[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55358-55365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18815]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill
Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, UT
AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to
implement the preferred alternatives identified in the Remediation of
the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah,
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0355) (Final EIS). By
implementing the preferred alternatives, DOE will remove the uranium
mill tailings and other contaminated material from the Moab milling
site and nearby off-site properties (vicinity properties) and relocate
them at the Crescent Junction site, using predominantly rail
transportation. DOE will also implement active ground water remediation
at the Moab milling site. In reaching this decision, DOE considered the
potential environmental impacts, costs, and other implications of both
on-site and off-site disposal. For off-site disposal, DOE considered
three alternative sites in Utah (Crescent Junction, Klondike Flats, and
the White Mesa Mill) and three transportation modes (truck, rail, and
slurry pipeline).
DOE identified off-site disposal as its preferred alternative for
the disposal of mill tailings, primarily because of the uncertainties
related to long-term performance of a capped pile at the Moab site.
Issues, such as the potential for river migration and severe flooding
contribute to this uncertainty. The
[[Page 55359]]
Crescent Junction site was identified as the preferred off-site
disposal location, rather than Klondike Flats or White Mesa Mill,
because Crescent Junction has the longest isolation period (time it
would take for contaminants to reach the ground water); the lowest
land-use conflict potential; access to existing rail lines without
crossing U.S. Highway 191; the shortest haul distance from the rail
rotary dump into the disposal cell, reducing the size of the
radiological control area; and flat terrain, making operations easier
and safer. DOE identified rail as the preferred mode of transportation,
because compared to truck transportation, rail has a lower accident
rate, lower potential impacts to wildlife, and lower fuel consumption.
In addition, compared to a slurry pipeline, rail transportation would
have a much lower water demand and would avoid landscape scars caused
by pipeline construction, which could create moderate contrasts in
form, line, color, and texture with the surrounding landscape.
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared in accordance with
the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (Title 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508) for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA Implementing
Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The Final EIS also includes a Floodplain
and Wetlands Assessment and a Floodplain Statement of Findings in
compliance with DOE's Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review
requirements (10 CFR Part 1022).
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS and this ROD may be requested by
calling 1-800-637-4575, a toll-free number, or by contacting Mr. Donald
Metzler, Moab Federal Project Director, U.S. Department of Energy, by
mail: 2597 B \3/4\ Road, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81503; by fax: 1-
970-248-7636; by phone: 1-800-637-4575 or 1-970-248-7612; or e-mail:
[email protected]. The Final EIS is also available, and this ROD
will be available, on the DOE NEPA Web site, at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documents.html and on the project Web site at http://gj.em.doe.gov/moab/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan
Counties, Utah, Final Environmental Impact Statement, contact Donald
Metzler, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. For general
information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director,
Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585; telephone 1-202-
586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final EIS, DOE considers the
environmental impacts associated with the disposal of uranium mill
tailings currently on the Moab milling site and on vicinity properties
at the Moab milling site or at one of three alternative sites in Utah:
Crescent Junction, Klondike Flats, or the White Mesa Mill. The Final
EIS also considers three transportation modes--truck, rail, and slurry
pipeline--for moving the tailings from the Moab site to the off-site
alternatives. In addition, the EIS considers active ground water
remediation at the Moab milling site to address ground water
contamination that resulted from past mill operations.
Because the activities assessed in the Final EIS could affect
Federal, state, and private lands and pass through several local and
county jurisdictions, 12 agencies and municipalities worked with DOE as
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. These cooperating
agencies are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); National Park
Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS); U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC); the State of Utah; the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe; Grand County; San Juan County; the City of Blanding; and the
Community of Bluff. Because the Crescent Junction site is currently on
land managed by BLM, the Department of the Interior will complete a
Public Land Order, based upon DOE's application for land withdrawal,
this ROD, and the Final EIS, that will transfer jurisdiction of the
Crescent Junction site to DOE. BLM will, as necessary, also grant
permits for removal of borrow materials (such as soil, sand, gravel,
and rock) from BLM lands.
Background: In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), 42 United States Code, (U.S.C.) 7901 et
seq., in response to public concern regarding potential health hazards
of long-term exposure to radiation from uranium mill tailings. Title I
of UMTRCA required DOE to establish a remedial action program and
authorized DOE to stabilize, dispose of, and control uranium mill
tailings and other contaminated material (called residual radioactive
material [RRM]), at 22 uranium-ore processing sites and associated
vicinity properties. Vicinity properties are those off-site areas near
the Moab milling site that can be confirmed to be contaminated with
RRM. UMTRCA also directed EPA to promulgate cleanup standards, which
are now codified at 40 CFR Part 192, ``Health and Environmental
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,'' and
directed NRC to oversee the cleanup and license the completed disposal
cells. In October 2000, Congress enacted the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
amending UMTRCA Title I, to give DOE responsibility for remediation of
the Moab milling site, in accordance with UMTRCA Title I (DOE's
authority to perform surface remedial action at eligible uranium
milling sites and vicinity properties expired in 1998 for all other
sites.).
The Moab milling site lies approximately 30 miles south of
Interstate 70 (I-70) on U.S. Highway 191 (US-191) in Grand County,
Utah. The 439-acre milling site is located about 3 miles northwest of
the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at the
confluence with the Moab Wash. The milling site is bordered on the
north and southwest by steep sandstone cliffs. The Colorado River forms
the eastern boundary of the milling site. US-191 parallels the northern
site boundary, and the State Road 279 (SR-279) transects the west and
southwest portion of the property. Arches National Park has a common
property boundary with the Moab milling site on the north side of US-
191, and the park entrance is located less than 1 mile northwest of the
milling site. Canyonlands National Park is located about 12 miles to
the southwest.
At the Moab milling site, a former uranium-ore processing facility
was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later by
the Atlas Minerals Corporation (Atlas) under a license issued by NRC.
The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled except for
one building that is currently used by DOE. During its years of
operation, the facility accumulated uranium mill tailings, which are
naturally radioactive residue from the processing of uranium ore. The
uranium mill tailings are located in a 130-acre unlined pile that
occupies much of the western portion of the milling site. The top of
the tailings pile averages 94 feet above the Colorado River floodplain
and is about 750 feet from the Colorado River. The pile was constructed
with five terraces and consists of an outer compact embankment of
coarse tailings, an inner impoundment of both coarse and fine
[[Page 55360]]
tailings, and an interim cover of soils taken from the milling site
outside the pile area. Debris, from dismantling the mill buildings and
associated structures, was placed in an area at the south end of the
pile and covered with contaminated soils and fill. Radiation surveys
indicate that some soils outside the pile also contain radioactive
contaminants at concentrations in excess of those allowed in the EPA
standards in 40 CFR Part 192.
In addition to the contaminated materials currently at the Moab
milling site, tailings may have been removed from the Moab milling site
and used as construction or fill material at homes, businesses, public
buildings, and vacant lots in and near Moab. As a result, these
vicinity properties may have elevated concentrations of radium-226 that
exceed the maximum concentration limits in 40 CFR Part 192. In
accordance with the requirements of UMTRCA, DOE is obligated to
remediate those properties where contaminant concentrations exceed the
maximum concentration limits in 40 CFR Part 192, along with the Moab
milling site. DOE estimates the total residual radioactive material at
the Moab milling site and vicinity properties has a total mass of
approximately 11.9 million tons and a volume of approximately 8.9
million cubic yards.
Ground water in the shallow alluvium at the site was contaminated
by ore-processing operations. The Colorado River, adjacent to the site,
has been affected by site-related contamination, mostly due to ground
water discharge. The primary contaminant of concern in the ground water
and surface water is ammonia. Other contaminants of potential concern
are manganese, copper, sulfate, and uranium. DOE is currently
conducting interim ground water remedial actions.
Previous NEPA Review
In September 1998, the former Moab milling site owner, Atlas, filed
for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court appointed NRC and the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality as beneficiaries of a bankruptcy
trust created in March 1999, to fund future reclamation and site
closure. Later, the beneficiaries selected PricewaterhouseCoopers to
serve as trustee. To support its remediation decision-making, NRC
issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Reclamation
of the Uranium Mill Tailings at the Atlas Site, Moab, Utah (NUREG-1531,
March 1999), which proposed stabilizing the tailings impoundment (pile)
in place.
NRC received numerous comments both in favor of and opposed to the
proposed action. However, NRC's EIS did not address ground water
compliance or remediation of vicinity properties. NRC documented USF&WS
concerns regarding the effects of contaminants reaching the Colorado
River; specifically, the effects on four endangered fish species and
critical habitat. (In 1998, USF&WS had concluded in a Biological
Opinion that continued leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia
and other constituents into the Colorado River would jeopardize the
razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow.)
In accordance with Public Law 106-398, DOE acquired the Moab
milling site in 2001 to facilitate remedial action. DOE's EIS built
upon the analyses and the alternatives evaluated in NRC's EIS, and
expanded the scope of the EIS to include remediation of ground water
and vicinity properties. During this decision-making process, to
minimize potential adverse effects to human health and the environment
in the short term, former site operators, custodians, and DOE have
instituted environmental controls and interim actions at the Moab
milling site. Controls have included: Storm water management; dust
suppression; pile dewatering activities; and placement of an interim
cover on the tailings, to prevent movement of contaminated windblown
materials from the pile. Interim actions have included: Restricting
site access; monitoring ground water and surface water; and managing
and disposing of chemicals, to minimize the potential for releases to
the Colorado River.
DOE's EIS Process
DOE began the preparation of an EIS to support its decision-making
process for the Moab milling site with a Notice of Intent (NOI)
published on December 20, 2002, in the Federal Register (67 FR 77970).
Public scoping meetings were held in four Utah cities in January 2003,
during the scoping comment period, which ended February 14, 2003. After
considering public comments and input from the 12 cooperating agencies,
DOE issued the Draft EIS in November 2004. During a 90-day public
comment period that ended on February 18, 2005, DOE conducted four
public hearings on the Draft EIS in Moab, Green River, Blanding, and
White Mesa, Utah. In preparing the Final EIS, DOE considered over 1,600
comments that it received, including late comments. In April 2005, DOE
announced its preferred alternatives of off-site disposal, using
predominantly rail transport to the Crescent Junction, Utah site and
active ground water remediation. The Final EIS was issued in July 2005.
The Proposed Action
DOE is proposing to clean up surface contamination and implement a
ground water compliance strategy to address contamination that resulted
from historical uranium-ore processing at the Moab milling site
pursuant to NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and UMTRCA, 42 U.S.C. 7901 et
seq.
Alternatives
DOE analyzed the following alternatives in the EIS:
No Action: Under the No Action alternative, DOE would not remediate
contaminated material, either on the site or at vicinity properties.
The existing tailings pile would not be covered and managed in
accordance with standards in 40 CFR Part 192. No short-term or long-
term site controls or activities to protect human health and the
environment would be continued or implemented. Public access to the
site is assumed to be unrestricted. All site activities, including
operation and maintenance, and ongoing interim ground water remediation
activities, would cease. A compliance strategy for contaminated ground
water beneath the site would not be developed, in accordance with
standards in 40 CFR Part 192. No institutional controls would be
implemented to restrict use of ground water, and no long-term
stewardship and maintenance would take place. Because no activities
would be budgeted or scheduled at the site, no further initial,
interim, or final remedial action costs would be incurred. DOE
recognizes that this scenario would be highly unlikely; however, it was
included as a part of the EIS analyses, to provide a basis for
comparison to the action alternatives assessed in the EIS, as required
by NEPA.
Disposal alternatives
On-site Disposal: The on-site disposal alternative would involve
placing contaminated site materials and materials from vicinity
properties on the existing tailings pile and stabilizing and capping
the tailings pile in place. The cap would be designed to meet EPA
standards for radon releases. Final design and construction of the cap
would meet the requirements for disposal cells under applicable EPA
standards (40 CFR Part 192). Flood protection would be constructed
along the base of the pile, and cover materials for radon attenuation
and erosion protection would be brought to the site from suitable
borrow areas.
[[Page 55361]]
Off-site Alternatives: DOE evaluated three sites in Utah for off-
site disposal: Crescent Junction; Klondike Flats; and the White Mesa
Mill.
Crescent Junction. The Crescent Junction site is approximately 30
miles northwest of the Moab milling site and 20 miles east of the city
of Green River, just northeast of the Crescent Junction interchange on
Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 191. The site consists of undeveloped
land administered by BLM.
Klondike Flats. Klondike Flats is a low-lying plateau about 18
miles northwest of the Moab milling site, just northwest of the
Canyonlands Field Airport and south-southeast of the Grand County
landfill. The Klondike Flats site consists of undeveloped lands
administered by BLM and the State of Utah School and Institutional
Trust Lands Administration.
White Mesa Mill. The White Mesa Mill site is approximately 85 miles
south of the Moab site, 4 miles from the Ute Mountain Indian
Reservation and the community of White Mesa, and 6 miles from Blanding
in San Juan County, Utah. This commercial, state-licensed, uranium mill
is owned by the International Uranium (USA) Corporation and disposes of
processed tailings materials on-site in lined ponds. It has been in
operation since 1980. The facility would need a license amendment from
the State of Utah, before it could accept material from the Moab
milling site.
Off-site Disposal Transportation Alternatives: For each of the off-
site disposal alternatives, DOE evaluated three modes of transporting
RRM from the Moab milling site: truck, rail, and slurry pipeline.
Truck Transport. Trucks would use US-191, as the primary
transportation route, for hauling contaminated materials and oversized
debris to the selected disposal site. Trucks would be used exclusively
for hauling borrow materials to the selected disposal site.
Construction of highway entrance and exit facilities would be necessary
to safely accommodate the high volume of traffic currently using this
highway.
Rail Transport. An existing rail line runs from the Moab milling
site north along US-191, and connects with the main east-west line near
I-70. The Crescent Junction and Klondike Flats sites could be served
from this rail line with upgrades and additional rail sidings. There is
no rail access from the Moab milling site to the White Mesa Mill site.
Construction of a rail line from the Moab milling site to the White
Mesa Mill site was not analyzed in detail, because of the technical
difficulty, potential impacts, and high cost.
Slurry Pipeline. This transportation mode would require
construction of a new buried pipeline from the Moab site to the
selected disposal site and a buried water line to recycle the slurry
water back to the Moab milling site for reuse in the pipeline.
Ground Water Remediation Alternative
Active ground water remediation would be implemented under both the
on-site and off-site disposal alternatives. DOE's proposed action for
ground water at the Moab milling site is to apply ground water
supplemental standards, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart C,
and implement an active remediation system to intercept and control
discharge of contaminated ground water to the Colorado River. Because
of its naturally high salt content, the uppermost aquifer at the Moab
site is not a potential source of drinking water. The active
remediation system would extract and treat ground water, while natural
processes act on ground water to decrease contaminant concentrations to
meet long-term protective ground water cleanup goals. Active
remediation would cease after long-term goals were achieved.
Conceptually, the same system would be installed and operated at the
Moab milling site regardless of whether the on-site or off-site
disposal alternative was implemented.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The Final EIS assessed environmental impacts in detail, including
impacts to physical, biological, socioeconomic, cultural, and
infrastructure resources that could occur under: the on-site disposal
alternative; the off-site disposal alternative; three transportation
modes; and the No Action alternative. The impact analyses in the Final
EIS determined that there were many resource areas such as air quality,
terrestrial ecology, land use, noise and vibration, visual, human
health, infrastructure, waste management, and socioeconomics, in which
the impacts would neither be significant nor violate any standards, or
for which there would be little difference among alternatives and,
therefore, these impact areas were not discriminators among the
alternatives. This ROD focuses on the potential impacts (both adverse
and beneficial) that discriminate among the alternatives and made the
most significant contribution to DOE's decision-making. These impact
areas include: ground water, surface water, aquatic ecology,
floodplains, threatened or endangered species, cultural resources,
traffic, and environmental justice. For the detailed impact analyses,
the reader is referred to the Final EIS on the Web pages listed above
under ADDRESSES.
Ground Water. Ground water remediation would be implemented under
both the on-site and off-site disposal alternatives. Under the on-site
and off-site disposal alternatives, supplemental standards would be
applied to protect human health. Supplemental standards would include
institutional controls to prohibit the use of ground water for drinking
water. Under the on-site disposal alternative, the tailings pile would
be a continuing source of contamination that could maintain contaminant
concentrations at levels above background concentrations in the ground
water and, therefore, potentially require the application of
supplemental standards and institutional controls in perpetuity to
protect human health. Under the off-site disposal alternatives,
contaminant concentrations in the ground water, under the Moab milling
site, would return to background levels after an estimated 150 years,
by which time active ground water remediation would have been
completed, and institutional controls would no longer be needed. The
tailings pile would not be a continuing source of contamination to
ground water at the Moab milling site under the off-site disposal
alternative.
However, under the on-site disposal and No Action alternatives,
natural basin subsidence could result in permanent tailings contact
with the ground water in an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 years, at which
time surface water concentrations could temporarily revert to levels
that are not protective of aquatic species in the Colorado River.
In addition, under the No Action alternative, ground water beneath
the Moab milling site would remain contaminated, would pose an
increased risk to human health, and would continue in perpetuity to
discharge contaminants to the surface water at concentrations that
would not be protective of aquatic species.
Surface Water and Aquatic Ecology. Under the No Action alternative,
surface water contamination and nonprotective river water quality would
continue in perpetuity. DOE estimates that under all action
alternatives, contamination of the Colorado River from ground water
discharge would be reduced to levels that would be protective of
aquatic species within 5 to 10 years, after implementation of ground
water remediation because of the interception and containment of the
contaminated ground water plume. DOE also
[[Page 55362]]
anticipates that contaminant concentrations in surface water that are
protective of aquatic species in the Colorado River could be
maintained, under all action alternatives, for the 200- to 1,000-year
time frame specified in EPA's ground water standards (40 CFR Part 192).
Under the off-site disposal alternative, removal of the pile coupled
with the estimated 75 years of active ground water remediation would
result in permanent protective surface water quality. Under the on-site
disposal alternative, active ground water remediation would continue
for up to an estimated 80 years.
Floodplains. A Colorado River 100- or 500-year flood could release
additional contamination to ground water and surface water under the
on-site disposal or No Action alternatives. However, under the on-site
disposal alternative, the increase in ground water and river water
ammonia concentrations, due to floodwaters inundating the pile, would
be minor, and the impact on river water quality would rapidly decline
over an estimated 20-year period. Under the No Action alternative,
lesser flood events could also result in the release of contaminated
soils to the Colorado River, as sediment runoff. In contrast to the on-
site disposal and No Action alternatives, the off-site disposal
alternative presents no risk of these recurrences of surface water
contamination at the Moab site because the tailings pile would be
removed to an area not located in a floodplain.
In accordance with its regulations in 10 CFR Part 1022, DOE has
prepared the Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment for Remedial Action at
the Moab Site. This assessment and a Floodplain Statement of Findings
are appended to the Final EIS.
Threatened or Endangered Species. In compliance with the Endangered
Species Act, DOE prepared a Biological Assessment that addressed all
alternatives, and USF&WS prepared a Biological Opinion for the Crescent
Junction off-site disposal and active ground water remediation
alternatives. The Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion are
appended to the Final EIS. In its Biological Opinion, USF&WS determined
that disposal at the Crescent Junction site and active ground water
remediation at the Moab site ``may affect,'' but is ``not likely to
adversely affect,'' the threatened bald eagle, the endangered
southwestern willow flycatcher, the threatened Mexican spotted owl, the
endangered Black-footed ferret, the candidate yellow-billed cuckoo, and
the candidate Gunnison sage grouse. In addition, USF&WS determined that
there would be no effect for the threatened Jones' cycladenia, the
threatened Navajo sedge, and the endangered clay phacelia, as these
species are not known to occur in the project areas.
After reviewing the current status of the Colorado River fish, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed
action and the cumulative effects, the USF&WS's Biological Opinion
concludes that the Crescent Junction and active ground water
alternatives are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker
and are not likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The USF&WS concludes that the proposed action to
dispose of tailings (i.e., surface contamination) off site would reduce
negative effects associated with the ongoing contamination of the
Colorado River near the Moab site and would eliminate the potential for
future catastrophic events associated with river flooding and river
migration. The proposed action for ground water remediation at the Moab
site would address the effects of ground water contaminants impacting
endangered fish in the Colorado River. There would be adverse effects
associated with the current levels of ground water contamination until
ground water remediation is fully implemented, assuming the effects are
not minimized by existing interim actions. The USF&WS has determined
that the amount of ``take'' that is occurring in the nearshore habitats
will not jeopardize the Colorado River fish. ``Take'' is defined by the
Endangered Species Act as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct.'' In its Incidental Take Statement, the USF&WS is
allowing incidental take of Colorado River fish associated with
exposure to nonprotective concentrations of contaminants in nearshore
habitats along the north bank of the Colorado River at and downstream
of the Moab site for 10 years from finalization of the Biological
Opinion. ``Incidental take'' means that as a result of DOE's actions
there will be an allowable ``take'' of protected fish.
Cultural Resources. Only the Moab site and White Mesa Mill site
have been field-surveyed; however, cultural resources would probably be
adversely affected under all the action alternatives. The numbers of
potentially affected cultural resources would vary significantly among
the action alternatives. The on-site disposal alternative would have
the least effect on cultural resources, potentially affecting 4 to 11
sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. The White Mesa Mill slurry pipeline alternative would have the
greatest adverse effect on cultural resources, potentially affecting up
to 121 eligible cultural sites. The Klondike Flats alternative could
adversely affect a maximum of 35 (rail) to 53 (pipeline) eligible
sites, and the Crescent Junction alternative could adversely affect a
maximum of 11 (rail) to 36 (pipeline) eligible sites.
A minimum of 10 to 11 traditional cultural properties would be
potentially affected under the White Mesa Mill truck or slurry pipeline
alternatives, whereas no such properties would be affected by the other
alternatives. (The term ``traditional cultural properties'' can include
properties associated with traditional cultural practices, ceremonies,
and customs.) Mitigation of the potential impacts to cultural sites and
traditional cultural properties under the White Mesa Mill alternative
would be extremely difficult given the density and variety of these
resources, the importance attached to them by tribal members, and the
number of tribal entities that would be involved in consultations.
Traffic. All the proposed action alternatives would result in
increased traffic on local roads and US-191. Among the three off-site
disposal locations, truck transportation to the White Mesa Mill site
would represent the most severe impact to traffic in central Moab, an
area that the Utah Department of Transportation currently considers to
be highly congested. Transportation of contaminated materials from the
Moab milling site to the White Mesa Mill site would result in a 127
percent increase in average annual daily truck traffic through Moab. In
contrast, if the tailings were trucked to the Klondike Flats or
Crescent Junction sites, or if either the rail or slurry pipeline
transportation modes were implemented for any of the off-site disposal
locations, there would be only a 7 percent increase in truck traffic
through central Moab from shipments of vicinity property materials
under all action alternatives, and only a 2 to 3 percent increase from
shipments of borrow materials for the on-site disposal alternative or
for off-site disposal at the Klondike Flats or Crescent Junction
locations. All alternatives would also result in an overall increase in
the average annual daily truck traffic on US-191, both north and south
of Moab, from shipments of contaminated material and borrow material.
These impacts would be most severe with the
[[Page 55363]]
off-site truck transportation mode, which would increase average annual
daily truck traffic on US-191 by 95 percent for the Klondike Flats or
the Crescent Junction alternative and by 65 to 186 percent for the
White Mesa Mill alternative, depending on the segment of US-191.
In comparison, the on-site disposal alternative and the rail or
pipeline off-site alternatives would increase average annual daily
truck traffic on US-191 only by 7 percent. DOE estimates that less than
one traffic fatality would occur for all alternatives and
transportation modes, with the exception of truck transportation to
White Mesa Mill, for which modeling predicts that 1.3 traffic
fatalities would occur.
Environmental Justice. Disproportionately high and adverse impacts
to minority and low-income populations would occur under the White Mesa
Mill off-site disposal alternative (truck or slurry pipeline
transportation) as a result of unavoidable adverse impacts to at least
10 to 11 potential traditional cultural properties located on and near
the White Mesa Mill site, the proposed White Mesa Mill pipeline route,
the White Mesa Mill borrow area, and the Blanding borrow area.
Moreover, if the White Mesa Mill alternative were implemented, it is
likely that additional traditional cultural properties would be located
and identified during cultural studies.
The sacred, religious, and ceremonial sites already identified as
traditional cultural properties are associated with the Ute, Navajo,
and Hopi cultures and people. Currently, there are no known traditional
cultural properties at any other site, although the potential for their
being identified during cultural studies and consultations ranges from
low to high, depending on the site and mode of transportation. The
impacts to all other resource areas analyzed in the EIS (for example,
transportation or human health) would not represent a disproportionate
adverse impact to minority and low-income populations under any
alternative.
Cumulative Impacts. The on-site and off-site disposal locations
under consideration are located in rural areas with no other major
industrial or commercial centers nearby. No past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future actions are anticipated to result in
cumulative impacts when considered with the alternatives assessed in
this EIS. However, seasonal tourism in and around Moab, and to a lesser
extent at the off-site disposal locations, could have a cumulative
impact on traffic congestion in central Moab, especially under the
truck transportation mode, in which truck traffic would increase by
over 100 percent.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
DOE has identified off-site disposal at the Crescent Junction site
using rail transportation and active ground water remediation as the
environmentally preferred alternatives. The Crescent Junction site has
the longest (over 170,000 years) isolation period (time it would take
for contaminants to reach the first aquifer); the lowest land-use
conflict potential; and the greatest distance from the public. Rail
transportation is environmentally preferred over truck because of fewer
conflicts with existing highway uses, lower emissions and fuel demands,
and reduced likelihood of wildlife impacts; and more favorable than
slurry pipeline because of the significantly reduced water demand and
reduced impact area; a rail line is already available, and a slurry
pipeline would need to be constructed.
In comparison, although the Klondike Flats site provides
significant isolation (over 25,000 years) from ground water, use of the
site would require construction of a new public access road parallel to
Blue Hills Road and a 1- to 4-mile truck haul road that would traverse
the steep bluffs (20 to 30 percent grade) north of Blue Hills Road. The
truck haul road would require radiological controls from a rail spur to
the disposal cell site. These actions would be adjacent and visible to
public access, could temporarily adversely affect recreational use of
the local area, and could cause visual impacts to users of the northern
areas of Arches National Park.
Of the three alternative off-site locations, the White Mesa Mill
alternative would require the greatest distance for transportation;
would have the greatest potential for adversely affecting cultural
resources and traditional cultural properties at the site and along a
slurry pipeline corridor; and would have the shortest isolation period
(3,600 to 7,700 years to reach springs and seeps). Implementation of
that alternative using truck transportation would cause extensive
adverse traffic impacts in the cities of Moab, Monticello, and
Blanding.
Active ground water remediation is environmentally preferred over
the No Action alternative because the No Action alternative would not
mitigate or eliminate the ongoing impacts to surface water quality and,
subsequently, to aquatic species, and in the opinion of the USF&WS
would violate the Endangered Species Act by jeopardizing the continued
existence of protected fish species in the Colorado River. Whereas, as
discussed in the section on threatened or endangered species, active
ground water remediation would mitigate ongoing impacts from past mill
operations and, combined with off-site disposal, would ultimately
eliminate future risks to the Colorado River and aquatic species.
Comments on the Final EIS
DOE received comments on the Moab Final EIS from the State of Utah
Representative Jim Matheson, EPA, Jean Binyon on behalf of the Utah
Chapter Sierra Club, Jerry McNeely on behalf of the citizens of Grand
County, Utah, and the Grand County Council, and Susan Breisch of San
Diego, California. All commentors expressed support for DOE's preferred
alternative identified in the Final EIS.
EPA stated that the Crescent Junction disposal alternative ``has
the least environmental and cultural impact of any of the alternatives
considered. The stable geologic and surface conditions at the Crescent
Junction alternative will provide isolation of these tailings without
public health risks for the long-term.'' And, ``* * * we appreciate
that DOE has fully considered the benefits of the Crescent Junction
site, using rail transport, which should provide a secure geologic
setting that offers the best opportunity for long-term public health
and environmental protection.''
Jean Binyon commented, ``You are to be congratulated on the careful
consideration and thoughtful responses you gave to the large volume of
comments received.'' Jerry McNeely commented, ``The Department of
Energy's position in the final EIS is evidence that the DOE has
listened to our concerns and concurs with us.''
Susan Breisch commented, ``With few exceptions, the document * * *
was clear for a general reader.'' Ms. Breisch, however, questioned a
reference in the EIS to a one time $3,800 payment by DOE as a water
depletion fee. As explained in more detail in Section 4.1.6.1 of the
Final EIS, in accordance with the Recovery Implementation Program for
Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, activities
that withdraw water from the Colorado River make a one time
contribution of $10 per acre-foot of water used based on the average
annual depletion during a project. This fee helps support the
activities necessary to recover endangered fish in the Colorado River.
The $3,800 contribution is an estimate based on the projected water use
associated with the conceptual design of the preferred alternatives
[[Page 55364]]
assessed in the Final EIS. DOE will work closely with the USF&WS during
the finalization of the project design and the determination of project
water needs. Subsequently, DOE's actual contribution amount will be
determined and the appropriate funding transferred to the Recovery
Program.
Decision
DOE will remove RRM from the Moab mill tailings site and vicinity
properties located within the vicinity property inclusion area
identified in the Final EIS and use the existing rail lines and
extensions to existing sidings to ship the materials to a newly
constructed disposal cell at Crescent Junction. Truck shipments will be
necessary for some oversized material. Borrow materials needed to
construct the disposal cell will be extracted from one or more of the
borrow area sites assessed in the Final EIS. Disposal cell design
features will be developed after issuance of this ROD, published in a
Remedial Action Plan, and approved by the NRC.
DOE will also continue and expand as necessary its ongoing active
remediation of contaminated ground water at the Moab site. As an
interim action, DOE began limited ground water remediation that
involves extraction of contaminated ground water from on-site
remediation wells and evaporation of the extracted contaminated water
in a lined pond. An expanded ground water remediation program may use
evaporation or one or more of the other treatment technologies assessed
in the Final EIS to treat or dispose of contaminated ground water.
Final selection of a treatment technology will be documented in the
Ground Water Compliance Action Plan that will be developed after the
Remedial Action Plan.
Basis for the Decision
DOE considered the analyses provided in the Final EIS, including
the Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment, and Biological Assessment and
Biological Opinion appended to the EIS; the costs associated with the
alternatives; significant input from the 12 cooperating agencies; and
comments provided by other agencies, governors, state and Federal
senators and representatives, and the public. DOE selected off-site
disposal over on-site disposal because off-site disposal offers greater
long-term isolation of the mill tailings, greater protection of the
environment, and greater reduction in the long-term risk to the health
and safety of the public. In addition, there are fewer uncertainties
and differing opinions regarding the ability of an off-site disposal
cell to meet regulatory performance requirements for the requisite 200-
to 1,000-year performance period. The principal areas of uncertainty or
controversy concerning on-site disposal that were discussed in detail
in the Final EIS include tailings pile characteristics, ground water
modeling, compliance standards, river migration, and future flooding.
Off-site disposal eliminates or reduces these on-site disposal
uncertainties.
As discussed in the above section on the Environmentally Preferred
Alternative, the Crescent Junction site was selected because it will
provide: The greatest isolation for the uranium mill tailings; the
lowest land-use conflict potential; and the greatest distance from the
public; and therefore, the safest site with the lowest long-term human
health risks. Although the costs for the Crescent Junction site are
expected to be slightly more than those for the Klondike Flats site,
because of the increased transportation distance, DOE considered the
decreased long-term risks provided by the Crescent Junction site to
justify the selection of Crescent Junction. The higher cost of the
White Mesa Mill alternative and the increased impacts associated with
its implementation led DOE not to choose it.
Rail transportation was selected as the principal transportation
mode because it will eliminate the significant traffic conflicts of
truck transport, provide lower worker and public exposures to
contaminated material than truck transport, and avoid the consumptive
water needs of a slurry pipeline, and the increased costs and
complexities of additional tailings drying that would be required
before final placement in the disposal cell. In addition, the use of a
virtually dedicated rail corridor that is less subject to traffic or
weather delays will provide DOE better overall schedule control.
Active ground water remediation was selected because it is the
preferred method by which ongoing impacts (resulting from the past
operations of the uranium mill) to the Colorado River and aquatic
organisms, including four species of endangered fish, can be mitigated
in the near term and ultimately eliminated. The No Action alternative
for ground water would not provide near-term or long-term protection of
the environment and, according to the USF&WS, would jeopardize the
continued existence of protected species in the Colorado River.
Mitigation
On the basis of the analyses conducted for the Final EIS, DOE will
adopt all practicable measures identified in the Final EIS to avoid or
minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from removing
contaminated material from the Moab milling site and vicinity
properties and transporting these materials to a new disposal cell
constructed at Crescent Junction. Best Management Practices will be
employed to control access to contaminated areas, minimize worker and
public exposures to contaminated materials, minimize the extent of
surface disturbance, and reclaim and revegetate disturbed lands in as
timely a manner as is feasible. A storm water management program will
be developed that complies with all Utah Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System general permit requirements, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit requirements, to mitigate runoff, using management
measures such as berms, drainage ditches, sediment traps, contour
furrowing, retention ponds, and check dams. A spill prevention and
contingency plan will be developed to minimize the potential for spills
of hazardous material, including provisions for storage of hazardous
materials, refueling of construction equipment within the confines of
protective berms, and notification and activation protocols. A dust
control system will be implemented, following provisions in the
Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the Moab, Utah, UMTRA Project Site,
which complies with State of Utah requirements specified in the Utah
Administrative Code, ``Emission Standards: Fugitive Emissions and
Fugitive Dust,'' and may include application of liquid or solid
surfactants (e.g., sodium or magnesium chloride or water) as necessary
to control fugitive dust. Because of the proximity of the Moab site to
Arches National Park, activities near the site periphery will be
minimized, and lighting will be pointed downward and use light shields
to limit the amount of light beyond the site boundary. To minimize
potential adverse impacts to buried archaeological or cultural
resources that could be discovered during site activities, site workers
will receive training on the need to protect cultural resources and the
legal consequences of disturbing cultural resources.
DOE will develop a Remedial Action Plan, Ground Water Compliance
Action Plan, and other planning and monitoring documents for
remediation of contaminated materials. These planning and monitoring
documents will provide the engineering reclamation design and
incorporate a ground water compliance strategy and corrective actions.
These documents
[[Page 55365]]
will also integrate mitigation measures into the remediation strategy
to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the proposed actions and, where
appropriate, identify the mechanisms by which the success of mitigative
actions will be evaluated and reported.
In addition, the ongoing impacts to the Colorado River and aquatic
organisms that are the result of past milling operations will be
mitigated by active ground water remediation until natural processes
have reduced the levels of contaminants such as ammonia to
concentrations that are below the relevant toxicity standards.
In granting an incidental take for a period of 10 years, following
the USF&WS Biological Opinion, during which time DOE will implement its
ground water remediation program, the USF&WS requested, and DOE will
implement, the following reasonable and prudent measures to minimize
the impacts of incidental take of the endangered Colorado River fishes:
(1) Monitor backwater habitats near the Moab site for any indication of
fish being affected by surface water contamination; (2) evaluate the
effectiveness of DOE's initial action (diluting non-protective
contaminant concentrations in backwater habitats by pumping clean river
water); (3) address uncertainties associated with the ground water
remediation program; (4) reduce effects of surface water contamination
in habitats along the south bank of the Colorado River, if necessary;
and (5) reduce the effects of entrainment at all project pumping sites.
Further, in accordance with the requirements of the Biological
Opinion, and consistent with Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations in 40 CFR 1505.2, to monitor the success of the active
ground water remedial action and enforce the provisions of the
Biological Opinion, DOE, in coordination with USF&WS, will develop a
Water Quality Study Plan within 18 months of the finalization of this
ROD that evaluates and determines: (1) The effectiveness of ground
water remediation efforts; (2) the validity of the ground water to
surface water dilution factor; (3) compliance with achieving the target
goal of acute ammonia standards; (4) the validity of the assumption
that by reducing concentrations of ammonia, the other constituents of
concern (manganese, sulfate, uranium, copper, and selenium) will also
be reduced to protective levels; (5) the requirements and schedule for
DOE's reporting to the USF&WS; and (6) if refinement of the ground
water conceptual model is necessary.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 14th day of September 2005.
James A. Rispoli,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 05-18815 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P