[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22913-22916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10860]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water 
Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 
Decision regarding its programmatic decision for the Uranium Mill 
Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water Project. This decision 
enables DOE to take action under its UMTRA Ground Water Project, and is 
based on the environmental analyses in the Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Uranium Mill Tailings 
Remedial Action Ground Water Project (DOE/EIS-0198), which DOE issued 
in December 1996. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Navajo Nation, 
the Hopi Tribe, the State of Colorado and the State of Texas cooperated 
in the preparation of the PEIS.
    Under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 
1978 (UMTRCA), DOE is responsible for performing remedial action to 
bring 22 designated former uranium mill processing sites into 
compliance with applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
standards for milling-related contamination (40 CFR part 192). Under 
DOE's UMTRA Surface Project, DOE has completed surface remediation at 
20 sites and work is underway at the remaining two sites. These sites 
are located in nine States and are on or near four Indian Tribal lands. 
The shallow ground water at most of these sites has been contaminated 
with uranium, nitrates, and other milling-related contaminants. The 
purpose of the UMTRA Ground Water Project is to protect human health 
and the environment by meeting EPA's ground water standards, which were 
issued January 11, 1995.
    DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action for conducting the 
Ground Water Project. The Proposed Action, which was identified as 
DOE's preferred alternative in the final PEIS, is intended to establish 
a consistent risk-based framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground 
Water Project and determining appropriate ground water compliance 
strategies for complying with EPA ground water standards at the UMTRA 
project former processing sites. Under this preferred alternative, DOE 
may use active, passive, and no-remediation strategies to comply with 
the ground water standards as conditions warrant at specific sites.
    Before making site-specific decisions to implement the preferred 
alternative for the Ground Water Project, DOE will prepare appropriate 
further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. DOE 
encourages affected States, tribes, local government agencies and 
members of the public to continue to participate in the site-specific 
decision making processes for the Ground Water Project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information on the final PEIS 
can be obtained by contacting Mr. Donald R. Metzler, Grand Junction 
Office, Department of Energy, 2567 B 3/4 Road, Grand Junction, Colorado 
81503, telephone 970-248-7612. Information about the Department of 
Energy National Environmental Policy Act process can be obtained by 
contacting Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 
Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message 
at 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this Record of Decision 
pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) 
and DOE's NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This Record of Decision 
is based on the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project (PEIS) 
(DOE/EIS-0198, issued December 1996). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC), the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the State of Colorado and the 
State of Texas participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation 
of this PEIS.
    A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on 
November 18, 1992 (57 FR 54374), announcing that the Department would 
prepare a PEIS to examine programmatic alternatives for conducting the 
UMTRA Ground Water Project at former uranium processing sites. Dates, 
locations, and times for public scoping meetings were announced locally 
and published in the Federal Register on February 8, 1993 (58 FR 7551). 
Nineteen public scoping meetings in 16 communities were held between 
November 18, 1992, and April 15, 1993, to solicit public comment 
regarding the scope and content of the PEIS. The UMTRA Ground Water 
Project PEIS Implementation Plan (DOE/AL/62350-72D, March 31, 1994) 
summarized the comments received during scoping and described how the 
comments would be addressed in the PEIS.
    A Notice of Availability of the draft PEIS was published in the 
Federal Register on May 17, 1995 (60 FR 26417). Nine public hearings 
were conducted in communities near tailings sites between June 7 and 
28, 1995, to solicit public comment on the draft PEIS. Volume II of the 
final PEIS identifies and responds to the 576 comments received during 
the public comment period.

Alternatives Considered

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

    Under the proposed action, which was identified in the draft PEIS 
as DOE's preferred alternative, DOE would use ground water compliance 
strategies tailored for each site to achieve conditions that are 
protective of human health and the environment and that meet EPA ground 
water standards. The proposed action would consider ground water 
compliance decisions in a step-by-step approach, beginning with 
consideration of a ``no-remediation'' strategy and proceeding, if 
necessary, to consideration of passive strategies, such as natural 
flushing with compliance monitoring and institutional controls, and 
finally to consideration of more complex, active ground water methods, 
if needed. For example, under the proposed action, if a site risk 
assessment and Site Observational Work Plan

[[Page 22914]]

indicate that the strategy of ``no-remediation'' would be protective of 
human health and the environment, a more complex and potentially 
environmentally disruptive strategy involving active cleanup methods 
would not be necessary.
    The proposed action is intended to establish a consistent risk-
based framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project and 
determining appropriate ground water compliance strategies for 
complying with EPA ground water standards at the UMTRA Project former 
processing sites. In determining site-specific ground water compliance 
strategies DOE will consider: site-specific ground water conditions; 
human and environmental risks; the views of tribes, States and local 
communities; and cost. The proposed action as well as all the other 
alternatives discussed below except for ``no action,'' are sufficiently 
flexible to allow DOE to conduct interim actions, such as providing 
alternate water supply systems, should they be necessary in order to 
reduce risk and/or support institutional controls. The proposed action 
would also allow the consideration of new ground water cleanup methods 
as they become available.

No Action Alternative

    The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing 
NEPA require assessment of the no action alternative (40 CFR 
1502.14(d)), even if the agency is under a legislative mandate to act, 
to enable decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental 
effects of the action alternatives (51 FR 15618 April 25, 1986). Under 
the no action alternative, no further activities would be carried out 
to comply with EPA standards at the inactive UMTRA Project former 
processing sites.

Active Remediation to Background Levels Alternative

    Under this alternative, ground water at the former processing sites 
would be restored to background levels or to levels as close to 
background as possible using active ground water remediation methods 
without regard to existing risk or cost of implementation. The 
philosophy behind this alternative is an assumption that ground water 
at most of the former uranium processing sites was of better quality 
before uranium processing activities occurred and that the ground water 
should be restored to its preprocessing quality. If this alternative 
were implemented, most of the UMTRA Project sites would require the use 
of active ground water remediation methods such as gradient 
manipulation, ground water extraction and treatment, or in situ ground 
water treatment, regardless of the quality of the unaffected background 
ground water. The specific active remediation method at each site would 
be determined using the observational approach and evaluation of site-
specific data in the pertinent Site Observational Work Plans.

Passive Remediation Alternative

    Under this alternative, only passive remediation strategies would 
be used to meet the EPA ground water standards.1 The passive 
remediation strategies are: (1) Performing no remediation at sites that 
qualify for supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits as 
defined below or sites where contaminant concentrations are below 
maximum concentration limits or background levels, or (2) relying on 
natural flushing. Natural flushing means allowing the natural ground 
water movement and geochemical processes to decrease contaminant 
concentrations. This alternative differs from the no action alternative 
in that it includes site characterization, monitoring, and risk 
assessment activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     1 EPA's ground water protection standards provide three 
alternative approaches to determining site-specific cleanup 
requirements. Concentrations of certain contaminants that are within 
``maximum concentration limits'' or at background levels are 
acceptable without further consideration. Alternatively, DOE may 
apply ``alternate concentration limits'' that will not pose a 
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the 
environment under site-specific circumstances. Finally, when certain 
criteria are met (e.g., ground water restoration is technically 
impracticable), DOE may develop and apply ``supplemental standards'' 
in lieu of the otherwise applicable standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the first strategy of this alternative, the DOE would apply 
supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits if maximum 
concentration limits and/or background concentrations were exceeded. If 
supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits are to be 
applied at any site, concurrence by the NRC would be required.
    Under the second strategy of this alternative, natural flushing 
would be used to achieve background levels or maximum concentration 
limits if supplemental standards and alternate concentration limits are 
not applied. Concurrence by the NRC would be required. According to the 
EPA standards, natural flushing can be used if it is shown to be 
protective of human health and the environment, if it will meet the EPA 
standards within 100 years, and if it complies with other provisions 
that EPA established for its use. However, natural flushing may not 
always meet the EPA standards in 100 years, and may not be protective 
of human health and the environment at all sites. Therefore, if the 
passive remediation alternative were selected, DOE may not comply with 
the EPA standards at some sites.
    The specific passive ground water compliance strategy selected for 
each site would be determined using the observational approach and 
evaluation of data gathered and included in the pertinent Site 
Observational Work Plan. Active ground water remediation methods would 
not be used under this alternative, even if the EPA standards cannot be 
met by passive methods.

Existing Conditions

    The designated UMTRA Project processing sites were active for 
varying lengths of time from the 1940s into the 1970s. These sites, the 
surrounding areas, and the underlying ground water constitute the 
affected environment for this PEIS. Minority or low income groups near 
UMTRA sites that have the potential for disproportionately high and 
adverse effects include those near the Tuba City and Monument Valley, 
Arizona; Shiprock, New Mexico; Mexican Hat, Utah; and Riverton, 
Wyoming, sites. Land contaminated by uranium mill tailings and other 
contaminants associated with UMTRA Title I former processing sites 
ranged from a low of 21 acres (ac) (8 hectares (ha)) at the Spook, 
Wyoming, site to a maximum of 612 ac (248 ha) at the Ambrosia Lake, New 
Mexico, site. The amount of contaminated materials ranged from 85,000 
cubic yards (yd3) (65,000 cubic meters (m3)) at the North 
Continent Slick Rock, Colorado, site to 5,764,000 yd3 (4,407,000 
m3) at the Falls City, Texas, site. The total amount of 
contaminated material at the sites is 39,000,000 yd3 (30,000,000 
m3). As a result of uranium processing, contaminants have entered 
the shallow ground water at most of the UMTRA Project sites. Some of 
the more common contaminants at UMTRA sites that exceed maximum 
concentration limits under EPA's standards include but are not limited 
to molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, and uranium.
    DOE currently estimates that approximately 10 billion gallons (gal) 
(39 million m3) of ground water are contaminated. One site 
(Lowman, Idaho) shows no sign of contamination related to processing 
activities. The site with the largest amount of contamination, 
Gunnison, Colorado, has an estimated 1.9 billion gal (7.0 million 
m3) of contaminated ground water.

[[Page 22915]]

    Surface remediation of the designated sites has been in progress 
since the mid-1980s; surface remediation is complete at 20 sites and 
under way at the remaining two sites. Two additional sites, in Belfield 
and Bowman, North Dakota, were included in the PEIS analysis but at the 
request of the State are not scheduled for surface remediation. These 
two sites therefore will not be included in the DOE Ground Water 
Program. Affected States are required by UMTRCA to share 10 percent of 
remedial action costs.

Impacts Analysis

    The PEIS provides a qualitative analysis of potential impacts of 
the alternative ground water compliance strategies and compares the 
relative potential impacts of the alternatives. More detailed site-
specific quantitative impact assessments will be provided in the NEPA 
documents that tier off the PEIS. Tiering is process in which broad 
environmental issues are analyzed in an initial NEPA document (the PEIS 
in this case) to facilitate subsequent NEPA reviews of narrower scope 
(site-specific reviews in this case).
    To give more weight to impacts that may have more significant 
consequences (for example, human health), long-term and short-term 
impacts are compared separately in the PEIS. Long-term impacts are 
those that would occur from leaving contaminated ground water in place 
or from implementing institutional controls for an extended period of 
time. Short-term impacts would usually occur only during remediation 
activities. In general, short-term impacts would be less significant 
than long-term impacts, because most (for example, habitat destruction, 
noise, and dust emissions) would be relatively minor and temporary and 
could be mitigated. While these impacts are of concern, there is 
greater concern regarding potential long-term health and environmental 
effects.
    Potential long-term impacts could arise under the following 
circumstances:
     If the contaminated ground water did not comply with EPA 
standards and its use were not sufficiently controlled. This could 
occur under the no action alternative and the passive remediation 
alternative.
     If the ground water compliance strategy were not 
protective of human health and the environment at all sites. This could 
occur under the no action alternative and passive remediation 
alternative.
     If institutional controls were implemented and were needed 
for longer than they should reasonably be relied upon (i.e., in excess 
of 100 years under the EPA standard). This could occur under all the 
alternatives except the no action alternative, but is unlikely to occur 
under the proposed action and active remediation alternatives.
    If the no action alternative were selected, significant adverse 
impacts to human health and the environment could result. Under this 
alternative, the public could be exposed to hazardous contaminants by 
drinking contaminated ground water. Further, minority and/or low-income 
communities would be disproportionately impacted under the no action 
alternative because such communities comprise the majority of the 
population near several UMTRA Project sites. Adverse impacts to the 
environment could potentially occur if contamination enters the food 
chain (such as through livestock or produce) or affects sensitive 
habitats (such as wetlands) or threatened or endangered species. These 
potentially significant adverse impacts are not expected to occur under 
the proposed action or the active remediation to background levels 
alternative because these alternatives are intended to comply with EPA 
standards at all UMTRA Project sites in a reasonable timeframe. In 
addition, when required, surface and ground water monitoring would take 
place before, during, and after implementation of the proposed action 
and the active remediation to background levels alternative to ensure 
the public is not exposed to existing or potential surface and ground 
water contamination.
    Implementation of the passive remediation alternative also could 
result in potential exposure of humans and the environment to hazardous 
contaminants because institutional controls may not always effectively 
restrict access to contaminated ground water. Under the passive 
remediation alternative, no active remediation of contaminated ground 
water would occur even if such a hazard were identified. In contrast, 
under both the proposed action and active remediation to background 
levels alternatives, DOE would use hydrogeologic data and risk 
assessments to identify the need for implementing active remediation 
strategies to mitigate risks.
    While no active remediation would occur under this alternative, the 
passive remediation alternative could result in institutional controls 
for more than 100 years and could result in potentially significant 
long-term land use and social and economic impacts associated with 
access restrictions at contaminated sites. In contrast, the proposed 
action and the active remediation to background levels alternatives 
would implement strategies intended to achieve ground water compliance 
within 100 years.
    In summary, the proposed action and active remediation to 
background levels alternatives are most effective in protecting human 
health and the environment from the contaminated ground water at the 
UMTRA Project sites. Short-term adverse environmental impacts 
associated with construction and operation of ground water remediation 
systems (e.g., habitat destruction, noise and dust emissions) would 
occur under both of these alternatives; such impacts would likely be 
greater under the active remediation alternative because remediation 
systems would be employed at every site. For all the reasons stated 
above, DOE regards both of these alternatives as environmentally 
preferable to the no action and passive remediation alternatives. The 
proposed action likely would be more cost effective than the active 
remediation alternative because it relies on less costly passive ground 
water compliance strategies at sites where these strategies can be 
shown to be protective of human health and the environment. The active 
remediation alternative would be the most costly option. Both it and 
the preferred alternative would result in compliance with the EPA 
ground water standards, but the active remediation alternative, with 
its reliance on active ground water remediation, would provide no 
substantial additional benefits to human health and the environment. 
Further, active remediation technologies may not always achieve 
background concentrations of contaminants within 100 years at former 
uranium processing sites.

Decision

    The Department has decided to implement the proposed action, which 
was identified as the Department's preferred alternative in the draft 
PEIS. This approach provides a health and environmental risk-based 
framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project and for 
determining appropriate ground water compliance strategies at the UMTRA 
Project former processing sites.
    The Department will use a logic framework established by the 
proposed action to identify the appropriate specific ground water 
compliance strategy or strategies for a site to ensure compliance with 
EPA standards and the protection of public health and the environment.
    The first step in the decision process will be to determine whether 
the uranium processing activities at a specific site have resulted in 
ground

[[Page 22916]]

water contamination exceeding background levels or maximum 
concentration limits. If ground water contamination has not exceeded 
these standards and is not expected to do so in the future, remediation 
will not be required.
    Pursuant to the EPA standards, if ground water has been 
contaminated by uranium processing activities and the contamination 
exceeds background levels or maximum concentration limits, the next 
step will be to determine whether compliance with EPA ground water 
standards could be achieved by applying supplemental standards under 40 
CFR 192.21(g), based on a determination that the ground water met EPA's 
definition of ``limited use ground water.'' ``Limited use ground 
water'' means ground water that is not a current or potential source of 
drinking water because of: high concentration of dissolved solids; 
ambient contamination unrelated to milling operations that cannot 
reasonably be cleaned up; or poor aquifer yield (40 CFR 192.11(e)). If 
limited use ground water is shown to exist and if supplemental 
standards are protective of human health and the environment, no site-
specific remediation will be required. If supplemental standards based 
on limited use ground water is not applicable, the next step will be to 
determine whether alternate concentration limits apply.
    If alternate concentration limits are protective of human health 
and the environment, alternate concentration limits will be applied. If 
not, it will be necessary to determine whether the contaminated ground 
water plume(s) will qualify for supplemental standards which, under 40 
CFR 192.21(b) of the EPA ground water standards, may be appropriate if 
remediation will cause more environmental harm than benefit. At some 
sites where supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits 
may be applied, ground water monitoring and institutional controls may 
be necessary to ensure that the application of alternate concentration 
limits or supplemental standards will continue to be protective of 
human health and the environment. In addition, when limited-use ground 
water is present, supplemental standards must ensure that current and 
reasonably projected uses of the affected ground water are preserved.
    If supplemental standards will not be protective, the next step 
will be to determine whether natural flushing (attenuation) will bring 
the contaminated ground water into compliance (i.e., within maximum 
concentration limits, background levels, or alternate concentration 
limits) within 100 years. Natural flushing could be used if DOE 
determines and NRC concurs that institutional controls could be 
implemented, maintained, and enforced during the natural flushing 
period; that this strategy is protective of human health and the 
environment; and that all other EPA provisions are met.
    If natural flushing will not be protective, it will be necessary to 
determine whether natural flushing combined with active remediation 
methods will meet the EPA ground water standards and will be protective 
of human health and the environment. If so, a two-part strategy will be 
implemented. Active remediation methods will first be used for a short 
time to remove the most contaminated ground water in a discrete area, 
and then natural flushing will occur. When appropriate, DOE would use 
active methods that have low operational and maintenance requirements, 
such as gradient manipulation or geochemical barriers, in conjunction 
with natural flushing.
    Site characterization data may show that natural flushing combined 
with active remediation will not result in ground water quality that is 
protective of human health and the environment. If that is the case, 
the next step in the framework will be to determine whether active 
ground water remediation techniques will meet the EPA ground water 
standards, and if so, to implement these techniques. Several methods of 
active ground water remediation could be used, including gradient 
manipulation, ground water extraction, and in situ ground water 
treatment. The active remediation methods could be used individually or 
in combination with other cleanup methods. If active remediation 
results in compliance with the EPA standards, remedial action will be 
complete. If these methods do not result in compliance, supplemental 
standards based on technical impracticability of remediation will be 
applied, along with institutional controls where necessary.
    Site-specific NEPA documentation will be prepared to evaluate the 
impact(s) from alternative strategies for implementing the programmatic 
decision described above. In accordance with DOE policy, DOE will 
solicit input from the public, local organizations, and educational 
institutions on issues that should be identified, considered, and 
analyzed, and will conduct public meetings for that purpose in the 
affected communities. Furthermore, DOE will adopt all practicable means 
to avoid or minimize environmental harm during site-specific 
activities.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 1997.
Alvin L. Alm,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 97-10860 Filed 4-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P