» A V. /mm	s	NEW MEXICO

I rSh 1 [	fOi .•¦ m ArsnQ	£k

W^J Wm

Xto,	U Willii Iff	-CH3, •-

Grants Mining District Draft Five-Year Plan

New Mexico	August 2010

This fact sheet will tell you about:

Background information
Current activities
Questions/comments and answers
What happens next?
• For more information

Background information

The Grants Mineral Belt (Belt) was the primary focus
of uranium extraction and production activities in
New Mexico from the 1950's until late in the 20th
century. The Belt extends along the southern margin
of the San Juan Basin in Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval,
and Bernalillo Counties as well as on Tribal lands,
and includes the Shiprock and the Grants Mining Dis-
trict.

Containment associated with historical uranium min-
ing activities in the Shiprock District (and part of the
Ambrosia Lake subdivision) are under the jurisdiction
of the Navajo Nation and is being addressed by Envi-
ronment Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9. The
three mining subdivisions located within the Grants
Mining District - Ambrosia Lake, Laguna, and Mar-
quez - contain former mines that are under the juris-
diction of New Mexico Environment Department
(NMED) and EPA Region 6.

Current activities

Community meetings were held in Grants, New Mex-
ico in October 2009 and April 27, 2010. At the meet-
ings, the community members were asked to assist the
federal, state and local partners in gathering informa-
tion and providing input for the Uranium 5-Year Plan
planning activities. The 5-Year Plan sets out the
goals, objectives, and tasks proposed to be undertaken
by multiple agencies to assess and address health
risks and environmental impacts resulting from the

extraction, processing, disposal, and releases from
legacy uranium mining and milling activities. The
NMED, EPA, and their partners are seeking commu-
nity input as we move forward with this comprehen-
sive effort.

Questions/comments and answers

The following questions and/or comments were gen-
erated from community input at the October 2009 and
April 2010 community meetings, and from a number
of other organizations involved with the uranium min-
ing and milling study investigation in New Mexico.

1. How is the 5-year plan going to speed up
the clean-up of the water and eliminate the related
health hazards?

The state and federal agencies understand that it's
been a long time that the community here has been
dealing with these issues. An objective of the 5-Year
Plan is to ensure the resources available to the appro-
priate government agencies are maximized efficiently
and effectively. Information sharing and coordination
of activities amongst the agencies is intended to mi-
nimize duplication and direct resources to the tasks as
prioritized for the group. Government agencies rec-
ognize that the issues associated with legacy uranium
mining and milling are high priorities for maintaining
public safety. The agencies intend on pooling re-
sources and setting priorities, starting initially with
addressing the immediate health threats to people, and
working through each of the objectives identified in
the plan. This coordinated and focused effort should
result in addressing cleanup and reducing or eliminat-
ing health hazards in the area more quickly.

1

-------
2.	Who is going to come up with the funding
to implement some of these procedures under the
5-year plan?

Although monies (state and federal) have not been
specifically allocated for the implementation of the
plan, the agencies are committed to working together
in order to make meaningful progress. Each agency is
working under their current program funding to ad-
dress their respective work under the 5-Year Plan.

3.	The scope of the 5-year plan is very narrow
and may leave current proposals meant to address
water and cultural resources unaddressed.

The agencies acknowledge that there is a lot of work
not accounted for in this 5-Year Plan. The reason for
that is that the agencies cannot commit to do some-
thing that they don't have funding to do. However, as
part of public outreach, we have asked the public to
identify areas that are not addressed by the plan.

4.	The aerial surveys are not comprehensive.
Jackpile and Homestake are outside of the areas
surveyed.

The aerial surveys were a screening tool to identify
unknown "hot spots" and affected structures. Infor-
mation about the nature of Homestake and Jackpile
areas is already known.

5.	The agencies are not making the time to
build public communication program and a fact-
finding program that invests in the people in these
communities.

The public has been provided copies of all Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), EPA, and NMED
documents. Multiple meetings have been held, and
will continue in the future to ensure public is
represented and involved at all stages. The agencies
are committed to building a relationship with the
community and specific tasks are being added to the
5-Year Plan to emphasis the importance of communi-
ty involvement.

6.	Whose water is it, how much do they get,
what's in the water and where it's from? Unless
we know this information, you're not looking at
the issues that affect the communities and the local
government and other sectors.

By New Mexico Statute "All natural waters flowing

in streams and watercourses, whether such be peren-
nial, or torrential, within the limits of the state of New
Mexico, belong to the public and are subject to ap-
propriation for beneficial use." The amount of water
is determined either by permit from the State Engi-
neer or by declaration of ownership and continuous
use of water for a specific purpose of use, place of
use, etc.

7.	Could Department of Energy (DOE) de-
scribe the covers/caps on the piles?

The existing disposal cells in the Grants area (Blu-
ewater, Ambrosia Lake, and L-Bar) have covers com-
prised of natural materials. A typical cover is
comprised of a clay radon barrier, frost barrier com-
prised of different soils, bedding layer of gravel, and
rock rip rap on top and side slopes. Storm water di-
version channels are placed around the cell to handle
the largest probable maximum storm event. Caps are
designed to control radon emissions, minimize infil-
tration, and resist erosion. Fact sheets on each site's
design are available on the Legacy Management web-
site at http://www.lm.doe.gov/. The Office of Legacy
Management is responsible to maintain the cell to be
protective of human health and the environment, in
accordance with regulations. Details of DOE long
term surveillance and maintenance activities can also
be found on the Legacy Management website.

8.	How quickly does uranium pass through a
person's body? Does it stay there and cling to some
parts of the body?

The deposition of uranium in the body is a compli-
cated process. Computer models and human data are
used to estimate the amount of time a radioactive ma-
terial will stay in the body. In the case of uranium, the
models suggest that depending on the chemical form
of the uranium, newborn infants absorb about 4% of
the uranium ingested; whereas, 1 year olds, teens, and
adults absorb about 2% of the ingested amounts.
About 40% of the ingested uranium is excreted via
the feces within ten days of its ingestion. However,
the remaining 60% is stored in the body, mostly in the
skeletal system. This stored uranium is very slowly
released back to the bloodstream and is eliminated.

9.	Does NMED plan to sample any wells in the
Murray Acres and Broadview area? What wells
are being sampled north of Homestake?

The NMED performed a comprehensive sampling of

2

-------
operational private wells south of Homestake, which
includes Murray Acres and Broadview Acres. Subse-
quently, NMED sampled additional wells near Blu-
ewater and into the middle of the San Mateo Creek
basin, which are both north of Homestake. NMED
will continue to identify and sample additional wells
within the San Mateo Creek Basin.

10.	Is the NRC evaluation of the effectiveness
of the Homestake site going to be included in the
working documents to the plan and provided to
the public?

All NRC documents associated with the Homestake
site are currently available to the public through the
Agency wide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html. In addition, the Bluewater Valley
Downstream Alliance (BVDA), Multicultural Al-
liance for a Safe Environment (MASE), and the Pueb-
lo of Acoma are on the distribution list for all NRC
documents. Any progress at the Homestake site will
be reflected in updates to the 5-Year Plan.

11.	The plan is filled with loopholes that allow
the industry to slip by without really cleaning up,
i.e. alternate standards, vague background levels,
vaguely described monitoring systems and then
long term management and oversight by DOE,
and the NRC, agencies which have been a part of
the same nuclear industry culture.

Congress passed Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act to provide for the disposal, long-term
stabilization, and control of uranium mill tailings in a
safe and environmentally sound manner. EPA set the
standards for the design of the systems to control the
tailings for 1000 years, and if not reasonably achieva-
ble, for at least 200 years. Establishment of these
standards included involvement of the public. DOE
consulted with affected states and tribes to develop
the Remedial Action Plans for each site. The NRC
reviewed each Remedial Action Plan and concurred
that they complied with EPA standards. Each site also
had NEPA documentation prepared, typically in the
form of an Environmental Assessment that involved
public comment. DOE currently manages the sites
under a NRC license and Long-Term Surveillance
Plan, which is required by federal regulations.

12.	Please make sure our community members
are involved in every step of the process in the cre-

ation, planning, and implementation of the NM 5
year plan. In particular, local individuals should
be included in assessing legacy problems as well as
helping to evaluate the success of the remediation
of the Homestake Superfund Site.

The agencies are committed to working with the
community to provide meaningful involvement in all
aspects of the 5-Year Plan. Specific tasks are being
added to the 5-Year Plan to emphasis the importance
of community involvement

As for the remediation of the Homestake site, local
individuals and community groups have been in-
cluded as stakeholders in the Remedial System Eval-
uation.

13.	All water sources need to be thoroughly
tested for uranium and other heavy metals conta-
mination. In Milan, near the Homestake/Barrick
Gold tailings pile, people can no longer use their
wells. These wells need to be tested to confirm or
deny the success of the 30 year remediation at-
tempt. The San Andres aquifer has been affected
and needs to be tested as well.

All public supply water systems are monitored in ac-
cordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Private
well owners are responsible for their wells. Under
certain circumstances, NMED does conduct private
well samples such as the effort performed south of the
Homestake Mining Company Superfund site and the
on-going effort in the San Mateo Creek Basin, as out-
lined above. Homestake Mining Company routinely
monitors the water quality in many wells in the al-
luvial, Chinle, and San Andres aquifers. The results
are submitted to EPA, NMED and NRC annually and
are available to the public through ADAMS
(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html).

14.	Our water needs to be returned to a pre-
mining condition. Current remediation standards
are unacceptable. We will only accept our water
being returned to the condition it was in prior to
mining conditions. Responsible companies need to
cover the costs of cleanup. Community members
in the Homestake area have information about
background standards that should be included
when discussing background levels. On page 10, it
says, "background water quality data reflecting
pre-milling and/or pre-mining conditions do not
exist," but this is incorrect.

-------
At sites where ground water has been contaminated
above standards, the remediation goal is restore
ground water either to meet federal and state stan-
dards or background concentrations if they are higher
than the applicable standard. Remediation standards
(e.g. drinking water standards) are intended to protect
specific uses.

In the case of the Homestake site, contamination from
off-site has trespassed onto the site. The source of this
contamination and any responsible party (ies) will be
pursued under the Plan. Any responsible party(ies)
identified will be responsible for cleanup.

In general, ground water data from the period preced-
ing the inception of mining were limited to single-
event sampling of isolated windmills for general
chemical characteristics, such as sulfate and TDS, and
no trace element or radionuclide data are available in
the San Mateo Creek and the Arroyo del Puerto drai-
nages or the area south of the Homestake Mining
Company Superfund site. This type of data is not reli-
able to give the complete picture of the quality of pre-
mining water. The State is trying to identify responsi-
ble party(ies) for legacy contamination in the Grants
Mining District. All data provided will be assessed for
inclusion into the background determination.

15.	Issues of radon exposure from tailings piles
need to be analyzed. We are very concerned about
radon. The communities need to be notified of test-
ing and published in the local papers. The public
health service knew of our problem in 1960 and
the community members didn't know until 1975.

Radon is, and will continue to be, an issue for resi-
dents in the Grants Mining District due to natural ura-
nium and legacy issues. As an NRC licensee,
Homestake Mining Company is required to demon-
strate that the site meets the established air emission
standards required in 10 CFR 20.1101 and public rad-
iation dose standards in 10 CFR 20.1301.

EPA is planning on conducting risk assessment sam-
pling around the Homestake area and radon will be
considered as part of the overall risk posed.

16.	The New Mexico Department of Health re-
cently conducted a Five-Year Study that revealed
that residents in Rio Arriba County had some of
the highest body levels of uranium on record in the
U.S. The results of this study should be taken into
consideration for inclusion in the Plan. It should

also be confirmed whether testing was done in Ci-
bola County as part of this study.

These statements are inaccurate. The New Mexico
Department of Health participated in a Center for
Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored project.
Sampling was not designed to be able to characterize
exposure by county. Therefore, the New Mexico De-
partment of Health can only say that those who volun-
teered from Rio Arriba County tended to have higher
than average urine uranium concentrations compared
to the US (provided by the National Health and Nutri-
tion Examination Survey 2003-2004). The New Mex-
ico Department of Health has not evaluated all data
sources about uranium, and therefore, cannot say
where the highest body levels of uranium on record in
the US occur.

17.	Based on the prior two public meetings
(Oct. 20, 2009 and April 27, 2010), the agencies
agreed to go back and re-test wells and take addi-
tional water samples where they have already been
tested and/or sampled. It may be useful to all
stakeholders to publish report results of previous
sampling and testing.

NMED/EPA sampled some wells more than once in
this area. Reports with ground water data have been
and will continue to be completed and made available
to the public. Select reports have been posted on the
following websites and may be requested from the
agencies. Additionally, a Grants Mineral Belt reposi-
tory has been established at the New Mexico State
University, Grants Campus Library.

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/NMED-GWQB-
SOS-GrantsMiningDistrict.htm

http ://www. epa.gov/earth 1 r6/6sf/newmexico/grants/n
mgrantsindex. html

18.	Is the agencies' intention to eventually ad-
dress abandoned mines on private lands in the
Plan?

It is the agencies intent to screen all mines on all
lands (federal, state, tribal and private), identify is-
sues, further assess higher priority mines, prioritize
actions, and address contamination at all mines. If
responsible parties are identified at particular mines,
it is the agencies intent to require these parties to ad-
dress these sites. For legacy uranium mines located on
private lands, the landowner must provide access to

4

-------
the agencies for assessment and reclamation activi-
ties.

19.	With regard to Item #2.2, "Assessment and
Clean-up of Legacy Uranium Mines:" - The Min-
ing and Minerals Division ("MMD") had previous-
ly identified 137 abandoned mines with some
record of prior production and no record of clean-
up. The Plan references 111 legacy uranium mines.
It should be clarified whether the 111 sites noted in
the Plan are part of the 137 sites initially identified
by MMD. Is the focus in the Plan on 111 sites be-
cause 26 of the original 137 identified have now
been surveyed?

The MMD developed an inventory of legacy uranium
mines with recorded production across the entire state
of New Mexico, including private, tribal, state, and
federal land. A portion of those mines are located
within the area encompassed by the Grants Mining
District 5-Year Plan. The 96 mines within the 5-Year
Plan area include all uranium mines from the
EMNRD inventory regardless of clean-up status. The
5-Year Plan will be revised, accordingly, and the
agencies apologize for the confusion about the num-
ber of mines that will be assessed.

20.	In order to comprehensively address the
protection of human health and preserve natural
and cultural resources of the region, the Plan for
the Grants Mining District should include an as-
sessment of air quality impacts and traditional cul-
tural property impacts to regional Indian tribes.

The 5-Year Plan summarizes on-going or planned ac-
tivities by the participating agencies. As work
progresses, evaluation of other media may be devel-
oped if releases are identified.

Assessments performed under CERCLA evaluate all
media (air, soil, surface water and ground water) and
exposure pathways.

The Pueblos are invited and have participated in the
development of the 5-Year Plan and consultations
with the Pueblos will be held to identify impacts and
traditional cultural property impacts.

21.	Geochemical characterization of the re-
gional groundwater must be included in the as-
sessment of water sources for contamination.

The agencies agree. Isotopic analysis of select wells
has been conducted; a report has been drafted and has
been distributed for peer review. Additional isotopic
analysis may be conducted if results are favorable.

What happens next?

In late-fall 2010, there will be a community engage-
ment meeting in Grants, New Mexico. At the meet-
ing, information will be presented about:

EPA's radon/uranium structures assessment

Progress of the Technical Assistance Grant
awarded to the Bluewater Valley Downstream
Alliance

It is anticipated that the first progress report on the 5-
Year Plan's activities progress will be shared with the
community in December 2010.

For more information

Lisa Price

Grants Mining District Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-TR)

214.665.6744 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
price.lisa@epa.gov

John Meyer

Chief, Risk and Site Assessment Team Leader
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-TR)

214.665.6742 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
mever.i ohn@epa. gov

LaDonna Turner

New Mexico Site Assessment Manager
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-TR)

214.665.6666 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
turner.ladonna@epa. gov

Dana Bahar

New Mexico Environment Department
Ground Water Quality Bureau
Superfund Oversight Section
1190 St Francis Drive, Ste N2312
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Tel: 505.476.3777, Fax: 505.827.2965
dana.bahar@state.nm.us

5

-------
Stephen Harper

Community Involvement Coordinator (SEE)
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-VO)

214.665.2727 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
harper. stephen@epa. gov

All news media personnel should contact the Region
6 Office of External Affairs at 214.665.2200.

Repository

New Mexico State University, Grants Campus
1500 Third Street
Grants, NM 87020

6

-------