[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46042-46054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18186]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40-8903; License No. SUA-1471]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to the Issuance of a License Amendment for Construction of a
Third Evaporation Pond, Homestake Mining Company of California Grants,
New Mexico Project
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Summary of environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Buckley, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T8F5, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Telephone: (301) 415-6607; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.0 Introduction
Below is a summary of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The
complete EA is available in Agency-wide Documents Access Management
System (ADAMS), at Accession No.: ML080920594.
1.1 Background
Homestake Mining Corporation (HMC), through a variety of
partnerships and joint venture associations, operated a uranium milling
operation in Cibola County, New Mexico, beginning in 1958, and
continuing through 1990. The site is north of the City of Grants in
Section 26, Township 12 North, Range 10 West. Since 1990, the site has
been in reclamation. Site reclamation includes facility
decommissioning, tailings impoundment area restoration, groundwater
restoration and monitoring, and post-closure care and monitoring. The
site is licensed under NRC License SUA-1471. During operations,
approximately 22 million tons of ore were milled at the site, using a
conventional alkaline leach process (NRC, 1993). From 1993 to 1995, the
mill was decommissioned and demolished. After the mill was demolished,
final surface reclamation commenced in accordance with the amended U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements (NRC, 2006). Surface
reclamation is nearly complete, with final reclamation and
stabilization to be completed after groundwater restoration is
completed. Groundwater contamination from past mill activities remains,
and groundwater restoration is the primary activity occurring at the
site. Once groundwater quality restoration is complete and approved,
the site will be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
which will have the responsibility for long-term site care and
maintenance.
HMC currently manages a groundwater restoration program, as defined
by NRC License SUA-1471, and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
Discharge Plan (DP), DP-200 and DP-725 (HMC, 2007b). The current
groundwater restoration program is also under the oversight of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region VI Superfund Program. The
restoration program is a dynamic ongoing strategy based on a
groundwater reclamation plan, which began in 1977. Additional
evaluation of the groundwater restoration program recently has
identified the need to extend the program, by approximately four years,
to 2017 to finish cleanup objectives. HMC's long-term goal is to
restore the groundwater aquifer system in the area, as close as
practicable, to the up-gradient groundwater quality background levels.
The restoration program is designed to remove target contaminants from
the groundwater through use of injection and collection systems,
utilizing deep-well supplied fresh water or water produced from the
reverse osmosis (RO) plant. A groundwater collection area has been
established and is hydraulically bounded by a down-gradient perimeter
of injection and infiltration systems comprising groundwater wells and
infiltration lines (NRC, 2007b). The RO plant has operated at the site
since late 1999 to augment groundwater clean-up activities. A series of
collection wells is used to collect the contaminated water, which is
pumped to the RO plant for treatment or, alternatively, pumped to a
series of evaporation ponds.
HMC seeks NRC approval to increase its evaporation and storage
capacity to increase the rate of groundwater restoration by
constructing a third evaporation pond (EP3). To construct EP3, an
amendment to the NRC License SUA-1471 is required. The amendment
request addresses the construction of EP3 and site boundary expansion
associated with locating EP3 north of the mill tailings impoundment and
north of County Road 63. The site is regulated by the NRC pursuant to
the requirements of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 40
(10 CFR part 40), ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material.'' The EA was
prepared in accordance with NRC requirements in 10 CFR 51 and with the
associated guidance in NRC report NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.'' The EA
assesses the likely impacts to the environment from HMC's proposal to
expand the current licensed boundary and to construct EP3 for
groundwater reclamation.
1.2 The Proposed Action (Alternative B) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alternatives are analyzed in the EA in the order that they
are addressed in the HMC Environmental Report (Bridges and Meyer,
2007) for consistency. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative,
Alternative B is the Proposed Action, and Alternatives C and D are
alternate evaporative pond locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed action is to amend Source Material License SUA-1471 to
permit the expansion of the permitted operations boundary and to permit
construction of EP3 for groundwater reclamation activities. The NRC-
licensed boundary would be expanded by approximately 185 acres (HMC,
2006b).
The proposed amendment to SUA-1471 would allow HMC to construct EP3
on HMC property north of the large tailings impoundment at a location
in sections 22 and 23, approximately 1,800 feet north of County Road
63. A 50-foot wide access corridor would be constructed to access the
proposed pond and to locate piping and associated infrastructures to
the proposed pond area. The proposed area of impact for EP3 is
approximately 33 acres, including the service corridor and earthen
containment dike. The evaporative surface area of the proposed pond is
approximately 26.5 acres. The pond would be constructed as an at-grade
facility, with cut and fill designed to be in rough balance. Therefore,
no significant quantities of soil would be imported or exported from
the site. The pond would have a double High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
liner with a leak detection/collection system. After groundwater
remediation is complete, the pond would be removed and the area
reclaimed (HMC, 2006b).
[[Page 46043]]
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action
Additional evaporation pond capacity is needed to enhance
groundwater restoration and complete the approved groundwater
restoration program (HMC, 1991; NRC, 1993). Additional evaporation pond
capacity would allow HMC to pump approximately 33 percent more
contaminated groundwater than can be currently pumped under existing
conditions. Further, additional evaporative capacity would allow the
groundwater restoration to be completed by 2017, although this date may
change based on the performance of the restoration program (HMC,
2006b). Construction of an additional evaporation pond would result in
increased initial costs for HMC, but would shorten the time required to
implement the groundwater corrective action plan (CAP). Additional
benefits would include increased hydraulic control of the contaminant
plume and faster restoration of contaminated groundwater. Faster
completion of the groundwater CAP would result in earlier completion of
surface reclamation and the placement of a final cover on the large
tailings impoundment. Many of the groundwater reclamation wells are on
the large tailings impoundment which will not have a final cover until
the groundwater restoration is complete.
As discussed in section 2, HMC has analyzed the impacts of placing
EP3 at two additional locations on HMC property. The Alternative B
location is preferred because it minimizes the dust and noise impacts
to the local residents during construction and the evaporative odors
during operation of EP3.
2.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
HMC's objective is to increase its evaporation and storage
capacities to aid in groundwater restoration. To meet this objective,
HMC would like to add an additional evaporation pond. HMC has three
available location alternatives for EP3. HMC is the property owner of
lands associated with each of the three siting alternatives.
Construction details and evaporation pond designs are the same for each
of the siting alternatives. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A)
and Alternatives C and D are described below.
2.1 No Action Alternative (Alternative A)
The no action alternative would be continued groundwater
reclamation at the HMC facility under current capacities. No changes to
the NRC license or site boundary expansion would occur. All current
operations and maintenance programs would continue as planned according
to the general provisions of the HMC Closure Plan approved May 12, 1993
(NRC, 1993).
2.2 Alternative Evaporative Pond Location (Alternative C)
Alternative C: This alternative involves constructing EP3 within
the SE quarter of section 23 along County Road 63 and within 1,800 feet
of NM 605. The NRC-licensed boundary would be expanded by approximately
68 acres. The pond is proposed to be square in shape and disturb
approximately 33 acres of land, including the access corridor and
earthen containment dike. The pond is anticipated to provide 26.5 acres
of surface area for the evaporation and water storage purposes. The
pond would be constructed as an at-grade facility, with cut and fill
designed to be in rough balance. Therefore, no significant quantities
of soil would be imported or exported from the site. The pond would
have a double HDPE liner with a leak detection/collection system.
2.3 Alterative Evaporative Pond Location (Alternative D)
Alternative D: This alternative involves constructing EP3 on the
southwest side of Evaporation Pond 2 (EP2) located south of
the large tailings pile impoundment in the SW quarter of section 26.
Under this alternative, EP3 would share the southwest dike wall of EP2
within the existing licensed boundary. The pond would be sized and
constructed as described in Alternative C. This alternative would not
require an NRC-licensed boundary expansion, as EP3 would be within the
boundary of the present NRC-licensed area.
3.0 Affected Environment
The affected environment is very similar for Alternatives B, C, and
D. Alternatives B, C, and D are relatively close to one another, each
separated by approximately two miles or less.
3.1 Land Use
3.1.1 Site Location
The HMC Mill is located in Cibola County, about five and one-half
miles (8.8 kilometers, km) north of the City of Grants and the Village
of Milan, New Mexico. The site is situated in the San Mateo drainage at
an elevation of 6,600 feet (1980 meters) above Mean Sea Level (MSL).
The project area is surrounded by mesas ranging in elevation from 7,000
to 8,600 feet (2100 to 2580 meters) above MSL. The mesas define a
roughly circular valley about 10 miles (16 km) in diameter. The San
Mateo drainage is an ephemeral arroyo, which drains an area of
approximately 291 square miles (75,369 hectares) and connects with the
Rio San Jose near the Village of Milan.
The U.S. Census estimated the total population of Cibola County for
2000 at 25,595, and the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments
estimated the County population to increase to 26,509 by 2010. The
adjacent incorporated areas of Grants and Milan contain the largest
population in the area. The 2000 U.S. Census estimated the population
of the Grants-Milan community to be about 11,000, with about 2000 of
these people located near the site in Milan. There are several
subdivisions located approximately one-half-mile (0.8 km) south and
southwest of the site. There are currently nearby residences located to
the south and west of the facility. The majority of the land in the
vicinity of the current mill site is undeveloped rangeland. The ARCO
Bluewater uranium mill site is located approximately five miles (8.05
km) west of the HMC site (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
Residential areas are estimated to account for approximately three
percent of the area. The only surface water bodies in the vicinity of
the site are several stock ponds and some small ephemeral ponds.
Drinking water for the Grants-Milan area is obtained from deep wells
drilled into the San Andres aquifer. Domestic water for the
subdivisions south and west of the site is also obtained primarily, but
not exclusively, from the Grants-Milan public water system.
3.1.2 On-Site Land Use--HMC Properties
Uranium milling operations at the Grants site began in 1958, and
was terminated in February 1990. Two separate mills were originally
located at the site. The smaller mill operated until January 1962,
after which all milling activities were conducted in the larger
facility. Both mills utilized alkaline leach circuits, with a nominal
capacity for the two mills of 3,400 tons of ore per day. The alkaline
leach circuit employed at the Grants Mill required a finer grind of the
material to be leached than does an acid leach circuit. As a result, up
to 60 percent of the tailings solids are finer than a No. 200 sieve
size (NRC, 1993). Finer materials are more susceptible to migration or
transport through natural mechanisms such as wind and water erosion
(Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
Following extraction of the uranium, the tailings were discharged
to either the small or the large tailings impoundment. Both
impoundments were constructed using an earth fill
[[Page 46044]]
containment dike into which the tailings were discharged. The small
impoundment contains approximately 1.8 million tons of tailings, while
the large impoundment contains approximately 21 million tons. HMC owns
and controls a sizeable land area in and around the Grants Reclamation
Project. Over the years, additional lands have been acquired as
opportunity has arisen and acquisition of such lands is deemed
appropriate in relation to ongoing groundwater remediation, restoration
activities and final reclamation of the site.
The windblown tailings clean-up project began in 1995 and involved
mechanical disturbance and the removal of tailings imported by wind for
placement within the sites tailings pile area. During the 35 years of
milling and processing operations at the site, windblown tailings were
deposited over approximately 1200 acres immediately surrounding the
tailings pile. Deposition of windblown tailings over the HMC property
occurred during high wind conditions.
Heavy machinery was used in removing the contaminated deposits,
which sometimes reached a depth of more than three feet (one meter).
After removal of the contaminated deposits, seed and mulch were spread
on the remaining soils to assist in revegetation efforts (Byszewski,
2006). HMC lands owned in the area that are not within the immediate
proximity of the tailings pile complex have been, and are continuing to
be, utilized for livestock grazing on a lessor/lessee tenant
arrangement. Most of the current land area within the present site
boundary has been excluded from livestock grazing and other land use,
except those areas that are not directly related to the ongoing
groundwater restoration activities. As such, livestock grazing is not
currently allowed in the immediate tailings pile areas, evaporation
pond areas, or the office/maintenance shop locations. However, certain
small areas in the southern and western portions of land within the
site boundary are utilized for livestock grazing.
Several residential lots held by HMC in the surrounding
subdivisions and in the general area of the reclamation site are idle
and are essentially not in use, except in certain instances where fresh
water injection and water collection are underway as part of the
ongoing groundwater restoration program.
3.1.3 Off-Site Land Use--Pleasant Valley Estates, Murray Acres,
Broadview Acres, Felice Acres and Valle Verde Residential Subdivisions
A large portion of land around the HMC-owned properties is used for
grazing. The other major land use immediately proximal to the site
consists of residential development located in the Pleasant Valley
Estates, Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, Valle Verde, and Felice Acres
residential subdivisions. Into the mid-1970s, monitoring wells showed
no increase in the levels of radioactive materials, but did show
elevated levels of selenium in the domestic water supply. As a result
of the elevated selenium levels, HMC provided subdivision residents
with potable water and eventually entered into an agreement with the
EPA to extend the Village of Milan water system to the four residential
subdivisions near the mill. The Village of Milan water supply extension
was completed in the mid-1980s and HMC agreed to pay the basic water
service charges for the residents of the Pleasant Valley Estates,
Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, and Felice Acres subdivisions, for a
period of 10 years. The Village of Milan water supply was extended out
to the Valle Verde subdivision and immediately adjacent area at a later
date. However, current information indicates that some residents in the
area are using water wells for drinking water supplies.
An assessment of current land use in these residential subdivision
areas was completed by Hydro-Engineering, LLC of Casper, Wyoming, in
late 2005 and early 2006, to provide an annual review of the present
uses, occupancy, and status for the various lots within these
subdivisions (HMC, 2006b). A review of land use for HMC properties and
the residential subdivision areas to the immediate south and west of
the Grants Reclamation Project site indicates that present land uses in
the area have not changed significantly over the past five years. Over
the years, permanent residential homes, modular homes and mobile homes
have been established in the subdivision areas, and immediate adjacent
areas, as would typify a rural residential neighborhood. A number of
lots remain vacant, or are utilized for horse barns, corrals, and/or
equipment storage. In some cases, dwellings are present on several lots
throughout the subdivisions, but are currently vacant or have been
permanently abandoned.
Field review of the five subdivision areas, along with follow-up
inquiries as required to confirm the status of water use at each
property, indicates that, at present, all occupied residential sites
in, or immediately adjacent to the Felice Acres, Broadview Acres,
Murray Acres, and Pleasant Valley subdivisions are on metered water
service with the Village of Milan. In the Valle Verde residential area
and immediately adjacent to the subdivision, 12 residences were
identified that are not on the Village of Milan water supply system and
therefore are obtaining domestic-use water from private well supplies.
One of these 12 is a residence on a private well supply about one-
quarter mile west of the Valle Verde subdivision. Current information
indicates that all other occupied residential lots in the Valle Verde
area are on the Village of Milan water supply system (Bridges and
Meyer, 2007).
3.2 Transportation
Interstate-40 and State Highway 605 are the principal highway
access routes near the project area. Public highways or railroads do
not cross the NRC-licensed area of the HMC property. County Road 63
bisects the proposed boundary expansion of Alternatives B and C to the
north. Normal access to the HMC site is from the south via State
Highway 605 then traveling west on County Road 63. The NRC-licensed
area is fenced and posted by HMC. Currently, County Road 63 is not
within the NRC-licensed site boundary.
3.3 Geology and Seismology
The HMC Site is located on the northeast flank of the Zuni Uplift,
a tectonic feature, which is characterized by Precambrian crystalline
basement rocks overlain by Permian and Triassic sedimentary rocks
(D'Appolonia,1982). Major faults occur along the southwest flank of the
Zuni Uplift, with only minor faults mapped in the region surrounding
the site. Faults associated with the Zuni Uplift are generally
northwest trending, steeply dipping reverse faults. However, the minor,
steeply dipping normal and reverse faults in the vicinity of the site
generally trend northeast. A number of geologic faults pass near the
site; however, they are considered to be inactive since they do not
displace nearby lava flows of Quaternary age (less than 1.8 million
years) or express youthful geomorphic features indicative of active
faults (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). None of the local faults are
considered to be active (D'Appolonia, 1982).
Earthquakes, which have occurred within 60 miles (96 km) of the
site, have typically been of low intensity (D'Appolonia, 1982). Based
on an analysis conducted in 1981 of the number of earthquakes and their
[[Page 46045]]
magnitudes, the maximum earthquake in the area is estimated to be a
magnitude 4.9 (Richter Scale) during a 100-year period. By comparison,
the largest historical earthquake recorded in the region is a magnitude
4.1 (Richter Scale) (D'Appolonia, 1982; Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
Slope gradients in the area generally range from zero to five
percent in valleys and mesa tops, and from five-to-over 100 percent on
the flanks of the mesas and on the nearby volcanic peaks. Where the
gradient is steep in the northern San Mateo drainage, intersecting
arroyos are commonly incised from 10 to 30 feet (three to nine meters).
Where the gradient decreases, such as in the Site vicinity, incision is
minimal and flow occurs in wide, shallow, poorly defined, or
practically nonexistent channels.
The majority of the project area contains soils of the Sparank-San
Mateo complex. Sparank and San Mateo soils are well drained and
moderately alkaline. Sparank soils are comprised of clay loam overlying
silty clay loam; San Mateo soils are loams. Both soils are conducive to
agriculture (Bridges and Meyer, 2007; Byszewski, 2006).
In general, the nature of the flat valley exposes it to high winds
and shifting aeolian sands. Documentation of mechanical disturbance of
one meter of accumulated Aeolian sediments, and the presence of sand
sage (deep sand indicator species) suggests the presence of deep
Aeolian overburden in the area, especially areas that have not been
subjected to mechanical disturbance (Byszewski, 2006).
3.4 Water Resources and Hydrology
The HMC Site is located east of the continental divide in the Rio
Grande drainage system of west-central New Mexico. The surface water
regime surrounding the HMC Site is influenced by the arid-to-semiarid
climate of the region, the relatively medium-to-high permeability of
the soils, and the exposed bedrocks of the watersheds. The HMC Site is
in the San Mateo drainage. Down gradient from the site the Lobo Canyon
drainage flows into the San Mateo drainage from the southeast, and the
San Mateo drainage flows westward into the Rio San Jose drainage, which
flows to the southeast. The San Mateo drainage basin above the site has
a drainage area of approximately 291 square miles. Its shape is roughly
circular and it contains a dendritic drainage pattern (D'Appolonia
1982). Maximum relief is 4,724 feet with elevations ranging from 6,576
feet above MSL at the outlet to 11,300 feet above MSL at Mount Taylor.
North of the site, the San Mateo is an ephemeral arroyo and flows in
direct response to precipitation or snow melt events. There is no
distinct channel near the site. A very large precipitation event could
result in flow from the San Mateo drainage entering the Rio San Jose
drainage. The Rio San Jose is itself ephemeral and flows only in direct
response to local rainstorms or snow melt. The Rio San Jose discharges
to the Rio Puerco drainage, which is a tributary of the Rio Grande
River. San Mateo Creek reaches from the northeast to the southwest
through the HMC property. Other surface water bodies in the general
vicinity of the HMC Site include several stock ponds, some small
ephemeral ponds, and an undetermined number of springs on the flanks of
Mount Taylor.
At and nearby the HMC site, the saturated drainages are the
saturated alluviums or shallow water-bearing units. In the immediate
vicinity of the site, the saturated thickness of the San Mateo alluvium
varies from 10-to-60 feet (3-to-20 meters). The Chinle formation,
comprised mainly of massive shale interspersed with some sandstone
(approximately 800 feet thick), exists below the alluvium. The Chinle
formation acts as an effective barrier between the aquifer bearing
portion of the alluvium and the underlying San Andres formation, which
is the principal water-bearing formation in the vicinity of the mill
(Bridges and Meyer, 2007) and the primary groundwater source for the
municipalities in the area. Milling activities at the site have
resulted in impacts to the San Mateo alluvial aquifer and Chinle
aquifers, which underlie the Grants Mill. A groundwater corrective
action program has been implemented at the site since 1977. The
corrective action includes the injection of fresh water from the San
Andres aquifer into the alluvial aquifer near an HMC property boundary
to form a hydraulic barrier to the seepage and reverse the local
groundwater gradient so contaminated water can be retrieved by a series
of collection wells located near the tailings impoundment. The captured
water is treated currently through the RO plant or sent directly to
synthetically-lined evaporation ponds. The corrective action program
appears to be successful in mitigating the negative impacts of seepage
from the tailings ponds (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
Under the HMC groundwater restoration plan, water collected from
the alluvial and Chinle aquifers underlying the site would continue to
be collected where there are relatively low levels of selenium and
uranium and be used for re-injection in the initial phase of
restoration of some areas. Re-injection would occur in the alluvium
where concentrations are greater than those of the injected water until
such time as injection with San Andres fresh water or RO product water
would better complete the restoration.
3.5 Ecology
3.5.1 Vegetation
Vegetation in the vicinity of the site consists primarily of desert
grassland of the Colorado Plateau (NRC, 1993). The project area is
semi-arid grassland characterized by shrubs and mixed grama-gelleta
steppe grasses. A large area in west-central New Mexico is classified
as Desert Grassland and is thought to be a new succession-disturbance
desert grassland, characterized by galleta and blue grama grasses
consisting of high shrub and forb densities, with low grass densities
(Byszewski, 2006).
Common plants found include four-wing saltbrush, greasewood, sand
sage, and broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia Sarothrae). Grasses include blue
grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus),
Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and bunch grass species.
Some narrowleaf yucca (Yucca angustissima) was also observed. Salt
cedar (Tamarix spp.), an invasive species, is beginning to establish
itself in isolated areas along the shallow San Mateo Creek.
Earthen stock tanks within the project area are supporting wetland
plants such as Cattail (Typha lantifolia). The establishment of wet
areas provides water and food for a variety of wildlife, including red-
winged black birds and coyotes.
Most of the area located around the site was bladed in 1995 and re-
seeded with shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Groundcover varies from 79
percent to 99 percent. No plant species currently listed as rare,
endangered, or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
or the State of New Mexico, were observed within the project area
(Byszewski, 2006).
3.5.2 Wildlife
Wildlife in the area is generally limited to small mammals and bird
species. Characteristic species include mule deer, coyote,
rattlesnakes, and many species of birds, small rodents, and lizards.
During the Cultural Resource inventory survey in June 2006, cottontail
rabbits and black tailed jackrabbits, ravens, rattlesnakes, horned
lizards, blackbirds, and prairie dogs were observed (Byszewski, 2006).
[[Page 46046]]
3.5.3 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 1 identifies the Federal threatened and endangered species
and species of concern known to occur in Cibola County, New Mexico,
according to the New Mexico Game and Fish (NMGF) (Bridges and Meyer,
2007; NMGF, 2007).
The occurrence of endangered or threatened plant species is
unlikely to occur within the project area due to the surface being
significantly altered by mechanical disturbance that had occurred as
part of HMC's windblown contamination clean-up project.
Table 1--Federal Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zuni Bluehead Sucker........ Catostomus Candidate.
discobolus yarrowi.
Bald Eagle.................. Haliaeetus Threatened.
leucocephalus.
Northern Goshawk............ Accipiter gentilis.. Species of Concern.
American Peregrine Falcon... Falco peregrinus Species of Concern.
anatum.
Mountain Plover............. Charadrius montanus. Species of Concern.
Yellow-billed Cuckoo........ Coccyzus americanus. Candidate.
Mexican Spotted Owl......... Strix occidentalis Threatened.
lucida.
Burrowing Owl............... Athene cunicularia.. Species of Concern.
Southwest Willow Flycatcher. Empidonax trailii Endangered.
extimus.
Cebolleta Pocket Gopher..... Thomomys bottae Species of Concern.
paguatae.
Mtn Silverspot Butterfly.... Speyeria nokomis Species of Concern.
nitocris.
Pecos sunflower............. Helianthus paradoxus Threatened.
Zuni fleabane............... Erigeron rhizomatus. Threatened.
Acoma fleabane.............. Erigeron acomanus... Species of Concern.
Cinder phacelia............. Phacelia serrata.... Species of Concern.
Gypsum phacelia............. Phacelia sp. nov.... Species of Concern.
Black Footed Ferret......... Mustela nigripes.... Endangered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality
3.6.1 Meteorology and Climatology
Climatology and meteorology data are based on data summaries
acquired from the National Climatology Data Center (NCDC) and the New
Mexico Climate Center (NMCC) within the proximity of the project
location and include National Weather Service data from the City of
Grants (approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the project area (Bridges
and Meyer, 2007).
Monthly average temperatures in Grants, New Mexico, range from the
low-thirties (degrees Fahrenheit) during the winter, to the low
seventies in the summer. Maximum summer temperatures reach into the low
nineties, while minimum winter temperatures fall in the low-teens.
Precipitation received in the area averages approximately 12 inches
per year with the maximum monthly totals received during the summer
months accounting for nearly half of the annual total. Summer
precipitation is usually associated with thunderstorms, which form with
the arrival of warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. Winter
precipitation is derived mainly from storms from the Pacific Ocean,
although the amounts received are much less than during summer months.
Relative humidity in the area averages near 60 percent with the
highest monthly average in December and the lowest in May. Annual
evaporation for the area, estimated using equations outlined by NRC
(1993), is approximately 78-to-94 percent of the annual precipitation,
or 9-to-11 inches per year.
HMC (2007d) reports the predominant wind direction is from the
southwest. Average wind speed is estimated to be five miles per hour
with a prevailing wind speed of five miles per hour. However, surface
winds in the project area are reported by Bridges and Meyer (2007) as
predominantly from the north-northwest. The Bridges and Meyer wind data
is from the Grants/Milan airport. Wind direction at the local airport
is thought to be influenced by local landforms that are absent at the
site. Data showing the predominant wind direction from the southwest is
reported from HMC's onsite weather station and is consistent with older
weather information from the nearby Arco/Bluewater site. While the
prevailing wind direction is from the southwest, the Arco/Bluewater
data wind rose shows a very significant westerly and northwesterly
component (Cox, 2007).
3.6.2 Air Quality
Air quality status of the project area is considered to be
unclassifiable or in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for the regulated criteria air pollutants, including
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon
Monoxide (CO) and Ozone. No known monitoring data for the HMC site area
were found through a review of New Mexico ambient air monitoring data
within the past five years (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). The nearest
monitoring sites are located in Albuquerque.
Total suspended particulate matter (TSP) is an additional regulated
air pollutant in New Mexico. TSP refers to small, solid particles or
liquid droplets suspended in the air and having diameters of 25-to-45
microns. The major industrial point source of TSP is the coal-fired
Coronado Generating Station, approximately 60 miles southwest of the
project site.
Peabody Energy's Mustang project is a proposed 300-megawatt project
to be located north of Grants, New Mexico, using coal from the existing
Lee Ranch Mine operated by Peabody. An air quality permit application
has already been filed and accepted as complete. Peabody recently
received approval for a DOE grant (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). The permit
application will likely be revised to reflect changes proposed in the
grant application.
Local area TSP sources are wind-blown dust, vehicular traffic on
unpaved roads, and wind-blown liquid droplets from the aeration
activities in the HMC evaporation ponds Evaporation Pond 1
(EP1) and EP2.
3.7 Noise
The HMC Site is located approximately one-half to three-quarters of
a mile from the nearest subdivision. The operational noises generated
at the HMC site are related to reclamation
[[Page 46047]]
activities. Reclamation activities include vehicle traffic, heavy
equipment operation, pump operation, and monitoring well drilling
activities.
3.8 Cultural Resources
Taschek Environmental Consulting personnel conducted an intensive
(100-percent) cultural resource survey on approximately 350 acres in
Sections 22 and 23 of Township 12 North, Range 10 West, for the
proposed project. The field survey was conducted from June 5 to June
15, 2006. The New Mexico Cultural Resource Inventory System (NMCRIS)
Project Activity Number for the survey is 100406.
Eleven new sites, one previously recorded site, and 53 isolated
occurrences (IOs) were identified during the survey. Of the twelve
documented archaeological sites, three sites are recommended eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under
Criterion D for their information potential, based on the high
probability of intact buried cultural deposits at these sites. An
undetermined eligibility status is recommended for three sites pending
a testing program that would determine the presence or absence of
intact subsurface cultural deposits. The remaining six sites are
recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP due to their lack of
integrity (Byszewski, 2006).
3.9 Visual Resources
Visual resources and recreational areas found within Cibola County
include: San Mateo Mountains (including Mt. Taylor), Cibola National
Forest, Acoma Village, San Estaban Del Ray Mission, El Malpais National
Monument, El Morro National Monument, El Morro National Monument
Inscription Rock Historical Marker, Old Fort Wingate-Zuni Wagon Road
Historic Site, Pueblo Revolt Tricentennial Historical Marker, Petaca
Plata Wilderness Study Area, Long Park, San Rafael Historical Marker,
and Pueblo of Acoma Historical Marker.
Facility buildings and mill tailings impoundments associated with
the HMC site are visible from State Highway NM 605 and surrounding
residential areas to the south and west of the property boundary. The
HMC site can be seen from the following residential areas: Pleasant
Valley Estates, Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, Felice Acres, and Valle
Verde, Subdivisions.
3.10 Socioeconomic
3.10.1 Cibola County
Cibola County was created by a division of Valencia County in 1981
therefore, population data for the new county before 1981 are
estimated. In 1970, the county's population was 20,125, rising to
30,109 in 1980 and falling to 23,794 in 1990. These population changes
were mainly related to uranium mining activity in the area. In 2000 the
Cibola County population was estimated to be 25,595. The county
encompasses a land area of 4,539 square miles. Industries providing
employment include: Educational, health and social services (27.4
percent), Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food
services (12.8 percent), public administration (12.3 percent), and
retail trade (10.5 percent). Types of workers within Cibola County
include, private wage or salary--58 percent, government--35 percent,
self-employed, not incorporated 6 percent, and unpaid family work--1
percent. Cibola County population, by ethnic background, includes:
American Indian--41.8 percent, Hispanic--33.4 percent, White Non-
Hispanic--24.7 percent, Other race--15.4 percent, two or more races--
3.2 percent, and African American--1 percent. The total can be greater
than 100 percent because some Hispanics could be counted as other
races. A mix of rural and industrial activities has characterized the
Cibola County economy with uranium mining as the biggest factor in both
the ``boom'' cycles of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and the ``bust'' cycle of
the 1980s. The location of federal and state prisons in the county has
helped buffer some of the consequences of the economic downturn, and
the County is currently on an economic upturn, as evidenced by the
recent location of a major retail center and the construction of an
inter-agency ``gateway to the region'' Visitor Center (Bridges and
Meyer, 2007).
3.10.2 City of Grants
The City of Grants is the largest incorporated area near the
proposed project site. The population of Grants, in November of 2005,
was estimated at 15,232. Between 2000 and 2005, the population of
Grants has increased 2.7 percent. The City of Grants encompasses
approximately 13.7 square miles. The next nearest city is Rio Rancho,
located approximately 80 miles east of the HMC site, with a population
of 51,765. The City of Albuquerque is located approximately 85 miles
east, with a population of 448,607 (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
3.11 Public and Occupational Health
3.11.1 Air Particulate Monitoring
HMC continuously samples suspended particulates at six locations
around the reclamation site (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). Three of the six
locations are downwind from the reclamation activities. Two of the six
locations are located close to the nearest residence, and the remaining
location is located upwind from the reclamation site. The upwind
location is used for background sampling. Energy Laboratories, Inc.,
analyzes the collected samples quarterly for Natural Uranium (Unat),
Radium-226, and Thorium-230.
3.11.2 Radon Gas Monitoring
Radon gas is monitored on a continuous basis at eight locations,
with one location located northwest of the site to record background
levels (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). Semiannually HMC personnel place new
track-etch passive radon monitors (PRMs) at the monitoring locations,
and the exposed detectors are retrieved and returned to Landauer
Corporation for analysis (HMC, 2007d).
3.11.3 Direct Radiation
Gamma exposure rates are continuously monitored through the use of
optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeter badges at each of
seven locations (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). One location northwest of the
site is considered the background location for direct radiation. The
OSLs are exchanged semiannually and analyzed by an approved independent
laboratory (currently Landauer). The levels of direct environmental
radiation are recorded for each of the seven locations (HMC, 2007d).
3.11.4 Surface Contamination
3.11.4.1 Personnel Skin and Clothing
The monitoring of personnel for alpha contamination is required as
part of all radiation work permits using standard operating procedures.
No releases of personnel or clothing above administrative limits were
reported during the January-June 2007 period (HMC 2007d). Previous
project Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports, filed with NRC
pursuant to requirements of the project Radioactive Materials License,
also document non-release of contaminated materials.
3.11.4.2 Survey of Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use
Equipment surveys are required for all equipment that is to be
removed from contaminated areas as specified in radiation work permits.
Standard operating procedures are used for these surveys. No releases
of contaminated material above NRC release criteria were reported
during the January-June 2007 period (HMC, 2007d). Previous project
[[Page 46048]]
Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports, filed with NRC pursuant
to requirements of the project radioactive materials license, also
document non-release of contaminated materials.
3.12 Waste Management
Upon completion of reclamation and groundwater cleanup activities,
EP3 would be decommissioned and the area reclaimed to allow return of
the land to present unrestricted use. At present, the proposed EP3 pond
site area is utilized for livestock grazing.
All evaporation concentrates remaining within the EP3 pond liner at
the end of the EP3 use period, would be removed and relocated to EP1
for incorporation with final reclamation of EP1 and the small tailings
pile. The pond liner, piping, and other related infrastructure
associated with EP3 would also be relocated to EP1, incorporated with
other project demolition and decommissioning waste, and reclaimed with
the small tailings pile that presently underlies EP1.
The area occupied by EP3, along with the access corridor, piping
and utility corridors would be seeded and revegetated. The security
fencing would be removed to allow agricultural grazing land use. Upon
completion of the reclamation and decommissioning, the permitted
license boundary associated with the EP3 pond location would be
adjusted back to the present project site boundary.
4.0 Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
4.1 Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts associated with the possible locations
for EP3 are discussed below.
4.1.1 Land Use
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the affected environment as described in Section 3. However,
there are short-term positive impacts associated with the no action
alternative because land use changes resulting from construction and
operation of EP3 would be avoided. The short-term positive land use
impacts are offset by the benefits associated with operation of EP3.
Operation of EP3 is expected to shorten the reclamation time at the HMC
site by 10 years, at which time the large tailings impoundment would
receive its final cover, and the HMC site would be returned to its
original land use.
For Alternatives B and C, land use would be changed in the area, as
the existing mill boundary would need to be increased to accommodate
new construction of an evaporation pond. Alternative B would require a
license boundary expansion of 185 acres. Alternative C would require a
license boundary expansion of 68 acres. Under Alternatives B and C,
land that is currently used for cattle grazing would be used as an
evaporation pond for groundwater remedial activities and therefore
unavailable for cattle grazing. The EP3 area will be reclaimed and
returned to the desert grassland land use that exists today after
completion of remediation activities in 2017.
Approximately the top three feet of natural soil was removed or
disturbed during the past removal of surface radioactive contamination
over the entire Alternative C proposed licensed boundary location
(Byszewski, 2006). Approximately the top three feet of natural soil was
removed or disturbed during the past removal of surface radioactive
contamination over approximately two thirds of the Alternative B
proposed licensed boundary location. Only natural soil remains in the
northern third of the Alternative B proposed boundary expansion
location. However, the footprint of the proposed location of EP3 would
disturb approximately 90 percent of the remaining natural soil area.
For Alternative D, land use would be little changed under this
alternative. This location is within the existing licensed boundary
that is currently an industrial site undergoing reclamation. This
alternative site is immediately adjacent to EP1 and EP2.
Under Alternatives B and C, adverse environmental impacts to land
use would be present in the short term, for approximately the next 10
years, until EP3 is reclaimed and the land is returned to its prior
use. Under Alternative D, adverse environmental impacts would be
minimal.
4.1.2 Transportation
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the current transportation system. However, there are short-
term positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because
transportation impacts resulting from construction and operation of EP3
would be avoided.
For Alternatives B and C, the site-licensed boundary would be
expanded and be located across County Road 63. County Road 63 would not
be within the licensed boundary, and access to County Road 63 would not
be restricted. However, during construction of the evaporation pond at
either location B or C, the road would have to be crossed occasionally
by equipment or workers accessing the site. The road may also be
disturbed by construction during the installation of pipes to carry
reclamation water to the ponds for evaporation. Any construction may
involve a temporary closure of the road. Any lane or road closure would
need to be coordinated with Cibola County. During construction, the
other County or State roads in the vicinity may be used by workers or
equipment accessing the site. This would only be for the period of EP3
construction and reclamation. County Road 63 is very lightly traveled,
so the impact would be very small.
For Alternative D, this location is within the existing licensed
boundary. During construction, County or State roads in the vicinity
may be used by workers or equipment accessing the site. This would only
be for the period of construction.
Under Alternatives B, C and D, adverse environmental impacts to
transportation would be small.
4.1.3 Geology and Soils
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the affected environment as described in Section 3. However,
there are short-term positive impacts associated with the no action
alternative because impacts to geology and soils resulting from
construction and operation of EP3 would be avoided.
For Alternatives B, C, and D, soils would be disturbed during
construction of EP3 and the associated roads and underground utilities
leading to EP3. Disturbed soil would be more vulnerable to wind and
water erosion. Soil disturbance would be greater for Alternative B,
less for C, and even less for D. Alternative B is located furthest away
from the groundwater remedial system and would require a longer access
road and more distance to run utilities to reach the pond and,
therefore, more soil disturbance. Alternative D is located closest to
groundwater remedial system and would require the least amount of
disturbance for the same reasons. Much of the area around the HMC site,
including Alternatives C and D, has had several feet of soil removed
when windblown tailings were identified and removed for placement in
the large tailings impoundment. Windblown tailings over approximately
40 percent of Alternative B have been removed. More native soil would
be disturbed under Alternative B than Alternative C or D. Under
Alternatives C and D, very little native soil would be disturbed since
the entire area had been previously disturbed when windblown tailings
were removed. Disturbance of the native soil would have a short-term
[[Page 46049]]
negative impact on the natural vegetation. However, after remediation
is finished, the EP3 area would be restored.
EP3 would be constructed as at grade facilities, with cut and fill
designed to be in rough balance. No significant quantities of soil
would be imported or exported from the site. Soil impacts would be
limited to the site.
Under all three alternatives, there would be minimal changes in
geology, since construction would be limited to the near surface.
Under Alternatives B, C and D, adverse environmental impacts to
geology and soils would be small.
4.1.4 Water Resources
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the current water resources. However, there are short-term
positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because
there would be no loss of precipitation infiltration or the possibility
of additional groundwater and/or soil contamination that would result
from construction of EP3. Since operation of EP3 would significantly
speed up reclamation of the HMC site, the short-term positive impacts
would be outweighed by the negative impacts associated with a longer
reclamation period.
For Alternatives B, C, and D, the construction of each pond would
cover approximately 33 acres. The pond would be designed to evaporate
water and be double lined with a synthetic liner to prevent water
infiltration. This would result in the loss of a minor amount of
precipitation that would not be available for infiltration.
Additionally, construction of the access road would likely lead to
increased compaction and loss of the ability for precipitation to
infiltrate. These losses are considered to be minor. Additional runoff
from the pond area would be minor as a majority of the water would
drain into the pond and eventually evaporate. Additional runoff from
the access road would be minor.
The only surface water bodies in the vicinity of the site are
several stock ponds and some small ephemeral ponds, which would not be
affected by site activities or the proposed EP3 construction.
Construction of EP3 has positive impacts under all three
alternatives. Operation of EP3 would allow HMC to pump 33% more
contaminated groundwater which would increase the rate of groundwater
remediation and ultimately speed up the reclamation of the entire site.
In addition, the increase in groundwater pumping would allow HMC to
more effectively control the contaminant plume at the site. These
benefits outweigh the negative impact of increased water usage during
operation of EP3. HMC is currently permitted to use the additional
groundwater needed for operation of EP3, and would not be required to
obtain additional permit(s) for increased water consumption for this
action from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE). The OSE
is the permitting authority for groundwater consumption and groundwater
diversions. HMC has been granted permit 1605 and B-28 to consume and
divert approximately 1175 acre-feet of water per year and to
temporarily divert 4500 acre-feet of water per year by the OSE (OSE,
2005). HMC's temporary diversion permit will expire on December 31,
2008, and HMC may be required to seek an extension of their temporary
diversion at that time (OSE, 2002). The OSE determined the approval of
the permit for consumption and diversion of water is not detrimental to
the public welfare of the state (OSE, 2005).
There is a risk that the EP3 impoundment could fail, or the pond
liner could fail, which could lead to contamination of San Mateo Creek.
EP3 is engineered to withstand the maximum probable flood which should
ensure failure of the EP3 is an unlikely event. The perimeter berm of
EP3 is above grade and storm water runoff does not drain into the pond.
EP3 has been designed to maintain enough freeboard above the probable
maximum precipitation that overtopping of the berm by precipitation
events should not occur. EP3 construction specifications have been
approved by the State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, Dam
Safety Section, and reviewed by the NRC. The NRC review would be
documented in a Technical Evaluation Report. Engineering controls and
frequent inspections would be employed to ensure the pond does not fail
or leak.
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to
water resources would be moderate as additional groundwater may be used
by HMC. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, beneficial environmental
impacts to water resources would be moderate, since the site may be
cleaned up at a faster rate.
4.1.5 Ecology
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the current ecology. However, there may be short-term
positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because the
loss of land for plants and animals resulting from construction and
operation of EP3 would be avoided.
Birds and fowl may use EP3 after it is constructed. The NMGF noted
that methods may have to be used to keep birds and fowl from using EP3
(NMGF letter in section 6.0, Bridges and Meyer, 2007). While the
methods discussed by NMGF were not prescriptive, they may need to be
employed in the future if adverse effects to birds and fowl are
observed. HMC currently operates two evaporation ponds, EP1 and EP2,
and has stated that to its knowledge birds and fowl have not been
impacted or adversely affected. EP1 began operating in 1990. EP2 began
operating in 1994. Although migratory birds and waterfowl visit the
ponds frequently (especially during migration seasons), no mortality
has been observed in or around either pond. Site operation crews are
onsite during the day, and pond operations are among their primary
duties. Water chemistry varies over time as the crews move water around
between ponds, operate different wells, and run or shut off the reverse
osmosis plant. The absence of bird mortality in or around the ponds
over the years indicates that the water in the evaporation ponds does
not contain contaminants at levels acutely toxic to birds. This is
based on many years of observation of EP1 and EP2 (Bridges and Meyer,
2007).
Construction of EP3 would result in the loss of some land available
for plant and small animal life. The NMGF also noted that wildlife
fencing may be appropriate for the pond. The NMGF discussed the
potential for wildlife trapping hazards of the pond and suggested
methods that may be used to minimize the risk of trapping. EP3 would be
fenced to keep humans and wildlife away from the pond and frequent
inspections would include wildlife observation to ensure impacts are
minimized. NMGF also suggested that its trenching guidelines be used
when installing pipe to minimize ground disturbance (Bridges and Meyer,
2007).
A list of endangered and threatened plant and animal species was
obtained from both the USFWS, as well as the NMGF, that may be found in
the project area. This list of species is published in the HMC ER and
can be found online as published by the NMGF (NMGF, 2007). Species
listed by the NMGF are the same as those listed by the USFWS for
threatened and endangered species. None of these species is known to be
at the site and HMC has determined that there is a lack of a suitable
habitat for the 16 plant and animal species listed as threatened or
endangered (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). A survey by biologist
[[Page 46050]]
Louis Bridges, who has extensive experience with western threatened and
endangered species evaluations, confirmed the lack of suitable habitat
for plant and animal species listed (Bridges, 2007a, 2007b).
There are no anticipated effects on threatened or endangered
species from the proposed action. The USFWS has indicated that where a
determination of no effects is concluded, no further consultation is
required (Hein, 2007).
For Alternatives B, C and D, environmental impacts would be similar
for each pond location, and adverse environmental impacts to ecological
resources would be small.
4.1.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the current air quality. However, there are short-term
positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because
additional dust, TSP, and evaporative odors resulting from construction
and operation of EP3, respectively, would be avoided.
For Alternatives B, C, and D, there would be increased impacts to
air quality during construction and reclamation of the pond which would
be in the form of fugitive dust. HMC has proposed to use construction
best management practices (BMPs) (see section 4.2.1) to control
fugitive dust and emissions from construction equipment (Bridges and
Meyer, 2007). Increases in radon emissions from EP3 are expected to be
minimal based on observations from current ponds EP1 and EP2 as shown
in HMC's Semi-Annual Report (HMC, 2007d). There would be no expected
changes in meteorology or climatology.
For Alternatives B and C, a boundary expansion would be required.
Additional air monitoring for radioactive dust and material may be
required in the expanded boundary area to ensure radiological impacts
to adjacent properties do not occur.
Placement of EP3 at Alternative D, south of the mill tailings
impoundment, would have the greatest potential to contribute to the
evaporative odors in the residential areas to the south of the site
that would be associated with the reclamation activities. Odors from
EP1 and EP2 have been a source of concern of nearby residences in the
past. Alternative B and C locations would lessen odors and concern of
water spray leaving the licensed boundary.
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to
air quality would be small.
4.1.7 Noise
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the levels of operational noises coming from the HMC
facility.
The current HMC site is one-half to three-quarters of a mile from
the nearest residential community. Operational noises are routinely
generated from the HMC site, including heavy machinery. For Alternative
D, construction of the pond would likely result in increased noise from
heavy machinery during construction and reclamation activities, but
would last only a few months while construction or reclamation
activities occurred.
For Alternatives B and C, noise impacts would be limited, since
these sites are approximately one-mile from the nearest residential
community.
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts from
noise would be small.
4.1.8 Historical and Cultural Resources
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
additional impacts to the historical and cultural resources surrounding
the HMC site. However, there are minor positive impacts associated with
the no action alternative because the potential for impact to cultural
sites resulting from construction and operation of EP3 at Alternative B
and C locations, would be avoided.
A cultural resources inventory was performed by Taschek
Environmental and was documented in a July 2006 report (Byszewski,
2006). The report identified six sites that should be avoided by
construction activities. There are no historic structures, buildings,
or museum collections within the HMC project area. No ethnographic and
traditional cultural properties or landscapes have been formally
identified within or adjacent to the project area.
Under Alternative B, there are two cultural sites that were
identified in the cultural resources survey that should be avoided
within the area proposed to be added to the site-licensed boundary. The
two areas would not be impacted by the construction of the pond within
the adjusted site boundary. The pond footprint is about one-third the
size of the increased boundary for the pond. All areas that should be
avoided would be avoided by using simple mitigation measures of putting
a fence around the sensitive areas. In 1995, mechanical disturbance of
up to three feet (one meter) of aeolian sediments exposed a number of
new archaeological sites in the immediate area. The undisturbed
portions of Alternative B contain older aeolian sediments that appear
to be stabilized by increased vegetative cover. Given the high density
of sites in the bladed portion of the survey area, and the lack of
sites in the non-bladed portion, except for one, it is likely that
aeolian deposits are covering intact subsurface archaeological remains
in the undisturbed portions of the survey area (Byszewski, 2006).
For Alternative C, there are four cultural sites that were
identified in the cultural resources survey that should be avoided
within the area proposed to be added to the site-licensed boundary. The
footprint of the pond would avoid these areas, but would be much closer
than that of Alternative B.
Alternative D is located within the footprint of the existing
facility and is heavily disturbed by prior construction and industrial
activities at the site. There are no known cultural resources that may
be impacted from this alternative.
For Alternatives B, C, and D, the New Mexico Historic Preservation
Office included a discovery clause in the event bones or prehistoric or
historic archeological materials are discovered. The discovery clause
is contained in section 4.2, Mitigation Measures. The office also
determined that, ``This undertaking will not have an adverse effect on
registered or eligible properties.'' (Meyer, 2007).
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to
cultural resources would be small.
4.1.9 Visual and Scenic Resources
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
impacts to the current visual and scenic resources.
The construction of EP3 would require the movement of heavy
machinery which may cause some additional dust to be observed at the
site. The design of the pond for each of the alternatives is the same,
with the pond berm having a maximum height above the natural ground
surface of approximately 10 feet. This profile is much lower than that
of existing features at the site such as the large tailings
impoundment. The HMC site has not been determined to be a cultural
landscape.
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the impact to visual and scenic
resources would be small.
4.1.10 Socioeconomic
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
changes to the current socioeconomics of the
[[Page 46051]]
area. However, there are short-term negative impacts associated with
the no action alternative because jobs for local residents resulting
from construction of EP3 would not be available.
The construction of an additional evaporation pond may add a few
short term jobs to the area for the contractor constructing the pond
and the contractor decommissioning the pond at the end of its service
life. The need for maintenance and inspection of the pond would likely
add to job duties already performed by on-site personnel.
For Alternatives B, C, and D, socioeconomic impacts are expected to
be small.
4.1.11 Public and Occupational Health
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
additional impacts to public or occupational health. However, there may
be short-term positive impacts associated with the no action
alternative because potential impacts to the public from dust due to
construction of EP3 would be avoided.
HMC conducts an air quality monitoring program at the site for
particulates, radon, and gamma radiation. Continuous particulate
monitoring occurs at six locations, continuous radon monitoring occurs
at eight locations, and continuous gamma radiation occurs at seven
locations. Construction of EP3 would cause an increase of dust
particles and fossil fuel emissions during the approximately two month
construction period.
HMC currently operates two evaporation ponds at the site, EP1 and
EP2. Both of these ponds use spray misters to aid in their evaporative
capacity. HMC's air sampling at various locations around the licensed
boundary has not identified potential problems with the operation of
EP1 or EP2. The air sampling test results indicate that airborne
contaminants are below regulatory levels. Increases in contaminants
from EP3 would be minimal and not expected to be any different from
those occurring from EP1 and EP2, and the total contaminants from all
three ponds would be minimal, cumulatively.
Local residences have been concerned about odors and contaminants
from the evaporation ponds and pond misters that are currently on the
site. HMC currently has been attempting to control odors by using a
combination of copper sulfate and citric acid to control algal growth
in the ponds (Cox, 2007). Dying and decaying algae is thought to be the
primary source of the nuisance odors, although the high total dissolved
solid may also be a source of odors. The issue of odors and possible
contamination from the evaporation ponds were studied in 2001. Air
monitoring for additional constituents in 2001, found that contaminant
levels were similar to levels found before misters were installed.
Contaminant levels were below regulatory limits and no health threat
existed (NMED, 2001).
No additional air monitoring would be required for Alternative D
since Alternative D is located within the existing site boundary. No
additional air monitoring would be required for Alternative C since Hi-
Vol 2 sampling station is located directly to the east of the
pond location.
An additional Hi-Vol air monitoring station would be required for
construction of the pond at Alternative B. Hi-Vol 1 sampler is
located to the east, southeast of Alternative B and HMC has confirmed
the predominant and prevailing wind direction is from the southwest.
There is a lack of sampling coverage for the Alternative B location to
the northwest of proposed Alternative B pond location.
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to
public and occupational health would be small.
4.1.12 Waste Management
For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no
additional waste generated. However, there may be short-term positive
impacts associated with the no action alternative because there would
be no EP3 evaporation concentrates, and no dust or noise from the
removal of the pond liner at the end of decommissioning activities.
Under each Alternative B, C, or D, the ponds would be
decommissioned when the corrective action plan is completed and
approved. Decommissioning involves removing EP3 and returning the land
to unrestricted use. All evaporation concentrates remaining within the
evaporation pond liner, the pond liner, piping, and other related
infrastructure would be removed and relocated to EP1, which would
eventually be incorporated into the small tailings pile at final
reclamation. Environmental impacts during decommissioning would include
increased noise and dust from heavy earth moving machinery, removing
the pond embankment and liner to the small tailings impoundment. These
impacts would only be for a short period of time during EP3 removal.
Additional waste would also be generated from the operation of EP3.
All evaporation concentrates remaining within the EP3 pond liner at the
end of the EP3 use period, would be removed and relocated to EP1 for
incorporation with final reclamation of EP1 and the small tailings
pile. The pond liner, piping, and other related infrastructure
associated with EP3 would also be relocated to EP1, incorporated with
other project demolition and decommissioning waste, and reclaimed with
the small tailings pile that presently underlies EP1. However, since
the additional volume of waste from EP3 would be incorporated with
other project demolition and decommissioning waste, the environmental
impacts associated with the additional waste would be small.
Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to
decommissioning and management of waste would be small.
4.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures that could reduce adverse impacts or enhance
beneficial impacts have been proposed in the HMC ER (Bridges and Meyer,
2007).
The mitigation measures identified in the ER and those identified
by the NRC have been incorporated into this EA as discussed below.
4.2.1 Construction Best Managements Practices
HMC would use construction BMPs to reduce the associated adverse
impacts of the construction of EP3.
BMPs and storm water control practices are to be inspected before
and after storm events to ensure that each BMP or control is
functioning properly. Project BMPs would be constructed such that
sediment and other pollutants are contained within the project site.
Erosion and sediment control measures, such as silt fences,
sediment traps, or straw bale dikes would be constructed around all
areas with disturbed or exposed soil. A silt fence sediment barrier is
required at a distance of 30 feet around the perimeter of all
jurisdictional wetlands, in order to create an impact buffer zone.
Erosion and sediment control measures would be designed and constructed
in accordance with state and/or local specifications.
Construction equipment would be stored at the off-site staging
areas at the end of each work period. Storm water runoff would be
routed around equipment, vehicles, and materials storage areas.
Diversion of concentrated runoff would be accomplished through shallow
earthen swales or similar methods in accordance with state or local
specifications.
Areas of the site would be designated for the delivery and removal
of
[[Page 46052]]
construction materials. Construction materials would not be stored
beyond the site perimeter silt fence.
Construction materials, such as concrete, would be used in a manner
that would not allow discharges into jurisdictional wetlands and
drainage channels. Equipment used to make and pour concrete would be
washed at an off-site location. Concrete fine material or aggregate
would not be washed into the jurisdictional wetlands or other
associated drainage channels. Concrete application equipment must be
parked over drip pans or absorbent material at all times. The discharge
or creation of potential discharge of any soil material, including
concrete, cement, silts, clay, sand, or any other materials, to the
Waters of the United States is prohibited.
Secondary containment areas would be utilized for chemicals, drums,
or bagged materials. Should material spills occur, materials and/or
contaminants would be cleaned from the project site and recycled or
disposed to the satisfaction of NMED.
Waste dumpsters would be covered with plastic sheeting at the end
of each workday and during storm events. All sheeting would be
carefully secured to withstand weather conditions.
On-site personnel would be trained in spill prevention and
countermeasure practices. Spill containment materials would be provided
near all storage areas. HMC contractors would be responsible for
familiarizing their personnel with the information contained in the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Non-radiological and radiological wastes would be recycled or
disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations.
Water would be sprayed on earth fill and disturbed ground surfaces
as necessary to minimize wind-blown dust.
NMGF, in a letter dated August 7, 2006, to Kleinfelder Inc.,
suggested the use of trenching guidelines that should be used when
installing pipe to minimize disturbance. These guidelines are to be
transmitted by HMC to the contractor in the plan of work and used
whenever possible.
All construction equipment and vehicles would be maintained and
inspected regularly to prevent oil or fluid leaks, and use drip pans or
other secondary containment measures as necessary beneath vehicles
during storage.
Vehicles and equipment would be fueled and washed at an off-site
location.
4.2.2 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources have been identified within the project area and
documented in the Cultural Resources Inventory completed by TEC for HMC
in June 2006 (Byszewski, 2006). The sites that were addressed from the
TEC survey would be monitored to confirm that these sites are not being
impacted. If these sites are avoided, little impact should occur to on-
site cultural resources. Furthermore, if any additional cultural
resources are uncovered during excavation activities, the New Mexico
Historical Society would be notified immediately to evaluate and
initiate appropriate mitigation measures.
The New Mexico Historic Preservation Division has requested that
the following discovery clause be attached to the construction of EP3:
Discovery Clause
In the event that bones or prehistoric or historic
archaeological materials are uncovered during construction or earth-
disturbing activities, cease work immediately and protect the
remains from further disturbance. If bones are found, immediately
notify local law enforcement and the Office of the Medical
Investigator pursuant to 18-6-11.2C (Cultural Properties Act NMSA
1978).
In accordance with 18-6-11.2C and/or 36 CFR 800.13(b)
(Protection of Historic Properties), notify the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the State Archaeologist, immediately.
In either case, the Agency and the SHPO, in consultation with an
archaeologist who holds state unmarked human burial excavation and
survey permits, would determine the necessary steps to evaluate
significance, document, protect or remove the material or remains,
in compliance with law. Call the SHPO or State Archaeologist at
(505) 827-6320.
4.2.3 Wildlife
The proposed EP3 would be operated like EP1 and EP2 and would
receive the same water quality. No measures to prevent birds from
landing on EP3 are anticipated. EP3 would be inspected daily by on site
personnel and would include observing wildlife in and around the pond.
Mitigation measures would be implemented if it is determined that
wildlife or migratory bird mortality is occurring. Mitigation measures
would be similar to those suggested by the NMGF in an August 7, 2006,
letter to Klienfelder Inc., (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
A fence would be constructed around evaporation pond 3 in order to
prevent unwanted access. This security fence would also be part of a
fencing system that would be used to deter wildlife from entering the
ponds.
4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based upon site observation and information collected from current
scientific literature, no threatened or endangered species or their
habitat is present within the project area (Bridges and Meyer, 2007;
Bridges, 2007). Therefore, no effects on threatened or endangered
species or their habitat are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required at this time in order to prevent impacts to threatened and
endangered species. However, if threatened or endangered species are
identified within the project area during on-site activities, the NMGF
would be notified immediately to initiate and evaluate mitigation
measures.
4.3 Monitoring
An archaeological monitoring plan has been developed to be used
during EP3 construction (HMC, 2007c). If buried cultural deposits are
encountered at any point during construction activities, work would be
ceased immediately and the New Mexico SHPO would be contacted. During
ground disturbing activities, monitoring for archaeological artifacts
should be completed in the undisturbed portions of Alternative B.
The Discovery Clause requested by the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Office in section 4.2.2 of this EA will be included in the
Archaeological Monitoring Plan.
A groundwater-monitoring program for EP3 at Alternatives B or C
would be implemented. Baseline water quality would be established from
samples collected prior to completion of EP3. Groundwater monitoring
wells are currently located down gradient of the EP3 Alternate C
location and additional monitoring wells would not be required.
Existing groundwater monitoring well DD is located to the west of
the EP3 Alternative B location. A second groundwater well is proposed
by HMC to be located near the middle of the southeast side of
Alternative B EP3 location (HMC, 2007c). The additional well should
adequately monitor the alluvial aquifer down gradient of the EP3
Alternative B location and should provide additional data, along with
the EP3 liner leak detection system, that pond EP3 is functioning as
designed. EP3 would be double lined and contain a leak detection system
that would be monitored on a regular basis.
The collected samples would be analyzed for the parameters listed
in HMC's current groundwater protection standards in their License SUA-
1471, License Condition No. 35. The
[[Page 46053]]
monitoring well(s) would provide the capability to help detect pond
liner failure that could lead to the contamination of local
groundwater.
Additional groundwater monitoring would not be required for
Alternative D, since it is within the current site boundary.
HMC's monitoring and surveillance program for radioactive effluent
releases has been designed to ensure the project compliance with 10 CFR
40, Part 20, U.S. NRC Standards for Protection Against Radiation and
closely approximates programs as described in NRC's Regulatory Guide
4.14, Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium
Mills (NRC, 1980; HMC, 2006). Some effluent monitoring activities
differ from those presented in Regulatory Guide 4.14, as specified and
required by HMC's Radioactive Material License (SUA-1471). An
additional particulate, radon, and gamma radiation air monitoring
station needs to be sited in the primary downwind direction of the
Alternative B location. The licensee would need to evaluate the need
for additional monitoring as required by 10 CFR Part 20 and Regulatory
Guide 4.20 (NRC, 1996).
Land use survey reviews are completed on an annual basis to meet
annual reporting requirements under NRC License SUA-1471. This would
help in assuring that land use activities in the immediate area
surrounding EP3 are regularly reviewed to determine that those uses do
not present a new concern for EP3.
5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted
5.1 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultations
HMC sent pre-consultation letters to the seven Native American
Tribes identified by the State of New Mexico, Department of Cultural
Affairs, Historic Preservation Office on July 6 and July 7, 2006 (HMC,
2006a). Comments received by HMC can be found in the HMC Environmental
Report (HMC, 2007a).
NRC sent consultation letters May 11, 2007, to seven Native
American Indian Tribes and the New Mexico Historic Preservation Office
(NRC, 2007b). The Native American Tribes were identified by the State
of New Mexico, Department of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation
Division website as requiring consultation in Cibola County, New
Mexico.
Reponses by Native American Tribes and Pueblos primarily centered
on the discovery of remains and cultural artifacts and that the State
Historic Preservation Office should be notified and work stopped until
the remains or site can be further assessed. The Hopi Tribe was also
supporting comments made by the Pueblo of Acoma.
5.1.1 Consultations With the Pueblo of Acoma
The Pueblo of Acoma outlined several concerns in a letter to the
NRC dated June 4, 2007 (Pueblo of Acoma, 2007). NRC and the New Mexico
Office of the State Engineer (OSE) held a teleconference with the
Pueblo of Acoma on October 22, 2007, and November 5, 2007 (NRC, 2007d).
In addition, the Pueblo of Acoma submitted comments on the draft EA in
a letter dated April 25, 2008. The Pueblo of Acoma's concerns as
expressed in correspondence and in meetings with the NRC, and the NRC
responses are provided in the EA.
5.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations
HMC and NRC consulted with the NMGF and the USFWS to determine
which, if any, threatened and endangered may be found in Cibola County,
New Mexico. Threatened and endangered species are not known to be
located at the site. Mr. Louis Bridges, a biologist with NMGF, who has
extensive experience in threatened and endangered species in western
states, has verified that threatened and endangered species are not
known at the site. Therefore, a determination of no effects to
threatened and endangered species is reasonable for this proposed
action.
The USFWS has indicated that consultations are not required when a
Federal agency has made a determination of no effects on threatened and
endangered species (Hein, 2007).
5.3 NMED and EPA Review of Draft EA
NRC provided the draft EA to NMED and EPA for review and comment.
Comments from the two agencies were considered in the development of
the final EA.
5.4 Public Meetings and Comments
NRC held public meetings in Milan and Grants, New Mexico, to
discuss the proposed action. The first meeting was on April 24, 2007,
at the HMC site, and the second was held on September 18, 2007, at the
Cibola County Center (NRC, 2007a, 2007c). Citizens and representatives
of the Pueblo of Acoma attended both meetings.
Local residents have been concerned for many years about the
timeliness of overall cleanup at the site and the availability of clean
potable water. These concerns were raised again at both meetings.
Pertaining to EP3, local residents were concerned that the pond may not
be big enough to clean up the site in a timely manner. Also, local
residents were concerned about odors and contaminants that may come
form EP3 and were generally supportive of the location of EP3 to the
north of the site versus adjacent to EP1 and EP2. However, local
residents are skeptical that the proposed size of the evaporation pond
is adequate to address the volume of contaminants at the site
(Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance, 2007).
6.0 Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that site boundary expansion and
construction of EP3, as proposed in the license amendment application
dated October 25, 2006, and January 30, 2007, complies with NRC
regulations and will be protective of health, safety and the
environment. The proposed action will be protective of groundwater
resources, since EP3 will be double lined and monitored for leakage,
and will enhance the groundwater reclamation currently ongoing at the
site. EP3 will be decommissioned after it is no longer needed for
groundwater reclamation purposes and the area will be returned to its
current condition.
The NRC staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed action
to amend License SUA-1471 to allow the construction of EP3 at the
proposed location and allow expansion of the site boundary as outlined
in the license amendment application. On the basis of the EA, NRC has
concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the
license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of
No Significant Impact is appropriate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Buckley, Decommissioning and
Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management
and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and
Environmental Protection Programs. Telephone: 301-415-6607, e-mail:
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of July 2008.
[[Page 46054]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rebecca Tadesse,
Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing
Directorate, Division of Waste Management, and Environmental
Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials, and Environmental
Protection Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-18186 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P