NEW MEXICO
H ALTH

Grants Mineral Belt


Fact Sheet

New Mexico

January 2010
This Fact Sheet will tell you about:
Background information
Current activities
Meeting questions and answers
What happens next?
Where to get more information
Background information
The Grants Mineral Belt in New Mexico extends along the
southern margin of the San Juan Basin within Cibola,
McKinley, Sandoval, and Bernalillo counties as well as on
Tribal lands. The Grants Mineral Belt was the primary
area for uranium extraction and production activities in
New Mexico from the 1950's until late in the 20th century.
Historical uranium mining impacts within the Shiprock
Mining District and part of the Ambrosia Lake sub-district
of the Grants Mining District are under the jurisdiction of
the Navajo Nation and are being addressed by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9. The
remainder of the Ambrosia Lake sub-district, as well as the
Laguna, and Marquez sub districts contain legacy uranium
sites that are under the jurisdiction of EPA Region 6 and
the State of New Mexico.
Current activities
On October 20, 2009, EPA Region 6 sponsored a
community meeting in Grants, New Mexico to kick off
public participation to assist EPA, the New Mexico
Environment Department (NMED), and their Tribal,
federal, state and local partners in planning for interagency
activities to address the environmental legacy from
uranium mining and milling. This interaction was the first
in a series of planned collaborative activities wherein the
communities can provide input to long-range planning
activities for the Grants Mineral Belt Five-Year Plan,
which sets forth the goals, objectives, and tasks to assess
health risks and environmental impacts that may have
resulted from legacy uranium mining and milling
extraction, processing, and waste disposal. NMED, EPA,
Tribal and other partners will interface with the
community as we move forward with this wide-ranging
effort.
Meeting questions and answers
A number of questions asked by the meeting participants
were related to the Homestake Mining Company (uranium
mill) Superfund Site. Although the Homestake Site is
within the San Mateo Creek Basin, those questions have
been referred to the Homestake Mining Company Site
Remedial Project Manager to address in a separate
document.
Below are responses to questions from the October 2009
community meeting related to the Grants Mineral Belt 5
Year Plan initiative:
1.	What structures in the area will be evaluated?
In coordination with the affected communities and
residents, EPA will assess structures on land likely to be
contaminated with radiation from uranium waste rock
and/or debris. Based on data gathered from aerial over
flights, this effort will focus on the areas of San Mateo,
Poison Canyon, Spanish Land Grant and Laguna Pueblo.
Impacted structures could include homes, barns, sheds,
fences and free standing shelters that may have been built
with uranium waste or waste rock from uranium mining or
milling sites, which could pose a health risk to current or
future occupants.
2.	Why is the partnership addressing small, dry mines
first?
Site assessments of mines within Poison Canyon were
conducted to understand whether these mines may
contribute to ground water contamination observed up-

-------
gradient of the nearby Homestake Mining Company
Superfund Site. In 2009, NMED completed site screenings
at 27 mines that were the closest up-gradient mines to the
Homestake Mining Company Superfund Site. This work
was conducted as follow-up to the 2008 Preliminary
Assessment conducted by NMED that evaluated 85 legacy
uranium sites in the San Mateo Creek Basin. Additionally,
NMED also has conducted a Preliminary Reassessment
and Site Investigation of the Anaconda Company
Bluewater uranium mill site, which is also up gradient of
the Homestake Mining Company Superfund Site. NMED
has requested that the U.S. Department of Energy evaluate
the source of elevated contaminant concentrations in the
Alluvial and San Andres aquifers possibly attributable to
this site.
3.	Will there be an aquifer study throughout the
Grants Mineral Belt?
The EPA, working with NMED and other partners, began
a sampling effort in 2009 to determine impacts to private
wells in the San Mateo Basin. Results from this sampling
will be shared and discussed with NMED, residents, and
public health officials to determine appropriate future
actions. Additional work may be conducted to fill in any
data gaps that may be identified.
4.	a. What work has been done by the Department of
Health to evaluate human exposure to uranium
contamination?
b. What were the concentrations of uranium found
by the Department of Health that caused concern?
a.) The New Mexico Department of Health's
Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau has been
actively involved in investigating New Mexicans' exposure
to uranium. Here are some examples:
From 2002-2008, New Mexico was a member of the 6-
state Rocky Mountain Biomonitoring Consortium, which
was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to address environmental health problems in
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming. These states share common environmental
characteristics and have extensive histories of mining,
especially for uranium and federal military operations.
The goal in part was to assess the extent of human
exposure to environmental contaminants through testing of
drinking water and urine. For New Mexico, the primary
focus was arsenic, which was known to occur naturally at
elevated levels along the Rio Grande Rift Valley. The
study invited volunteers to have their drinking water and
urine tested for a variety of metals and other chemicals.
Because this biomonotoring project was based on
volunteers, there was not representation from every
potentially impacted county. It is also important to note
that areas with naturally higher ground water arsenic
levels were preferentially selected for this biomonotoring
project. However, regions with the highest uranium
deposits, such as McKinley or Cibola counties were not
included because they were not identified as having high
levels of arsenic.
In New Mexico, approximately 850 volunteer participants
had their drinking water and urine tested for a number of
chemicals, including uranium. With respect to uranium,
the 90th percentile exposure among New Mexicans was
higher than the 90th percentile for the nation, according to
the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
2001-2002).
From October 2007 to June 2008, urine and water
samples were collected as part of New Mexico state
general fund-supported efforts to assess veterans'
exposure to uranium, and more specifically, depleted
uranium. Specific information and monitoring results are
available at
http: //nmhealth .org/eheb/documents/Bio/DUSummary 6.9.
09.pdf.
b.) Through working with the Rocky Mountain
Biomonitoring Consortium, the New Mexico Department
of Health staff learned that levels of uranium in some New
Mexicans' drinking water supplies and urine exceeded
average levels in a national study that is representative of
the US population. All New Mexico participants whose
uranium drinking water concentrations exceeded the EPA
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 30 micrograms per
liter were contacted and advised to utilize reverse osmosis
filtration or to drink bottled water in order to avoid this
exposure.
In addition, the New Mexico Department of Health also
conducted an evaluation of veterans' exposure to depleted
uranium. A summary of the depleted uranium project is
available at
http: //nmhealth .org/eheb/documents/Bio/DUSummary 6.9.
09.pdf
All results of the biomonitoring project's participants are
being analyzed to evaluate exposure to uranium and other
metals. A final summary report from this study will be
available by the end of December 2009. No results from
individual participants will be identified.
5. Are comprehensive health studies planned for the
Grants Mineral Belt?
At this time, the New Mexico Department of Health has no
funds to conduct comprehensive health studies. However,
2

-------
iffunds become available the Department of Health will
conduct water and/or urine sampling and analysis for
uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt region. Specifically,
Department of Health would identify areas in New Mexico
with elevated levels of naturally occurring uranium due to
uranium mineralization and then prioritize areas for
testing. Individuals in these areas would be invited to
have their drinking water and urine sampled for total
uranium levels. They would collaborate with other
agencies on these efforts to ensure that they are not
duplicating efforts.
It has been reported that by the end of the year, Indian
Health Service will begin medical monitoring clinics
across the Navajo Nation to screen individuals for non-
job-related exposure to uranium. Dr. Douglas Peter,
chief medical officer and deputy director for the Navajo
Area Indian Health Service, said Indian Health Service
was charged with conducting the study as part of a five-
year plan to address uranium contamination on the Navajo
Nation.
6. Can the key contacts' information for EPA,
NMED, Mining & Minerals Division, Department
of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Health
Dept, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior and their
web site link(s) be made available to the
community?
Samuel Coleman, Director
Superfund (6SF)
US EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Marcy Leavitt, Director
New Mexico Environmental Department
Water and Waste Management Division
1190 St. Francis Drive
P.O. Box 5469
Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469
Bill Brancard, Director
New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources
Department
Mining and Minerals Division
1220 South St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Heidi Krapfl, Chief
Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau
Epidemiology and Response Division
New Mexico Department of Health
1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N1304
Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469
http://nmhealth.org/eheb/index.shtml
Ray Plieness, Director
US Department of Energy
Office of Site Operations (OSO)
Office of Legacy Mgmt (LM-20)
2597 B 3/4 Road
Grand Junction, CO 81503
Keith McConnell, Deputy Director
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Division of Waste Management and Environmental
Protection
Mailstop T8F5
Washington, DC 20555
Dr. C. Mark Sewell
New Mexico Department of Health
Epidemiology and Response Division
1190 S. St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87502
George Pettigrew
US EPA (6SF-L)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Stephen Spencer
Regional Environmental Officer
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
1001 Indian School Road, NW, Suite 348
Albuquerque, NM 87104
7. Why wasn't the Bluewater Valley Downstream
Alliance informed about the aerial radiological
survey before the October 20, meeting?
The aerial over-flight of populated areas that may have
structures impacted by legacy uranium site wastes was
conducted by the EPA National Decontamination Team
(NDT) who operates and maintains the fixed-wing aircraft
and the instruments utilized to collect data. As the
operator of the aircraft, the EPA NDT and their contract
pilots have an established protocol with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding notification of
low-level flights in public airspace. All notifications
procedures established under the EPA NDT protocol were
met prior to the commencement of the aerial over-flights.
In addition, the survey was specifically for populated
areas that have structures built from mine wastes. If any
future overflights are planned, EPA will ensure that the
3

-------
affected population, including the Bluewater Valley
Downstream Alliance, are alerted to the activity.
8.	Did the aerial radiological survey extend to San
Mateo Creek?
The aerial radiological survey did not extend to the
geographical area directly north of the Homestake Mining
Company Superfund Site. The survey was specifically
conducted over populated areas that may have structures
built from mine and/or mill waste.
9.	Can part of the Five-Year Plan include evaluations
for radon and plant uptakes?
Radon evaluation and plant uptake studies may be
considered for future sampling events. Plant uptake
studies are more commonly considered during the
extensive site characterization studies associated with
human health or ecological risk assessments and may not
be included in the preliminary site evaluation stages.
10.	Why were residents of the Grants Mineral Belt
excluded from the uranium exposure study
conducted by the Department of Health?
Please see response to question number 4.
11.	Can EPA/partners locate funding for new health
studies, i.e. bio-monitoring?
EPA will continue to work with the state and federal health
agencies to identify future studies and potential funding
sources.
12.	Did industry funding for (the New Mexico Energy,
Minerals, and Natural Resources Department)
Mining and Minerals Division studies cause any
"heartburn" for the Agency? Could industry
participation be a conflict of interest?
Since the Mining and Minerals Division (MMD) directed
the contract, we did not have concerns about the industry
funding. MMD drafted the scope of the contract, approved
the contractor and oversaw the fieldwork and report
preparation.
13.	Will the Five-Year Plan going to consider the
potential impacts of new mining on legacy sites?
The response to this question involves agencies 'policy
decisions. We will provide an update on this issue in the
future.
14.	Can the Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance
receive copies of the presentation shown at the
October meeting?
Copies of the PowerPoint® presentation, along with a list
of meeting participants were provided electronically to all
requestors several days after the October meeting.
15.	Why didn't EPA provide the community enough
advance notice about the October meeting?
EPA mailed the meeting invitations on October 6, 2009,
providing the community approximately a two-week
notice. Meeting invitations notification were also placed
in four local newspapers several weeks before the meeting.
Over a number of years working with diverse communities,
we have found that notices sent too far in advance of
community meetings (more than several weeks) tend not to
work as well as notifications providing an approximate
two-weeks notice. We also provided a number of e-mail
notifications to different agencies' electronic mailing lists.
In the future, we will endeavor to provide the Grants
Mineral Belt community meeting notices in advance of the
normal two-weeks.
16.	Why doesn't EPA communicate their expectations
better? The October meeting invitation did not
mention the Five-Year Plan, but participants were
asked to provide input?
We believed that the language in the invitation, "We are
asking community members to assist us in gathering
information and providing input on planning activities
related to the coordinated efforts to assess and address
environmental impacts resulting from legacy mining and
milling activities. EPA, NMED and their partners are
seeking community input as we move forward in this
comprehensive effort." did adequately inform the
community of how we hoped they would participate in the
meeting. EPA will increase and enhance our efforts to
clarify community expectations in all future
communications.
17.	Is EPA complying with "Executive Order 12898,
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations?"
EPA is complying with the Order. In April, June and
August of2009, EPA began communications and meetings
related to the New Mexico legacy uranium issues with the
Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment (MACE),
the Southwest Network for Economic and Environmental
Justice (SNEEJ), the Indigenous Environmental Network,
the Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance and other
4

-------
organizations concerned with issues of environmental
justice. The October 2009 meeting was the first in a series
of large community meetings to open up the collaboration
process to the wider community.
18.	What is Superfund?
Superfund is the Federal Government's program to clean
up the Nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The
EPA Superfund cleanup process begins with site discovery
or notification to the EPA of possible releases of
hazardous substances. Sites are discovered by various
parties, including citizens, State agencies and by Region 6
staff. Once discovered, we enter the site into our
computerized inventory of potential hazardous substance
release sites which is named the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). We then evaluate the
potential for a release of hazardous substances from the
site through multiple iterative steps in the Superfund
process.
19.	Why aren't the Bluewater Valley Downstream
Alliance, the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe
Environment and the Haaku Water Office part of
the partnership?
The initial focus of the Grants Mineral Belt Partnership
was to share information with State, Federal and Tribal
agencies who have currently, or had historically,
conducted work in the area to share information and
resources. EPA hosted a meeting last spring with over 60
representatives from 19 federal, state, and Tribal
organizations to better understand how each organization
is involved. It was decided that a multi-agency plan or a
'Five Year Plan " could serve as a planning tool for each
of the organizations to align their work and to achieve
greater benefits.
In addition to its own funding mechanisms, each of the
organizations has its own mission and rules to identify and
plan future work. Community groups provide a valuable
resource to each organization's planning process. EPA
and NMED consider Bluewater Valley Downstream
Alliance, the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe
Environment and Tribes as valuable partners and will
work directly with them to ensure that community input is
reflected in the planning and implementation of the Five-
Year Plan.
What happens next?
In the next several months, federal, state, Tribal and local
partners will participate in a series of meetings to discuss
activities, planning and future directions for the Grants
Mineral Belt Five-Year Plan. NMED, EPA and our other
partners plan to present the first draft of the Five-Year Plan
at a public meeting in spring 2010.
In follow-up to an aerial radiological survey that EPA
completed in October 2009, the EPA will be conducting
residential structural assessments in Cibola and McKinley
Counties, New Mexico over the next several months. The
aerial survey covered approximately 300 square miles
which included the towns of Toltec, Bluewater, Milan,
Grants, San Rafael, San Mateo, Bibo, Seboyeta, Moquino,
the villages within the Laguna Pueblo and the Lobo
Canyon sub-divisions. The areas of interest for further
structural assessments are San Mateo, Bibo, Seboyeta, and
Moquino. Other tribal villages may be addressed
depending on requests from the tribes.
The structural assessments will assist EPA in determining
the impact of former uranium mining and milling on
residential properties. EPA will be requesting additional
information and/or property access from homeowners in
areas of elevated radiological activity as defined by the
aerial assessment. EPA will begin contacting the
potentially- effected residents for additional information
and/or property access in December 2009.
Where to get more information
All media contact should be made to the Region 6 Office
of External Affairs at 214.665.2200.
John Meyer
Chief, Risk and Site Assessment Team Leader
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-TR)
214.665.6742
mever. i ohn@epa. gov
LaDonna Turner
New Mexico Site Assessment Manager
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-TR)
214.665.6666
turner.ladonna@epa.gov
Beverly Negri
Community Involvement Team Leader
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-VO)
214.665.8197
ne gri .be verlv@,epa. gov
Stephen Harper
Community Involvement Coordinator (SEE)
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-VO)
214.665.2727
harper. stephen@,epa. gov
5

-------
Jon Rinehart
On-Scene Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-PR)
214.665.6789
rinehart.ion@epa.gov
Patrick Young, MS, RS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
U.S. Public Health Service
EPA/ATSDR (6SF-L)
ATSDR Regional Rep., Region 6
214.665.8562
young ,patrick@,epa. gov
All of the above EPA staff can also be reached on
1.800.533.3508 (toll-free).
David L. Mayerson
New Mexico Environment Department
Ground Water Quality Bureau
Superfund Oversight Section
1190 St. Francis Dr, Suite N2312
Santa Fe,NM 87502-5469
505.476.3777
david.maverson@state.nm.us
Jerry Schoeppner, P.G.
New Mexico Environment Department
Ground Water Quality Bureau
Mining Environmental Compliance Section
P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-5469
505.827.0652
i errv. schoeppner@state ,nm .us
Heidi Krapfl, Chief
Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau
Epidemiology and Response Division
New Mexico Department of Health
1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N1304
Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469
505.476.3577
Heidi.Krapfl@,state .nm.us
Site Repository
New Mexico State University at Grants
Campus Library
1500 Third Street
Grants, NM 87020
505.287.6639
On the web:
http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6sf/newmexico/
g ran ts/n m _g ran t si ndex.html
6

-------