the cost to complete the
cleanup would be $10.2 million and that the cleanup would take until
2001.
Similarly, at the W.R. Grace site (the 260-acre site in Baltimore,
Md., was used to extract thorium and other elements from sand), DOE
was still conducting site characterization work and had not developed
a cleanup plan. DOE estimated that it would cost from $12.1 million
to $12.8 million to clean up the site and that it would take until
2002 or 2003 to complete the cleanup. The Corps reviewed DOE's data
and estimated that a further review of site information and remedial
actions would cost from $39.6 million to $53.3 million and would take
until 2002. The Corps also assumed that cost sharing with the site
owner would not occur, while DOE assumed that the site's owner would
bear a portion of the costs.
In total, the Corps' March 1998 report to Congress stated that the
cleanup of the remaining 22 FUSRAP sites would cost from $1.56
billion under the baseline estimate to $2.25 billion under the
conservative estimate, in addition to the costs incurred prior to
fiscal year 1998. The Corps also estimated that, given unconstrained
funding, 16 of the remaining 22 sites could be cleaned up and removed
from FUSRAP by 2002. Four additional sites could be cleaned up by
2004 if funding were unconstrained and if the cleanup
parameters--such as cleanup criteria or disposal location--were
significantly changed. The report stated that the remaining two
sites--the Niagara Falls (N.Y.) Storage Site and Luckey, Ohio--could
not be completed until after 2004 because the contamination at those
sites was not fully characterized and technological uncertainties
existed.
In May 1997, DOE estimated that cleaning up the 22 FUSRAP sites would
cost about $1.5 billion and could be completed by 2006. In June
1997, DOE estimated that cleaning up the 22 FUSRAP sites would cost
about $983 million and could be completed by 2002. The May 1997 cost
and schedule estimates were part of a plan to complete cleanup at all
FUSRAP sites within 10 years. The June 1997 estimate was part of an
accelerated plan to complete the cleanup within 6 years. In order to
complete the cleanup within 6 years, many sites would be cleaned up
to a less stringent level, leaving higher levels of contamination at
the site than would have remained under the May 1997 plan. Because
of this, the June cost estimate was much lower than the May cost
estimate.
The difference between the Corps' estimates and DOE's estimates
results primarily from the estimates for two sites--the Niagara
Falls, New York, and Luckey, Ohio, sites. Table 2 shows DOE's and
the Corps' cost estimates for these sites. (See app. I for a
site-by-site comparison of DOE's and the Corps' estimates.)
Table 2
DOE's and the Corps' Cost Estimates for
Niagara Falls Storage Site and Luckey,
Ohio
(Dollars in millions)
Corps'
DOE's May DOE's June Corps' conservati
1997 1997 baseline ve
Site estimate estimate estimate estimate
---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Niagara Falls Storage $226.0 $6.0 $285.0 $434.5
Site, Lewiston, N.Y.
Luckey 31.0 32.0 157.3 179.9
Luckey, Ohio
Total $257.0 $38.0 $442.3 $614.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps' overall total cost estimates for these sites differ from
DOE's because of changes in the scope of cleanup or additional
contamination information that has become available. For example,
the Niagara Falls Storage Site may eventually be cleaned to a more
stringent level than was planned by DOE. The Niagara Falls site is a
federally owned site consisting of 191 acres about 19 miles north of
Buffalo, New York. Beginning in 1944, the former Manhattan
Engineering District used the site to store waste material from
processing uranium. On-site contamination includes uranium decay
products, radium, and thorium. The site also contains highly
radioactive processing residues in a containment structure with an
interim cap.\2 In its June 1997 plan, DOE planned to clean up two
buildings at the site and monitor and maintain the interim cap that
currently contains the contamination. This alternative would have
resulted in the site's removal from the program in 2002 at a cost of
$6 million. DOE also planned to conduct long-term surveillance and
maintenance at the site. Although DOE issued a draft plan that
favored this approach, it was not universally accepted.
The National Research Council conducted a study that questioned DOE's
approach of leaving the contamination in place.\3 DOE's response
included plans to review possible technologies for dealing with the
highly radioactive processing residues prior to developing plans for
their removal. In view of that study, the Corps may do more than DOE
was planning to do at the site. The Corps intends to decontaminate
the two on-site buildings and conduct a study to determine what to do
with the rest of the contamination. The study will consider (1)
removing the highly radioactive processing residues only, (2)
removing all wastes, and (3) leaving all wastes in place under a
permanent cap. Of these alternatives, the Corps' baseline cost and
schedule estimate ($285 million, with completion in 2006) provides
for removing the highly radioactive processing residues only, while
the conservative estimate ($434.5 million, with completion in 2008)
provides for removing all contaminated soil. (The Corps' baseline
and conservative estimates included the first two alternatives only.
A cost estimate for the third alternative was not developed.)
The Corps' cost and schedule estimates in its March 1998 report to
Congress for the Luckey, Ohio, site were based on a project scope
different from that used by DOE because additional information became
available after FUSRAP was transferred to the Corps. The Luckey site
consists of 40 acres about 22 miles southeast of Toledo, Ohio. The
former Atomic Energy Commission used the site to produce beryllium
from 1949 through 1959. Radioactive contamination in the form of
uranium, radium, and thorium and chemical contamination in the form
of beryllium still exist on the site.\4 In its June 1997 plan, DOE
estimated that the site's cleanup would cost $32 million and would be
completed in 1999. However, site characterization had not been
completed when FUSRAP was transferred, and the Corps has since found
that beryllium contamination is much more extensive than previously
known and that larger amounts of soil will have to be excavated. The
Corps' report to Congress described a baseline scope--assuming that a
portion of the contaminated soils would be required to be disposed of
off-site�for which, remediation was estimated to cost about $157.3
million and be completed in 2004. Under the conservative estimate,
the Corps planned to remove larger amounts of contaminated soil, all
of which would be disposed of off-site. The conservative cost
estimate was $179.9 million, and completion was scheduled for 2005.
--------------------
\1 In June 1997, DOE developed a plan that would allow for the
completion of cleanup activities at all 22 sites by 2002. FUSRAP,
Accelerating Cleanup: A Focus on 2006, U.S. Department of Energy,
Oak Ridge Operations, Discussion Draft (June 1997).
\2 The interim cap is a containment structure consisting of topsoil,
clay, sand, and fabric.
\3 Safety of the High-Level Uranium Ore Residues at the Niagara Falls
Storage Site, Lewiston, New York, National Research Council (1995).
\4 Beryllium is a metal that is a possible carcinogen.
CORPS' COST AND SCHEDULE
ESTIMATES COULD CHANGE FOR
SOME SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
When DOE was responsible for FUSRAP, contaminated materials that were
removed from sites were primarily shipped to one waste
site--Envirocare in Utah. Since the program was transferred, the
Corps has sent contaminated material to two additional waste
sites--International Uranium Corporation's uranium-processing
facility in Utah and Envirosafe in Idaho. According to Corps
officials, the competition created by using multiple sites has
reduced disposal costs. For example, Corps officials informed us
that they negotiated a contract with Envirosafe for the disposal of
lead-contaminated waste at a cost of about 58 percent of the average
disposal cost in fiscal year 1997. For the Ashland 2 site, the Corps
negotiated a disposal contract with International Uranium Corporation
for $90 per cubic yard of contaminated material. According to Corps
officials, the disposal cost under the Corps' existing contract with
Envirocare ranged from $150 per cubic yard to over $1,000 per cubic
yard, depending on the type of waste. Corps officials estimate that
the lower disposal cost resulted in savings of about $16 million.
The use of the International Uranium Corporation disposal site
provides an additional benefit in that the radioactive material is
extracted and recycled for use in the power industry. In addition,
the Corps has negotiated a new contract with Envirocare to dispose of
contaminated material at about one-half of the cost of a year ago and
in December 1998 issued a request for proposals for additional FUSRAP
disposal contracts.
Since the publication of its report, the Corps has gathered
additional data related to radioactive and chemical contaminants that
could affect its cost and schedule estimates. For example, the data
for the Luckey, Ohio, site mentioned earlier show that beryllium has
migrated and was found in a drinking water well at an adjacent
residence. The extent of the contamination is currently being
studied, but Corps officials believe it has expanded beyond what was
anticipated. The Corps' Buffalo District officials told us that if
additional remediation is required for the drinking water, it could
potentially double cleanup costs (the March 1998 baseline estimate
was $157.3 million) and delay completion of cleanup activities until
2004 or 2005.
In a similar situation, the Colonie, New York, site consists of an
11.2-acre site and 56 vicinity properties that have been
contaminated. From 1958 through 1984, several different processes
that involved radioactive materials were conducted on the site. The
site's primary known radioactive contaminants include uranium and
thorium. In addition, at the time of the report to Congress, the
site had known lead, copper, and tetrachloroethylene contamination.\5
While the contaminants were known at the time of the report and DOE
and state officials had an agreement that would allow some
contaminated material to remain on-site under a cap, the extent of
groundwater contamination and the cleanup needed had not been
finalized. According to Corps officials, the lead and possible
groundwater contamination could significantly increase costs and
delay completion dates.
The CE site in Windsor, Connecticut, is a location where possible
changes in cleanup levels could alter the cost and schedule
information contained in the Corps' report to Congress. The CE site
consists of 1,100 acres and is located about 8 miles north of
Hartford, Connecticut. From 1958 through 1961, nuclear fuel
assemblies using highly enriched uranium were fabricated on-site.
The CE site owner also conducted commercial nuclear manufacturing
on-site and disposed of waste from those activities in many of the
same areas as the FUSRAP wastes. Known site contamination involves
the highly enriched uranium. In the Corps' report to Congress, the
baseline cost estimate was $40.7 million and the completion date was
2005; the conservative cost estimate was $99.3 million, and the
completion date was 2005 also. The facility operator and the
government have not agreed on the level of enriched uranium that will
be cleaned up under FUSRAP. However, the current facility operator
wants FUSRAP to be responsible for remediating additional uranium
contamination, which DOE had not agreed to do and which would result
in increased quantities and costs. In the fall of 1998, the current
facility operator submitted a proposal to the Corps to expand the
scope of FUSRAP cleanup at the CE site. The Corps is reviewing the
proposal.
Unknown information on the Niagara Falls Storage Site mentioned
earlier also has the potential to change the cleanup costs and
completion schedule contained in the report to Congress. Although
the Corps has made cost and schedule estimates to clean up the
Niagara Falls site (the baseline estimate, with completion in 2006,
is $285 million, and the conservative estimate, with completion in
2008, is $434.5 million), there is no proven technology for treating
the contamination with the highest activity. The highly radioactive
processing residues at the site are of the same material that DOE has
at its Fernald, Ohio, facility. In 1994, DOE began building a
pilot-scale vitrification plant at Fernald to demonstrate a treatment
process for these residues.\6 The purpose of the plant was to gather
information for the design of a future full-scale facility. However,
the project experienced significant delays, equipment problems, and
cost overruns. As a result, DOE closed the plant and is currently
reevaluating its remediation options. If the Corps' study of
alternatives for cleaning up the Niagara Falls site results in the
selection of an option that requires treatment of the highly
radioactive processing residues before shipping them to a disposal
site, the technology developed to treat these residues will
significantly affect the cost and schedule for cleaning up the site.
--------------------
\5 Tetrachloroethylene is a colorless liquid that, when heated, emits
toxic fumes. It has been found to be a possible carcinogen.
\6 Vitrification is a process that transforms the residues into a
glass-like substance.
CORPS' EFFORTS SINCE THE
TRANSITION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
The Corps has been responsible for FUSRAP for only a little more than
1 year. Therefore, it is difficult to extrapolate the chances for
FUSRAP's future successes or failures from the Corps' short history
with the program. However, since FUSRAP was transferred to the
Corps, it has achieved, and in some cases exceeded, its planned
milestones for evaluating and cleaning up most individual sites. In
fiscal year 1998, the Corps had 71 full-time equivalents involved in
program management and support. The Corps' staffing for FUSRAP has
fluctuated and is expected to continue to fluctuate because of the
type of work being conducted. It is difficult to compare the Corps'
staffing levels with DOE's because the two agencies used a different
basis for calculating the number of staff in the program.
Considerable progress has also been achieved in completing
environmental documents necessary to begin removal and remedial work.
CORPS' EFFORTS TO MEET SITE
MILESTONES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
DOE had planned to conduct decontamination work at 14 sites during
fiscal year 1998. The Corps planned decontamination work at 11 sites
during fiscal year 1998. (See app. II for the Corps' and DOE's
fiscal year 1998 milestones for each FUSRAP site.) At 12 sites,
planned environmental documentation and cleanup work were conducted
as scheduled. For example, the Corps planned to complete Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Assessments for the St. Louis Airport Site, and the
Wayne, New Jersey, site. These documents were completed. In
addition, the St. Louis District planned to, and issued, a Record of
Decision for the St. Louis Downtown Site.
At four sites, the Corps not only met its milestones, but also
conducted additional work. At the Maywood, New Jersey, site, the New
York District had planned to remediate 13 vicinity properties during
fiscal year 1998. Instead, the District was able to remediate 15
vicinity properties. In addition, the Corps remediated four other
properties where contamination was found during the planned
excavation of the vicinity properties. At Middlesex, New Jersey,
half of a contaminated waste pile was scheduled for removal; however,
because the New York District was able to obtain a favorable disposal
rate by using an alternate disposal site, it was able to remove the
entire pile. At the Painesville, Ohio, site, the Buffalo District
originally planned to remove 250 cubic yards of contaminated soil;
however, as the soil was removed, additional contamination was found,
and 300 cubic yards was subsequently removed. The original
milestones for the Niagara Falls Storage Site included only providing
for site security and maintenance. The Corps provided security and
maintenance and also decontaminated a building on the site.
At five sites, the milestones established for fiscal year 1998 were
not met for various reasons. For example, the Corps originally
planned to remove the Shpack Landfill site near Attleboro,
Massachusetts, from FUSRAP by summer 1998. However, the Corps
questioned whether the site's contamination was attributable to the
government. The Corps has delayed the closing and did not meet its
milestone because it decided to do a more intensive review of the
project records than it originally anticipated. One site (Madison,
Ill.) did not have any fiscal year 1998 milestones.
CORPS' STAFFING CHANGES TO
MEET THE PROGRAM'S NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
The Corps set a number of expectations for the program, including one
that the Corps would implement the program without an increase in its
overall staffing levels. During fiscal year 1998, the Corps had 71
full-time equivalents.\7 Most of these--65 full-time
equivalents--were located at the six Corps district offices that
manage FUSRAP sites. In addition, six full-time equivalents were
located at the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of
Expertise in Omaha, Nebraska.\8 The Corps does not employ contractor
staff to manage this program.
During the first year that the Corps managed FUSRAP, staffing levels
fluctuated. Transition teams were formed and disbanded, and district
FUSRAP teams and site teams were created. In addition, district
officials have indicated that they expect staffing levels to continue
to change in the near term as specific sites move through the
different phases of cleanup. For example, Corps officials told us
that the preparation of environmental documentation requires
significantly more staff involvement than does the actual physical
removal of contaminated material. (See app. III to this report for
a listing of the number of staff involved in FUSRAP.)
At the time the program was transferred, DOE reports that it had 14
federal and 50 contractor full-time equivalents involved in a joint
federal/contractor management team. It is difficult to compare the
Corps' and DOE's staffing levels. Consistent with other DOE
programs, DOE used a federally led management team in FUSRAP, while
the Corps used all federal staff. In addition, as stated previously,
the Corps' staffing level includes program management and some
program support staff, while DOE's reported staffing level includes
only program management.
--------------------
\7 A full-time equivalent is the measure of the total number of hours
worked divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year.
For example, one full-time employee counts as one full-time
equivalent, and two employees that work half time also count as one
full-time equivalent.
\8 The Center of Expertise provides FUSRAP with technical expertise
on environmental matters.
CORPS' PREPARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
The Corps believes that its authority to execute FUSRAP is the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, as amended. One of the challenges the Corps identified
during the program's transition from DOE was completing environmental
documents necessary to begin removal or remediation of contamination
pursuant to the act. Removal actions are short-term actions taken to
clean up, remove, and monitor contamination. Remedial actions are
the study, design, and construction of longer-term responses aimed at
permanently cleaning up a site.
When DOE managed FUSRAP, it used action memorandums as its primary
decision document to carry out removal actions. An action memorandum
identifies the selected removal action and authorizes the cleanup.
It is supported by an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment, which
characterizes the waste, examines different options, tentatively
selects a remedy, and obtains public comment. DOE's use of
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessments and action memorandums was
consistent with a GAO report recommending that DOE consider the
increased use of removal actions, where appropriate, as a potential
means of schedule and cost savings.\9
The Corps has prepared five Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessments
for removal actions involving six sites and two Records of Decision
for cleanup involving four sites and plans to prepare Records of
Decision to remediate and close out nearly all sites. Records of
Decision document the selected remedy and authorize the cleanup.
They are supported by a work plan, a remedial investigation, a
feasibility study, and a proposed plan that tentatively selects a
remedy and obtains public comment. Records of Decision are generally
prepared to support and document longer, more complex remedial action
cleanups. Corps officials told us that they make extensive use of
Records of Decision because the Corps believes that Records of
Decision are required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, to achieve
finality and completion of response actions at a site. Furthermore,
the Corps believes that the Record of Decision process ensures full
public comment on the selected remedial alternative.
The use of either decision document complies with relevant
requirements for documenting cleanup actions. Implementing
regulations and applicable guidance documents for the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, provide that both removal and remedial actions require a
decision document to be included as part of the administrative record
of each response action. The regulations and guidance indicate that
this requirement may be satisfied differently for each type of
action. While a Record of Decision is the document to be used for a
remedial action, an action memorandum generally is used for a removal
action.
--------------------
\9 Nuclear Waste: Greater Use of Removal Actions Could Cut Time and
Cost for Cleanups (GAO/RCED-96-124, May 23, 1996).
TRANSITION ACTIVITIES AND
ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
During the transition from DOE to the Corps, the Corps established
transition teams and met with DOE officials to transfer contracts and
obtain information related to the FUSRAP sites. The transition of
FUSRAP sites and information to the Corps was achieved quickly and
smoothly. However, several issues related to the program needed to
be resolved. DOE and the Corps are negotiating a Memorandum of
Understanding to clarify roles and responsibilities. DOE and Corps
officials told us that the memorandum may be finalized in early 1999.
TRANSFER OF FUSRAP SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
When FUSRAP was initially transferred from DOE, the Corps set out to
review and analyze the program, facilitate a smooth transition from
DOE to the Corps, develop and submit a report to the Congress, and
execute the program and projects within budget and on schedule. To
accomplish the objectives, the Corps developed a management plan and
created two teams--the Program Assessment Team and the Oak Ridge
Transition Team.
The Program Assessment Team consisted of six members with backgrounds
in hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste management; technical
requirements; construction contracting; laws and regulations; health
physics and safety; and real estate. The team was chartered to
develop the Corps' overall assessment of the status of FUSRAP
projects, DOE's strategy for completion, and the technical
appropriateness and funding level of existing DOE-directed contractor
activities. During November 1997, the team visited the six Corps
districts that manage FUSRAP sites and also visited most of the
FUSRAP sites. The team was also to work with the Corps' districts to
determine if the cleanup of all sites could be completed by 2002, to
determine a transition strategy for each project, and to consolidate,
assemble, and coordinate site-specific components of the Corps'
report to Congress.
The Oak Ridge Transition Team had four members with expertise in
hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste; program and project
management; contracting; and contract management. The team was
chartered to assess DOE's FUSRAP management practices, contract
requirements, financial systems, scheduling, regulatory interfaces,
community relations, and future program requirements. In addition,
the team was responsible for assisting in preparation of the report
to Congress.
The Corps' and DOE's staff held numerous meetings during the first
few months of fiscal year 1998. For example, the day after the
President signed the bill transferring the program, Corps officials
from headquarters and the districts met with DOE headquarters
officials. The Corps' teams spent from October 20 through 24, 1997,
with DOE and Bechtel National, Inc., (DOE's prime management support
contractor) staff in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where they were briefed on
individual FUSRAP sites. The Corps' headquarters officials again met
with DOE officials on November 7. The Corps' March 1998 report to
Congress stated that during the transition period, DOE personnel at
Oak Ridge and the FUSRAP sites provided outstanding cooperation. The
report also stated that DOE's program and project managers and its
contractors involved in FUSRAP acted professionally and responsibly.
DOE and Corps officials agreed that both agencies were cooperative
and that the transition was a smooth, coordinated effort.
TRANSITION ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
Early in the transition, it was not clear whether the Corps had the
same authority as DOE for regulating certain safety activities of
contractors carrying out FUSRAP cleanups. With respect to nuclear
safety and occupational safety and health activities, through the
terms of its contracts, DOE regulated its FUSRAP cleanup contractors
as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act.\10 As a result, DOE's
contractors followed safety requirements imposed by DOE under its
authority rather than those imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission or by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The Corps questioned whether this authority had been transferred. As
a result, the Corps' contractors were required to comply with the
substantive provisions of all applicable safety and regulatory
requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
Corps officials informed us that they have taken the position that
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended, does not require the Corps to obtain Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licenses for FUSRAP work performed entirely
on-site but does require compliance with provisions of otherwise
applicable license requirements for on-site work. Corps officials
also believe that any portions of FUSRAP work that are entirely
off-site are subject to applicable license or permit requirements.
The Corps therefore requires its contractors to comply with all
federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling of
FUSRAP materials and to meet all license or permit requirements for
off-site work. On January 12, 1999, the Corps wrote a letter to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that stated the Corps' position and
asked for the Commission's guidance.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, an agency that cleans up a contaminated site
may be able to recover some of the funds spent for response actions
from potentially responsible parties. The Corps believed it needed
specific legislative authority to deposit funds recovered this way in
its FUSRAP accounts and then to use the funds for additional FUSRAP
response actions. This issue was resolved when specific authority to
deposit these funds was provided in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-245).
Sites may be added to FUSRAP when new information about radioactive
contamination related to sites used by DOE's predecessor agencies
becomes available. For example, as recently as 1994, the CE site in
Windsor, Connecticut, was added to the program. The Corps does not
regard the designation of new FUSRAP sites as being within the scope
of responsibilities that were transferred. The Corps believes that
DOE is the repository for information on the Manhattan Engineering
District and early activities by the Atomic Energy Commission and
that such information is essential for determining the eligibility
for cleanups under FUSRAP. DOE's initial position was that the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1998 transferred
complete responsibility for carrying out FUSRAP to the
Corps�including the designation of new sites, although DOE also
stated that it would provide the Corps with reasonable assistance in
evaluating the eligibility of potential new sites. DOE and Corps
officials informed us that they have tentatively resolved this
issue--DOE will research the history of proposed new FUSRAP sites to
determine their eligibility, and the Corps will assess the sites'
level of contamination--in a Memorandum of Understanding that is
currently being negotiated.
Questions about which agency should be accountable for sites is
another transition issue that requires resolution. DOE and Corps
officials informed us that they have tentatively agreed--in the
Memorandum of Understanding that is currently being negotiated--that
DOE will be responsible for any surveillance and maintenance of sites
that have been released from the program. Questions about which
agency should be accountable for sites still in FUSRAP remain under
discussion. Specifically, the matter of which agency is responsible
for property management has not been decided. The Corps has proposed
that DOE should retain responsibility for these matters. DOE's
position is that while the Corps' cleanup activities are in progress,
these responsibilities are best handled by the Corps. DOE and Corps
officials informed us that they are attempting to resolve this issue
in the Memorandum of Understanding, which may be finalized in early
1999.
--------------------
\10 DOE's statutory authority for these activities is contained in
sections 110(a)(2) and 161(i)(3) of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C.
2140(a)(2) and 2201(i)(3), respectively). Section 110(a) excludes
DOE's contractor-operated facilities from the requirement for a
Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for the construction or
operation of these facilities. Section 161(i)(3) authorizes DOE to
prescribe regulations or orders that it considers necessary to
protect health and safety at its facilities, including standards
governing the design and operation of those facilities.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The Corps has been responsible for FUSRAP for only a little more than
a year; because of this short period, it is difficult to predict the
future of the program. However, during the first year that the Corps
managed FUSRAP, it accomplished much. The Corps reviewed all 22
sites, developed cost and schedule estimates for each, and
established site-specific milestones. For most sites, these
milestones were achieved or exceeded. The Corps also realized
reductions in the costs of disposing of contaminated materials and in
staffing levels. The transition of the sites from DOE to the Corps
was achieved quickly and smoothly.
Despite the successes of the Corps' first year, unknowns still exist
for several aspects of FUSRAP. We found several sites where the
extent of contamination had not yet been completely characterized or
the technology required to clean up the contamination is not yet
available. As a result, there is potential for the Corps' $2.25
billion cleanup cost estimate to increase in the future. In
addition, several overall transition issues related to the Corps'
responsibilities and authorities remain to be formally resolved,
particularly, its responsibility for determining the eligibility of
new FUSRAP sites, accountability for the sites removed from the
program, and accountability for the sites currently in the program.
The first two issues have been tentatively resolved; discussions
continue on the third.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided the Corps and DOE with a draft of this report for their
review and comment. The Corps concurred with the report's assessment
of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The Corps
also commented about its 71 full-time equivalent management and
support staff that we reported were employed in the program. The
Corps' letter stated that management of the program was accomplished
with 26 full-time equivalents. During our review, we requested
information on program management staffing levels, and the Corps
informed us that it had 71 full-time equivalents involved in program
management and support. We included that information in the report
and the Corps' comments provide no basis for making changes to the
report. As stated in the report, we are aware that a comparison
between DOE's and the Corps' staffing levels is difficult and that
staffing levels for the program tend to fluctuate. Nevertheless, the
staffing level data that the Corps previously provided us with and
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget�which show staffing levels of
97 full-time equivalents for the program for fiscal year 1998 and 140
full-time equivalents for fiscal years 1999 and 2000�further support
our view that the assessment of the Corps' staffing levels presented
in this report should not be adjusted downward.
DOE's letter provides a perspective on the last several years of the
Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program--when it was managed
by DOE--and the condition of the program when it was transferred to
the Corps. This report focused on transition issues and activities
that occurred after the program was transferred, and, as a result, we
did not make any changes to the report. The full texts of the Corps'
and the DOE's comments are included in appendixes IV and V,
respectively.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To obtain information on issues related to FUSRAP's transition from
DOE to the Corps, we held discussions with and obtained documents
related to the transition period from the Corps' headquarters,
division, and district officials; former DOE program officials in
headquarters and Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and DOE contractor officials
who were responsible for FUSRAP. To determine the basis for the
Corps' cost and schedule estimates contained in its report to
Congress and to obtain information on the Corps' program milestones,
staffing levels, and environmental document preparation, we visited
and held discussions with officials from the six Corps districts that
are responsible for FUSRAP sites. We obtained documents related to
cleanup costs and schedules, site contamination, program milestones
and accomplishments, staffing levels, and environmental requirements.
We visited 21 of the 22 FUSRAP sites (the site we did not visit is an
active site, and the operator requested that we not visit because
doing so could disrupt current activities). We also visited the
Corps' Omaha, Nebraska, District Office and the Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise in Omaha to obtain documents
and information on contractual and technical assistance that they
provided for FUSRAP districts. We conducted our review from July
1998 through January 1999 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 10 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies of the report to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy,
the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and other interested
congressional parties. We will also make copies available to others
on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
call me at (202) 512-3841. Major contributors to this report were
Glen Trochelman,
Assistant Director; Ilene Pollack, Senior Evaluator; Kenneth E.
Lightner, Jr., Senior Evaluator; and Susan W. Irwin, Senior
Attorney.
Sincerely yours,
(Ms.) Gary Jones
Associate Director, Energy,
Resources, and Science Issues
DOE'S AND ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
COST ESTIMATES FOR FUSRAP SITES
=========================================================== Appendix I
(Dollars in millions)
Site and DOE's estimates of cost to Corps' estimates of cost to
location complete complete
-------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
May 1997 plan June 1997 plan Baseline Conservative
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
W.R. $13.0 $12.0 $39.6 $53.3
Grace
Site,
Baltimo
re, Md.
Ashland 14.0 26.0 28.7 28.7
1,
Tonawan
da,
N.Y.
Ashland 9.0 14.0 14.4 14.4
2,
Tonawan
da,
N.Y.
Bliss & 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
Laughlin
Steel,
Buffalo
, N.Y.
Linde, 47.0 47.0 33.2 33.2
Tonawan
da,
N.Y.
Niagara 226.0 6.0 285.0 434.5
Falls
Storage
Site,
Lewisto
n, N.Y.
Seaway 0.5 0.5 10.2 10.2
Site,
Tonawan
da,
N.Y.
Luckey, 31.0 32.0 157.3 179.9
Luckey,
Ohio
Painesvi 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.3
lle,
Painesv
ille,
Ohio
CE 29.0 27.0 40.7 99.3
Site,
Windsor
, Conn.
8.0 8.0 0.07 0.07
Ventron,
Beverly
, Mass.
Shpack 1.0 1.0 0.03 0.03
Landfil
l,
Norton/
Attlebo
ro,
Mass.
229.0 221.0 266.2 304.8
Maywood,
Maywood
, N.J.
Middlese 37.0 36.0 46.6 46.6
x
Samplin
g
Plant,
Middles
ex,
N.J.
Wayne 55.0 55.0 56.1 79.9
Interim
Storage
Facilit
y,
Wayne,
N.J.
Colonie 26.0 24.0 24.3 24.3
Site,
Colonie
, N.Y.
Dupont 11.0 11.0 16.5 16.5
Chambers
Works,
Deepwat
er,
N.J.
Madison 5.0 5.0 1.8 3.0
Site,
Madison
, Ill.
St. 192.0 38.0 123.4 179.5
Louis
Airport
Site,
St.
Louis,
Mo.
St. 189.0 166.0 85.9 122.0
Louis
Airport
Site
Vicinit
y
Propert
ies,
St.
Louis,
Mo.
St. 187.0 90.0 55.0 167.2
Louis
Downtow
n
Site,
St.
Louis,
Mo.
Hazelwoo 183.0 150.0 114.0 214.0
d
Interim
Storage
Site &
Latty
Ave.
Propert
ies,
Hazelwo
od, Mo.
Total $1,503.5 $980.5 $1,409.6 $2,022.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
DOE = Department of Energy
FUSRAP = Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Note: This appendix shows the Corps' cost estimates for the 22
FUSRAP sites, which total $1.4 billion (baseline) and $2 billion
(conservative). The total of the individual site costs differs from
the Corps' total cleanup cost estimate of $1.56 billion (baseline)
and $2.25 billion (conservative) because the individual site cost
estimates in this table are in October 1997 dollars and the total
cleanup costs are adjusted for inflation. This appendix also shows
DOE's estimated cost (adjusted for inflation) for the 22 FUSRAP sites
which total $1.5 billion (under the May 1997 10-year plan) and $980.5
million (under the June 1997 accelerated plan). The total of the
individual site costs differs under the accelerated plan from the DOE
accelerated total cleanup cost estimate of $983 million because the
individual site costs do not include site closeout costs.
Source: DOE estimates of Cost to Complete: 1997 Plan: FUSRAP
Ten-Year Plan Executive Summary, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak
Ridge Operations, discussion draft (May 1997). Accelerated Clean up
Plan: FUSRAP Accelerating Cleanup: A Focus on 2006, Executive
Summary, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations, discussion
draft (June 1997). Corps' Estimates of Cost to Complete: Baseline
and Conservative: FUSRAP Report to Congress, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Mar. 1998).
STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998
MILESTONES AT FUSRAP SITES
========================================================== Appendix II
DOE's proposed
Site and FY 1998 Corps' FY 1998
District location milestones milestones Status
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Baltimore W.R. Grace, No FY 1998 Award contract Occurred.
Baltimore, Md. milestones. to prepare
Engineering
Evaluation/Cost
Assessment.
Buffalo Ashland 1, Begin removal of Complete Record Occurred.
Tonawanda, N.Y. contamination. of Decision.
Buffalo Ashland 2, Begin removal of Complete Record Occurred.
Tonawanda, N.Y. contamination. of Decision and
initiate
remediation.
Buffalo Bliss & Laughlin No FY 1998 Release Delayed because
Steel, Buffalo, milestones. Engineering of lack of
N.Y. Evaluation/Cost access to site.
Assessment to
the public.
Buffalo Linde, Demolish Complete Occurred.
Tonawanda, N.Y. building No. decontamination
30. of building No.
Decontaminate 14 and demolish
building No. 14. and remove
building No. 30.
Buffalo Niagara Falls Surveillance and Provide for site Exceeded.
Storage Site, maintenance. security and Decontaminated
Lewiston, N.Y. maintenance. Building No.
403.
Buffalo Seaway, Issue hazard Issue Record of Has not occurred
Tonawanda, N.Y. assessment. Decision. because
additional
characterization
found higher
volume of
contaminated
material.
Buffalo Luckey, Luckey, Continue site Complete site Occurred.
Ohio characterization characterization Planned
and begin . characterization
remedial action. was completed;
however,
beryllium was
found to have
migrated, and
additional
characterization
work will be
performed.
Buffalo Painesville, Complete Issue Exceeded.
Painesville, remedial action. Engineering Additional
Ohio Evaluation/Cost contamination
Assessment and found. Removed
Action 300 cubic yards.
Memorandum and
excavate/
dispose of 250
cubic yards of
material.
New England CE Site, Start site Initiate site Occurred.
Windsor, Conn. characterization characterization
. .
New England Ventron, Issue final Complete Record Has not occurred
Beverly, Mass. certification of Decision because of
document. Corps' desire
not to put out
Record of
Decision for
public review
prior to
completion of
negotiations
related to the
owner's plans to
sell the site.
New England Shpack Landfill, Remove from Remove from Has not occurred
Norton/ program. program. because of the
Attleboro, Mass. need to review
more records
than originally
anticipated.
New York Maywood, Complete Remediate 13 Exceeded.
Maywood, N.J. residential vicinity Completed 15
vicinity properties. vicinity
properties. properties and
Begin began
remediation of remediation of 6
municipal vicinity
vicinity properties
properties. scheduled for FY
1999. Completed
four additional
properties not
originally in
the program.
New York Middlesex Complete Issue Exceeded. Issued
Sampling Plant, Engineering Engineering Engineering
Middlesex, N.J. Evaluation/Cost Evaluation/Cost Evaluation/Cost
Assessment. Assessment. Assessment and
Remove 50 Remove half of removed entire
percent of waste contaminated waste pile.
pile. waste pile.
New York Wayne Interim Complete removal Issue Occurred.
Storage of waste pile. Engineering
Facility, Wayne, Begin removal of Evaluation/Cost
N.J. subsurface Assessment and
contamination. remove 10,000
cubic yards.
New York Colonie, Complete Award contract Occurred.
Colonie, N.Y. vicinity for total site
property remediation.
cleanup. Conduct various
Begin subsurface decontamination
soil and removal
remediation. activities.
Philadelphia Dupont Chambers Remove drums Issue Occurred. Drums
Works, containing Engineering removed under a
Deepwater, N.J. waste. Evaluation/Cost Post Hazard
Assessment and Assessment
remove drums document.
containing (Engineering
waste. Evaluation/Cost
Assessment was
not used.)
St. Louis Madison, No FY 1998 No FY 1998 Not applicable.
Madison, Ill. milestones. milestones.
St. Louis St. Louis Begin excavation Complete rail Occurred.
Airport Site, of surface and spur for loading
St. Louis, Mo. subsurface soil. out material and
Remove issue
contaminated Engineering
sediment in Evaluation/Cost
ditches. Assessment.
Remove
contaminated
material.
St. Louis St. Louis Continue Issue Occurred.
Airport Site remediation of Engineering
Vicinity haul routes. Evaluation/Cost
Properties, St. Assessment for
Louis, Mo. ball fields as
part of Airport
Site Engineering
Evaluation/Cost
Assessment.
Remove
contaminated
material.
St. Louis St. Louis Continue Issue Record of Occurred.
Downtown Site, building Decision. Remove
St. Louis, Mo. decontamination. contaminated
Begin subsurface material.
soil
remediation.
St. Louis Hazelwood Begin removal of Issue Engineering
Interim Storage waste storage Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Site and Latty pile. Evaluation/Cost Assessment was
Ave. Properties, Assessment and issued, and rail
Hazelwood, Mo. start rail spur. spur was not
started because
the property
owner would not
sign the
agreement to
allow the Corps
on the property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
FUSRAP = Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
FY = fiscal year
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' FUSRAP
STAFFING LEVELS AT THE END OF
FISCAL YEAR 1998
========================================================= Appendix III
Organization Full-time equivalents
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------
New York 8.1
Buffalo 30.8
St. Louis 20.3
New England 3.0
Philadelphia 1.0
Baltimore 2.0
Omaha 6.1
Headquarters N/A\a
======================================================================
Total 71.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
FUSRAP = Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
N/A = not applicable
\a Headquarters is funded through General Expense funds and is not
attributable to FUSRAP budget.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
========================================================= Appendix III
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
========================================================= Appendix III
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
*** End of document. ***