Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings: Background and Issues for Congress

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium
February 22, 2021
Mill Tailings: Background and Issues
Lance N. Larson
for Congress
Analyst in Environmental
Policy
In the wake of increasing concerns in the 1970s about human health and environmental risks

posed by inactive uranium mill tailings, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Uranium milling operations generate uranium concentrate, also

known as yellowcake uranium, and waste material, called tailings, which can harbor and liberate
radioactive and nonradioactive constituents.
Title I of UMTRCA authorized a remedial action program for uranium mill tailings sites that were inactive prior to 1978,
which produced uranium concentrate under federal procurement contracts primarily for nuclear weapons and other defense
purposes. Title II of UMTRCA authorized the regulation of uranium mills and tailings sites that were operating on or after
the law’s enactment, which largely produced uranium concentrate for civilian nuclear power plants. UMTRCA does not
provide regulatory authority over uranium mining (the physical removal of uranium ore from the earth), waste material
produced from uranium mining, or remediation of inactive uranium mine sites. The Department of Energy (DOE) is the
federal agency responsible for implementing the remedial action program and administering long-term federal management
of the tailings.
The site remediation costs have exceeded costs originally envisioned by Congress, the agencies, and the licensees due to an
evolving understanding of the complexities and risks posed by unintended releases of contaminants from uranium mill
tailings. As part of the remediation action, the uranium mill tailings are enclosed in engineered repositories, located at
disposal sites, which are designed to prevent unintended release of potentially hazardous constituents for hundreds of years.
DOE’s authority to perform surface remediation at Title I sites expired on September 30, 1998. Groundwater contamination
has compounded the technical complexity and timeline of remedial actions at certain sites. Congress amended UMTRCA in
1988 to authorize DOE to perform groundwater remediation without expiration under the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial
Action Amendments Act (UMTRA).
UMTRCA requires the transfer of both Title I and Title II disposal sites to long-term federal management. As of FY2020, the
Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) administers long-term federal management at 31 Title I
sites, excluding the site at Moab, UT. Title II sites are regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an
NRC agreement state and transferred to DOE-LM for long-term federal management when NRC, or the state, determines that
applicable standards have been met. As of FY2020, 6 of 29 Title II sites have transferred to DOE-LM, and 23 Title II sites
remain privately owned under an NRC or an agreement state license. DOE-LM expects to take long-term management
responsibilities of the 23 remaining Title II sites by 2048.
Under UMTRCA, Congress established that the federal government pay for long-term monitoring and maintenance costs at
Title I sites, subject to annual appropriations to DOE-LM. For Title II sites, Congress intended that the licensee would pay
for any long-term management costs with a one-time long-term surveillance charge (LTSC). In the event that the LTSCs are
not sufficient to cover annual monitoring and maintenance costs, DOE-LM would be responsible to carry out long-term
management responsibilities, subject to availability of annual appropriations.
The long-term management efforts to stabilize tailings and monitor groundwater have proven more challenging, and
expensive, than originally expected. The federal government will be responsible for long-term management of all UMTRCA
sites once transferred to DOE-LM. Potential oversight issues for Congress may include understanding the decommissioning
and transfer status of the remaining Title II sites, the adequacy of funding to complete decommissioning at certain sites if the
licensee is unable to fulfill its obligations, and the adequacy of LTSCs to meet future management needs.
Congressional Research Service


link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 18 link to page 28 link to page 30 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Uranium Mill Tailings ............................................................................................................... 1
Brief History of Uranium Milling in the United States ................................................................... 3
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 .................................................................... 5
Title I—Remedial Action Program for Inactive Uranium Mill Sites ........................................ 6
Definitions, Scope of Remedial Actions, and Site Inventory.............................................. 7
Cooperative Agreements ..................................................................................................... 8
Land Acquisition and Transfer ............................................................................................ 8
Financial Responsibility...................................................................................................... 9
Development of Remediation Standards........................................................................... 10
UMTRA Amendments of 1988 ......................................................................................... 10

Title II—Regulation of Uranium Mills, 1978 and After .......................................................... 11
Byproduct Material and Site Transfer ................................................................................ 11
Federal Regulatory Authority ........................................................................................... 12
State Regulatory Authority ............................................................................................... 14
Financial Arrangements .................................................................................................... 15
Status of Implementation ............................................................................................................... 15
Disposal Site Tailings Stabilization ......................................................................................... 15
Groundwater Contamination and Monitoring ......................................................................... 16
Moab Processing Site, Utah .................................................................................................... 17
Selected Issues for Congress ......................................................................................................... 18
Cheney Disposal Cell Reauthorization ................................................................................... 18
Title II Uranium Reimbursements ........................................................................................... 19
Transfer Status and Funding.................................................................................................... 20
Long-Term Financial Assurance ............................................................................................. 21
Title I Sites ........................................................................................................................ 21
Title II Sites ....................................................................................................................... 22

Figures
Figure 1. UMTRCA and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle ............................................................................ 3
Figure 2. Domestic Uranium Concentrate Production (1949-2017) ............................................... 5
Figure 3. Locations of UMTRCA Sites ......................................................................................... 14

Tables

Table A-1. UMTRCA Sites Under Long-Term Federal Management ........................................... 24
Table A-2. UMTRCA Sites Not Yet Under Long-Term Federal Management .............................. 26

Congressional Research Service


link to page 28 link to page 31 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Appendixes
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 27

Congressional Research Service

link to page 7 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Introduction
Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA, P.L. 95-
604) in the wake of environmental and public health concerns about exposures to radiological and
nonradiological waste material originating from Cold War-era uranium mill tailing sites. Title I of
UMTRCA authorized a remedial action program for uranium mill tailing sites that were inactive
prior to the law’s enactment in 1978. Under Title I of UMTRCA, the federal government was
mostly responsible for financing the remediation and decommissioning of Title I sites, most of
which produced uranium for nuclear weapons and other defense purposes. Title II of UMTRCA
authorized federal agencies to regulate uranium mill tailings produced at commercially licensed
facilities still operating on or after 1978. For Title II sites, Congress intended that commercial
uranium mill operators, not the federal government, pay for site decommissioning and tailings
stabilization activities.
The federal government assumes responsibility for both Title I and Title II uranium mill sites
transferred to long-term federal management after site decommissioning has been completed. As
of FY2019, the Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) administers
long-term federal management at 31 Title I sites and 6 Title II sites. DOE-LM manages surface
tailings and groundwater monitoring programs at sites under long-term federal management in an
effort to minimize any unintended release of potentially radiological or nonradiological material.
Long-term monitoring and maintenance activities may include stabilization of the engineered
repository of uranium mill tailings and groundwater remediation or monitoring, if necessary.
As of FY2019, 23 Title II sites remain owned by commercial operators, who are permitted to
operate under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an NRC agreement state license.
When the Title II site operator has completed all site decommissioning requirements, the license
is to be transferred to DOE for long-term federal management.
This report presents the historical context for the law, the status of implementation since
enactment, and selected issues for Congress. UMTRCA does not authorize the regulation of
uranium mining—the process of physically removing uranium ore from the earth—or the disposal
of waste material produced by uranium mining. The regulation of uranium mining and the
remediation of abandoned uranium mines are not discussed in this report.
Uranium Mill Tailings
Uranium milling is the process of converting mined uranium ore to uranium concentrate, also
known as yellowcake uranium.1 Milling is common to a number of mineral extraction industries
and refers to the physical and chemical processes necessary to concentrate minerals from mined
ore. Uranium milling operations use a series of physical (crushing and grinding the mined ore)
and chemical processes (acid or alkaline solutions, ion exchange) to concentrate the mineralized
uranium ore into yellowcake uranium.2 Heap leaching, a specific type of uranium milling
operation, involves sprinkling sulfuric acid or another solvent directly over the ore in large
earthen collection pits. The acidic stream trickles through the ore and dissolves uranium and that
stream is collected and processed. Yellowcake uranium produced from the milling process is
subsequently converted and enriched for civilian nuclear power production (Figure 1).

1 Uranium concentrate is also commonly referred to as uranium oxide or U3O8.
2 See NRC, “Conventional Uranium Mills,” May 15, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/
extraction-methods/conventional-mills.html.
Congressional Research Service
1

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Tailings are the waste material produced from milling operations. The milling process produces
tailings initially as a slurry material, which is disposed of in a settling pond. The slurry tailings
material dries, resulting in a sand-like material. Milling operations produce a large quantity of
tailings relative to the amount of uranium concentrate produced. NRC estimated that 2.4 pounds
of yellowcake uranium oxide is produced from 2,000 pounds of uranium ore.3
Public health and environmental concerns from uranium milling have been associated with
various aspects of historical operations and tailings disposal. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has identified four health exposure routes from uranium mill tailings:4
1. Increased risk of lung cancer from the diffusion of radon gas indoors if tailings
material is used for construction material,
2. Inhalation of radon gas or ingestion of small particles directly emitted from the
mill piles into the atmosphere,
3. Exposure to gamma radiation produced by radioactive decay products within the
tailings, and
4. Wind and water erosion and mobilization of radioactive and other constituents
into surface and groundwater.
Physical and geochemical mechanisms can liberate trace metals and radionuclides within the
tailings into groundwater or surface water. The hazards associated with the release of various
radiological and nonradiological constituents from uranium tailings may persist for hundreds or
thousands of years.5

3 See NRC, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling,” September 1980, pp. 3-14, 15.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radioactive Waste Disposal, an Environmental Perspective, Air and
Radiation (6602J), 1994, p. 7.
5 See for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee Energy and the
Environment, Uranium Mill Tailings Control, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 1978, 95-30, p. 76. In 1978, NRC
chairman Joseph M. Hendrie stated, “The radioactive decay of these elements leads to production of radon, a
radioactive gas with a half-life of about 4 days, which can diffuse from a tailings pile into the atmosphere and
subsequently expose persons to radiation far away from the pile. The increased exposure compared to exposure from
radon already in the atmosphere from other sources is exceedingly slight, but this increase is in effect permanent. This
is because radon production in mill tailings continues for times on the order of 100,000 years, so the tailings pile
becomes a perpetual source injecting a small amount of radon into the atmosphere, unless some action is taken to keep
the radon from escaping.”
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 9
Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Figure 1. UMTRCA and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Source: CRS Report RL34234, Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to
Nuclear Power
, coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin.
Notes: The dashed box highlights UMTRCA authority over uranium mil ing and mil tailings relative to the
nuclear fuel cycle.
Brief History of Uranium Milling in the United
States
During the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor federal agency
to DOE and NRC, procured uranium concentrate by funding domestic uranium ore mining
exploration and development, entering into private purchasing contracts with domestic milling
companies, and purchasing foreign-produced uranium concentrate.6 The majority of domestic
uranium concentrate production prior to 1971 primarily supported the development of nuclear
weapons and naval reactors. From 1947 to 1971, annual domestic uranium concentrate production
ranged from 20 million pounds to 35 million pounds (Figure 2).
After 1971, uranium mill operators produced uranium concentrate primarily for the production of
civilian nuclear power. The 1970s were a period of growth for the U.S. nuclear power industry, as
59 nuclear reactors were first connected to the electricity grid between 1970 and 1979.7 NRC

6 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM), “Linking Legacies, Connecting the
Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to Their Environmental Consequences,” January 1997, p. 51.
7 See International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Reactor Information System: United States, updated February 13,
2019, https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=US.
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 9 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

estimated in 1978 that over 109 uranium mills would be required by the year 2000 to support the
fuel requirements of the growing reactor fleet.8 However, domestic uranium concentrate
production in the United States decreased by roughly 92% from 1978 to 1993 (Figure 2). By
2000, one active U.S. uranium mill, two partially active U.S. uranium mills, and three in-situ
recovery (ISR) facilities9 combined to produce 4 million pounds of uranium concentrate.10
Continued growth by the domestic civilian nuclear power industry did not materialize as
anticipated in 1978. Numerous factors led to a decrease of domestic uranium production.11 In
particular, U.S. nuclear power growth was far less than envisioned by Congress and federal
agencies in 1978, as U.S. nuclear plant orders virtually halted after that year and dozens of
previous orders were canceled. While the number of operational uranium mills was less than
originally envisioned, potential risks from the uranium mills that did operate continue to present
technical and regulatory challenges. The awareness of the technical and economic challenges
posed during the decommissioning and long-term management of uranium mill tailings has
increased since 1978. As of the third quarter of 2020, the U.S. uranium concentrate facilities
consisted of one uranium mill and four ISR facilities in operation.12

8 Statement by Monte Canfield, Director, Energy and Minerals Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Uranium Mill
Tailings Control Act Of 1978
, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., June 19, 1978.
9 ISR or in-situ leach refers to nonconventional uranium recovery where uranium ore is dissolved by injecting a
solution directly into an aquifer and removing the “pregnant” solution for processing. Since UMTRCA, ISR facilities
have become the preferred uranium recovery process in the United States. This report will address only policy and
oversight issues associated with conventional uranium mills.
10 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Uranium Industry Annual 2000, May 2001, p. 11, https://www.eia.gov/
uranium/marketing/archive/04782000.pdf.
11 A detailed discussion of the factors that contributed the decline of the U.S. domestic uranium production industry is
beyond the scope of this report. For further discussion, see CRS Report R44715, Financial Challenges of Operating
Nuclear Power Plants in the United States
, by Phillip Brown and Mark Holt.
12 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Domestic Uranium Production Report - Quarterly, Second-Quarter 2018,
August 10, 2018, https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/quarterly/.
Congressional Research Service
4


Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Figure 2. Domestic Uranium Concentrate Production (1949-2017)

Source: CRS prepared the above figure using data from U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy
Review
, Table 9.3: Uranium Overview 1949-2011, September 2012; U.S. Energy Information Administration,
Domestic Uranium Production Report—Annual, Table 3: U.S. Uranium Concentrate Production, Shipments, and
Sales, 2003-2017, May 2018. Energy Information Administration, Domestic Uranium Production Report - Annual,
Table 3, May 18, 2020, https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/.
Notes: The shaded area shows the range of years associated with Title I uranium mil s under federal
procurement contracts. UMTRCA was enacted in 1978.
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA; P.L. 95-604) includes
three titles:
 Title I authorized the remediation of uranium mill tailings inactive prior to the
law’s enactment in 1978.
 Title II authorized the regulation of commercial uranium mills operating on or
after 1978.
 Title III directed the NRC to consult with the state of New Mexico to study and
designate two mill tailings sites in New Mexico.
By 1998, DOE completed site decommissioning for all Title I sites, with the exception of the site
located at Moab, UT.13 Legislation to authorize cleanup at Moab was enacted subsequent to

13 Moab remediation remains ongoing by DOE-EM.
Congressional Research Service
5

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

UMTRCA. Title I provisions do not authorize remedial actions for sites in operation on or after
1978, which are addressed under Title II. Provisions under Title III have been resolved.
Title I—Remedial Action Program for Inactive Uranium Mill Sites
Title I was enacted to address the environmental and public health risks associated with residual
radioactive material produced at “inactive”14 uranium mill sites generated in support of the
federal uranium procurement program during the mid-1940s through the 1970s. The majority of
the uranium concentrate produced during this time period was for the development of nuclear
weapons, nuclear fuel production, and other Atomic Energy Commission programs.15 After the
federal procurement contracts ended in the early 1970s, operations at some uranium mills ceased
and licenses were terminated with few environmental remediation requirements.
Prior to 1978, federal agencies lacked legal authority to regulate uranium mill tailings.16 In 1966,
federal agencies issued a “Joint Federal Agency Position Regarding Control of Uranium Mill
Tailings” urging planning management and stabilization of the mill tailings as the responsibility
of the individual owners.17 Yet without a legally binding regulatory program, DOE subsequently
noted that actions resulting from the Joint Position were “far from satisfactory.”18
Multiple communities used uranium mill tailings as construction material for civilian building
projects. The characteristically “sandy” uranium tailings were attractive to construct roads,
sewers, farmlands, foundations in office buildings, schools, homes, and other structures.19 These

14 UMTRCA uses the term inactive to describe the conditions of uranium mill tailings sites under Title I. While the
term inactive may imply that the sites may have become “active,” the operators of Title I sites mostly ceased operations
a decade or more before the enactment of UMTRCA. There are other references to conditions of uranium mill tailings
at Title I sites as “abandoned” in the legislative history and similar legislation introduced at that time.
15 DOE-EM, “Linking Legacies.”
16 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Energy and Power, Uranium Mill Tailings
Control Act of 1978
, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., June 1978, HRG-1978-FCH-0047, p. 216 (Washington: GPO, 1979). As the
NRC testified in 1978: “Historically, the NRC and its predecessor agency have not had regulatory jurisdiction over
uranium mill tailings after mill operations are terminated because the tailings are not themselves licensable material.
Regulatory control over tailings is exerted indirectly as part of the Commission’s licensing of ongoing milling
operations pursuant to licensing authority over source materials. Therefore, after operations had ceased at the 22
inactive sites being considered and all licensable quantities of source material removed, the regulatory staff had no
further role.”
17 As presented in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978
, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., September 30, 1978, H. Rept. 95-1480, Part 2, p. 27. “The Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, the Public Health Service, and the Atomic Energy Commission agree that
inactive tailings piles resulting from uranium milling operations should be structurally stabilized and contained to
prevent water and wind erosion. Active tailings piles should be managed to minimize such erosion during use.
Planning, management, stabilization and containment of tailings piles are viewed as being the responsibility of the
individual mill owners. Mill owners should develop, without undue delay, specific plans for accomplishing such
management, stabilization and containment, and submit such plans through the appropriate state regulatory agencies for
approval. The staffs of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the Public Health Service, and the Atomic
Energy Commission will be available to the state regulatory agencies, upon request, to provide advice and assistance
regarding the development of pile stabilization and containment objectives and measures for achieving them.
Compliance by mill owners with approved plans for stabilization and containment should be recognized as constituting
fulfillment of mill owner responsibility with regard to such tailings piles. Obtaining and enforcement of tailings piles
stabilization and containment plans should rest initially with the states concerned.”
18 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978
, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., September 30, 1978, H. Rept. 95-1480.
19 Elisa J. Grammer, “The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and NRC’s Agreement State
Program,” Natural Resources Lawyer, vol. 13, no. 3 (1981), p. 478.
Congressional Research Service
6

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

sites became known as vicinity properties. In one instance, DOE reported that a uranium mill
operator left a front-end loader on site for members of the public to take as much uranium tailings
material as they could handle.20 NRC stated that 270,000 metric tons of uranium tailings at Grand
Junction were used for building materials.21
In 1972, growing concerns about environmental and public health risks from uranium mill
tailings used as construction material led to Congress appropriating funds for remedial action of
contaminated sites near Grand Junction, CO. Section 201 of the 1972 Atomic Energy
Commission Appropriation Authorization (P.L. 92-314) “assumes the compassionate
responsibility of the United States to provide to the state of Colorado financial assistance to
undertake remedial action to limit the exposure of individuals to radiation emanating from
uranium mill tailings which have been used as a construction related material in the area of Grand
Junction, Colorado.” The legislation addressing issues at Grand Junction served as the template
for the remedial action program authorized under Title I of UMTRCA.
Definitions, Scope of Remedial Actions, and Site Inventory
Section 101 of UMTRCA defines key terms and identifies federal agencies authorized to
implement UMTRCA. A processing site is defined as “(A) any site, including the mill, containing
residual radioactive materials at which all or substantially all of the uranium was produced for
sale to any Federal agency prior to January 1, 1971 under a contract with any Federal agency …
and (B) any other real property or improvement thereon which (i) is in the vicinity of such site,
and (ii) is determined by the Secretary [of Energy], in consultation with the [NRC], to be
contaminated with residual radioactive materials derived from such site.”22
Vicinity properties are off-site properties where uranium mill tailings were used as construction
material prior to the law’s enactment. A lesser amount of vicinity properties were adjacent sites
contaminated by wind-borne dispersion of mill tailings particles. By 1999, DOE reported that it
had remediated 5,300 vicinity properties.23 DOE’s authority to perform surface remedial actions
at Title I UMTRCA sites, including vicinity properties, expired on September 30, 1998.24
Residual radioactive material is defined under Section 101 as “waste (which the Secretary
determines to be radioactive) in the form of tailings resulting from the processing of ores for the
extraction of uranium and other valuable constituents of the ores; and other waste (which the
Secretary determines to be radioactive) at a processing site which relate to such processing,
including any residual stock of unprocessed ores or low-grade materials.”25 Tailings are defined
as “the remaining portion of a metal-bearing ore after some or all of such metal, such as uranium,
has been extracted.”26
DOE’s remedial action efforts aimed to permanently isolate the residual radioactive material from
the environment. Residual radioactive material was enclosed in engineered repositories consisting

20 David E. Mathes, DOE-EM, “Lessons Learned from the 20-Year Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Surface
Project,” March 4, 1999, pp. 5-6.
21 NRC, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling,” vol. 1, p. 2-2.
22 42 U.S.C. §7911(6).
23 Mathes, “Lessons Learned,” pp. 5-6.
24 42 U.S.C. §7922.
25 42 U.S.C. §7911(7).
26 42 U.S.C. §7911(8).
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 28 link to page 30 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

of multiple layers of relatively nonpermeable materials and capped with rip-rap.27 These layers
are intended to prevent the release of radon gas, limit downward infiltration and water seepage
through the tailings piles, and minimize the erosion of the repository by natural wind and water.
The repository is designed to stabilize residual radioactive material for at least 200 years and up
to 1,000 years.28
A disposal site identifies the location where the engineered tailings repository is sited, which is
either at the original processing site or an alternative location. Disposal site is not explicitly
defined by statute under Title I. However, EPA regulations define disposal site as “the region
within the smallest perimeter of residual radioactive material (excluding cover materials)
following completion of control.”29 The distinction between a processing site and disposal site
has bearing on long-term federal management obligations.
Under UMTRCA, DOE is required to consult with the EPA to prioritize which sites pose a
potential health hazard.30 However, DOE is not bound by EPA’s site priority evaluation, and
nothing in the statute precludes DOE from proceeding with remedial actions on lower-priority
sites. UMTRCA instructed DOE to consult with NRC to develop site-specific boundaries. Site
designations under this section are not subject to judicial review.31
Section 102 lists 22 processing sites originally designated under Title I.32 The number of Title I
and Title II sites has expanded, and a full inventory of UMTRCA sites is presented in Table A-1
and Table A-2.
Cooperative Agreements
Section 103 authorized DOE to enter into cooperative agreements with states or tribes to perform
remedial actions at inactive uranium mill tailing sites.33 Cooperative agreements between DOE-
LM and states are subject to NRC concurrence. Under Section 103, any cooperative agreements
between DOE and states are conditional on the site owner releasing DOE of liability associated
with any issues occurring during remedial actions. Section 103 authorizes DOE, NRC, and EPA
access to any site for inspection and enforcement subject to the establishment of a cooperative
agreement.34 Section 105 authorizes cooperative agreements between DOE and Indian tribes in
consultation with the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), similar to
provisions in Section 103, when processing sites are located on Indian lands.35
Land Acquisition and Transfer
Generally, DOE remediated the inactive uranium mill tailings and constructed a repository at the
original processing site location. However, Congress was aware of instances where inactive

27 “Rip-rap” is typically coarse rocks structured to prevent the erosion of underlying, relatively finer grain, layers.
28 40 C.F.R. §192.02(a).
29 40 C.F.R. §192.00. “Disposal site means the region within the smallest perimeter of residual radioactive material
(excluding cover materials) following completion of control.”
30 42 U.S.C. §7912(b).
31 42 U.S.C. §7912(d).
32 42 U.S.C. §7912. Two processing sites—Rifle, CO, and Slick Rock, NM—are listed as “Two Sites” that are included
in the original inventory of 22 sites.
33 42 U.S.C. §7913.
34 42 U.S.C. §7913(d).
35 42 U.S.C. §7915.
Congressional Research Service
8

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

uranium mill tailings were located on a floodplain or directly adjacent to a stream or river. In
those instances, designing, constructing, and maintaining an engineered repository for the
uranium mill tailings located next to a stream may have been technically infeasible.
UMTRCA authorizes agencies to determine whether an alternative disposal site is necessary to
protect human health and the environment. Section 104 authorizes the state, under a cooperative
agreement with DOE, to purchase surface and subsurface rights and transport tailings materials to
an alternative disposal site.
When NRC and DOE determined that an alternative disposal site was necessary, DOE
constructed repositories that were separate from the original inactive uranium mill tailings. The
management of the original processing site was returned to the state. Section 104 outlines four
options for the state to manage the processing site: (1) sell the land,36 (2) retain the land, (3)
donate the land for public or recreational purposes, or (4) transfer the land to the federal
government.37 The state provides appropriate documentation of remedial actions on the
processing site to future purchasers.
DOE manages Title I disposal sites under a general NRC license.38 UMTRCA authorized DOE to
obtain the surface and subsurface mineral rights for the disposal site. The acquisition of
subsurface interests was required conditional to a cooperative agreement. Congress intended to
avoid situations where the extraction of underlying minerals by subsurface mineral rights owners
could disrupt the stabilized tailings.39
Under UMTRCA, inactive uranium mill tailings located on federal public lands are transferred to
DOE as a public land withdrawal. Section 104(h) authorizes BLM to sell or lease rights to federal
lands located within the disposal site boundary.40 BLM is required to follow all applicable U.S.
laws to sell or lease and provide assurances that the stabilized residual radioactive materials will
not be disturbed by mineral development activities. Any prospective mineral developer is subject
to licensing.41 If the stabilized site is disturbed, the private operator must perform site remediation
at no cost to the federal government.
Section 106 authorizes the purchase of land to develop a consolidated disposal site.42 The section
discourages use of any National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and National
Forest System lands. If land is acquired in a state where uranium milling has not occurred, the
acquisition is subject to state concurrence.
Financial Responsibility
During the debate leading to the enactment of UMTRCA, Congress recognized that no clear
entity was responsible for the cleanup of inactive uranium mill tailings among the federal
government, states, and private site operators. In 1978, the U.S. General Accounting Office (now

36 UMTRCA provides the previous owner first right of refusal for purchasing the land at fair market value.
37 42 U.S.C. §7914(e).
38 42 U.S.C. §7914(f)(2).
39 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978
, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., September 30, 1978, H. Rept. 95-1480, Part 2, p. 38. “The
committee believes that the acquisition must include subsurface interests to prevent the creation of future
hazards to the public through disruption of the tailings in an attempt to recover underlying minerals.”
40 42 U.S.C. §7914(h).
41 42 U.S.C. §7914(h).
42 42 U.S.C. §7916.
Congressional Research Service
9

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

the Government Accountability Office, GAO) proposed that the federal government was most
responsible to fund a cleanup program, as the majority of the uranium produced for the generation
of uranium mill tailings was purchased at that time under federal supply contracts for the
Manhattan Engineering District and other defense programs.43
In drafting UMTRCA, Congress decided that the federal government should be responsible for
most of the remedial action costs at Title I sites and that the states where the Title I sites are
located should share a portion of the costs. Section 107 establishes the financial responsibilities
for remedial actions for the federal government and the cooperative states.44 Under Section 107,
the federal government is responsible for 90% of the remediation costs, including costs for land
acquisition and cleanup of buildings and structures in the vicinity. Under a cooperative
agreement, a state commits the remaining 10% share of the remediation costs. The federal
government was responsible for all remedial action costs at processing sites located on Indian
lands pursuant to cooperative agreements under Section 105.
Development of Remediation Standards
Congress authorized EPA to promulgate health and environmental standards for uranium mill
tailing sites. Section 108 directed DOE to perform remedial actions in accordance with general
health and environmental standards promulgated by the EPA pursuant to Section 275 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA, P.L. 83-703), amended by Section 206 under UMTRCA.45
EPA finalized standards for Title I sites, under 40 C.F.R. Part 192, Subparts A, B, C, on January
11, 1995.46
UMTRA Amendments of 1988
DOE identified groundwater contamination at UMTRCA sites during implementation.
Groundwater contamination remains an ongoing issue at several sites. In the late 1980s, DOE
expressed concern that groundwater contamination issues could not be resolved in a specified
period of time.47 Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act
of 1988 (UMTRA,48 P.L. 100-616), which amended Section 112 of UMTRCA to extend
indefinitely DOE’s authority to perform groundwater remediation.49 UMTRA provides DOE
groundwater remedial authority for Title I sites only.

43 GAO, The Uranium Mill Tailings Cleanup: Federal Leadership At Last?, EMD-78-90, June 20, 1978.
44 42 U.S.C. §7917.
45 42 U.S.C. §7918.
46 EPA, “Groundwater Standards for Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites,” 60 Federal Register
2854, January 11, 1995.
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
Amendments Act of 1988
, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., September 23, 1988, S.Rept.100-543, p. 4. “Based on the draft EPA
standards, the Department of Energy believes that groundwater restoration activities will take significantly more time
that originally planned to perform, possibly decades. There will be additional costs associated with the groundwater
restoration, but any estimates of these costs prior to the promulgation of the final standards would be speculative.
Hence, given the uncertainties surrounding the groundwater restoration problem, it does not seem prudent to restrict the
Secretary’s authority to conduct groundwater restoration activities.”
48 UMTRA is commonly referred to as the UMTRA program or UMTRAP.
49 42 U.S.C. §7922(a)(1)(A).
Congressional Research Service
10

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Title II—Regulation of Uranium Mills, 1978 and After
Title II of UMTRCA amended the AEA to authorize the regulation of licensed commercial
uranium mills on or after the enactment of UMTRCA. Title II includes provisions authorizing the
mechanism for transfer of land and mill tailings to the federal government; establishing
regulatory roles of the states and federal agencies; and authorizing agencies to enter into bonding,
surety, or other financial arrangements with a licensee to cover the costs of a federal agency
administering long-term federal management.
Byproduct Material and Site Transfer
Section 201 amended Subsection 11e of the AEA to include mill tailings under the definition of
byproduct material. Under Section 201, byproduct material is defined as “the tailings or wastes
produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed
primarily for its source material content.”50
Section 202 amended the AEA by adding Section 83 authorizing the federal government to retain
the byproduct material where the tailings are disposed of for long-term management.51 UMTRCA
allows for the state, at its discretion, to retain the site under long-term management, but no state
has elected to do so. Pursuant to Section 202, any license issued that “results in the production of
any byproduct material” must comply with NRC decommissioning standards, and byproduct
material and the land where it was disposed of must be transferred to long-term federal
management.52 The site is transferred to long-term federal management when NRC, or the state,
determines that the site decommissioning has met all applicable requirements.
Unlike Title I sites, UMTRCA does not authorize DOE to perform remedial actions at Title II
sites under long-term federal management. Section 202 authorizes DOE, as the custodial agency,
to “carry out maintenance, monitoring, and emergency measures, but shall take no other action
pursuant to such license, rule or order, with respect to such property and materials unless
expressly authorized by Congress after the date of the enactment of this Act.”53
NRC may exempt the requirement for long-term federal management prior to the termination of
the license if long-term federal management is found “not necessary or desirable to protect the
public health, safety, or welfare or to minimize or eliminate danger to life or property.”54
The process to transfer a Title II site from an NRC license to long-term federal management is
described in regulation and guidance.55 For Title II sites transferring federal public lands to long-
term federal management under DOE, “DOE must apply to BLM for permanent withdrawal of
federal land and minerals from BLM’s inventory.”56 Any transfer of BLM lands is subject to
National Environmental Policy Act review. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state

50 42 U.S.C. §2014(e)(2).
51 42 U.S.C. §2113.
52 42 U.S.C. §2113(a).
53 42 U.S.C. §2113(b).
54 42 U.S.C. §2113(b)(1)(A).
55 For more information, see DOE, “Process for Transition of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II
Disposal Sites to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management for Long-Term Surveillance and
Maintenance,” April 2016; NRC, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,” June 2003; 10 C.F.R. §40 Appendix A.
56 DOE, “Process for Transition of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II Disposal Sites,” p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
11

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

governments, and local governments may become involved with the land transfer depending on
the location of the site and the land ownership.
In the majority of UMTRCA public land withdrawals, DOE maintains full regulatory jurisdiction
of surface and subsurface interests associated with the disposal site. More recently, there has been
interest in alternative uses at federally managed disposal sites. As a result, BLM and DOE have
proposed a “partial-jurisdiction” regulatory structure at certain sites.57 The DOE would regulate
the mill tailings repository and ensure that statutory maintenance and monitoring requirements are
met. BLM would lease surface and subsurface rights for alternative uses of the land (grazing,
recreational, etc.) and mineral development (oil and gas, uranium, etc.).
Federal Regulatory Authority
Section 205 of UMTRCA amended Section 84 of the AEA authorizing NRC as the principle
federal regulator of Title II sites through issuance and enforcement of source and byproduct
material licenses. Section 205 directs NRC to manage byproduct materials in a manner that
protects public health and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards
associated with the processing, possession, and transfer of byproduct materials.58 In establishing
license conditions that would achieve protectiveness, Section 205 also allows NRC to consider
costs and other factors. NRC and agreement states are also responsible for ensuring that licensees
manage byproduct material in a manner that conforms to generally applicable standards
promulgated by EPA.
Section 206 of UMTRCA amended Section 275 of the AEA authorizing EPA to set generally
applicable environmental and health standards. Congress intended standards to be consistent (to
the maximum extent practicable) with the standards required under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).59
Congress did not intend EPA standards to be site-specific in order to provide the agencies
flexibility to address surface and groundwater issues at a broad range of sites.60 UMTRCA
authorizes EPA to revise these standards periodically. On October 7, 1983, EPA published the
final rule for applicable standards for Title II uranium mill tailings sites.61
The NRC determines whether the licensee has fulfilled all applicable decommissioning standards
and license requirements prior to termination of the license and transfer of the site to long-term
federal management. The NRC may delegate regulatory authority to an agreement state for
issuing and enforcing byproduct material licenses in a manner that conforms to NRC
requirements.62 NRC retains oversight authority over agreement states, and the state ensures that
the licensee remains in federal regulatory compliance.

57 DOE-LM noted four Title II sites in Wyoming where a portion of the site boundary may overlap with federal public
lands managed by the Forest Service or BLM. See David S. Shafer et al., “Transfer and Transition: Interagency
Coordination for Managing Public Lands at UMTRCA Title II Sites in Wyoming—16614,” March 6-10, 2016.
58 42 U.S.C. §2114.
59 42 U.S.C. §2022.
60 42 U.S.C. §2022.
61 40 C.F.R. Part 192, Subparts D, E.
62 42 U.S.C. §2021(b).
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 18 link to page 28 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Four UMTRCA Title II sites63 are listed on the National Priorities List under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (P.L. 96-510),64 which authorizes
remediation and enforcement actions against the releases of hazardous substances into the
environment.65 At these four sites, NRC, EPA, and the state regulate remediation efforts by
operating under a signed memorandum of agreement, which identifies the various agencies’
responsibilities.
Congress authorized DOE to implement remedial action programs under Title I and designated
DOE as the federal agency responsible for long-term federal management of UMTRCA sites.66
DOE-LM was established in 2003 and manages environmental contamination at sites associated
with legacy activities during World War II and the Cold War.67
As of FY2019, DOE-LM manages 19 Title I disposal sites,68 12 Title I processing sites, and 6 of
29 Title II disposal sites.69 DOE-LM anticipates that it will assume custody of 17 additional Title
II disposal sites over the next decade.70 UMTRCA processing and disposal sites are located in 12
states (Figure 3). Site names and title descriptions are presented in the appendix (Table A-1).

63 UMTRCA sites listed on the National Priorities List are Uravan, CO (COD007063274); Church Rock, NM
(NMD030443303); Grants, NM (NMD007860935); and Canon City, CO (COD042167858).
64 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675.
65 CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of
Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act
, by David M. Bearden.
66 UMTRCA provides for other federal agencies to manage Title I sites. For other federal agencies to manage
UMTRCA sites, specific designation by the President would be required. See 42 U.S.C. §7914(f)(2).
67 DOE-LM, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/lm/about-us.
68 DOE-LM, “2017 Annual Site Inspection and Monitoring Report for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
Title I Disposal Sites,” March 2018.
69 DOE-LM, “2017 Annual Site Inspection and Monitoring Report for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
Title II Disposal Sites,” December 2017.
70 Shafer et al., “Transfer and Transition.”
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 28 link to page 30
Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Figure 3. Locations of UMTRCA Sites

Source: CRS compiled the locations of UMTRCA sites from multiple publicly available data sources including
U.S. Department of Energy, Geospatial Environmental Mapping System, https://gems.lm.doe.gov/; technical
reports; and satellite imagery. Locations for Title II sites in Texas were approximated based on NRC and DOE
site location descriptions and satellite imagery.
Notes: “Title I: DOE-LM” sites include processing and disposal sites. “Title I: DOE-EM” includes only the Moab
Site in Utah, where remedial action remains ongoing. “Title II: DOE-LM” sites are under long-term federal
management by DOE-LM. “Title II: Private Licensee” sites are commercially owned and operated sites that are
regulated by NRC or an NRC agreeement state. See Table A-1 and Table A-2 for site names and descriptions.
No UMTRCA sites are located in Alaska or Hawaii.
State Regulatory Authority
Section 204 of UMTRCA amended Section 274b of the AEA authorizing NRC to enter into
agreements with states allowing the states to regulate uranium milling operations through the
issuance and enforcement of radioactive material licenses. Such agreement states retain the
primary regulatory authority over licenses for radioactive materials on the determination that their
regulations are as stringent as those of NRC.71 The agreement state is responsible for issuing and
enforcing the license to ensure that the licensee manages byproduct material in a manner that
conforms to federal requirements. Section 204 of UMTRCA includes requirements for procedures
for rulemaking, environmental analysis, and judicial review. NRC oversees agreement state
programs through inspections, training, and varying degrees of participation in rulemakings or
other administrative activities.72

71 42 U.S.C. §2021.
72 NRC, “Agreement State Program,” updated August 31, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-tribal/agreement-
states.html.
Congressional Research Service
14

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Financial Arrangements
Congress intended the NRC to regulate licenses in a manner such that decommissioning
requirements would be so stringent as to minimize the need for long-term maintenance and
monitoring activities. Section 203 amended Section 161 of the AEA authorizing NRC to enter
into short- and long-term bonding, surety, or other financial arrangements with uranium mill
licensees.73 Short-term financial arrangements pay any remaining decommissioning costs if the
operator becomes insolvent or otherwise incapable of completing all NRC decommissioning
requirements. Long-term financial arrangements pay for the costs for DOE to perform long-term
maintenance and monitoring after the license has been transferred to long-term federal
management.
Status of Implementation
The legislative history suggests that public health and environmental concerns at the time were
generally focused on preventing exposure to radiological emissions released into the air, such as
radon gas.74 Many in Congress also expressed concern about potential exposure risks associated
with the unrestricted use of radioactive tailings material as fill material for buildings and other
construction projects. Less understood at the time of UMTRCA’s original enactment was the
dispersion and migration of radiological and nonradiological contaminants in groundwater, which
has been an issue at some UMTRCA sites.
DOE’s surface remedial authority expired in 1998 for Title I sites. DOE continues to administer
groundwater remediation and monitoring programs at Title I sites under long-term federal
management. The Moab processing site in Utah is the only Title I site that has not transferred to
long-term federal management.
Disposal Site Tailings Stabilization
Prior to UMTRCA, federal regulatory agencies had little authority to regulate tailings, and
methods were not required under federal law to mitigate the erosion of tailings. Inactive uranium
mill tailings piles were often susceptible to natural dispersal by wind, water, and human
disturbances associated with unintended access to the tailings material. Under Title I of
UMTRCA, state and federal agencies designed disposal sites as engineered repositories, which
are intended to stabilize inactive uranium mill tailings for hundreds of years. As of 1994, the
GAO reported for Title I remedial actions that “DOE spent $2 billion on surface cleanup activities
through fiscal year 1994 and expects to spend about $300 million more through 1998.”75 Since
1998, when DOE’s surface remedial authority expired, expenditures at Title I sites have been for
groundwater remediation, disposal site stabilization, and monitoring activities.
For Title II sites, private licensees are required to fund site decommissioning to all applicable
requirements. After decommissioning of the site by the licensee, the disposal site is transferred to
DOE-LM for long-term federal management. So far, six Title II sites have transferred to DOE-
LM, while the decommissioning of the remaining Title II sites remains ongoing. Given the

73 42 U.S.C. §2201.
74 For information on potential risks of exposure to radon, see EPA, “Radon,” January 30, 2019, https://www.epa.gov/
radon.
75 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Authorization of the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28, 1996, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
15

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

groundwater, stabilization, and erosion management issues experienced at Title I sites, DOE-LM
may encounter similar challenges at Title II disposal sites once they are transferred to long-term
federal management.
The DOE-LM efforts to stabilize Title I and Title II disposal sites present continuing challenges.
Natural factors—such as wind erosion, intense rainfall and precipitation, and droughts—can
deteriorate the physical integrity of the disposal site and potentially cause the unintended release
of contaminants.76 Vegetation can aid in stabilizing tailings and minimizing erosion. Annual
monitoring and maintenance costs may vary from year to year depending on the variability in
climatic events.
Groundwater Contamination and Monitoring
Some uranium mill operations have resulted in groundwater contamination from unlined surface
tailings ponds, leach pads, and dissolution of hazardous constituents from water seepage through
the tailings piles. Radiological and nonradiological contaminants may migrate if uncontrolled,
remain in appreciable quantities, or naturally decrease in the aquifer depending upon site-specific
geological characteristics. NRC has characterized groundwater contaminant plumes at some
UMTRCA sites as up to three miles long.77 As such, off-site migration of groundwater
contamination has been an issue at some UMTRCA sites.78
DOE has applied active and passive groundwater remediation strategies at UMTRCA sites.
Active groundwater restoration methods—such as pump-and-treat—have been used with varying
results.79 DOE has implemented natural flushing, a passive treatment method, to manage
groundwater contamination. Natural flushing relies upon monitoring to characterize the
movement rate and distribution of the contaminant plume. DOE-LM often applies institutional
controls
at UMTRCA sites in conjunction with groundwater remediation programs.80 Institutional
controls—which include providing alternative water sources, site use restrictions, drilling
restrictions, fencing, and signs—are intended to minimize risks associated with exposures to
impacted groundwater. For example, issues with persistent groundwater contamination at the
Riverton, WY, Title I processing site prompted DOE to develop institutional controls at that site
to minimize residents’ groundwater use. DOE’s institutional controls included certain restrictions
and notifications for developing new water wells and arranging alternative sources of water
within the control boundary.81

76 April Gil et al., “Post-Closure Challenges of U.S. Department of Energy Sites in Desert Environments of the
Southwestern United States,” DOE-LM, February 26, 2012.
77 C. F. Jove Colon et al., “Historical Case Analysis of Uranium Plume Attenuation,” NRC, September 2000.
78 For example, see the groundwater plume described at the Monument Valley Title I processing sites. DOE,
“Monument Valley, Arizona, Processing Site,” November 2018, https://www.lm.doe.gov/MonValley/
Fact_Sheet_Monument_Valley.pdf.
79 For example, in 2014 the pump-and-treat system at Tuba City, Arizona, was discontinued, and DOE-LM stated that
the program was “ineffective at achieving the remediation goals after 10 years of operation.” DOE, “U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Legacy Management’s (DOE-LM) Groundwater Treatment Plan for Tuba City, Arizona, Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Title I, Disposal Site,” November 5, 2014.
80 For examples, see DOE-LM, “2017 Annual Site Inspection and Monitoring Report for Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act Title I Disposal Sites,” March 2018; and DOE-LM, “2017 Annual Site Inspection and
Monitoring Report for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II Disposal Sites,” December 2017.
81 DOE, “Long-Term Management Plan for the Riverton, Wyoming, Processing Site,” September 2009, p.4.
Congressional Research Service
16

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

DOE-LM administers groundwater monitoring programs at several UMTRCA sites.82 DOE
develops a long-term surveillance plan as part of the NRC general license requirements. Included
in the long-term surveillance plan are detailed site-specific groundwater monitoring requirements.
Groundwater monitoring requirements include the types of groundwater constituents sampled, the
frequency of groundwater sampling, and the location and number of monitoring wells necessary
to characterize the groundwater contamination.
For Title I sites, the 1988 UMTRA amendment authorized DOE to perform groundwater
remediation indefinitely. However, DOE is not authorized to perform groundwater remediation at
Title II sites under long-term federal management. At Title II sites under long-term federal
management, DOE is authorized to perform maintenance and monitoring and to take emergency
measures when necessary to protect public health.83 In the debate leading to the enactment of
UMTRCA, some Members expressed the intent to prevent “additional and costly remedial
action” unless appropriated by Congress through legislative action.84 The annual funding needs
for UMTRCA sites under long-term federal management are dependent on the degree of site-
specific monitoring and maintenance requirements and, for Title I sites, groundwater remediation
costs.
Moab Processing Site, Utah
By the late 1990s, Title I disposal sites were constructed and transferred to long-term federal
management, with the exception of the Moab site in Utah.85 DOE-EM administers the Moab site
remediation. The Moab site was originally designated as a Title II site under UMTRCA. The
enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L.
106-398) in October 2000 redesignated Moab from a Title II site to a Title I site.86 In designating
Moab as a Title I site, Congress terminated the specific license under Title II and transferred the
ownership to DOE and the remaining decommissioning costs to the federal government.
Uranium mill tailings at the Moab site are located on the north bank of the Colorado River. DOE-
EM constructed a railway specifically for this project to transport the tailings to a disposal site,
Crescent Junction, located approximately 30 miles to the north.87 DOE transports tailings and
performs groundwater remediation at the site.88 DOE-EM reports that it had transported 10
million tons of the roughly 16 million tons of uranium mill tailings by the end of September
2019.89

82 DOE, “Summary of Annual Site Environmental Reports,” Calendar Year 2017, September 2018, p. A-9.
83 42 U.S.C. §7914(f)(2).
84 Rep. John Dingell, House concurred in Senate amendment with amendments, Congressional Record, October 14,
1978.
85 Uranium Reduction Company operated the Moab processing site from 1956 until 1962, when Atlas Minerals
Corporation purchased it and operated the site until 1984. Uranium concentrate was produced at the mill and purchased
by the U.S. government until 1970 and by private utilities thereafter. Atlas Minerals Corporation decommissioned the
site from 1988 to 1995. In 1998, Atlas declared bankruptcy, and NRC appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as the
trustee. DOE, “Overview of the Moab UMTRA Project,” May 2018.
86 42 U.S.C. §7912(f).
87 DOE, “Overview of the Moab UMTRA Project.”
88 For more information about the status of the remediation of the Moab site, see DOE, “Moab UMTRA Project,”
https://www.gjem.energy.gov/moab/.
89 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management, March 2020, p. 349,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/doe-fy2020-budget-volume-5_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

DOE-EM anticipates project completion by 2034.90 DOE had incurred costs of $527 million by
the end of FY2018 and estimated the total lifecycle costs to range from $1.186 billion to $1.197
billion.91 Funding for Moab is appropriated annually in the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies appropriations bill under the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account.
Selected Issues for Congress
Site remediation costs and time frames have exceeded amounts originally envisioned by
Congress, the agencies, and the licensees due to an evolving understanding of the complexities
and risks posed by unintended releases of contaminants from uranium mill tailings. In 1995, the
GAO reported that DOE’s total surface remediation costs were $2.3 billion, exceeding original
1982 estimates by $621 million.92 Additionally, long-term federal costs to manage disposal sites
and persistent groundwater contamination remain uncertain due to unforeseen challenges and
site-specific monitoring and maintenance needs.
For Title II sites, six sites have been transferred to DOE-LM as of FY2019. Licensees of
remaining Title II sites continue to decommission and transfer their sites to DOE-LM. Prior to
long-term federal management, UMTRCA directs federal and state regulatory agencies to apply
the stringency of decommissioning requirements on a licensee so that the degree of long-term
monitoring and maintenance requirements is minimized. DOE-LM manages a Title II site once
the NRC or the state transfers the license from the licensee following decommissioning.
In certain instances, NRC, DOE-LM, state agencies, and licensees have disagreed about the
adequacy of decommissioning, the degree of long-term monitoring, and the amount of funding
needed to perform long-term federal management requirements. In some instances, differences in
views among the agencies have affected the timing of decommissioning and license transfers to
DOE-LM. In other instances, licensees have lacked adequate funding to complete
decommissioning. The following sections describe selected issues regarding proposed legislation,
site-specific issues decommissioning, and long-term financial assurance.
Cheney Disposal Cell Reauthorization
DOE and residents continue to discover and excavate contaminated material at vicinity properties
(i.e., buildings, roads, and sidewalks) around Grand Junction, CO, where uranium mill tailings
were used as construction material prior to the enactment of UMTRCA. Discovered byproduct
material from vicinity properties is disposed in the Cheney disposal cell,93 located 15 miles
southeast of the Grand Junction processing site. DOE constructed the Cheney disposal cell in
1990 to accept residual radioactive material from the Title I Grand Junction processing site and
vicinity properties contaminated by the use of uranium tailings as building materials.

90 DOE, FY2020 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management, p. 41.
91 DOE, FY2019 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management, March 2018, p. 91.
92 GAO, Uranium Mill Tailings, Cleanup Continues, but Future Costs Are Uncertain, GAO/RCED-96-37, December
1995.
93 The “Cheney disposal cell” is the name of the engineered repository, which is located within the Grand Junction
disposal site boundary.
Congressional Research Service
18

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Under Section 112 of UMTRCA, DOE’s authority to accept byproduct material at the Cheney
disposal cell was scheduled to expire at the end FY2023 or when the cell reaches capacity,94
whichever comes first.95
As part of the FY2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act,96 Congress extended the authorization
for DOE to dispose of residual radioactive material from processing sites and byproduct material
from vicinity sites in the Cheney disposal cell through FY2031.
Title II Uranium Reimbursements
Thirteen Title II uranium mills produced uranium concentrate under both federal procurement
contracts and commercial civilian nuclear power production. Title X of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (P.L. 102-486) authorized reimbursements to pay Title II licensees for remedial costs
proportional to the quantity of byproduct material produced under federal procurement
contracts.97 Reimbursement payments under Title X do not absolve the licensees from completing
site decommissioning.
DOE-EM administers reimbursement payments to eligible Title II sites with funds appropriated
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, established under
Title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to support remediation of federal uranium enrichment
facilities.98 Title X reimbursements are subject to annual appropriations in the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
In 2000, eight years after the authorization of Title X reimbursements, the 106th Congress
recognized that the implementation of decommissioning by licensees was more costly and taking
longer than originally envisioned.99 As of 2019, Title II licensees eligible for Title X continue to
face similar decommissioning challenges. For example, committee report language in the FY2019
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill directs DOE to use
funds to “reimburse licensees for approved claim balances in a timely manner and to avoid
accumulating balances and liabilities.”100 From FY1994 to FY2019, DOE reported that

94 DOE-LM estimates that 86 years of storage capacity remains in the Cheney disposal cell at the current rate of
disposal. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of
2018
, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., September 7, 2018, H.Rept. 115-925, p. 3.
95 42 U.S.C. §7922(a). When UMTRCA was enacted, DOE’s remedial authority under Section 112 expired seven years
following the enactment of the law. In 1996, Section 112(a) was amended (P.L. 104-259) extending DOE’s authority to
receive byproduct material at the Cheney disposal cell until the end of FY2023.
96 H.R. 133. Title XI – Other Matters.
97 42 U.S.C. §2296.
98 42 U.S.C. §2297g.
99 U.S. Congress, House Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, Date Extensions, 106th Cong., 2nd
sess., September 25, 2000, H.Rept. 106-886, pp. 3-4. “The actual cleanup of these uranium and thorium processing
sites is proving to be more costly and time consuming than originally envisioned in title X. As of April 2000, only two
of the original 14 sites qualifying for title X reimbursement have been completed (i.e., the TVA site at Edgewater,
South Dakota, and the ARCO Bluewater site at Grants, NM). Significant work at a majority of sites will continue after
2002. One of the primary factors driving these increases is the need for extensive groundwater remediation at several of
the processing sites.”
100 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2019,
H.Rept. 115-697, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., May 21, 2018, p. 98. “The Committee recommends $32,959,000 to reimburse
private licensees for the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites in accordance with Title X of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Committee expects the Department to reimburse licensees for all previous expenses,
including costs related to remediation, restoration, and oversight of these programs, and to ensure all impacted
communities are made whole. Fulfilling the obligation to fully reimburse licensees is important to the health and safety
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 28 link to page 30 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

approximately $365 million was reimbursed to 13 licensees.101 According to DOE, there were $21
million in approved but unpaid claims as of FY2019, and estimated remaining program liability
was $91 million for the remaining sites eligible for reimbursements.102
Transfer Status and Funding
Various technical, financial, and regulatory issues have affected the timing of the transfer of Title
II sites to long-term federal management. NRC’s statutory responsibility is to regulate uranium
mills and tailings for Title II sites in a manner that allows a licensee to complete site
decommissioning in a manner so stringent that little long-term maintenance and monitoring
would be required. Congress intended NRC to mitigate financial burdens to the licensees while
requiring that all decommissioning requirements be fully met.103
The transfer of the remaining Title II sites to DOE-LM for long-term federal management would
remain pending until NRC determines that the licensee has completed all decommissioning
requirements. NRC estimates specific dates for some Title II sites, while others are listed as “to be
determined.”104 Table A-1 identifies Title I and Title II sites that have transferred to long-term
federal management, and Table A-2 identifies Title I and Title II sites that have not yet transferred
to long-term federal management.
DOE-LM would become responsible for long-term federal management of Title II sites currently
licensed by NRC or an NRC agreement state upon the completion of decommissioning and site
transfer. For some Title II sites, DOE-LM and NRC have reached differing conclusions regarding
the adequacy of decommissioning, the degree and type of long-term monitoring requirements,
and the funds needed to pay for long-term monitoring and maintenance costs.
Section 203 of UMTRCA authorized NRC to collect a bond or other financial arrangement to pay
for the costs in the event that a licensee was unable to fulfill all of their decommissioning
requirements. UMTRCA does not authorize the use of federal funding to pay for the
decommissioning of Title II sites.105 In the event that the bond were insufficient to pay for the full
decommissioning costs, UMTRCA provides no additional mechanism for funding to complete
decommissioning. In some instances, Title II licensees have lacked adequate financial resources

of the impacted communities. The Committee expects the Department to provide sufficient resources within future
budget requests to reimburse licensees for approved claim balances in a timely manner and to avoid accumulating
balances and liabilities.”
101 Three Title II licenses have been transferred under DOE custody, including Moab, UT, which Congress reassigned
as a Title I site (P.L. 106-398). After reassignment, the Moab site no longer receives funding from Title X
reimbursements. DOE, FY2020 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management, p. 441.
102 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management.
103 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978
, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., September 30, 1978, H. Rept. 95-1480, Part 2. “The committee believes and expects
that these purposes should be met without causing mill closings and putting people out of work. At the same time, the
committee recognizes that, despite past efforts by a licensee, the control and stabilization may not be adequate to meet
the requirements of these amendments to the 1954 act.”
104 The status of Title II sites under NRC and agreement state licenses are listed on NRC’s website. The website
provides a brief site summary, major regulatory or technical issues, and NRC’s expected closure date. See links at
NRC, “Locations of Uranium Recovery Sites Undergoing Decommissioning,” August 23, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/
info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/.
105 See 42 U.S.C. §7925(a). “No amount may be expended under this subchapter with respect to any site licensed by the
Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) or by a State as permitted under section
274 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2021) at which production of any uranium product from ores (other than from residual
radioactive materials) takes place.”
Congressional Research Service
20

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

to complete NRC’s decommissioning requirements.106 If left unreclaimed, exposure risks from
releases of radiological and nonradiological contaminants may present issues to affected
communities. The magnitude of public health and environmental risks posed by unreclaimed
tailings may vary among individual sites.
Long-Term Financial Assurance
For sites that have transferred to long-term federal management, DOE-LM administers Title I and
Title II sites under an NRC general license. UMTRCA authorized long-term monitoring and
maintenance costs at Title I sites to be paid by the federal government. For Title II sites, Congress
intended that the licensee would pay for any necessary long-term monitoring and maintenance
costs using a one-time long-time surveillance charge (LTSC). Annual costs are largely dependent
on the extent of site-specific groundwater monitoring and intermittent maintenance activities on
the repository.
Under current federal law there are different statutory authorities for DOE-LM to perform
remediation at Title I sites and Title II sites under long-term federal management. For Title I sites,
Congress authorized DOE-LM to implement groundwater remediation indefinitely, recognizing
the ongoing remediation challenges at some Title I sites after decommissioning. UMTRCA does
not provide DOE-LM remedial authority for Title II sites under long-term federal management.
At Title II sites under long-term federal management, DOE-LM is authorized to perform
monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures. Emergency measures is not explicitly defined
by statute, potentially raising issues of interpretation in the event of future remedial action needs.
Selected issues with Title I and Title II long-term financial assurance are discussed in the
following sections.
Title I Sites
Congress provides funding for the long-term federal management of Title I sites through DOE
annual appropriations. For Title I sites under long-term federal management, program funding for
DOE-LM is funded under Environmental and Other Defense Activities account in the Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill. DOE-EM continues to administer
remediation at the Moab site in Utah. Funding for the Moab site is appropriated annually in the
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill under the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup account.
DOE annual expenditures can vary from site to site depending on costs related to many factors,
including the degree of groundwater remediation or monitoring and disposal site maintenance.
For example, from 2008 and 2012, an interagency report from January 2013 noted that total DOE
expenditures at the Tuba City disposal site were $13.96 million (approximately $2.8 million per
year), while total expenditures at the Mexican Hat disposal site were $110,000 (approximately
$22,000 per year).107

106 For example, see NRC’s discussion of insolvencies and license transfer issues in NRC, “Staff Requirements—
SECY-17-0081—Status and Resolution of Issues Associated with the Transfer of Six Decommissioning Uranium Mill
Sites to the State of Wyoming,” October 4, 2017.
107 EPA (in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NRC, DOE, and Indian Health Service), Federal Actions to
Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation, Five-Year Plan Summary Report
, January 2013, p.
63, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/navajouraniumreport2013.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Neither DOE-LM annual budget justifications nor annual appropriations bills specify funding for
annual long-term federal management costs by site or for the site inventory as a whole. Annual
funding for DOE-LM is presented in annual budget requests and appropriations as a single line-
item.108 In all, DOE-LM oversees over 100 sites contaminated by radiological, chemical, and
hazardous wastes associated with the legacy of nuclear weapons production during World War II
and the Cold War. UMTRCA processing and disposal sites constitute 37 of those sites.109
Congress appropriated $159 million to DOE-LM in the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-244),110 the same amount as requested.111
Title II Sites
For Title II sites, Congress intended that commercial uranium mill operators will pay for site
decommissioning and the costs for a federal agency to perform long-term federal management.
To cover these long-term federal management costs, NRC requires licensees to pay an LTSC
upon the transfer of the site to DOE. Section 203 of UMTRCA provides NRC authority to collect
this LTSC from the licensee to pay for DOE’s costs to perform long-term maintenance,
monitoring, and emergency measures.112 This one-time LTSC fee is deposited as a miscellaneous
receipt into the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury when each site license is transferred to DOE.
In the 1980 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for uranium milling, NRC described
the justification for the minimum LTSC fee based on the assumption that average long-term
monitoring at UMTRCA Title II sites would cost $2,500 per year.113 NRC assumed an average
annual real rate of return, and each licensee is required to pay the minimum one-time LTSC of
$250,000 (in 1978 dollars, adjusted for inflation).114 NRC has not revised the minimum LTSC
since regulations were promulgated in 1985.115 NRC allows for the minimum LTSC fee to be
increased based on expected site-specific surveillance or controls requirements if needed.116
UMTRCA does not authorize a mechanism to recover additional fees from licensees once the
license has been transferred to DOE-LM.

108 For example, the table in the conference report (H.Rept. 115-929) accompanying the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2019 and for Other Purposes (H.R.
5895) lists DOE-LM annual appropriation on page 184.
109 For a complete list of sites managed by DOE-LM, see DOE, “LM Sites,” https://www.energy.gov/lm/sites/lm-sites.
110 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019
, 115th Cong., September 21, 2018, H.R. 5895.
111 DOE, FY2019 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 2, March 2018, p. 60.
112 Long-term monitoring and maintenance requirements are described in the long-term surveillance plan.
113 NRC, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling,” vol. 1, p. 14-14. “Since the
conservatively estimated average annual long-term monitoring cost is about $2,500, assuming an average one percent
real rate of return, a $250,000 deposit (1978 dollars) per site would be necessary to cover the costs for long-term
monitoring activities.”
114 As an example of how the fee changes due to inflation, NRC reported the inflation-adjusted LTSC fee for one site as
$931,454 in 2018, implying that LTSC fee would cover $9,315 per year for DOE to perform annual long-term
maintenance and monitoring at that site. See NRC, “Technical Evaluation Report for Patherfinder Mines Corporation’s
Proposed 2017-2018 Surety Estimate for the Shirley Basin Mill Tailings Site,” May 3, 2018.
115 See 10 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 and NRC, “Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC
Requirements to EPA Standards,” 50 Federal Register 41865, October 16, 1985.
116 NRC, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, June 2000, pp. E-8, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/
ML003725860.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

The adequacy of the LTSC to cover DOE’s costs to perform long-term maintenance and
monitoring has been an issue. In 1995, the GAO recommended that NRC improve “the accuracy
of the one-time charge made to owner/operators to ensure that this charge fully covers future
costs at their sites.”117 In 2014, the DOE Office of Inspector General (IG) found that DOE-LM
had spent $4.25 million at six Title II sites under long-term management. During the same three-
year period, the IG report found that the available funds from the LTSC fees were $0.148
million.118
To the extent that the LTSC fees are insufficient to cover annual monitoring and maintenance
costs, DOE-LM would be responsible to carry out long-term management responsibilities, subject
to availability of annual appropriations. DOE-LM has discretion to allocate appropriated funding
among eligible sites under long-term federal management. If the current minimum LTSCs do not
fully cover annual long-term federal management costs for the remaining Title II sites when they
transfer to DOE-LM, the IG report states “the total cost to the American taxpayers could be
significant.”119
Yet, there is a limited availability of information by site and by year for DOE-LM’s monitoring
and maintenance costs at UMTRCA sites under long-term management. DOE-EM has provided
life-cycle cost ranges and completion date estimates for Environmental Management sites,
including the Moab site, in annual budget justifications.120 CRS was unable to identify DOE cost
estimates for any other UMTRCA site.
The federal government will be responsible for the long-term management costs for all UMTRCA
sites once transferred to DOE-LM. Potential issues for Congress may include the
decommissioning and transfer status of the remaining Title II sites, the adequacy of funding to
complete decommissioning at certain sites if the licensee is unable to fulfill its obligations, and
the adequacy of the long-term surveillance charges to meet future long-term management needs.

117 GAO, Uranium Mill Tailings, Cleanup Continues, but Future Costs Are Uncertain, GAO/RCED-96-37, December
1995.
118 DOE, Office of Inspector General, “Audit Report, Management of Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title II Sites,” October 23, 2014.
119 DOE, Office of Inspector General, “Audit Report, Management of Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title II Sites,” p. 5. “Unless Legacy Management reduces its
costs or convinces the Commission that its costs are reasonable and necessary to control radiological hazards, it will
continue to incur costs that are not fully covered by the surveillance charges. While we recognize that excess costs
cannot be recovered from the owners of the six closed sites, we estimate that the shortfall in revenues relative to costs
at the six sites currently in Legacy Management custody will increase by nearly $10 million by FY 2020. In addition,
Legacy Management anticipates spending another $3.1 million by FY 2020 for its pre-transfer work that will not be
covered by revenues. Given that Legacy Management is responsible for ensuring protection at Title II sites for a
minimum of 200 years, if costs for long-term surveillance and pre-transfer activities exceed revenue at the 21 additional
sites in a similar manner, the total cost to the American taxpayers could be significant. However, Legacy Management
asserted that its activities at Title II sites remain consistent with its primary mission of protecting human health and the
environment.”
120 See DOE, FY2019 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management, pp. 77 and 110.
Congressional Research Service
23

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Appendix
Table A-1. UMTRCA Sites Under Long-Term Federal Management
Site Name
State
Title
Lead Agency or State
Tuba City Disposal
AZ
I
DOE-LM
Monument Valley Processing
AZ
I
DOE-LM
Durango Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Durango Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Gunnison Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Gunnison Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Rifle Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Rifle (New Site) Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Rifle (Old Site) Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Slick Rock Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Slick Rock East Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Slick Rock West Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Grand Junction Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Grand Junction Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Maybell Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Naturita Processing
CO
I
DOE-LM
Naturita Disposal
CO
I
DOE-LM
Lowman Disposal
ID
I
DOE-LM
Shiprock Disposal
NM
I
DOE-LM
Ambrosia Lake Disposal
NM
I
DOE-LM
Lakeview Disposal
OR
I
DOE-LM
Lakeview Processing
OR
I
DOE-LM
Burrell Disposal
PA
I
DOE-LM
Cannonsburg Disposal
PA
I
DOE-LM
Falls City Disposal
TX
I
DOE-LM
Mexican Hat Disposal
UT
I
DOE-LM
Green River Disposal
UT
I
DOE-LM
Salt Lake City Processing
UT
I
DOE-LM
Salt Lake City Disposal
UT
I
DOE-LM
Riverton Processing
WY
I
DOE-LM
Spook Disposal
WY
I
DOE-LM
Maybell West Disposal
CO
II
DOE-LM
Bluewater Disposal
NM
II
DOE-LM
L-Bar Disposal
NM
II
DOE-LM
Congressional Research Service
24

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Site Name
State
Title
Lead Agency or State
Edgemont Disposal
SD
II
DOE-LM
Sherwood Disposal
WA
II
DOE-LM
Shirley Basin South Disposal
WY
II
DOE-LM
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, “Uranium Mil Tailings Radiation Control Act Sites,” November 30, 2016.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Locations of Uranium Recovery Sites Undergoing Decommissioning,”
August 23, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/.
Congressional Research Service
25

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings

Table A-2. UMTRCA Sites Not Yet Under Long-Term Federal Management
Site Name
State
Title
Lead Agency or State
Moab Processing
UT
I
DOE-EM
Ambrosia Lake-West
NM
II
NRC
Church Rock
NM
II
NRC
Grants-Homestake
NM
II
NRC
Sequoyah Fuels
OK
II
NRC
Gas Hil s-West
WY
II
NRC
Uravan
CO
II
Agreement State
Durita
CO
II
Agreement State
Canyon City
CO
II
Agreement State
Panna Maria
TX
II
Agreement State
Ray Point
TX
II
Agreement State
Conquista
TX
II
Agreement State
Intercontinental Energy
Agreement State
Corporationa
TX
II
Shootaring Canyonb
UT
II
Agreement State
Lisbon Valley
UT
II
Agreement State
White Mesab
UT
II
Agreement State
Ford
WA
II
Agreement State
Bear Creek
WY
II
Agreement State
Lucky MC
WY
II
Agreement State
Gas Hil s-East
WY
II
Agreement State
Split Rock
WY
II
Agreement State
Highland
WY
II
Agreement State
Shirley Basin (North)
WY
II
Agreement State
Sweetwaterb
WY
II
Agreement State
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, “Uranium Mil Tailings Radiation Control Act Sites,” November 30, 2016;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Locations of Uranium Recovery Sites Undergoing Decommissioning,”
August 23, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/.
Notes:
a. Site is listed on NRC’s decommissioning website, but the site is not listed as anticipated by DOE-LM.
b. Site is listed as anticipated by DOE-LM, but the site is not listed on NRC’s decommissioning website.




Congressional Research Service
26

Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings


Author Information

Lance N. Larson

Analyst in Environmental Policy



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45880 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
27