Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water Project

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water

Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of

Decision regarding its programmatic decision for the Uranium Mill

Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water Project. This decision

enables DOE to take action under its UMTRA Ground Water Project, and is

based on the environmental analyses in the Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Uranium Mill Tailings

Remedial Action Ground Water Project (DOE/EIS-0198), which DOE issued

in December 1996. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Navajo Nation,

the Hopi Tribe, the State of Colorado and the State of Texas cooperated

in the preparation of the PEIS.

Under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of

1978 (UMTRCA), DOE is responsible for performing remedial action to

bring 22 designated former uranium mill processing sites into

compliance with applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

standards for milling-related contamination (40 CFR part 192). Under

DOE's UMTRA Surface Project, DOE has completed surface remediation at

20 sites and work is underway at the remaining two sites. These sites

are located in nine States and are on or near four Indian Tribal lands.

The shallow ground water at most of these sites has been contaminated

with uranium, nitrates, and other milling-related contaminants. The

purpose of the UMTRA Ground Water Project is to protect human health

and the environment by meeting EPA's ground water standards, which were

issued January 11, 1995.

DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action for conducting the

Ground Water Project. The Proposed Action, which was identified as

DOE's preferred alternative in the final PEIS, is intended to establish

a consistent risk-based framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground

Water Project and determining appropriate ground water compliance

strategies for complying with EPA ground water standards at the UMTRA

project former processing sites. Under this preferred alternative, DOE

may use active, passive, and no-remediation strategies to comply with

the ground water standards as conditions warrant at specific sites.

Before making site-specific decisions to implement the preferred

alternative for the Ground Water Project, DOE will prepare appropriate

further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. DOE

encourages affected States, tribes, local government agencies and

members of the public to continue to participate in the site-specific

decision making processes for the Ground Water Project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information on the final PEIS

can be obtained by contacting Mr. Donald R. Metzler, Grand Junction

Office, Department of Energy, 2567 B 3/4 Road, Grand Junction, Colorado

81503, telephone 970-248-7612. Information about the Department of

Energy National Environmental Policy Act process can be obtained by

contacting Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and

Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue

SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message

at 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this Record of Decision

pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508)

and DOE's NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This Record of Decision

is based on the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for

the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project (PEIS)

(DOE/EIS-0198, issued December 1996). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the State of Colorado and the

State of Texas participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation

of this PEIS.

A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on

November 18, 1992 (57 FR 54374), announcing that the Department would

prepare a PEIS to examine programmatic alternatives for conducting the

UMTRA Ground Water Project at former uranium processing sites. Dates,

locations, and times for public scoping meetings were announced locally

and published in the Federal Register on February 8, 1993 (58 FR 7551).

Nineteen public scoping meetings in 16 communities were held between

November 18, 1992, and April 15, 1993, to solicit public comment

regarding the scope and content of the PEIS. The UMTRA Ground Water

Project PEIS Implementation Plan (DOE/AL/62350-72D, March 31, 1994)

summarized the comments received during scoping and described how the

comments would be addressed in the PEIS.

A Notice of Availability of the draft PEIS was published in the

Federal Register on May 17, 1995 (60 FR 26417). Nine public hearings

were conducted in communities near tailings sites between June 7 and

28, 1995, to solicit public comment on the draft PEIS. Volume II of the

final PEIS identifies and responds to the 576 comments received during

the public comment period.

Alternatives Considered

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

Under the proposed action, which was identified in the draft PEIS

as DOE's preferred alternative, DOE would use ground water compliance

strategies tailored for each site to achieve conditions that are

protective of human health and the environment and that meet EPA ground

water standards. The proposed action would consider ground water

compliance decisions in a step-by-step approach, beginning with

consideration of a ``no-remediation'' strategy and proceeding, if

necessary, to consideration of passive strategies, such as natural

flushing with compliance monitoring and institutional controls, and

finally to consideration of more complex, active ground water methods,

if needed. For example, under the proposed action, if a site risk

assessment and Site Observational Work Plan

[[Page 22914]]

indicate that the strategy of ``no-remediation'' would be protective of

human health and the environment, a more complex and potentially

environmentally disruptive strategy involving active cleanup methods

would not be necessary.

The proposed action is intended to establish a consistent risk-

based framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project and

determining appropriate ground water compliance strategies for

complying with EPA ground water standards at the UMTRA Project former

processing sites. In determining site-specific ground water compliance

strategies DOE will consider: site-specific ground water conditions;

human and environmental risks; the views of tribes, States and local

communities; and cost. The proposed action as well as all the other

alternatives discussed below except for ``no action,'' are sufficiently

flexible to allow DOE to conduct interim actions, such as providing

alternate water supply systems, should they be necessary in order to

reduce risk and/or support institutional controls. The proposed action

would also allow the consideration of new ground water cleanup methods

as they become available.

No Action Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing

NEPA require assessment of the no action alternative (40 CFR

1502.14(d)), even if the agency is under a legislative mandate to act,

to enable decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental

effects of the action alternatives (51 FR 15618 April 25, 1986). Under

the no action alternative, no further activities would be carried out

to comply with EPA standards at the inactive UMTRA Project former

processing sites.

Active Remediation to Background Levels Alternative

Under this alternative, ground water at the former processing sites

would be restored to background levels or to levels as close to

background as possible using active ground water remediation methods

without regard to existing risk or cost of implementation. The

philosophy behind this alternative is an assumption that ground water

at most of the former uranium processing sites was of better quality

before uranium processing activities occurred and that the ground water

should be restored to its preprocessing quality. If this alternative

were implemented, most of the UMTRA Project sites would require the use

of active ground water remediation methods such as gradient

manipulation, ground water extraction and treatment, or in situ ground

water treatment, regardless of the quality of the unaffected background

ground water. The specific active remediation method at each site would

be determined using the observational approach and evaluation of site-

specific data in the pertinent Site Observational Work Plans.

Passive Remediation Alternative

Under this alternative, only passive remediation strategies would

be used to meet the EPA ground water standards.1 The passive

remediation strategies are: (1) Performing no remediation at sites that

qualify for supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits as

defined below or sites where contaminant concentrations are below

maximum concentration limits or background levels, or (2) relying on

natural flushing. Natural flushing means allowing the natural ground

water movement and geochemical processes to decrease contaminant

concentrations. This alternative differs from the no action alternative

in that it includes site characterization, monitoring, and risk

assessment activities.

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

1 EPA's ground water protection standards provide three

alternative approaches to determining site-specific cleanup

requirements. Concentrations of certain contaminants that are within

``maximum concentration limits'' or at background levels are

acceptable without further consideration. Alternatively, DOE may

apply ``alternate concentration limits'' that will not pose a

substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the

environment under site-specific circumstances. Finally, when certain

criteria are met (e.g., ground water restoration is technically

impracticable), DOE may develop and apply ``supplemental standards''

in lieu of the otherwise applicable standards.

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

Under the first strategy of this alternative, the DOE would apply

supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits if maximum

concentration limits and/or background concentrations were exceeded. If

supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits are to be

applied at any site, concurrence by the NRC would be required.

Under the second strategy of this alternative, natural flushing

would be used to achieve background levels or maximum concentration

limits if supplemental standards and alternate concentration limits are

not applied. Concurrence by the NRC would be required. According to the

EPA standards, natural flushing can be used if it is shown to be

protective of human health and the environment, if it will meet the EPA

standards within 100 years, and if it complies with other provisions

that EPA established for its use. However, natural flushing may not

always meet the EPA standards in 100 years, and may not be protective

of human health and the environment at all sites. Therefore, if the

passive remediation alternative were selected, DOE may not comply with

the EPA standards at some sites.

The specific passive ground water compliance strategy selected for

each site would be determined using the observational approach and

evaluation of data gathered and included in the pertinent Site

Observational Work Plan. Active ground water remediation methods would

not be used under this alternative, even if the EPA standards cannot be

met by passive methods.

Existing Conditions

The designated UMTRA Project processing sites were active for

varying lengths of time from the 1940s into the 1970s. These sites, the

surrounding areas, and the underlying ground water constitute the

affected environment for this PEIS. Minority or low income groups near

UMTRA sites that have the potential for disproportionately high and

adverse effects include those near the Tuba City and Monument Valley,

Arizona; Shiprock, New Mexico; Mexican Hat, Utah; and Riverton,

Wyoming, sites. Land contaminated by uranium mill tailings and other

contaminants associated with UMTRA Title I former processing sites

ranged from a low of 21 acres (ac) (8 hectares (ha)) at the Spook,

Wyoming, site to a maximum of 612 ac (248 ha) at the Ambrosia Lake, New

Mexico, site. The amount of contaminated materials ranged from 85,000

cubic yards (yd3) (65,000 cubic meters (m3)) at the North

Continent Slick Rock, Colorado, site to 5,764,000 yd3 (4,407,000

m3) at the Falls City, Texas, site. The total amount of

contaminated material at the sites is 39,000,000 yd3 (30,000,000

m3). As a result of uranium processing, contaminants have entered

the shallow ground water at most of the UMTRA Project sites. Some of

the more common contaminants at UMTRA sites that exceed maximum

concentration limits under EPA's standards include but are not limited

to molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, and uranium.

DOE currently estimates that approximately 10 billion gallons (gal)

(39 million m3) of ground water are contaminated. One site

(Lowman, Idaho) shows no sign of contamination related to processing

activities. The site with the largest amount of contamination,

Gunnison, Colorado, has an estimated 1.9 billion gal (7.0 million

m3) of contaminated ground water.

[[Page 22915]]

Surface remediation of the designated sites has been in progress

since the mid-1980s; surface remediation is complete at 20 sites and

under way at the remaining two sites. Two additional sites, in Belfield

and Bowman, North Dakota, were included in the PEIS analysis but at the

request of the State are not scheduled for surface remediation. These

two sites therefore will not be included in the DOE Ground Water

Program. Affected States are required by UMTRCA to share 10 percent of

remedial action costs.

Impacts Analysis

The PEIS provides a qualitative analysis of potential impacts of

the alternative ground water compliance strategies and compares the

relative potential impacts of the alternatives. More detailed site-

specific quantitative impact assessments will be provided in the NEPA

documents that tier off the PEIS. Tiering is process in which broad

environmental issues are analyzed in an initial NEPA document (the PEIS

in this case) to facilitate subsequent NEPA reviews of narrower scope

(site-specific reviews in this case).

To give more weight to impacts that may have more significant

consequences (for example, human health), long-term and short-term

impacts are compared separately in the PEIS. Long-term impacts are

those that would occur from leaving contaminated ground water in place

or from implementing institutional controls for an extended period of

time. Short-term impacts would usually occur only during remediation

activities. In general, short-term impacts would be less significant

than long-term impacts, because most (for example, habitat destruction,

noise, and dust emissions) would be relatively minor and temporary and

could be mitigated. While these impacts are of concern, there is

greater concern regarding potential long-term health and environmental

effects.

Potential long-term impacts could arise under the following

circumstances:

If the contaminated ground water did not comply with EPA

standards and its use were not sufficiently controlled. This could

occur under the no action alternative and the passive remediation

alternative.

If the ground water compliance strategy were not

protective of human health and the environment at all sites. This could

occur under the no action alternative and passive remediation

alternative.

If institutional controls were implemented and were needed

for longer than they should reasonably be relied upon (i.e., in excess

of 100 years under the EPA standard). This could occur under all the

alternatives except the no action alternative, but is unlikely to occur

under the proposed action and active remediation alternatives.

If the no action alternative were selected, significant adverse

impacts to human health and the environment could result. Under this

alternative, the public could be exposed to hazardous contaminants by

drinking contaminated ground water. Further, minority and/or low-income

communities would be disproportionately impacted under the no action

alternative because such communities comprise the majority of the

population near several UMTRA Project sites. Adverse impacts to the

environment could potentially occur if contamination enters the food

chain (such as through livestock or produce) or affects sensitive

habitats (such as wetlands) or threatened or endangered species. These

potentially significant adverse impacts are not expected to occur under

the proposed action or the active remediation to background levels

alternative because these alternatives are intended to comply with EPA

standards at all UMTRA Project sites in a reasonable timeframe. In

addition, when required, surface and ground water monitoring would take

place before, during, and after implementation of the proposed action

and the active remediation to background levels alternative to ensure

the public is not exposed to existing or potential surface and ground

water contamination.

Implementation of the passive remediation alternative also could

result in potential exposure of humans and the environment to hazardous

contaminants because institutional controls may not always effectively

restrict access to contaminated ground water. Under the passive

remediation alternative, no active remediation of contaminated ground

water would occur even if such a hazard were identified. In contrast,

under both the proposed action and active remediation to background

levels alternatives, DOE would use hydrogeologic data and risk

assessments to identify the need for implementing active remediation

strategies to mitigate risks.

While no active remediation would occur under this alternative, the

passive remediation alternative could result in institutional controls

for more than 100 years and could result in potentially significant

long-term land use and social and economic impacts associated with

access restrictions at contaminated sites. In contrast, the proposed

action and the active remediation to background levels alternatives

would implement strategies intended to achieve ground water compliance

within 100 years.

In summary, the proposed action and active remediation to

background levels alternatives are most effective in protecting human

health and the environment from the contaminated ground water at the

UMTRA Project sites. Short-term adverse environmental impacts

associated with construction and operation of ground water remediation

systems (e.g., habitat destruction, noise and dust emissions) would

occur under both of these alternatives; such impacts would likely be

greater under the active remediation alternative because remediation

systems would be employed at every site. For all the reasons stated

above, DOE regards both of these alternatives as environmentally

preferable to the no action and passive remediation alternatives. The

proposed action likely would be more cost effective than the active

remediation alternative because it relies on less costly passive ground

water compliance strategies at sites where these strategies can be

shown to be protective of human health and the environment. The active

remediation alternative would be the most costly option. Both it and

the preferred alternative would result in compliance with the EPA

ground water standards, but the active remediation alternative, with

its reliance on active ground water remediation, would provide no

substantial additional benefits to human health and the environment.

Further, active remediation technologies may not always achieve

background concentrations of contaminants within 100 years at former

uranium processing sites.

Decision

The Department has decided to implement the proposed action, which

was identified as the Department's preferred alternative in the draft

PEIS. This approach provides a health and environmental risk-based

framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project and for

determining appropriate ground water compliance strategies at the UMTRA

Project former processing sites.

The Department will use a logic framework established by the

proposed action to identify the appropriate specific ground water

compliance strategy or strategies for a site to ensure compliance with

EPA standards and the protection of public health and the environment.

The first step in the decision process will be to determine whether

the uranium processing activities at a specific site have resulted in

ground

[[Page 22916]]

water contamination exceeding background levels or maximum

concentration limits. If ground water contamination has not exceeded

these standards and is not expected to do so in the future, remediation

will not be required.

Pursuant to the EPA standards, if ground water has been

contaminated by uranium processing activities and the contamination

exceeds background levels or maximum concentration limits, the next

step will be to determine whether compliance with EPA ground water

standards could be achieved by applying supplemental standards under 40

CFR 192.21(g), based on a determination that the ground water met EPA's

definition of ``limited use ground water.'' ``Limited use ground

water'' means ground water that is not a current or potential source of

drinking water because of: high concentration of dissolved solids;

ambient contamination unrelated to milling operations that cannot

reasonably be cleaned up; or poor aquifer yield (40 CFR 192.11(e)). If

limited use ground water is shown to exist and if supplemental

standards are protective of human health and the environment, no site-

specific remediation will be required. If supplemental standards based

on limited use ground water is not applicable, the next step will be to

determine whether alternate concentration limits apply.

If alternate concentration limits are protective of human health

and the environment, alternate concentration limits will be applied. If

not, it will be necessary to determine whether the contaminated ground

water plume(s) will qualify for supplemental standards which, under 40

CFR 192.21(b) of the EPA ground water standards, may be appropriate if

remediation will cause more environmental harm than benefit. At some

sites where supplemental standards or alternate concentration limits

may be applied, ground water monitoring and institutional controls may

be necessary to ensure that the application of alternate concentration

limits or supplemental standards will continue to be protective of

human health and the environment. In addition, when limited-use ground

water is present, supplemental standards must ensure that current and

reasonably projected uses of the affected ground water are preserved.

If supplemental standards will not be protective, the next step

will be to determine whether natural flushing (attenuation) will bring

the contaminated ground water into compliance (i.e., within maximum

concentration limits, background levels, or alternate concentration

limits) within 100 years. Natural flushing could be used if DOE

determines and NRC concurs that institutional controls could be

implemented, maintained, and enforced during the natural flushing

period; that this strategy is protective of human health and the

environment; and that all other EPA provisions are met.

If natural flushing will not be protective, it will be necessary to

determine whether natural flushing combined with active remediation

methods will meet the EPA ground water standards and will be protective

of human health and the environment. If so, a two-part strategy will be

implemented. Active remediation methods will first be used for a short

time to remove the most contaminated ground water in a discrete area,

and then natural flushing will occur. When appropriate, DOE would use

active methods that have low operational and maintenance requirements,

such as gradient manipulation or geochemical barriers, in conjunction

with natural flushing.

Site characterization data may show that natural flushing combined

with active remediation will not result in ground water quality that is

protective of human health and the environment. If that is the case,

the next step in the framework will be to determine whether active

ground water remediation techniques will meet the EPA ground water

standards, and if so, to implement these techniques. Several methods of

active ground water remediation could be used, including gradient

manipulation, ground water extraction, and in situ ground water

treatment. The active remediation methods could be used individually or

in combination with other cleanup methods. If active remediation

results in compliance with the EPA standards, remedial action will be

complete. If these methods do not result in compliance, supplemental

standards based on technical impracticability of remediation will be

applied, along with institutional controls where necessary.

Site-specific NEPA documentation will be prepared to evaluate the

impact(s) from alternative strategies for implementing the programmatic

decision described above. In accordance with DOE policy, DOE will

solicit input from the public, local organizations, and educational

institutions on issues that should be identified, considered, and

analyzed, and will conduct public meetings for that purpose in the

affected communities. Furthermore, DOE will adopt all practicable means

to avoid or minimize environmental harm during site-specific

activities.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 1997.

Alvin L. Alm,

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.

[FR Doc. 97-10860 Filed 4-25-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P